Many of us, myself included, were less than enthusiastic about the candidacy of John McCain. How do you feel now, after the Republican convention, the choice of Sarah Palin, and the current political landscape? Are you going to bounce?

Friends, dear readers, fellow Cranachers, let us restore the high level of discourse and welcoming spirit this blog is famous for! We’ve got FW, longtime voice of forgiveness who has always held us to the Eighth Commandment, making some of you thinking he’s not the real FW. We’ve got two Anons confusedly arguing different sides, mixing us all up about who’s saying what (do give yourselves different names, please!). We’ve got TK alarmed at our rhetoric. Let’s pause, catch our breath, consider that politics is transient and that we have a citizenship in Heaven, and sing a round of Kum-bah-yah.

I wonder if we could discuss WHY politics in this cultural moment stirs such vitriol.

For example, I do not recall ever seeing such knee-jerk HATE, that’s the only word for it, among liberals at the introduction of Sarah Palin. Nor have I ever seen such seemingly illiberal tactics in going after her. Setting aside the legitimate questions about her qualifications and positions, why was the first and immediate response, before even getting to know her, to try to destroy not just her but her family? I’d like to hear especially from those of you who are Democrats. I don’t want to get into another argument about her; I just want to understand what it is about her that stirs such negative passions.

We Republicans are guilty of this too, of course, in our visceral reaction against, say, Hillary Clinton. Why do we get so worked up?

We’ve discussed controversial theological points and complex moral issues on this blog and stayed friendly. Why do we lose it when it comes to politics? There may be good reasons, but I’d like us to think about what they are.

My class ran late last night, so I missed a big part of John McCain’s speech. You’ll have to help me out talking about it. It seemed anti-climactic compared to Sarah Palin’s, but it got moving when he told the story of his captivity–not the heroic part, but how he had been a selfish flyboy until his captivity; how at one point he had been broken by the torture (referring to his being forced to do a propaganda thing for his captors) and was ashamed; how his captivity–and his fellow prisoners–taught him to love his country and deny himself. THAT was good, a confession of brokenness at his time of glory.

But, again, I missed most of it. Give me your analysis.

I finally saw the Batman movie, “Dark Knight.” (I know I’m way behind, just finally getting around to the Summer.) By every measure–character, plot, acting, filmmaking–it was, indeed, a good movie. I need to think more about its theme, though. Was the movie expressing an ideology that is

(a) liberal, showing how terrorism can bring out the worst in both “good guys” and society as a whole (provoking us to torture captives, wiretap the public, and in our fears turn to violence)?

or,

(b) conservative, showing how anarchy lies just below the surface of our society, and that social order must be maintained by force?

or,

(c) nihilistic, that there is no essential difference between anarchy, crime, lawful authority, and lawless vigilantism?

or,

what?

“Newsweek” has an article on the relationship between certain personality traits and geographical location:

About 20 years ago scientists established that combinations of five basic dimensions—extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness to new ideas and experiences—account for all personalities. Add a pinch of openness, a dollop of agreeableness and, like Grandma’s secret recipe for pasta sauce, the result is unique. . . .

Since personality is so important to both social and individual outcomes, the hunt is on for which traits vary geographically and why. According to the most extensive study yet of how personality varies across the United States, a “neuroticism belt” divides the East and West, with states from Maine to Louisiana scoring highest and the West lowest, find Jason Rentfrow of Cambridge University and colleagues. There is also a geographic divide in openness (a measure of willingness to embrace new ideas and creativity), with the Northeast and West Coast much higher than the Midwest and South, according to the data from 619,397 people who filled out an online personality survey and were representative of the U.S. population in education, income and other measures. Extroversion is highest in the Great Plains, Midwest and Southeast, and lowest in the Northwest and Northeast, the scientists will report next month in Perspectives on Psychological Science. For agreeable people, go to the Midwest and Southeast, and avoid the Northeast. For conscientiousness, head for the South and Midwest, not the Northeast. At a finer scale, Alaskans may be amused (or not) that they rank dead last in agreeableness and conscientiousness, while North Dakotans rank highest on extroversion and agreeableness but last in openness. The good folks of Utah are the least neurotic.

Is this just regional stereotyping, or is there something to it?