Get the Popcorn Ready!

I mentioned this before: the one debate I'm eagerly anticipating is this Thursday's Vice Presidential candidate debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden. If I can figure out how to include a countdown clock widget in this post, I'll put it here:



If you saw the first Presidential debate aired last Friday, 26 Sept, you'll know that neither candidate seemed to move the needle much. After the debate was over, Obama apparently picked up some additional support among independents, but by and large (a term I think most people forgot about before this summer's Pixar movie, Wall-E), the people who already support McCain still support McCain, and the people supporting Obama still support Obama. The debate itself was curious on several levels, though.

I thought it interesting that Obama and McCain actually mimicked each other's policy stances on a wide variety of questions, from the inclusion of Ukraine and Georgia in NATO to failing to clearly state where they would cut back on future spending. Neither candidate wanted to play with the hot potato of the $700B bailout package, and yesterday's NO vote showed why. Both candidates want to shake up the cozy Washington Insider environment between lobbyists and lawmakers. Both candidates even tried sliming the other with comparisons to W, at which point Obama laughed out loud when McCain tried to make the case.

It could be that the crowd control rules in place there in Oxford, MS (the audience did a very good job of not rooting for their man, not clapping, applauding, or even laughing at the jokes) prevented the sound bites from delivering a bigger impact on the stage. Both candidates certainly tried hitting their notes, but without a laugh track to confirm a witty rejoinder, it must have seemed like a stand-up comedian in a morgue. Can you imagine Ronny Reagan delivering his "Well, there you go again..." line to Mondale in 1984 to complete silence? I didn't think so.

One of the biggest problems with that debate (and with any future debate between Obama and McCain, for that matter) is that each man can be tarred and feathered with his past votes in the Senate. This is the problem of having all your government service experience in a legislative body instead of in the executive branch. The way legislation is crafted these days, there are typically so many riders and amendments attached to any given bill, there are very strong reasons why a Congressperson would vote against it. In order to vote for any bill, I'm sure they have to hold their noses and accept the bad with the good. So, McCain can claim Obama voted down financial support for the troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Obama can claim McCain supported the Bush tax cuts. The bigger picture, that there are many good reasons why each man voted the way he did at the time, gets lost in the debate.

The reverse case in point: Ron Paul always used this quirk of the legislative process to his own advantage. He faithfully received earmark requests from his home district, made sure those earmarks were included in whatever omnibus spending bill was going to be voted on, and then always voted against the bill to keep from sullying his anti-earmark message. He literally had his cake and ate it, too. He could rightfully claim he always voted against wasteful government spending, knowing full well that enough other votes would still pass the bill, directly benefiting his own district.

At any rate, even those filling executive level positions have their own limitations. Ask W about that this week! Our system of checks and balances makes it impossible to pass legislation or to govern independently, which is as it should be. If Congress wants to play political football with the entire country's financial system, so be it. When Warren Buffett says he's worried about the future of our economy without some form of bank bailout package being passed, I think it's time we all sit up and take notice.

And it could be that no past or future debate affects how people plan to vote in November quite as much as the bank crisis last week and this week's failed bank bailout package. The NewsHour on PBS last night interviewed some swing voters in one key battleground state, Florida. Those voters expressed dismay over the economy (an Obama strength, for some reason) and flat-out said they didn't want four more years of the same failed policies (an indictment of W, to be sure, but which also includes McCain). So at this point, the die may be cast in favor of Obama to reach the White House, even if national polls don't confirm that yet.

I always thought that McCain's pick of Palin was the equivalent of a Republican Hail Mary play, on par with Doug Flutie's Boston College upset of Miami in 1984. (Wow, two references to 1984 in the same post! Who would have figured that?!) McCain needed something big, some huge WOW! factor to jazz up the right-wing base of the party, and Palin certainly did that. She grabbed the headlines, made everyone talk about McCain's campaign for weeks on end, and diverted the media attention (for good or bad) from Obama at a critical stage of the race.

However, she still needs to show she can hold her own against a Washington Insider like Biden. Some conservative pundits within the past week apparently are saying she should step down from the ticket and let McCain pick someone better. Obviously, they aren't going to do that. That would clearly be political suicide at this point, with about five weeks to go until the polls open. I partly wonder if, maybe, just maybe, the Republican political machinery isn't working to lower peoples' expectations for Palin in advance of this, her most important event of the campaign.

In politics as in sports, it's always easier to play to win when all the pressure is on the other guy, the front-runner. If Biden does well and "wins" the debate, he can't really win because he was supposed to do well. As the favorite, there's very little upside and a whole lot of downside. If he cracks or lets the pressure of the situation get to him even the tiniest little bit, it could be momentous. The underdog, on the other hand, can go in loose and without fear, since there's really nothing to lose. If Palin can merely come out even in the debate, she wins. No one expects her to out point Biden or show where he's weak on foreign policy. She has a lot more personality, though. If the crowd is not muted this time, watch out for fireworks!

I'm getting my popcorn ready, that's for sure!

OSU 27 - (1) USC 21 F

My first reaction after watching the number one team in college football lose to Oregon State on Thursday night was that Tony Kornheiser was right on PTI when he chose the under for whether or not USC would score 50 points.

I also kept wondering why my OSU, Ohio State, couldn't attack the line of scrimmage on either side of the ball the way the Oregon State players did, especially in the first half of their game. Oregon State had those two little running backs, James and Jacquizz Rodgers, who combined for 296 total yards and scored all four OSU touchdowns. But they really won the game because their offensive line opened running lanes and gave their QB time to throw passes to his receivers. On defense, OSU limited USC to just 86 yards total rushing. 86! Given the stable of RBs that USC has, that was pretty amazing.

But my biggest question now is this: how far will USC drop in the polls now? Ohio State went on the road, played in a hostile environment, lost 35-3 to the Number 1 team in the land, and dropped from 3 to 14 in most polls. I thought that drop in the polls was probably well justified, given the egg laid by the Ohio State team. After that game, it would have been really hard to say that Ohio State was better than the 13 teams then ranked ahead of them.

However, USC went on the road, played in a hostile environment, and lost 27-21 to an UNRANKED TEAM (and one that wasn't even picked to finish well in its own conference). Should USC fall farther than Ohio State did? That might be hard to justify. However, given that Oregon State lost 45-14 against #12 Penn State, I think USC has to drop no less than past Penn State when the revised rankings come out next Monday.

On Afghanistan and Pakistan

Please, please, PLEASE tell me we're not heading towards an expansion of the GWOT (global war on terror) into Pakistan. Would we really go to war against Pakistan after selling them F-16s? Do we really want to tangle with a nuclear power, even if they have no delivery mechanism that could reach the US? I really don't see how expanding the Afghan war could possibly burnish W's Presidential legacy.

On the one hand, I completely understand how difficult it was or is to prosecute the GWOT in Afghanistan when the enemy easily can blend into the general population, strike at opportune times, and then simply melt back into the lawless tribal areas of NW Pakistan, where they have enjoyed a protected status ever since 2001. Even when our close personal buddy and ally on the GWOT, Gen Pervez Musharraf, ruled Pakistan, the US military had a terrible time striking the remnants of the Taliban and Al Qaeda effectively. Pakistani territory was deemed off-limits, and probably rightfully so. The Bush administration conducted diplomacy with Musharraf in the hopes of exerting enough influence to deny the Taliban safe haven in Waziristan, which is pictured below. Tidbit on Waziristan: it's officially known as one of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATAs) of Pakistan, and it directly borders Afghanistan.

There is some debate about just how much comfort and support the tribal leaders of Waziristan have provided to the Taliban, with some sources saying the local leaders, or Maliks, are resisting the "Talibanization" of their areas. However, these recent shooting incidents don't seem to be related at all to any kind of resistance movement against the Taliban. The impression I've always had is that Islamic radicals in Pakistan have long resented Musharraf's alignment with the Bush administration. News reports have long simmered with accounts of Pakistanis protesting US military actions against Al Qaeda.

All I can say, these minor shooting incidents between the US military and Pakistani forces seem to be escalating in recent days and weeks. If people aren't paying attention, they should be. If the American public isn't really worried about these developments, they should be. Yeah, yeah, I know the US MSM is going hog wild on the Wall Street meltdown, investment banking bankruptcies, and subsequent planned $700B bailout. Yes, that's Billion with a capital B. But since these are our own US military service members who are putting their lives at risk, we deserve to pay attention.

Maybe all is not as bleak as I first thought, or as bad as I first anticipated. The current President of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari, is taking a hard line on border incursions while also reaching out to the US for support against Islamist extremists. Maybe he just needs to rein in his troops in NW Pakistan. Maybe our pilots need to do a better job of staying on the correct side of the border. I just don't like it one little bit when supposed allies start shooting at each other.

Are We the Car We Drive?

In the time of $4 per gallon gasoline, many people are seeking ways of reducing their fuel costs, period. People who have the option and can afford to move closer to public transportation are doing so, even in car-crazy LA. More and more people are bicycling to work, a mode of transportation I try to use whenever possible. Even Texans (who live in The Land of Big Trucks, and everything is bigger in Texas, haven't you heard?) are buying hybrids and even those golf-cart looking electric vehicles for short trips. People eagerly await the roll-out of the new Chevy Volt, signing up on even unofficial wait lists.

And yet, car manufacturers continue to resist one of the clearest means of increasing fuel efficiency in current-model cars: reducing the horsepower produced by the engine. The prescient Gregg Easterbrook (who is a visiting Brookings Fellow and contributing editor at The Atlantic Monthly, The New Republic and The Washington Monthly, in addition to writing several books, including the fascinating "The Progress Paradox") described this fuel mileage vs. horsepower battle in his two most recent Tuesday Morning Quarterback (TMQ) columns on ESPN.com, the archive of which is here. If you like to get insights into the game of football you can't find anywhere else, plus much more (he often delves into science fiction, TV and movies, and things related to Congress), his column is well worth the time it takes to wade through it. Plus, he posts pics of cheerleader babe professionalism. W00t!

Easterbrook already covered the issue better than I could replicate here, but it did get me thinking of reasons why automakers have all progressively expanded both the size and horsepower of their cars. The Honda Civic, for example, is now about the same size or larger as the Accord used to be, way back when. It's not just Detroit. For crying out loud, the 1979 Accord had a whopping 72 horsepower! 72!!! Which was up 4 hp from the previous year. The current Accord, with available 3.5L V6, puts out a max of 268 hp. So, it is easy to see why (some, not all) car manufacturers are protesting the rise in Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards.

Speaking of which, there was a recent WSJ opinion piece that tried to link the CAFE standards to Detroit's poor showing in recent automobile sales. That's like saying NAFTA is the reason for agricultural subsidies in California. They might be tangentially related, but there's not a causal relationship there. The author of that opinion piece remarked how GM and Ford actually did quite well selling smaller, Euro-style vehicles in places like Europe and South America. So, why are they unable to sell such cars here in America?

My own hunch is that we, as Americans, still attach significant unspoken tags to the cars we drive. If we drive a Porsche, it means we have lots of money and are pricks. If we drive a Prius, obviously, we care more about the environment than we want to look cool. If we drive a big truck, then we're manly men! (Honh! Honh! More Power!!!) I think this explains why people drive big monster SUVs for ferrying around the kiddos much more so than just needing the space for hauling more stuff. If we just needed the space, then why don't people still buy wood-paneled station wagons? This also helps explain why my wife's brother, who lives in Austin, TX (The Land of Big Trucks, and everything is Bigger in Texas, haven't you heard?) not too long ago traded his BMW Mini for a Ford F-250, even though he doesn't have a 10,000 lb boat to haul on a regular basis. Why buy the F-250 if you have no boat?

For the longest time, Americans could get away with driving whatever they wanted because gas was so cheap. Having lived overseas in Europe and Japan, I wondered when America would be forced to pay as much (roughly $4 per gallon) as they were paying back in 1996. That time has now come, although I haven't been over there since we started paying $4 per gallon to see if their prices rose along with ours.

Maybe peoples' perceptions will change as everyone gets used to buying $4 gasoline. Maybe a guy who buys a Toyota Yaris will be seen as smart and more desirable for dating, rather than as a wimpy nerd. Seriously, have you ever seen a guy driving a Honda Fit? I haven't, even though the slogan (The Fit is GO!) is catchy. No guy would be caught dead driving a new VW Beetle, unless his truck was in the shop. Speaking of VW, their Cabriolets have always been known as a "chick car." End of discussion. Someone recently completed a study in which women listened to different vehicle sounds, and the ones they felt were most sexy belonged to the exotic supercars. I'm not making this up. So, the previous question about the Yaris is most likely an overwhelming NO.

I know we Americans often define ourselves by what we do, a topic that was used to great effect in the ***John Cusack movie reference alert!*** movie "Grosse Pointe Blank." If you've seen it, you know he played an assassin who goes back to his high school reunion and tried to relate to his classmates, who had settled into "normal" jobs like BMW dealer, radio DJ, realtor, and security guard. Are we what we do for a living? Are we the car we drive? Are we defined by our hobbies? Can we be known for the assistance we provide to others?

For now, I'll go back to driving my 1999 Mazda 626 and dreaming about that Acura TL I've always wanted. Best car for the money, I say. I just wish I could trade some of its 286 hp for better gas mileage.

Russia - Ukraine Relations

I mentioned this the other day, and it's gonna happen. Russia will find some pretense, some provocation for sending its troops into the Crimean Peninsula, and then that part of independent Ukraine will be independent no longer.


The news yesterday morning (WSJ article: subscription req'd) was that the government of Ukraine fell apart, in no small part over disagreements between pro-NATO and Western leaning President Viktor Yushchenko and pro-Russia Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. The two are pictured here in happier times, probably when they announced their ruling "Orange" coalition. It was a shaky coalition to begin with, and now there were simply too many disagreements over how cozy Ukraine should be with either the West or with Russia.

They now have one month to try to put together another ruling coalition, or face new elections.

One quick glance at a map shows just how valuable Sevastopol and the Crimean Peninsula are to Russia:

No More Seinfeld-Gates Ads

Yippee!!! The news article announcing the retirement of those awful Jerry Seinfeld-Bill Gates ads is here. They say that they had planned on retiring the ads long before the public outcry, which might be true. What does this do to Jerry's rep as a funny man, though? His Bee Movie was somewhat lackluster at the box office, earning $128M against a budget of $150M. What other prospects does he have for the future?

Nonetheless, it's good to see the ads won't run any more. That little 4 minute mini show was simply terrible. Their next step is to trot out lots of people proudly saying, "I'm a PC, and I've been made into a stereotype."

If the shoe fits...

Ninja Cat

Here's a pure piece of AWESOMENESS for today. As the fellas at Roosterteeth describe it, it's the best video in the non-porn, non RvB category. I haven't laughed this hard at something that doesn't tell a joke in a long time. How does the mysterious ninja cat get closer without moving?

93.5 The Source - Classic Alternative (?)

Not too long ago, one of the radio stations in my area changed its format, as terrestrial radio stations often do. I have no idea if this was in response to dismal market ratings (how do they get those listener inputs, anyway? I get the concept behind a Neilsen set-top box recording what a person watches on TV, but how do you faithfully record a person's radio habits?), or if it was part of an ownership change or some other station format shakeup happening around the same time. All of those things are distinct possibilities.

The radio station itself is now known as 93.5 The Source - CU's Original Classic Alternative. You can see a little of what they used to be just in the URL, btw.

Now, when this switch first happened (or, more correctly, when I first realized it by stumbling through the radio dial), I was flat-out ecstatic! I called my sister, who has always had strong alternative radio programming in her local market, when 93.5 was playing Devo's "Working in a Coalmine," which I can't recall ever getting significant airplay, even back in the day. Sure, when I was growing up, Casey Kasem was countin' 'em down on the Billboard Top 40 every Sunday, and we didn't dare miss that. At the time, I thought we were being radical and subversive by listening to early Police albums up in our stuffy attic during the summer months. I know!

During my formative years of high school and college, I of course went through a Classic Rock phase (doesn't everyone?), followed by the Big Hair Band phase of the late '80s and early '90s (can anyone else top seeing Joan Jett play a free concert in downtown Dayton, OH, plus concerts by Lita Ford, Warrant, Trixter, and Firehouse? Oh, and Spinal Tap, for good measure), followed by Grunge and Alternative in the early- to mid-'90s.

So, the fact that a local radio station is now playing music that I really, really liked from about 15-25 years ago is a huge bonus for me! They reach back to the early '80s Pop, New Wave, Ska, and post-Punk genres, too. Every once in a while, they'll even throw in a song by those three white Jewish kids from Brooklyn, just to cover all bases. So far, no Dead Kennedys, but they do play "Punk Rock Girl" by the Dead Milkmen. All of which is a real treat to find on regular radio. As I told my sister, this is the kind of stuff I put on my iPod! Perhaps the best part was the lack of commercials during the early months after the format switch.

But I did get to thinking: how much that is recorded by bands today should be played by a "Classic Alternative" radio station? I'm specifically thinking of a recent song like "Pork & Beans" by Weezer. Weezer, of course, is grandfathered by the work they did during the early '90s alt music scene. If Social D were to record a new album, I'm sure it would get air time. How about U2? They've been around so long, they often pop up on classic rock stations. New material by Sting? He's in the same boat. Speaking of the Beasties, they're still recording new material... I think. What about Moby? New stuff by Duran Duran? I'm sure there are a million examples that could be thrown out there.

It's an interesting question, and one that's worth further debate. On a related sidebar, I loved the ***John Cusack movie reference alert!*** film "High Fidelity," where they often riffed on top ten lists of music-related things like this. So, this could be a top ten list of artists that deserve to be grandfathered into a Classic Alternative radio playlist. Or the top ten artists that should NOT be grandfathered. Either way works. Thoughts?

The Year-Round Sports Cycle

Does anyone else think it's just a little strange to have hockey players reporting for camp on 16 September? The AP article points out just how short the off-season is for hockey players, and they are just one example of this trend all throughout the '90s and '00s towards longer seasons, more teams, more playoffs, and more games. Which, of course, means more ticket sales, more concession sales, more memorabilia sales, and more chances to win in the postseason.

We even have the current NFL Commish, Roger Goodell, pontificating on an expansion of the NFL schedule from the current 17 weeks (16 games plus a bye for every team) to something like 17 or 18 regular-season games for each team. Goodell, ostensibly, would shorten the pre-season games and replace those "meaningless" games with ones that count in the standings. The owners were already charging regular-season ticket prices for fans to watch backups and players with little hope of making the 54-man roster play their guts out, so I'm not entirely sure what the NFL would gain other than getting more TV revenues from the deal. Which is why the earliest they would make this change would be 2010, when they can renegotiate with the TV networks for the entire package of games.

On the one hand, I enjoy seeing the wildcard in both football and baseball, because more teams alive in pennant races in September means better quality of play on the field. In the NFL, having two teams per Conference able to win a wild card berth means that even week 17 games mean a lot to teams on the bubble. Just ask the Titans and Browns players last year. The Titans were fortunate to play against a Colts team that already locked up its best possible playoff situation, and so was resting key personnel like Peyton Manning, etc., but when the Titans won that game, it knocked Cleveland out of the wildcard.

However, more than just viewer fatigue (which is still pretty darn significant; how many people can say they are excited about watching NHL hockey right now?), there are real issues with how far the sports leagues are pushing their schedules. Players have higher likelihoods of getting hurt, the quality of talent has been diluted through expansion, and increased playoff eligibility makes regular-season games less meaningful. Let's be honest: after four weeks of pre-season NFL, the actual week 1 results were crazy for established players like Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, LaDainian Tomlinson, and a host of others.*

*Re-reading that line, it sounds like I would be in favor of Roger's plan to replace meaningless pre-season games with regular-season ones. I don't object to four pre-season games at all, although when they used to play five, that was too much. What I have a problem with is this current practice of not playing NFL stars in pre-season. Yes, the risk of injury is always out there. Yes, that risk actually tends to go up if guys aren't playing at full speed. There might not be a good solution to the problem of star players getting hurt, either in pre-season or regular-season games. It's a violent game, have you noticed?

Just the news cycle alone is almost too much to bear for an average fan. The NFL already operates pretty much around the calendar year, with the April draft, spring and summer minicamps, other training activities (the sometimes dreaded OTAs), and competition committee meetings all generating significant news in addition to the July-February training camp-Super Bowl schedule. Baseball has its Winter Meetings in addition to a spring training to World Series schedule that stretches from late February (pitchers and catchers report) to now potential game 7 finishes in November. I've always thought it was funny that winter sports like basketball and hockey were still having playoff games in June.

Enough is enough already!! Fatigue has set in. I already tune out most regular-season games, and especially in hockey and basketball. Even if you're a fan of a specific team, unless you have tickets to see that team in person, there's not much reason to watch baseball games in April-July. Many regular-season NFL games are snooze-fests, at least through the first half, until the defensive players get tired in the 3rd and 4th quarters. In golf, only the four majors are really all that interesting. I could care less about the FedEx Cup, but I will probably tune in to this weekend's Ryder Cup, if able.

I know we'll never go back to the old days where players couldn't afford to live for a year on what salary they made playing their games, and so they had off-season jobs selling insurance or real estate. There's too much money to be had by selling more tickets and putting more games on TV, even if dozens of new cable channels have to be created to display that content. I just exercise my right as an American to not watch regular-season games until the playoffs are looming and every game becomes more meaningful than the last.

I do worry about the dilution of records, however. More regular-season NFL games means more games that count in the record books, which means more chances to break the single season passing, rushing, receiving, etc. records. We all know what happened to Roger Maris when he passed Babe Ruth's seemingly unbreakable HR record on the last day of the season... after Maris was given 8 more games than it took Ruth to set the record. If the NFL extends the regular season, it will make it all that much more impossible for any future team to tie the 1972 Dolphins as the only team with a perfect record in the Super Bowl era. It sounds like Goodell is OK with that.

B-school Lessons... Lost!

One of the first lessons taught in business school is the need to differentiate your product from the competition, no matter which market is involved. Maybe in dealing with some of the purest of commodities (oil, coal, gold), it doesn't matter quite so much, but any service or finished product, it's absolutely vital. It's not enough to set up shop next to the competition and jump up and down (figuratively) saying, "Me Too! Me Too!" To even survive in a crowded marketplace, a business needs some discernable competitive advantage to stand out.

That discernable competitive advantage could be a superior physical location for a bricks-and-mortar business. It could be simply reaching the marketplace first (the golden "First to Market" rule) with a new product or service. A company can rightfully compete on price, quality, or service. Advertising can help to build a brand name and set a company apart from the competition. I should amend that statement to say that superior advertising and marketing can create value in the brand itself.

Microsoft obviously didn't learn that lesson from b-school. I know, I know... Bill Gates is a college dropout who obviously didn't need to learn at the feet of others to become a super mogul in business. While his business acumen in capturing and dominating the global operating system software market is unrivaled, he simply needs to stop appearing in these strange, unfunny, and obtuse ads with Jerry Seinfeld.

Now, I loved the Seinfeld TV show. I loved its premise: "It's a show... about nothing!" I loved the entire episodes spent waiting for a table at a Chinese restaurant, or walking through the parking garage looking for their car. Those were sublime, funny, and often brilliant! However, I have seen people post comments about these Seinfeld-Gates ads from Microsoft saying that the ads are also about nothing. And that couldn't be further from the truth.

Microsoft is trying to soften its image, which is a worthy goal. People have railed against the Microsoft operating systems ever since they bought DOS from Seattle Computer Products.* Getting people to like Windows is a tall task, and could be helped with the use of humor. Self-referential and self-deprecating humor is usually accepted well in advertising, as evidenced by the gentle aw-shucks mocking of Dave Thomas in all those Wendy's ads while he was still alive.

*Aside: I wonder if they regret selling their code to Microsoft? The $75,000 they received from Microsoft for the rights to the DOS source code in 1980 and '81 would be worth $180,764 in today's terms, strictly adjusted for CPI inflation.

However, trying to go head-to-head against the advertising phenomenon that is the "I'm a Mac, and I'm a PC" campaign (officially known as the "Get a Mac" campaign) Apple is running is the advertising equivalent of the "Me Too! Me Too!" statement. It's not smart advertising, the commercials are not funny, and it only hurts Microsoft's image. The ads don't provide any reason to like Windows, and there's no increased justification to purchase Windows. Talk about missing the mark on advertising! "I'm a Mac, and I'm a PC" is now about as ubiquitous and memorable as the "Tastes great, Less filling" ads were for Miller Lite in the 70s and 80s. With the Seinfeld-Gates ads, the viewer can only wonder: "WTF?!"

Watch for yourself:

Sarah Palin Speaks

Hmmmm...

That's my official reaction to hearing and reading what Sarah Palin said on ABC News this week, during her first unscripted appearance and interview on a major news network. As I said before, I believe that she deserves the opportunity to speak for herself and to prove to the country that she deserves to be John McCain's VP candidate. Now that she's had that opportunity to defend her own record in an interview with Charlie Gibson, I'm now scratching my head a little.

Let's start with Charlie's questioning about whether or not she's ever met a foreign head of state. She admitted she has not. Ever. She rightly pointed out that she is not the first VP candidate to be in that position, but she clearly does not have any experience negotiating tough deals with foreign heads of state. Since the VP position tends to be more ceremonial than functional (well, it did before Dick Cheney), that inexperience might not be a drawback for Palin.

Charlie moved on to discuss Sarah's perspective on specific national security situations, the first of which was dealing with a resurgent Russia and the recent events in Georgia, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia. Here are the direct quotes, straight from the ABC News website:

Sarah Palin on Russia:

We cannot repeat the Cold War. We are thankful that, under Reagan, we won the Cold War, without a shot fired, also. We've learned lessons from that in our relationship with Russia, previously the Soviet Union.

We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it's in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?

PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia.

GIBSON: Because Putin has said he would not tolerate NATO incursion into the Caucasus.

PALIN: Well, you know, the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, those actions have showed us that those democratic nations, I believe, deserve to be in NATO.

Putin thinks otherwise. Obviously, he thinks otherwise, but...

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help.

But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to -- especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.

We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.

GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.

PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.

And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.

It doesn't have to lead to war and it doesn't have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.

His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that's a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.

Now, of course, I'm very happy to hear that Palin does not advocate a return to the Cold War. She's flat-out wrong about no shots fired during the Cold War, naturally. Francis Gary Powers springs to mind. The US also might not have much of a choice about a renewed Cold War with Russia. I'm not saying that Big Bad Vlad (Putin) wants to reinstate the Iron Curtain and rebuild the buffer zone of Eastern European countries in another USSR. However, he does seem to want to reassert Russia's zones of influence and return Russia to a resurgent role as superpower on the world stage.

This about this from Putin's perspective. Russia was bankrupt towards the end of the Cold War and simply couldn't keep up with Reagan's military buildup in the 1980s. (Then again, how well did the US afford that buildup?) First Gorby and then Yeltsin promoted the idea of Glasnost and Perestroika, encouraging more transparency within the government and warmer ties with the West. In exchange, Russia was shown to have significant issues within its military, and while they always maintained their importance in the UN Security Council, The West learned we didn't have quite as much to fear from Russia as we thought during the Cold War.

Which meant the US was then free to act much more unilaterally and with some impunity when it came to matters of national security. What did Russia get in return? Some free market reforms that made the oligarchs and Russian mafia rich, but certainly a diminished role and very little opposition to US objectives. War in the Balkans? The US stepped in during the Dayton Peace Accords and still maintains boots on the ground there. War in the Middle East? The US has conducted not one, but three different wars since the early '90s with very little to no consideration for Russian goals or objectives in the region. Of course, the Russians might have the last laugh if the US also has to leave the mountains of Afghanistan without a long-lasting solution against the Islamic fundamentalists there. But the Russians aren't providing the remnants of the Taliban with guns and Stingers the way we did during their occupation of the country in the '80s.

So, for Palin and, I assume McCain also, to suggest that we need to include Georgia and Ukraine in NATO against Russian opposition to such a move is dangerous and reckless at the very least. I understand that leaders in Ukraine and Georgia are asking for membership in NATO and the European Union. They have much more to gain by aligning themselves with Western Europe than with Russia. However, I would not be surprised in the least for Russia to invent another provocation against ethnic Russians living in Sevastopol, their long-time warm weather port and home to the Russian Black Sea fleet. Any excuse they can use to send in troops and control the necessary land of Ukraine, I believe they will do. Putin has shown he is willing to commit troops on such a cause, and they are looking for ways of provoking a fight with the US as this WSJ article shows (subscription req'd). Why else would Russia claim a stolen US passport was evidence of US meddling or mercenaries in Georgia? Russia is itching for a fight, and we don't need to provoke them by trying to include Georgia and Ukraine in NATO.

Let's get back to Palin. She also discussed the Bush Doctrine* with Gibson. (Watch the video on ABC News/Yahoo here.) More appropriately, it seemed as though Gibson had to tell Palin what the Bush Doctrine was, and then she had to react to being caught off-guard. She certainly supports Bush's ability to strike at Islamic extremists at will, pre-emptively if needed, but then she wanted to resume the McCain-Palin ticket's claim to being agents of change.

*As perhaps one of the most significant foreign policy shifts since the Truman Doctrine stated the U.S. would do everything in its power to prevent Greece and Turkey from falling under Soviet influence after WWII, the Bush Doctrine is certainly worth knowing cold for any future Presidential candidate. It's also certainly worth contrasting with the Powell Doctrine, used so effectively by Bush 41 in the First Persian Gulf War in 1991.

Frankly, it can be quite confusing. Would a McCain Administration continue prosecuting unpopular military actions in Afghanistan and, increasingly, Pakistan, with the prospects of expanding the war on terror? Pakistan poses its own high wire diplomatic drama, with factions taking hard line stances against having US troops conducting offensive actions in western Pakistan. The official government line, for now, is resorting to diplomacy, but how long will that last?

So, all of this once again makes me think, "Hmmmm..." How much could we trust a McCain-Palin administration to keep us safe in the new world order? How much should we trust them with foreign affairs? How well do they understand all the issues? And would an Obama-Biden administration do any better?

Quick, Blame the FBI!

So, I caught this headline: House Democrats press FBI on 2001 anthrax attacks, security guidelines  from today's GovExec newsletter.  (The full news story is here.)

The upshot is that Congressional Democrats want to avoid the Harry Truman label, "Do Nothing Congress," in an election year.  The McCain-Palin ticket already beat that drum during the RNC, and given the historically low approval ratings (yes, the American public is more disgusted with Congress than with W.), I'm sure they want to do SOMETHING before November.  Hmmm... you think they could try to actually do their jobs and pass some legislation?  Naaah, it's far easier to beat up the Director of the FBI during hearings that allow Honorable Members of the House Judiciary Committee to preen on national TV, even if it is C-SPAN.

Now, I certainly don't know anything about the inner workings of the Federal BI.  I don't doubt that warning signs pointing to Bruce Ivins were missed during the entire anthrax investigation.  The practice of hounding a "person of interest" was dissected by a WSJ opinion piece here (subscription req'd), and certainly, Steven Hatfill can feel vindicated these days.  I actually really liked a previous opinion piece where the WSJ attributed the "Steven Hatfill = Mad Scientist" theory to the left in general and Nicholas Kristoff of the NY Times in particular (story here) because they (the left) didn't want the anthrax attacks pinned to Iraq or Al Qaeda.

What I have a harder time with is the second punch the Congressional Democrats want to inflict upon Robert Mueller.  Quoting verbatim from GovExec:

"We are ... concerned about recent reports indicating that the FBI may have contributed to the current subprime mortgage crisis by failing to act on its knowledge of wide-scale mortgage fraud," they wrote. "It also appears that the FBI failed to prioritize this crime, as evidenced by the reported decrease in the number of agents devoted to the issue and the attorney general's refusal to create a national task force to centralize FBI mortgage fraud investigations."

Again, I really know nothing about the inner workings of the FBI.  I don't know how they prioritize their case load, and whether fraud of any sort would ever rise above the level of drug trafficking, murder, racketeering, or whatever else they investigate.  But given that the private companies involved in the massive collateralization or securitization of mortgage loans did everything in their power to hide the underlying shakiness of many of those loans ("Bundle that shinola up as quickly as possible and sell it to some other sucker!" I can imagine the brokers saying), I kinda doubt the FBI had much advance warning of mortgage-related fraud until after the press started exploring it.  Which is the same time as the rest of us really woke up to it.

Should the FBI have known what was going on in the real estate markets?  Maybe.  Was there an obvious crime being committed?  Were there any advance indicators that mortgage brokers were engaging in fraudulent activities?  Or is the FBI just being scapegoated here?  Basically, this is another example of passing the buck from the Legislative Branch, who probably could have written tighter laws preventing mortgage lenders from engaging in deceptive or outright fraudulent activities, to the Executive Branch, who is charged with enforcement of the existing laws.  

All of which is being done after the fact, in an election year, for the purposes of political grandstanding.  Look at us, voters!  We have your best interests at heart!

Nice.

Super Bowl Loser Curse Strikes Again

OK, by now, most people will have heard that Tom Brady appears to be lost for the season due to an ACL injury he sustained in week 1 against KC.  My condolences go out to Tom and his team, since no one likes to see a player get hurt, especially not one of Tom Brady's stature.  Yes, Tom was the first QB picked in most fantasy leagues this fall.  Yes, the Patsies were primed for another run at the Super Bowl and greatness.  Yes, numerous columnists wrote this summer how no one should expect the Patsies to fall victim to the Super Bowl loser curse.

Wait, what's that you say?  There's another curse on top of the Billy Goat curse, the SI cover jinx curse, and the Madden cover curse?*

* We will, of course, be holding our breath this entire season for Brett Favre, this year's EA Sports Madden NFL 2009 cover boy. 

Yes, yes there is.  Going back at least to the 2000 season, when the Titans lost to the Rams in the Super Bowl and then had a big drop-off the next season, every Super Bowl loser has had a tough time bouncing back from the loss.  The '01 Giants had several rough years before finally climbing back into prominence through the wildcard last year.  The '02 Rams have been shells of their former selves for the past five years and will probably continue that skid this year.  The '03 Raiders have, well, been the Raiders for the past four years.  The '04 Panthers have done OK, but have struggled to make it back to the playoffs.  The '05 Eagles also struggled in the year following their Super Bowl run.  The '06 Seahawks continue to win their Division, but how hard is that, really?  The '07 Bears completely fell apart on defense last year and notably cut or allowed to depart via free agency their top QB, RB, and WR from last year.  

Now, much of what people love about the NFL is its parity.  When a team like the Browns can bounce from 4-12 one season to a stunning 10-6 the next, really, anything can happen from season to season.  One good player from the April draft can add to a key free agent signing and a new coach...  ...and take the Saints from 3-13 in 2005 to 10-6 in 2006.  One lucky bounce, one fumble recovery, or one onside kick recovery can get an entire team of players believing in themselves and change the entire season.  That's the beauty of the NFL.

On the flip side, players do get hurt.  They get older, slightly slower, and lose a step.  Again, key players can depart via free agency, and it becomes harder and harder to field a competitive team year after year.  Gone are the days of the Broncos, Vikings, and Bills being able to get scramble back up to the peak of the NFL season, the Super Bowl, after each crushing defeat the previous year.  The difference from other Super Bowl losers is that the Patriots have shown they know how to refresh their roster and keep finding talented players that no one else wants (Corey Dillon, anyone?).  They've been to the Super Bowl four times this decade, and last year was their first loss in those four trips. 

What remains to be seen is how well Matt Cassel will perform this year.  Yes, he was able to connect with Randy Moss and guide the Patsies to a week 1 defeat of the Chiefs.  Randy Moss will become his new bestest friend, I think.  There is still a ton of talent on the New England roster.  They still sit atop the AFC East, but with the aforementioned Favre now competing in their Division, the road to the Super Bowl becomes much, much harder than it was before, no disrespect intended towards Chad Pennington.  As noted above, Farve is competing against his own curse, so it should be interesting to see which curse strikes hardest this season. 

Any votes for the Billy Goat curse?

Microsoft Doesn't Know How to Advertise, Either

So, I read a while back that Microsoft was hired Jerry Seinfeld (WSJ article; subscription req'd) to fight back against Apple and the often hilarious Mac vs. PC ads starring Justin Long (who totally turned his Mac persona into a starring role as an Internet geek/hacker alongside Bruce Willis in "Live Free or Die Hard"). I figured hey, what the heck? Seinfeld is a pretty funny guy. I can still watch reruns of Seinfeld that make me laugh, although I'm disappointed they'll never be in HD.

And then I actually WATCHED the ad. Who are the lame-o writers behind this little piece of awfulness? I say little, but it actually feels like two or three minutes of your life pass by as you watch this dreck. And you'll never get those minutes back again. The jokes aren't funny (world's richest man shops at a discount shoe store: what a laff riot!), many of the lines are simply creepy (when Gates gives Jerry the puzzled look after Jerry suggests showering in your clothes, he's not the only one who thinks Jerry is off his rocker), and I don't even get the weird suggestion at the end. Who could possibly want to eat their computer?

Whoever wrote this should be fired. Whoever hired the ad agency should be fired. Microsoft should probably never, ever try to be hip or funny ever again.

BMW Stoplights

So, did anyone else watch NBC's coverage of what I guess was the delayed 2nd round of the BMW Championship? I kept seeing Phil in bright yellow:

Anthony Kim in green:

And JB Holmes in a bright red hat and shirt.*

*Sorry, JB, couldn't find a picture of your red shirt on any coverage of the BMW. They had your pink shirt from the 3rd round, though.

I just couldn't shake the thought that these three guys standing together looked like a stoplight at times.

Burn After Reading

Here's the next movie I absolutely HAVE to see:

Once again, the Coen Brothers appear to have out-done themselves. Brad Pitt looks like he's playing his wackiest character since Jeffrey Goines in "12 Monkeys."

I just hope my high expectations are not dashed when I go to see it. Usually, low expectations work best with big Hollywood movies. Case in point: my wife and I went into "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" not expecting much, so we were pleasantly surprised by the chemistry between Pitt and Jolie. But the Coens usually do a smash-up job, especially with Clooney. Now, for the first time, they also get to work with John Malkovich. What's not to love?

Let the Woman Be, eh?

So, people either love her or hate her. The "her" in question is, of course, John McCain's selection for running mate, Sarah Palin. No one has been lukewarm about the announcement, it seems. Democrats have been looking for any reason to discredit the woman, from attacks on her family (I'm glad to see that both Obama and Biden have called for the family attacks to stop), to attacks on her beauty-queen looks, to even digging up ancient footage of when she did the sportscasting for her local news station. You know what? I've seen LOTS of male sportscasters on local TV stations who couldn't hold a candle to her performance captured above.

All I can say is, America is the land of opportunity. She's been handed a tremendous opportunity because John McCain and the Republican Party chose her for some reason in what has to be seen as a make-or-break gamble for the Presidency. So, let's see what she has to say and see how she handles herself during the rest of the campaign.

Personally, I was impressed with her speech yesterday. Perhaps because she has that experience in front of cameras, she showed no hesitation or fear of speaking in front of the raucous crowds at the RNC. She hit her lines, and the only drawback there was that they leaked the best lines during the day yesterday. Punchlines are always heightened when they are unexpected. I was sincerely disappointed that the GOP did not prepare a "Meet Sarah Palin" video the same way the Democrats did for Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton (who needed that intro, by the way?), and Barack Obama. Shoot, even John McCain is getting his own video, and most people are already familiar with his story. So, why no video for a person who is a virtual unknown on the national stage?

Perhaps Sarah wanted to perform her own introductions. She certainly didn't hold back from introducing her loving husband, her five children, and her own back story. Good for her, I say.

A recent photo of the Palin family, pre-Trig

I really have only two negatives that I've seen thus far, one of which is offered up by my wife. After Sarah's speech yesterday, she pointed out how Sarah's piled high hair and outfit, while nicer than Hillary's pantsuits, still seemed very small-townish. I have very little to no idea about women's fashions, so when I suggested that Sarah was perhaps cultivating that small town look to demonstrate again that she's not from Washington or the east coast, my wife told me that women would notice and judge her for the clothes she wears and how she wears her hair. To me, if she goes all "Sex and the City" fashionable now, it would seem terribly phony and, most likely, backfire on her. She might be in an unwinnable position there.

My only other comment, and I really don't mean to attack her family in any way, is this: I, personally, am more of a traditionalist when it comes to naming children. My own children are named after relatives, so I probably shouldn't even make this comment. I just wouldn't name my own children Track*, Bristol, Willow, Piper, and Trig. To me, those are: something you run in middle school, the home of ESPN, a bad '80s movie, an airplane, and high school math. That's all I'll say about that.

*But good for Track to volunteer for the Army and proudly serve his country in our armed forces! 

I did love the commentators on NPR last night, after she delivered her speech. They talked about how she hit a home run with her delivery and her comportment. What I loved the most, however, was how they picked up on Rudy Guiliani's line about how no one -- NO ONE! -- would ever question a male candidate about his choice to run and whether he could still devote enough time and attention to his family. By questioning Palin's choice, the Democrats effectively ceded initiative on the feminism issue to Republicans, and who ever thought that would happen in their lifetime?

What I especially want to see now -- what I'm dying to see as soon as possible -- is the VP debate. Sure, I'll watch the Presidential candidates face off, just to see what they say head-to-head. But I'll be making popcorn and settling in early to see Sarah vs. Joe Biden. If she can hold her own against a long-time Washington insider, someone who has a long legislative track record and excellent foreign policy credentials; if she can hold her own and not freeze on a question against Biden; if she can make people laugh with an off-the-cuff witty rejoinder during the pressure-packed debate when the hot lights are shining and she has no place to hide, then I will be very impressed. I would feel much better about McCain's choice of running mate if she can perform on that stage.

I think she has already done a very good job of handling the pressure and media scrutiny since the announcement. She had to know the media circus would pounce on her background and start flinging mud against her family, and yet she chose to run anyway. That has to say something about her character. Let's give her a chance and see what she does with it. Isn't that what America is all about?

Terence Newman Screams Like a Little Girl

I'm sure we all have this image of the typical NFL player being a big, tough guy who eats nails for breakfast and craps diamonds. OK, so maybe that's just Brian Urlacher. See how Dallas Cowboys CB Terence Newman handles the Tony Hawk Big Spin ride at Six Flags, courtesy of the Dallas Morning News: video here.