Desperation revealed

Ladies and gentlemen, I freely admit that I don't know enough about economics to claim an educated perspective on the current crisis, so I'll recuse myself from this debate. I do know that $700 billion is an unfathomable amount of money that the federal government doesn't have in the first place because we're already too busy stacking up unfathomable debt in other dubious ways. But that's a different story.

All that said, though, John McCain's contention on Monday that Barack Obama and Democrats are to blame for the failed bailout legislation, and that both "put politics ahead of country," is similar in absurdity to Sarah Palin's claims about her knowledge of Russian foreign policy by virtue of its geographical proximity to her state.

Let's be clear on two points here. First, it was House Republicans who killed this deal, voting against it by a margin of 65-133 (Democrats backed it, 140-95). That's fellow members of John McCain's own political party — who, of course, also went against their own president by rejecting a bailout plan for which George W. Bush himself had been pushing. McCain's response was not to calmly suggest and work out alternative courses of action in light of the failed legislation — as a good leader and good future president might — but instead to angrily and childishly point fingers at his opponent. That's unpleasantly reflective of the typical strategy of the outgoing incumbent, and it's pathetic.

Secondly, the McCain camp also blasted Obama for waging "partisan attacks" after the Arizona senator so nobly "suspended" his campaign (though one could easily argue that this never happened) and called for a postponement of last Friday's presidential debate. But McCain showed up at the debate after all, even though he previously said he wouldn't unless a deal on the bailout plan had been reached. Who was really playing politics here?

McCain clearly fears that his poll numbers will continue to lag as long as the failing economy stays in the headlines and tops the list of voter concerns this fall. Thus, following Monday's developments, perhaps it's understandable that he would come out swinging wildly like a juvenile delinquent who has nothing to lose in a fight. I've often heard McCain described as a "gambler." Given the absurdity of his campaign's remarks on Monday, it now seems that he's gambling on what he might perceive as the stupidity of voters.

By any measure, average performances

Barack Obama certainly didn't deliver a mind-blowing presentation at the first presidential debate in Oxford, Miss., on Friday night. But neither did John McCain. In general, both candidates did a respectable job reinforcing their visions for the next four years, playing well to their base constituents but doing little to reach out to voters who may still be undecided. And both demonstrated remarkable weaknesses in the first of a series of debates that could prove critical.

For his part, Obama did a nice job of remaining poised and providing thoughtful, detailed and coherent answers to the questions — a positive accomplishment for a candidate sometimes criticized for being long on lofty language but short on detail. Still, he allowed John McCain to put him on the defensive too often, responding to the GOP candidate's charges clearly but sometimes not punching back hard enough to level the playing field. And he too often repeated the phrase that McCain was "absolutely right" — not the best strategy when many viewers remember sound bytes but not the broader context. Perhaps most notably, he didn't tie McCain's policies to those of the Bush administration forcefully enough, and he didn't adequately connect McCain's support for the Iraq war (and its astronomical price tag) to the current economic crisis. Both points would have resonated with undecided voters, and both were arguably missed opportunities on Obama's part.

McCain, meanwhile, sought to paint himself as a seasoned, tested patriot whose experiences better equip him for the job in question, and whose independent and bipartisan spirit make him a good leader. Nevertheless, his modus operandi was clearly to be on the attack whenever possible (with his lagging poll numbers, he probably had no choice), and this carried mixed results. When leveling charges against Obama, he spoke so passionately and verbosely that he almost came off as scolding his opponent. This was not presidential in character. Neither were his reactions to Obama's words. McCain has a reputation for having a short temper, and he obviously tried to suppress this during the debate by plastering a fake smile every time he grew annoyed with the Democratic candidate. Trouble is, this smile looked more like a dismissive smirk at times, and when coupled with his occasional gasps and interjections, McCain seemed downright flustered. Body language matters during debates, and the senator from Arizona demonstrated this clearly on Friday night.

Granted, it will take time for the true impact of this first debate to be known — but at first blush, it seems fairly apparent that no clear winner emerged. If anything, this should serve to make the upcoming debates even more crucial. I trust that millions of voters across the country — both committed and undecided — will join me in paying close attention to them.

McCain: Anything to shift focus

And it's fairly transparent that this is precisely the goal (again). It's pushing midnight here, and I'm nursing a nasty cold that should have sent me to bed hours ago.

But if there's one thing that makes me even more sick than the sore throat and congestion I'm currently battling, it's the notion that we may spend the rest of the week talking about whether the debates should happen and whether McCain demonstrated true leadership or a political ploy in calling for a postponement — all of this, instead of discussing the precipice at which we're standing right now, peering over a sharp drop-off into economic catastrophe.

Let's clarify one thing right now: The debates must go on as planned. If McCain is resistant to the idea of handling more than one serious challenge at a time, this alone should call into question his capacity to handle the daunting tasks that will be faced by the next commander-in-chief. And perhaps now more than ever, Americans need to know where the candidates stand.

For his part, Barack Obama issued an appropriate response, making the aforementioned points and insisting that they stick with the original debate schedule. It will be interesting to see whether McCain follows through with his threat of not showing up if the congressional bailout package is not agreed upon by Friday night. Does he really expect that such a move will make him look like a hero?

I can't use chopsticks

This is my random thought of the day. I've never been able to learn how to properly use these things, and I don't think I ever will.

They aren't easier to use than a fork or spoon — and I'm not just saying that because I'm from a culture where the aforementioned utensils are used as standard practice. Who's going to argue that chopsticks are more efficient than stabbing or scooping up food with silverware? If I tried to eat a bowl of rice with a pair of chopsticks, I'd still be eating my lunch at dinnertime. And half of the rice would probably still be there.

This thought came to mind the other night when I had sushi. There are a number of restaurants in the area that are authentic enough — or perhaps cruel enough — to only provide chopsticks to guests unless otherwise requested. So when you sheepishly ask for a fork instead, the waiting staff probably chuckles a bit at your expense in the kitchen. Or maybe I'm just paranoid.

I'm fascinated by Asian culture. I also love reading the detailed and well-written usage instructions provided on the packaging for chopsticks. But on the first point, I can't figure out why this culture prefers the use of these awkward devices over the simple and very Western standard of forks and spoons. And on the second point, I don't think any instructions — however articulate — will ever adequately teach me how to use chopsticks. I'm not culturally closed-minded, but I am practical, and for those interested in eating a meal in less than three hours, I don't understand why a pair of narrow wooden sticks are preferable.

Pictures from around town

I've finally had a chance to post a few of the images I've taken around Seattle this summer; you can have a look at the album here if you'd like. This is the same set of pictures from which I selected the new feature for the blog banner.

Having taken some spectacular hiking trips in the area during these past few months, I also have a series of photos from those expeditions that I plan to post as time permits. But I'm not quite done yet; this weekend, I'm heading up to Mount Baker in Washington's North Cascades for a wilderness retreat. Located roughly two hours north of Seattle, this area holds the global record for greatest snowfall in one season and is supposedly one of the most photographed regions in the world. It should be a nice place to spend the weekend. More to come when I return.

Obama: Change focus immediately, or lose

Two weeks ago, I spoke incredulously of John McCain's surprise choice for his running mate, wondering out loud what he had been smoking that prompted such a move. Then I looked back at what I had written about on this blog in the 14 days since, and the answer was as obvious as the Alaska midnight sun: Three of my four past posts have been about Sarah Palin (four of five, if I count this one).

It doesn't matter what issues concerning Palin those posts discussed; the fact is, they were about her. The same is true in the mainstream media. I visited CNN's Political Ticker blog on Sunday morning and saw that five posts in a row were fully focused on Palin (many more if I counted the ones in which she was mentioned at length). This, my friends, is precisely what the disgrace from Arizona was betting on and hopeful for when he chose the no-name governor of Alaska: someone who would take the focus off of his corpse-like presence and his offerings (or, more accurately, lack thereof) as a candidate for the highest political office in the world.

McSame — pardon me, McCain — knows that he is not an attractive choice for the presidency, particularly this year. He knows he cannot win based on his policy proposals, which mimic those of the incumbent. He knows he will not win if Obama successfully (and rightfully) ties him to the disastrous tenure of George W. Bush. He knows that, standing on a stage beside the young, trim senator from Illinois, he'll appear as though he just crawled out of a coffin. So, in retrospect, his veep choice may have been the smartest move McCain has made in this campaign: Pick a woman (in an effort to fire up Hillary Clinton supporters and feminists) who panders to the GOP base and carries just enough baggage in her political career and family life to ignite distracting hostile debate and criticism that can be turned around and used to play the even more distracting "victim-of-sexism" card (even though most of the scrutiny placed on Palin has nothing to do with her gender).

The resulting dubious benefit for McCain: People aren't paying attention to him and his pathetic platform. The resulting dismal consequence for America: an ongoing irrelevant discussion about anything other than the critical issues facing our nation in this critical election year.

To be blunt, Obama's campaign has responded foolishly to this phenomenon. They've waged continuous attacks against Palin — not McCain — which is like pouring gasoline on an inferno. Most recently, they've accused her of lying about her involvement in "the bridge to nowhere" and her trip to Iraq. Yes, Palin no doubt has lied — but again, this doesn't matter. What matters is that the spotlight is staying on the 44-year-old hockey mom from Alaska, which is precisely what McCain wants. Obama can win if he shifts the focus away from Palin (who offers nothing as a veep candidate but makes an excellent political ploy for Republicans) and back to the real issues and his opponent's record. But if he does not do this right now, he will lose in November. Please mark my words on this.

Under pressure

Following this interview with ABC's Charles Gibson — which arguably constitutes Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's first test as to whether she has a clue about issues of actual significance — the McCain camp will no doubt be scrambling to refocus attention on pigs wearing lipstick and similarly irrelevant headlines that distract not only from constructive discourse on critical matters, but also the reality that this campaign ticket has little to offer on those matters.

Sitting across from Gibson, Palin comes across in this video as a nervous high school student unprepared for her first job interview. Three moments that were, in my view, particularly telling:

• When Gibson pressed Palin on how her state's proximity to Russia lends insight into the actions of that nation, Palin responded that "they're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska." (Likewise, from parts of Washington state, one can see into Canada. I feel so empowered now.)
  
• When asked whether she had ever met a foreign head of state, Palin said she had not but that the desire in this nation was for "no more politics as usual and somebody's big, fat resume that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment" that would afford such an opportunity. (Right, and certainly her running mate has not campaigned on his resume.)
  
• When Gibson asked Palin whether she agreed with the Bush doctrine, he ultimately ended up having to explain to her what it was. (Cut to the moment where she responds to his question by asking, "In what respect, Charlie?" Perhaps Sarah Palin rather than Frances McDormand should have been cast for the star role in the 1996 dark comedy, "Fargo.")

If this interview is any indication of Palin's future performance in this campaign, the next several weeks should be very interesting.

Beaver Island in pictures

The majority of my vacation time last month was spent at Beaver Island, the spot where my parents bought a summer home last year. Their decision to do this was not based on mere whim. Our family has been going to this place for decades — my father, for more than 40 years; my mother, since before she was married to him; and my sister and myself, since we were both infants. Prior to this trip, I hadn't been to Beaver Island since about 1995, so returning there after more than 13 years was a bit of an adventure. (View my pictures here.)

The island is part of a chain of at least 10 located in northern Lake Michigan and is the only inhabited one among them. This — plus the fact that it's only accessible via a two-hour ferry ride from one small town on the mainland, and the fact that it's far removed from any major city — creates a wonderful sense of solitude and tranquility. For all its beauty, Beaver Island is nothing like Mackinac Island or Door County. "Islanders," as the year-round residents are called, would actually resent such a comparison.

I've always had a soft spot for the Great Lakes — I think they comprise one of the most magnificent regions on earth — but Beaver Island is a rare gem even there. It's the type of place where everyone waves at each other when passing by on gravel roads (the only paved streets are in the island's only town, tiny St. James); where you can return and pay later if you don't have enough cash to cover your purchase at the local fish market; where people simply don't lock their doors, and no one worries about it; and where you can take a walk on a gorgeous sandy beach along Lake Michigan or through a dense Northwoods forest and not encounter even one other person. It's a glimpse at a lifestyle that everyone dreams of, but that most believe doesn't exist anymore. Perhaps that's because this place has remained undiscovered after so many years, thanks in large part to its geographical isolation.

I hope it stays that way forever. I'm not a terribly spiritual person — but visiting such a place, away from the hustle and bustle of modern life where creation can be observed in its unadulterated majesty, is unforgettable. Indeed, observing a sunset over Lake Michigan (the picture doesn't begin to capture the essence), or lying on the beach at night and looking at a vast, ink-black sky with stars so bright they seem to pierce through the darkness, makes it extraordinarily difficult to deny the existence of an omnipresent creator beyond the realm of human perception and intellect.

I invite all my friends to consider a trip to Beaver Island next summer. We have a place for you to stay — and if your experience there resembles the ones I've had over the years in any way, you won't regret it.

The politics of Palin

This clip is nothing short of priceless.

For the record, Wasilla is not the second-largest city in Alaska. It's not even the third-largest city in Alaska. Ever heard of Fairbanks, Karl? Juneau?

Not that any of this nonsense matters, of course. Experience, after all, means little if you have only bad policy to show for it — and whether John McCain and Sarah Palin have one year or 100 years of experience between them, bad policy is one measure by which they'd probably trump any opponent many times over.