Morning Coffee (137)

Good Morning Dear Coffee Drinkers.

You might not have realized, and it surely doesn't seem it, but six days ago marked the second anniversary of the Morning Coffee. I wanted to post something on the actual anniversary, but with weddings to attend and moves to make, I didn't get to it. Anyway, it does not seem like I've been doing this (on and off) for two years. One hundred and thirty seven issues and a few random posts (including my first guest writer) later, the "MC" has evolved from a simple email outlining a few early morning thoughts into something, well, sometimes fairly interesting and even insightful. It's been a lot of fun, even though our readership hasn't grown as much as I might like. Despite this, the MC has been read by someone on every continent save Antarctica. We've been read in China, Britain, Brazil, Germany, and Nepal. Imagine that. I hope it's been as fun for you to read as it has for me to write.

Some of you might wonder about the time stamps on each edition. You may have noticed that each MC is labeled as having been posted at 0621 (that's 6:21 AM for you civilians). This is simply to mark the time I first emailed the MC to a few select individuals. But that's not to say the format or content can never change. This is a consumer driven product, and if the consumers have something that they'd like to see implemented, the Brewer is always open to suggestions.

President Obama, or The Election 2008:
I am sure you are expecting a comprehensive, in-depth analysis of the election. I am sure you expected some profound Morning Coffee on Election Day. I apologize that I can not and could not accommodate you. I've driven somewhere around 1,000 miles in three days last week, started a new job on Monday, and have attempted to establish a routine in my new home, so I wasn't in much of a position to read and research and write. What can I say? I missed the boat.

As I'm sure you are aware, the election is over. We have a new President. Believe it or not, nearly four years ago or so, after seeing Obama speak on television, I called a friend of mine and told him that I believed we were watching our next President. A lot has happened since then, but I rarely wavered on my assessment. Obviously, I was right. I probably wasn't right for the right reasons, but I was right. Believe me when I say that he's not my pick. He's not even in my top 20. But, he's our President. He's my Commander-in-Chief. People voted; they spoke their minds through the ballot box. Thus, the election was a success. And we have our first African-American President to boot, which is cause for celebration. (I say we should maybe evaluate his Presidency in four or eight years. Perhaps it won't be so celebratory then.)

Is he the right man for the job? I do not think so. But 60-plus million disagreed. Whether the wool was pulled over their eyes or not, I will not say. I suppose that we'll see, nay? In a democracy, the many are entitled to dictate to the few, and both groups get to suffer together for their mistakes.

I'm sure an Obama Presidency will provide plenty of topics for discussion in the Morning Coffee, as would have a McCain-Palin administration to be sure, so the political flavor of our Coffee will not fall to the wayside. I'm looking forward to it. I've been looking forward to a Democrat-run government for a while now. It should be real fun, folks. Americans spoke. With that, I offer congratulations/condolences to all of them.

McCain's Damage:
Examining McCain's mistakes in this election would take a while, to say the least. Certainly, he made his share of missteps. I lost a lot of respect for McCain when he decided to abandon his 2000 ethos of openness and became a sort of "faux-maverick." He turned grouchy and for all intents and purposes closed for business the "Straight Talk Express," all the while proclaiming he was still a maverick. His campaign also decided to resort to negative campaigning, and turned up the heat a lot. It was sad for me to see such a class act and honorable man turn to such a mockery of himself. I suppose, however, he saw first hand how effective such tactics could be in 2000 when some Bush surrogates used them and eviscerated his bid for the Republican nomination.

It is my opinion that McCain suffered from two fatal flaws, one that he had no control over and another he inflicted on himself. Running as a Republican after a hugely unpopular Bush Presidency is not something McCain could avoid, and that alone likely doomed his campaign to defeat. Personally, I think it's too soon to judge Bush's Presidency one way or the other, and this really isn't the place. Be that as it may, McCain faced a difficult challenge by merit of timing. His second flaw, which he brought upon himself, was the selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate.

I wrote in August that, despite my complete and total dislike of Palin as McCain's running mate, his pick of her might have been a brilliant strategy. But I still thought it foolish for a number of reasons. However, initially, her selection revitalized the Republican conservative base. When the conservative masses go crazy for a candidate, sometimes strange things happen, like them turning out in droves. But then people started to see all the negatives that I saw, and then some. Women and independents, two groups McCain needed and may have in fact targeted by this pick, were grossly turned off by Palin. Throw in a couple of amateurish interviews, and she lost much credibility in the eyes of independents, et al. Certainly, this pick cost him numbers in the popular vote, though it might not have changed the electoral college outcome. I didn't vote for McCain largely because I was concerned about Palin's ability to do much of anything beyond looking foolish. If looking foolish is your running mate's sole asset, you'll have a rough time trying to be the number one on the ticket if you're a 72 year old man with a history of skin cancer.

Perhaps even worse for McCain than just turning off a portion of the electorate is the possibility that Palin "went rogue." That is, she pursued her own interests above those of John McCain. I find this believable and likely, though some pundits think it's sour grapes on behalf of McCain staffers. Regardless, Palin's a trig one (pun), and she probably saw the writing on the wall: Obama was going to win, so she needed to set herself up for a potential run in 2012. And here comes my real problem with McCain's pick of Sarah Palin. He introduced her to America.

Way back in July, no one outside of Alaska knew of Sarah Palin. Now, the GOP base not only knows of her, but is enamored with her, and they have just as much of a tendency to become infatuated with a politician as liberals do. Believe it or not, we might be hearing more from her in the near future, and sadly, she'll have four years to polish up that act of hers. A little more time to memorize talking points on all sorts of issues. Maybe then she'll be able to recall what papers she reads.

With this, the GOP faces an identity crisis. Nothing illustrates this more than the electoral college drubbing of its Presidential candidate and the loss of seats in both Houses of Congress. Is the GOP going to be a party in the Sarah Palin mold or in the Barry Goldwater mold (yeah, I know he lost)? Is it going to delve further into theology, or libertarianism? Is it going to become more radical, or more centrist? Is it going to become more white and old, or is it going to attempt to diversify? I think it will probably go back to what it thinks it knows: ultra-conservatism, with plenty of references to God and family values.

Obama: Fundraising Tycoon:
Besides the introduction of Sarah Palin to the American electorate, the 2008 Election did another thing that might damage America for decades (she's only 44 - we could be stuck with her for another 30 years). Barack Obama took in over a half a billion dollars in his fundraising. I've touched on this issue before. Certainly, money is a pathway to power. Don't tell me that Obama was intrinsically the better candidate. Money got him to where he is. For example, if he was the best candidate in the nation, but didn't raise hundreds of millions of dollars, he wouldn't have stood a chance. Money, money, money, money. I'm not saying that every four or eight years, campaign fundraising will shatter records. But fundraising will never be the same, and while some might use Obama as an example that anyone really can become President, it's best if kindergarten teachers everywhere qualify that by saying, "Anyone who raises billions of dollars can have a chance at becoming President one day."

To wrap up this cup of Joe, I'll leave you with this video, in which Chris Matthews from Hardball tells his interviewers that it's his job to make sure the next administration succeeds. His JOB. I wasn't aware that ensuring the success of any administration was in the job description for journalists. This should be fun, eh? What a joke.

Word of the Day: Mot juste (moh-ZHOOST) (noun): A word or phrase that exactly fits the case.

On This Day in History: Constantius II promotes his cousin Julian to the rank of Caesar, giving him the government of the Prefecture of the Gauls (355 CE). Alvar Nunez Cabeza de Vaca becomes the first known European to set foot in Texas after his ship wrecks (1528). King Gustavus Adolphus the Great of Sweden dies in the Battle of Lutzen (1632). Jefferson Davis is elected president of the Confederate States of America (1861). The CSS Shenandoah is the last Confederate combat unit to surrender after circumnavigating the globe, during which time it sank or captured 37 vessels (1865). Joseph Stalin addresses the Soviet Union for only the second time in his 30 year rule. During his address, he claimed that the Germans had lost 4.5 million soldiers (1941). Plutonium was first made, and subsequently used in the Fat Man (1944).

"Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek." - Barack Obama, 44th President (elect) of the United States, and master rhetorician.

Morning Coffee (132)

Good morgen and such. Of course, maybe it's not morning where you are. Maybe it's night. Maybe you're in Purgatory and you live in perpetual darkness. Maybe the sun never rises on you because you're life is horrible. If any of this is the case, the Morning Coffee will not help brighten your day, because it's only served black. But maybe it will lessen the pain...

Vice Presidential Debates - Part One...and Only:
Speaking of pain, the sado-masochists at the Morning Coffee (me) like pain. That's why we do things like watch political debates. Every hard-hitting, eye-gouging second of them.

Reading the news today, you'll see that Joe Biden, the VP pick of Barack Obama, won the debate. You'll also see that Sarah Palin, the VP pick of John McCain, won the debate. Amazing, isn't it? Two winners.

Immediately after the debate, on Fox News (fair and balanced even), the pundits on Brit Hume's show overwhelmingly suggested that Palin won the debate, except for William Kristol from The Weekly Standard. Kristol did say that Palin did better than Biden, but that he couldn't call a winner.

Many pundits suggested that by simply showing up, Palin would win because the bar had been set so low. Well, we who Brew the Morning Coffee do not give such pity points to poorly experienced politicians. We like to call it like it is: Palin did not come close to winning that debate.

For one, to me debates are formal affairs. As such, I don't really appreciate the folksy lingo used by Palin, although I'm sure many of my fellow citizens do. Actually, it felt sort of forced; thrown out with such frequency that maybe the user wasn't as well versed as she wanted to come across. Her speech seemed to become more riddled with these little sayings as she went along, as if there was a conscious effort to appear more "regular Joe." Again, I'm sure many people loved it, but it bothers me. I got the sense that it's pure pandering. But I also feel that there's a time and place for that sort of speak, and a debate isn't one of them. Forgive me if I'm a stickler for form AND substance at the same time.

With that being said, we did get an awful lot of quasi-substance with Palin last night. She was so eager to dispel the notion that she was out of her league that she felt that she had to literally shotgun the room with her answers. She appeared frantic to me. Not frantic in the sense of hysterics, but frantic in the sense that she had to touch on every issue possible, foreign policy in particular. Contrast this with Biden's far more measured responses to Ifill's questions or Palin's criticisms. Biden was not shotgunning the room. Palin was so eager that she even asked if she could talk about Afghanistan when Afghanistan was not the topic of discussion at that point. Great. Good on her. But she regurgitated talking points like a college student would on a final exam. Context seemed to be lost. How all the pieces fit together didn't seem to cross her mind. The goal was simple: spew out as many "facts" and names (even if the names were incorrect) as possible. That'll show those pundits who say she isn't well versed in foreign policy matters. I will not argue that the governor is a quick study, but I took a class in macroeconomics for 10 weeks, crammed for the final, and passed the class, but you do not want me in charge of anything more complex than my own household's finances.

But oddly, this wasn't even what bothered me most about Palin's performance, as I pretty much knew what to expect on that front. What bothered me most was this comment, made at the beginning of the debate:

"And I may not answer the questions [the way] that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also."

This statement allowed Palin to stick to her narrowly defined talking points all night. There were times when she "talked straight" and straight up didn't bother to answer the question posed by the moderator. Just totally gaffed the questions off and spoke about whatever she wanted to. That bothered me for some reason. She has the opportunity to do dozens and dozens of stump speeches during which she can talk about whatever she'd like. So the least she could do was address the questions Ifill posed, all of which I thought were reasonable. As some might say: "Fail."

In Palin's closing comments, she mentioned that she would like more opportunity to debate with Biden, or at least that's what I took as her meaning. That's probably not going to happen. She emerged from this one relatively unscathed, so the McCain camp won't be looking to throw her up there again. After all, the Obama campaign now knows what to expect from her now. She's no longer an unknown quantity, and the Biden would be better armed to do more serious harm to her and McCain. This is all very unfortunate, because I'd be interested to see how she could perform in subsequent debates. But she had to say it, right?

If anything, I actually came away from this debate liking Joe Biden more, which is to say I really had no opinion of him at all prior to last night. What I liked most was not his personality or his funny habit of referring to himself in the third person, or the fact that he's the second poorest member of the Senate, but his answer to Palin's notion that the "Constitution might give the Vice President more power than it has in the past." She agrees with Dick Cheney's idea of the office. To this, Joe Biden stated:

"Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that...The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous."

Biden is technically wrong; it's Article II that describes the Executive Branch. His point, however, is most appropriate.

Word of the Day: Slugabed (noun): One who stays in bed until a late hour; a sluggard.

On This Day in History: The First Battle of Philippi took place in 42 BCE, during which Mark Antony and Octavian line their legions against those of Brutus and Cassius, assassins of Julius Caesar. In 1849, Edgar Allen Poe was last sean in public when he was found delirious in a gutter in Baltimore. The fourth Thursday in November is declared by Abraham Lincoln as Thanksgiving in 1863. The Russian paper, Pravda, meaning truth, is founded by Leon Trotsky and others in exile in Vienna, Austria in 1908. Germany launches the first successful V-2 rocket, which becomes the first man-made object to reach space in 1942. In 1964, the first ever Buffalo Wings are made at the Anchor Bar in Buffalo, New York (thanks guys!). Germany reunifies in 1990. O.J. Simpson is found not guilty of murdering Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman.

"Clever tyrants are never punished." - Voltaire.

Morning Coffee (130)

Greetings, Glorious Quaffers of the Coffee (five). So much to discuss, yet so little time. I've been meaning to do this all week. I wish my work day started at noon so I could Brew some Coffee prior to having to go to work, but alas, that is not the case. Our little meetings might be relegated to weekend business only. Consider this: I wrote the next paragraph 13 days ago...I really need to finish this...

The Palin Problem:
McCain's selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has most Conservatives salivating. They love her, and her selection has wrought havoc on the self-identity of Liberals. They don't know how to react. It's actually turned them into schizophrenic maniacs. Liberals have been turned on their heads: she must be a terrible mother to her kids because she's a successful woman. Have you ever thought you'd hear a liberal say that? Liberals have attacked Palin's family, saying they're immoral for having a 17 year old daughter who engages in pre-marital sex. That's something you'd expect from Conservatives, yet they've actually been quite calm about that business. Actually, come to think of it, neither side seems to know what to think about her selection. Conservatives/Republicans completely bought into her after one measly speech at the Republican National Convention, and Liberals/Democrats hate her for the very reasons they would normally appreciate her. (I was saying it before anyone else...but I have no proof because I'm lazy and didn't finish writing this...)

My main problem with Sarah Palin, around which all other problems revolve like self-immolating satellites, is that the woman has been on the scene for a nano-second, and so many rational-minded people have become quite enamored with her. They fell in love with her the way so many Democrats fell in love with Obama: after one speech at a party's national convention. McCain may or may not have adequately vetted her, but much of the voting public (Republicans) seemed to have no interest whatsoever in doing so. Some say that the "high" she's brought to the McCain campaign will subside, and if that's the case, I can only hope that people will look at her with a critical eye. Not in an adversarial nature, not spitefully, but critically. Because anyone who is so close to the Office of the President should be critically and thoroughly examined.

Thus far, I do not think Sarah Palin is right for the job, though I could be swayed given evidence of her competence beyond the pithy anecdotes provided by Palin's high school classmates, who pull double duty as members of her governorship. In the last week or so, I've read a great deal about her. I've read the nasty bits written by leftist blogs, and I've read the fan-boy literature written by rightists. I've read the stuff written by those with a more tempered tongue. I still don't like her as VP. I think her being picked was an excellent political move by McCain, which I alluded to during our last meeting, for a number of interesting reasons which have been covered by those with the aforementioned tempered tongues, but I do not think she's right for the job. Let me put it to you this way: Were I to think McCain has what it takes to be President, I'm not thrilled with the idea that if he were incapacitated, Sarah Palin would be running our nation. That doesn't mean I think Obama the better candidate. Quite the contrary; Obama is to me as bad a candidate for the job as Sarah Palin.

We've all heard arguments about whether Palin has enough experience for the job, and the McCain campaign initially asserted that she has plenty of foreign policy experience. After all, she's the governor of Alaska, which if you had a map handy, you would know is right next to Russia. And, golly gee, she's the commander-in-chief of the Alaska National Guard. Of course, Maj Gen Craig Campbell of the Alaska National Guard reminds us that her "commander-in-chief" title means little in terms of her contribution to national security. Oh, and part of the missile defense network resides in Alaska, which implies that mere proximity to national security related infrastructure bestows upon residents and administrators alike a mythical expertise in national security issues. Bollocks.

Thankfully, such flimsy arguments are being abandoned. Instead there's talk of Calvin Coolidge, Theodore Roosevelt, and Harry Truman. See, those guys didn't have a lot of experience when they were tapped as VP candidates either, so by default, Palin must be an alright pick. This brand of thinking makes no sense to me. Ignoring all else, to suggest that because three times in the past 220 years (although all in the 20th century) poorly experience people have been picked as running mates and it turned out alright, then picking poorly experienced running mate must be okay, is absurd. It's sort of like saying that it's okay to drive drunk because you've done it a few times and you didn't crash or get pulled over.

But you cannot ignore all else. Coolidge had 25 years of elected office experience, first in city offices, then serving in his state's legislature. Which was prior to becoming the lieutenant governor, which was prior to him being elected as governor of Massachusetts, which happened to be two years before being asked to be Warren Harding's running mate. That last fact is the only tidbit ever mentioned, because further examination of Coolidge's history puts Palin to shame. Once Harding was elected, he was the first President to invite his VP to Cabinet meetings, which turned out to be fortuitous as Coolidge finished off Harding's term and served one of his own (and turned down a second nomination).

What about Theodore Roosevelt, the youngest President in history? He surely must be more inexperienced than Palin, as he is also mentioned by Palin supporters as having a light resume. I'm not sure how this argument would hold even superficially. Roosevelt was a rare breed. In 1882, at the age of 24, he wrote The Naval War of 1812, for which he did his own research and was widely acclaimed. He later wrote the four-volumned, forward-thinking, The Winning of the West between 1889 and 1896. He was a deputy sheriff in North Dakota. He became president of the board of New York City Police Commissioners in 1895, and made major changes to the police force. Roosevelt was appointed Assistant Secretary of the Navy in 1897, but was the de facto Secretary of the Navy as John Long was mostly inactive. At the outbreak of war with Spain in 1898, Roosevelt formed the "Rough Riders," the First US Volunteer Cavalry Regiment, which he commanded as a Colonel in battle in Cuba. He was nominated for a Medal of Honor for his actions there, and posthumously received it in 2001, becoming the only President to have earned the nation's highest medal. He was elected as governor of New York in 1899. He was then tapped as McKinley's running mate and served as Vice-President until McKinley died, and then served out McKinley's term and one of his own. By no account is Sarah Palin comparable to Theodore Roosevelt.

Harry Truman is another President with whom Palin is compared, since Franklin D Roosevelt kept Truman completely out of the loop. The idea being that Truman was grossly unprepared to take over the Presidency, but did a great job once the position was thrust upon him. Oh, and Roosevelt didn't really know Truman when he was selected, just like McCain doesn't really know Palin. Thus, Palin is as good fo a pick as Truman was (never mind that Roosevelt didn't really want Truman as his running mate). But the issue really is one of irresponsibility: Roosevelt was irresponsible in keeping Truman from knowing anything relating to the war effort, and America was lucky that Truman was up to the task. I would argue that McCain is similarly irresponsible in selecting someone so inexperienced. Of course, Truman had, you know, 20 plus years of experience as an government employee at various levels.

The comparison of Sarah Palin to any of these people is simply absurd. She is, to my knowledge, the most quantitatively and qualitatively inexperienced person to ever be selected as a vice presidential candidate. Take, for instance, this fact: every VP candidate since Spiro Agnew has met with foreign leaders prior to being selected as a running mate. Palin is the first to have never met with a foreign leader during the performance of official duties. Yet we're told that Palin has foreign policy experience simply because her state is next to the most desolate, least populous portion of Russia?

Her impact on the campaign is clear; she's revitalized an ambivalent base, and that is, I suppose, the REAL reason she was selected. Again, masterstroke by the McCain campaign for this reason. If McCain were to die in office, Sarah Palin may or may not do a great job. But despite how likable she may be (and that's the heart of politics), her lack of experience (and numerous other things) gives me severe reservations.

It may turn out that the woman is simply too polarizing and that too much of the McCain campaign's time will be spent deflecting criticism and accusations, and McCain will suffer because of it. A survey of the Brian Ross and Investigative Team's website on 17 September shows 24 stories for Palin, 2 for McCain, 1 for Biden, and none for Obama. Most of the stories had to do with some sort of accusation, be it email, book banning, etc. But I think the McCain campaign has done a pretty good job at deflecting at least one accusation. Remember the "Sarah the Book Banner" story that ran a bit ago? Well, my opinion is that anyone who even thinks about asking a librarian what it takes to ban books is not fit to run our country, and I've seen nothing that indicates that she didn't at least look into it, whatever her end-state intentions may have been. In any event, shortly after that story broke, an alleged list of the books she sought to be banned appeared in the news. Turns out the list was completely falsified, but liberal bloggers jumped all over it and propagated the list all over. My assessment is that this list was generated by someone in McCain's campaign or at the least, a right wing supporter. Why you ask? Well, they knew that it would be a hot-button issue for liberals, and that they'd latch onto it without even really thinking about it. Once it was revealed that the list was wrong, it looked like libelous, hate-mongering by the leftist blogging community and this totally eviscerated the story. So, now we have someone who may or may not have wanted to ban or censor books, but we might not ever know the truth because the validity of the premise has been killed. Score one for some right winger outt there. Hell, the librarian now cannot even remember specifics of the conversation she had with Palin...

On a sub-topic to the Palin issue, you may have heard that she and her administration weighed the merits of using Yahoo! mail in leiu of an official mail account to conduct official business. This way, it would be impossible for someone to subpoena her email. Which is really what transparency is all about, folks. Avoiding the possibility that your government can be scrutinized. Outstanding.

This may all seem like a lot of hate-mongering by the Morning Coffee. Some may fear that I've teetered into the realm of "semi-rag;" mouth-piece of the left. You might think I dislike Sarah Palin. I'm sure that's what most conservatives would think were they to stumble onto my blog. I assure you, this is not the case. I do not dislike Sarah Palin, though I disagree with some of her policies and the way she ran her administration. My take is simple. I try to avoid taking (political) ideological sides or bitterly defending one candidate over another. My goal is to be the adversary of any of them, all of them, who are not behaving; who are trying to pull the wool over our eyes; who are endangering our nation. That's my only goal. Let me be clear: I do not want Sarah Palin as the Vice President of the United States, but that doesn't mean for a second that I want Barack Obama to be the President. Neither of them are qualified. If the masses will take a step back from their emotions, they might see this too.

Word of the Day: Misprize (transitive verb): 1. To hold in contempt; 2. To undervalue.

On This Day in History: The Battle of Chalons, in modern day France, took place on this day in 451 CE. During this battle, Magister militum Flavius Aetius and the Roman allies defeat Atilla the Hun and his allies in what was probably the largest battle in the ancient world and the last major military operation for the Western Roman Empire. This was also likely the first battle to pit a mostly Christian force against a mostly non-Christian force since the death of Constantine I in 337 CE. In 1187, Saladin begins his seige of Jerusalem. Ferdinand Magellen begins his attempt to circumnavigate the globe in 1519. The Walking Purchase, between the Penns and the Lenape tribe of Native Americans, takes place in 1737. The Lenape tribe agreed to sell to the Penns an area from the junction of the Delaware and Lehigh Rivers to as far west as a man could walk in a day and a half, believing it to be approximately 40 miles. The Penns hired three of the fasted runners in the colonies, and Edward Marshall finished the trip, covering a distance of 70 miles, which netted for the Penns 1.2 million acres (roughly the size of Rhode Island). Needless to say, the Lenape believed they were swindled, and tried, unsuccessfully, to nullify the agreement for 19 years. Long gone was William Penn's desire to deal with native tribes fairly, after all, he was dead. Not much else to report...

"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices." - Voltaire

Morning Coffee (129)

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)