Il Piantassimo

 The day Dr. George Tiller died was a sad and terrible one.  Some may be surprised to read this from me.  I am unapologetically pro-life.  But if you have ever read much of what I write, it should not come as a shock I am truly saddened by his murder.

 

I should start by explaining what means to be pro-life.  Being truly pro-life means opposing the unnecessary destruction of live.  Be it through abortion, war or the death penalty, I believe being pro-life means defending the right to live in almost all circumstances.  I can accept some pro-lifers will disagree with my definition.  It is my own, and I don't hold others to it.  But I firmly believe only in defense of yourself or others is it justified to kill.  

 

So to those who supported Tiller's death, I can't help but be sickened by you.  You are the worst sort, those who claim to be pro-life but aren't.  At least pro-choice people embrace their view and defend it.  There is no defense from the hypocrite who uses the abortion issue to satisfy their bloodlust.  These are people who claim to defend life, but really embrace death.   Tiller was doing nothing that justified violence toward him.  It protected no lives, other doctors will easily take his place, and it accomplished nothing.   It hurt.  His death is no less heinous than the deaths caused by abortion, and it will only facilitate abortions. It only proved a portion, I hope a small one, of the pro-life movement supports the very acts they claim to decry.

 

This isn't as important, because murder is bad enough in its own right.  Dr. Tiller deserved to live.  But as a purely political matter, it was profoundly stupid to kill him.  It is a culmination of all that frustrates me about the pro-life movement.  That single selfish act will do more to set the pro-life movement back than Dr. Tiller's activities did to help it.  It gave fuel to those pro-choicers who will seek to capitalize from his death.  The pro-life movement is fractured, and embraces far too many radical and irrelevant viewpoints, and that is why it fails despite strong identification among Americans.  If ever they realized their own stupidity, their arguments might win the day.  I've learned not to hold my breath.

 

I had no respect for Tiller.  I suspected he performed late-term abortions electively.  But I have respect for him now.  He died for his beliefs, heinous though they may be and in his death he proved right the accusations leveled against his opponents.  I find the reaction of many pro-choicers who are using his death to attack all pro-lifers horrible and shameful.  But I can't criticize them, when my true anger is leveled at the person who killed Tiller and those who support his death.  I am not ashamed to be pro-life.  I am not ashamed to oppose the crime of abortion.  But today, I am deeply ashamed of all those who celebrate Tiller's death.

I don't understand why Obama would bring Hilary Clinton into this administration especially as Secretary of State. I have not heard a single legitimate reason as to why he made this decision.  And there are countless reasons why it is a horrible choice:
 

1. Politically, it is only going to bring trouble for Obama.  His supporters rallied behind him precisely because they were disillusioned at Clinton's old guard attitude.  He was brought in to ensure people like her are no longer in government.  This is supposed to be a step forward.  So Obama has immediately slapped his supporters in the face.  Not only that, in my view, the Clinton campaign engaged in race-baiting all throughout the primaries.  I'm not saying Hilary directly approved of those tactics, but she certainly didn't go out of her way to criticize them.  So he's made himself look foolish by bringing in someone who has interest in his failure.
 

I understand the counter-argument.  If she's a part of his administration, any mark against him is a mark against her.  But if that's his reason, it is purely political and thus very disappointing.  And it may not even work.  There are ways he could go down without her going with him.  Or if she comes to dominate foreign policy, she could look like the brains behind the administration and he the wide-eyed rookie.  If they are using the "keep your enemy's closer" logic, it is a recipe for disaster.
 

2. It also violates Obama's campaign pledge for bipartisanship.  Clinton is a divisive figure.  Even if she wanted to, she does not have the capacity to reach into the vast right-wing conspiracy.  There is simply too much bad blood and too many people rooting for her to fail.  Obama has a mandate right now.  Even many Republicans want to see him fix this mess.  Why ruin that?
 

3. This is the most important reason.  She is simply a poor candidate for Secretary of State.  She has none of the qualifications required for the position.  She has little experience in foreign relations.  She brings the baggage of Bill Clinton's relationship with many of the foreign leaders she will deal with.  Yes, that relationship may have been good in some cases, but it still undermines her and Obama.  And she has never displayed the capacity to take orders from a higher authority.  She doesn't have any experience.  She ran on experience she never possessed.  She was First Lady!  Albeit, she was a more active First Lady than most, but she was not elected by the people or appointed by the President.  She had no real job, especially no job relating to the State Department.  She was a high-ranking unofficial advisor who was never held to task for any mistakes she made because she had no real position.  She's not Bill Clinton, and if she plans to have him involved to make up for her inadequecies, things are going to go even worse.
 

This pick is extremely disconcerting to me.  She wasn't qualified to be President or Vice-President, and she's not qualified to be Secretary of State.  Why not Bill Richardson?  Yes, he got another position, but he was much better suited for this job.  Obama talks about dealing with dangerous leaders, well, Richardson has actually done it, successfully.  He has shown the ability to deal with psychotic governments without showing weakness.  There is no reason to believe Clinton has those skills and every reason to believe she doesn't.  There were countless better choices.
 

I don't get it.

I was saddened when I heard that Michael Crichton died.  I read almost all of his books when I was in junior high.  Coincidentally, I had reread some of them recently, Jurassic Park, Lost World, Congo, and Eaters of the Dead.  They held up just as well as I remembered.  His books combined a love of science, albeit fictionalized, and a recognition of its awesome benefits, with a healthy recognition of its potential dangers.  He entertained a lot of people, and that's something to be proud of.

Barack Obama, America's first black President, has been elected President of the United States.  If anyone is actually reading this, I encourage to stop for a moment and digest that fact.  Obama will have to deal with the realities of actually being President, but regardless of what happens this is a momentous occasion.  There should be pride about this, whether or not you supported him. 
 

But very soon, Obama will have to actually be President.  He will need to do the job.  And he will be doing it in a very unique atmosphere.  Obama transcended party, race, age, and just about every other dividing line, as polls are showing.  In many ways, he ran a very clean campaign, almost unprecedently so.  He defeated one of the most popular figures in the Republican Party, and although McCain was acting more like Bush than himself in this election, he was still a formidable opponent.  So Obama has shown he is unique.  That's one mark in his favor.  He ran a campaign in a way few have had the courage to do, and he won.
 

However, make no mistake, the celebration will fade fast, as it always does.  Obama has built for himself an image, that he must hold true to.  He ran as a bi-partisan candidate, that will change American politics.  So far in the campaign, in my opinion, he lived up to that.  But Obama's record is far from bi-partisan.  The accusations that he was an extremely liberal politician were not inaccurate.  He will need to show he is not going to be a traditional politician, because that is what his supporters will be expecting.  It is a shaky coalition he has created for himself, and high expectations that will be very difficult to meet. 
 

There is, excuse me for saying, hope he will.  Obama has almost everything he needs, Democratic majorities, and a wide base of support of the country.  And there was a reason the old guard of the Democratic Party opposed his nomination so fiercely.  They heard the rhetoric of bi-partisanship as much as the voters did.  Anyone who causes the enmity of politicians like Hilary Clinton has a lot going for him in my book.  So, there is a lot of reason to believe Obama is exactly as advertised, or at least close to it. 
 

We all should hope he is, whether or not we supported him.  I do, and I believe he will be, although I'm prepared for disappointment.   America is facing many obstacles.  Obama has promised to work with all Americans to overcome these obstacles.  For now, I'm with him, and regardless of how they voted, I hope the rest of America is to.
 

A note about McCain:  I don't agree with the way he ran his campaign, and I didn't support him but I truly feel badly for him.  If anyone can be said deserve the Presidency, it is McCain.  I certainly believed he deserved it in 2000, and if I had been old enough to vote then, I would have supported him.  If he had run that same campaign now, I think he would be the winner tonight (That isn't a reference to choosing Palin by the way.  I maintain my defense of her as a VP choice) .  For whatever reason, he chose not to, and surrounded himself with Bush lackeys.  I think he will come to regret that.  But either way, he is a noble and good man, who has done more for America than almost any other politician.

I have been hearing a phrase repeated by people for many years now, especially those of the anti-theist persuasion.  It goes something like this: "All wars in history are caused by religion."  Of course, just like most unqualified statements it's absurd.  Most of human history is unrecorded, and to make almost any statement like that about history is therefore ridiculous.  But even if you change "all" to "most" it fails to hold water.
 

For example, take the First Crusade.  Ostensibly it was a religious conflict.  But if you actual bother to read works by real historians, the true causes are revealed.  I'll give a brief summary (though I'm not even close to doing it justice here.)  At the time of the First Crusade, knights were all powerful.  And these weren't the chivalrous, gallant ones you read about in fair tales.  Knights were basically thugs.  And many of them were landless thugs during this time.  It was a problem of inheritance.  Too many children, and not enough land.  Of course, they counteracted this by having some of their children go into the priesthood, but many did not find that a suitable profession for them.  So they simply took the land, and created their own fiefdom.  It was a terrible situation.  Europe had an overabundance of these warriors (not all of them could even be called knights), tearing apart the countryside, murdering peasants, and constantly warring.  Naturally the people turned to the only international organization at the time:  The Catholic Church.  The Pope's solution was simple.  Send these young men on a Crusade, supposedly to defend the Holy Land, but actually to get them out of Europe.

 

Even the most religious conflict we can think of, the wars between the Protestants and the Catholic Church, had deeper causes.  The Catholic Church was of course, despite what people may want to forget, the preserver of knowledge through the Dark Ages (I'm Protestant, by the way).  It was a necessity as a uniting force after the collapse of the Roman Empire.  But gradually it outlived its usefulness in this regard.  In fact, the real origin of the conflict was as much the system of nobility as it was Martin Luther.  Nobles were tired of being pushed around by the Pope, and so they converted to Protestantism.  Other nobles saw it as a reason to attack their neighbors and get more land, and so they remained Catholic.  It was a desire for land and expansion.  The real victims were the peasants, genuinely religious people being victimized by those who saw faith as an opportunity instead of a real, tangible belief.  That's not to say no nobles were spurred by religion, but it was awfully convenient that this religious motivation also lined their pocket books.
 

You get the idea.  Every war has deep causes, and to assume only one is to blame, or even that there should be blame is a mistake.  Why should we blame anyone for the Crusades?  They were legitimate wars, wars I wish never happened, but no different than any other war of the period.  Muslims made as many incursions north as Christians did south.  The Holy Land was the target for many, but a Christian warrior was just as likely to choose a Christian target on his way, if he thought it was easier to take.  That's write, Christians attacked Christians all the time during the Crusades. 
 

It's like when people blame all wars on adherents of Judaism.  It may give you an outlet for your bigotry, but it's not reality.  War was a part of life for most of human history.  I don't think that's a good thing, but it is the reality of our history.  People fought over land, money and resources because until very recently both were in short supply.  They are still in short supply outside of the industrialized world, and that's why there is so much chaos in so many places.  Religion is sometimes (though not as often as anti-theists pretend) a catalyst for these problems, but the problems and the violence exist with or without religion.
 

I hate to use the word, but it actually is a little stupid to try to simplify history like this.  It shows a complete ignorance, indeed a contempt, for genuine historical study.  Aren't anti-theists supposed to embrace rationality and learning?  Make no mistake, many religious people are just as guilty of this.  But apparently history has become a blank slate, we can project just about anything we want onto.  It isn't just revisionist history, it's a complete rewriting to suit your own purposes.  Religious or non-religious, such behavior should be ignored and ridiculed.  History was about real people, just as smart as we are today, with real motivations.  Please learn a little about it before you decide to write your own version.

I just finished reading Brave New World, this amazing and powerful book.  I liked it for a number of different reasons I'm not going to go into.  I'll simply encourage anyone who hasn't read it to give it a shot, though it may not be to everyone's taste.
 

What really got me thinking after I had time to digest the book was the forward at the front, by Christopher Hitchens.  Christopher Hitchens is a man whose views I don't particular care for, to say the least.  Honestly, I think he is a bigot, against all religions that do not match his own anti-theism.  And he supports (or supported, he may have jumped off the bandwagon by now) the worst parts of the Bush Administration, namely the war.  I very much doubt we agree on anything, except perhaps our mutual admiration for America.
 

Yet, he found as much meaning and importance in that book as I did.  Our reasons were completely different.  He did not see the same things I saw.  But we both admire it.  I see a world in which the soul has been killed, and the final extremely melancholy ending as a culmination of this terrible world.  Hitchens does not believe we have a soul.  For both of us, it is a horror story, more frightening than any monster story, yet it is scary for different reasons.
 

I just think that says something about the power words can have, the power to inspire completely opposite thoughts and feelings from the same exact text.

I believe in Sola Scriptura.  Sola Scriptura is the belief that Scripture, in this case the Bible, is the sole authority in Christian doctrine.  It is the belief that the individual Christian is the best interpreter of God's Word.  The Word of God can be understood by the individual Christian through reason.  Sola Scriptura is the opposite of authoritative interpretation, which holds that Scripture is only one part of the Sacred Tradition and it can only be properly understood through a medium ostensibly appointed by God. 
 

I have no problem with those who choose to believe in authoritative interpretation.  My purpose here is to simply make a case for my belief.  Sola Scriptura, in my view, is the most logical and consistent way to understand the Word of God.  The basic belief inherent in one who holds to this doctrine is that the Bible was designed for individual consumption.  This seems consistent with the manner in which it is written, not as a guide for telling others how to reach salvation, but a guide to personal salvation.  Jesus did not sacrifice Himself for any Church, He sacrificed Himself for each individual human.  So His sacrifice should be understood by each individual human.  The Ten Commandments do not preach how a Church should act, but how the individual should act.  The stories of the Bible would mean nothing to a Church father who already believes and supposedly is already holier than a lay person, but they mean everything to those on an individual spiritual path.
 

To hold to authoritative interpretation, one must first believe that such authority can actually exist.  To me, I'm not sure how the various claims between the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans or other churches that emphasize authoritative interpretation can be justified.  Certainly the first two have equally legitimate claims to being part of the "first  church," although both have been altered significantly from the church of the first Christians.  The criticism most often labeled against Sola Scriptura is that it is subjective and causes fractioning within the community of Christians.  Undoubtedly this is true, and yet if we look above, you can see there are several Churches claiming authoritative interpretation, so clearly the universal nature of authoritative interpretation has long long ago lost its universality and become fractioned itself.  Even if one could claim to be the true authority on interpretation, I can't see how Sacred Tradition is justified.  How can the Pope or any other Church leader, who is a mere man, make proclamations equal to those made by Christ?  If we are to follow those words equally to that of Christ, doesn't that mean the Pope is on par with our Savior?  That is a belief I could never endorse.
 

But most importantly for me, is the issue of Salvation.  Jesus offers Salvation for all who will believe in Him.  That much is plain.  So where does the authority in authoritative interpretation fit in?  Jesus sacrificed Himself for humanity, so surely He expects individual humans to understand and recognize this sacrifice.  This doctrine suggests there needs to be an intermediary between God and His children, but I think since God created us in His image, each individual person has the capability of following His will.
 

In the end, my main problem with authoritative interpretation is that it seems to be willing to suggest unity and consistency of belief is more important than the accuracy of the belief itself.  If one holds to this view, I would not think any less of them.  I have no authority to dictate what one should believe.  I just wanted to explain here why I hold to Sola Scriptura.

Coming into the VP debate, I didn't know what to expect from Palin.  After watching the debate, my conclusion is still just as ambiguous.  I think she did well in many places.  She did her job in attacking Obama.  But she was clearly nervous.  At times, she rose to the occasion and showed confidence.  At other times, she floundered.  It was a truly mixed bag.  She certainly didn't do as bad as her detractors claimed she would, not by a long shot.  And maybe that in some ways is a victory, though I have no doubt those that loathe her will see exactly what they expected, not what actually occurred.  But Palin still failed to fulfill her duties as Vice Presidential candidate completely. 
 

Specifically, she showed weakness in her number one duty:  Defend McCain.  Of course she attacked Obama repeatedly.  And she talked extensively about her record, which Biden wisely ignored, since she isn't running for President.  But in defending John McCain she fell flat.  That was a glaring error.  Biden was fully willing to defend Obama point by point, while Palin, completely ignored attacks by Biden.  That was a damagin weakness throughout the debate. 
 

Don't misunderstand me, Biden made his share of mistakes.  But they will go unnoticed, because fair or not Palin was the focus.  She did enough to deflect any ridiculous ideas about replacing her, a nonsense notion anyway, but she also made enough mistakes to be fodder for her opponents.  Only the final election result will show whether or not she was a wise pick, but right now, for me at least, I'm no closer to determining her worthiness for the VP spot than I was before the debate.
 

Did she deflect enough of the criticisms against her?  Not for those who hate her, it wouldn't matter if she morphed into Hilary Clinton.  But at least for me, it's still up in the air.
 

Of course, I also think the Vice President is a minor consideration when deciding to vote for someone.  Unless they are in outer space like Cheney, which neither Biden nor Palin are, the importance of the VP is overall very small.

The first debate is over.  I've broken it down in detail below.  But first I'll say, it was impossible to declare a winner.  I think both candidates had their moments, and both made obvious mistakes.  Obama was definitely more collected, and his performance was far more consistent.  But when McCain was on, he cut into Obama with a high degree of success.  McCain had some very effective lines in the debate, even though they were blatantly rehearsed.  It is evident that both had a palpable dislike of each other, much more so then I expected.  And the fact that both were former Senators played heavily in the debate.  They called on their record when necessary, and vehemently distanced themselves when convenient.  But onto the actual issues discussed:
 

This analysis isn't necessarily pointing to who was more factual accurate or who I believe was correct.  It is who made the better argument on the debate floor,
 

First, there was the issue of the current economic crisis.  Neither candidate had much to say about how to solve this crisis or about the 700 billion dollar bailout.  It's not surprising, since it isn't clear what the final result of that will be.  But it would have been nice for one to have the courage to state their firm belief, even if it might end up meaning they would have to oppose the bill.  In any case, they seemed more intent on talking about their economic plans post bailout.  McCain was clearly outmatched here.  Obama has the natural advantage, because he can easily oppose the failed policies of Bush.  McCain opposed many of them as well, but he had to tread more carefully.  His continual emphasis on earmarks, while important and noble, did nothing to address the concerns about the housing market, health care, outsourcing, etc.  I realize this was not the focus of this debate, but once Obama got into it, McCain was obliged to respond.  It was a mark against him.  Obama hit McCain repeatedly with his 95% tax cut proposal, and his emphasis on closing loopholes.  I thought McCain had him with the business tax argument, but Obama made a very effective reply to a convincing argument from McCain.  McCain overall seemed less comfortable with the subject, though he clearly wasn't inept as some people want to portray him.  That being said, the idea that Obama "warned" about the impending housing crisis is not very believable.
 

Then the focus shifted to foreign policy.  Here McCain made many good marks against Obama.  His repeated quoting of Obama's conflicting statements on the surge was damaging.  And as someone more sympathetic to Obama's perspective on Iraq, I found McCain compelling.  Obama was more successful on Afghanistan and Iran, but McCain, got to the issue of sanctions first, defusing any notion of being hawkish on Iran.  He did not allow Obama to portray him as a war monger in the least, whether that is actually the case or not, and so McCain was able to use his experience against Obama to great effect.  Both had strong language at times, and both favored restraint, but McCain seemed more comfortable in this role.  It helped him greatly that the first debate was focused on foreign policy.
 

On Russia and Pakistan, I thought they were fairly even, because there was much more agreement.  Although Obama's statements about attacking Pakistan, while meaningless now that leadership has changed there, were dead wrong.  Eliminating a pro-American in a country where the majority of people sympathize with Islamic extremism, would not have made capturing Bin Laden any easier.  In fact, it will be more difficult now that the leader has changed, regardless of whether he was a dictator.  But other than that, I didn't see either candidate scoring many points against the other.
 

McCain had the edge for most of the night and I thought he exploited it.  Both were aggressive, but McCain seems better at it.  However, Obama made the differences clear, and did not shy away.  He knew when and where to score his hits. 
 

Overall, there were more attacks that I prefer, I liked the free flowing format better, and it was an interesting first debate.  What was most obvious to me after watching this debate was that divisive politics are not going away.

This is kind of playing off my previous comment.  It seems now more than ever we are seeing a politicization of Christianity.  Presidential candidates usually play the game of who's more religious.  For example, this campaign, we've seen the candidates interviewed by Rick Warren for a Christian audience supposedly representing Christian concerns.  I have nothing against Rick Warren.  In fact, I thought his questions were topical and did address many concerns I have.  But even though I was satisfied with his interview, the entire nature of the interview itself bothered me a little.
 

Jesus often criticized the Pharisees for how intertwined they were with politics.  The Pharisees feared Jesus because He transcended earthly concerns in both His sermons and mere existence.  It seems to me Christians should also strive for this.  I don't believe they should be unconcerned with politics.  But by attempting to put Christianity into politics, most Christians do not seem to fear the naturally recoil of such push:  The politicization of Christianity.  It has created a situation where Christians divide themselves not just on religious differences, but political ones as well.  As I posted before, I don't agree with the terrible schisms and mutual distrust of religious differences within Christianity.  But at least these are understandable.  To me, dividing Christians based on political issues is not at all acceptable.  You are basically putting politics before faith when you do this.
 

Now, I understand that there are issues that seem to speak directly to what Christ preached.  The abortion issue for example.  I am pro-life myself, and understand the conviction inherent in believing in the right to life.  I believe that right is secularly and religiously justified and I feel the same passion that all have the right to exist.  But the truth is, although you can read the Bible and see echoes of what Christ preached in modern issues, no one has the authority to speak directly for God on any issue, no matter how contentious.  If you demand that all Christians feel the way you do about a particular political issue, you are in essence claiming that issue is the center of your religion, instead of the sacrifice of Christ.


There's nothing wrong, in my view, about invoking religion in favor of a cause you feel is of dire concern.  It worked to great success in the fight against slavery.  What I'm suggesting is out of bounds is not when you say "I believe this for Christian reasons" but when you say "If you don't believe what I do, you are not a Christian."  No doubt it is a fine line.  But I do believe there is a line.
 

We are commanded to have faith in Christ and repent our sins first and foremost, and I do not understand or agree with putting Earthly political issues above our faith as Christians.  But I fear some find politics here more interesting that distant Salvation.

I had the radio on yesterday, trying to find something decent to listen to when I happened across a Christian radio station.  I have listened to this station before, and find their commentary interesting most of the time.  But this particular conversation disturbed me.  It was an explanation of why exactly Mormons are not Christian.  I am not Mormon, and reject the major tenets of their faith.   But I had never before thought about whether or not they were Christian.
 

I noticed a strange lack of Biblical justification for the tirade against the Mormon faith.  And so, I decided to look very carefully at what the Bible tells us about how to worship Christ.  It seemed quite plain to me.  Time after time, the followers of Jesus are instructed to pray for Christ for forgiveness, and worship Him as the Savior.  Repentance and faith are the path of the Christian.
 

So why aren't they good enough?  Many Catholics will tell you you must believe in the one true Church to be of the true faith.  Protestants in general will tell you, you must not believe in the Catholic Church to be of the true faith.  Belief in the Holy Trinity exactly as outlined by the first Christians is demanded almost universally.  Any equivocations are assaulted as heresy.  Puritans in times of old would have said you must believe in predestination, and that the majority of us were born not being true Christians.  And the radio station I was listening to told me I better not be Mormon.
 

Coincidentally I am reading a biography of John Adams currently.  And I found some very apt words that summarize my feelings on this subject.  At the time, John Adams was drifting toward Unitarianism.
 

"“Howl, Snarl, bite, Ye Calvinistick! Ye Athanasian Divines, if You will. Ye will say, I am no Christian: I say Ye are no Christians: and there the Account is ballanced. Yet I believe all the honest men among you, are Christians in my Sense of the Word.""
 

And I believe the same.   I think sometimes we Christians desperately want someone to tell us we are better.  It is the sin of pride.  The Bible states we are the children of God.  As His children, we desperately wish for superior recognition.  We are not content.  And so we tear down those faiths that do not adhere to dogma forged by man, desiring praise from each other as the best of God's children.  Maybe that's a little harsh.  But I believe there is a difference between your first loyalty being to the name of your Church instead of your God.
 

The Bible states that you must have faith in Christ and repent to be a true follower of God.  That's enough for me.  Whether you are Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, Catholic, Methodist, or any of a variety of denominations created by man, that has no bearing on our standing before God, where we all stand as equals and are judged for our faith in Christ and our repentance for our sins alone.

Wow.  More has happened in the last twenty-four hours in politics than has happened in the last twenty four days.  Obama made a historic speech, and McCain made a historic VP pick.  So who's winning?  I have no clue, but it's fun to watch.
 

Obama's speech was unbelievable.  It's hard to imagine anyone, even the most ardent Republican, not acknowledging that Obama gave a beautiful speech.  It was perfect.  There wasn't a single mistake, he said all the right things.  And it didn't just appeal to the Democrats in that room, it was a direct appeal to all Americans.  Yet the hard-core Democrats lapped it up with the same fervor.  In that moment, I was nearly swayed to deciding on Obama.  But I held back.  After all, McCain hasn't been given his turn yet.
 

And I'm glad I did, because it seems the RNC is going to be almost as interesting.  Nothing can match Obama's speech, but Sarah Palin is a great pick.  In my previous entry, I dismissed picking a woman as pandering.  I regret that now, because I had no idea Sarah Palin existed.  I still maintain Huckabee or even Liebermann would have been a better pick, but Sarah Palin seems to have everything going for her.  She's new, she's right on cultural issues, she's enormously popular in Alaska (of course, so are space heaters), but she's not completely out there on the economy.  She's a good balance.  I already suspect the media is going to attack her on her inexperience.  They are already saying it negates McCain's argument. against Obama  I agree, to a certain extent.  But even a year and a half as a governor is more experience than equal time as a Senator.  There's no doubt her executive experience wins out, but just barely.
 

It will be interesting to see how the Obama campaign approaches this.  Obama made one of the best speeches in history last night.  But already the focus has shifted on to McCain's VP pick.  Obama will have the unusual problem of a newcomer.  For so long now, he's been the fresh, new face attacking the old, brittle establishment.  How will he react to when a newcomer comes at him?

Who should John McCain's running mate be?  I'm not endorsing John McCain, I have yet to make my decision.  I'm looking at this from a purely political perspective.  Now that Obama has announced Biden it's even more key that McCain makes a good pick.  Biden is an excellent debater, and McCain needs to pick someone who can go toe to toe with him.  I personally believe it would be a mistake for McCain to go with a traditional vice presidential candidate.  Barack Obama's grass roots strength is immense, and I don't think McCain can rely on his "wait it out" strategy that got him the Republican nomination.  He is gaining strength and if he wants to keep gaining he needs to take a risk.  So immediately I would throw out guys like Pawlenty.
 

The rest of the candidates proposed are interesting.  Mitt Romney has economic strength, but I don't think it is enough to justify putting him up against Biden.  I thought Romney's performances in the Republican debates were sub-par.  It would be much worse if he went against someone like Biden.  The proposal of a woman candidate is also intriguing.  But I think putting a token woman on the ballot would leave McCain open to intense criticism.  The most qualified woman in the Republican party right now is Condoleeza Rice, and McCain may as well put up the white flag if he has her on the ticket.  Anyone associated with the Bush Administration should be out of the question.  Then there's Joe Liebermann.  I doubt McCain would pick him, but Liebermann would be McCain's second best choice.  It throws Obama's bipartisan argument out the window.  It may upset Republicans, but I still think they would support McCain in the end.
 

So who's the best pick?  I give that award to Mike Huckabee.  Yes, you are reading that right.  Huckabee isn't even on the radar, and is almost a certainty not to be chosen.  And I think that is a foolish move.  Huckabee is right in line on cultural issues.  That would satisfy McCain's weakness just as Obama satisfied his foreign policy weakness with Biden.  Huckabee's weakness as far as Republicans are concerned is economic issues.  But Republicans are facing a time when it is their economic views that are getting them into trouble.  I think a more moderate voice on fiscal policy will greatly help McCain.  And he's also an excellent debater.  I think he could stand with Biden.  Could he beat him on foreign policy?  No, that's his second glaring weakness.  But there is no one else in the Republican party, except McCain himself, who can.  So there's no point in trying to pick someone who has a halfway decent record, and who will get just as demolished.  Better to pick a good speaker, who is right on every other issue with America.


I'm sure the McCain campaign is waiting for my word on this subject.  Surely that's why they haven't already announced right?

The 2008 Olympics came to a close yesterday.  I am a fan of the Olympics.  Many sports I wouldn't normally pay any attention to suddenly hold my interest when a gold medal is at stake.  These Olympics in particular seemed to mean much more than previous games.  Michael Phelps clearly stole the show.  In my estimation, he has solidified himself as the greatest Olympian of all time.  But that's another debate.  The main result of the games was political.  It was China's reintroduction to the world.  Was it a successful reintroduction?  Well, the result ended up being a mixed bag.
 

The opening and closing ceremony were fantastic.  China showed off its culture and progress.  It was a mix of technological wonder and ancient ceremony.  The added touch of never using the same performer twice allowed China to flex just how many people make up this great nation.  Usually regarded as one of their weaknesses, China showed it was a strength.  China proved itself to be a gracious host as well.  Like any nation, they cheered their home athletes at the top of their lungs, but they were polite even to their enemies.  China showed they are indeed a rising power, and they reduced some of the fear people feel about this.  There should be nothing but praise for the spectacular efforts of the Chinese people.
 

And yet, it should also be acknowledged that these games revealed some of the darker elements within China today.  We saw this plainly in the lead up to the games.  The hopeless situation of the Tibetan people was highlighted.  The government of China is not giving Tibet greater freedom, they are tightening the noose.  They are colonizing Tibet, and in spite of fervent protests freedom seems a long shot (China has also temporarily blocked access to iTunes because of a Free Tibet song featured there).  Then there was China's approach to the athletic part of the games.  It was most evident during the gymnastic events.  China has almost undoubtedly employed underage athletes in these games.  China was willing to break rules to win.  They also were the only country to have a strict plan for winning as many medals as possible.  China purposefully emphasized less popular sports, like diving, trying to take advantage of less serious competition.  They also instituted a program to identify and train athletes from birth.  They executed this plan with amazing precision.  But these are not healthy ways to approach what is supposed to be a uniting competition.  China was here not for friendly competition, but to dominate.  They didn't quite succeed.  The United States held their own.  I would call the end result a draw.  Not entirely a victory or a defeat for China.
 

Overall the Chinese showed a mixture of good will and yet also showed they were very serious about forging their new place in the world at any cost.  It was definitely one of the strangest and most compelling Olympic games in history.

Barrack Obama and Joe Biden.  Is it a smart team?  I watched the speeches by each candidate, and even happened to be awake at the late hour the announcement was leaked to the press.  First, I should make a comment on that whole mess.  It seems to me the Obama Campaign stretched it out far too long.  Whoever leaked it clearly calculated their timing, to minimally interfere with Obama's announcement.  But it still forced them to send out their precious text message early in the morning.  The Obama campaign seems to consistently have a problem buying into its own hype.  They attempted to build and build until they overstepped.  Most outlets were predicting Biden anyway.  The whole thing ended up being silly.

But back to Biden.  Why did Obama select a Senator who openly chastized him as ill-prepared?  Obviously Obama wants someone with foreign policy experience who is not Hilary Clinton.  And in spite of the damaging add the McCain camp had ready-made, I do think Obama made the best choice.  Despite Obama's misstep in introducing Biden, I also think it was an effective introduction.  The speeches were superb by both Biden and Obama.  Their connection also seemed genuine.  Biden has the experience Obama lacks, and after his second failed bid for the Presidency, he is willing to put himself 2nd in exchange for a fast track to the Presidency.

That being said, the Biden pick raises one big question.  Why didn't Obama pick Hilary Clinton?  Undoubtedly it was over Bill Clinton's Jesse Jackson comment.  Of course, there are many other factors, but I think that is the root of it.  The Obama people, and probably Obama himself felt stung by that remark.  Obama felt tinges of racism in Clinton's attacks (Certainly in Mark Penn's case, I think they were right.)  I strongly believe Obama's choice not to pick Clinton was personal, not political.  And we'll see if that affects things as the campaign advances.  Can Obama win without Hilary Clinton's full support, which I don't believe he has?  Well, he's done well so far without her, so possibly.

Biden was Obama's wisest choice.  But he has weaknesses, and so does Obama.  Only time will tell whether the rookie and the fading star can win.

My real name is Sam.

The purpose of this journal is not to record the boring mundane day to day life I live, but to record the boring mundane views I have about politics and current events.  I hold no illusions that anyone should or does care what I think, this is purely for my own entertainment.  If however, anyone does happen to read anything I write, and wishes to mock, deride criticize or, on rare occasion, praise, feel free to do so.  I will accept all comments and reply in kind.