Blago's Senate pick unacceptable

At the conclusion of my last post regarding the disgrace who is Rod Blagojevich, I noted two steps that needed to be urgently taken in response to allegations of illegal activity by the Illinois governor: First, he needed to resign or be impeached and removed from office; and second, the state Legislature needed to act immediately to prevent him from naming Barack Obama's senatorial successor.

Sadly, neither step has yet been accomplished, and in the case of the latter, it's too late. In a supreme yet unsurprising act of hubris, Blagojevich on Tuesday announced his selection of Democrat Roland Burris, former Illinois State Comptroller and Attorney General, as the man to fill Obama's vacant spot in the U.S. Senate. If that wasn't enough, he threw the race card on the table by explicitly daring Democratic senators to go on the record as trying to block the appointment of a black man.

Burris, who himself is now complicit in this horrendous situation by failing to decline Blagojevich's tainted offer, has done nothing to assuage the inevitable fury of Illinois voters. In an interview broadcast on NBC 5 News in Chicago on Tuesday night, the 71-year-old politician was asked about the prospect of entering the Senate when none of his colleagues would want him there. His response was quick and smug: "That's their problem, not mine." Clearly, this is a man whose concern is for his personal aspirations, not the hurting people of Illinois. He must not be seated in the U.S. Senate under any circumstances. Another African American senator would be a wonderful addition to Congress — but any appointment made by Illinois' corrupt governor is inherently unacceptable.

Burris has already implied that he'd legally challenge any attempt by fellow Democrats to block his entry to the Senate. This is truly tragic. With the seemingly insurmountable list of foreign and domestic problems this nation faces in the new year, such a distraction from those issues will simply plunge us deeper into crisis. Any respectable public figure who bears some semblance of grace or selflessness would recognize this and step aside for the greater good of his state and country. Burris — much like his friend, the governor — does not fit that description. Nevertheless, if a drawn-out legal battle is the only choice to prevent this appointment from going through, so be it. Perhaps Illinois voters will have had their chance to weigh in before the matter is even resolved. The main concern, of course, is quickly appointing a second Illinois senator who is credible and not corrupt.

Meanwhile, Blagojevich and his very few remaining allies keep repeating the concept of innocence until proven guilty. This standard is true in a criminal court of law, and he'll have an opportunity to defend himself just like any other American accused of a crime. But he can do so as a private citizen. Impeachment and removal from public office does not need to stem from criminal charges — it can be a remedy for a politician who has engaged in official misconduct or is simply unfit to serve in his or her role. Clearly, the current governor fits that bill, and with his unspeakable actions on Tuesday, he's demonstrated the danger he poses to our state and nation with each day he remains in power. He must be removed now, before the damage he inflicts to this already-ailing state becomes irreparable.

A winter wonderland

The Pacific Northwest, like many other parts of the country, has been hammered all week long with some unusually harsh winter weather. I ended up working from home on Thursday as Seattle was blanketed with at least 3-5 inches of snow. That sort of weather is exceptionally rare in these parts; heavy snow typically only falls in the mountains, and when it does hit the city and surrounding lowlands, it almost never sticks around for long.

Nevertheless, temperatures this week have been very cold by Seattle standards — 20s and 30s for daytime highs, and teens at night. That means the snow we got won't be going anywhere for some time. It also means that the city has been shut down. When I first stepped outside on Thursday morning to go grab a cup of coffee, I was greeted by a gorgeous winter wonderland and an eerie, quiet stillness that hung in the air — a stark contrast to the rumblings that woke me up just before dawn, which at first I feared was an earthquake. It turned out to be "thunder snow," accompanied by bright flashes of lightning that were magnified by the snow falling. Quite exceptional.

There's a few things to be learned about winter conditions in this area. First, they don't ever salt the roads — for environmental reasons, I hear — which sometimes makes the steep hills of Seattle non-navigable when freezing precipitation falls. If sand doesn't do the trick, they simply close the streets. Second, because residents of the area aren't used to this kind of weather, they tend to freak out about it much faster than Midwesterners would. If Seattleites must drive in snow, they chain up their tires as though they're preparing for a trip over the mountain pass (on some of these hills, they might as well be). Even still, they don't always drive well in it. As a pedestrian, I discovered quickly to ensure that a car has come to a complete stop before venturing into a crosswalk. Just because the vehicle appears to be slowing down does not mean that the driver will be able to stop in time. I saw too many cars today with locked tires that were nevertheless still moving uncontrollably.

My flight back to Chicago for Christmas is scheduled to leave on Friday afternoon. Between the messy weather here and even messier weather there, I doubt that it will depart on time. (My recent air travel experiences have left me with nothing but a cynical attitude toward the whole idea.) Regardless, I will be in the Midwest for the next two weeks. If you will be as well, let's plan to meet at some point.

Wrapped up in reality

We're experiencing a "deep freeze" here in Seattle, so I decided to cocoon myself in my apartment and watch movies for much of the weekend. One that I watched — on my Netflix instant viewing device, no less — was an indie film called "Broken English." It told the story of a 30-something single woman in New York with a dead-end job and a group of friends who all enjoyed successful relationships while she struggled with predictably bad luck in dating. Since this seemed like the sort of plot line I'd resonate with — minus the dead-end job and being a 30-something woman in New York, of course — I decided to go with it. (Warning: Spoiler coming. I'm sure everyone who hasn't already seen this movie is eagerly awaiting to do so.)

Nora, the main character in the story, eventually meets by accident a young Frenchman named Julien, and the two quickly become close. Alas, he ends up having to return to France, and the infatuated couple are separated. Nora ultimately decides to travel to Paris in search of the love of her life, but when she arrives, she loses the phone number he gave her and has no other way to locate Julien. Forlorn, Nora wanders the city aimlessly with a friend for a few days, until her friend has to return to New York and she stays behind. Finally, she comes to terms with the reality that she'll never find Julien in a huge city like Paris, so she boards a train to the airport to catch a flight back to New York. Shockingly, Julien happens to catch the same train Nora did, and just when the viewer might believe that the two characters would never reunite, they do — and, presumably, live happily ever after.

I was OK with the premise of this movie until I saw its ending, at which point I was reminded of how lame some story lines can be, even in independent films. I have a strong preference for movies that contain realistic plot elements — but even I'm perfectly willing to suspend disbelief in some cases. This, however, was over the top. It got me thinking about how many movies I've seen that contain conclusions that simply satisfy the expectations of the audience. That's precisely what "Broken English" did. The ending was predictable for the simple reason that it wasn't realistic, but even so, the producers of the film went with it most likely because they knew it was what their audience would want. Let's face it — how many viewers would walk away from this movie satisfied if Nora never again found her love?

But such an ending is profoundly unsatisfying for a viewer like myself — and, in fact, it tarnished my perception of the entire film. Happy endings are fine when they are plausible; but reality is too stark for movies that always conclude with the lovers being reunited, or the bad guy being caught, or the crisis being averted, especially when it happens under such unlikely circumstances. Surprises — both of a positive and negative nature — are part of the thrill of following the plot of a movie, and when a story ends predictably just for the sake of pleasing the viewer, the entire presentation falls flat and becomes a disappointment. Too many movies are like that. I'd much rather see a thought-provoking film with a less-than-cheerful or even depressing conclusion than one with an unrealistically happy ending that leaves me yawning the entire way through.

Blagojevich another stain on Illinois' reputation

Today, Illinois residents would probably scoff at the notion that there will ever be any salvageable aspect of Gov. Rod Blagojevich's legacy. But they may end up surprised. Even in the near future, the now-infamous Democratic governor may be looked upon as a case study and cautionary tale on the shocking extent to which power corrupts.

It is, after all, hard to imagine how such a high-profile public official could carry out illegal activity of this caliber with such brazenness, arrogance, greed, and most of all, stupidity. Blagojevich knew that he had long been under investigation for campaign and hiring fraud and that federal agents were watching him closely. But profanity-laced excerpts of his phone conversations reveal open discussions about the potentially lucrative nature of his authority to appoint a senatorial replacement for President-elect Barack Obama, and the leverage he could use to achieve the firings of Chicago Tribune editorial board members who had been critical of his administration. Such carelessness on the governor's part in the commission of his crimes is reflective of a man drunk with power beyond reason or common sense and to the point of self-delusion.

Blagojevich's arrest on Tuesday was hardly surprising. A completely inept governor with a historically low approval rating, he has managed to isolate himself even from members of his own political party, which controls the Illinois General Assembly but has routinely stalled on state budgets and legislation because of fights with him. Couple that with a dubious moral character and arrogant style of governance that was widely scrutinized long before this week's developments, and there should be no question as to how this Illinois politician ended up where he did.

Sadly, however, he's hardly the first Illinois politician in recent memory to travel such a road — though, incredibly, he may have even gone farther than his predecessors. Republican George Ryan, Illinois' preceding governor, is currently serving time in federal prison after being convicted of racketeering and fraud for selling driver's licenses for bribes as secretary of state. Two other former Illinois governors — Otto Kerner in the 1960s and Dan Walker in the 1970s — were convicted of bribery and fraud, respectively, and both served time as well. In the 1990s, former Illinois Rep. Dan Rostenkowski pleaded guilty to mail fraud. In a state whose largest city has a long-lived reputation for machine politics, another crooked public official is hardly what the Land of Lincoln needs to improve its image. As a native of that state, I'm embarrassed and appalled by this week's developments.

Two things need to happen in short order. First, Blagojevich needs to resign. He's likely way too arrogant to do that, so the Illinois Legislature should begin impeachment proceedings immediately. Second, the state law needs to be changed so that the governor alone is not charged with appointing senatorial replacements. Such appointments either need to require legislative confirmation or should simply be decided by the state's voters. The bottom line is that any measure necessary to prevent Blagojevich from selecting Obama's successor should be taken quickly — and the lessons learned from this mess should be applied to prevent similar malfeasance in the future. Hopefully, Blagojevich's misdeeds will finally be the straw that broke the camel's back for the citizens of Illinois.

O'Reilly doesn't understand free speech

As many have probably already heard — because he's so good at getting his name and face in the headlines — Bill O'Reilly is angry about an atheistic message on display at the Washington State Capitol in Olympia. The main target of his ire is Gov. Christine Gregoire, who has refused to order removal of the sign that religious groups across the country are protesting. Her office has reported being deluged with phone calls and e-mails in the days since this clip was aired on the Fox News Network.

I disagree entirely with the message conveyed by this sign. However, let's be clear on one point: The group responsible for the content of the sign can publicize its message for the exact same reason O'Reilly and his audience can protest that message. They can do so for the same reason I can give my own perspective right here on this blog. The constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech and expression is not limited to messages that are universally agreeable or appealing. In fact, speech widely regarded as offensive or even repugnant is exactly what the First Amendment was intended to protect. Would the Fox News commentator like to be subject to censorship just because his program leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of many Americans?

Keeping that in mind, O'Reilly's rants aren't even worth entertaining unless he can devise an argument more compelling than the notion that the atheist display is inappropriate or offensive or an alleged attack against national tradition. He calls Gregoire "cowardly" — but truly, the only cowardice observable in this scenario is someone who advocates stifling other perspectives while simultaneously expecting that the right to express his own remain intact. Suggesting that free speech of any kind be infringed upon is an extraordinarily dangerous road to travel.

Sometimes mockery is just too hard to resist

Here's some comic relief, courtesy of Saxby Chambliss, the Republican victor in Georgia's senatorial runoff election held this week:

"People all around the world truly had their eyes on Georgia, and you [Georgia voters] have delivered tonight a strong message to the world that conservative Georgian values matter."

Yes, Saxby. I'm sure that the entire international community had Georgia on its mind on Tuesday night. I'm sure that locals at wine bars in Paris were poised on the edge of their seats. I'm sure that city dwellers quaffing vodka in St. Petersburg were doing so out of anxious anticipation. And I'm sure that Aussies riding the waves near Sydney took a break to find out the answer to the burning question: Just which way did the enviable wisdom of Georgia voters tilt this time around? Forget about last month's presidential election — this was the moment the world was really waiting for.

In all seriousness, though: "Saxby"?? Was this a kid routinely pushed into lockers during high school? Or perhaps that's not an unusual name in Georgia. Maybe we could ask Sonny, the state's governor. Or Johnny, the state's junior senator.

Saxby, Sonny, and Johnny. Don't they sound like a trio of small-town misfits?

Cable television a rip-off

As I shared my thoughts last night on the dismal status of the air travel industry, I started thinking about other industries and companies I don't like. One of the first that came to mind was cable television.

I don't have any cable channels — and, by extension, no network channels either — and that's completely fine with me. I read all of my local, national, and world news online, and if there is a televised event I genuinely want to watch — for example, the presidential debates of this fall — I can easily stream it live on the Internet. Other television programs that I watch, such as "The Office" or "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart," can also be viewed online.

There's good reason why I decline cable service providers: They're generally a waste of money, and they must think their customers are idiots. I routinely receive offers in the mail from Comcast, proclaiming some excellent deal in big, bold print, such as four months of service for only $24.99. Of course, what isn't in giant font is the microscopic print at the bottom of the card, which notes that after the four months have expired, the price is hiked somewhere to the ballpark of $50 or higher. That's a classic bait-and-switch tactic that must work well, because they use it all the time. I don't want them telling me the price they'll use to lure me to purchase their lousy service; I want to know the standard price I'll be forced to pay after the introductory period is over, which is usually a rip-off, especially when I won't even watch most of the included channels. It might be a different story if channels could be purchased individually — but, of course, cable providers wouldn't earn nearly as much money that way.

A much better deal for my money is a combination of online viewing and Netflix, a service to which I've subscribed for more than three years. Recently, Netflix developed streaming devices that can be connected to one's television and the Internet. Mine is pictured above. I can use it to stream movies and programs directly from Netflix's instant online viewing service to my television. The service contains an ever-improving selection of TV series and movies, both new and old. The Roku device, as it's called, costs $99 to purchase and comes with the cables necessary to connect it to a television. Thereafter, it's just a matter of paying your monthly Netflix subscription fee. Mine is $15, which also continues to provide me with two DVDs at a time on an unlimited basis per month. The instant viewing service is also unlimited. With such a deal provided by Netflix, why would I bother with cable — or, for that matter, even a satellite dish?

Of course, I have to note that none of the services described above affords me access to the Lifetime Movie Network. I consider that to be a serious drawback. I'm sure several others who read this would as well.

The unfriendly skies

Air travel these days is a total disaster. I'm reminded of that every time I fly — especially this past week when I went home to Illinois for Thanksgiving.

On the flight from Seattle to Chicago last Tuesday, I sat aboard a motionless plane at the gate for two hours after boarding. The explanation? Some maintenance work was being done on an engine, and the issue was resolved, but they needed to submit some "paperwork" on the incident. During those 120 minutes, I pondered in irritation why they had boarded the aircraft in the first place if it hadn't been ready to go. (I would have much rather sat in the terminal for that time period, sipping coffee with room to stretch my legs, instead of being stuck on a cramped, stationary plane with nothing to eat or drink. I'm sure I wasn't alone.) Then, of course, there was the mysterious "paperwork" question: Why did such a technicality prevent our departure? Couldn't someone staying on the ground take care of filing the report while my already-delayed flight moved on? It's probably some ridiculous FAA regulation that causes more headaches than it solves.

But I had hardly experienced the worst. Chicago was hit with its first major snowstorm of the season on Sunday night, so I was incredulous when I arrived at the airport on Monday morning and saw that my return flight was listed as being on time. Indeed, we did board the aircraft at 8 a.m. as scheduled. This time, however, we sat motionless at the gate for four hours — yes, four hours — while the crew waited for the plane to be de-iced. The pilot advised us that regulations require all passengers to be boarded with the doors closed before the procedure commences. He didn't mention how long it would take for the de-icing equipment to arrive. Unfortunately, we were to find out.

Aside from mammoth departure delays and airport incompetence, there's the increasingly stingy nature of airline industry. This past week, flying on American Airlines, I had to pay $15 each way just to check one piece of luggage. And, of course, they stopped serving food on domestic flights long ago — if you want so much as a snack on board, you can expect to pay at least $5. One complimentary beverage is generally served, but I don't even expect that to be long for this world. This time around, I didn't even receive one of those small bags of trail mix or crackers with my drink.

I understand that the economy is in the tank these days, that bad weather was involved in one of the aforementioned instances, and that it was a busy week for travel. But these experiences represent a pattern; they aren't isolated cases and certainly can't be attributed to any of those factors alone. It's unfortunate that air travel has become so miserable; now that I live in the Northwest, it has become an essential part of visiting anywhere outside of this region.

It's that time of year

Following a very enjoyable and relaxing week back in the Midwest with family and friends, I'm scheduled to fly back to Seattle on Monday morning — but of course there's a snow system moving through the Chicago area on Sunday night that's apt to delay or even cancel my flight. When I actually depart is anyone's guess. I'm fairly certain it won't be on time.

Please wish me luck.

An end-of-life decision

Earlier this month, voters in Washington state approved Initiative 1000, also known as the Death with Dignity Act. The measure, placed on the ballot by public petition, allows terminally ill adult patients to request and self-administer lethal medication prescribed by a physician when the patient is medically predicted to have six months or less to live. A similar law is on the books in neighboring Oregon.

I-1000 was spearheaded by former Washington Gov. Booth Gardner, who suffers from Parkinson's Disease but will not be affected by the new legislation because his ailment is not terminal. Voices from both sides of the debate were strong; in the final month before the election, actor Martin Sheen appeared in advertisements in which he personally urged voters to reject the initiative. (Apparently, we were supposed to follow his advice simply because he's a celebrity, not because he has any connection whatsoever to the state of Washington. But that's an entirely different blog post.) In the end, some 58 percent of voters said "yes."

I won't use this space to indicate how I voted or to advocate for either perspective. Frankly, I've never had to deal with an end-of-life decision such as the one this ballot measure sought to address, so I don't claim to be an expert. Furthermore, I heard compelling arguments from both sides. On one hand, there are factors associated with a terminal illness that, in some circumstances, create misery that renders an independent and dignified life impossible. If I reached a point at which I could no longer leave my bed, eat food, or perform bodily functions without assistance, I would probably see little value in carrying on — particularly if I knew that I had a mere six months to live anyway. And I'd likely be resentful of those who would presume to make decisions on my behalf when, in all likelihood, they have no experience with the agony I'm facing.

On the other hand, there are legitimate concerns associated with such a proposition. What if profit-hungry health insurance companies target terminally ill patients, rejecting their treatment claims on the premise that it would be cheaper to simply facilitate the inevitable and end it all? What if these patients make a rash decision because they are clinically depressed? What about incorrect diagnoses? (For purposes of clarification, this initiative does require that the patient make two requests — one verbal and one written — with a 15-day waiting period between the two and another 48-hour waiting period before issuance of the prescription. It also requires the diagnosis and verification of two independent physicians.)

With the "live-and-let-live" culture prevalent in this part of the country (or, perhaps in this case, "live-and-let-die"), the success of this ballot measure isn't surprising. It does, however, raise some serious questions that merit discussion about end-of-life choices, regardless of where you stand on the issue.

For some reason, I suddenly have Paul McCartney & Wings running through my mind.

A bare-bones law

This article reports that it's not illegal to be naked in public in Seattle. It apparently only becomes so, according to the article, when wearing your birthday suit is done with "the intent to alarm and offend." Last summer, I saw the naked bikers and revelers at the Fremont Solstice Festival — but in that instance, I assumed that it was OK because police were simply looking the other way, not because it was legally sanctioned activity. Very interesting.

Perhaps I'm stating the obvious, but such an ambiguous and vague policy raises more questions than it answers. For instance, when is public nudity alarming and offensive, and when is it not? Does one's physical composition have anything to do with this? Without going into too much detail, I'd suspect that the naked appearance of some people is more alarming and offensive than it might be with others. And is denial an acceptable defense? If I choose to shed my attire in public and someone complains, can I apologize to the responding officers and say that I didn't mean to offend anyone? Would they document this and then decline to arrest me?

Most importantly, is this a legal standard worth testing?

Mount Rainier hike in September

One peculiar and perhaps frustrating aspect of touring Mount Rainier National Park here in Washington is that, on any given day, visitors only have about a 50-percent chance of catching a glimpse of the massive, glaciated volcanic peak for which the park is named (more like a 10-to-20-percent chance for those who visit during the winter months). That's because the peak is often obscured by clouds. In fact, it serves as a bit of a weather gauge for Seattle. Either the mountain is "out," and the weather is good, or it isn't (out or good). Pretty simple.

The day of this hike back in September wasn't an "out" day. Still, even when Rainier is hidden, this is a place of spectacular natural beauty. Old-growth evergreen forests meet expansive alpine meadows decorated with wildflowers, and deep blue, crystal-clear lakes are framed by vistas of rugged peaks and hidden valleys. Low-hanging clouds and mist in the air that blows between ridges like smoke help create an atmosphere that is indescribable by words but amazing to experience.

Photos of this trip can be viewed here. Just to clarify, my group didn't actually climb on Mount Rainier — or really even anywhere close to it. This was simply a day hike on the north end of the park that, on clear days, supposedly affords stunning views of the mountain. Oh well.

Pronunciation key required?

I read this excerpt from a local news site, warning of the potential for flooding in Western Washington following some heavy rainfall amounts we've been having around here (highly surprising for November in Seattle, I know):

"Over a dozen rivers in Western Washington are now under a flood warning, meaning flooding is imminent or already occurring. Included in the flood warning: the Satsop, Nooksack, Skagit, Stillaguamish, Skykomish, Snohomish, Tolt, Snoqualmie, Cedar, Carbon, Puyallup, Nisqually, Cowlitz, and Chehalis Rivers."

Anyone who is able to pronounce each name in that list — and who is not familiar with the area — immediately earns my respect and admiration.

California's Constitution tainted on Tuesday

There's a saying applicable to the debate over same-sex unions that I've seen on Facebook, bumper stickers, and elsewhere, and it almost perfectly summarizes my perspective: "Against gay marriage? Then don't get one and shut the ___ up."

I can respect those who oppose homosexual relationships on a personal level for religious reasons or otherwise. I can also respect those who publicly voice their opposition. In a great nation like ours, citizens are guaranteed the right to free speech and expression, even when the message is outrageous. Church pastors can preach judgment against gay people for the same reason that I can publish almost anything I want on this blog without fear of governmental reprisal.

But in a great nation like ours, citizens also have the right to privacy and dignity in their personal lives without interference. For this reason, I cannot respect the use of the vote to impose one's moral standard on others — particularly when that vote presumes to govern or restrict someone's personal, private affairs, and when those affairs have no bearing on public well-being.

Indeed, gay marriage bans have nothing to do with public safety, health, or peace. They have everything to do with the base emotion of fear. In every state whose voters have approved such a ban (and thankfully, I've never lived in one), the proponents of the ban have used advertisements that attempt to warn people of what might happen if the initiative failed. The reason for this is simple: Without falsely scaring people — and consequently influencing their votes — gay marriage ban supporters have no viable argument to support their case. In Massachusetts, whose high court legalized homosexual unions in 2004 and whose citizens have enjoyed that right ever since, the sky has not yet fallen. Anarchy has not taken root. No plagues have decimated the population.

I've heard the contention that, because issuance of marriage licenses is a public, legal matter, voters have every right to weigh in on the established criteria for obtaining one. But if that reasoning is to be accepted, then by the same measure, voters should be allowed to decide whether homosexuals are eligible to obtain driver's licenses. Or run for public offices. Or apply for professional licenses of any kind. All of the aforementioned are public, legal matters. Restricting rights or freedoms on that basis alone is a very slippery slope.

I don't believe that sexual orientation is a choice, but even if it is, such a factor should be irrelevant. In this free nation, citizens deserve the right to pursue happiness in their personal lives without meddling by others who may disapprove of the decisions they make. Let's not forget that there was a time in American history when voters would have "disapproved" of desegregating schools or granting suffrage to women or blacks. With these examples in mind, it's clear that California (and yes, Arizona and Florida) chose to join the losing side of history this past week. Let's hope that its residents realize this quickly and reverse their decision. Until then, it will be part of the growing list of states whose most sacred document is stained.

A day to be remembered by history

Nearly two years ago, on a frigid winter morning at my parents' home in Illinois, I was gathered with family and a group of friends to watch Sen. Barack Obama announce his candidacy for president of the United States from the steps of the Old State Capitol in Springfield (the building where, nearly 150 years earlier, another famous future president from Illinois delivered his "House Divided" speech). I remember viewing the event as historic, but also thinking the same thought that many others probably had: As the state's junior senator, under the age of 50, and an African American to boot, he probably won't get very far. Maybe in 2012 or 2016.

Having said that, I suspect that few could have predicted or even imagined just how rapidly Obama's campaign would meet with unprecedented success. I include myself in that assessment. To be writing a blog post reflecting on his election as the next president of the United States is rather surreal.

Surreal, indeed, but also a tremendous source of pride. To see the senator of my native state at Grant Park in Chicago addressing a crowd of hundreds of thousands — many of whom were understandably overcome with emotion — was perhaps the most uniquely patriotic feeling I've ever experienced. Americans made history on Tuesday night; and regardless of the triumphs and trials we may face during the next four years, that alone is worth celebrating. It's a hallmark of the tremendous progress made by a nation that has seen more than its share of racial struggles — from slavery and segregation to riots in our cities' streets and social stigma. When Martin Luther King, Jr., spoke of the dream that his children would one day live in a nation where they would be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, did he envision the astounding success of an individual like Barack Obama?

The impact of Tuesday's election will hardly be confined to America's shores. All around the world, people watched as the United States elected its first black president — a charismatic and youthful individual whose message of hope, unity, shared purpose, and cooperative spirit must be a breath of fresh air for those overseas who had grown disillusioned with the obstinate and arrogant tone of America's foreign policy during the past eight years. I'm extremely hopeful that, in the next four years, this nation will make great strides toward repairing its deeply damaged reputation and restoring its standing in the international community. Tuesday was a giant leap in that direction.

The challenges awaiting President-elect Obama are monumental — so much so, in fact, that they're scary to even think about. He'll need a competent, well-prepared Cabinet and a cooperative Congress to tackle historic economic and energy crises, two ongoing wars, a broken health-care system, an environment in peril, and a nation still deeply divided. Nevertheless, I have confidence in his ability. Obama is a man who has earned his place in the annals of American history before even setting foot in the White House. The next four years could truly be a remarkable time for a nation crying out for hope and change.

Election Night Ales

This will be my selection for Tuesday night as I watch the election returns come in with friends. It's called the Night Owl Pumpkin Ale, a seasonal favorite at Elysian Brewing Company, a popular pub just two blocks down from where I live. Here's a description of this fine brew, in the words of its creator:

"Brewed with 150 lbs. of pumpkin in each batch. Made with Pale, Munich and Crystal malts, green and roasted pumpkin seeds, pumpkin in the mash, boil and fermenter. Bittered with Horizon hops. Spiced in conditioning with nutmeg, clove, cinnamon, ginger and allspice."

Night Owl is not simply a good autumn beer, suitable for observing the brilliant fall foliage or huddling around a crackling campfire on a crisp evening — although it would be great for both purposes. No, the Night Owl is a brew that seems to capture the essence of a season in a pint glass. The drinker is treated to a pleasant, comforting aroma even before the first sip; and with that first sip comes a perfectly rich, smooth, balanced blend of pumpkin and spices. I've tasted several beers that are too heavy or too light on either the former or latter. Not this one. The balance is impeccable.

Elysian has two other pumpkin ales — one is the Imperial Pumpkin Ale, which is higher in alcohol content, and the other is the Pumpkin Stout, which sounds fantastic even though I haven't yet tried it. For Nov. 4, however, I've selected a comfort brew that is perfect for the onset of long winter nights — and, dare I say, celebratory occasions. I'm hopeful that Tuesday night will present such an opportunity. If not, at least I'll have a top-caliber ale in which to take solace.

Obama: Unity, pragmatism, vision

As I've said repeatedly, Sen. Barack Obama is not a perfect candidate. Even in a well-executed campaign like his, mistakes have been made; and on the issues, there is more than one point on which I disagree with his policy. He won't be a perfect president, either. Candidates for high political office are human beings just like the rest of us.

But a pivotal election like the one coming up on Tuesday isn't a question of who will be perfect as the next commander-in-chief of the United States. It's a question of who represents our best hope for the next four years: Which candidate, despite all of his flaws, is best suited for this critical juncture in American history? Who can best meet our gravest challenges and help heal the wounds this country has suffered over the past eight years? The answer to both questions is clear.

Obama is an exceptional candidate. He recognizes the culture of polarization that has taken root in America and the damage this has caused: red states versus blue states; Republicans versus Democrats; conservatives versus liberals. Throughout his campaign, Obama has tried to transcend these divisions by instituting a tone that invites all Americans to once again come together in shared purpose. His efforts are commendable. They hearken back to the famous words of one Republican president who warned his nation that a house divided against itself cannot stand. Indeed, this hurting nation cannot begin to solve its catalog of problems as long as Americans view each other as adversaries — categorized by fabricated, meaningless, black-and-white labels that facilitate hostility and give us an excuse to dismiss others simply because we disagree with them.

That catalog of problems is daunting, to say the least, and Obama has been consistently straightforward about its depth and gravity: tens of billions spent each month on a war that was started dishonestly and unnecessarily; millions of Americans who can't afford a doctor's visit or a college education for their children; and a tax policy that pads the pockets of millionaires, while working-class families struggle just to pay their bills and keep their homes. Indeed, Obama has identified these challenges with clarity and understanding. But more than that, he has proposed pragmatic solutions that repudiate the status quo and give hope to hurting Americans. Meanwhile, his opponent, Sen. John McCain, does just the opposite — playing on people's base emotions and waging disingenuous attacks about the Illinois senator being a "socialist" and "palling around with terrorists." Character assassination is the hallmark of a campaign that lacks good ideas of its own.

This represents the biggest distinction between Obama and McCain: The former has articulated a clear vision for America and has explained with eloquence why voters should stand with him. The latter, conversely, has waged one attack after another against his opponent, arguing why Americans should not support the Democratic ticket but doing little to convince them why they should support him. Voters deserve to know why their backing of one candidate isn't merely a rejection of the other, and they deserve a candidate who presents a strong, cohesive, positive message, rather than just a series of disconnected, arbitrary attacks against the opponent.

Of course, Obama's candidacy is historic just by virtue of his identity — but his offerings go far beyond that. If voters should choose to elect him as the next president of the United States on Tuesday, I'm confident that the next four years will represent a very positive departure from the past eight in American history.

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.

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.

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.

Three completely unrelated points

Typically, the posts on this site contain much more focus — but in the interest of creating one post tonight instead of three, I'm temporarily abandoning that principle. Here goes:

• If you haven't seen this Saturday Night Live serenade of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, you need to watch it. (Pardon the preceding commercial; the video is worth the brief delay.) Classic.
• Today is this blog's second birthday. I know how many people care about that — so I'll move on quickly.
• On Saturday, I'm catching an early morning flight to Chicago to begin my summer vacation. The trip will consist of a quick visit with family and friends around the Windy City, followed by a drive up to northern Michigan, where I'll catch a ferry to get to Beaver Island, the spot in Lake Michigan where my parents have their new summer home. The final component will be a quick jaunt over to Madison, Wis., where I'll join a great group of old friends to partake in the Great Taste of the Midwest — an annual beer festival featuring about 500 different brews and at least 100 different vendors. To say I'm excited about next week would be an understatement.

Given the third point, this blog may sit silent for a bit. Fear not — I'll breathe new life into it as soon as I'm able to find a suitable Internet connection while on my journey (or, worst case scenario, when I return from it). As always, thanks to everyone who stops by.

Nature: Best experienced unadulterated

Rarely does one realize the true, indescribable majesty of creation until it is experienced in its purest form. So I discovered last weekend during an extensive hiking trip I took with a couple of friends. Our destination: the Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area in the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, just east of Seattle. This vast, remote and fairly inaccessible expanse of land is a roadless, federally protected region of rugged peaks, rushing rivers, old-growth forests, and, hence its name, crystal-clear alpine lakes. Photos of our expedition can be viewed here.

Just reaching the trailhead was a challenge. It involved driving on a back road that wound progressively deeper into the forest and quickly deteriorated into a pothole-ridden, unmaintained gravel path with huge dips and rocks that my car could never have navigated. (Thankfully, one of the guys had a 4-wheel-drive SUV. Still, even his maximum speed was about 15 mph.) When we finally reached the point of embarkment, it was at least an hour hike before we entered the wilderness area.

Our ultimate destination was Hester Lake, one of the secluded alpine lakes for which this region is named — a 12-mile, seven-hour round-trip hike that involved fording rushing creeks, rounding switchbacks, scrambling up steep, rocky slopes, and navigating through marshes and snow patches that were there even in late July. It also involved hiking through old-growth coniferous forests, observing some of the clearest, cleanest water I've ever seen in nature, and enjoying the serenity of encountering not one single other human being.

The trip offered two remarkable points of achievement: reaching this seemingly elusive yet breathtakingly gorgeous lake (which I thought we'd never do) and reaching the car at the end of the day (which, again, I was fearful we'd never do, considering the strenuous nature of the hike and the ease with which one can become hopelessly lost in such a remote place). When I got back to my oh-so-comfortable apartment in civilization, I promptly fell asleep and didn't wake up until late the next morning. The journey was worth every minute.

Two lessons come to mind from this adventure: the need for everyone to experience creation in its purest, most authentic condition to be reminded of the awesome scope of this planet and universe; and the need to continue to preserve and expand these places, not just for our sake, but for the sake of future generations.

Thoughts on marriage

I think 25 should be the minimum age for obtaining a marriage license.

Let it be known up front that this is not a swipe or judgment against those who are married or got married under that age — so please don't take it that way.

Let it be further known that this is my position not simply because I meet that age criterion. Anyone who knows me is aware that I'm nowhere close to marriage — whether I like it or not.

I have a variety of reasons for taking this position. If anyone wants to share thoughts on the matter, I'll respond and share mine.

If not, well, 'nuff said.

At McCain's age, Viagra a touchy subject