Palin: Game-Changer or Not?

Since I've been hearing oh so much about McCain's Veep pick, Sarah Palin, and some people I know asked me on my take before I knew much more than her new status. Now that I've gotten a fuller look at Mrs. Palin, I can make a judgment on the wisdom of McCain's choice.

I've heard all of the stuff about how this will appeal to Hillary supporters, and it will solidify the Republican base, which it apparently has (Should I be worried that Huckabee's enthusiastic army of evangelicals absolutely love her?). The "appeal to Hillary supporters" I'm not so sure about. Just consider that most of Hillary's hard-core PUMAs (few though they are), and probably most of her less hard-core supporters will probably take a look at Palin's stances on issues and immediately decide Obama is at least not as bad as the alternative. I discussed this in a previous post (see "Party Unity My Ass, My Ass").

Then there are ever so-soft rumblings of corruption and scandal around Mrs. Palin, despite the widely touted dissimilarities to most of the Alaska GOP. For instance, what did she do to earn indicted Senator Ted Stevens's endorsement? Few people have noted that she originally supported the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere", then dumped it like a dog turd when it became politically unpalatable. Is there any truth to allegations that she fired Alaska's Public Safety Commissioner when he refused to fire her former brother-in-law, an Alaska State Trooper? I'm not saying the evidence is definitive one way or another, but is there smoke without a fire?

Then her positions, which cater well to the GOP base, but do fairly little to broaden his appeal. She is pro-life, a major supporter of gun rights, anti-gay marriage (I don't care much about that, but it had to be said), and either an Evangelical or something close enough. She has little to no foreign policy, although she disagrees with the lack of a long-term strategy in Iraq, a lack Senator McCain appears to be just fine with.

One problem I have is that she is really, really not experienced. Before she was Governor of Alaska (her post for the last 18 months), she was the Mayor of Wasilla, AK, a large metropolis counting between 6,575 and 8,471 souls in its citizenry. Before that, she was on the Town Council. At least Obama has been a Senator for 2/3 of his term. At least Obama was an Illinois State Senator before winning the Senate seat. I will be brutally frank: the only thing that would potentially separate Sarah Palin from the Oval Office is the health and well-being of a 72-year-old (Happy 72nd Birthday, Senator McCain!) who has a history of melanoma. There is a very real possibility that John McCain would die before serving even one term. He needn't even die, just become incapable of functioning, for instance, if he had a severe case of dementia, or have some sort of other serious health event, like a stroke or heart attack.

I just don't buy all of this stuff that Palin is so wunderbar for McCain. Certainly it's an interesting pick. But just because it's interesting doesn't make it the right one.

Party Unity My Ass, My Ass

I will be taking a little break from politicswatching to do my World Civ homework, but before I do, I'd just like to join the chorus of voices commenting on the supposed rift between Hillary supporters and Barack Obama.

The media has this little narrative by the throat: Many Hillary supporters are disappointed, disillusioned, unhappy with Obama, and perhaps unwilling to vote for him. And the McCainiacs are gleefully encouraging this superficial assessment of Democratic disunity (perhaps to draw attention away from their own problems along that line?), hoping it will flare into real disunity, presumably.

Now, if you had looked at the backgrounds of the broadcasting booths for the various 24-hour news channels, you would have seen lots of these self-proclaimed "PUMAs", which stands, as the title of this post indicates, for "Party Unity, My Ass." This unfortunate acronym has led to far, far too many horrible little abbreviations and such based on things that large cats have, like paws and claws and the like.

The thing is, the PUMAs at the convention were rare cats (aagh! I've succumbed to bad-humor-silliness!). The ones around the broadcast booths were practically the only ones, by all accounts. The PUMAs, of course, are no fools, mediawise. They know that if you make a lot of noise in front of a camera, you will look a lot bigger than you actually are. This sort of tactic is something frequently used by pufferfish, politicians, and (you guessed it!) cats. In all cases, it is deceptive, nothing but a load of hot air.

There's a story going around about when the PUMAs tried to organize a little get-together at a five-star hotel in DC. They sent out a cheery-sounding note that basically said "send in the money and we will give you a ticket to this big gathering of like-minded annoyances." They needed 250 PUMAs to be able to hold it at the five-star hotel. It turned out that they were only able to get 60 to fork over the dough, and had to shift it to a Holiday Inn (definitely not five stars) near Dulles.

It should be well known by now that the media, in general, are usually fairly easy to lead by the nose. Show them what appears to be the reality, and they will probably decide that it must be true. Leak rumors of your VP pick, and they will practically vet him/her for you. Loudly shout about sexism, and the good folks at CNN, MSNBC, Fox Noise, etc. will echo it back to you. Unlike some people, I don't fault them (much) for that. They're human, they screw up.

At any rate, here is my final thought, before I read the stuff for World Civ and go to a pool party, and later, a convention watch party. I once read a story told by a man who had gone to Afghanistan. He told about meeting some Afghani adolescents and young men while he was there. He started discussing things with them, and asked how life was. They complained about all of the problems of the Taliban, all of the onerous burdens placed on their lives by the fundamentalists. Then he asked if they would support an American invasion. Instantly the young men were staunch defenders of the Taliban, saying they would fight the Americans to the death, etc. I think most Hillary supporters are a bit like that- I won't say "all bitch, no action," which was my first impulse, but just a little sore over having lost like they did. Understandable, really. But come November, I doubt most Hillary supporters will mark the box for McCain.

For a more succinct expression of what I just took a very long time to say, click here. The top and bottom ones are what I'm talking about.

Oh, S***

Bad, bad news from Pakistan. Only a few days after the resignation of Pervez Musharraf, the anti-Musharraf coalition that controls the Pakistani government is falling apart. Fmr. PM Nawaz Sharif has pulled his PML-N party (that stands for Pakistan Muslim League (N), as in Nawaz Sharif) out of the coalition. Given that the PPP, the late Benazir Bhutto's party is secularist, and PML-N is moderately Islamist, I wonder if anyone who paid attention really didn't see this coming. The only thing that brought the two together was their mutual dislike of Musharraf.

Why is this bad, bad news for us? Well, given that the main supply line for Afghanistan runs from Karachi to Afghanistan via Peshawar, we might want to start worrying about unrest in Pakistan. I don't claim to be an expert here, but I read the experts, and I can put two and two together.

It may be starting already. There's news that a shipment of NATO supplies being readied to head north in Karachi has been attacked by gunmen. God in Heaven, I hope this isn't the start of a trend.

I Am A European-American

DISCLAIMER: This should not, in any way, be considered to be a denigration of African-Americans or any other minorities.

I've got a bit of a problem with our racial atmosphere today, or whatever you want to call it. You see, I am not a minority. I am "white," even though my actual skin tone is closer to a light tan. And I look around and I see celebrations of African-American heritage, Hispanic heritage, Asian-American heritage, Native American heritage. But celebrations of "white" heritage are reserved for the KKK and too-late Confederate sympathizers.

Why can't I be proud of how my ancestors came over on the boat and built up a good life in America? It's obviously because they weren't brought here as slaves.

But if anything, I think that should be a better cause for celebration. My ancestors said, "Okay, let's leave everything we knew, voluntarily, for a place across a big ocean, in which our continued survival may not be certain." What is wrong with being in the majority?

I have to admit, I can't help but feel sometimes as if I'm being discriminated against. In all likelihood, I'm not. In all fairness, "white" people have done some pretty damn bad things in the past. But why should the sons and daughters bear the burdens of the sins that their fathers committed- or didn't commit?

Henceforth, I am no longer white. I am a European-American, and proud of it. Why not?

A Little Bit of Africa in Atlanta, Or, You Brought WHAT Home?

This is a rather weird story that took place in my hometown just this morning. Fulton County Animal Control responded to a call about a wildcat in a neighborhood near Georgia Tech. The cat was hard to catch, but when they caught it, no one knew what the heck it was. Here's the cat in the Fulton County Animal Shelter later in the day:

For those of us who aren't experts on African cats, aside from lions and cheetahs and the like, this is a serval. Servals don't normally roam the streets of Atlanta; most live in Africa, especially in subsaharan Africa, on the savannas. No one knows yet how on earth this cat got to the Peach State, but whoever brought this little kitty here will probably face charges.

Here's the story on the Atlanta Journal-Constitution website.

Simply Outrageous

I would like to know when "you are my ally" became "I won't question anything you do" under the Bush administration. In this case, the government at the heart of the "war on terror," in Afghanistan, may not be that much better, in certain areas than the Taliban.

Afghanistan has sentenced to death one Sayed Parwez Kambakhsh, a journalism student at a university in northern Afghanistan. According to the story, Kambakhsh read an article on an Iranian website taking a differing stance from the wide view on a woman's role in Islamic society, and commented on it, apparently favorably.

By all accounts, you could practically hear the kangaroo inside the court recently as Kambakhsh went in for an appeals hearing. His judge, who had risen to the bench under the Taliban, repeatedly interrupted Mr. Kambakhsh, acting more in the manner of a prosecutor than a judge, and displayed a definite antagonism towards his position. Kambakhsh's defenders had little time to prepare, and the judges throughout the series of trials have all clearly had the same antagonism towards his position.

Then, there's also this, from Registan.net:

Kambakhsh also stands accused of other crimes, such as asking too many questions in class, seeking attention and popularity, being impolite, and swapping dirty jokes over his cellphone.

This is bloody ridiculous. As the defendant's brother put it: “Welcome to the Middle Ages.”

Many clerics have petitioned President Karzai to not not execute Kambakhsh. The issue has also apparently come up in talks between the U.S., the U.K. and Afghanistan.

Why does support for Afghanistan mean "execute all of the 'apostates' or 'heretics' that you like"? Replace them with "regime critics," and it starts seeming a little scary. It seems a bit obvious to me that the "new" Afghan government is just the Taliban in drag (that would be an interesting sight). As the Who put it, "Meet the new boss/Same as the old boss."

The Fighter of the Century

I want to take just a moment here to praise what may end up being one of the best fighters currently in development. The Eurofighter Typhoon program began in the 1980s, to counter Soviet jets in a potential shooting war. Even though the threat of Soviet domination is long past, work has continued on the Typhoon, and it now pays off.

According to a BBC article, several Typhoons have just finished testing at Nellis AFB, just outside of Las Vegas, NV.

By all accounts, it is a very, very excellent aircraft, and the descriptions of its awesome capabilities make me wish that some people weren't so against buying major contracts from foreign defense firms. If we truly wanted the best, we would have gotten the Typhoon.

More information on the Eurofighter EF-2000 Typhoon

Life Kills

I was just looking at the National Safety Council's oddly fascinating (in a rather macabre way) page of "odds of death." One thing I found particularly interesting, in light of some claims by pro-gun activists, was that an average American's lifetime odds of dying by "assault by firearm" are 1 in 324. That doesn't seem too bad until you consider other statistics (all odds are lifetime).

Chances of dying from:

Exposure to forces of nature (heat, cold, lightning, flood, etc.)- 1 in 3,421
Exposure to smoke, fire and flames- 1 in 1,167
Contact with venomous animals and plants- 1 in 46,539
Exposure to electric current, radiation, temperature, and pressure- 1 in 9,308
Exposure to inanimate mechanical forces- 1 in 1,366
Exposure to animate mechanical forces (bites from various animals)- 1 in 27,120
Air and space transport accidents- 1 in 5,552
Being a bus occupant- 1 in 94,242

The point of this list is that we have an odd obsession with all sorts of awful ways of dying, such as being struck by lightning, being bitten by poisonous animals, being in a plane crash, etc., but we don't really pay attention to "ordinary" causes of death, such as dying in car crashes (1 in 247), falling (1 in 200), or the aforementioned "assault by firearm."

It really doesn't matter whether you die because your plane crashed or a highly venomous reptile from some faraway land bit you, or you kick the bucket because you hit a lamppost late at night or you slipped on a bunch of marbles and broke your neck. Dead is dead. As a matter of fact, it's a lot safer to fly than it is to drive. You are more likely to die while driving to the airport than while flying on the airplane you board there. Food for thought.

The DC v. Heller Disappointment

The Supreme Court released its ruling in the "guns case," which is to say, DC v. Heller, today. And frankly, I'm a bit disappointed in their decision.

From what I have read so far (not much, as the combined opinions are 157 pages long), the majority's reasoning was, well, interesting. One might even say, creative. In the sense that Enron's fraud was "creative" accounting. Additionally, Scalia's opinion left several questions open. For instance, what standard does one apply to gun laws to judge whether they are in compliance with Heller? Scalia rejected the use of the rational basis test, but he did not say what standard would be proper. Next, does this ruling incorporate the Second Amendment to the states and local governments? Again, hard to tell, and this will probably require more court cases, more wasted taxpayer dollars, and an even more clogged court system. Thanks a million, Antonin!

I'm going to read the opinion within the next few days (I can't give you a specific date) and monitor the blogs, and get back on this. For now, check out RCP's posting of the candidates' reactions. I particularly agree with Senator Obama's response.

Why Offshore Drilling is Not the Answer

So, now that gas is $4 a gallon, President Bush is going to Do Something About It. He doesn't have to give a hoot in hell about his approval ratings- after all, he isn't running for reelection. But other Republicans are, and John McCain is aiming to succeed Bush. So Mr. President has to get in on the solution to high fuel prices.

Unfortunately, they have taken the wrong path.

The Republican solution: "Let's drill in ANWR! Let's open up the continental shelf! Say goodbye to those oil shales out west!" In other words, we're going to alleviate the effects of our addiction to oil with…more oil. That's comparable to…say, treating a hangover with more alcohol. In the short term, it might help, but in the end, you still get a massive headache.

Of course, this is supposed to be accompanied by a lot of research into alternative fuels and energies. But seriously, who believes that commitment? Who shot down Jimmy Carter's energy plan? The Republicans. Having said that, they do have some ideas for what alternative energies might be in our future. Their idea of an alternative fuel: uranium.

The Republicans (and especially John McCain) have staked their alternative energy plan on nuclear power plants. McCain himself has called for the construction of 45 new nuclear power plants. Will that do anything to help us within the next few years? Uh…nope. Not only would it take years to construct these reactors, each reactor would cost billions of dollars. The reason that no one has built any civilian nuclear reactors since 1979 isn't so much the bureaucratic red tape, and more so the fact that the things are damn expensive.

As to the title of this post, let me add this. Besides the fact that fueling (no irony intended) an addiction is not a long term answer, offshore drilling would not help us today. If the government lifted the ban on offshore drilling and opened ANWR to oil companies, it would take at least a decade to begin production. For one thing, all of the ships necessary for offshore drilling are booked solid. More are on the way, but they take time to make. And even once the wells began producing, the effect that they would have on oil prices (and thus gas prices) would be negligible. For one thing, all of the oil produced by these wells would go on the open market, subject to market prices. The idea that American-produced oil would cost less for us is rather absurd. Furthermore, there isn't enough oil in ANWR and the continental shelf to significantly decrease the price of oil.

It's a pointless and wasteful boondoggle.