Sarah who??

As of Thursday night, I had no idea who Sarah Palin was. I did know that the governor of Alaska was a woman — but if pressed to identify her by name, I'd have been at a loss. Considering my wealth of useless political knowledge, it's pretty remarkable that Sen. John McCain's veep pick turned out to be someone unfamiliar even to me. Throughout Friday, I read accounts of one GOP member after another defending the selection of Palin — but none paid countenance to the fact that an infinitesimal percentage of Americans have probably even heard of this person.

Regardless, I spent Friday morning wondering what the Arizona senator had been smoking for the past several weeks, during which time he presumably made his choice. The message is crystal clear: "Hey, all you Hillary supporters! Looky here! I picked a woman, and that bad guy Obama did not! So vote for me!" Never mind that Alaska's governor bears about as much similarity to Hillary Clinton in policy as John McCain does to a living person. Evidently, he expects this fact will be overlooked by that audience — as will the transparently manipulative nature of his move.

Sadly, it appears that Palin's gender might be her greatest appeal. In a stunning move, the McCain campaign took the single cohesive message it had against Barack Obama — his supposed lack of experience — and threw it out the window by selecting a running mate whose political experience includes less than two years as chief executive of the third-least populous state and several more as a mayor and city councilwoman in an Alaska town of less than 7,000 people. At best, the "inexperienced Obama" argument will no longer work. At worst, voters will realize that McCain's vocal complaints about Obama's alleged rookie status were not genuine but political in nature: The Illinois senator is an unfit choice because he isn't seasoned enough, but Palin — who carries less experience than either of the Democratic rivals, and who would assume the presidency should McCain kick the bucket — is acceptable?

Having picked a V.P. who was neither expected nor recognized on the national front, McCain apparently hopes that Palin will allow him to have his cake and eat it, too. After all, she's a female governor who would ideally draw disillusioned women Hillary supporters and simultaneously throw a bone to the James Dobson followers with her staunchly anti-abortion views. But given the aforementioned drawbacks, plus her age (a youthful 44, making her nearly three years Obama's junior) and the fact that she's from a state that's hardly a coveted prize on the electoral map, it's hard to imagine that McCain's bet won't backfire on him.

In a word: Masterful

On Thursday night, Sen. Barack Obama found his voice in this campaign in at least three distinct ways: forcefully reasserting his status as the candidate of change and one who is indeed ready for the presidency; presenting specifics on his vision for America and how he'd pursue these goals as commander-in-chief; and responding to his opponent in no uncertain terms, highlighting how a McCain administration would amount to four more years of the same failed policies and effectively firing back against attacks waged by the GOP ticket.

If Obama's nomination acceptance speech is any indication of how he'll conduct his campaign from this point forth, all of his supporters should have reason to be greatly optimistic. In any event, all Americans of all backgrounds and all political persuasions should be proud tonight. Our nation has truly reached a remarkable milestone.

Inspiring. Memorable. Electrifying. Historical. Masterful.

McCain: A better candidate for retirement

In the last post, I described John McCain as "the maverick-turned-disgrace from Arizona." I want to clarify that this statement was not borne out of frustration or wrought emotion. In fact, I stand by it entirely. I've said before that I never supported McCain — but there was a time when I could at least respect the man. Sadly, those days are long gone, and it's clear that Arizona's senior senator has indeed become an unmitigated disgrace.

I could launch into a discussion of why his policies are unacceptable, but I covered that ground many months ago and would simply be repeating myself. Instead, I'll take this opportunity to comment on the style of campaign he's chosen to adapt and how it has caused an election year full of promise for civil discourse on critical issues to devolve into an ugly, bitter repeat of so many election years past.

As a chief example, take the nature of McCain's campaign ads. In the past two months alone, I've seen and read about so many vile, antagonistic ads that attempt to mock and belittle his opponent and are, of course, totally void of any discussion of the issues or any indication of why he's worth considering for the presidency. Whether it's his most recent commercial attempting to manipulate and exploit the raw emotions of Hillary Clinton supporters, or the infamous ad mocking Barack Obama's popularity and comparing it to that of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, or the tasteless clip comparing Obama to the Messiah, I've seen a wealth of repugnant commercials in which McCain takes cheap, sophomoric shots at his rival. But I have yet to see even one that solely addresses his policy proposals, how he would change America, or why he is a suitable candidate to be the next president. In fact, does such an ad exist? I ask this question sincerely, because honestly, I'm not aware of one. If you are, I'd love to be enlightened.

The biggest tragedy of McCain's disgusting tactics, of course, is that his style distracts from a legitimate, constructive national dialogue on critical issues during a time when our country cannot afford to be talking about Paris Hilton instead of health care, the economy, the environment, or foreign policy, just to name a few. Perhaps McCain has decided he can't win the election by focusing on himself (understandably) instead of mocking his opponent and distracting voters from real issues; or perhaps he's taken advice from the current administration and instituted a strategy in which creating a climate of division and hostility is the best way to achieve political gain. Either way, from my perspective, the "experienced" Arizona senator has demonstrated that quality in one area alone: wrecking America's chance to unify in pursuit of solutions to our challenges and replacing it with what may turn out to be a sad repeat of 2004.

I already hear the protests: "But Obama has taken cheap shots, too! He's done negative campaigning, too!" Let's not kid ourselves, folks. Obama is far from perfect — I've already said that — and he's released some nasty ads in response to those from his GOP rival. (Does he have a choice?) But to blame the candidate who has offered renewed political civility and national unity as benchmarks of his campaign — particularly when it's been met with the aforementioned response from McCain — is irrational. Sure, McCain deserves respect for his past service to America. But his 2008 campaign has shown him to be entirely undeserving of the presidency, and I don't expect that to change in the coming months.

So, it's Biden

There was a time when I wouldn't have even guessed Sen. Joe Biden to be on Obama's short list of potential running mates. Following the media frenzy over the past several weeks that repeatedly mentioned his name as a likely choice, however, Saturday's announcement was hardly a shocker.

Biden is a solid pick on Obama's part — perhaps the most shrewd choice he could have made, given his current circumstances. Biden boasts more than 35 years of experience in politics; he's been a U.S. senator for 14 years longer than John McCain, and his knowledge of foreign policy and domestic affairs is extensive. His résumé could help mitigate charges that an Obama administration would lack critical job experience. Plus, to the relief of voters like myself, concerned that the Illinois senator isn't hitting back hard enough, Biden has never been afraid to fight. I trust he'll pull no punches with the maverick-turned-disgrace from Arizona.

We shouldn't forget, though, that Biden's strengths could just as easily be his liabilities on the Obama ticket. After all, this is the same guy who charged in the Democratic primaries that Obama wasn't ready to be president (the McCain camp wasted no time producing an ad about that). He's also the senatorial colleague who raised some eyebrows with his ill-worded remark about Obama being the "first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." Could this penchant for blunt, occasionally unrefined and even profane rhetoric cause future problems for the campaign? Keep in mind, too, that's he's a senator from Delaware — a state whose three electoral votes would support the Democratic ticket regardless. Unlike several of the other possible veep choices, Biden is unlikely to help Obama gain traction in bigger battleground states that may prove critical this fall.

Finally, there's the Hillary Clinton factor. Rumors are flying around that her name was never given serious consideration by Obama, to the rage of some of her supporters. Will his decision create a backlash that proves detrimental? For the time being, it may. Let's not forget, though, that two conventions and at least three debates are coming up in the next three months. Clinton supporters who idiotically say they'll now vote for McCain because they think she was snubbed still have plenty of time to change their minds on that ridiculous notion.

All of that aside, however, Biden brings qualities that help complement Obama's assets as a presidential candidate — the former, a seasoned, knowledgeable statesman whose aggressive temperament can help keep the campaign competitive, and the latter, a young, charismatic political icon whose gift for the oratory and messages of change and unity will continue to appeal to a voting populace weary of our country's current path. The next 90 days should be very interesting.

Beer wonderland

That's me pictured on the left with two good friends from my Iowa days, Michael and Ann. It was taken during this month's Great Taste of the Midwest in Madison, Wis., an annual event that affords visitors the opportunity to sample some great brews from a region of the country frequently associated with the likes of Miller and Budweiser instead of quality craft beer. That's sad, because in reality, the Midwest is home to some of the finest brews I've ever tasted — and this event always has countless superb selections.

This year, however, I looked forward to the festival not just for the beer, but for the opportunity to see some great old friends in the lovely city of Madison, a very pleasant Midwestern college town situated between two large lakes and boasting walkable streets, good restaurants, shops, pubs, outdoor cafes, and scenic parks. It's a place where I've always been happy to spend a summer weekend — and with the near-perfect weather, this year was no exception.

The festival itself, as in years past, featured at least 100 different brewers from across the Midwest and at least 500 unique beers. An admission ticket entitles you to unlimited samplings all afternoon — so needless to say, driving to the event is outright prohibited, and traveling anywhere after the festival that isn't accessible by foot or public transportation is ill-advised, unless you're a designated driver. Regardless, for beer enthusiasts like myself, the abundance of amazing brews in unlimited quantities throughout the day is a bit like being a kid in a candy store. This year, I was able to enjoy some expected classics — summer ales, amber ales, brown ales, India pale ales, stouts, porters, and even a few Scottish ales — as well as some unusual selections, including a particularly noteworthy brew whose taste very much resembled the scent of a pine forest. Yummy.

I've always said that beer brewing is an art, and educational events like the Great Taste serve to reinforce that notion. Appreciation for a fine brew doesn't denote snobbery, but rather recognition of the fact that beer isn't intended to taste like swill, as some mass-production breweries (including the aforementioned) might suggest. I'm already looking forward to next year's festival and new selections that will be present at that time.*

*Some reading this post may be cognizant of financial commitments I still hold to the 2008 Great Taste event. Please be assured that if you fit in that category, you'll be hearing from me long before next year's festival.

Laws far dumber than the words of a stoned dude

This past weekend was the 17th annual Seattle Hempfest, reportedly the world's largest pot celebration and advocacy event for the decriminalization of marijuana as a recreational and commercial drug. As was the case with the naked summer solstice festival I described a few months ago, Seattle police officers politely looked the other way as revelers gathered to toke up in the park. (After all, this is a city that passed an initiative making marijuana use the lowest law enforcement priority, and a state that legalized medical marijuana use 10 years ago.)

I've never smoked pot — and, incidentally, have neither interest nor desire to do so — but still, I have yet to hear even one compelling argument as to why its recreational use is against federal law. Like so many other national laws (say, bans on gay marriage, or abstinence-only education in schools), it's clearly based on moral preference rather than legitimate concern for public health or safety. I took a War on Drugs seminar in college, where the professor unequivocally stated that it's not possible to die directly from consuming too much marijuana. If that's true, it begs the question of why alcohol — a very lethal drug when consumed in excessive amounts — is completely permissible, both legally and socially.

Oh, that's right — we tried prohibition of alcohol, and it failed miserably. So, too, have laws against pot. When talking heads warn of the dangerous effects of marijuana use — which are identical or at least comparable to those of alcohol use (except for the lethal part) — it should be no wonder that their message falls on deaf ears to millions of Americans who regularly use the wacky tobacky in their free time, and who, sadly, regularly end up the target of law enforcement agencies happy to waste money on the futile enforcement of futile public policy.

Could we take that money and transfer its use to, say, the provision of health care for parents who can't afford to take their sick children to the doctor? Maybe that would save a few more lives than do laws against a drug whose use is no more dangerous than, say, drinking shots of whiskey. (By the way, the Web site for the Office of National Drug Control Policy doesn't even list alcohol under its "drug facts" section. Quite a convenient omission, isn't it?)

An electronic music trivia buff

This service, called Shazam, is a remarkable invention. When installed on your iPhone or on certain types of cell phones, you can simply hold the device up to a song that's playing on the radio, on television, in a movie, or even as background noise in places like bars, restaurants, and stores.

On an iPhone, the service will identify the name of the song, artist, and album within seconds; on a cell phone, it sends the "audio fingerprint" to a massive database for identification. When that's accomplished, it sends back a text message containing the information. You can link this service to your Facebook profile, create an index of songs you've tagged and identified, and even purchase the tunes you like.

Several of my coworkers have Shazam on their iPhones, and even I, a music junkie, have been impressed with the program's accuracy and breadth of data. It looks like the service is only available on iPhones in the United States at this time — so if you have one and enjoy music trivia, this may be worth a try.

Reality returns this week

Following my fantastic week-long vacation in the upper Midwest, I'm back in northern Illinois and will return to Seattle on Monday evening. As I noted in the previous post, the trip consisted of two parts — five days at Beaver Island, Mich., where I visited my parents' gorgeous new summer home along Lake Michigan, and a weekend in Madison, Wis., where I met up with some good old friends for an annual beer-tasting event that's always a blast. I'll take time to comment on both adventures; however, since I don't yet have photos from either, that will need to wait.

In any case, the vacation was quite a road trip — from Chicago, where I picked up my uncle's car (who was gracious enough to let me borrow it), all the way up to northern Michigan, where I caught a ferry to the island. Following my time there, I flew back to the mainland in a helicopter and continued all the way through the state's Upper Peninsula and back down into Wisconsin, where I stopped by Green Bay to see my grandfather, and then along to Madison and finally back to Illinois. Essentially, it was a modified Great Lakes tour. How many miles, you ask? About 945, according to my calculation.

That, of course, is plenty of time to think about things and make observations, particularly when you're driving alone the whole time. For example:

• Why can you always locate at least one country music station on the radio, even when there are no other radio stations within range? It never fails. (I hate country music.)
• Why do the states of Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan reduce the speed limit to 45 mph in construction zones, even when those zones consist of just a few orange cones and no workers in sight? I will not travel at such a low speed on an interstate highway. I don't care what fine they threaten me with — 45 mph on a limited-access freeway is ridiculous.
• Why do other drivers always slow down when they see another motorist pulled over by a cop? The officer has already pulled over someone else. Do they expect he'll get back in his car and chase them instead?
• Why does Illinois post signs at its borders advising motorists of the state's blood-alcohol limit of .08, warning that drunk drivers will be arrested? I'm waiting for the day I see cars pulled over by those signs, driven by motorists who worry that they're at .081 or higher.
• Why are Illinois toll roads in such deplorable condition when you're required to pay to drive on them? I loathe the Illinois Tollway Authority. The voters of this state should gather signatures to create a referendum to abolish it.

With that, my friends, I have returned. More to come on my journey to the Midwest.