My yard, the bird sanctuary.

The lawn in front of my house is not in the best of shape. It's mostly weeds, with a select patch of grass. It is also slightly balding. But this was not always the case. It used to be lush. Lush with dandelions, clover, crabgrass, and stuff that resembled grass but wasn't. Well, the owner didn't want that, so she had the maintenance guy put down some weed killer/fertilizer. Now if there's anything I've learned from being a landscaper, it's that it's either one or the other. And, unfortunately for our lawn, it did more killing than fertilizing. But, even after our front yard was made a barren wasteland (or so it seemed), it has been home to many animals.

Most notably of these is a flock of sparrows. I see them almost everyday, pecking at the grass eating something (I hope for their sake it's not the killer/fertilizer pellets), but I really don't know. And we've had a family of quail, as well as a pair of ducks live in our yard. So, I suppose you might say we run a bird sanctuary. And, we even had a rehabilitation case. We named him Bill.

Bill had a bum wing. So he usually didn't stray too far from the porch. I'd throw him sunflower seeds, rice, and random birdish food items, and he seemed pretty appreciative as he gimped around the yard. But quite often I would be inside, typing away on the computer, or reading a book and I left the door open. Well, it didn't take too long for Bill to decide he liked it better inside the house. I would sit there, my computer on my lap, and then, out of the corner of my eye I'd see this little brown smudge hopping on the carpet. It was Bill.

This went on for some time. Almost everyday Bill would come on by, eating random stuff off of the carpet and then I'd bid him adieu. Then, came that fateful Saturday. I left the house to go hang out with some friends, and I left the door open, thinking it would do little harm as my brother and other room mate were home. Later on, as I was in the middle of something cool I got a phone call from my good friend and neighbor. It was a somewhat unexpected call, but so was the news. He said my kitchen was full of birds, and that they were hopping around and leaving little bird presents wherever they went. Before responding, I knew in my gut it was Bill. Bill had taken advantage of my good nature. How could you Bill? You look all gimpy and innocent, and then when I throw you a bone you ransack my house with your bird friends. Disappointed doesn't describe it. I felt betrayed.

My door is now closed.

Genuinely Calculated

There are a lot of fakers out there. They put on a facade that they care, or that they don't care, while inside they feel conflicted. However, for all the superficiality out there, we should not confuse good calculated planning with insincerity. It is possible to be genuine in our calculation.

In fact, if you really care about an issue you probably should think about what you are going to say. Maybe even write it down. But, at the same time, I see the value of speaking from the gut, off the cuff. But neither method is an absolute indicator of heartfelt sentiment. This is because, often times our gut speaks what our mind would not, and in the converse, our mind speaks often what our gut would not.

This brings me of course back to politics, and more specifically politicians. There is nothing wrong with being coached on policy that you believe in so that you say what you want to say. However, it is bad if you are being coached to say something 'politically correct' when you don't agree with it. 

In Palin's interviews with Charles Gibson so far, you can tell she was coached, and you can see sincerity. However, she does come across as conflicted. This however, is not entirely her fault. Gibson asks tough policy questions (that would most likely not be asked to Obama or Biden as flatly), and is trying to paint her a certain way. Asking whether she thought Iran posed and 'existential threat' to Israel, Mr. Gibson tried to imply with follow ups that she would be hawkish. Palin repeated that she believed Israel is within its right to defend its sovereignty from a legitimate threat. She at no point claimed that the US would get involved, but didn't say it wouldn't either, and, given the delicate nature of the situation, it was the correct response. 

This brings me to a problem with these candid interviews. Regardless of who is being interviewed, there are certain questions that cannot be answered yes or no without limiting the ability of the state department in its negotiations, and putting our foot in our mouths. The issues, as much as they might seem black and white to some, are grayer than that. Trying to force a candidate to respond in an ideological way does not seem like a very revealing way to explore character. The best response therefore, in my opinion for whatever candidate would often be, "I cannot say exactly what position we would take at this time, because I do not have the full intelligence reports in front of me." Then of course, if given a more solid hypothetical, I could answer. For instance if Mr. Gibson were to say, "Let's say we knew 'x', would you do 'y'?" Then it would be easier to come up with a good specific response. When questions are to the point, but general at the same time, they are misleading and unenlightening. That is why hypothetical questions are good, because they provide a narrowing and also reveal the person being asked.

I know Gibson is being put in a difficult situation in this interview, but that is always the case with news reporters. They need to keep their opinions in check, remain objective, but get the goods at the same time. They have to tiptoe, and they have to be rough. It's a difficult job, but he knows the right way to do it. Having not seen the entire interview I cannot condemn and I cannot say I approve. So far my position is mixed. Gibson treats Palin with a certain condescension, like when he asked her if she was ready to be President. Palin said yes, 'without blinking' and Gibson then said that she then must have been showing hubris. But, at the same time, the initial question is absolutely fair and necessary. His further conjecture however, was perhaps not quite so journalistic, and showed bias, as did much of his demeanor. However, at the same time Palin's referring to Gibson as 'Charlie' to create a more comfortable intimacy that never existed to begin with didn't work either.

So, I suppose all I can do now is watch and see what happens tonight.