Note: This is a three column page; actually all the pages here are three columns wide. If third column is not appearing for you, please just stetch your browser's view of the document to its full width and they should all show fine. There is a surprising disparity in appearance from different screens and different browsers!

ARTICLE DIRECTORY


Things are not as they seem ... Nor are they otherwise

THE BUTTON!

THE BUTTON!
Warning: Press at Your Peril - Thoughts and Ideas Inside!

27.9.08

Let Sarah Be Sarah!

September 26, 2008

Let Sarah Be Sarah!
This is absurd.

I have seen Sarah Palin speak. I have seen Sarah Palin debate. I have seen Sarah Palin give news conferences and take press questions.

The woman running with McCain is not that Sarah Palin.

The one I am familiar with is articulate, bright, witty ... and totally unafraid.

The one that McCain’s handlers are trotting out to regurgitate memorized talking points that they have been cramming in her head until thinking becomes impossible ... is not articulate, bright nor witty. And they’ve got her scared to death. I’m quite sure she is not scared of Katie Couric or Charles Gibson or Sean Hannity. And she is definitely not scared of reporters.

I am convinced that McCain’s handlers (who didn’t want her on the ticket to start with and have been more negative towards her candidacy than Obama’s camp) have decided that she is to say approved phrases and nothing else so she is desperately attempting to memorize stupid approved lines, some of which she has no real understanding of what they mean.

Sarah is doing this because she is afraid all right. She is afraid of not doing a good job for her boss. She is afraid of letting down "the great man" John McCain.

So she tries to do what she is told and as a result we are seeing a caricature of the real Palin.

Senator McCain: If you had the guts to roll the dice and choose Sarah, have the guts to live with your decision and let her be Sarah!

What do you have to lose John? You're going to lose the election if you don't. Your only chance to win it is to let her loose. Just like your only chance to win it a month ago was to choose her. You made the right choice once. If you want a shot at this job ... you have to make the right choice again.

Your handlers are making a laughingstock out of her! Turn her loose!

Let the lady rip! She can turn an interviewer upside down and have them so confused they can’t remember their middle names. If she doesn’t understand something ... the worst thing for her to have to do is to try to rummage through the list of approved "talking points" that the handlers have made her memorize.

McCain had the guts and the vision to choose someone who could have pulled him across the finish line ahead of Obama ... but by letting his handlers take over again he has shown his lack of confidence in her which just contributes to her "trying harder" to please by sticking to the script like a good little girl.

News Flash!!! John McCain ... are you listening? You need to be or you are going to lose this election. Sarah Palin is not a good little girl! [Which has nothing to do with her religious beliefs or church attendance or protecting herself from witchcraft!]

Sarah smoked dope. She was pregnant before she got around to getting married. I’d bet dollars to donuts that Todd wasn’t the first and only either. She can use ... potent ... language when it is called for. And ... check just a little into basketball history [I’m older than Sarah but our schools play Wasilla; both when I played basketball and when my daughter was the team captain for her team. My daughter was on a team that won a state title too. Sarah’s high school basketball career was between that of myself and my daughter so, to the best of my knowledge and memory I don’t recall actually seeing Sarah play.]

But there are two kinds of basketball players. Those who use elbows and those who don’t. There is a perception that Sarah Barracuda [which was not a basketball nickname for her despite what the image makers want you to believe] was one who used her elbows. That perception turns out to be correct. She also played on sprained ankles and pulled her team to a state championship even when she was personally having a lousy game. She did it by force of will and by powerful leadership. And sharp elbows. She is a street fighter and a fierce competitor.

The lady plays to win.

In fact ... look at all the folks in Alaska or from Alaska (and I include Senator Stevens in this) who are in jail or under indictment or soon will be ... solely because Sarah has no fear and plays to win (and has sharp elbows)!

She is, however, that remarkable combination of sharp elbows and genuine smiles that is so rare and so effective that she could win runner-up Miss Alaska ... and by essential unanimity claim the Miss Congeniality title at the same competition.

I watched the Couric interview where she got tangled up. Yeah, so maybe she should have knocked off the smoking dope before the interview.

Well, I'm sure she didn't, but there were times that seemed the most reasonable explanation. Because she did muff her lines in a couple places in the Couric interview. Embarrassingly. Even at that she hasn’t said anything close to as dumb as the stuff Biden has been spouting off. FDR and all those televised talks with the American people were so forgettable that only Joe remembers them. In fact, Joe is the only one who knows that television had been invented back then! That must have been during the time that he and Al Gore were inventing the Internet. Can you imagine the flack if Sarah had said something so dumb?

Have you watched Obama speak lately? The day after Sarah’s speech to the GOP convention he not only started smoking again ... he started stuttering again.

He even fumbled his lines when he did the "lipstick on a pig" speech. The fact is that Palin is being subjected to an entirely different set of criteria than any of the other three candidates.

Obama even stuttered during his "debate" with John McCain and he was just repeating his many times practiced talking points! He forgot the name of the soldier whose name was on the bracelet he was wearing! Talk about a gaffe! Talk about insulting to the soldier and looking like a fraud! But is he getting called on it? Not except by some "crazy right-wing" blogs. If Sarah had muffed something like that, every Campbell Brown in the media would have headlined their next story with how that shows that she simply isn't up to the big time!

Look. Sarah lacks experience on the national and international stage. She is also flat wrong (imho) on at least half of her politics. But that does not excuse holding her to a different standard than the other candidates. If the press and blogosphere started giving her a free pass on stuff that they were hammering Joe Biden on ... I'd complain about that too. But that isn't what is happening. Biden says 10 things a week dumber than anything Sarah has said yet. Obama is less experienced at anything relevant to the job he is running for than the vice presidential candidate of the opposition. And if the man doesn't have a teleprompter or a memorized line he can spout he can barely get a coherent sentence out. Back to the debate last night. CNN's nonsensical poll of (largely) Democrats that decided that Obama won aside [duh ... let's try the same poll of (largely) Republicans and see how it comes out] ... the man made Palin look like an accomplished speaker even in the Couric interview!

Actually, it was hard to call it a debate, though, when Obama tried to fly to the right of McCain and his response to multiple issues is to say "Senator McCain is absolutely right on that". By the time they were about half way through I thought he was going to endorse McCain!

Indeed, we now have an Obama who favors increasing domestic oil and gas production including offshore drilling. He favors building new nuclear power plants. He’s a convert to Star Wars. And he thinks the Iraq surge succeeded beyond anyone’s wildest expectations. [Uh, Barack? Senator McCain said those were his expectations back when no one else believed. His lonely voice was roundly ridiculed. The surge succeeded beyond Obama's wildest expectations, not McCain's. Does that say anything about judgment or suggest that a few decades of dealing with such issues might be useful?] Obama is now absolutely willing to use U.S. military intervention and indeed, thinks we should crank up the manpower and the war effort in Afghanistan.

Does anyone believe him? And if so ... why vote for someone with no experience and no relationship with the critical foreign leaders who wants to do the same thing that a man who is hugely respected throughout the world for 26 years of dealing with exactly these issues?

But I digress.

John. If you want to win this ... tell your handlers to start being obsequious to the next Vice President of the United States instead of condescending. And tell them to stop stuffing her head with talking points. Sure ... there is material she should study and folks can be helpful by pointing her in the right direction on issues that she needs to bone up on. But if your own staff treats her with condescension ... she is going to have a crisis of personal confidence. This is the last thing you need or want. You will make her failure into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Let the lady have the ball. Let her take her sharp elbows and genuine smile ... and let her rock and roll. Tell her to unleash the Sarah that she’s always been and her remarkably quick intellect and biting wit will have reporters either eating out of her hand or looking extremely foolish. Turn her loose to go amongst them John! Let her hold press conferences until people suffer from Palin overload. The more they get to know her, the more impressed they will be. Trust me on this. You have to have the guts to believe in your own decisions. Do so!

I fear that I am more aware of the abilities and potential of your vice presidential selection than you are!

If you want to have a chance to win this thing, you have one chance and one chance only. Read my lips John: LET SARAH BE SARAH!

21.9.08

Obama Advertising

September 20, 2008

Obama Advertising
I dunno. It may just be me again, but it doesn't seem like Obama's new ads have quite the same "coolness" factor that they used to. It also seems like maybe he needs to stop running against the Vice Presidential candidate from the opposing party and concentrate on running against the old guy ... you know, someone he has a chance of beating. That McCain fellow.

[Although Barack may be ahead of the curve on this one. The rumor is that Sarah is thinking of dropping McCain from the ticket. It could be a good strategy since she can take her pick of replacement running mates. In addition to several Governors and virtually the entire male contingent of the House, she has had nearly all of the Republican Senators and 12 of the Democrats quietly offer to run with her should she decide to make the move. Both Bill and Hillary secretly volunteered, but each made her promise not to tell the other. Bill said he'd take second billing; he says he scoured the Constitution and he isn't allowed to run for President again, but nothing says he can't run for vice. And he assured Sarah that vice was something with which he was very well acquainted. The RNC secretly told her they'd back the move also since they never liked McCain anyway.]

Even so, these new ads just don't seem to be getting the right message across for some reason. See what you think:





20.9.08

Alaska Girls Kick Ass - Understanding the Culture that Produced Sarah Palin

September 19, 2008

Alaska Girls Kick Ass

Understanding the Culture that Produced Sarah Palin
Sarah Palin is the classic Alaska Girl.

An email that is making the rounds:

"Sarah Palin was put on earth to do two things: shoot caribou and kick ass. She’s all out of caribou."

[Before the humorless greenies scream ... it’s just a joke! We have lots of caribou. In fact we have such vast herds rumbling over the tundra that they resemble the black waves of bison that met the early explorers in the
uncharted western part of the lower nation. So few people have any real
understanding of the state. I read a nationally syndicated columnist laughing in print after reading something that estimated the size of one of our herds; so certain was he of the impossibility that such vast amounts of wildlife still existed anywhere in the world. He was absolutely convinced that the article he had read had goofed up by a couple of decimal places.]

But back to Sarah. Even those who can’t stand her politics generally acknowledge that she is a good representation of our female contingent. And we are proud of our women!


"Coldest State - Hottest Governor".

That saying was around long before she was tapped for the veep seat.

The ubiquity of bumper stickers that declare the main title of today’s column [Alaska Girls Kick Ass] strongly suggests that the female contingent in this state does not suffer from a lack of self esteem. The noticeable fact that a surprising percentage of the cars wearing such bumpers stickers belong to men enforce the conclusion that we think pretty highly of our women up here. In fact, we’re pretty sure that if the Beach Boys had made it to the state that they would have wished all the women could be Alaska Girls :-)

Or, maybe not. It may take a special breed of men to properly appreciate our women. It is a frontier admiration that we have. On the frontier women were always considered to be full partners and worked right alongside their men. Women (who wouldn’t stoop to working or getting their hands dirty) who were acquired for show and tell didn’t come along until "civilization" and wealth did. The same is true of the "middle-class stay at home and raise the babies" women. That all said ... frontier women in the "old days" were still constrained from many things. Women are vastly more "liberated" now and that, combined the frontier partnership ethic and cultural mentality makes Alaska women a lot farther along the "liberation highway" than those from more "civilized" states. But, males and females both enjoy a culture where a woman dirt-biker is just a normal Alaska girl.

Decorative females are for places like New York or the Urbania east of the Mississippi.

"Urbane" is not a compliment up here and if you told an Alaska man that you thought he was you might discover a pressing need for some dental work. Nor do we have any use for the stereotypical empty headed blonde vacuous Valley Girls of Beach Boys fame. This is, after all, the state in which the classic classified personals ad originated:

"Wanted - Woman with boat. Send picture of boat".

Don’t get me wrong. We believe our women, on average, can out-Vogue those from anywhere else, but a frontier woman is admired for more than just her looks. We expect her to be comfortable working the slime line at the cannery and slopping around in a fish-hold full of dead and dying salmon. We expect her to be proud of her aim with a rifle and able, in a pinch, to field dress a moose on her own. We expect them to find that a fun weekend, or a good summer job, will result in dirt under their fingernails. Unless there is no dirt present at that time of year; then our women do things like win the Iditarod! We assume that they are the smarter half of the specie and can quickly show us where we screwed up trying to balance the checkbook. We turn to them for problem solving.

Even the most macho men are used to women often being the boss where they work. Not only is it "tolerated" ... it is so common and accepted that it isn’t even a topic. My wife has had several men who worked for her in her position as a department head. She’s never even bumped into it as an issue. "Real Alaskans" have to explain the concept of a "glass ceiling" to our daughters as "in the old days Outside" or "in some parts of the world" or even, sadly, "in other parts of our country" ... because it isn’t something they notice in their world. Everyone thought it was cool that we elected a female Governor, but it wasn’t treated as a mold shattering event.

The reason that Sarah is the first is ... well, for starters, we haven’t had many governors. There have only been nine since Statehood including Sarah, and one of those only finished out the small part of Governor Hickel's first term. We had a couple who served twice at different times [Egan and Hickel] and, interestingly we alternate fairly regularly between Democrats and Republicans. Before Sarah we had four of each ... and one from the Alaska Independence Party. Yes, for all you mathematicians out there, that equals nine out of eight Governors. I'm really not that bad at math :-) Governor Hickel, who had served as the U.S. Secretary of the Interior (which is why he had to cut his first term short) ran several years later as a member of the AIP. I make this digression into the State's political history to emphasize the absurdity of the media's obsession with Todd having been a member of the AIP at one time. (Despite initial press reports, mistakenly started by AIP itself, Sarah was never a member.) The impression that they give Outsiders is that this is some strange cult-like entity. Up here it is part of the landscape. It is as "politically correct" as voting for Nader is in California. As noted, an ex-U.S. Secretary of the Interior was elected Governor on the AIP ticket. Hmm. I guess that makes it a lot more politically correct than voting for Nader! :-)

The other reason that Sarah was our first female Governor is that very few women ever expressed serious interest in the job. If they don’t run, it is difficult to elect them.

We’re used to selecting women as leaders and that is just a natural ingrained mentality that demonstrates itself early in life. By kindergarten, the boys know that the girls are in charge. I know of no survey on the subject, but I would hazard a guess [as the father of two teenagers] that the majority of the office holders in high school student governments and the presidents of the various clubs are female. That continues after high school. Throughout the communities of the state, women are at least as likely as men to be in positions of authority ... with the possible exception of industries of Big Oil; the good old boy redneck carpetbaggers who hail mostly from Texas and Oklahoma.

But even that subset of the population has become more Alaskan over time. When oil was discovered and the oil men showed up with their cowboy hats, cigars, and boots you couldn’t walk in, they were a standing joke without a word being spoken. And their arrogance was mind-boggling.

"Why, 'fore we showed up there was nuthin’ here but a bunch of poor dumb Indians and slime-covered commercial fishermen."

[That isn't an exact quote of one of the upper muckety-mucks of a Big Oil company. It was made and reported in the '70s and my only reference is my memory. But it is very close.] And in defense of truth, I must admit that there was some accuracy to the underlying concept despite the vulgarity of its delivery. Oil did bring wealth to Alaska. It changed it drastically. But much of the underlying culture still remains.

We get along fine with the offspring of those Big Hats. In fact we find we have a lot in common with Texas, too. I wasn't much pleased at the way they showed up and often seemed to think they were bringing culture and civilization to us heathens. Indeed, that sort of thought was utterly serious, intending to demonstrate how good for the State Big Oil was. But that was a long time ago and fortunately, it didn’t work out that way. Over the decades, those who fell in love with the frontier and Alaskan lifestyle self-selected and most of the big hats went back to Texas. By now we have the children of that first wave hitting their 20s and 30s. These "kids" grew up in Alaska’s culture. Although some still carry a bit of a drawling accent picked up from their families and some attitudes passed on from father to son ... it is turning out that Alaska is changing them culturally more than they changed us. They are integrating and many of them are now "real Alaskans" even with the drawl and job in the oilfields. Much of that initial wave of oil people never really integrated into Alaska culture. They had their own enclaves; their own social groupings. Alaska was their adventure. Home never left Texas. And those folks mostly went "home" long ago. We get along fine with Texans these days.

And now that Palin has been house [and senate :-)] cleaning and a bunch of the remaining "big hats" are heading for the "big house" ... the one with bars on the doors instead of decorative cattle horns ... I expect that Big Oil’s effect on our culture will diminish even more. You have to go to specialty stores now to buy cowboy boots.

But Sarah was never part of that culture. She is "pioneer stock". Her parents journeyed up here in the early 60s because it was the frontier; not because oil had recently been discovered near Swanson River. She and Todd were those "slime-covered commercial fishermen" the big hats referred to so dismissively. Todd is one of those "poor dumb Indians". [He is not, of course. He is not poor; he is not dumb; and he is not an "Indian". He is part Yupik which is Eskimo, not Indian, but the big hats never seemed to make the distinction.] Thinking back, I suppose I heard the Indians referred to more often as "Eskimos" than I did the Eskimos referred to as Indian.


But Sarah Palin is one of us. Alaska claims her as a child of the land. Her political views will be the subject of other columns, some already partially composed :-) But setting those to the side for the purpose of this column, she is a prime representative of the Alaska Woman. And, potential political differences aside, all real Alaskans are pleased to have her as our representative of "Alaska girls" to the world.
The lady kicks ass ;-)

17.9.08

Palin Potshots - Mythed Again

September 17, 2008

Palin Potshots - Mythed Again
Obama is running against who? That other old guy? The one who is not Biden. Yeah, McCain, that one. Or maybe both.

Biden has sure been a help to Obama hasn't he? "Yes, picking me was Obama's first major decision since he decided to enter the race. He screwed it up. I'm not the right choice. He should have picked someone else." Actually, he says Hillary would have been a better pick! Now that's called getting support from your veep selection!

[It is hard to blame Joe though. No one has been paying any attention to him. He has to say outrageous things just to get any news coverage!]Obama's response could have been a bit more restrained though. It probably didn't do him a lot of good to pontificate in a prime time interview with "Well, that just goes to show what you know, Joe. I didn't want you. You weren't my first pick. In fact you weren't even my third choice. But everybody else turned me down. So there. Nyah Nyah."

Of course his response when the interviewer asked "Did you ask Hillary?" didn't help anything either: "What!?! That b***h? I don't need no woman naggin me bout what to do and tryin to boss me around. I've already got one of them. It's called a wife."

Where do you suppose he picked up that faux inner city black accent? Talkin' to folk while organizin' communities? Is it just me, or has that "accent" become much more pronounced since he won the nomination?

Then he launched into yet another attack on Palin. "Yeah, sure she could be Governor of a frozen wasteland full of eskimos, but if she thinks she has the experience to ... well, I, uh, what I mean is, it's not like it takes "experience", what it takes is being for "change" and that's mine. Mine, mine, mine! I'm the one that's for change. Not that Pale Lynn. I mean, now ya'll listen I mean to say if'n she was a Black Lynn you might could believe what she [laughing and slapping knee] ... but this is like she is tryin to uh but ... and what about what her preacher said? Huh? I mean this is the guy that she gets her ... um ... listens to, uh, well, we maybe um, that isn't really what I wanted to ... her little escapade with ... well, no we don't want to go there but she just wants to 'drill baby drill' in those eskimos' front yards. You come over to my place b***h and I'll show you some drill, baby, drill! I mean how would you like it if there was an oil well in your front yard? You get that slimy crude all over your muktuk! What, you sposed to mow around it or, well, snow shovel around it or you know, whatever ... yeah that's the kind of lipstick we need in the oval office fer sure and, well Bill, that's Bill Clinton, he nuf of a bud I call him Bill. Now Bill, he had lipstick in the oval office [slapping knee again and laughing uproariously] but I don think Hillary is ... ah ... what was the question again?"

Interviewer: "I see you took up smoking cigarettes again. Did you also restart your pot habit Senator?"

Seriously though, it is almost that bad. Obama and his attack dogs have been obsessed with Governor Sarah Palin. And they have absolutely no idea what to do. Obama was on a leisurely march towards being crowned when he and his people got totally blindsided from someone with very little experience, whose name was definitely not a household word and who was given very little chance of success by the punditocracy.

The remarkable thing about this story is it is an almost exact repeat of the primary where he "Palined" Hillary on her waltz to the coronation! Hillary never recovered. It is beginning to look like Obama may not either. He kneecapped Hillary because of her arrogance. But his success in so doing went to his head and he inherited the arrogance that brought her down. If the man has any abilities in the introspection department (which, like most things about him -- bizarrely for somone who has been under the national spotlight for so many months -- is an unknown outside of his circle of personal relationships), then win or lose he will someday shake his head in amazement at his own blindness.

His first instinct was good: say nice things about her, mention her compelling life story, and get on to campaigning against McCain. Unfortunately the ever so fickle press decided that Sarah was the new hot exciting thing and all the cameras turned to her. Obama, not being experienced enough to understand the ebbs and flows of a long intense presidental campaign couldn't resist. Instead of keeping it low key and letting the Palin storm blow itself out, he had his feelings hurt and gave into his lesser instincts and blasted at her and (apparently) turned his pit bull staff loose to do the same. He even tries to disguise it, but no one who watched his "lipstick on a pig" comments could ever believe that he was not trying to smear Palins lipstick without mentioning her by name.

What Obama is smart enough to know ... but too emotional to control ... is that every time he takes a shot at her it builds up her image. I do not recall, nor have I ever run into in my historical researches, a presidential campaign where it so often seemed that the presidential candidate of one party was campaigning ... indeed running ... against the vice presidential candidate from the other party. This is particularly strange because the entire message that Obama wants, and needs, to project is that Sarah is lacking in substance and should not be taken seriously.

But every time he or his people take a shot at her ... the press scrambles to report ... and she inevitably gains from the exposure. There is a subconscious sense in the American psyche that if Obama takes her that seriously ... she is someone to be taken seriously! Every attack on her, helps to build up the mythology surrounding her.

She is America's Joan of Ark, Alaska's Xena the Warrior Princess, a political Teddy Roosevelt, the powerful and mysterious Nanook of the North and the nation's unoffical Mrs. America all rolled into one in the national consciousness of the everyday Jill and Joe. And this myth-making is as much the doing of Obama and his camp as it is the people, the pundits or the Palins.


An Alaskan's View of Sarah Palin

GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN

The Most Popular [... and by popular acclaim, the hottest! :-)] Governor in the United States.


She is pictured here in the back of a commercial salmon drift fishing boat holding a prized sockeye (red) salmon [the best of all salmon and a breed that can NOT be farm raised]. All of our best Governors have commercial fishing backgrounds (and she fished ... this wasn't a photo op fishing tourist ad!). (As do I, although I am not now, have never been, and promise not to ever in the future, be a Governor :-)

The page is really just to fix a glitch and give you a redirect to the page you were looking for:

16.9.08

Palinography -- An Alaskan's View of Sarah Palin


September 16, 2008

Palinography -- An Alaskan's View of Sarah Palin
If I were just a slight bit more naive (alternatively: less cynical :-) I would be shocked; yes shocked(!) I tell you, at the facts presented to the nation by the punditocrats (that isn't a misspelling, it is a distinction in at least connotation from "pundits") about Governor Palin. Although I have great admiration for the blogosphere and delight at the effects that it is having on the dissemination of information to the public and its watchdogging of the mainstream media ... for purposes of this article I must lump the blogs in with the punditocracy. In general they have done at least as bad, and arguably a worse job, of presenting an even semi-accurate portrayal of Palin to the nation.

I have, however, had sufficient encounters with the press to understand that, even when they actually attempt to be fair, they aim for truth from 100 yards with a 12 gauge shotgun. They may get a few pellets in the target, but only a few. When they don't attempt to be fair (true of vastly too much reporting and, by definition, true of all editorializing), they don't even aim the shotgun in that direction.

If you have ever been present at a newsworthy event, whether an automobile pile-up or a public demonstration or anything else ... you were probably amazed at how inaccurate the next day's newspaper reports of the event were. If it has only happened to you a time or two, you may have passed it off as an anomalous screw-up. Let me assure you, there is nothing anomalous about it.

If you have read my posts on, say abortion or Bush's War, then you know that Sarah Palin and I disagree vehemently regarding many basic issues. I am neither a Republican nor a Conservative. Nor am I, by any possible stretch of the definition, an evangelical Christian. I would have to ponder to find a social issue upon which the Governor and I agree and it would, in any event, be a very short list. What we do share in common is that we are (essentially - she arrived as a baby) life-long Alaskans with many similar interests. Ah ... if one wants to call it a social issue, that does bring into play one upon which we agree. Like all "real Alaskans" [more on that later], we are staunchly opposed to gun control. But I think that may be most of the list :-)

I am therefore uniquely suited to bring you the unbiased view of the vice presidential candidate. I am in political disagreement with essentially all she stands for on social issues. I am in fervent disagreement regarding the war and how we conduct ourselves internationally. But I have enough "local pride" that an Alaskan is making history that I am not going to attempt to kneecap her. I think you will find this a refreshing change. To date, essentially all reporting I have seen on Palin since her name was announced, has been ... well, the term "lousy" comes to mind. Most appears to be an attempt to belittle and/or destroy her.

It is unreal: in a state in which she fairly recently had an unheard of ~90% approval rating, that almost all the emails that circulate purporting to be from Alaskans, the quotes from "Alaskans" in the news and the blogs, is dismissive, indeed viciously dismissive, of her. I'm beginning to wonder if there is anyone left in that 10% who didn't "highly approve" of her and the job she was doing that hasn't been found and quoted! The state has been overrun with reporters. They seem to be behind every rock and tree. It is worse than tourist season! :-) If you want to get on the national news for your 15 minutes of fame ... just wander around Anchorage or Wasilla until you find a camera crew (it won't take long) and say something negative about Palin. Then, suddenly you will find yourself in the national news and your name will soon show up on Google!

The only other picture that emerges [this is how the punditocracy believes it is performing "balanced reporting"] is from the evangelicals. They tend to be nearly as inaccurate as the dismissers.

So, for an honest look at Governor Sarah Palin, stick around. We'll be right back.



15.9.08

Palin, Politics, Punditocracy, Power

September 15, 2008

Palin Power
With the nomination of our Governess as Veep Candidate, I am remodeling my blog so that I can assist the new national pastime of alternately discovering, discussing, dissing, dismissing, distrusting, disputing, discomfiting and dissecting the life and times of our pistol packing Palin.

I shall do so by disseminating, dissenting, dissuading, distilling and distinguishing fact from fiction, art from artifice and programs from pogroms.

It amazes me that there is still so much disinformation and misinformation abounding about. I believe I can help clear the clutter.

I'm integrating some of the earlier posts from my pre-existing blog into this one ... for the sake of continuity and flavor. I'll primarily leave in old posts from around the last time the country went through this national gut-wrench known as a presidential election. Also ... some of my earlier [pre-Palin] posts regarding the current election may survive the transfer.

So ... stay tuned. This is a work in progress at the moment as I make the transition. But I'll be back up and running on all cylinders very shortly.

Marilyn vos Savant

Tuesday, February 15, 2005

Marilyn vos Savant
Dear Marilyn vos Savant:
You’re as smart as humans can be.
You respond to questions with logic and wit
Finding answers that others can’t see.

But you have no better answer than the rest of us folks,
To the most critical question I know:
Do we personally live on after bodily death,
Or is death the end of the show?

Or ... maybe you do and you just haven’t said!
Crank those brain cells for all that they’re worth!
What’s your best guess, the odds, if you will,
Of surviving our tenure on earth?

You've Now

Why Did the Chicken ...?

Sunday, December 12, 2004

Why Did the Chicken ... ?
Today is just for fun. I received a forward of spoof "famous people's answers" to the question of why the chicken crossed the road. I sent it on and a correspondent wrote back that they were funny, but that there weren't many women represented. So ... to remedy that ... I exercise my poetic license and submit the following:


Diane Feinstein:
Look, in California, especially San Francisco, we don't care which side of the road the chicken wants to walk on and people should just stop analyzing why the poor hen wants to cross over and just be accepting of it.

Hilary Clinton:
Bill promised me that he didn't cross the road with that chicken and I believed him. I am deeply hurt.

Margaret Thatcher: Because the chicken has a will of iron and shall meet and cross any obstacle necessary for the good of its people ... or, uh, chickens.

Madonna:
Yum! I think it is great. I think all chickens ought to try crossing the road at least once. I've done it. Be like me and Britney!

Britney Spears:
What she says!

Janet Jackson:
It didn't mean to! It was an accident. There was a fencing malfunction and it just sort of popped out onto the road.

Preemptive Killing

Saturday, November 27, 2004

Preemptive Killing
Now that the election is over and Bush claims a "mandate" for his actions ... we can assume that there will be no course reversals. This means that we are firmly charted on a misguided and immoral course.


The Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush doctrine of preemptive killing is simply wrong. It is wrong by any moral, ethical or civilized standard. Especially in this country we absolutely do not accept nor ever endorse any doctrine or practice of preemptive killing. There is nothing but the slipperiest of slopes between preemptively taking out Saddam and his family and loyalists (and inconveniently located innocent countrymen) and preemptively taking out a mafia or gang leader or other who "probably deserves it" or who was perhaps thinking about doing something bad.

I have no argument with our war with the Taliban or Osama. That was not preemptive. If we are attacked, we have every moral right to fight back. But as bad a man as Saddam may have been ... he did not attack the twin towers and he did not attack us. I fear the unavoidable escalation of our new involvement in the Middle East.

This will not sit well in history. This period may be known as the beginning of the Second Millennium Crusades. I hope our ancestors have the evolved morality to be disgusted with us for allowing it to happen.

Bird Songs

November 11, 2004

Notes From the North
Family just rousing. 25 degrees and clear ... well ... slightly gray skies ... so road/slush/mess too frozen to clean up nicely with the plow. I'll wait and hope it warms up a few degrees and plow this afternoon.

Fed the birds this morning. And just sat and watched for ... oh ... must have been 20 minutes or more. The camp robbers come first (grey jays), gliding in and grabbing as many bread pieces as they can stuff in their beak, then gliding away as another glides in. Perfect harmony. 7 or 8 of them. Taking turns perfectly. Only once did two glide in from opposite directions as the one that was there perched on the edge to glide off. Those two hopped over each other on the feeder and were obviously embarrassed and uncomfortable because of the gaffe, but they did their business and glided away as another came in. I don't understand the taking turns ... there is plenty of room on the feeder. But it is a social thing and their timing and communication is amazing.
I also put out a bunch of rice left over from a chinese box ... so it had bits of other stuff and interesting flavors. But the camp robbers couldn't grab it and go like they could with the bread. So, after the bread was gone, they kept coming back and eating for 15 to 20 seconds before gliding away to let the next one take a turn. But this kept the jays at the feeder much longer than usual.

Which distressed the pine grossbeaks who showed up ... impatient for the jays to finish. Beautiful, bright red males and somewhat drab females, the grossbeaks are seed eaters. They eat the sunflower seeds that I put out with the bread and rice. Large birds, but not the size of the jays. Group of about 5 or 6 of them kept waiting for their turn, but the jays stayed at the feeder for the rice.

The jays would leave for a bit and the grossbeaks would try to sneak in: while the jays are away; the grossbeaks will play. Or eat in this case. One of the male grossbeaks was dominant and another tried to be at the feeder with him, but neither the dominant one or the dominant one's mate would allow it. Grossbeaks were comfortable with three of four of them at the feeder at once, but the two males could not be there at the same time.

Fascinating pecking order politics. Grossbeaks finally gave up without getting much since they couldn't get feeder time. Camp robbers finally got full. Now the little seedeaters like the chickadees are there once the bigger birds left. Of course they have their own caste systems and hierarchies. And all the groups had cheaters (who were often roundly chastised). Arguments ensued. Some birds were loud and aggressive; maintaining their place at the feeder by squawking and shoving. One was just "make my day" quiet and tough (and was given wide berth when he arrived for his turn). Others, usually mates, worked in pairs ... one eating while the other protected the feeder by faux attacks on interlopers, then switching roles until both had had their fill. Indeed the longer one watched, the more one could observe remarkably complex patterns, and social, even cultural, behavior.

It is amazing how much one can learn about people and politics by watching a bird feeder.

In the meantime, I watched a coyote on the other side of the lake .... right in a line from my chair out the glass doors to the feeder ... so I had the whole panorama. Coyote picked his way along the lake sniffing and bouncing. I watched him for the whole 20 or 30 minutes that I sat there. He's a regular winter denizon of the edge of the lake ... first time I'd seen him this year. After awhile, I let the dog out of the garage and fed him on the deck. Coyote noticed him right away, but the dog paid attention to his food first and only after he was done did he turn and acknowledge the coyote. Then he leapt off the deck and charged out onto the frozen lake, barking and wagging his tail. Coyote came over and they stopped about 100 feet from each other and exchanged greetings, then went their own ways. They know each other well from past years.

It was just a wonderful relaxed "Disney" morning on the homestead. Sure beats watching nature shows on television.

12.9.08

I Beat The Pollsters!

Wednesday, November 03, 2004

I Beat the Pollsters!
Well ... I nailed that one. Actually, there were simply no surprises for me this election. I am again bemused by all the sound and fury in the last few weeks by professionals, and others, who simply should have known better. The "experts" are all surprised? All they need to do is listen to me! :-) Whether or not I like being right on this is irrelevant ... just that with a little objectivity, the reality of the situation wasn’t hard to decipher.

On my October 22 post, "Pollsters Getting Kerry’d Away", below, I claimed that this election people were lying to pollsters and that once in the voting booth, a lot of people in the "Kerry column" according to the pollsters would grit their teeth and vote for Bush.

I said "If I’m right ... not only will the pre-election polls be wrong ... but the 'exit interview' polls will be as well". That prediction bore out as well. See for example, today’s Fox News article "Egg on Face of Exit Pollsters". A tidbit quote from the article: "'Either the exit polls are completely wrong or George Bush loses,' FOX News analyst Susan Estrich said." [Citation Expired]

If they had only read my blog, they would have known better! :-)

Electronic Elections

Tuesday, October 26, 2004

Electronic Voting
It's a brave new world out there. To eliminate hanging chads and other issues, there are a lot of new electronic voting systems in the works. Computers do everything from receiving the initial input (the "vote") to transmitting it to the central hub to the tabulating. HAL rules. I offer the following for fun and thought:

Electronic elections
With software protections
Allow hacker "corrections"
Of voters' selections!

Have a great election everyone! :-)

Kerry'd Away

Friday, October 22, 2004

Pollsters Getting Kerry'd Away
The pulse-takers have decided that Kerry would win the electoral vote if the election was held today. See eg: [Citation Expired]. They might be right. But if they are, it is a matter of luck more than science. More than at any time in the past 50 years the surveys are all skewed in unknowable directions and their "samples" are no longer representative.

Pollsters never get a fair sample of the "likely to vote" 18 to 30 year olds because there is such a high percentage of them that have no phone except a cell phone. Indeed, the "cell phone only" crowd is completely absent from all telephone poll results. That age group is a lot more conservative than it used to be. But are they really most likely to be Bush voters or Kerry voters? No one knows and no one can tell you because no one can ask them.

Telephone pollsters usually don’t talk to people with unlisted numbers. Those folks are probably both more conservative and more likely to vote than the general population.

Telephone pollsters often don’t get to talk to people with caller ID because people often choose not to pick up if it is an unknown phone number or obviously a pollster. Same situation with people who screen calls with answering machines. Folks with caller ID or who use answering machines to screen calls are probably also more conservative and likely to vote. The pollsters generally don’t successfully call people at work, so they only reach people who are either home during the day or who get home in good time in the evenings or are hanging around at home on the weekends. In other words, the unemployed or underemployed ... a group that tends to be more liberal.

And polls based on the general population skew left because a higher percentage of Republicans actually vote than do Democrats.This isn’t earthshattering news. Not many people talk about it, but it is widely understood that polling is a lot less accurate than it used to be.

In this election, though, there is another reason for poll results to be suspect. I believe that more than in any election over the past many years ... a lot of people are lying about for whom they will cast their vote.

They lie to their friends, to their family and to pollsters. To a lesser degree, perhaps, but yet to some very real extent, I believe many people are still lying to themselves as well.

A lot of people simply can’t stomach the idea of re-electing Bush. There is a lot of fury at him out there. And people that are mad will tell pollsters or whoever else that will listen, that they are going to vote to fire him. Which means that they go down in the "Kerry" column in the polls. But once they are within the sanctity of the voting booth, I believe that a substantial percentage of these folks are going to grit their teeth and vote for Bush.

If I’m right ... not only will the pre-election polls be wrong ... but the "exit interview" polls will be as well. It could be interesting! :-)

Al-Zarqawi

Tuesday, October 19, 2004

Headlines: Al-Zarqawi Backs Bush!
It has got to be Bush’s greatest political coup. Al-Zarqawi, the best known terrorist in Iraq, has announced his allegiance to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida.

This is the best possible political endorsement of Bush’s claim that the war in Iraq is part of the war against al-Qaida and Osama. Indeed, Bush has been attempting to connect these dots for many months, but most independent experts disagreed claiming that Al-Zarqawi and bin Laden were more rivals than allies.

At the debates, Kerry tried to convince the world that the war in Iraq was essentially a distraction from the war on terror and on al-Qaida. Bush insisted that it was, essentially, the same conflict. This may, indeed, be the issue upon which the presidential election is determined.

Now, two weeks before the election, Al-Zarqawi backs Bush’s claim. That’s political dynamite, roughly equivalent to suddenly discovering a huge hidden stash of WMD in downtown Baghdad. Al-Z may have just determined the election of a US President.How did Bush do it? How did he get Al-Zarqawi’s endorsement? It is the great paranoid fantasy. What back-room deal did the Bush team manage to consummate the ultimate political campaign coup? These Bush operatives are good!

Only the truly paranoid would believe there is any substance to such malarkey of course. But about now I would expect that John Kerry is nearly ready to join the ranks of the truly paranoid.

Abort This!

October 5, 2004

Abort This !
Well, the news is full of talk about abortion rights again. The quadrennial pre-election marches and demonstrations are in full swing. Thousands of people demonstrating in Detroit (makes sense since none of them have jobs left to go to). The Detroit News reported on it yesterday and said "Experts on both sides have said the country is at a critical moment in history for the abortion issue". And it probably is because whoever gets elected President will get to appoint a bench-full of Supreme Court Justices.


So once again the nation will be confronted with the question of how best to cross the Potomac: Row vs. Wade. I should research this.

I just looked in my Constitution. Yep, there it is:

Amendment IX: Congress shall pass no law infringing upon the right of an individual to shoot heroin or abort a fetus or do any other damfool thing they want to do so long as it does not infringe on the rights of any other individual.

And Amendment XIV says: And neither shall any state government.


Roe v. Wade is bad law only when it starts attempting to make medical pronouncements. (Blackmun went to med school before he realized that lawyers made as much money and didn't have to get up in the middle of the night and deal with bloody body parts.) The constitution says that a citizen is someone born (or naturalized) (Art.14). There is no suggestion that any constitutional rights attach to a fetus at any point before birth so the trimester distinctions are gobbledygook (although no sillier than many others routinely made by the court.)

But a right to privacy? (Or whatever you wish to call it.) That is what the entire Bill of Rights and constitutional framework of our government is about. For those who believe in a social contract -- those are the terms of the deal: The government is to keep its nose out of our individual affairs so long as we don't infringe on anyone else's individual affairs and in return we won't shoot at members who practice government in public.

You want it as a syllogism?:
Major Premise: The Constitution protects the individual's right to do as (s)he pleases so long as it does not infringe on the rights of another individual;
Minor Premise: Abortion during the first trimester does not infringe on the rights of any other individual;
Conclusion: The Constitution protects the individual's right to an abortion during the first trimester.

You can argue with the major premise and say that the Constitution doesn't say that. But I that is in essence what Amendment IX (and the whole Bill of Rights) says and what it most emphatically originally meant. Such rights exists "as inherent rights, conferred by nobody, preempting any contrary law of a besotted legislature or misogynic Baptist judge."

Those rights are exactly what the IX Amendment protects.

You can argue with the minor premise and say that a fetus is an individual, but I think that that is where you have to torture the Constitution. There is no suggestion of any sort that suggests that the fetus has such standing or was ever intended to. You can cross out "during the first trimester" and it is still probably just as good a syllogism. This is where Roe v. Wade made stuff up, deciding that rights sort of gradually attach.

But enough of such pedantic claptrap. There are more interesting things going on here. The abortion debate is bigger than the Constitution. This is the classic clashing of two giant heroic evolutionary myths. Two entire world views in dramatic conflict. It is more fun to watch than to scrabble about. A major cultural identity crisis that seeks to determine who we believe we are and where we're heading.

On the one hand, you have the myth that man is evolving, perhaps predeterminedly, towards ever greater autonomy and freedom. It was this myth, fed, in Western culture, by certain religious mucktruck together with the economic revolution of the last few hundred years, that has brought recognition and demand for respect from individuals wherever they may societally be located. It is what unshackled the slaves, destroyed the hard lines of class distinctions, coerced the Magna Carta, unleashed the American Revolution, wrote the Bill of Rights, and generally allows participants in the Western culture, particularly Americans, to believe that they, individually, are entitled to the absolute maximum freedom and autonomy possible and that even more should be possible in the future. I tend to identify with this myth and to root for it, although I am concerned that it is only a temporary trend purchased by our current high economic situation.

On the other hand, you have the myth that man is evolving, perhaps predeterminedly, towards ever greater compassion and humaneness. It was this myth, fed, in Western culture, by certain religious mucktruck together with the economic revolution of the last few hundred years, that has brought recognition and demand for moral treatment of individuals wherever they may societally be located. It is what unshackled the slaves, destroyed the hard lines of class distinctions, halted the practice of killing girl babies at birth, instituted minimum wage and age work laws, unleashed the cradle to grave welfare state and all anti-war movements, encouraged the personification of whales and other animal species, and generally allows participants in the Western culture to believe that every living entity is entitled to the absolute maximum care, kindness and compassion possible and that even more should be possible in the future. I actually do tend to believe that man is becoming a more humane creature although I often feel that this is simply a current, perhaps temporary luxury purchased with our current higher standard of living.

But these are two of our most basic western cultural myths. They have often worked in concert to get us where we are, but like male pups of the same litter, the bigger they've gotten, the more scuffling and tension there is between them. In the abortion debate, they are head to head fighting for Alpha dominance of the pack. (Freedom and rights of the woman to control her own bodily functions and the compassion and humaneness towards the prehuman fetal matter in formation ... known to prolifers as "a baby". Neither side can accept or countenance a society that does not protect ... indeed worship ... their vital myth.)

Not that the placard waving actors have the foggiest idea of what myth they are roling in, of course. Many screaming for the woman's right to abort firmly believe in curtailing the liberties of everyone else and others would gladly throw themselves in front of the clubs to save a baby seal. And many of those gesticulating wildly to save the poor little babies would willingly club the baby seals.

But the myths are far more important and ascendant than the actors. And its great fun to watch! The irresistible force meets the immovable object. The battle of the titans.