Yet More Reasons Why We Can't Let Sarah Palin Get Close to the White House

I'm beginning to feel a bit like this is SNN - the Sarah News Network. But the nomination of Gov. Palin has (in case you haven't figured it out yet) got me steaming mad at Sen. McCain. I used to like the guy, I really did. I disagreed with him on some issues, but I always felt that he was a straight shooter. Unfortunately, when he decided to cozy up to the evangelical right wing of the Republican party my respect for Sen. McCain began to wane. When he selected Gov. Palin I lost what little respect I had left. And now the Straight Talk Express wouldn't know the truth if it hit him in the head.

Part of the reason for focusing so much attention on Gov. Palin is to counter the ridiculous positive attention that she has been getting and the support that she has been able to build for Sen. McCain. But query whether that support is for Sen. McCain at all. News reports talk of people chanting "Sarah" while Sen. McCain tries to give his stump speeches. And campaign rallies without Gov. Palin are very poorly attended. Gov. Palin has become the Republican superstar (wasn't Sen. Obama's superstardom "bad"?) and appears to have eclipsed the man at the top of the ticket. Thus, I think that it is critical that people learn more about Gov. Palin and her ideas (especially given that the national media is practically giving her a free pass) so that they aren't fooled by the constant stream of lies coming out of the McCain campaign.

One of the most important tasks for a person elected to an executive branch office is to surround themself with intelligent, articulate people who have expertise that can be drawn upon. One of President Bush's greatest failings is that he surrounded himself with people who told him what he wanted to hear rather than telling him the truth (and if people didn't tell him what he wanted to hear, they didn't stick around for long). Compare the choices made by Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain for their respective Vice Presidential candidates. Is Gov. Palin really the best person to help Sen. McCain? I trust the advice the a Vice President Biden would give to a President Obama. But I don't trust that a Vice President Palin would be able to give sound advice to a President McCain. And, let's consider how Gov. Palin selects the people to surround her. According to The New York Times:

So when there was a vacancy at the top of the State Division of Agriculture, she appointed a high school classmate, Franci Havemeister, to the $95,000-a-year directorship. A former real estate agent, Ms. Havemeister cited her childhood love of cows as a qualification for running the roughly $2 million agency.

Ms. Havemeister was one of at least five schoolmates Ms. Palin hired, often at salaries far exceeding their private sector wages.

...

Ms. Palin chose Talis Colberg, a borough assemblyman from the Matanuska valley, as her attorney general, provoking a bewildered question from the legal community: “Who?” Mr. Colberg, who did not return calls, moved from a one-room building in the valley to one of the most powerful offices in the state, supervising some 500 people.

“I called him and asked, ‘Do you know how to supervise people?’ ” said a family friend, Kathy Wells. “He said, ‘No, but I think I’ll get some help.’”

The Wasilla High School yearbook archive now doubles as a veritable directory of state government. Ms. Palin appointed Mr. Bitney, her former junior high school band-mate, as her legislative director and chose another classmate, Joe Austerman, to manage the economic development office for $82,908 a year. Mr. Austerman had established an Alaska franchise for Mailboxes Etc.

Just to be sure that you read that correctly, Alaska's State Division of Agriculture is headed by a former real estate agent who cites her "childhood love of cows" as the reason that she is qualified to run the agency. And the qualifications of the manager of Alaska's economic development office? He established a franchise for Mailboxes Etc. Think of yourself and your own business experiences and skills. Are you qualified to be the head of a state's division of agriculture or economic development office, even if you did love animals as a kid or start up your own business as an adult? What do these selections tell us about Gov. Palin's judgment?

And while Gov. Palin stocks her administration with unqualified people, she refuses to meet with other elected officials:

Last summer, Mayor Mark Begich of Anchorage, a Democrat, pressed Ms. Palin to meet with him because the state had failed to deliver money needed to operate city traffic lights. At one point, records show, state officials told him to just turn off a dozen of them. Ms. Palin agreed to meet with Mr. Begich when he threatened to go public with his anger, according to city officials.

At an Alaska Municipal League gathering in Juneau in January, mayors across the political spectrum swapped stories of the governor’s remoteness. How many of you, someone asked, have tried to meet with her? Every hand went up, recalled Mayor Fred Shields of Haines Borough. And how many met with her? Just a few hands rose. Ms. Palin soon walked in, delivered a few remarks and left for an anti-abortion rally.

An anti-abortion rally was more important than meeting and talking to the mayors of Alaska's cities. You'd think that Gov. Palin, a former mayor herself, would value the input that the state's mayors could provide. Obviously, she does not.

Does any of this make you think that Gov. Palin is qualified to be Governor, let alone Vice President, or, heaven help us, President? That Sen. McCain selected Gov. Palin demonstrates how irresponsible Sen. McCain is and what a poor judge he would be of those he would selecte to advise him (and don't forget that 7 of Sen. McCain's top campaign advisers are lobbyists...).

And it just keeps coming...

For the past 8 years, we've had a Vice President who doesn't seem to think that people deserve to know what he's doing. He won't release information about meetings he's held (recall that Vice President Cheney went all the way to the Supreme Court to keep from divulging information about his energy policy meetings) and won't release information that the law requires him to release (claiming, incredibly, that the Vice President is not part of the Executive Branch). Unfortunately, it looks like Gov. Palin comes from the Cheney school of secretive government. Again, according to The New York Times:

Interviews show that Ms. Palin runs an administration that puts a premium on loyalty and secrecy. The governor and her top officials sometimes use personal e-mail accounts for state business; dozens of e-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that her staff members studied whether that could allow them to circumvent subpoenas seeking public records.

Rick Steiner, a University of Alaska professor, sought the e-mail messages of state scientists who had examined the effect of global warming on polar bears. (Ms. Palin said the scientists had found no ill effects, and she has sued the federal government to block the listing of the bears as endangered.) An administration official told Mr. Steiner that his request would cost $468,784 to process.

When Mr. Steiner finally obtained the e-mail messages — through a federal records request — he discovered that state scientists had in fact agreed that the bears were in danger, records show.

“Their secrecy is off the charts,” Mr. Steiner said.

Elsewhere in that same article:

While Ms. Palin took office promising a more open government, her administration has battled to keep information secret. Her inner circle discussed the benefit of using private e-mail addresses. An assistant told her it appeared that such e-mail messages sent to a private address on a “personal device” like a BlackBerry “would be confidential and not subject to subpoena.”

Ms. Palin and aides use their private e-mail addresses for state business. A campaign spokesman said the governor copied e-mail messages to her state account “when there was significant state business.”

On Feb. 7, Frank Bailey, a high-level aide, wrote to Ms. Palin’s state e-mail address to discuss appointments. Another aide fired back: “Frank, this is not the governor’s personal account.”

Mr. Bailey responded: “Whoops~!

Nothing like having your staff work to find ways to be sure that you never have to disclose information to voters. Ah, yes, transparent government by and for the people!

Finally, one more charming piece of information about Gov. Palin's policies. As you've no doubt read, Gov. Palin opposes abortion unless a doctor determines that the woman's life is in danger. That opposition extends to cases of rape or incest. In other words, Gov. Palin believes that a woman who is raped should be forced to have the child. You would think that, despite her views on abortion, that Gov. Palin would be otherwise sympathetic to rape victims. Think again. Gov. Palin apparently believes that after a rape victim has been assaulted by the perpetrator she should be fucked by the police as well. In 2000, Alaska's legislature passed a law to prevent police departments from charging a rape victim for the rape kit used by the police to obtain DNA evidence. Gov. Palin has since said that she did not "believe" that rape victims should be forced to pay for the kit, but it was her appointed police chief Charlie Fannon (remember that she fired the police chief when she took office and appointed Fannon in his place) who enforced the policy (noting that he didn't want to see any more burdens placed on taxpayers). It seems to me that if then-Mayor Palin really opposed this policy, it would have been easy for her to pick up the phone and tell her appointed police chief to change the policy. But she didn't; not even when Alaska's legislature was discussing legislation to end the practice. No. Mayor Palin had a chance to show that she supported rape victims; instead, she allowed her town to fuck 'em again, just in case the first time wasn't enough. Her cries of innocence and lack of "belief" in the policy are meaningless because she missed the opportunity to actually do something.

An additional point that is particularly notable about this whole sickening episode: In order to qualify to receive federal funds under the federal Violence Against Women Act, states are supposed to pay the costs for these rape kits. The Violence Against Women Act was passed by Congress in 1994. Its author? Joe Biden, who has said:

I consider the Violence Against Women Act the single most significant legislation that I’ve crafted during my 35-year tenure in the Senate. Indeed, the enactment of the Violence Against Women Act in 1994 was the beginning of a historic commitment to women and children victimized by domestic violence and sexual assault. Our nation has been rewarded for this commitment. Since the Act’s passage in 1994, domestic violence has dropped by almost 50%, incidents of rape are down by 60%, and the number of women killed by an abusive husband or boyfriend is down by 22%. Today, more than half of all rape victims are stepping forward to report the crime. And since we passed the Act in 1994 over a million women have found justice in our courtrooms and obtained domestic violence protective orders.

Yet sexual violence in Alaska remains a major problem. According to ABC News:

Evangelicals and social conservatives have embraced McCain's vice
presidential pick for what they call her "pro-family," "pro-woman" values. But
in Alaska, critics say Gov. Sarah Palin has not addressed the rampant sexual
abuse, rape, domestic violence and murder that make her state one of the most
dangerous places in the country for women and children.

Alaska leads the nation in reported forcible rapes per capita, according to the FBI, with a rate two and a half times the national average – a ranking it has held for many years. Children are no safer: Public safety experts believe that the prevalence of rape and sexual assault of minors in Alaska makes the state's record one of the worst in the U.S. And while solid statistics on domestic violence are hard to come by, most – including Gov. Palin – agree it is an "epidemic."

...

Some members of Palin's administration were focused on the issue of sexual violence. Officials in the Department of Public Safety were devising an ambitious, multi-million-dollar initiative to seriously tackle sex crimes in the state, but Palin's office put the plan on hold in July.

Days later, Palin fired its chief proponent, Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan, after he declined to dismiss a state trooper Palin accused of threatening her own family members. Palin has said she fired Monegan because she wanted to move his department in a "new direction," and he was not being "a team player on budgeting issues." The dismissal is now at the center of a hotly-contested investigation by the state legislature.

I wonder whether all of these women that Republicans are counting on to be swayed by the inclusion of Gov. Palin on their ticket will really be comfortable voting for Sen. McCain when they learn some of Gov. Palin's real thoughts on "women's issues" (I put that last in quotes because I believe that rape or sexual violence are human issues).

In case I haven't made myself clear, I think that it will be very, very bad for our country if Gov. Palin is elected to a higher office. Even if you are a supporter of Sen. McCain, his choice of Gov. Palin should put enough doubts in your mind as to his judgment to make you reconsider your choice in November.

Push Polling Is Back

As if there weren't enough reasons to vote against the Republicans this year, another of Karl Rove's favorite strategies, the push poll, has apparently been revived. For those unfamiliar with the concept, a push poll uses questions designed to elicit a particular response -- usually a very strong negative response. In addition, the real threat from push polls comes from the often completely fabricated information that is at the core of the "question". The goal of the push poll is not to determine what voters think; rather, the push poll is designed to put "bad" information in front of the voter to scare that voter away from a particular candidate. As defined by SourceWatch:

A push poll is where, using the guise of opinion polling, disinformation about a candidate or issue is planted in the minds of those being 'surveyed'. Push-polls are designed to shape, rather than measure, public opinion.

Case in point? According to Crooks & Liars (and repeated elsewhere on the web today), Jews in Florida are receiving phone calls from a pollster. They are asked if they are Jewish, if they are religious, and if their "opinion of Barack Obama would change if [they] knew that Obama had given lots and lots of money to the PLO". Sen. Obama has not, of course, given money to the PLO. But the intended effect of the "question" is to mislead voters into thinking that Sen. Obama had done just that. If enough Jewish voters can be scared into thinking that Sen. Obama supports terrorists (or, perhaps more simply, would not be a strong supporter of Israel), then those voters can (so the theory goes) be swayed not to vote for Sen. Obama. If a voter elects not to support Sen. Obama because they have genuine concerns about his support for Israel (or any other issue), that is fine; but when those concerns are based on false information disseminated solely to create false concerns... Houston, we have a problem.

These same sorts of smear tactics were used by then-Gov. George W. Bush against Sen. McCain in the 2000 primaries. Voters were asked if they would be less likely to vote for Sen. McCain if they knew that he'd fathered an illegitimate black daughter. Sen. McCain has an adopted daughter from Bangladesh. The point is, it didn't matter that the "fact" in the question was false; what mattered was that the question went to the heart of racial politics to turn voters against Sen. McCain. And it worked.

These tactics represent the absolute worst in American politics and are a real danger to our system. The use of push polling can serve to cripple a voter's basic trust in their candidate, without allowing nasty details like truth or issues to intervene. No matter which candidate you support, you should be outraged by these sorts of tactics. We should choose our elected leaders on the basis of their proposed policies, not on the basis of fraudulent fears.

One more thing, that I couldn't pass up. While I was looking for some examples uses of push polls in previous elections, I found this great example of what the most egregious sort of push poll might look like:

If you knew that bleeding-heart liberal senator John Kerry regularly had sex with an underage Muslim male terrorist, would you (A.) Feel it was a private matter between Kerry and the terrorist? (B) Have no opinion, one way, or another? (C.) Feel President Bush should stay the course in his honorable struggle against the terrorists who want to destroy America and their immoral, America-hating Democratic supporters?

While I find the example humorous, it is, unfortunately, not too far removed from what real push polling looks like.

Finally, it is worth noting that push polling (or pre-determinative polling) is not limited to Presidential elections or even to elections in general. I've seen numerous mailings from state and local office holders asking my opinions on certain matters in which the elected official has written the question with a predetermined outcome in mind. A terrific example of this sort of pre-determinative polling can be found on the website of the National Republican Congressional Committee. I think that my personal favorite is question 5 ("Do you think that House Republicans should continue to push for pro-growth policies that create jobs and oppose tax increases that would add a burden to working families and set back our economy?") but I will acknowledge that question 12 ("Do you agree that winning back a Republican Majority in the House of Representatives is essential to stopping the Nancy Pelosi Democrats from raising our taxes, destroying our economy and endangering our homeland?") has a certain scandalous appeal. Nothing like clean, unbiased questions designed to truly gauge support for or against a proposed policy. Unfortunately, in the case of pre-determinative questionnaires like this, the party promulgating the poll will use the "statistics" to back up their proposed policies but will usually rephrase the question to become much more innocuous and neutral.

If you receive a push poll, tell the pollster where to put it. Don't be gentle; after all, the use of push polling is a true threat to our democratic process. Then call the campaign for whom the pollster was probably working and tell them that you don't approve of those sorts of election tactics. Perhaps the campaigns will begin to listen if enough voters cry foul.

LibraryThing: "The Assassin"

I updated my LibraryThing catalog with a review of The Assassin [Ryan Kealey #2] by Andrew Britton. I'm now reading By Royal Command [Young Bond #5] by Charlie Higson.

When a Lie Becomes an Insult

We all tell lies. Thus, we aren't surprised or offended when politicians, especially those campaigning for office, tell lies. We expect it. Of course, we should expect more from our candidates, but that is another topic. I do want to look at the types of lies that candidates tell. What do those lies tell us about the candidate? What do they tell us about our democratic process?

First, of course, is the promise. How many times have we heard a candidate promise to do something? Unfortunately, it appears as if many times that promise is completely hollow and the candidate has no intent to follow through. That lie may help us evaluate the candidate, but ultimately, the candidate will pay for the lie in the next election. Of a slightly different character is the promise that the candidate would like to fulfill but which the candidate knows full well is not within the scope of the office for which the candidate is running and therefore is a promise that will also go unfulfilled. Again, this lie may tell us something about the candidate's position and probably won't come back to bite the candidate later because the candidate can blame others or external forces for the failure to follow through.

We also have the exaggeration. We all know that candidates exaggerate their own successes and their opponent's failures. It is part of the competitive process, I suppose (but query whether it should be). We all know to take with a grain of salt what our candidates tell us they've done or what their opponent has done (or not done). But, usually these exaggerations (especially when building up the candidate's own record) are based, primarily, in a nugget of truth. And the candidate knows that if the exaggeration is too bold (especially when criticising the opponent) it will be seized on and dissected, often to the gain of the opponent. Thus, if the exaggeration is outrageous enough, it drops out of the campaign rhetoric or, if it is innocuous, its use continues but it doesn't have much meaning.

Of course linked to the exaggeration is the generic lie where a candidate says, for example, "I voted for X" or "I supported Y" when, in fact, the opposite is true. Usually, these generic lies are quickly seized upon by the opponent and the issuer of the lie either issues a retraction ("I meant to say...") or qualifies the lie ("I supported X in the committee hearing before voting against it because of extra measures that were attached..."). Sometimes, these lies have "legs" but usually, the qualification or retraction, rather than the initial statement, becomes the issue. And, usually, the subject of the lie is an issue of importance to voters (did the candidate vote for or against the tax cut, for example). While the lie itself may be bad, at least the response and resulting discussion usually lead to a discussion of actual issues (even if only tangentially).

Unfortunately, two new types of lies seem to have entered the political process. (OK, I'll admit that they've both probably been around as long as elections have, but they seem to be becoming more prominent recently.) The first is the lie of destruction. That lie puts out disinformation about the opponent that has nothing to do with the issues in the election; rather, the lie attacks the opponent's character or fitness to serve. This year, we've seen lies about Sen. Obama's religion and lies about Sen. McCain's involvement in the fire aboard the USS Forrestal. We've seen lies about Sen. Obama's citizenship and lies about Sen. McCain cooperating with the enemy while a POW. These sorts of lies are very damaging to the candidates, and, more importantly, they are very damaging to our very electoral process (would you want to run for office knowing the kinds of things that might be said about you and your family?). Between mass communications and the Internet, these lies can spread faster than they can be rebutted; by the time a rebuttal can be issued, the lie has taken on a life of its own and, to many people, become "true". So, if people are basing their electoral decision on the basis of lies about a candidate's character and background, those electoral decisions will, almost by definition be flawed and the issues on which the election should turn are relegated to a position of lesser importance. This trend has me gravely concerned. If people don't want to vote for Sen. Obama because they don't like his economic policies, fine (although I'd like to talk to them...); but if they don't want to vote for him because "he's a Muslim" then we have a problem. If people don't want to vote for Sen. McCain because he opposes a woman's right to choose, fine; but if they don't want to vote for him because they think he is responsible for the deaths of 134 sailors on the USS Forrestal then we have a problem. And given the prominence of chain emails and websites with just these sorts of allegations, I think that we do have a problem.

And now we have yet another new type of lie: The sound byte lie that sounds so good that it is repeated even after it has been proved false. The case in point is, of course, Gov. Palin's repeated claim that she told Congress "thanks but no thanks" to the Bridge to Nowhere. She made this claim when Sen. McCain first announced her as his running mate. It was a great sound byte and was repeated over and over on the evening news. Very quickly, however, the veracity of the statement was called into question. The timeline of funding for the bridge and Gov. Palin's own past statements demonstrated that she had not told Congress "thanks but no thanks" (after all, Congress stopped funding for the bridge before Gov. Palin was elected) but only killed the project (to be built with Alaskan funds) when Congress refused to allocate more money to Alaska (in fact, she noted that Congress didn't seem interested in giving Alaska more money for the project). She supported the bridge during her campain and for the first year or so of her administration; there is even a picture of her wearing a "Nowhere Alaska" shirt. But here is where this lie differs from others. Ordinarily, when caught in a lie of this sort, a candidate would explain away the position (it's a matter of nuanced understanding...) and the lie would vanish from the stump speech. But not in this case. Instead, Gov. Palin repeated the line in her acceptance speech and has continued to repeat the line day after day in stump speeches across the country even as more and more news media report on the fact that the statement is not true. Of course, the worst part of this lie is that each time she utters it, she is met with thunderous applause. And now, the McCain campaign has even made this lie a part of a campaign ad. Whether she did or did not support the bridge isn't even the issue; rather, the issue is her support or opposition to earmarks (recall that she hired a lobbyist for the town of Wasilla to get earmarks and, as Governor, asked Congress for more money). But she uses the lie to bolster her credentials.

What does it tell us about a candidate who will repeat, over and over, a statement of fact that has been proven to be a lie? To me, it says that the candidate really doesn't care about the truth. That's obvious. But it also says that the candidate is so confident in the appeal of her personal story that the issues won't matter to voters. It tells me that she doesn't think voters care about the truth or will do enough to learn the truth (or won't believe the truth because it comes from the "liberal media"). It tells me that she doesn't have any respect for the democratic process or for democracy as a concept or method of governance; after all, if the public can't trust a candidate to tell the truth (or at least a close approximation to the truth), then how is the public supposed to make a determination of who to vote for? Repeating the lie is cynical and insulting. And, the fact that the McCain campaign has now incorporated that lie into a campaign ad tells me that the cynicism of the selection of Gov. Palin apparently runs much deeper...

And what does the repetition of the lie and the thunderous approval it receives tell us about the voting electorate? It tells us that Gov. Palin just may be correct in her cynical belief that the American electorate is too stupid to analyze issues and will, instead, just vote for the person that they'd rather have over for a mooseburger and a beer. And that is a very, very worrying prospect indeed.

A Little More Campaign Humor

I came across one more funny video that makes a nice companion piece to today's earlier post. So, without further ado, here's the Daily Show's take on some of the current election issues:

I think that Karl Rove's thoughts should be replayed over and over and over. And to see Bill O'Reilly's hypocrisy front and center ... priceless.

My Cousin in a Public Service Announcement

My cousin (whom I unfortunately don't get to see very often) just did a public service announcement regarding underage drinking. She's the one on the left.



Very nice.

Some Campaign Humor

Just to throw a little levity into the election season, my wife found a couple of terrific videos worth spending a few minutes watching:

You've probably heard (over and over and over) Katy Perry's song "I Kissed a Girl". Well, here's an alternate take (let the video load and then forward to about 1:32 -- the first minute or so isn't worth watching):

Did you wonder what it must have been like when Sen. McCain asked Gov. Palin to join him on the Republican ticket:

And in the grand tradition of Davy Crockett and Daniel Boone, we have The Ballad of Sarah Palin:

Finally, even Steven Colbert had a bit of fun with Gov. Palin's nomination (be aware of profanity at the very beginning of the video and you can probably stop watching at 4:00 when it starts incorporating some footage from The Family Guy cartoon):

Obama on Community Organizing

In yesterday's post, "Sarah Palin: Pit Bull?", I noted the way that both Gov. Palin and Rudy Giuliani seemed to take pride in mocking and ridiculing the work that community organizers do. What does Sen. Obama have to say? Watch:

I particularly like the questions that he poses to Republicans (at about 1:00 into the video):

Why would that kind of work be ridiculous? Who are they fighting for? What are they advocating for? Do they think that the lives of those folks who are struggling each and every day, that working with them to try to improve their lives is somehow not relevant to the Presidency? I think maybe that's the problem. That's part of why they're out of touch and they don't get it because they haven't spent much time working on behalf of those folks.

Sarah Palin: Pit Bull?

Yesterday, I asked "Who Is Sarah Palin?" Well, last night, the American electorate got their first real chance to see and hear from the candidate. My impressions? Well, she does an excellent job reading well-written speeches off teleprompters in front of a hugely supportive, partisan crowd (but we know, from statements that the McCain campaign gave to the press that Gov. Palin didn't actually write the speech; she was just the actor delivering the lines). I'm still waiting to listen to her talk extemporaneously, especially if she is answering hard questions (sorry, I just don't think that the People interview counts...) from journalists. It is also interesting to compare her well-rehearsed speech last night to the more impromptu speech that she recently gave at her old church.


To me, there are a few important things to take away from Gov. Palin's speech. First, it has long been a political cliche that the role of a Vice Presidential candidate is to be the party's attack dog. In other words, it is up to the Vice Presidential candidate to attack the other party's candidate, thus allowing the candidate for President to "rise above" the petty squabbles. Not only did Gov. Palin demonstrate that she is willing to and will be an effective attack dog, she practically acknowledged as much in her speech: "You know what they say about the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick." Well, it appears that Gov. Palin is the Republican party's pit bull in lipstick. She devoted much of the last 2/3 or so of her speech to attacking Sen. Obama and the Democrats.

It is also worth noting that we never heard her say that opposes abortion, even in the case of rape or incest or that she isn't sure that global warming is a man-made problem or that she opposes medically accurate, comprehensive sex education, or that she thinks the War in Iraq is a "task from God". Nope. She spent plenty of time attacking the Democrats, but very little time telling us much about what she believes (and here I'll distinguish Gov. Palin's beliefs from those of Sen. McCain). I can't wait to here what she thinks about stem cell research...


Another thing that I learned about Gov. Palin is that while she may let the Republican party cry foul over the media having made her family a part of the campaign, she wasn't shy about focusing the spotlight on them herself. She seemed perfectly happy to parade her family (and soon-to-be family) in front of the cameras. OK, fine. That's her decision to make. But if she is going to make her family a part of the campaign, then she can't very well cry foul when others question her about her family. She can't talk about part of the family (the son heading to Iraq) but declare the pregnant daughter off limits.


And was it just me, or did her appeal to families of special needs children ring hollow to anyone else, too? Somehow, that one moment of her speech just jumped out at me as political pandering of an almost unimaginable level.


Perhaps the most important thing that I learned above Gov. Palin last night is that she isn't afraid to repeat a lie to millions of Americans; even when that lie has already been demonstrated to be a just that: a lie. Pardon the expression, but that takes balls. When Sen. McCain introduced Gov. Palin last week, she claimed that she had killed the Bridge to Nowhere and told Congress "thanks, but no thanks". She repeated that claim last night. What she failed to mention in her speech is that Congress actually killed funding for the bridge before Gov. Palin was elected governor of Alaska! And, while running for governor, she supported building the Bridge to Nowhere. For the first 10 months of her term in office, she apparently planned to go ahead and use Alaskan money (much of it received from Congress for infrastructure improvements) to build the Bridge to Nowhere anyway. When she finally decided to kill the program, she said:

Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer. Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island. Much of the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened.

(Emphasis added.) In other words, she didn't tell Congress anything; rather, Congress told Alaska. What frightens me is that she is willing to look straight into the camera and keep telling this same lie over and over. And what frightens me even more is that Republicans cheer her on.


I don't want to continue the comparison of Gov. Palin's experience and qualifications to Sen. Obama's and Sen. Biden's. But I do want to ask why Gov. Palin (and Rudy Guiliani, for that matter) felt that it was worth ridiculing the work of community organizing? As this election is shaping up, it looks like blue collar, working Americans may be a swing voting block. To paraphrase Roland Martin, it is community organizers who are helping people at risk of losing their homes in the sub-prime mortgage crisis, it is community organizers who help people pay their bills, it is community organizers who are trying to help people save their jobs or get retrained and find new jobs when theirs are sent overseas, it is community organizers who help feed the poor, house the homeless, and care for those who can't care for themselves. Years ago, it was community organizers who marched for civil rights and women's rights. Community organizers are all about service to their fellow citizens. You'd think that Republicans would understand service, not ridicule it. Sen. Obama could have stayed at a big Chicago law firm and made a lot of money; instead he choose to spend his time helping people who had lost their jobs when steel mills closed. I think when some of those swing voters think a bit more about community organizers, Gov. Palin's attacks may begin to ring a bit hollow, if not downright mean spirited.


And not to belabor the point, but I couldn't help but feel as if part of the explanation for the repeated attacks on community organizing was that it was meant to appeal to white voters concerned about a black candidate. I don't know; maybe I'm off base here. But in a conversation with a friend (the same friend who expressed concerns that I discussed back in June) last weekend, she equated Sen. Obama's community organizing to working solely within and for the African-American community and not for the working poor or middle class generally. I can't help but feel as if it is that sentiment of racist fear (and I don't know what else to call it but racist and fear) that the repeated ridicule of community organizing was meant to tap in to.


I also want to one more point to the "Who Is Sarah Palin?" semi-rhetorical query that I posed yesterday.

We all remember the flap about Sen. Obama's pastor and the calls for Sen. Obama to reject some of the claims made by his pastor (and, recall, that Sen. Obama did, indeed, reject the pastor's statements). I'm sure, though, that we haven't heard the last of that issue. But, I wonder whether those who criticized Sen. Obama for the statements of his pastor will be equally critical of Gov. Palin. Why, you ask? Well, just a few weeks ago (August 17, 2008, to be precise), Gov. Palin's church welcomed David Brickner, the executive director of "Jews for Jesus". I don't need to tell my Jewish readers much about this shameful, deceitful group of evangelical Christians, but for those who aren't aware, they are a bunch of Christian evangelicals who claim to be "Jews" who have "found" Jesus. If they stopped there, we could put them off to the side as merely another fringe religious element. But they go further and try to actively convert Jews, often engaging in fraud, subterfuge, or lies to accomplish their nefarious purposes (including targeting teens). In introducing Brickner, Gov. Palin's pastor Larry Kroon said: "He’s a leader of Jews for Jesus, a ministry that is out on the leading edge in a pressing, demanding area of witnessing and evangelism". Following that introduction, Brickner apparently discussed the mission of his group and then explained to the congregation (that included Gov. Palin) that terrorist attacks on Israelis are God's "judgment of unbelief" of Jews who haven't embraced Christianity. After the discussion, Pastor Kroon took up a collection plate for Jews for Jesus. (A transcript of Brickner's and Pastor Kroon's comments is available thanks to Daily Kos.) If Sen. Obama should have walked out on Pastor Wright, then Gov. Palin should have walked out on Pastor Kroon and Mr. Brickner. Or, perhaps Gov. Palin believes that terrorist attacks on Jews are justified...


Finally, when reading today's roundup of coverage on Gov. Palin's speech, I came across one article that was too good not to pass on (and, in the interests of making it easier to read, I've reproduced the entire article below):

Why the Media Should Apologize
by Roger Simon (reprinted from Politico; originally published September 4, 2008)

On behalf of the media, I would like to say we are sorry.

On behalf of the elite media, I would like to say we are very sorry.

We have asked questions this week that we should never have asked.

We have asked pathetic questions like: Who is Sarah Palin? What is her record? Where does she stand on the issues? And is she is qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?

We have asked mean questions like: How well did John McCain know her before he selected her? How well did his campaign vet her? And was she his first choice?

Bad questions. Bad media. Bad.

It is not our job to ask questions. Or it shouldn’t be. To hear from the pols at the Republican National Convention this week, our job is to endorse and support the decisions of the pols.

Sarah Palin hit the nail on the head Wednesday night (and several in the audience wish she had hit some reporters on the head instead) when she said: “I’m not a member of the permanent political establishment. And I’ve learned quickly, these past few days, that if you’re not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.”

But where did we go wrong with Sarah Palin? Let me count the ways:

First, we should have stuck to the warm, human interest stuff like how she likes mooseburgers and hit an important free throw at her high school basketball tournament even though she had a stress fracture.

Second, we should have stuck to the press release stuff like how she opposed the Bridge to Nowhere (after she supported it).

Third, we should never have strayed into the other stuff. Like when The Washington Post recently wrote: “Palin is under investigation by a bipartisan state legislative body. … Palin had promised to cooperate with the legislative inquiry, but this week she hired a lawyer to fight to move the case to the jurisdiction of the state personnel board, which Palin appoints.”

Why go there? What trees does that plant?

Fourth, we should stop making with all the questions already. She gave a really good speech. And why go beyond that? As we all know, speeches cannot be written by others and rehearsed for days. They are true windows to the soul.

Unless they are delivered by Barack Obama, that is. In which case, as Palin said Wednesday, speeches are just a “cloud of rhetoric.”

Fifth, we should stop reporting on the families of the candidates. Unless the candidates want us to.

Sarah Palin wanted the media to report on her teenage son, Track, who enlisted in the Army on Sept. 11, 2007, and soon will deploy to Iraq.

Sarah Palin did not want the media to report on her teenage daughter, Bristol, who is pregnant and unmarried.

Sarah Palin thinks that one is good for her campaign and one is not, and that the media should report only on what is good for her campaign. That is our job, and that is our duty. If that is not actually in the Constitution, it should be. (And someday may be.)

The official theme of the convention’s third day was “prosperity,” but the unofficial theme was “the media are really, really awful.”

Even Mike Huckabee, who campaigned for president this year by saying “I am a conservative, but I am not mad at anybody,” discovered Wednesday night that he is mad at somebody.

“I’d like to thank the elite media for doing something,” Huckabee said, “that, quite frankly, I didn’t think could be done: unify the Republican party and all of America in support of John McCain and Sarah Palin."

And could that be the real point of the attacks on the media? To unify the Republican Party? No, that is simply the cynical, media view.

Though as Lily Tomlin says, “No matter how cynical I get, it’s just never enough to keep up.”

I couldn’t resist that. For which I am sorry.

Who Is Sarah Palin?

The Republicans worked quickly to disprove allegations that Gov. Sarah Palin was once a member of the Alaska Independence Party (the AIP), a party that has as its principal goal the "lofty" idea of redoing the 1958 vote that made Alaska a state and, in so doing, allow Alaskans the right to choose independence. Reports surfaced over the last few days that Gov. Palin was a member of the AIP before leaving the party to become a Republican in order to run for Mayor of Wasilla. According to ABC News, Lynnete Clark, Chair of the AIP, said that Gov. Palin and her husband Todd were members of the AIP in 1994 and attended the AIP convention in 1994 (held in Wasilla). The Republicans have now produced voter registration records that confirm that Gov. Palin was registered as a Republican from 1982 onward and Ms. Clark has indicated that she may have been mistaken. Whew. Good to know. But...

It is worth noting that, according to Gail Fenumiai, director of the Alaska Division of Elections, Gov. Palin's husband Todd did register as a member of the AIP in both 1995 and 2000. Can you imagine the furor and righteous indignation that we would be hearing from the Republicans if Michelle Obama had registered as a member of the Green Party or a socialist party? One of the mottoes of the AIP (found on the platform page of their website) helps to put the party's views in context: "The problem with you John Birchers' is that you are too damn liberal!" (Attributed to Joseph Vogler, the party's founder.) By the AIP standard, George W. Bush is practically a communist...

It would be very interesting to know if Gov. Palin and her husband share similar political views or whether they actually differ on the subject of Alaskan independence. Was she a Republican because she believed in that party's platform more than the platform of the AIP or was she a Republican because it made her more electable? It is also worth noting AIP members recognize that one of their political strategies is to "infiltrate" the major parties.

Some dispute has arisen as to whether Gov. Palin attended that 1994 state convention in Wasilla. Some members of the AIP continue to say that Gov. Palin did attend and, even as recently at the 2008 AIP state convention (held before Gov. Palin became the Republican nominee), the party's vice chairman talked about her membership in the AIP before becoming Mayor. And why, as Governor of Alaska, did Gov. Palin feel it was necessary or even appropriate to send a welcome message to the AIP for their state convention? I'm not exactly convinced that this is just a matter of procedure. After all, I can't see Gov. Daniels sending a welcome message to Indiana's Libertarian Party convention (let alone the Democratic Party convention). I don't recall seeing President Bush welcoming the Democrats to their National Convention. I'd be curious to know if Gov. Palin sent a similar message to Alaska's Democratic Party when they held their state convention. Was her welcome message just a simple ministerial function of her office or did it indicate some degree of support for the views and goals of the AIP?

One other interesting little nugget has also arisen in the last few days. Apparently, during the 2000 campaign primaries, Pat Buchanan visited Wasilla, Alaska (while Palin was Mayor). According to news reports at the time, Mayor Palin was wearing a Buchanan campaign button at the event. A few days later, Mayor Palin wrote to respond to the article and said:

When presidential candidates visit our community, I am always happy to meet them. I'll even put on their button when handed one as a polite gesture of respect. ... The article may have left your readers with the perception that I am endorsing this candidate, as opposed to welcoming his visit to Wasilla.

(Mayor Palin became co-chair of Steve Forbes' campaign in Alaska.) Again, I wonder whether Mayor Palin would have worn an Al Gore button had Vice President Gore visited Wasilla? Would she have worn the button of any candidate, just to show respect? I for one am troubled that the Mayor would extend that kind of respect to a candidate as divisive as Buchanan, especially one known for his antisemitic rhetoric? Would Mayor Palin have worn an Al Sharpton button? What about David Duke?

It just seems to me that Gov. Palin (and then-Mayor Palin) makes odd choices and follows those choices with somewhat implausible explanations.

Oh, remember that whole "Gov. Palin took on the Republican establishment" line that the McCain campaign has been repeating over and over. Well, guess what? According this article in the Washington Post, Mayor Palin was a director of Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc., a 527 group that could raise unlimited funds from corporate donors. Just in case you forgot, Ted Stevens is the now-indicted Alaskan Senator responsible for the Bridge to Nowhere! And, according to the same article, a campaign ad that Stevens made for Gov. Palin during her gubernatorial run was removed from her campaign website shortly after she was announced as Sen. McCain's running mate. It wasn't removed for almost two years after the election; it wasn't removed when Sen. Stevens was indicted; it was only removed when Gov. Palin was thrust onto the national stage. Gee, I wonder why?

And I may as well throw in a few more bits, just for yucks (this stuff keeps showing up online, almost too fast to keep up with -- and she hasn't even opened her mouth yet!).

One of the criticisms leveled against Gov. Palin is her lack of foreign policy and international experience. Not true, says Sen. McCain's wife Cindy: "Remember, Alaska is the closest part of our continent to Russia, so it's not as if she doesn't understand what's at stake here..." Huh? I really, really want to comment on this, but frankly can't quite up with anything pithy enough to live up to the lunacy of Cindy McCain's statement.

What does Gov. Palin think about the war in Iraq? She thinks that it's God's war (watch this video and listen to her comments at 6:11):

Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan.

And at 11:20 or so, watch Gov. Palin nod as the pastor talks about Alaska being a "refuge" during the "last days" when "hundreds of thousands" of people from the Lower 48 will come to Alaska. It's also worth noting some of the things that Gov. Palin's pastor has said, including suggesting that anyone who doesn't vote for a Republican will go to hell and that anyone who criticises President Bush will go to hell. If Sen. Obama is subject to criticism for things that his pastor said, then Gov. Palin may be equally open to criticism related to her pastor's teachings.

Gov. Palin also supports aerial hunting of wolves in Alaska. (For additional information on this, please watch this video, but be forewarned that some of the images are disturbing.) I'm generally opposed to hunting, but recognize that hunting for food or to protect humans, livestock, or crops is acceptable. But hunting wolves in the Alaskan wilderness from planes? That's like fishing with dynamite. And the bounty on left legs is simply charming, isn't it?

As to earmarks, Gov. Palin's claim that she was against the "bridge to nowhere" also turned out to be incorrect. Apparently, she was for the bridge before she was against it. Only when Congress killed the funding and told Alaska to pay for the bridge themselves did Gov. Palin decide to end her support for the bridge. (Why do I doubt that Republicans will show Gov. Palin as much indignation for her flip flop as they did for Sen. Kerry in 2004...) Moreover, Gov. Palin's most recent requests to Congress for Alaskan earmarks totals $300 for every Alaskan! Maybe in Alaska they call it caribou instead of pork, but it all smells the same.

At the same time that she was asking the federal government to fund Alaskan projects, Gov. Palin was using her line item veto to cut by 20%, the budget of Covenant House Alaska, a series of programs for troubled teens, including Passage House which provides a transitional home for teenage mothers. I guess this shouldn't be a surprise given that Gov. Palin (and Sen. McCain) opposes medically accurate and comprehensive sex education programs and funding to prevent teen pregnancy. Abstinence only, baby!

I know that I'm rambling a bit, but I also wanted to briefly address the charge that some Republicans have levelled that the amount of scrutiny being aimed at Gov. Palin is unfair or is on account of her gender. My response to that? Bullshit. The problem is that nobody has ever heard of Gov. Palin and nobody knows what she stands for. Sen. Obama, Sen. Biden, and, for that matter, Sen. McCain (not to mention Sen. Clinton and all of the other former candidates for President) went through many months of talking to voters and the press, answering questions about their records and their plans and their ideas. They've debated each other, in public, repeatedly. Their detailed platforms have been posted online for all to read. The voting records (not to mention written records, in some cases) of the candidates have been examined in detail as have the numerous speeches and talks that the candidates have given. Each statement has been picked apart analyzed and reanalyzed and each gaffe has given rise to volumes of press and posts. But Gov. Palin comes to the process without all of this. She is an unknown thrust upon the national stage just days before she is to be formally nominated to run for Vice President. So neither the media nor bloggers nor the public have the time to wait to get to know Gov. Palin. The election is two months away and it is critical that as much information about the candidate become available as quickly as possible. That much of the information coming out is negative? Well, that just raises questions about the vetting process and Sen. McCain's judgment.

Finally, I couldn't help but chuckle at a story in this morning's The Indianapolis Star in which a Hoosier delegate to the Republican convention is shown proudly wearing her "Hoosiers for the Hot Chick" button. Can you imagine a "Hoosiers for the Black Dude" button? Nope, this election isn't about race or gender politics at all...

I'm not the only one with questions for Gov. Palin. Many members of the media would love to ask her questions about the AIP, troopergate (I just read that she refuses to testify...), earmarks, and numerous other things (oh, like issues, for example). But, since being named as the presumptive nominee last Friday, she has not answered any substantive questions from reporters except for an interview that she gave to People magazine (known for its hard-hitting political reporting...). Is she hiding from interviews and tough questions or are the Republicans working so hard to train her and bring her up to speed that they don't have time (or dare take the risk) of letting her be grilled yet? Ah, yes. The true spirit of the marketplace of ideas at work.

So who is Sarah Palin and why does John McCain think that she is qualified to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency?

Obama & McCain's Views on Scientific Issues

I just came across an interesting chart comparing the views of Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain on a number of scientific issues, including climate change, stem-cell research, sex education, and evolution vs. intelligent design (thanks to Masson's Blog for finding this). The chart was prepared by Scientists & Engineers for America, a non-partisan, nonprofit, educational organization with a mission to "facilitate evidence-based decision making at all levels of government".

A review of the chart shows that Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain agree on quite a few points. Among the differences that I noticed:

• Sen. McCain favors subsidies for nuclear power but not for other types of alternative energy while Sen. Obama wants to invest money in research in alternative energy.
• Sen. McCain wants to build additional nuclear reactors to address energy needs while Sen. Obama believes that nuclear energy may be necessary but that we need to ensure it is safe and has public support before embarking on the construction of new nuclear reactors.
• Sen. McCain supports President Bush's view that abstinence-only sex education is the appropriate policy while Sen. Obama endorses comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education that is medically accurate and includes information about contraception.
• Sen. McCain favors offshore drilling while Sen. Obama says that he is willing to consider offshore drilling if it would provide short-term relief or be part of a long-term strategy for energy independence.
• Sen. McCain believes that intelligent design should be taught in classrooms while Sen. Obama recognizes the "difference between science and faith" and would not teach intelligent design in the classroom.
• Sen. McCain does not think that the government should get into the issue of net neutrality until and unless it becomes a problem, believing instead that the issue should be left to market forces while Sen. Obama strongly supports net neutrality.

The chart includes much more detail, including quotations and links to interviews and the candidates' respective platforms. Take a look and make up your own mind as to which candidate's views you find most appealing.

For what it's worth, on each of these issues, I generally side with Sen. Obama.

McCain's Choice for VP: America First or Alaska First?

Last week, in one my posts discussing the selection of Gov. Palin as the Republican nominee for Vice President, I included a quotation from an interview that Gov. Palin did with CNBC's Kudlow & Co. In that interview Palin said:

As for that VP talk all the time, I'll tell you, I still can't answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day? I'm used to being very productive and working real hard in an administration. We want to make sure that that VP slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans and for the things that we're trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the U.S., before I can even start addressing that question.

When I first referenced this statement last week, I focused on Gov. Palin's lack of understanding of what the Vice President does. However, with recent revelations about Gov. Palin's political affiliations, another part of this statement becomes even more important:

We want to make sure that that VP slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans and for the things that we're trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the U.S.

(Emphasis added.) Why have I focused on this statement? Well, it seems that before Gov. Palin decided to run for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, she was a member of the Alaska Independence Party.

From what I've been able to gather, the Alaska Independence Party does not believe that the 1958 vote that brought about statehood for Alaska was fair or legal (they claim that ineligible people were allowed to vote and that the vote did not conform to United Nations standards). The party apparently wants Alaskans to have another chance to vote and they want the vote to include the option of Alaska becoming an independent nation. (The reason that the previous statements are left somewhat hazy is because the party's website seems to be giving way under the strain of so many people trying to learn about the party; I haven't been able to access it at all to get a copy of the party's platform.) In 1990, Alaska elected a governor from the Alaska Independence Party. That former governor, Walter Joseph Hickel, was a supporter of Gov. Palin when she ran for the office in 2006. The party's founder, Joe Vogler, is buried in Canada because he refused to be buried under the flag of the United States.

So, with all of this in mind, think back to Gov. Palin's statement that the Vice Presidency would need to be "a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans" and ask yourself whether she is seeking the Vice Presidency to put America first or to put Alaska first. I don't know about you, but the idea of a Vice President who was a member of or supported a party with a secessionist agenda leaves me a bit ... um ... er ... cold.

And, even if her links to a secessionist party weren't enough, her lack of understanding of basic American history is also troubling. While running for governor in 2006, then-Mayor Palin was asked a series of questions by Eagle Forum Alaska in a candidate questionnaire, including the following question and Palin's response:

Q: Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?

A: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.

Apparently, Gov. Palin doesn't realize that the phrase "under God" was not added to the Pledge of Allegiance until the 1950s (in response to "godless" communism). Moreover, the Pledge of Allegiance itself wasn't written until 1892 (by a socialist Baptist minister)! Neither the founding fathers nor the framers of our Constitution had anything to do with the Pledge of Allegiance and the Constitution does not make reference to God.

That same candidate questionnaire and Gov. Palin's responses also help flesh out some of her positions on other issues:

Q: Complete the sentence by checking the applicable phrases (you can check more than one).
Abortion should be:
Banned throughout entire pregnancy.
Legal to save the life of the mother.
Legal in case of rape and incest.
Legal if the baby is handicapped.
Legal if the baby has a genetic defect.
Legal in the first trimester.
Legal in the second trimester.
Legal in the third trimester.
Other:__________________

A: I am pro-life. With the exception of a doctor’s determination that the mother’s life would end if the pregnancy continued. I believe that no matter what mistakes we make as a society, we cannot condone ending an innocent’s life.

So, it appears that Gov. Palin would not make an exception, even in the case of rape or incest. This position seems far out of touch with the position of much of the electorate, even much of the anti-abortion electorate. Furthermore, as I've discussed in the past, Judaism has a different view when it comes to abortion. Thus, while I respect Gov. Palin's reviews with regard to her own life, I am offended that she wants to tell me that my religion's understanding of life and death issues is wrong.

Q: Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?

A: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.

In other words, Gov. Palin believes that the only information that children (including teens) should receive with regard to sexual education should be abstinence. I, for one, have a very difficult time believing that we should not teach children the truth or give them the full set of facts. How many teens get pregnant (or STDs) because they either didn't have access to a quality, medically accurate, sex education program or didn't have access to contraceptives? I think that it is naive to think that, just because we tell teens to abstain, they will. We tell them not to drink and smoke but they do it anyway; we tell them not to do drugs, but that doesn't always work either. We even have trouble getting kids to do their homework when we tell them to. So why do we think that telling teens to abstain from sex will work? Everywhere teens turn, they are pummelled by images of sex and sexuality and we tell them to just ignore those images and, more importantly, ignore their teenage hormones, and simply abstain. Yeah, right. And if abstinence only education doesn't work, shouldn't we inform teens so that they will be able to make better decisions and better protect themselves, either from STDs or pregnancy? Not in Gov. Palin's world (or, for that matter, in world of Sen. McCain or President Bush or Gov. Daniels here in Indiana).

Q: Do you support the Alaska Supreme Court’s ruling that spousal benefits for state employees should be given to same-sex couples? Why or why not?

A: No, I believe spousal benefits are reserved for married citizens as defined in our constitution.

I don't really have much to add to this position other than to note that the question isn't even about gay marriage, but rather simple fairness of treatment. Gov. Palin doesn't believe that same-sex couples should be treated the same way as married couples. Thankfully (for Alaskans), the Alaska Supreme Court apparently believed that Alaska should not be allowed to discriminate against gay couples.

All I know is that it really appears as if Sen McCain's campaign did a very poor job of vetting Gov. Palin. I can't imagine Sen. McCain choosing a candidate who had previously espoused secession from the U.S. (or even giving people a chance to vote on the issue). And it seems incredible to have a candidate who doesn't even know the history of the Pledge of Allegiance (forget the issue whether "under God" should or should not be included; shouldn't the Governor or a state, let alone the Vice President, know the background of such fundamental American topics as the Pledge of Allegiance?). Add "troopergate" to the list of issues and controversies and Gov. Palin's nomination seems even less sound (but, as I've already suggested that her nomination was never about a quality candidate, but rather about gender politics, then these "extraneous" issues may not have mattered much to the McCain campaign).

Finally, I hope that all of this "disgruntled" supporters of Hillary Clinton to whom Gov. Palin's selection is supposed to be appealing will look closely at Gov. Palin's views on issues like abortion, sex education, and gay rights. Sen. Obama may not be the candidate that you wanted, but if those issues are important to you, then Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are even less worthy of being your candidate. Think about the questions that Sen. Clinton asked during the Democratic convention and ask yourself whether you support Sen. Clinton or whether you support the issues for which Sen. Clinton remains such a strong advocate. I have a hard time believing that anyone to whom those issues are important would rather give in on those issues solely to elect a woman to the Vice Presidency.

This is the third post in a series. Part one was posted on August 29, 2008 and Part two was posted on August 30, 2008.

McCain's Choice for VP: Political Cynicism (update)

Yesterday I posted my initial thoughts about John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate. After listening to several pundits, reading several articles (both online and in print), talking to some friends and family, and, most importantly, thinking about the issue for myself, I thought that I'd add a few more thoughts on the nomination.

I thought that John McCain was supposed to be a "maverick". I guess that we're supposed to be impressed by his decision to choose someone from outside of Washington who has "history" of going against party insiders. But let's take a closer look at that. First, there is a thin line between being a maverick and being reckless. Yes, Gov. Palin comes from way outside of Washington; so far outside, in fact, that it will be interesting to see if she knows much, if anything, about national (let alone international) issues. In fact, Palin herself said just a month or so ago that she didn't even know what the Vice President does! Speaking on CNBC's Kudlow & Co., Palin said:

As for that VP talk all the time, I'll tell you, I still can't answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day? I'm used to being very productive and working real hard in an administration. We want to make sure that that VP slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans and for the things that we're trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the U.S., before I can even start addressing that question.

And this is the person that Sen. McCain wants to be our Vice President, a heartbeat away from the Presidency? I'll be interested to hear Gov. Palin's plans for healthcare, renewable energy (after all, Alaska's oil won't last forever), and social security reform. How would Gov. Palin handle the Russian invasion of Georgia, Iran's nuclear ambitions, or the Israeli-Palestinian peace process? Of course, I already know that she's pro-NRA, anti-abortion, and opposed to gay rights.

As to this notion that she has a "history" of fighting political corruption and going against party insiders, there is both truth and exaggeration in the claim. Yes, she won the job as Alaska's governor by challenging the old guard and taking on political corruption and for that she should be applauded. Of course, it is worth noting that the incumbent governor that Palin defeated was, according to polls conducted in Alaska, the most unpopular governor in the country with an approval rating of just 14%! And just how politically difficult was it really to kill the "bridge to nowhere" given that it was being built at the behest of (and to honor) now-indicted Senator Ted Stevens and made Alaska somewhat of a laughing stock to the rest of the country? It is also worth noting that she apparently expressed support for the bridge until it became a national symbol of wasteful spending.

And let's not forget that the Alaskan legislature, just a few weeks ago, launched an ethics inquiry aimed at Gov. Palin. The charge is that she fired Alaska's public safety commissioner because he, in turn, had refused to fire a state trooper who was going through a messy divorce with Gov. Palin's sister.

One of the most disturbing things that I've heard over the last 24 hours is the Republican drumbeat recitation that Gov. Palin has as much or more experience as Barack Obama. Huh? If I understand the argument, it is that Sen. Obama has only been an attorney, community activist and organizer, law school lecturer (not to mention president of the Harvard Law Review), state legislator, and United States Senator, while Gov. Palin has, in her capacity as mayor and now governor, actually managed something. I'm sorry, but I don't buy that argument. First, the town that Gov. Palin led was only 25% bigger than my high school. Viewed another way, the town of Wasilla, Alaska, has only about 10% as many people as the number of people who worked in the World Trade Center on any given day before 9/11. I don't accept, for a moment, that her experience as mayor of Wasilla was, in any way, comparable to that of either Sen. Obama or Sen. Biden. Similarly, with regard to her role as governor of Alaska, again recall that Alaska's population is about 670,000 (I don't think that number includes moose...), only about 85% of the population of Indianapolis. Indianapolis has had some terrific mayors (Bill Hudnut, Steve Goldsmith, Bart Peterson), but I don't think that any of them would necessarily have had the experience to be Vice President, let alone President. In fact, in his acceptance speech Thursday night, the audience at Mile High Stadium was equal to about 12% of the entire population of Alaska! And, don't forget, that the Gov. Palin's much-ballyhooed gubernatorial experience comprises a whopping 20 months! So, frankly, to anyone who tries to equate Gov. Palin's "experience" with that of either Sen. Obama or Sen. Biden, all I can say is stop smoking whatever you're smoking. (I will commend the Republicans for managing to get their political supporters on the same page and stick to their "talking points" even if it does make them look foolish.)

One thing that does scare me is how appealing Gov. Palin (and her husband) may be to certain segments of the electorate. The fact that she hunts (moose, no less) and fishes will, at least to some, far outweigh the fact that she has no experience dealing with national or international issues. She will certainly be a counterpoint to Sen. Obama's alleged elitism (which, I hope, the Democratic Convention put to rest). I just hope that people decide to vote based on the issues and not just on which candidate looks more like them or which candidate they'd prefer to have over for a beer and a mooseburger.

I think that The Indianapolis Star's Matthew Tully described Sen. McCain's choice very well:

This is what McCain does with his first big executive decision? Seriously, does anyone reading this believe McCain looked at his lineup of potential running mates and honestly said, "You know, I really think Sarah Palin is the Republican best suited to serve as my vice president?"

Of course not.

Instead, it appears he looked at the polls and focus groups and decided to play politics with the most important decision he'll make during this campaign.

Unless the rest of the world is missing something, it seems clear McCain's decision was made for blatant, pandering reasons -- a desperate attempt to win over women, especially disaffected Hillary Rodham Clinton supporters, while puckering up to conservatives.

Sen. McCain is supposed to be a maverick and his pick of Gov. Palin is supposed to demonstrate that. Instead, the pick demonstrates that Sen. McCain is resorting to the worst kind of focus-group politics, in this case gender politics, to win the Presidency. I'd so hoped that the efforts of Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton would have begun to put an end to that kind of political cynicism. I guess that Sen. McCain the Republicans haven't gotten the memo yet. Hopefully, come November, they will learn the hard way.

This is the second post in a series. Part one was posted on August 29, 2008.

McCain's Choice for VP: Political Cynicism

So John McCain has chosen Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. I'm sure that we'll hear much about this choice and Gov. Palin over the next few days, but I wanted to offer a few quick thoughts (I just heard the news in the last half hour or so).

First, my initial reaction is that Sen. McCain's choice is exceedingly cynical, albeit perhaps politically savvy. Is Gov. Palin qualified? I don't know; I don't know much about her and I suspect that you don't either. Is Gov. Palin the most qualified person available? I seriously doubt that she is even among the most qualified candidates, let alone the most qualified candidate. Moreover, I don't think that she was chosen because of the importance of her home state of Alaska; after all, Alaska's 3 electoral votes almost always go to the Republican candidate anyway. No, the reason that Gov. Palin has been added to the ticket is simple: She is a woman. Sen. McCain is trying to capture some of the disgruntled supporters of Hillary Clinton and trying to get some of the moderate Republican soccer moms to keep from crossing over and voting for Obama. I'm sure that the Republican spin machine will spout all kinds of reasons as to why Gov. Palin was the best choice, but I, for one, will take some convincing. And, to the extent that she was chosen simply because she is a woman (or if that fact was a major component to the decision-making process), then I find it to be very cynical, not to mention depressing. I thought that what both Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton were trying to prove is that neither race nor gender should be deciding factors.

One or two other quick thoughts on the nomination. Over the last few months (and, in particular, the last few days during the Democratic convention), we've heard Republican supporters repeat ad nauseum that Sen. Obama does not have the experience to be President. (As to this point, I thought that Al Gore's comparison showing that Sen. Obama has almost the exact same experience as Abraham Lincoln was interesting.) So, let's assume for the sake of argument that experience is a legitimate issue (I'm sure I'll blog on that subject another time). What does it tell us about Sen. McCain's campaign that his choice for Vice President has been a governor (of the 47th most populous state in the nation) for only two years and before that she was the mayor of Wasilla (population 5,470)! Now, consider that Sen. McCain, if elected, will be the oldest person to take office for a first time as President (3 years older than Ronald Reagan). The old cliche is that the Vice President is just a heartbeat away from the Presidency. So, in the eyes of Sen. McCain, a woman who has been Governor of state with a tiny population for two years (and mayor of a small town before that) is qualified and has the experience to be a heartbeat away while the oldest person elected sits in the Oval Office?

Think about it this way: The choice of a running mate is the first real "presidential" decision a candidate makes. Barack Obama chose Joseph Biden, a 6-term United States Senator with experience in areas that Sen. Obama is arguably lacking (including serving as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Judiciary Committee). Sen. McCain, by contrast, chooses a virtually unknown Governor with virtually no experience (and certainly no national experience). Based on these choices, which candidate, Sen. Obama or Sen. McCain, do you trust to surround themself with more competent people to help them make the decisions that will be so important to our country?

Just a few quick notes about Gov. Palin that I'm sure we'll hear over and over during the campaign:

• She is married to a Yup'ik Eskimo.
• She has five children (including a 4-month old with Down syndrome and a 19-year old son serving in the Army [scheduled to be deployed to Iraq soon]).
• She is apparently a hunter and a life-long member of the NRA.
• She is anti-abortion.
• She was runner-up in the Miss Alaska pageant.

Yup, Gov. Palin is the person that I want sitting a heartbeat away from the Presidency....

This is part one of a series. Part two was posted August 30, 2008.

Edited August 30, 2008 to add link to part two.

Banning Good Player Sends Wrong Message to Kids

By now I'm sure that most people have heard about Jericho Scott, the 9-year old baseball player from New Haven, Connecticut that has been prevented from pitching because he is too good. (For information, including some video, please take a look at ESPN's article.) The decision by the league is wrong in so many ways that it is almost unfathomable. I wanted to discuss a few of my thoughts on the subject.

First, it is important to note that there has not been any allegation that Jericho has hurt anybody. He hasn't beaned another player. Instead, the allegation appears to simply be that he throws too hard and, thus, the other kids will be afraid and/or the other kids won't have success when they bat against Jericho. To both of those concerns, I say, tough.

I remember playing baseball as a 9-year old (the first year that kids pitched in our league). I pitched. Badly. I hit other players. Oops. But I wasn't banned. Other kids pitched well. They threw hard. But neither I nor anyone else on my team complained because the other pitcher was too good. No, we got into the batter's box and tried. When one of us got a hit off one of the good pitchers, we were excited. That was what sports was all about. And I remember the first time that I saw a curveball. It scared the %$^&@# out of me. But again, I didn't cry foul.

Think what message the league has sent to Jericho. They've told him that skill, whether obtained by practice or genetics, is to be punished rather than rewarded. And they've told him that feelings are more important than good sportsmanship. Just imagine if this was the local spelling bee instead of baseball. Can you imagine a kid being banned from the spelling bee because he (or she) spent too much time practicing or knew too many words? That situation isn't really any different than that facing Jericho Scott. (And don't tell me that the situation is different because a kid might get hurt. First, remember that nobody has alleged that Jericho has hit anybody [which speaks to his control and skill]. Second, any thrown pitch has a chance to hurt a kid. Third, and most importantly, batted balls [not to mention thrown bats] also have a great chance to hurt kids. No, this is not about safety at all; it's about protecting the egos of other kids who might strike out against Jericho and it's about protecting the egos of the parents who might be forced to watch their child strike out.)

My 8-year-old son plays soccer. I've seen some kids kick the ball pretty hard, especially at goal. But I can't imagine trying to get one of those kids (or his team) thrown out of the league for kicking too hard. Nor could I envision the league penalizing a player who could dribble too well. My 8-year-old daughter is a competitive cheerleader. I can't imagine her team walking off the mat because another team had a girl who could tumble or fly better than her team.

As long as you are playing within the rules of the sport, then skill should be rewarded, not feared. And that is a troubling part of the message being sent to the kids on the other teams. Rather than tell those kids that they need to suck it up and try their best, they are told to quit. Rather than tell those kids to try to hit off Jericho and use it as a learning experience and opportunity to get better, they are told that adults will remove obstacles to their success. (It is also worth noting that, with 8 teams in the league, each batter will face Jericho very infrequently...) I wonder: Will those parents try to get school teachers to give easier spelling tests? Will they demand that the fastest runners not be allowed to compete in relay races and the tallest kids not be allowed to play basketball? I thought that sports was supposed to be about learning to develop your own potential, not a race to the lowest common denominator. Gee, I know. Let's keep the best pitchers out of the game. We can also bench the best hitters. The fastest kids shouldn't have a chance to outrun anybody and the kids who can catch or throw well should also be pushed aside. Is that really the world that we want for our children?

Some have suggested that the simple answer is for Jericho to "play up" (that is, play in the league for older kids). That solution is fine if Jericho wants to play up. But just as a child who does well in school shouldn't be forced to skip a grade, Jericho shouldn't be forced to play up if he doesn't want to. It is also worth noting that there are two real problems with having Jericho play up (not to mention the bad message that forcing him to play up sends to the other kids in the "younger" league). First, Jericho is a 9-year-old kid. Is he emotionally mature enough to play with older kids? Just because he can throw the ball hard doesn't mean that he should be sharing a bench with a 13-year-old (while Jericho is discussing Ben 10 or Star Wars or whatever he likes, the other kids on the bench might be discussing girls or drugs or something that would be wholly inappropriate for a 9-year-old). Secondly, while Jericho may be a great pitcher, we don't know what his other skills are like. For all we know, his batting and throwing skills or his knowledge and understanding of the game may be no better than average for his age group. Forcing him to play up could actually impede his ability to develop these other skills at an age appropriate pace.

One more point that I'd like to make. I mentioned this story to my 8-year-old son. I told him that Jericho was a very good pitcher who threw very hard and that the other kids couldn't hit his pitches and some might be scared. And I told him that the league kicked Jericho out. My son's response: "That's not fair." When I asked why it wasn't fair, my son said that Jericho should be allowed to play and, most importantly, he recognized that sometimes other kids would be better. I asked him how he would feel if there was a player so good that he couldn't get a hit. My son's reply? "That's how the game works." Too bad adults aren't always as wise as kids.

Lucas Oil Stadium: A Fan's Perspective

Last night, I attended my first "game" at Lucas Oil Stadium. I put "game" in quotation marks because I don't consider pre-season NFL games to be real games; rather they are bad excuses for NFL owners to wrangle a few extra (well, more than a few) dollars out of the fans. But that is a discussion for another day. More importantly, between last week's walkaround and last night's game, I've now had a chance to really look at and think about Indianapolis' new stadium and thought that I'd offer a few thoughts.

First, for the record, I intend for this post to be the last time that I refer to "Lucas Oil Stadium" again. I'll probably call it the "The Luke" or "The Stadium" or "Peyton's Place" or "That Great Big Brick Building Downtown That Replaced the Dome" but I won't call it "Lucas Oil Stadium". Sorry. Frankly, I've always had problems with naming rights for stadiums, but I recognize that the almighty dollar requires sacrifices like naming stadiums after local dignitaries or the team (can you imagine the Yankees playing at "Trump Stadium" or the Bears playing at "Geico Insurance Field"?).

So, I can live with the name that a city gives to a stadium so long as the name rolls off the tongue easily enough and bears some relation to the city. Conseco Fieldhouse and the RCA Dome were each named for major companies in the Indianapolis economy and the Pepsi Coliseum is at least easy to say and named for a product with which everyone is familiar (me, I'd prefer the Coke Coliseum...). But Lucas Oil? It doesn't really roll of the tongue, now does it? I could have lived with Lucas Stadium (sounds like it was named for someone), but throwing in the word "Oil" just destroys it. And have you ever looked at the logo for Lucas Oil? Come on, a 5th-grader with PhotoShop could come up with a better logo (not to mention one that looks like it was designed some time since the invention of, oh, I don't know, the internal combustion engine?). Wrigley Field: cool. US Cellular Field: yuck. Soldier Field: cool. Minute Maid Park: yuck. Ford Field: cool. Lucas Oil Stadium? You decide. I thought that Denver's approach made a lot of sense: Invesco Field at Mile High Stadium. Invesco got their naming rights and everyone can still call the place Mile High Stadium. On the opposite end of the spectrum, how many times has the baseball stadium in San Francisco changed names (SBC Park, Pacific Bell Park, AT&T Park)? If Lucas Oil is bought will it become Pennzoil Stadium or Quaker State Stadium?

I'm still curious to know why a local Indianapolis company didn't step up and acquire the naming rights (in particular, Eli Lilly).

Apparently, Lucas Oil doesn't want the stadium to be called "The Luke" because one of their big competitors is Luke Oil. Tough. Mr. Lucas should have thought of that when he threw his money at our stadium.

Finally, just for the record, I noticed last night that you can purchase Lucas Oil t-shirts and hats and oil products at the game. Just what I want to do: Buy a quart of oil for my dragster while I'm at a Colts game. I wonder: How does Lucas Oil taste on bratwurst?

And now we return to our regularly schedul ... er ... the review portion of this post.

So let's talk about The Luke (and I'm going to try to order these comments in the order that a visitor will encounter things, not necessarily importance). The first thing that you notice about the stadium is that it's big. No, think bigger than that. If you drive into downtown Indianapolis on the Airport Expressway, you'll get an idea of just how massive the structure is. And it dwarfs the Hoosier Dome two blocks away. The architects were also very smart to use brick on the exterior of the stadium; it helps give it a much warmer feel, more like a stadium and less like a generic government facility.

One criticism, though, can be leveled at the exterior and that involves parking. I thought that the stadium was supposed to have a large parking lot for tailgating. It does have a large parking lot, but apparently the only people who can use that lot are those with suites or club seats and those people (at least the ones in the suites) seem least likely to tailgate before a game. For last night's pre-season game, the stadium appeared nearly full, but the parking lot was, if not empty, certainly not full. I also learned that, even with all of that parking, there is no on site parking for disabled fans. That so much parking is set aside for the VIPs with no thought given to who might need parking is at best a poor decision and at worst shameful.

Inside, The Luke provides quite a "wow" factor (mostly good "wows" but a few bad ones, too). The stadium is so different from the Hoosier Dome, it's hard to explain. Try this: The Dome is to The Luke as a warehouse is to an upscale shopping mall? I'm not sure if I can capture it better than that. Picture this, though: At the Dome, the concourses surrounding the stadium were simply concrete walkways with concession stands every-so-often. No aesthetics to speak of. At The Luke, the concourses may be concrete, but between decorated walls, pillars, and ceilings, neon lights and product placements, there is much more of a "finished" feel to the place (except for some of the concrete floors that seem very unfinished). At the Dome, you would walk from here to there; at The Luke, when walking from here to there, you might actually find yourself looking at something other than the floor or the back in front of you.

The main entrance plaza at The Luke includes a stage (and the band kept playing until time for the pre-game festivities). And unlike at the Dome where you could only see into the stadium through the walkways to the seats, the entire north end plaza is open to the stadium, so you can see down to the field from the stage, concession stands, and bar. This was one of the biggest "wow" moments at the stadium.

We thought about taking the elevator to one of the upper levels just to look around (we got to the game very early), but there was a huge line to go up the escalator (I read this morning that the line was nearly 20 minutes long). That will need to be corrected (apparently there are ramps to the upper levels, but I didn't know that and didn't see the ramps). So, I'll have to wait for another day to look around from higher up. I will say that if you are offered "nose bleed" seats at The Luke, you may have a better vantage point if you charter a plane and fly over the game. Yes, the nose bleed seats are that high up. If you sit up by the south window, you might want to bring oxygen to the game.

There appear to be more concession stands with more choices. That's good. Some of them are even "dressed up" (one has an exterior to make it look like an old fashioned diner). And the food that we had was pretty good. Last week I tried a pork tenderloin (a Hoosier favorite) and it was better than average (and I've certainly had a lot worse) and the cheeseburger that I had last night was quite good. The onion rings and fries were forgettable, but the chicken tenders were large and decent (and not overly greasy).

However, there were some serious kinks that need to be ironed out of the concessions. First, the prices seemed a bit steep on some things and stupid on others. The cheeseburger was $7.50, which seemed a bit high, but probably within the outer reaches of acceptability. The popcorn, on the other hand, was not. If I recall, at the Dome, there was a choice of a bucket of popcorn (think large movie popcorn) or a giant souvenir bucket (where you're really paying for the bucket). I don't recall how much the souvenir bucket was, but I think it was in the $8-10 range. We got one, just to have, but often got a bucket of popcorn to share (and I think it was about $4, but could have been a bit more). At The Luke, popcorn comes in a cardboard "megaphone" (maybe a foot tall with a 4-inch diameter at the top; it doesn't look like much popcorn) for $4.75 or the souvenir bucket for $12! The megaphone is way too expensive for way too little and the souvenir bucket is too expensive. There should be a choice in between. Oh, well.

We also had to settle for cheeseburgers because the machine that makes the Philly steak sandwiches was broken. More troubling was the fact that we had to wait nearly 20 minutes for those two cheeseburgers! Somehow, the concession operator was woefully unprepared for the demand. Chicken tenders, fries, and onion rings were being served up quickly enough, but if you dared to order a cheeseburger, you were in for quite a wait. And I still don't understand why people were being told to stick their hands in their beers when they complained that there was too much head... Yeah, when I'm at a game, I really want to stick my hand in my beer.

Jumping ahead briefly: The concessions were served with nice cardboard cartons to carry everything. However, when we were finished, I wanted to throw away the cartons (they were large and there's only so much room to sit), but I had to walk all the way out to the main concourse to find a trash can (and when I did, it was full). There should be trash cans in the walkways leading to the seats.

Speaking of the seats, those in The Luke are much nicer than those at the Dome. They are wider, have more leg room, and have cup holders mounted on the seat in front (instead of on the armrest). And somehow, they simply felt more comfortable. Back at the Dome, we sat where the stands begin to curve (just a bit) toward the endzone; as a result, two of our seats were much narrower than others and not all of our group could ... um ... er ... fit ... into some of those seats (at least not comfortably). That problem is gone (at least for our seats).

The design of the stadium also now includes far more levels of seating with walkways running between seating levels. This has the benefit of raising the seats of those sitting higher up by a little bit so that they can see over those in front. Plexiglas has been used in place of metal railings in many places which should also help with the view. As a place to watch a game, The Luke should be terrific (at least for football; I'll reserve judgment for basketball).

Still talking about seats, there were two things that seemed a bit problematic. I understand that people who pay for club seats get "more"; they get the best field location and they get cushioned seats. But I don't like the idea of the Plexiglas railings that separated our section of the stands from the club seats next to us. There are even two aisles running right next to each other separated by Plexiglas. It's a bit like the nobility is afraid to brush up against the commoners. Come on, I showered before the game and I don't think that I have anything contagious. We all understand that there are "haves" and "have lesses", but there is no reason to rub it in. And on that note, the way that the ushers were quite rudely directing people who mistakenly thought that they could get from here to there by walking through the club seat area was unacceptable. First, there should be signs directing people so that they don't walk down a hallway only to be turned back. Second, the ushers should always be polite. Third, why can't people walk through a concourse to get to their seat (especially when the main concourse is very crowded)? Again, why rub in the "we've got more"? Perhaps the club seats should have a private entrance where those folks don't even have to see the rest of us? Maybe hang a giant curtain between us and them? I understand that they're paying more, and should get more, but should they get more at the expense of others who not only get less but get it less conveniently? I don't think so.

And now back to the stadium. Back at the Dome, I often used my binoculars to look at the replay screens. They were small, far away, and very grainy (high tech in 1984; embarrassing by 2008). Not at The Luke. In fact, my mother had to keep tearing her eyes away from the giant screens and back to the field. It was almost too easy to watch the game on the screen and not on the field. I almost can't wait for the first controversial replay call so that we can see very clearly what really happened on the field. One bit of disappointment with the big screens was that they weren't being used to display stats. I thought that 1/4 of the screen was going to be used for stats during the game. Instead, it was just used for advertising.

Speaking of advertising, the stadium is, essentially, one giant ad. Between the 2nd and 3rd levels of the stadium is a giant "ribbon" screen (essentially a digital display screen that virtually circles the stadium). Occasionally, the screen would have some interesting information on it, but by and large it was used for brightly colored animated advertising. Cool for a few minutes, but I tried to tune it out pretty quickly. However, the motion and bright lights could, from time to time, be distracting. I'd like to see the ribbon also get used for things relevant to the game now and then. The scoreboard itself is much cooler than at the Dome, with the ability to show the teams' logos (in color, no less) and in a much easier to read typeface. However, it can be hard to actually find the scoreboard with the ads pressing in from both sides. I'll simply have to train my eye to look to the right spot.

During last week's open house, I was very worried that The Luke would be much quieter than the Dome (which could be absolutely deafening and definitely had a direct impact on the game; you could watch other teams struggle to communicate when we got really loud). After last night's pre-season game, I'm still a bit worried about the noise level, but not as worried. I don't think that it can possibly be as loud as the Dome, but I don't think that it will be quiet, either. I guess that says something about our fans rather than the stadium. (I went to a game in Detroit at Ford Field a few years ago. During the 1st quarter, the Lions were [gasp] beating the Colts, but the 20 or so Colts fans in attendance were far louder than the stadium full of Lions fans. It was the quietest stadium I'd ever ... um ... heard?)

OK. Nearly done. A few more quick "cool" items. First (obviously) is the roof. Watching it open was cool. Sorry, I can't quite come up with a better word. It was cool. The same can be said for the north window (which is massive). The unfortunate thing about the north window is that it will only provide a view of downtown to those sitting in certain parts of the city (or to TV audiences, I suppose). For us, when we look through the north window we see the sky; then again, after 24 years in the Dome, seeing the sky from a football game is pretty wild. Even with the roof open, I'm not sure that I felt like I was outside; maybe it's because of the overhangs above us; maybe it's because the roof is so high; or maybe it's because of the massive crossbeams that the roof rests on. So I felt as if I was kinda-in, kinda-out. That is, until I felt the breeze! Once the north window opened, a fairly strong breeze began to fill the stadium. What was really strange was that the division and Super Bowl banners hung from the rafters were blowing in different directions at the same time. All I can guess is that the wind comes in and then swirls around. That should make life interesting for kickers.

Another interesting feature are the field-level suites at the south endzone. Yes, there are a set of suits at field level with just a 4-foot high (give or take) padded wall separating the fans from the playing field. As a place to watch a game, those seats are probably pretty lousy, but as a way to get into the game when the action is on the south end of the field, those seats (big leather recliners, it looked like) should be wild. I just hope that the people in those suites get super loud and super obnoxious (everything short of throwing beer, I guess) when the other team has the ball on that end of the field.

I do feel sorry for businesses close to the Dome. The Luke is only a few blocks away, but as parking seems to be shifting much further south and west, I'm afraid that many of those businesses may be losing out (I suspect that Nordstrom will be sending out a search party for my mother by mid-season). Restaurants and bars near the Dome may still do OK, but I think that stores in Circle Center Mall will suffer.

I also think that the City of Indianapolis is going to have to spend some money to clean up some of the streets and buildings around The Luke. The revitalization that is so evident in much of downtown is much less evident on some of the streets and alleys south of the stadium where many people are parking. As this will be a point of reference for Indianapolis for out-of-town visitors, this will be an area that needs to be addressed by the City.

Well, I know that I've made a lot of criticisms. Please don't take this post wrong and think that I don't like the stadium. I do and I'm looking forward to years of exciting games. But, as I'm sure that it will be garnering rave reviews from numerous quarters, I thought that it was worth the effort to at least point out a few problems, especially ones that can be easily corrected. Just as the Colts have a pre-season, so to, I guess, do the stadium operators. Hopefully, by the time the Colts host the Bears to open the 2008 season, the kinks will be worked out and The Luke will be ready.