I now pronounce you...

A recent Gallup poll reported that Americans generally agree about what issues are “morally acceptable” (gambling, divorce) and which were “morally unacceptable” (human cloning, polygamy). But in four categories, the difference between “morally acceptable” and “morally unacceptable” were within 15 percentage points of each other: doctor assisted suicide, gay or lesbian relations, abortion, and having a baby outside of marriage.

Acceptance of gay and lesbian relationships, the topic of today’s post, just recently surpassed the 50 percent threshold, with more support from men than from women. Iowa, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts

, and Connecticut have also just recently begun recognizing same-sex wedlock. Sweden, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands,

Norway, South Africa, and Spain have all also legalized it. So while it may be taking hold around the globe, the United States might not be so quick to accept gay marriage anytime soon. Check out the picture to the right depicting states that have voted to ban gay marriage in their constitutions.

Personally? I don’t think gay relationships are “morally unacceptable”, but I do believe that the term “marriage” should be reserved for a union of a man and a woman. Let’s call formal gay relationships “unions”, or “espousals”, or “amalgamations”.

Mudslinging to Mudwrestling?

I appreciate a good political ad more as much as the next person, probably more in fact. Nothing against G-Dub, but one of my favorites is below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCo8cQd6Gdc

Creativity? Check!

Humor? Check!

Intelligent? Check!

As evidenced from the Bush ad, I also appreciate a bit of mudslinging. It forces the candidate to respond to the criticisms in the advertisement, and forces an opponent to take the defensive. But when an ad becomes just plain insulting, it also becomes an ineffective ad. In the case of this video, it also makes Jerry Brown, Meg Whitman’s opponent look bad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q28mq9W3bKE

So in this case, Jerry Brown did not even produce the political advertisement (although he probably approved it), but I think it makes him look scared, weak, and unqualified.

When does a political ad become ineffective? Or inappropriate? What about unethical? Insulting is one thing, but take a look at this ad, produced by Alan Grayson, the democratic candidate for the US House of Orlando.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvB-mHXcWzg&feature=related

Did that guy just call his opponent “Taliban Dan”??? Turns out he doesn’t necessarily believe that the wife should submit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZGCtU3qh9s

Not all political attack ads are based on lies of course. But when it comes to political campaign ads, the same theories apply as those of regular advertisements. Be creative, not insulting. Be funny, not untrue. And be smart, voters and politicians alike will appreciate it.

Florida's Gubernatorial Election

In light of a friend of mine taking off for London on Saturday (she worked with Rick Scott this summer) lets take a look at the two main candidates for this November’s Florida Gubernatorial election.

Rick Scott (Health Care Executive, Attorney, & Navy Veteran)

Economy:

Rick will ensure that Florida has an educated workforce that will allow Florida to attract new business and good paying jobs.

Rick will create jobs by keeping taxes low and limiting job killing regulations.

Rick will believes that the government should live within its means.

Education:

Rick believes in school choice, including vouchers and charter schools.

Rick supports a constitutional amendment to modify the state’s class-size law.

Rick supports eliminating teacher tenure for new teachers.

Energy:

Rick supports expansion of nuclear power, use of alternative fuels and off-shore drilling.

Rick will fight to ensure that any future offshore drilling does not negatively impact Florida’s beaches

Rick believes that energy independence is essential to America’s economic vitality.

Immigration:

Rick opposed to amnesty and will fight amnesty for lawbreakers.

Rick supports measures like the Arizona law that allow enforcement of already existing laws.

Rick will require all Florida employers to use the free E-Verify system to ensure that their workers are legal.

Alex Sink (State CFO, and Ex-Bank President)

Economy:

Alex will put a stronger emphasis on R&D and commercialization of new products.

Alex believes in boosting partnerships between our university faculty and private industry.

Alex plans on building the best-educated, best-trained workforce in the country.

Education:

Alex plans to put a Bachelor-degreed Teacher in Every Pre-K Classroom.

Alex supports Career and Technical Academies in High Schools.

Alex favors a Common-Sense Approach to Class Size Reduction.

Energy:

Alex will work to substantially increase the money we receive from the federal government for clean energy and energy efficiency investment.

Alex will actively promote Florida’s new Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program.

Alex will seek to create opportunities from federal resources through the US Department of Labor.

Immigration:

Alex will impose stiff state fines on private companies that knowingly hire undocumented workers.

Alex will require all state agencies to verify the legal status when hiring state employees.

Alex will require state agencies to verify the legal status of any applicant for taxpayer-funded public assistance programs who claims to be a legal immigrant.

9/11

“Our purpose and our goal here at Dove World Outreach Center is to get people to stand up…It is our vision to go around, to preach and to challenge, and to get the church involved and ready. We must go outside of the walls, and march for righteousness.”

This is the mission statement of the Dove World Outreach Center (I shutter to think I added to the website traffic), located within walking distance of my comfy little home in Gainesville, Florida. Unfortunately, the orange and blue pride as we beat the University of South Florida, and reverence as we attend the 9/11 memorial will be overshadowed by Dove World Outreach’s “Burn a Koran Day” celebration. As a student at UF, I often sidestep a major traffic zone on campus in an attempt to steer clear of the Dove Center’s use of our free-speech zones—and at the very least I avoid making eye contact with these Alachua county residents.

The Koran Burning is to signify the day that Islamic extremists hijacked United States airplanes and crashed them into the Twin Towers in New York City. I hope you note that it was the extremists and not any representative portion of the Islamic population that caused the deaths of 2,977 Americans.

In my opinion, after the 9/11 attacks a majority of Americans wrongly believed a religion, ethnicity, or culture was to blame. I cannot confidently say I was in that minority either. Still, is it any surprise that the New York Times compared the DWOC to al Qaeda hijacking Islam. I don’t think so. But what it does prove is that the actions of a few can wrongly be interpreted by the many.

On the flip side, Terry Jones, pastor of DWOC, has announced that he has received hundred of support letters in the past three weeks. He does have plenty of support, as evidenced by the many white tee shirts sporting the logo “Islam is of the Devil”.

So to the Dove World Outreach Center: I hope you are satisfied with the negative publicity you have garnered; not only have you smeared the name of the city I now call home, but of a country that protects your right to burn the sacred symbol of Islam. And remember, Jesus not only told us to “love the Lord…with all your heart” but also to “love your neighbor”.

A Change We Can Believe In...?

In the words of our great current president, “ the State of the Union address has been a tradition for 220 years,” and the tradition continued last week amidst continued concerns surrounding the housing crisis, economic uncertainty, and exponential national debt. But don’t worry; our fair president assured us all that “the worst of the storm has passed.” Despite promises tax-credits for businesses, transparency in healthcare deliberations, and an end to the Iraq War. I don’t see why those broken promises should deter us from believing this one.

While this speech was probably first being written as early as November, I am almost positive it had to be changed substantially after the election of Scott Brown as the new Massachusetts senator. While I can speculate on the tone of the speech had a democrat been elected, the address Obama actually delivered went something like this: bipartisan corporation…republicans and democrats together…bother sides of the aisle…let’s come together, right now. (Well maybe that last one wasn’t quite how Barack said it, either way, the full text version can be found here.) Unfortunately, it seems the presidents’ aides did not finish editing the speech to, in fact, appeal to the left and the right, because his oh-so motivating speech ended on a bit of a sour note.

With regard to spending, according to Obama, cutting taxes and federal spending is “what helped lead to these deficits.” After which he makes a blatant reference to G-dub, which certainly didn’t function to foster a more bipartisan government.

He then proceeded to criticize the Supreme Courts’ decision to allow corporations to act as individuals. This order allows these private entities to advertise for particular candidates, and will lead to substantially increased campaign contributions by corporations. Perhaps the Prez forgot he was the one who appointed Sotomayor to the justice bench. Two responses to that: first, the Supreme Court actually doesn’t make decisions based on their own policy preferences (or they shouldn’t), but rather adheres to the constitution as closely as possible. Perhaps he should take that criticism up with Thomas Jefferson. Second, you, Barack Obama, received more support from private corporations than John McCain! You garnered more than twice the contributions than McCain—396,000,000 dollars give or take. So in my humble opinion, you should be the last to complain about such a decision.

In his final State of the Union address, Ronald Reagan said, “we're strong, prosperous, at peace, and we are free. This is the state of our Union…I believe we can give a future President and a future Congress the chance to make that prosperity, that peace, that freedom, not just the state of our Union, but the state of our world.” These words have been the inspiration and goal of many a president since 1988. Unfortunately, Barack Obama was not able to stand in front of the nation to which he is accountable and declare that we are the nation of strength, prosperity, peace, and freedom. Rather, according to Mr. President, “change has not come fast enough”. And despite the promises I have heard over and over throughout the past 3 years, I have to wonder if it ever will.

Bulletproof glass?

Is the glass ceiling bulletproof? Well I think that’s up to interpretation. In the last few decades’ women have certainly made leaps and bounds in the professional world. The number of female CEO’s of Fortune 1000 companies has increased 5%. The past 2 secretaries of state, presidential and vice presidential candidate, speaker of the house and 2 Supreme Court justices are all female. So why do men still make 20% more than women and despite identical education and ambition still reach higher levels in the corporate world? Well I have two theories about that—the first is the maternal dilemma; the second is the curse of ambition.

Although we are very logical in nature, we are also maternal. And as such, we often quit our jobs or put our careers on hold to start or care for our family. Our “better half” might claim they have to take a day or two off from the sheer exhaustion of the act of fulfilling our desire to have a child, but in the end we’re the one who have to take off from work to raise our families. Sure, there is the growing trend of “stay at home dads” and if that works for your family, then more power to you. But with our maternal instinct and the desire to have a child comes a desire to care for that child too. So what this whole problem essentially comes down to is deciding how to enable women to have children while having a successful career too.

Perhaps the answer is that you cannot have both at the same time. Postponing a career or childbearing are both very real, but sometimes, problematic possibilities. Taking a few years leave from the war zone known as the corporation can cause you to miss out on learning about new technologies and prevent valuable networking opportunities. Meanwhile having a baby later in life would cause you to end your career earlier and women who give birth later in life are much more likely to have complications at birth.

Another option that some companies are considering is on-site daycares. Business Software Firm SAS began its onsite childcare in 1981 when the founder learned of an employee’s intention to stay home with her newborn. Almost 30 years later the facility has expanded to include a day care, Montessori school, and bright horizon center located right next to SAS’s office building.

So now lets assume a women has made it into a powerful corporate position. Many then believe this woman must be a conniving bitch that has slithered her way up the food chain and into her current position—never mind that a man in the same role is simply termed ambitious, or skillful. Perhaps this is the reason so few women ever venture beyond a cubicle job. It seems to me that even if women were given an equal opportunity to pursue their career goals, they would yet again be put under the microscope to determine their ulterior motives.

This version of sex discrimination is the worst kind because it’s an imbedded belief and only causes exponential discrimination. To solve the problem of the glass ceiling, we must first begin with the fundamental idea that women and men can both be ambitious, and that a man is just as likely as a women to allow their emotions to get involved.

In the end, I like to think, no, the glass ceiling is not bulletproof, but perhaps we are just not using the right kind of bullets yet.