Infomercial reinforces Obama's best qualities

Be sure to watch Barack Obama's 30-minute infomercial spot if you haven't done so already. It was broadcast on Wednesday night to viewers of major networks like CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and Fox.

Without giving a detailed analysis, I will say that the presentation put on display and reinforced Obama's greatest characteristics as a presidential candidate. Its production quality was masterful, and its content, refreshingly positive and substantive. It helped portray the Illinois senator as a leader who is genuinely in touch with the struggles of the American people.

John McCain's name was never mentioned, and no attacks were waged. That alone represents a welcome departure from the prevailing tone of this campaign season.

"Drill, baby, drill" not the answer

One of more repugnant moments of the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn., in early September was the robot-like audience chants of "drill, baby, drill," as former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and others spoke about rising gas prices and America's energy crisis. It was as though everyone in the crowd had surrendered any semblance of intellectual independence or curiosity at the doors to the Xcel Energy Center.

The implication behind this mindless chant, of course, was that lawmakers need to facilitate more offshore oil exploration and drilling to satisfy America's insatiable appetite for the black gold, bring down gas prices, and consequently allow citizens to continue living lives of bubble-like delusion — secure in the false notion that, no matter what, more oil will always be available and we'll always have our luxury cars to drive whenever and wherever we want.

Let's be clear: It won't, and we won't. Oil is not an unlimited resource. Its supply will eventually be exhausted. In fact, we're already seeing this happen. Does anyone remember the days of $0.99 gallons of gas? Contrast that to where prices sit right now. I heard someone at work the other day note how gas prices in the Seattle area have finally dropped below $3.00. I cynically replied that I never thought I'd see the day that $2.99 was considered "cheap" for a gallon of gas. Skyrocketing gas prices are not just symbolic of world events or natural disasters; they're indicative of a resource that is being overexploited and depleted at an unsustainable rate that will lead to disaster sooner than most of us can imagine.

Consider just how dependent our society is on oil. Most American cities are built so that vehicle transportation is not just a luxury, but a necessity. Some urban areas are so sprawling and dependent on the automobile that outlying suburbs — where an increasing percentage of the population lives — are simply not accessible by any other means. For that reason, when our oil supply collapses, so will the economy and general vitality of these places. Bedroom communities will effectively become ghost towns because their infrastructures were built on the short-sighted, implicit assumption that gas-powered vehicle transportation would always be a viable option. If you live an area where you need to drive your car just to pick up a gallon of milk at the grocery store, what will you do when driving is no longer possible?

Speaking of grocery stores: The food items and other essential products on the shelves don't appear magically. They need to be transported and delivered, often from long distances. This is an excellent reason to shop at local businesses and consume locally produced goods. But let's face it: Most Americans don't do this. Most understandably shop at large, non-local establishments that sell non-local goods where they can get lower prices. What happens, though, when the ability to cheaply ship these goods is greatly reduced or eliminated by the collapse of our oil supply? The potentially catastrophic economic effects that will occur in the absence of an alternative plan cannot be overestimated.

Make no mistake: "Drill, baby, drill" is an option that merely delays the inevitable. It's not even a good temporary solution, because it simply lures us back into a state of complacency. It's like a tiny bandage on a gaping wound. If we want to avert disaster, we need to adapt an entirely new strategy immediately — one that weens American society off of its oil addiction, and one that ensures we can weather the end of oil without experiencing catastrophe. Electric cars are just the beginning. This also means cities need to trash the idea of more lanes and more freeways to solve their congestion and transportation problems, instead investing in efficient, accessible public transit that gives residents an incentive to get out of their vehicles. It means clamping down on unchecked suburban sprawl. It means providing incentives for consuming local products. Most of all, it means parting ways with the delusion that oil will always be part of the solution. In fact, the only feasible end solutions are ones that do not involve oil at all.

McCain badly needs a vacation

Meeting God when life hurts most

I have friends of various spiritual backgrounds and beliefs. In fact, no two of them are identical. Spirituality is a personal, evolving journey, and each road taken is unique, having different origins, routes, and destinations. Indeed, spiritual identity is part of what gives us autonomy as human beings.

There are, however, certain questions that tend to transcend these diverse spiritual paths. For instance: If a loving, omnipotent, and omnipresent God really does exist — which is, by itself, an unresolved matter for some — then why does he allow horrible things to happen? Why does he permit people to suffer and die? If there truly is a God who loves and cares deeply about each of us, why doesn't he simply eliminate the causes of death, destruction, and misery?

The answers offered to these questions are rarely satisfying. I do believe in the existence of such a God — and I'd have to set aside another blog post to explain why — but still, I likely struggle with such questions as much as someone who has never entertained the notion of an all-powerful God. These aren't questions that anyone should be ashamed of asking. In fact, they're questions that everyone, regardless of spiritual condition, has a right to explore.

That's why I found great encouragement in reading "The Shack," a novel that tells the story of one man facing such a struggle. Three years after his daughter is tragically kidnapped and murdered during a camping trip in the Pacific Northwest wilderness, Mackenzie Phillips is trying to cope with the emotional scars of his loss while continually questioning how a benign God could have any purpose in allowing such an unspeakable tragedy to happen. One day, he receives a mysterious postcard in the mail, supposedly sent by God, who tells Mackenzie that he'll be at "the shack" that weekend — the place in the wilderness where, three years earlier, his daughter's bloody dress was found.

Mackenzie is unrelentingly skeptical and aware of the insanity of the idea, yet simultaneously desperate for answers. He persuades himself to travel back to the place of his life's worst nightmare. When he arrives, he discovers that God is indeed there — but manifested in a way he never would have expected and with plans for the grieving father that he never could have predicted. During the course of this experience, Mackenzie begins to come to terms with the depths of his anger and personal agony through conversations with the God whom he blamed in large part for allowing the tragedy to happen. In the process, he discovers a perspective on his life that was nearly impossible to see through the haze of his emotional devastation.

From my perspective, this novel is remarkable for a variety of reasons. First, it tackles the questions and struggles that so many people face after experiencing unprecedented suffering or loss. Second, it refutes many of the stereotypes that are applied to God by reminding the reader that a being who exists outside the realm of our perception cannot be reduced to the standards of identification and conceptualization that we use in our limited intellectual capacity. Third, taking that limited capacity into account, it reminds the reader that ours is a deeply constrained perspective — that is, attempting to make sense of our lives solely on the basis of what we can immediately perceive is a bit like a fish attempting to make sense of dry land (or, for that matter, anything that exists above the surface of the water). Finally, perhaps most strikingly, it portrays the existence of a God who is willing and able to meet us where we are in our struggles. In Mackenzie's case, God met him in the place that symbolized the very source of his life's pain and trauma.

I recommend this book for everyone. Not all will enjoy it or agree with its concepts — in fact, some may read it and seriously question my endorsement of it. But this surely isn't a story designed to promote complete harmony and agreement among its readers. Rather, it's a story meant to help people find direction on that spiritual journey I'm referring to; and wherever you're at on that road, I'm convinced that this novel will help you take notice of your surroundings. It certainly did for me.

Late summer in the North Cascades

In this latest installment of photos from my hikes of this past summer, I'm featuring Mount Pilchuck, a day trip I took with a couple of friends in late August. (View the entire album here or by clicking on the image above.) Located about 40 miles northeast of Seattle, the rocky summit of this peak features fantastic views of the North Cascades, including several of the snowy and glaciated dormant volcanoes that characterize this part of the country. To the west, there's also a stunning panorama of Puget Sound, its islands, and the Olympic Mountains on the other side. When you visit Pilchuck on a clear, warm day as we did, the scenery is hard to beat. (Again, these photos were taken in August, as opposed to now, when most of the best views would likely be obscured by thick clouds.)

There isn't much else to say about this hike — hopefully the images speak for themselves. By the way, I do have a purpose in posting these albums apart from simply showing them off. Once they're all up, I plan to share my thoughts on the spiritual significance of experiencing nature in its purest form. It should be very deep. Stay tuned.

Next up in the series: Mount Rainier National Park (taken on Sept. 9) and Mount Baker/Mount Shuksan (taken on Sept. 24).

Online dating sites not worth their bandwidth

I was once an outspoken critic of online dating services. I always described them as a disgustingly artificial way of meeting someone, reserved only for those who feel they have no better alternative. I vowed never to stoop to that level.

So it's with reluctance that I admit to not keeping my own word. For the past 90 days, I've been a subscriber to such a service, dishing out a cool $30 per month in exchange for the privilege. Such an admission, from my perspective, is akin to an alcoholic caught tipping the bottle after a long period of staying clean. Or a recovering compulsive gambler who is confronted as he walks out of a casino. Or an adolescent boy who swears to his parents that he doesn't have any dirty magazines — only to be found later on using them to satisfy himself.

Why do I draw such unkind comparisons with online dating? The answer, simply stated, is that my short-lived experience with it only confirmed my prejudicial views of the practice. For starters, there's the humiliation associated with acknowledging that you cannot find a romantic relationship apart from this paid service. I've heard many people attempt to refute this notion. Someone even predicted that online relationships will be the rule rather than the exception in our society in the future. I disagree entirely. Such an assertion presumes that people will seek romance on the Internet even though many will have shown themselves capable of finding it elsewhere. That doesn't make sense. After all, what self-respecting individual would pay to find a date if he knew he didn't have to?

Which brings me to my second point: Dating sites are a waste of money. I equate them with free social networking sites like Facebook that simply have a different emphasis. Indeed, when you weigh Match.com against Facebook, the comparison is fairly clear: Both sites allow you to post images of yourself and create a profile that displays your age, educational and professional information, geographical location, activities, hobbies, political leanings, and a detailed personal description. Likewise, both allow you to connect with other members in various ways. The only key difference between the two is that the former emphasizes dating and isn't free. (Far from it, in fact.) So why are online dating services so successful at persuading people to fork over cash to access their sites?

It's because they know that there are countless people who have reached a level of discouragement or desperation deep enough for them to pull out their wallets. It's not a matter of eHarmony providing a remarkable service worth that much more money than Facebook — it's a matter of eHarmony advertising a desired outcome that Facebook does not offer. Dating sites have made romantic relationships a consumer's market. It's like scrolling through IKEA's online catalog. You don't click on furniture items that are tacky or don't match your home's decor. Similarly, you wouldn't select the profiles of members on a dating site whose primary photos make them look physically unattractive. It's profoundly superficial. Profile photos often don't do justice to physical appearance — but since they're the first detail you observe, they're often your sole measure of judgment against a person.

Needless to say, I cancelled my membership to this service. In so doing, I likely didn't do any favors for my future romantic prospects — but I surely caused no detriment, either. And despite my retained status as a lonely urban-dwelling bachelor, I truly do now feel like the confessed alcoholic who has given up the bottle for good.

Thankfully, they're over

Admittedly, I wouldn't have predicted that a plumber from Ohio named Joe would become the celebrity of Wednesday night's final presidential debate. I wonder whether Joe himself could have been aware of that in advance.

John McCain's attempts to use this sound byte to project a memorable performance at the final forum of this campaign season might have been successful — if he hadn't overdone it. By the time viewers heard the third or fourth reference to "Joe the Plumber," I imagine it would have been hard for many of them to entertain this as anything other than a gimmick on the part of the GOP contender.

Pundits immediately seemed to agree that this was McCain's best debate. Unfortunately, that's not saying much. He did land some good lines — most particularly in flatly saying that he isn't George W. Bush. And he largely kept Barack Obama on the defensive, which is the very least he needed to do to even stay competitive.

Nonetheless, especially toward the end, McCain displayed the same offending body language that may in part have cost him the first two debates — a tendency to appear explicitly impatient, frustrated, flustered, and at times openly dismissive of Obama's words. His tone of speech was again largely condescending, and his facial expressions were occasionally unbelievable enough to merit use of the rewind button on the DVR. McCain isn't known for being terribly mild-mannered, and on Wednesday, he again betrayed a temperament that many voters like myself would find unbecoming a presidential candidate.

Meanwhile, Obama's performance wasn't great, but it was good enough that he didn't let McCain score a game-changer. He again projected a calm, civil demeanor, and even when his responses weren't top-notch, he still focused fiercely on the issues and steered the conversation back in that direction whenever it started to veer off-course (like, for instance, when McCain demanded that Obama repudiate the recent remarks of Georgia Rep. John Lewis).

McCain didn't pull a rabbit out of a hat in this final debate, which is essentially what he needed to do to turn the tables in these dwindling days of the 2008 presidential campaign season. That said, in the world of politics, a few weeks can be the equivalent of a few years, so I'll reserve judgment on the results of the election until the returns start coming in on Nov. 4. Either way, I suspect I'm not alone in expressing relief that the presidential debates are now behind us.

A midnight hike in the mountains

The weather has taken a decidedly chilly, autumn-like turn here in the Northwest, with temperatures last week struggling to hit the mid-50s during the day and falling to the upper 30s at night. In recognition of this seasonal change and in anticipation of the dark, cold winter months ahead, I've decided to take a look back at several of the outstanding hikes I did this past summer in Washington state. (That's the official explanation for this post; the unofficial explanation is that I'm tired of political commentary co-opting this blog in the past month. Granted, it's to be expected right now, but even I grow weary of it, and I suspect some of my readers do as well.)

The first installment in this series will be my midnight hike at Granite Mountain, which I did with about six friends in mid-August. It's a beautiful area about 50 miles east of Seattle in the Cascade Range. Our goal — as evidenced by my description — was to hike through the night to the top of this peak and watch the sun rise from the summit. That's exactly what we accomplished. Check out my photos of the trip here.

We hit the trailhead at around 12:30 a.m. and reached the top at about 3:30 a.m, conquering about 4,000 feet of elevation gain. The first two miles traversed through dense forest (and, by the way, it is creepy to hike in the woods at night, so luckily I wasn't alone) and then opened up to a gorgeous alpine meadow. Coincidentally, we were blessed with a full moon on this particular evening, which rendered our headlamps almost unnecessary after we were out of the forest.

The rest of the hike to the summit included some fairly steep switchbacks and a short boulder scramble just before we reached the top. From there, we were treated to some spectacular views of the night sky, and — with the presence of the bright moonlight — a bit of alpenglow that just slightly illuminated Mount Rainier's massive, snowy profile to the south. There was even an old fire tower at the summit that, unbeknownst to us, hosted a couple of sleeping campers who were less than thrilled when we tried to climb up in there with them at 4 a.m.

If you've never watched the sun rise from the top of a mountain, I would highly recommend it. There's a certain magical quality in sitting from a vantage point where one can literally observe the faintest orange glow appearing in the eastern sky, which soon develops yellow hues that materialize into daylight, making transparent the attributes of the surrounding area that were previously hidden in darkness. In our case, those attributes were craggy mountain peaks in every direction, meadows and forests below, and alpine lakes similar to the one I visited in June.

On our way down from the summit, we ran into a black bear cub, perhaps a perfect way to cap an overnight adventure in the wilderness. Luckily, the mother was nowhere to be seen, and the little bear seemed far less afraid of us than we were of him. And I learned my first lesson on how to respond to an encounter with a bear in the wild: Make lots of noise. The last thing you want to do is startle the creature.

Stay tuned — photos and details from my other hikes this summer will follow.

An unremarkable affair

By any measure, Tuesday night's second presidential debate was relatively unmemorable and unlikely to change the game much, similar to last week's vice presidential debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden.

As was the case with that event, I viewed Tuesday night's town hall forum with apprehension, fully expecting punches to be thrown in both directions and vitriolic references to be made to the Keating Five and Bill Ayers. Remarkably, neither one came up even once during the course of the debate. Nor, for that matter, was any mention made of either candidate's running mate. The discussion was fully focused on John McCain and Barack Obama, overshadowed by two consecutive days of bad news on Wall Street despite last week's passage of the $700 billion economic bailout package.

Economic fears, of course, are largely attributable for McCain's plummeting poll numbers and general loss of traction in his campaign. He needed a near-perfect and crowd-wowing performance on Tuesday to dig himself out of the hole into which he's fallen. To that end, he failed. Although far more composed than in the first debate and committing no major gaffes (save, perhaps, referring to Obama as "that one" during a response), McCain did not deliver any particularly memorable lines or offer up any proposals significantly unique from the ones he's made already. In fact, he stuck largely with the talking points he used in Oxford, Miss., on Sept. 26.

On the other hand, so did Obama, whose performance was good but not masterful. He clearly reiterated his positions on the economy, the health care crisis, and the Iraq war, but not in an especially engaging way. Between his responses and those of McCain, it would have been easy to forget that this debate was designed to be a town hall format in which both candidates were to directly address undecided voters from the audience.

With this debate over, only one remains before the general election on Nov. 4. Even if McCain totally dominates in that one, it may be too late to reverse the direction of his campaign. Barring any unforeseen events or stunning revelations between now and the beginning of next month — which can never, ever be ruled out, and so I make this statement very cautiously and almost reluctantly — we may be seeing an early picture of how Election Day 2008 will turn out.

McCain's tactic won't work

Over the weekend, John McCain's team members announced that they would adapt a gloves-off approach to the final month before the election, seeking (in their own words) to "change the subject" away from the economy and refocus it on questions of Barack Obama's judgment, personal integrity, and associations. Sarah Palin kicked off this strategy on Saturday by accusing Obama of "palling around with terrorists who would target their own country."

There are two major problems with this tactic that lead me to predict it won't work — at least not well enough to salvage McCain's sputtering campaign. First, the kind of rhetoric heard from Palin over the weekend is the type that will generally appeal only to those voters who wouldn't have ever considered supporting Obama in the first place. It will not appeal to undecided voters — McCain's only real remaining hope to dig himself out of his hole — who are likely undecided because they are still waiting to see which ticket will present a better case for solving America's catalog of domestic problems. Such voters will see this strategy as an act of desperation and not-so-tacit admission on McCain's part that he can't convince people to support him on the basis of his policies alone. They will not be impressed by the McCain campaign's announcement that he is trying to "change the subject" away from news of record-setting job-loss statistics and the greatest economic crisis this nation has seen since the Great Depression.

Secondly, this decision was splashed all over the headlines on Saturday and Sunday, as was last week's decision to pull campaign resources out of the critical battleground state of Michigan. Publicizing either move was a big mistake on McCain's part. Between the two, it's as though he's broadcasting his campaign's downward spiral. With his poor standing in the polls and less than one month until the election, it's understandable that McCain would want to take drastic measures to save his White House bid. But these are the types of moves that need to be done under the radar. Allowing them to make national headlines is nothing short of stupid. Again, undecided voters won't be inclined to back a ticket that is so vociferously crumbling at its own foundations.

I think it's impossible to overstate how ugly this fight will become in the month of October. McCain knows he has nothing to lose, except for the election, and current polls suggest that's the direction for which he is headed. He also knows that, at the ripe old age of 72, this is likely his last chance ever to achieve his long-lived dream of becoming president. My simple advice for the Obama campaign: Stay focused on the issues — as you are right now — because that's what voters care about. As McCain's team continues to try to throw out distractions from the critical challenges facing our nation, Americans will see that strategy for what it is.

Debates could still prove pivotal

Recent national polls all indicate Sen. Barack Obama establishing a comfortable lead over Sen. John McCain in both popular support and electoral votes. States that haven't trended Democratic in presidential elections in decades — Virginia, North Carolina, and perhaps most surprisingly, Indiana — are now in play. The chief reason for this, of course, is the faltering economy, which now ranks first among voters' concerns and has played strongly in Obama's favor.

Nevertheless, supporters of the Democratic ticket shouldn't uncork the champagne quite yet. A full month still remains until the long-awaited election, and as I've noted before, a month is like a year in the world of American politics. If economic fears are somehow assuaged between now and then, which is possible, the playing field could be leveled out dramatically. (Remember the dog days of late August and early September, when McCain was ahead in the polls?) Even if they're not, which is more probable, public perception of the candidates could be altered dramatically by the two remaining debates. McCain still has an opportunity to convince voters that Obama doesn't hold a lock on the economic issue — something he's failed to do thus far, but still could.

In my estimation, Thursday night's veep debate will prove inconsequential in the progression of the 2008 race. The warnings I issued in the preceding post now seem almost laughably apocalyptic, given the benign nature of the event. Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin did exceed popular expectation, displaying confidence in her responses and launching some memorable jabs while maintaining the small-town charm that enamors her supporters (whether that charm is authentic or not is another question). As was to be expected, her answers were sometimes short on detail and mostly repeated verbatim McCain's talking points and attack lines from the first debate. Still, her folksy accent — which, by the way, sounds much more Duluth than Juneau to me — may have been enough to distract attention from that. By not falling flat on her face as anticipated, Palin succeeded.

Sen. Joe Biden, meanwhile, followed my advice and struck a very respectful and focused tone, speaking passionately but never betraying frustration or condescension. He also demonstrated his experience and readiness for the job, committing no notable gaffes. He conspicuously kept the spotlight trained on McCain, not Palin, which was a shrewd strategy. And he did a better job than Obama did in the first debate of tying McCain to Bush policies, as well as challenging the "maverick" label that Republicans are so eager to brandish this year. Biden's performance, while not exceptional, was at least on target and respectable.

Keeping these factors in mind, Thursday night's debate can best be called a draw. This makes the remaining two presidential debates all the more pivotal. McCain knows that these are his only remaining big opportunities to make a case for the presidency, so he'll likely pull no punches. Barring any unpredictable events, the dates of Oct. 7 and Oct. 15 may seal the deal on this contest.

Biden's playing with fire on Thursday

Some of my friends with whom I commonly have political discussions have noted their confidence that Sen. Joe Biden will dominate Thursday night's vice presidential debate and that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin will look just as ignorant and unprepared as she did during her recent interviews with Katie Couric on CBS. (Boy, that was horribly painful to watch.)

Meanwhile, I've tried to maintain a much more cautious and measured outlook on the event. Given Palin's recent dismal performances on camera — in which she could easily have been mistaken for an inarticulate 16-year-old interviewing for her first job at the local mall — it's understandable that many would dismiss her chances out of hand. Nevertheless, it would be a terrible mistake for the Obama campaign to think this one's in the bag before it even happens. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Biden is playing with fire when he debates the governor of Alaska.

Let's not forget a couple critical factors. First, the McCain campaign absolutely loves to play the victim card, as we've seen all too well in the past several weeks. It may not even matter whether Palin makes a single substantive point during the entire debate. If McCain's team can spin its commentary to argue that she was bullied or patronized or otherwise treated unfairly (because of her gender, they might say), they may declare a mistrial — and victory by consequence. Secondly, as I've noted before, John McCain chose Palin for several reasons, but chief among them was to shift attention away from him and his policies. If Palin manages to make this debate about anything other than the issues at hand — which, given her track record on answering topical questions, she very well might — it could spell trouble for the Democratic ticket.

Therefore, Senator Biden, if you are reading this, I have several tips for you to keep in mind:

• Keep your cool, and don't say anything you'll later regret. This is absolutely key. When it comes to knowledge of the issues and experience in national politics, there is no contest here. Still, you're sometimes made famous by sheer virtue of your speaking gaffes, off-color remarks, and feisty temper. Don't let any of these shift focus away from your credentials or give the McCain camp something to pounce on. (With the polls as they are now, McCain's team will pounce on anything at this point.)
• Speaking of the issues, stay fiercely and unapologetically focused on them. If Palin tries to change the subject, rebuff her efforts. Be specific in your answers, because she likely won't be. Here's the deal: Palin can talk about hockey moms, pitbulls and lipstick until she's blue in the face; but when it comes to salvaging our nation from this economic crisis, or U.S. foreign relations, or even (as we've recently discovered) Supreme Court cases, she may not have a clue what to say, depending on the question. Capitalize on those instances.
• Finally, keep your cool — but don't be too nice. Be firm and respond forcefully yet respectfully to any charges Palin makes. Call her out on any factual inaccuracies. Again, do all of this in a way that keeps the discussion strictly focused on the topic at hand. Remember, in such uncertain times, undecided voters want to hear how each candidate will respond to the problems that trouble Americans most. They don't want to hear about distractions from those problems. The key is to look poised, prepared, and presidential.

If you keep these thoughts in mind, senator, then yes, I'd say you'll easily have it in the bag.