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.

I am a feminist

(These ladies pushing for women's rights look a lot more like Palin, than Hillary - baby and all)

Let me just start by saying, the Los Angeles Times is the most biased newspaper in America. Secondly, aside from the fact that it rarely seeks to be even remotely objective in its 'news reporting,' the quality of its news, sources, and even opinions leaves much to be desired.

I was reading an editorial from the LA Times this morning. It started off with a sneering remark from Gloria Steinem in reference to Sarah Palin: "Here's the good news: Women have become so politically powerful that even the anti-feminist right wing - the folks with a headlock on the Republican Party - are trying to appease the gender gap with a first-ever female vice president." NEWS FLASH to Steinem: You don't have to be a democrat, or a liberal to be a feminist. SECOND NEWS FLASH: You don't have to be a woman to be a feminist.

But if that were all Steinem had said I may have just chuckled, but she decided to hit the same old talking points about Palin. She's inexperienced, she is from a small state, her record. All of her points have been addressed thoroughly. Don't tell me Biden has more experience. If we're comparing legislative experience to executive experience she wins. And, executive versus legislative is like apples versus oranges. And, personally I think Palin will win any debate with him easily.

But let me get back to my news flashes. I am a devout feminist. I believe that women not only can do the jobs that men do, but should and can many times do them better. I also believe strong women who know what they want are the most attractive people the human race has to offer. Now, it is true that I am a registered republican. However, that is more for convenience than anything else. I more closely affiliate myself with the Libertarian party, and the conservative branch of it. More John Stuart Mill than Barr. But, as a republican I am painted as some chauvinistic, overweight, white, CEO of a Fortune 500 company. Guess what folks? I'm not. I am probably only one of those things, and being white isn't a crime yet in this country. And, I might get fat someday. But generally speaking, the republican party is made up of average everyday Americans who simply believe in limited government, strong families, religious freedom, free markets, and moral consciousness. Most people who have studied the history of the world, politics, and the United States know that our roots in this country go back to classic 19th century liberalism, which is almost a mirror of those attributes I just listed. 

We trust the government, but keep it in check because we don't entirely trust it. It needs to protect us from foreign oppressors and injustice, create a some what decent and functional infrastructure, but otherwise stay out of our business. That is the American way. Sometimes we forget that, and believe the government should rock us in our cribs in our infancy and then hover over our bedsides at death. That cradle to grave mentality is irresponsible and wrong. We have agency, our own minds, opinions, and capabilities. The government is just a framework. 

But, before I get too far along with my praise for the ideals of our forebears, let me return to feminism, and equality. Question: Which party freed the slaves? Answer: The republican party. Question: Which party founded the policy idea of environmental responsibility and the national park system? Answer: The republican party. Question: Which party put the first woman on the supreme court? Answer: The republican party. Question: Which party put more minorities in its Presidential cabinet for the past 3 decades? Answer: the republican party. Hmmm. So how is it that the democrats somehow get to lay claim to environmentalism, minority rights, and women's rights? The Answer to that is obvious. They like to take hold of the republican party's good ideas, then say the ideas were their's to begin with.

Well, I don't think America is stupid enough to be duped into believing that. All I want people to do this election cycle, and every other that follows it, is to be completely informed on the candidates, look at their proposals, and think which will do the better job at keeping America American. I tend to think the democrats are pushing for America to become another European country. In my opinion, that's a terrible idea. 

My love affair with Sarah

Well, I say if the media can have a love affair with Barack Obama, then I certainly can have a love affair with Sarah Palin. The difference of course would be that my affair would be strictly platonic. I wrote a brief about her on the day McCain picked her as a running mate, but now I'm going to give a more thorough break down on the night she is to accept the republican vice presidential nomination.

Many say that she was not vetted appropriately or carefully enough, and now McCain's camp is supposedly 'reeling' from the recent news about Palin's 17 year old daughter being pregnant out of wedlock. Folks, this really is a non-issue, and a weak attempt to discredit her through her kids (it has nothing to do with her ability to lead, or run a government). The second big one that people say is that she's inexperienced. Guess what? She has more executive experience than Obama, Biden, and McCain combined. None of them have held executive office. She has since 1992 (as both Council Member and Mayor of Wasilla, AK and as governor of Alaska for 2 years). The next way that people try to discredit her is by saying that she's neglecting her children and cannot be both a mom and a governor or Vice President. That is blatantly sexist and wrong. Does anyone question Obama's ability to be a father and President? 

But, something I do love about the recent ads, and counter-ads by both campaigns recently is that they are pitting Palin against Obama, rather than McCain against Obama, as if she were going to be President! I love it. In fact, I would vote for her as President over McCain, Obama, and most certainly Biden. 

(By the way, this is a picture of Sarah in Kuwait, visiting the troops, long before Obama did his bogus trip around the world - and the generals were impressed with her shooting accuracy)

Some of my friends and readers think that I like her because she's pro-gun, anti-abortion, pro-drilling (energy independence), and supports this country's ability to defend itself (pro-military - not pro-war, because c'mon, no one is pro-war). And, my friends and readers would be mostly correct.  Except, strangely enough, the reason I most like Palin is because she's a mother of five. 

For me, that says it all. She is raising five kids, running the largest state in the union, dealing with international affairs (Russian and Canada both border Alaska, lest you forget), drives her kids to hockey games, and all the while is unabashedly imperfect. The best part about the attacks against her (her pregnant daughter, the state police scandal, her inexperience and small-towniness) is that they are the exact reasons people are attracted to her. She is one of us. That, and she'll kick the crap out of her own party when it's wrong. She shook up the old boys club, and ratted out a corruption ring with the Alaska's state oil revenue practices. She's a lady with chutzpah, cajones - or to be callously vulgar, but at the same time completely appropriate, she has balls.

Palin 2012.

McCain picks Palin as VP!

This is a great pick for McCain. Palin, the newly elected governor of Alaska is a mother of five, a hockey mom, with strong conservative credentials. She is very reform minded, and, like McCain is herself considered a 'maverick'. She is the first woman to run on a republican ticket, and I think that by picking her, McCain has sealed the deal. I am now sure to be voting for McCain. Obama picked Biden, which in my mind was a terrible pick, given his penchance for saying ridiculous things off the cuff, and because Biden's an insider. Palin was the mayor of the small town of Wasilla, AK, home to just under 7,000 residents prior to being elected governor. She's not just an outsider. She's way outside. Good job John!