What a momentous time in which we live.
They, whoever they might be at any given time, say that writers should write every day, even if they're not feeling particularly inspired, nay, ESPECIALLY when they're not feeling inspired. Luckily, I'm not a writer. I'm an "aspiring" writer, which gives me all sorts of generic byes like "I was too busy working," or "I got caught up in a movie" or "my dog ate my draft." I'm also not getting paid, nor am I a very good writer, as this chap happens to be.
Despite not feeling much like a Coffee Brewer today, and despite the likely fact that this Coffee will not be served until mid-afternoon, there is much to discuss, and I suppose it gives me, if not you, something to do.
VP Who?:
On Friday, John McCain announced that he had finally picked a running mate. Oh, you've heard about this? Come on, man, this isn't the news, it's a blog. Anyway, Mitt Romney is his pick, and he's sticking to his guns even if the man's a Mormon. Wait…it's not Mitt? Well then, Mike Huckabee? No? Tom Ridge? Then it absolutely MUST be his good friend Joe Lieberman! No again? Well, who is it? Surely we've heard of him, right?
No. Probably not. John McCain picked a "her;" Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. But you knew this already and were simply humoring my dramatic flair.
I've read a great deal about this, and three days after the fact, I'm still having a hard time figuring out why McCain chose Palin. Yes, Palin does a couple of things for McCain. Obviously, she's a woman, and McCain is seeking to woo disenfranchised Clinton supporters, many of whom are women. At the face of it, this seems like a brilliant idea. But it's likely that her staunch anti-abortion stance, even in incest and rape cases, will somewhat nullify the effect of drawing Clinton supporters, known for their pro-choice sentiments. I don't believe that liberal-leaning women who are fans of "Roe v. Wade" will jump on McCain's bandwagon simply because he chose a woman, especially one who happens to have radically different views than their own.
She's also "a person of deep Christian faith," according to Ralph Reed, the former head of the Christian Coalition. So deep is this Christian faith, Palin opted not to have an abortion when she found out that her son, in utero, had Down's Syndrome, a decision for which she received quite a bit of credit from conservatives. Her "deep Christian faith" and her obvious adherence to that faith and to a priority principle of the religious right will surely net McCain a decent portion of the evangelical vote that he been seeking, to little success thus far.
Palin also has a reputation as someone who cleans up corruption, having risen to prominence in Alaskan politics as a whistle-blower and ran for governor as a change agent. But she's got her own corruption problems. It's possible that she fired some public safety commissioner because that official refused to fire a state trooper who was recently divorced and was engaged in a custody battle with his ex-wife, who happened to be Palin's sister. Certainly this will come up. A lot.
Also, Palin is beautiful, and we shouldn't discount the beauty effect in politics. Remember, in 1960, Kennedy debated Nixon in the presidential race. Those who watched the debate on television (a novel concept then) declared Kennedy the winner. Nixon looked sickly, having recently returned from a hospital stay concerning his knee, still had a poor complexion as a result, and was still nearly 20 pounds underweight, whereas Kennedy had a "healthy glow" (ironically a result of his medical condition) and looked fit. Those people who consumed the debate via radio broadcast had a different take on the winner, declaring Nixon to have bested Kennedy. Looks mean a great deal, and Palin, a former beauty pageant participant, has a surplus of good looks. Not only that, but she's remarkably charismatic and has a small-town charm that any politician would be envious of. I would nearly deem her a perfect woman. She hunts, fishes, is active, is smart, and is incredibly sexy. All these things appeal to Republicans, especially that last quality as a good many of them are not what you would call sexually liberated.
With all that being said, you might ask how I am having difficulty understanding why McCain chose her. Your concern would be valid. Looking at all the above reasons, she's a brilliant pick, right? Well, not really, in my opinion. A central theme in McCain's argument against Obama is that Obama lacks experience, an assessment with which I would agree. But the problem is Palin has LESS experience than Obama. Obama had served eight years as a lawmaker in Illinois, and Palin's been the mayor of a very small town and governor for less than two years. Supporters of Palin point to the fact that she's the "commander-in-chief" of Alaska's National Guard and that she's the governor of the largest state which borders Russia and the Arctic, an area of interest for many nations, and is well-versed in missile defense (because of the missile defense network's equipment is in Alaska), etc, etc.
These things are fluff. Palin is less experienced than Obama and there's really no way around it. I'm not sure that's the message McCain should be sending to Americans. McCain is 72 years old. The median life expectancy for American males is 75.15. McCain has had four bouts of skin cancer, and endured five years in a North Vietnamese prison in which he surely didn't receive appropriate nutrition. I do not doubt that McCain is fit. But my grandfather was fit a week before he died at 76. McCain could feasibly get cancer and die within a few months. Or he could have a heart attack or stroke. He could fall down the stairs and break his neck. Yes, these things could happen to youthful presidents as well, but the risks are higher for a man of McCain's age. McCain, knowing his age is an issue, is asking us to accept as his vice president a person with less experience than the person he's claiming hasn't enough experience to be President. What's worse is his campaign published a statement saying that Sarah Palin is ready to be President. How is it, then, that Obama isn't? McCain is treating us like fools and frankly, if he believes Obama shouldn't be elected President, he's being irresponsible by selecting someone with less experience than his opponent. His age and the possibility of his death is something that shouldn't inherently dissuade people from voting for him, but it should be on their minds, and a sound VP pick should assuage such concerns, not wholly ignore them.
But at the end of the day, I must remember that politics is about the heart, not about the mind. What seems foolish to me clearly seems brilliant to the masses, because they identify with her rather than examine her. Conservative media and figures within Conservatism are very pleased with McCain's pick. All this considered, Palin is an excellent choice as VP, for all the reasons I've stated previously and probably more. Her story is (supposedly) inspiring. She's a mom, a member of the PTA, an outdoorswoman, beautiful. Men want to be with her and women want to be her. Can she lead? Maybe, maybe not. Let's hope that if McCain's elected, we don't have to find out.
America's Pastime Meets Infallibility:
This past Thursday Major League Baseball (MLB) implemented a rule change that takes rulings on certain plays out of the hands of umpires, the men who've been the on-field gods for more than 130 years. Instant replay has been finally, and to the likely joy of casual fans everywhere, incorporated into the game. But only on home runs (fair or foul, whether the ball went over the wall, etc) and fan interference.
I'm not exactly a baseball purist considering I'm a fan of the designated hitter rule in the American League (only). That opinion alone completely rules me out of the "baseball purist club" despite whatever other feelings I have for the game. For instance, I don't like Bud Selig's favorite institution: interleague play. Yes, it's been hugely successful, but I like the idea of two separate leagues that don't see each other during the regular season. For me, it builds a certain amount of mystery. But despite not being a card carrying member of be baseball purist club, I am against the use of instant replay in any manner.
Surely, many of you will disagree, if in fact you like baseball at all (if you do not, simply skip on to the next section). Most of you probably won't since in baseball, "nothing happens and it's boring." I know, I know, a great deal happens in football; quarterbacks take knees at the end of games to run down the clock (baseball's not over until the last pitch), and everyone has to huddle every 15 seconds to strategize. Got it. But despite the fact that nothing happens, baseball has always been officiated by the umpires, and human error is part of the game. Historically, umpires have been exceptionally good at getting calls right. I read an article a few years ago by Tom Verducci of CNNSI. Verducci got the chance to work as an umpire during Spring Training in 2007 and wrote about his experience. He writes:
"There were 167,341 at bats last season over 2,429 games. According to the 2006 "Umpiring Year in Review," a report put together by MLB officials, the men in blue made only 100 incorrect calls, excluding balls and strikes (and in that discipline they were judged to be 94.9% accurate). Not once did a club protest a game." [Emphasis added]
That's pretty good. In fact, considering that there are hundreds of plays in each game, and possibly several during each at-bat, that's an otherworldly success rate. That's better than any one would expect considering the umpires are human. The author of the article also interviewed several active and former umpires, and they struck me with their dedication to getting the calls right, and how they would anguish over missing a call, as rare as it was.
This year though, umpires didn't help their arguments against instant replay all that much, blowing several home run calls early in the season. That pretty much sealed the fate. MLB pressured the umps into accepting instant replay, much as they did with the infamous QuesTec machine that was installed to evaluate umpire effectiveness in calling balls and strikes and to standardize strike zone variation between umpires. So now, instant replay is billed as a "tool at the hands of managers and umpires." They can get the call right now.
It's this sort of slow chipping away at the human element that bothers me. I say this as an avid fan of the Cleveland Indians. I've been burned by botched calls, and not once did I say, "I wish that MLB would use instant replay!" Never have I ever said that, nor would I, even if it meant my team missing the World Series. Blown calls are part of the game, although a very small part. First QuesTec, then instant replay on home run calls. Soon we'll have instant replay decisions on stolen bases and on whether or not an outfielder trapped or caught a fly ball. MLB wants to speed up a game (that has no time limit, mind you) and yet they institute something that will add time. And they make fallible the infallible (umpires). To me it's sad, for reasons others might not be able to understand. The game is played by humans, managed by humans, and officiated by humans. It's how it's always been, and it's worked pretty well. Next maybe we'll have more show boating after home runs…why not go all the way, right?
Word of the Day: Gubernatorial (adj): Of or pertaining to a governor.
On This Day in History: Two relatively bad Roman emperors were born on this day; Caligula in 12 CE and Commodus in 161 CE. Lewis and Clark set out from Pittsburgh, beginning their exploration (1803). The first known victim of Jack the Ripper, Mary Ann Nichols, is murdered (1888). Nazi Germany stages an attack on the Gleiwitz radio station, making it appear that anti-German Poles perpetrated the attack and giving Germany an excuse to make war against Poland and beginning the Second World War in Europe (1939).
"Relax, all right? Don't try to strike everybody out. Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic." – Crash Davis
"The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the party that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections." - Lord Acton
**Formatting and hyperlink errors fixed (1807 EST)
