Planet In Peril: Battlelines

If you have some free time at 10PM on Christmas night, I encourage you to tune into CNN to check out an encore showing of "Planet in Peril: Battlelines." It is a fantastic documentary, and its programs like this that show why CNN is CNN; MSNBC and Fox don't produce anything of this quality or magnitude.

A Green Poughkeepsie

I want to applaud the recent addition of hybrid buses to the City of Poughkeepsie fleet. We all have to do our part to help make our country less reliant on foreign oil in a responsible way, and government incorporation of hybrid vehicles is a fantastic idea. It can also be used as a powerful example.

Gov. Paterson In The News

SNL

Unless you live in Alaska, it's not every week that the governor of your state gets lampooned on Saturday Night Live. But, this weekend New York State Governor David Paterson was the brunt of the jokes during a segment of SNL's Weekend Update; a segment that many are claiming went too far, as it did nothing more than make fun of the fact that the governor is blind.

I've thought over the past decade that SNL has lost it's mojo, much as it did in the early eighties. I never thought the whole Will Ferrell/Molly Shannon crew was as great as everyone else did, and watching Jimmy Fallon should be punishment for the detainees at Gitmo. They had a resurgence during the campaign, but I fear that SNL is floundering.

I do, however, love Paterson's reaction to the skit. Among other things, he said simply, "I can take a joke. But only 37% of disabled people are working, and I'm afraid that that kind of third-grade humor certainly adds to this atmosphere." Fantastic.

Caroline Kennedy

There has been a lot of discussion over the past couple of days about the idea of Caroline Kennedy being appointed by Gov. Paterson to fill Hillary Clinton's senate seat. I am not convinced that this is a good idea, and I'll tell you why.

I have no problems with Caroline Kennedy ideologically and I understand the need to appoint someone who will have immediate access and credibility, but I do have a problem with her personality. If appointed, she would have to go to the U.S. Senate, be one of 100, and compete with 99 other senators who have egos far bigger than their own states. And whenever I've seen her give public remarks she has come off as uncomfortable and timid, but she is going to be expected to run a full-blown state-wide campaign in both 2010 and 2012? I am doubtful.

The Big Three

My grandfather made his living working for General Motors in Western New York. He and my grandmother had a house, raised a family of four, and were active in their community. To this day my grandfather receives his pension and health benefits from GM, and his family still enjoys employee-pricing discounts.

His youngest son -- my uncle -- used to work in a GM plant in Western New York. A while ago the plant shut down, and the jobs performed at his plant were consolidated to Detroit. He had a decision to make: either try to find another gig or start working in Detroit. He chose the latter, and since then has been keeping a second residency; a house in WNY with his wife, and an apartment in the Detroit area with a roommate, over 250 miles away. He travels there for a few weeks at a time.

New York State -- especially WNY -- has been hit hard by the car crisis in this country. I don't know anyone else in my uncle's position, but I know that it unfortunately isn't a unique story. For years a job with one of the American car companies was considered to be one of the best: good pay, good benefits, secure pension. I don't know what my uncle will do if GM has to shut its doors. I don't know what my grandparents will do, either.

Now, I'm not here advocating a bailout for the American auto industry. I'm honestly very conflicted about the whole thing. Do these companies deserve federal help? Why are they more deserving than other companies? What would be the ripple effects of the downfall of one of the big three? Is the loss of the American automobile industry a threat to national security? How much of our country will China own before all of this is said and done?

I don't know the answers to these questions, but I do know is that this situation, like most, is less black and white and more shades of gray.

Or in this case, maybe metallic gray with black trim and leather interior.

It's Official

It's official: New York Senator Hillary Clinton has been nominated to be the next secretary of State, and there is no reason to believe that the Senate -- where the Democrats will have at least an 8-seat majority come January -- will confirm her. Twelve, nine, six, even three months ago, a move like this would have been seen as impossible. But alas, here we are. Go figure. I think that Sen. Clinton is up to the challenge, and with the vast range of national security and international issues facing the incoming administration, President-Elect Obama needs all input he can get.

It's official: Sen. Clinton will be resigning her seat in the United States Senate in order to assume the duties as secretary of State. Therefore, the responsibility to fill her seat will fall on the shoulders of New York Governor David Patterson, and there are a number of names being floated. One name, however, is particularly intriguing: Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand, who represents the local 22nd congressional district. She may be young (she just got elected to her second term in the House of Representatives), but she is a woman and from upstate, which are two qualities that Gov. Patterson is reportedly considering.

It's official: Defense Secretary Robert Gates will retain his position in the Cabinet under the Obama Administration. I think that this is a smart move. I have always been very impressed by Robert Gates, from the moment that he was nominated by President Bush to fill the slot being vacated by Donald Rumsfeld, and he was a much needed improvement. Continuity, especially in a time of such conflicts and challenged, will be important and helpful.

Updated:

It's official: The United States is in a recession, and we have been for the past 12 months. Go figure. In fact, it is a world-wide recession (which I don't really understand, I mean the money doesn't just disappear, does it?). In the past, world-wide recessions have lasted between 12-16 months, so we may be well over halfway through. But on the other hand, the challenges that the country is facing are, to a certain extent, unprecedented, so who is to say?

Appointing New Yorkers

The last five days, the news has been racked with a big story: Senator Hillary Clinton, former presidential candidate and political powerhouse, as a possible secretary of state. Leaks about vetting and a secret meeting have fueled speculation that President-Elect Obama is seriously considering Clinton for the role of top diplomat. International correspondents claim that her appointment would be wildly well received in the international community, and like Obama's election and upcoming inauguration, will have an immediate impact on the image of the United States around the world. I have no objections to this move, as long as Obama can keep the Clinton's in check. They have mighty large egos of their own, and he needs to make sure (as it has been pointed out) that her appointment and subsequent actions don't present the picture of a co-presidency.

If Clinton is appointed to Obama's cabinet and accepts, thus resigning her senate seat, it would be up to our governor, David Patterson, to appoint her successor. The name that has been floated? Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. I honesty don't know much about Mr. Cuomo, other that what I hear in the news about his legal actions, but he seems like a very driven person trying his best to look out for the well-being of New Yorkers.

On a completely hypothetical topic, I had a conversation yesterday with some people over the possibility of Rudy Giuliani being given a position in Obama's cabinet. Barack Obama has stated that there will be at least one Republican in his cabinet, and since Giuliani's only focus is national security, the idea of secretary of homeland security was floated in our discussion. An interesting thought, but I have my doubts. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer? Yes, but Giuliani said some pretty insulting, petty things about Barack Obama at this year's Republican National Convention, and I'm not sure Obama would be willing to jump in bed with him after that. It would get Giuliani out of Obama's way in terms of 2012, but I honestly don't think a 2012 Giuliani presidential campaign would be any more successful than his 2008 turn. Furthermore, I'm afraid that Giuliani would be an empty shirt, as was evidenced very earlier on during this year's primaries.

What's Next?

President-Elect Barack Hussein Obama: the complete antithesis of President George W. Bush. It's a beautiful thing, and still quite surreal that he actually pulled it off. There were a number of expletives coming out of my mouth at 11PM Tuesday night when CNN called the race, and I will remember where I was for the rest of my life. Truly amazing.

It really is quite stunning that only 4 years after choosing to vote for President Bush, the American voters chose to vote for President-Elect Obama this year. You wouldn't think that this country -- or any country, really -- would be capable of such a massive swing, but alas, there it is.

Looking back at the 2-year campaign, it was like nothing this country has ever seen. The massive battle in the Democratic Party between Sens. Clinton and Obama -- the presumptive nominee and the underdog -- for the nomination was seen as the beginning of the party's destruction, but in the end it only served to strengthen it. Sen. McCain's shipwreck of a campaign was a sight to see, never staying on course and coming dangerously close to crashing before the race was over (with Sarah Palin hanging off the side, dragging them down). The negative ads. The slanderous remarks. The rallies. The excitement. And now its over.

And though it all ended up in a electoral college landslide (and a hefty popular vote majority for Obama), one is still left with questions:

Why wasn't poverty discussed more in the campaign?

Or education?

What happened to the John McCain that we saw recently at the Al Smith Dinner and giving his concession speech on Tuesday night? If he had shown up for the entire campaign, I guarantee that the election, while it may not have gone the other way, would have been a lot closer.

What was the McCain campaign really thinking when they picked Gov. Sarah Palin at the VP nominee? And if Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska wins reelection only to be voted out by his Senate colleagues, will she run in the special election to replace him, thus allowing her to go to Washington to beef up her resume for 2012?

Three of those questions we may never know, and the last will come in time. But I do know that now is when it gets really exciting. I have no plausible memory of the Clinton-Bush transition of 2001, so I am extremely excited for the next 74 days (though I wish January 20 came much sooner than that), and the 4 (8?) years that will follow. And although I didn't volunteer or donate money, more than any time in my life I feel like the next president will be my president, leading my generation, and my causes. I'm excited for what the future will bring under President Obama, and I'm eager to do my part and to get involved.

Why I'm Voting For Barack Obama

1. Intellect. Whether you like him or not, you cannot deny that Barack Obama is an intellectual giant, and experience does not trump intellect. After all, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Paul Wolfowitz are some of the most experienced public servants, and look where that's gotten us.

2. Ice Cold. Barack Obama is one cool character, especially when he's confronting an attack. He doesn't lose his temper. As a former Emergency Medical Technician, I would that in any kind of emergency situation, the last thing you want to do is lose your composure. And I don't want John McCain's famous temper sitting in the White House Situation Room.

3. Philosophy. Barack Obama's political and foreign policy philosophies are much closer to mine than those of John McCain -- working for healthcare for all, redistributing the tax burden, tough direct diplomacy (even with our enemies), etc.

4. The War in Iraq. John McCain argues over and over that the Iraq surge is working and that we're now winning the war. But to make this argument, in my opinion, is to completely miss the point. Of course the United States military is going to take care of business, but we shouldn't be there in the first place. The Bush administration closed it's eyes to thousands of years of history in the region and decided that they could solve all the woes of the country, only to get a rude awakening. And now John McCain argues that he will never retreat in defeat, and will only leave Iraq when we have won with honor. The problem is, the war in Iraq has been going on since March 2003, and I still don't know what "winning" is, or how our military is supposed to accomplish these goals.

5. The Smooth Campaign. Barack Obama's campaign has been impressive. An underdog, long-shot candidate who navigated his campaign to beat Hillary Clinton, who was the shoe-in favorite. And sure, there have been bumps and mistakes along the way, but overall the campaign has been impressively run, and I think this will translate, at least somewhat, into an Obama administration.

6. Hope And Inspiration. I know it sounds hokey, but it's true. Barack Obama inspires people, enough for him to draw 100,000+ people to a rally. Ronald Reagan's optimism was infectious, and aside from how I may disagree with his policies, I think that his personality did a lot of good for the country. Barack Obama makes me want to get involved in my government. He makes me want to ask, "What can I do to help? What sacrifices do you need me to make?" John McCain does not inspire me to get involved. On the contrary, he makes me ask, "Can I change the channel, yet?"

Why I'm Not Voting For John McCain

1. The John McCain of 2008 is not the John McCain of 2000. I liked the John McCain of 2000, and I remember around the 2004 election thinking how much I would be extremely tempted to vote for John McCain if he were the Republican presidential nominee. Times have changed. John McCain has since turned into everything that he once spoke out against. From accepting "agents of intolerance" to suddenly deciding that tax cuts during wartime is smart policy and beyond, John McCain has chosen to re-mold himself into the shape of those from which he once stood so strongly apart.

2. Sarah Palin. Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska is not ready to be president of the United States of America. I would refer you to my September 15, 2008, post, but suffice to say that John McCain vice-presidential pick shows a blatant disrespect for the breadth and importance of the office of president of the United States. President of the United States takes a certain...gravitas, and you know it when you see it. Sarah Palin doesn't have it, at least not yet. And as for the argument that she's the "hockey mom," and that she stands up for "Joe Six-Pack," I, for one, do not want "Joe Six-Pack" in charge of my country.

3. William Ayers/"Paling around with terrorists"/Rashid Khalidi. This is the classic Republican tactic of trying to divide the country, and now if Obama wins, half of the nation will actually believe that Obama is a terrorist (as evidenced by occurances at McCain rallies). From the stump to the robocalls, the McCain campaign and many Republicans continue to throw around these througholy debunked lies. If this weren't professional politics, it would be called "slander." In fact, I hope that if Obama wins, he sues the McCain campaign. Just once, I would like the winner who had been the victim of such vicious lies to sue the opponent who spread those lies. It might seem like adding insult to injury to the loser, but I also think that it would send such a clear message that that style of politics is not going to be tolerated anymore. I'll keep dreaming.

4. Joe the Plumber. Please, stop talking to me like I am a kindergartener. Joe the Plumber. Joe Six-Pack. Rob the Teacher. Obama the redistributor. I am an adult, so please speak to me that way. And now the McCain campaign is choosing to use the real Joe as one of it's public surrogates, allowing him to officially particiapte at campaign events. Joe is also giving his advice and views on a range of issues, such as the United States' foreign policy toward Israel. Oh, give me a break. The McCain campaign has turned into a joke.

5. The Haphazard Campaign. The McCain/Palin campaign has been extremely poorly run. Everyday it's trying something new, with no consistency. All of the pundits talk about how the campaign is all tactics and no strategy, and it's true. There is no wide-angle lens with the McCain campaign. And that whole campaign suspension episode was a complete debacle. So my point is this: if McCain wins, who do you think will have high-profile, influencial positions in the new administration? Exactly -- the same campaign workers, organizers, and advisors, and I'm positive that they would run a McCain administration just as smoothly.

6. The Third Debate. John McCain was incredibly disrepectful to Barack Obama in the third presidential debate -- sighing, rolling his eyes, staring in disbelief. Is this the way that he would act while meeting with a foreign leader that he disagrees with? I'm sure that will do wonders for America's image.

7. Maverick. Oh, get over yourself.

The Informercial & the School Board

First off, last night's Barack Obama infomercial was impressive. From a purely production standpoint, it was flawless. Twenty-six minutes of prepared footage followed by 4 minutes from a live Obama campaign event in Florida. Was it effective? I don't know. But it did showcase Obama in the best light.

At one point while I was watching, I thought back to a movie called The American President, written by Aaron Sorkin. Near the end of the movie, the president, played by Michael Douglas, says, "...making you afraid of it and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections. You gather a group of middle-aged, middle-class, middle-income voters who remember with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family and American values and character." And while last night's infomercial wasn't about making you afraid (the whole thing had a hopeful overtone) or telling you who to blame (no mention of John McCain and only an insinuation toward George W. Bush), the last sentence of the quote is dead on.

Was it expensive? Yes. Did it paint a favorable picture of Obama to the American people? Very much yes. Did it draw too much attention to the fact that Obama was only able to do this because he opted-out of public financing against his own promise? Maybe. Will it help? We'll see, though even if he wins there will probably be no telling of how much, if at all, this particular ad-buy may have helped.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In other news, there is fantastic story coming out of Florida that I need to make you aware of. There is a school district in Florida (whose name I cannot find at the moment) who has run a voter registration drive and successfully registered 3600 seniors who are of age. And what's more, they are taking the seniors on field trips to early vote.

This is amazing, and every school district nation-wide should implement a program like this. In New York State, all high school seniors must take and pass a "Participation in Government" class in order to graduate. Voting is the most fundamental participation in government. Get the students involved early, in anyway that you can.

Powell Endorses Obama

I know both of these individuals very well now. I've known John for 25 years as your setup said. And I've gotten to know Mr. Obama quite well over the past two years. Both of them are distinguished Americans who are patriotic, who are dedicated to the welfare of our country. Either one of them, I think, would be a good president. I have said to Mr. McCain that I admire all he has done. I have some concerns about the direction that the party has taken in recent years. It has moved more to the right than I would like to see it, but that's a choice the party makes. And I've said to Mr. Obama, "You have to pass a test of do you have enough experience, and do you bring the judgment to the table that would give us confidence that you would be a good president.

And I've watched him over the past two years, frankly, and I've had this conversation with him. I have especially watched over the last six of seven weeks as both of them have really taken a final exam with respect to this economic crisis that we are in and coming out of the conventions. And I must say that I've gotten a good measure of both. In the case of Mr. McCain, I found that he was a little unsure as to deal with the economic problems that we were having and almost every day there was a different approach to the problem. And that concerned me, sensing that he didn't have a complete grasp of the economic problems that we had. And I was also concerned at the selection of Governor Palin. She's a very distinguished woman, and she's to be admired; but at the same time, now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don't believe she's ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president. And so that raised some question in my mind as to the judgment that Senator McCain made.

On the Obama side, I watched Mr. Obama and I watched him during this seven-week period. And he displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge and an approach to looking at problems like this and picking a vice president that, I think, is ready to be president on day one. And also, in not just jumping in and changing every day, but showing intellectual vigor. I think that he has a, a definitive way of doing business that would serve us well. I also believe that on the Republican side over the last seven weeks, the approach of the Republican Party and Mr. McCain has become narrower and narrower. Mr. Obama, at the same time, has given us a more inclusive, broader reach into the needs and aspirations of our people. He's crossing lines--ethnic lines, racial lines, generational lines. He's thinking about all villages have values, all towns have values, not just small towns have values.

And I've also been disappointed, frankly, by some of the approaches that Senator McCain has taken recently, or his campaign ads, on issues that are not really central to the problems that the American people are worried about. This Bill Ayers situation that's been going on for weeks became something of a central point of the campaign. But Mr. McCain says that he's a washed-out terrorist. Well, then, why do we keep talking about him? And why do we have these robocalls going on around the country trying to suggest that, because of this very, very limited relationship that Senator Obama has had with Mr. Ayers, somehow, Mr. Obama is tainted. What they're trying to connect him to is some kind of terrorist feelings. And I think that's inappropriate.

Now, I understand what politics is all about. I know how you can go after one another, and that's good. But I think this goes too far. And I think it has made the McCain campaign look a little narrow. It's not what the American people are looking for. And I look at these kinds of approaches to the campaign and they trouble me. And the party has moved even further to the right, and Governor Palin has indicated a further rightward shift. I would have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, but that's what we'd be looking at in a McCain administration. I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, "He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists." This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards--Purple Heart, Bronze Star--showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life. Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way. And John McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know. But I'm troubled about the fact that, within the party, we have these kinds of expressions.

So, when I look at all of this and I think back to my Army career, we've got two individuals, either one of them could be a good president. But which is the president that we need now? Which is the individual that serves the needs of the nation for the next period of time? And I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities--and we have to take that into account--as well as his substance--he has both style and substance--he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president. I think he is a transformational figure. He is a new generation coming into the world--onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I'll be voting for Senator Barack Obama.
-General Colin Powell (Ret.), Former Sec. of State, 10/19/08

Debate 3 Factcheck

The fact-checks for debate three can be found here.

Miscellaneous

Here are fact-check for the 2nd Presidential Debate: Factcheck.org.

And here are more fact-checks from CNN.

CNN has also posted a very good editorial from anchor Campbell Brown that you should check out: click here.

The VP Debate

She kept her head above the water. That's the story. She didn't crumble to pieces. She did much better than expected. Gov. Palin did not implode, and in fact her performance was far from that.

But in the end, I believe that Sen. Biden was the -- I don't want to say "winner" -- more successful of the two debaters, and here's why:

Biden's job last night was to link Sen. McCain and President Bush at the hip, almost like they are the same person, and he stuck to that message. In almost every answer, on also most every issue, Biden painted McCain as "Bush 44," relentlessly putting their two names together.

Palin's job, on the other hand, was to pull herself out of the hole that she dug herself into over the past few weeks. She had to try to convince the American people that she is not as uninformed and incoherent about the issues that she has been asked about, and I think that she did a very good job at that assignment. But I don't think that she was as effective in painting Sen. Obama as Biden was painting McCain, which was really the larger objective.

And FactCheck.org has posted their fact-checks for last night's debate -- read them here.

Local Meets National

In case you missed it, the top headline in yesterday's Poughkeepsie Journal was about the resignation of Dutchess County Republican Committee Chairwoman Corinne Weber (read about it here). It turns out that Weber received one of the many, many false, nasty e-mails about Senator Barack Obama, and she did what any intelligent person would do...she "accidentally" forwarded it to over 24 of her GOP colleagues. Yikes.

Now, let's set aside the fact that I don't quite understand how you can accidentally send an e-mail to over 24 people (was she sleepwalking, or something?), and I would like to try to make a broader point.

Gov. Sarah Palin has been on the receiving end of some extremely terrible slanders since being named Sen. John McCain's vice-presidential running mate. And when McCain/Palin-supporters hear these, they nearly have a nuclear meltdown. But the truth is that throughout this campaign, Barack Obama has been the victim of the most disgusting, despicable accusations. About his faith. About his ethnicity. About his patriotism. About his family. And conservative bloggers and commentators never seem to mention the attacks on Obama. This includes local conservative commentators and bloggers who remain silent, even when it makes serious local news -- they either don't know, or they don't care. But we're not talking about some "right-wing nut-job," here. We're talking about the Dutchess Country Republican Committee Chairwoman. So, they must know, right?

You know what I do when I receive a slanderous e-mail? I delete it.

What a novel idea.

The First Debate

Factcheck.org has posted it's fact-checks for Friday night's presidential debate -- I encourage everyone to check them out here.

Overall, I thought that there was no clear winner in the debate -- both candidates muddled through the questions about the "economic crisis" (a.k.a. the double-standard), and Obama held his own on the foreign policy issues.

I personally thought that Jim Lehrer did a less than stellar job as moderator, and at times I felt that he was trying to play the role of a high school conflict mediator. I like the idea of the candidates being able to address each other and press for answers, but the candidates didn't take advantage because they aren't used to such a setting. Debates in this country have sunk to nothing more than joint press conferences, and not a discussion of ideas.

And I don't know about you, but I am very much looking forward to Thursday night's vice-presidential debate: Senator Joe Biden vs. Governor Sarah Palin. I'm not sure what to expect when these two get together, but if Palin's interviews with Charles Gibson and Katie Couric are any indication, then grab the freakin' popcorn.

Debate Prep: McCain Fumbles The Ball

It has been announced that John McCain has confirmed his participation in tonight's debate -- he will be attending.

Less than 48 hours ago, McCain stated that he would not be participating in the debate unless a bail-out deal has been reached. Well, it hasn't. However, today the McCain campaign announced that enough progress had been accomplished that he would attended the debate. But in reality, no progress has been reached. In fact, the negotiations have done nothing but disintegrate and become more contemptuous since McCain arrived back in Washington to "solve" the crisis.

Either McCain has realized that the Hail Mary pass of "suspending" his campaign has backfired and won him no support, or he truly thinks that progress is being made despite the reporting of every major news organization.

John McCain has again proven in the past 48 hours that he has no idea what he is doing and is completely out of touch with reality.

Can't wait for the debates(s).

Debate Prep

The economy is in a serious crisis. Banks are failing. Mortgages are defaulting. Credit is tight. Wall Street is dangerously unstable.

But have no fear, John McCain is here? The man who has claimed in the past to have very little knowledge of the economy is somehow going to save the country from this impending financial disaster? Puh-lease.

My initial reaction to John McCain "suspending" his campaign to go back to Washington and fix the financial mess was one of shock and amazement. This, ladies and gentleman, is unprecedented. John McCain, apparently putting country first.

But then I started to actually thing about it.

It's nothing more than John McCain trying to change he topic of the debate and use this crisis for his own political gain (which I don't necessarily blame him for, since this is politics). Since the Republican convention, Barack Obama has reclaimed his small lead over the senator from Arizona, and McCain is attempting to put things on his terms. But it's not working.

First of all, it was Barack Obama who contacted John McCain about a bi-partisan joint-statement on the current economic issues. John McCain, having to look like more of a leader, then had to one-up Obama -- hence the "suspension" of his campaign (which Obama found out about on the news) and his leisurely rush back to Washington.

Second, when he got to Washington, what did he do? Nothing. At least nothing that he could not have done over the phone between campaign events. McCain doesn't sit on any of the relevant committees, so he and his staff aren't even in on the meetings. All it really does is bring unneeded additional press to an already stressful situation. In a time of serious congressional negotiations, John McCain and Barack Obama are distractions. Obama acknowledges this. McCain either doesn't know, or doesn't care. And as for that joint meeting at the White House (which reportedly turned into a shouting match), sources are saying that McCain didn't say anything of any importance, and progress on this issue has slowed since it's occurrence. Talk about a show of leadership.

Third, this idea of postponing tonight's debate is one of the most preposterous things that I have ever heard, especially since McCain holds no position of any importance on any of the negotiating committees. Now, more than ever, the American people are watching and listening, and they want to hear where the presidential candidates plan to take this country in the next four years. Now is the most important time to have a debate.

John McCain will show up. And if he doesn't, I don't know what will happen, but I can't imagine that it will be a positive experience for Mr. McCain.

John McCain Writes An SNL Sketch

This has to be some kind of joke.

This has to be some kind of segment on Saturday Night Live, not reality.

In an effort to beef up vice-presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin's non-existent foreign policy credentials, the McCain campaign sent her to the meeting of the United Nations General Assembly in New York this week to meet and greet notable dignitaries and foreign leaders. It's a standard tactic -- trying to make yourself look important by getting photographed with people who actually are important -- but in a presidential election it's just plain bush-league. It's the photo-op of a lifetime, and just goes to re-enforce how scary a thought "President Sarah Palin" really is.

No public questions. No public answers. Nothing unscripted. Just a bunch of pictures and video that scream: "Look at me! All of these important people are willing to sit down with me, so I must be ready to step-in and take over!"

Truthfully, though, she did answer one unscripted question. A reporter was able to quickly ask her how the day was going yesterday. Her response? That the meetings were "informative and helpful." And she looking like a deer in headlights trying to look comfortable when she answered.

The biggest compliment that a foreign leader had for Gov. Palin? The president of Pakistan said that she is "gorgeous." Well, I'm sold.

The press is not allowed to get to Gov. Palin or to ask her questions. Why? Apparently she can't handle the scrutiny of the general press when it comes to actual issues. I'd hate to see what the vice-presidency does to her.

Andrew Sullivan is one of my favorite conservatives. He is a writer, commentator, and daily blogger on http://www.andrewsullivan.com/. I caught him Friday night on Real Time With Bill Maher, and he argued that John McCain's pick of Sarah Palin as his running mate should automatically disqualify him from the presidency. I completely agree.

But that's alright, because John McCain will just spin this as his unique ability to bring people together in a bi-partisan manner.

Campaign First, Country Second

I've given myself plenty of time - over two weeks -- to observe and get my thoughts together regarding the choice of Alaskan governor Sarah Palin as Senator John McCain's vice-presidential running mate. My conclusion is this: she's nothing more than a gimmick pick.

Merriam-Webster provides five definitions for the word "gimmick," and I prefer the fifth one: "a trick or device used to attract business or attention" (i.e. Gov. Palin).

I watched the speech that she gave when she was first introduced as McCain's running mate, and I heard her say four things:


1 - Vote for me because I'm a Republican.

2 - Vote for me because I'm a woman.

3 - Vote for me because my son is going to Iraq.

4 - Vote for me because I have a husband and five children.

Yeah, it's pretty thin.

I also watched her acceptance speech at the GOP convention, where she said all of those same things again, but added the sentiment that anyone who spends a few years of their 20s trying to better a community is pretty pathetic. I'm glad she cleared that up.

Yeah, it doesn't get much thicker. Sorry.

Now, there has been a lot of talk about whether or not Sarah Palin is being an irresponsible parent for choosing to run for the vice-presidency while trying to raise her 5 children, including her youngest who has special needs. Some say its sexist; others say its fair game. I say that I'm sure it can be done. If it were a man running for vice-president with 5 children including a child with special needs, no one would say anything. That's just how this country is, and we should work to change it.

However, I will argue right here that I think Sarah Palin is being an irresponsible parent for choosing to run for vice-president while her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant. I'm not going to point fingers and say that Sarah Palin won't be able to govern properly if she can't even control her own child -- things happen, everyone makes mistakes, and some mistakes are just worse than others. But I will rip Sarah Palin for choosing to make her daughter's mistake national news in order to further her own political career. Parents are supposed to protect their children from as much as they can, but Gov. Palin has chosen to throw her daughter into the fire that is a national presidential campaign for her own benefit. That's pretty despicable. And furthermore, the campaign argues that families are off-limits, and the first thing that Sarah Palin does when she accepts the vice-presidential nomination is highlight her wonderful family. Go figure.

And so the more time Gov. Sarah Palin spends on the trail and in the news, it becomes more and more obvious that Alaskan politicians are the same as all other American politicians -- lies and misleading truths. She claims that she put an end to the "Bridge To Nowhere." Not true -- she was for it before she was against it, and not until congress had put an end to it. But she kept the money. She loves to say that she put the private government jet on eBay. True, but it didn't sell on eBay, and it ended up being sold by a broker, for a loss (not for a profit, as John McCain claims).

And to John McCain, why would you ever in the name of all things sane and holy choose a running mate who is under investigation? You've been in Washington for 26 years and you haven't figured out that politics is perception? What have you been doing all this time?


In the end, we need to be clear that traditionally the vice-president of the United States has no duties of any real importance (with the exception of Dick Cheney, who actually runs the country). The only real duty of the vice-president is to be ready to take the reigns of the country should something awful happen to the president that would prevent him from doing his job. This choice, therefore, is the first public decision of a presidential candidate's would-be presidency, and goes specifically to their judgment. So, you have to look at each candidate's VP pick as their answer to this hypothetical question: Suppose as president, you are assassinated. The American public is in shock and needs leadership; the government needs stability; and the perpetrators of the attack need to be identified and brought to justice. In this situation, who would you choose to be the person who has to step up and immediately fill the role of president during a time of such crisis?

Sen. Obama's answer? Sen. Joe Biden. Say all you want about the a "candidate of change" selecting someone with so much time in Washington as his #2, but when put into the context of the situation described above, it makes much more sense.


Sen. McCain's answer? Gov. Sarah....Palin? The governor of Alaska? To step in at a moment's notice to take control of the most difficult and complex job in the history of mankind? Yeah, it really is that ridiculous.

That's not "Country First."

That's "Campaign First, Country Second."

A Prayer For Our Fallen Brothers And Sisters

There's a blood red circle on the cold dark ground
And the rain is falling down
The church door's thrown open; I can hear the organ's song
But the congregation's gone
My city of ruins
My city of ruins

Now the sweet bells of mercy drift through the evening trees
Young men on the corner like scattered leaves
The boarded up windows; the empty streets
While my brother's down on his knees
My city of ruins
My city of ruins

Come on, rise up! Come on, rise up!
Come on, rise up! Come on, rise up!
Come on, rise up! Come on, rise up!

Now's there's tears on the pillow darlin' where we slept
And you took my heart when you left
Without your sweet kiss my soul is lost, my friend
Tell me how do I begin again?
My city's in ruins
My city's in ruins

Now with these hands
With these hands
With these hands, I pray Lord
With these hands
With these hands
I pray for the strength, Lord
With these hands
With these hands
I pray for the faith, Lord
We pray for your love, Lord
We pray for the lost, Lord
We pray for this world, Lord
We pray for the strength, Lord
We pray for the strength, Lord

Come on
Come on
Come on, rise up!
Come on, rise up!
Come on, rise up!
Come on, rise up!
Come on, rise up!
Come on, rise up!
Come on, rise up!
Come on, rise up!
Come on, rise up!
-Bruce Springsteen, "My City of Ruins"

A Touch of DNC & A Larger Point

"If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always gotten." That was what one of the speakers at the Democratic National Convention this week said regarding the nomination of Barack Obama and the upcoming presidential election, and it was the one quote from the event that really stuck with me and hit home. "If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always gotten." America needs to do something that it hasn't done before.

Barack Obama's acceptance speech itself was riveting, and he brought his "A" game last night. Before it began, I was contacting friends telling them that they were going to want to see this: the formal acceptance of a major party's presidential nomination by an African-American. A history-changing event. And the visual was amazing -- 80,000 people crammed into a standium to see the occassion, screaming, cameras flashing. It was like nothing that this country has ever seen.

And I have to take issue with one of the talking points of the Republicans over the past week. One of the major criticisms that they had was the grand spectacle of the final night at Invesco Field (I heard a Fox News reporter today refer to it as a "circus") -- specifically, they were trying to spin 80,000 voters coming out as a bad thing. It's a bad thing? God forbid the American people actually want to get involved with and listen to a politician. What a liability. Let's open up the Metrodome in Minnesota for John McCain's acceptance speech on Thursday and see how many people show up.

And this brings me to a larger point that I seem to me noticing lately about a lot of Republicans: One of the reasons that I like Barack Obama is because he wants everyone to get involved, participate, and do their part, and he inspires me to do so. The Republicans, on the other hand, seem to me to have an attitude of "don't get too excited or involved -- just elect us and let the professionals do their jobs."

"...of the people, by the people, for the people..."
-Abraham Lincoln

My reaction to the awful John McCain choice of Gov. Sarah Palin for Vice-President in the days to come.

"Joebama"

Now, I don't mean to be a downer or anything, but the choice of Joe Biden as Barack Obama's running mate does not infuse me with enthusiasm. To be honest, I don't know that Obama could have chosen anyone that would have gotten me excited. The majority of mentioned possible candidates are all politicians that I'm not very familiar with, and the choice of Hillary Clinton would have been a reluctant partnership at best. But the choice of Joe Biden almost makes me scratch my head and say, "O....K?"

Is Joe Biden an experienced and remarkable public servant? Yes. Does he add "stability" to the ticket? Yes. Is he a well-known and respected leader in the world community? Yes. Does the have the possibility of helping out in key contested states? Yes. Does he have bad hair? Yes. So far he sounds like the perfect candidate. But unfortunately, there is nothing exciting about Joe Biden.

When I saw the clip of Joe Biden running out after being introduced at the rally in Illinois, I could just imagine him thinking: Haha -- I didn't even make it to the second contest, and here I am the Vice-Presidential nominee. Go me. Now, gotta look young, gotta look energetic -- suck in the gut and don't say anything stupid.

Biden is Obama's LBJ -- the older, more seasoned politician expected to help in specific ways...just not as vindictive. But it doesn't matter anyway, because no one votes for Vice-President.

Sorry, Joe.

Mr. Cahill's Red Herrings

Fellow PoughkeepsieJournal.com blogger Richard T. Cahill, Jr., posted a blog yesterday titled "Barack Obama in his own words," and I absolutely have to take issue with it (you can read the entire post here). In this post, he picks three quotes from Senator Barack Obama's books and presents them as reasons to not vote for the senator from Illinois. It's pretty sad.

The first quote, from Dreams of My Father:
"I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites."

I do not know Mr. Cahill personally, and I don't tend to agree with the points of view in his blog. But, I would like to ask him: why does he feel is it relevant to base his vote for president on one of the candidate's insecurities and identity issues during adolescence? I guess these problems are for lesser teenagers, not Mr. Cahill.

The second quote, also from Dreams of My Father:
"I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, Dubois and Mandela."

Now, be careful, because Mr. Cahill is trying to outrage you with words like white, brown, black, and Africa. What is Mr. Obama saying in this passage? He's saying simply that he does not model himself after those that he does not relate to and whose path he does not want to follow, no matter what their racial background. How is that any different from any of us? Mr. Obama then writes that he seeks to embody the attributes that he sees in Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, W.E.B. DuBois, and Nelson Mandela -- four men who were all instrumental in the civil rights movement. Mr. Cahill asks at the end of his post, "Is this really the kind of moral leadership we want in the White House?" Therefore, I would like to ask Mr. Cahill: has the fight for civil rights over the past 58 years been an immoral one?

The last quote is from The Audacity of Hope, and is actually a quote of Rev. Jeremiah Wright:
"White folks' greed runs a world in need."

Mr. Cahill wants you to think that Senator Obama is a racist for using this quote. This is what magicians call misdirection. But the fact is, as troubling and upsetting as it may be to accept, any serious student of history will tell you that Rev. Wright's statement is the truth.

Finally, the most outrageous quote comes from Mr. Cahill himself. He writes, "There are worse quotes in Audacity of Hope which I do not feel comfortable posting on this blog." Now, I have read The Audacity of Hope, and I do not know quite how to respond to this, other than to say that Mr. Cahill obviously means to scare you, the reader, into thinking Senator Obama writes and condones sinister, seditious ideas -- ideas so vicious and despicable that their very repetition would corrupt your mind in a way that can never be repaired. Ideas like freedom of expression, for example. I read nothing in the book that I would not repeat or post on this blog. Mr. Cahill is simply trying to frighten and create controversy.

I would like to think that we can move past this kind of petty, pathetic fear mongering, and focus on issues, not red herrings. I guess old habits die hard for some people.

"Grandma - Friend or Foe?"

My 4th of July this year was more eventful than normal; not only did I attend a small family BBQ here in Poughkeepsie, but I also attended a gathering in Copiague, NY, down on Long Island. Technically the party in L.I. was a wedding rehearsal dinner, but it had the same effect: I was there for about 3 hours, the beer was plentiful, and the fireworks were continuously lighting up the sky from all directions.

This year's celebration got me thinking about patriotism. Specifically, I have been thinking about how recently the most pressing issue facing the citizens of this nation seems to be whether or not Sen. Barack Obama is a "patriot." Some people obviously believe that since he sometimes chooses to not wear an American flag pin and does not put his hand over his heart during the singing of the National Anthem, he does not love his country. This is a waste of brain cells.

I do not wear an American flag pin. Everyone that I know does not wear an American flag pin. I'm willing to bet that you do not wear an American flag pin, either. And when I go to a Met game, half the fans in attendance do not have their hands over their hearts during the singing of the National Anthem. Are all of us unpatriotic?

My point is this: the "issues" that will get the most attention in the upcoming election are the ones that matter the least. Boxers or briefs? PC or Mac? Wine or beer? Paper or plastic? Flag pins or no flag pins? "Next week: Grandma - Friend or Foe?"

And one additional note: any experienced concert goer will tell you that you do not wear the t-shirt of the band that you are doing to see. Therefore, if you are in the United States, why do you feel the need to wear the flag? You're already there!

The Problem With the Truth

Over the past two weeks, I have found myself -- consciously or unconsciously -- shying away from politics, and spending less time trying to immerse myself in current political news. I don't know why; perhaps I reached my breaking-point with the horse race; perhaps I became numb to the repetitive nature of the political culture; perhaps I've just been too busy. I don't have a good answer for this question.

But one thing that peaked my interest this week is the "uproar" within the presidential campaign about whether or not a terrorist attack on U.S. soil would benefit McCain or Obama. In an interview with Fortune Magazine, McCain advisor Charlie Black stated that a terrorist attack on the United States "would be a big advantage" for John McCain. And everyone can now stop acting like they are shocked and appalled at the statement.

Should Mr. Black have said what he said? Absolutely not. Was he correct in what he said? You bet he was.

The upcoming general election will allow the American public to chose between that which is comfortable (Sen. McCain) or that which is new (Sen. Obama). A black president is probably a situation that many people are not comfortable with. Therefore, does anyone really doubt that a terrorist attack on U.S. soil would cause more people to lean toward sticking with what is comfortable? Change is difficult for many people, and people are less likely to make a significant change is they are scared. And furthermore, the majority of the public views Republicans more favorably than Democrats when it comes to national security -- don't ask my why. It must be that red is a more confrontational color.

The McCain campaign and Mr. Black have come under fire for a statement of truth. And this is why in the current political culture, the truth is very often kept quite. And that is a problem.

My Barack Obama Lawsuit

On June 3, when Barack Obama clinched the Democratic presidential nomination, he and his wife did something that has apparently set the nation on fire, and really angered me. I am referring, of course, to the "fist-bump heard 'round the world."

Prior to his victory speech that night, when Obama emerged on stage with his wife, the pair chose to forgo the expected hug and kiss for the fist-bump. How hip. This immediately became national news, and I know for a fact that CNN did an entire segment on the occurrence (because war has become oh so boring).

So, why did this really steam my clams? Simple: I've been doing the fist-bump for years. In fact, I would go so far as to say that I could very well have invented the fist-bump. How dare he use it on national television? I fist-bump all the time, and not once has it garnered me national media attention.

Therefore, I will be filing my Barack Obama lawsuit sometime before the end of the week. Under the advice of my lawyer, I cannot disclose the specific amounts that I am seeking, but the lawsuit includes pain and suffering (for seeing my invention, which took me years to perfect, on national television with no credit for me) and compensation for the derailment of my career (my plan was to do the fist-bump on TV as soon as I had the chance, thus elevating the status of my career significantly).

Furthermore, we are attempting to coordinate our efforts with the trademark owners of the phrases "Yes We Can" and "Si Se Puede," as well as the inventor of the shoulder-brush.

And Then There Were Two

It's over. Finally. After 6 official months, and many more unofficial.

I remember during Hillary Clinton's reelection campaign of 2006, her challenger accused her of planning on neglecting her senatorial duties in favor of a run for the White House. She denied the certainty of such a run, stating that she had not made any decisions about that particular issue. I remember thinking how that was a joke. Of course she was going to run, and of course she was going to win. Except...

I remember sitting at home, watching Barack Obama stand in the cold on the steps of the old Illinois capitol in Springfield, IL, announcing his candidacy for the nation's highest office to a sea of people. I remember how his words that day -- and the days to follow -- made me feel like I wanted to get involved. How his speech following his victory in Iowa made me think in surprise: He's going to win.

And through it all -- the debates and the stump speeches, Joe Biden's un-PC descriptions, $400 haircuts, floating crosses, crying candidates, not black enough, not christian enough, Florida, Michigan, Rev. Wright, the many faces of Clinton, Tony Rezko, Iran, Hamas, gas price misdirection, Karl Rove tactics, the popular vote, delegate counts, and superdelegates -- we have learned a valuable lesson: These campaigns go on too long and make me want to pull my hair out!

Obviously, some of the above mentioned items will come up again in the next 5 months. And whether Obama can defeat McCain will be argued and not known until November 4th. But I am a big believer that the process matters more than the outcome. Obama is the candidate I want running for president, and let the chips fall where they may.

And then there were two.

A Sigh of Reli -- Oh God

Hillary Clinton never ceases to amaze me. She loses the nomination -- she has lost, by the way -- and she can't even admit defeat. I don't know if its arrogance, delusion, poor political judgement, or all three, but last night was just another example of why I don't ever want to have to pull a lever next to her name. Her campaign is blatantly dishonest and oily, choosing obfuscation over revelation.

I saw Matt Lauer's interview with Howard Wolfson of the Clinton campaign this morning on The Today Show. Lauer held up a copy of The Washington Post with the headline, "Obama Claims Nomination." He then asked Wolfson if the headline was accurate. Any sane, forward-thinking person knows that the answer is, "Yes." But that's not acceptable for Howard Wolfson. His response? To be honest, I stopped listening after he began by saying that Barack Obama ran a wonderful campaign and brought a lot of people to the Democratic Party. This is the same kind of obfuscation and backward-logic that allows the Clinton campaign to claim that Clinton won the popular vote (even though the Michigan and Florida contests were bogus), and exactly why I am so turned off by her and them.

Recently Barack Obama's (now former) church made headlines again, when a visiting priest openly mocked Hillary Clinton during a sermon. He claimed that she felt she was white and entitled to the presidency, and that a younger, black candidate does not deserve it. Well, apart from the white part, that's how many people feel about her -- that she feels she's entitled to this, no matter what. But honestly, she all but had his nomination sown up 16 months ago, and she presided over what could be the most significant and massive political collapse in United States history. That, to me, sounds like gross incompetence, and you don't hire someone who has shown themselves to be grossly incompetent.

Perhaps her non-concession is an attempt to force Obama to name her as his Vice-Presidential running mate, as some people are speculating. Is this a good idea? I don't know. She doesn't seem like she has the personality to be 2nd to anyone. And if it were to occur, I think that the public would have a hard time looking at an Obama administration and not seeing an internal power struggle between Obama, Clinton...and Clinton! Yes, her husband. Bill Clinton has turned into major baggage for his wife, and she should find a basement to lock him in. I personally look at a vote for Hillary as a vote for Hillary and Bill. Some believe that Obama needs Hillary to win, but I guess that's for smarter, more experienced people to decide.

I am a big proponent of putting country before party; doing what is best for the country, even if it is not in the interest of your party. However, I feel that in this situation what is best for one is best for the other. What is best for the Democratic Party is also best for the country: Hillary Clinton needs to get out of the way.

26 Years

On Friday, May 23, Senator John McCain's presidential campaign released his medical records since 2000, in an attempt to show that he is healthy enough -- despite his age of 71 -- to successfully campaign and, if elected, execute the job of president of the United States. Good for him. But age is still an issue.

Contrary to what the McCain campaign may want to lead you to believe, age is not simply a question of health and life-expectancy. Age is much more than that. Your age inherently influences the way that you see yourself, the way that you view the world, and the way that the world sees you. I know many people advanced in years who still use the term "colored." I know a World War II veteran who, on occasion, tends to use the term "Japs." Now, this is not to portray these people as racists (which they most definitely are not), but I am attempting to illustrate how age effects your point of view. Older people who use the term "colored" grew up in a different time. The WWII veteran who uses the term "Japs" comes from a different generation that fought a war against Japan. This is something for which we need fundamental understanding for the upcoming presidential election.

John McCain is 71. His presumptive opponent in the general election -- Sen. Barack Obama -- is 45. That's a difference in age of 26 years. 26 years. That's huge. 26 years is longer than I have been alive. 26 years is the difference between Germany breaking the Treaty of Versailles in 1936, and the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961. 26 years is the difference of Nat "King" Cole in 1950, and Queen in 1976. 26 years is the beginning of the Vietnam War as we know it in 1965, and the end of the Cold War in 1991. 26 years is the difference of "Ghandi" in 1982, and "No Country For Old Men" in 2008 (no pun intended). 26 years is the age of 236 service members killed in Iraq and Afghanistan fight the current "War On Terror."

26 years is everything. Age is an issue.

Fighting Over The Definition Of A Word

Ever since Gov. Eliot Spitzer's extra-marital rendezvous came to light back in early March, it seems that New York has had a streak of making national news. Yesterday was no exception: Gov. David Patterson instructed all state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages that are legally performed in other states and countries. It's like a social conservative's nightmare -- no law, just a directive.

To be honest, I have no strong opinion on whether or not gays should be allowed to marry. In fact, I have a sneaking suspicion that the issue of "gay marriage" is simply a red herring, intended to rally the base of support and distract others from the real issue: equal rights. Two women or two men who decide to commit to each other for the rest of their lives should have the same rights and privileges as a man and a woman who decide to do the same. I don't care what they call it, as long as it happens. I'm talking about healthcare, and tax credits, and social security benefits, and adoption privileges, and more.

150 years ago, slavery was the acceptable norm. 50 years ago, segregation and legislative racism was commonplace. Today, we look back on these times and (most of us) wonder what the country's leaders were thinking, and how this kind of thinking was acceptable. It is laughable to think how the country was when in came to something as simple and obvious as equal rights for those of a different skin color.

Perhaps in 50 years, the next generations will be laughing at us, because we were fighting over the definition of a word.

A Remarkable Life

This big news in the world of politics this week was obviously the health of Sen. Edward Kennedy. His seizure earlier this week led to the diagnosis of a malignant brain tumor, and has brought into question not only his future, but also the future of the United States Senate: what will its make-up become? What direction will it take once this giant of politics is lost?

But this week's news has started me thinking about the journey that Sen. Kennedy has traveled. It truly has been a remarkable life, no matter how you view the man politically. He's a Kennedy -- a name that has been held in the highest esteem in the eyes of Americans for more than 50 years. He comes from the era of Camelot, which many of us know only through the words of history books. He has been able to stand up and stand out among a group of larger than life personalities.

People's lives fascinate me -- how long they've lived, what they've done, where they've been. Sen. Kennedy is a member of an extraordinary family, and more specifically a member of a group of three brothers that have not only changed this country, but the world as a whole (his eldest brother, Joseph, was killed during World War II). His second eldest brother John held the highest office in this land. His brother Robert was John's closest confidant, and made his own run for president. Both were cut down by the bullets of assassins, 45 and 40 years ago, respectively. That amazes me. Losing one brother in such a fashion would be traumatic enough, but losing two, and then choosing to continue to live the same kind of public, exposed lifestyle that led to their murders clearly shows the depth of commitment that Sen. Kennedy has for this country. He has served in the United States Senate since 1963 -- 45 years.

Sen. Kennedy has truly lived a blessed life, despite the trials and tribulations -- both professional and personal -- that seem to come along with the name 'Kennedy.'

I wish him nothing but the best as he deals with this new crisis.

"This is bulls**t!"

Two weeks ago I posted a blog about the preposterous "gas tax holiday," and how the issue had made me truly angry with politicians for the first time in a long time. Well, just two weeks later it has happened again.

Yesterday, President Bush spoke to the Knesset (Israel's parliament), and here is the quote (and it was not off-the-cuff): "Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along...We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

I don't believe that I have ever heard President Bush say anything so ignorant or dangerous. He claims to be a student of history, but he obviously is not -- of the world, this country, or his own presidency. But that's alright, because everyone wants to have a beer with him.

President Bush believes that the art of diplomacy is equal to weakness. He believes that entering into diplomacy with an enemy is equal to allowing the Nazis to run rampant over Poland. He believes that keeping your friends close and your enemies closer is a strategy for lesser mortals, and non-divine countries. He is wrong.

The truth is that aside from being free (which should be a big plus for a conservative), words save lives. I seem to remember words keeping two superpowers from annihilating each other ten times over during the course of more than 40 years. Words are what kept the Cold War just that -- cold. Even Secretary of State Rice and Secretary of Defense Gates have acknowledged that the United States needs to engage in a dialogue with countries such as Iran. After all, they are not going anywhere, and we all inhabit the same planet. But, oh no, says the "decider."

I personally believe that it is President Bush, and not his target, Senator Obama, who is weak. It is he who prefers taking the easy way -- the low road -- as he has done his entire life. It is so easy to drop a bomb. It is so easy to resort to violence. The opposite is the more difficult, more disciplined pursuit. But the president simply does not possess the depth of character to follow such a course. He never has, and he never will.

And the kicker is this: it is President Bush's administration, and not the Democratic leaders, that is actively engaging in the policy of appeasement. Merriam-Webster defines 'appeasement' as: "to buy off (an aggressor) by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles." And as it turns out, this is exactly what the Bush Administration is doing in Iraq -- they're bribing certain groups in the country to no longer target American soldiers and infrastructure. They're buying allies and support.

President Bush has clearly lost all touch with reality and is, quite simply, pathetic.

Senator Joe Biden said it best: "This is bulls**t!"

The Tax Advance

Today I received the money designated to me by the U.S. government in the 2008 Economic Stimulus Package -- $300. But for all the talk of it being a "rebate," it is not -- it is an advance, and here is why:

As of May 7, 2008, the total outstanding public debt for the United States of America is $9,359,720,592,641.80, according to the U.S. Department of Treasury. That number is so big that you can't even look at it without getting confused, and you have to break it down comma by comma. It is a number that is almost impossible to even comprehend, and yet there it is -- over $9.35 trillion.

The fact of the matter is that the U.S. government cannot afford to be giving out "rebates," and any high school economics student would be able to understand why. And yet, here comes the money anyway, in a federal attempt to stimulate an economy that is in serious trouble. But with a national debt that exceeds $9 trillion and an Iraq war cost that currently exceeds $518 billion (both of which are growing every second), it is more than obvious that the U.S. government cannot afford this "stimulus," which totals $152 billion. And therefore, the government will soon need to ask for that money back -- which makes it not a "rebate," but an advance.

I urge you to not spend the money you receive on frivolous things you don't need and can't afford. The leaders in Washington are hoping that you will take this "rebate" and -- despite the stack of bills that you may have -- buy a new TV, or lawnmower, or pair of jeans, or any of the other millions of products that are made outside the U.S. It is a fantastic plan, to say the least. But don't spend it -- save it instead, because it's not really yours anyway.

And soon they will come collecting.

"Well, Tim..."

Just to illustrate how exhausting the presidential campaign trail is on a candidate, I caught the Barack Obama interview this morning on The Today Show.

Obama was being interviewed by Matt Lauer. However, Obama continually kept saying, "Well, Tim..." Now, the first time it happened, I was expecting him to realize his mistake...but he didn't. After the second time, I started to feel kinda bad for the guy. After the third time, I was laughing and wondering where his communications assistant was, and why this person was not holding up a piece of paper that simply read, "MATT," in big, black letters. I was waiting for Obama's eyes to dart away from the camera for just a split second while someone off-camera alerted him to his mistake, but it never happened.

In the end, Matt Lauer simply informed Obama that he was, in fact, Matt Lauer, and not Tim Russert. They both had a chuckle (as I'm sure everyone else in the studio did as well).

So, these candidates are exhausted, and who can really fault any of them for mistaking who they are hearing in their ear when they have been going on no sleep for the past 15 months? I know I can't.

And besides, after the interview Matt Lauer proceeded to call Al Roker, "Ann."

Infuriating

I don't remember the last time I felt this angry with politicians. Sure this campaign has obviously gone on too long, and seeing the same candidates make the same speeches and the same points over and over and over and over can make me annoyed and weary, but not angry. But this week, I'm infuriated. This "gas tax holiday" scam has gone on long enough, and it has to end.

First off, let's dispell any idea (Sens. Clinton and McCain) that the sweetly-coined "gas tax holiday" is a good idea. When you consider any policy or legislation, you have to weight the pros, the cons, and the X factors that you can't control.

Pros:
-Gasoline will be 18.4 cents cheaper than it normally would be.
-Diesel would be 24.4 cents cheaper than it normally would be.
-The average consumer would stand to save an estimated $28 between Memorial Day and Labor Day. (That's a savings of $28 over the course of 94 days, or roughly 30 cents per day.)

Cons:
-The federal government would lose an estimated $9-10 billion in revenue that go toward fixing our national infrustructure (i.e. roads and bridges to drive on)
-Thousands and thousands and thousands of contruction workers would see a reduction or lose in their jobs due to the lack of money (I think I heard the Today Show estimate about 300,000 workers would be effected, but it was early in the morning and I can't be sure of that figure.)
-People will be encouraged to drive more, which would use up more gasoline, driving the prices even higher. Also, it is the wrong path to take in terms of protecting the environment.

X-Factor:
-The oil companies may simply raise their prices an extra 18.4 cents per gallon, thus nullifying the savings of the "holiday." And for Sen. Clinton's proposal of a new tax on windfall oil profits, the companies can simply raise the gas prices even higher to pay for the new tax.

Now, it was obvious what Clinton and McCain have been trying to do: use a pointless policy that sounds good (but really isn't) to influence some voters into supporting them. However, it wasn't until today that there arguments really got my furious.

John McCain said, "The lamentations of people about the draconian consequences of giving Americans just a little relief for the summer continues to amaze and amuse me...I’d like to see families in America have a relief from ever increasing costs of gasoline, so maybe at the end of the summer after this tax holiday they could buy school supplies for their children as they start the school year.” According to John McCain, if you're against the tax holiday, you're against families and children going to school.

Hillary Clinton said, "I believe it would be important to get every member of Congress on record: Do they stand with the hard-pressed Americans who are trying to pay their gas bills at the gas station or do they once again stand with the oil companies? I want to know where people stand and I want them to tell us, are they with us or against us when it comes to taking on the oil companies?” According to Hillary Clinton, if you're against the tax holiday, you're for the oil companies having whatever they want.

The "gas tax holiday" is a terrible idea, and Clinton and McCain know this, but are blatantly playing on the struggles of Americans. For 30 cents a day. Please. For some reason they think that I am stupid and will swallow and believe any dribble that comes out of their mouths. But here is the kicker: Come Labor Day, when the "holiday" would end, in addition to the prices set by oil companies that will continue to rise over the summer, American consumers will be hit by a 1-day 18.4 cent increase. This will force people, in the end, to take all the money they save and poor it right back into their gas tanks.

We need serious alternative energy sources, not 3-month boondoggles. The truth is that high gas prices are the best thing that have happened for the energy-independence movement. Now that gas prices really are unaffordable for a lot of Americans, perhaps progress will be made toward breaking out reliance on the Middle East for energy, as well as protecting the only planet that we have.

In the mean time, a number of expletives come to mind.

A Campaign Flashes Before My Eyes

Last I checked, we have some serious problems in (and out of) this country: floundering wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, an economy slowly sliding toward the seventh circle of Hell, a steadily worsening environment, roughly 47 million U.S. citizens without health insurance, and a substantial percentage of the population living below the poverty line, just to name six. But nevertheless, last night Rev. Jeremiah Wright spoke to an NAACP dinner last night in Detroit, MI, and CNN decided that they needed to break in for special coverage and show the entire address.

I didn't go out of my way to watch the speech -- I was merely at my computer with the television on when it began. True, I could have changed the channel, but part of me was slightly interested. And the result was that I saw Barack Obama's presidential campaign flash in front of my eyes.

I have a mixed opinion of Rev. Wright. First of all, I may be desensitized, but the 30-second clips of his that I saw did not throw me into an offended tantrum. Second, I don't believe that those same few 30-second clips can allow me to make an informed decision about a person and a life that has been considerably longer than mine. However, Rev. Wright has decided to reemerge at the worse possible time for Obama, after Obama could have thrown Wright "under the bus" (as they say) when the clips surfaced, but bent over backwards to not do so. So, while I don't think he can be written off simply as a whack-job, I also think that this is a poor way to repay Obama. If he wants Obama to win, he needs to disappear until November 5. And it's also sad that the current state of our national politics makes that so.

As I watched Wright's address to the Detroit chapter of the NAACP last night, my initial thought was, This is the end of the Obama campaign. Some of you may think that that is too cynical, but I disagree. There are countless voters in this country who will not vote for Obama due simply to the fact that Jeremiah Wright scares them (and many of these people also know that the Native Americans welcomed Christopher Columbus with open arms).

No one may want to admit it or agree with it, but this campaign is not only suffering from a racial divide, but also a cultural divide.

My Wallet Is Bleeding

No matter where you pump it, these gas prices hurt, and there is no getting around that. I returned from Maryland on Saturday, and I immediately noticed how much gas had gone up during my absence -- 20 cents. I was on 'E,' so I had to fill up on Sunday, and I did it reluctantly. I recently had three distinct gas experiences that I would like to share.

For whatever reason, the rising prices haven't caused me that much worry in the past, and I didn't think twice about filling up. $3.15/gallon? No problem. $3.24/gallon? Sure. $3.33/gallon? Why not? Then came Sunday night, when I payed $3.48/gallon, and that was the cheapest price around. I suddenly felt uncomfortable spending so much money to fill up my gas tank. A taxi driver was filling up his taxi next to me, and he began talking about how ridiculous the price of gas was. I agreed. He also spoke of being ready for $4 and $5/gallon. I agreed again. I don't know where the money is coming from, but I know where it's going.

One day while resting on a bench in Washington, DC, last week, it was tough to not overhear the conversation that was going on near-by. A woman with an Irish accent was commenting to her companion about how easy we Americans have had it when it comes to the price of gas. While it is true that fuel costs in Europe have been significantly higher for quite some time, the large taxes levied by European governments on gas go to provide their populations with services that us Americans have to pay separately for -- namely health care and college. And even if our prices are just normalizing with the majority of the world, its still not in our budget.

On our way back from Maryland on Saturday, while traveling on the New Jersey Turnpike, we decided to stop for gas -- obviously, because we were in Jersey and wanted to take advantage of their lower prices and full-service stations. We pulled off to the rest stop. Immediately we were plunged into a 100-car gridlock of people waiting in line for gas. And the worst part was that we couldn't even leave, because the way to the exit was blocked by the waiting cars. We lost at least half an hour. And as we sat there, I looked around at all the license plates -- New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Massachusetts. I think I saw one New Jersey license plate.

Gas prices are hitting this country's economy hard. But what is to be done? John McCain has recommended that between Memorial Day and Labor Day, the federal government suspend it's 18.4 cent tax on gasoline, as well as it's 24.4 cents tax on diesel fuel. Some have expected this move would cost the federal government somewhere in the neighborhood of $10 billion. How can the government afford that? How would they replace that revenue? Where would the government get the money for the infrastructure repairs that these taxes fund? These questions have gone unanswered.

In addition to federal gas taxes, New York State levies it's own tax -- 41.2 cents per gallon for gasoline, and 40.3 cents per gallon for diesel. In comparison, New Jersey's gas taxes are 14.5 and 17.5 cents per gallon, respectively. It's no wonder so many people want to fill up in our neighbor to the south.

So, what can be done about this? Well...really nothing, except to use less to try to lower the demand, and invest more in renewable energy (though not products like ethanol, which not only uses a remarkable amount of oil to produce and doesn't burn very cleanly, but also contributes to the growing food shortage in the world). Until then, we'll just keep on paying. As my father says, "It's just money. You can't take it with you." Maybe, but my wallet is bleeding.

"You know – you know that since George Bush has become president, gas has basically tripled in price. Now, Bush is an oil man. I’m not a conspiracy theorist. I’m just saying that if we had elected Colonel Sanders president and the price of chicken had tripled, I’d be a little suspicious."
-Bill Maher

The District of Columbia

I have returned from below the Mason-Dixon Line, and it is true that I did not want to come back. We stayed in Annapolis, MD, and it was such a nice area that making the drive north was regrettable (as are the gas prices, 20 cents higher than when I left 10 days ago). But I loved Washington, DC. This was my second trip to the city, but the first where I had a considerable amount of time to explore, as we spent five days in the nation's capital. Below are my highlights of the trip. It is important to note, however, that as we couldn't see and do everything, the picks below are simply based on our experiences, and cannot encompass the totality of the District of Columbia.

Best Tour:
The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Preforming Arts - To be fair, the Capitol was a fantastic tour and overall experience, but there was something about the Kennedy Center that I absolutely loved. It's a very grand place, and the decor is late-60s, early-70s, which for some reason I am very fond of. You can lay the Washington Monument down on its side in the foyer. And the presidential boxes were pretty impressive, too. And the happy hour.

Most Disappointing Tour:
The Library of Congress - We liked what we saw, but we didn't see enough of it. Our tour guide began by telling us how massive in size the main building of the LOC is, but then she barely showed us any of it. The main building is a square (2 city blocks long on each side), with an octagon in the middle (the Great Reading Room), and goes as deep underground as it goes toward the sky. But we only saw the front section of the square, and we could only look down into the Great Reading Room (though it was impressive). The marble (all hand-carved), and the paintings on the ceiling were staggering, but we wanted to see more.

Most Bizarre Tour:
The White House - The White House tour was self-guided. They had the path through the first floor of the mansion all roped off, and you simply followed along. The Red Room, the Blue Room, the East Room, etc. We obviously couldn't see any of the West Wing, or the East Wing, or the second or third floors of the mansion, since those are the private residence. But, we thought that it was weird that we were able to literally wander through the White House. Sure, there were some staffers and security hanging around, but still very strange.

Most Exhausting Tour:
The National Holocaust Museum - The long days and all the walking gets very tiring, and your feet and legs begin to hurt quite a bit after a short time, but the National Holocaust Museum is especially draining -- physically, mentally, and emotionally. You walk through the three dark floors of the permanent exhibit, looking at pictures, video, and actual artifacts, and you read everything. Lots of reading. We suggest not planning to do anything after touring the exhibit -- we got food and decided to go back to Annapolis.

Best Restaurant:
The Old Ebbitt Grill - We ended up having two meals here, one on Tuesday, and one on Saturday. Tuesday was mid-afternoon, thankfully missing the lunch rush. Saturday was 1PM, directly in the middle of the weekend lunch rush (but we were only two, so we sat right down). Both meals were very good, reasonable priced, and the majority of the waitstaff was very personable.

Favorite Memorial(s):
The World War II Memorial - It's a new addition since my first visit eight years ago.

The Korean War Memorial - It shows the soldiers doing what they did most of, which was walking through the rice patties, and this sets it apart from the other memorials, in my eyes.

Notable Moments in DC:
1. Watching the House of Representative and the Senate in session - We got tickets to the House gallery from the office of Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), and to the Senate gallery from the office of Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY). This was a great experience. In the House, we watched a group of congressman debate a new tax law proposal, and the first half of a vote. In the Senate, we watched Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) debate Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) over the issue of judicial confirmation. And we would have stayed in these galleries for hours if we could, be we had to catch a train. And by the way, the Senate and House chambers are very small. Shockingly small. They look so big on television -- especially the House chamber during the state of the union -- but they are not. Also, the one Secret Service Agent posted in the House gallery was charging his iPod while on duty. Classy.

2. The Geneseo Congressional Staffer - We were standing in the old Supreme Court room in the Capitol building, when a congressional staff-led tour comes in. I immediately recognize the tour guide. 'I know him,' I thought. As he was leaving, I stopped him, and sure enough he went to Geneseo. In fact, he was in some of my political science classes. He's now interning for a congressman. Way to go, GSU.

3. White House Secret Service Agents - When we stepped out of the White House mansion, we encountered two Secret Service Agents dressed in tactical clothing and equipment, each carrying a machine gun and 200 rounds of ammunition. A number of people on the tour stopped and spoke with them for about 10-15 minutes. These guys were impressive. They said that they were the "special forces" of the Secret Service, and that if they are involved, the situation is pretty serious. They explained some abilities of their weapon, gave some more detail of the White House, and the one agent explained how they don't get fed on the job -- but the government has a microwave for him to heat his Lean Pockets. "I feel very safe," said one tourist. "You should," replied the more talkative of the two agents. "You're getting the protection of a president for free." Awesome.

4. 'Happy Birthday, Holy Father' - As you probably know, the Pope was in Washington, DC, this past week. We, luckily, missed the crowds that he drew. However, on the day before he arrived, we were in front of the White House, and the chorus was rehearsing for his arrival the following day, which was also his birthday. And they were singing:

"Happy birthday to you
Happy birthday to you
Happy birthday, Holy Father
Happy Birthday to you"

No joke. I will forever remember that.

5. The size of the Library of Congress - I may not have been satisfied by the Library of Congress tour, but when that tour guide stated that the LOC is as deep as it is high, I nearly fell off my chair. The place is huge, and that's only one building.

6. The Nazi Pre-Protest - We had heard earlier in the day on Saturday that there was going to be a Nazi protest. As we made our way to the National Mall after our White House tour and lunch, we found them. They were sitting on the ground, surrounded by about 25 police officers. Most of them were teenagers. We watched, then left, walking up the mall toward the Capitol. As we got near the Capitol reflecting pool, we saw more cops...specifically hundreds of them, dressed in full riot gear, lining the sides of the street and walkway leading up to the building. And then there were more, in heavier riot gear on the grass. And more, with rubber gloves on, ready to search those taken into custody. We hung around for as long as we could, but in the end the Nazis were just taking too long, and we had to get on the road. I guess there prejudice and hate blinds them to keeping to a schedule -- I can't just wait along all day to see white supremacists, for I have a life. In the end, all I got was to see a lot of cops, the Nazis sitting on the ground not causing a ruckus, and more sun than I wanted. Thanks, Nazis.

So, in the end the trip was amazing, and I loved the District of Columbia. But, again, I didn't see the whole city. And I drove through parts of the district that were not as well-kept as the area around the National Mall. Washington, DC, is, in fact, about 80% black in population, but it's a side of the city that you don't see if you only stick to the 'seat of government' section of town.

The Sprinting Marathon

Those of you who regularly drop in on my blog should be forewarned: do not expect any posts from me for the next 8-10 days. Why, you ask? Because I'm traveling southward, to the place where the men become men and the boys become....well, not men: Washington, DC.

It's not so much of a vacation, so much as it is a sprinting marathon. With so much to see, our schedule is packed:

Washington Nationals game - check.
Capitol Building, Library of Congress, Kennedy Center, National Cathedral - check.
National Holocaust Museum, Supreme Court, Senate & House office buildings - check.

*breath*

National Archives, various Smithsonian museums, National Mall - check.
Monuments galore, Arlington National Cemetery - double check.
National Zoo - check.

*breath*

Mount Vernon - check.
Last day of the Cherry Blossom Festival - check.
Papal visit - check.

*deep breath*

White House - check.

My first trip to DC in eight years will be like "The Godfather: Part II" of vacations: longer, better, and more complicated.

See you on the other side.

Bad Staff Work

Of all the cities in the United States of America, the officials of the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games decided to run the Olympic torch through San Francisco yesterday. Those in charge of the Olympics being held in the country that is the most frequent and public human rights violator decided to run the Olympic torch through the most liberal (and most vocal) city in the nation, as an attempt to build international support for the games. Fantastic planning.

San Francisco has the largest "Chinatown" district in the country, so it's not completely beyond logic that they would choose to run the Olympic flame through the city. But, San Francisco is notorious for being both liberal and outspoken, and China is notorious for not letting their citizens be either, so a red flag (no pun intended) should have been raised at some point in the planning. Though, I don't think the protests could have been avoided completely; if they had run the torch through Wainwright, Alaska, Richard Gere probably would have been there, along with other protesters. But Wainwright would have at least had a smaller local base of protest support in its population of approximately 550.

I understand why people are protesting and calling for a boycott of the upcoming Olympic Games. China is oppressing many, many innocent people. However, I think that boycotting would be a bad idea, for two reasons:

First, right now the United States needs China. We are currently fighting two wars (one of which we're neglecting, one of which is a black hole), and China is footing the bill. You can blame those in charge for that one. Also, we need the Chinese markets. The US economy is going through a very difficult time, and a large portion of our exports go into the Chinese economy. I disagree with many of the Chinese government's actions, but I don't think it would be a very good strategic move if the United States were to alienate one of the world's emerging powers, especially one that we're so dependent on.

Second, this is how diplomacy works. The United States government is trying to bring China out into the open, to bring it into the light. That is done by doing business, communicating, and trying to slowly pull China closer to us, and away from their terrible human rights policies. China does atrocious things to people, and getting them to change is a long, arduous process. Boycotting the games will not make China suddenly change their policy.

We can't have all the things we want.

But all I'm really saying is that they could have chosen a less controversial city than San Francisco.

Call it bad staff work.