Something I got to test out when back in the U.S.: how much the iPhone’s 3G feature eats up battery time. The answer: lots.

Since global roaming would cost way too much (about $2 per minute, even to receive calls), I made sure that Sachi and I could not even accidentally use the feature while we were abroad recently. To do this, you just have to go into the Settings and turn “Airplane Mode” on, then go back into WiFi and turn it back on again; this disables the phone feature and nothing else.

Usually, my iPhone drains the battery within a single day; even moderate usage can leave me dry before I get home. To prevent this, I often bring my charging cable with me.

While in the U.S., with only 3G turned off, the iPhone would last up to 3 days without a recharge–quite a substantial difference. That was even with WiFi active and in use whenever we were at home. So Steve Job was not kidding about needing a more efficient chipset to make the 3G worthwhile–the full-face touch screen, WiFi, and constant usage don’t use up the phone’s charge like that one feature does.

What I wanted to head up my blog page for today: the reason why the McCain camp scrambled to accuse the media of being “in the tank” for the Obama campaign.

The NY Times reported that McCain campaign manager Rick Davis earned $2 million as a lobbyist for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In this role, Davis fought for deregulation of the industry–exactly what was responsible for the whole debacle.

In other words, McCain’s campaign manager was one of the worst black hats responsible for the current mortgage crisis. The McCain camp’s explanation for this? Get ready: Davis didn’t lobby for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, he just ran the lobbying organization. Which, of course, makes it all good.

Frankly, this Davis news should be a major story that the media should focus on: if McCain is so fired up to kick SEC Chairman Christopher Cox’s ass out the door for being “responsible” for the crisis, then how come McCain’s own campaign is being run by a multi-million-dollar lobbyist for the two worst and biggest players in the crisis? When will McCain fire Rick Davis? Probably not until absolutely forced to, as such a move would be equivalent to confirming that McCain’s campaign has been directed by someone at least in part responsible for hundreds of thousands of Americans losing their homes and costing the taxpayers close to a trillion dollars in bad debt, driving the economy into the toilet.

At this time, none of the major news sites has this story on their front page. So much for being “in the tank” for Obama.

Meanwhile, Faux Noise is trying to distract viewers with accusations that Democrats are responsible for the current mortgage crisis because they supposedly encouraged ending money to minorities, euphemistically called “risky folks.” Already a controversial charge, it is hampered by the small fact that it was McCain campaign manager Rick Davis who was lobbying for more loans for minorities–and not to help minorities.

Financial news of the day: the market dives and oil prices spike.

Things must be falling apart at the McCain campaign. Usually they are very good at controlling media attention, but this time they just fell flat. Essentially, they held a conference call with reporters to complain about how often they’re being called “liars” and to deflect the main story of the day, which is that McCain campaign manager Rick Davis was a big-time lobbyist for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, at least in part responsible for the current crisis (more on that above). Apparently, the media embargo on coverage of unseemly McCain activity is starting to show cracks, and McCain’s people are getting nervous about it, with this big new story just out. Funny, how the media can start calling you liars after you have lied heavily and consistently for so long. And, as it turns out, the media reports following the conference call were pretty much all about the conference call and what a joke it was (except for Fox News, which of course covered it as favorably as they could).

They complained that the media was “completely, totally, 150 percent in the tank for Obama” (translation: you’re reporting about McCain a little bit more accurately and are no longer completely in the tank for us, so that means you’re shilling for Obama).

To set the media right, they insisted that the reporters focus on Obama dirt, and they just happened to have three stories they wanted the media to focus on this week instead of the Davis story, and instead of noting how incessantly the McCain camp is spewing lies. The unfortunate thing about their pitch: it was filled with more lies.

They wanted the media to report heavily on these stories:

• One of Biden’s sons is a lobbyist for banks and credit card companies–except the isn’t, he was an executive for a bank and credit card company, but never lobbied for them.
• Obama began his political career with fundraisers at Weather Underground member William Ayers–except he didn’t; he held a single campaign event at Ayers’ house in 1995, but it wasn’t a fundraiser, and Ayers never gave Obama any money.
• Obama surrogate Robert Wexler called Sarah Palin a Nazi sympathizer–except he didn’t; he called Pat Buchanan a Nazi sympathizer, and noted that Sarah Palin supported him, remarks which he retracted and apologized for.

These were listed and debunked by The Politico, which noted that the stories are all unfavorable about Obama when only the truth is told, but the lies piled onto them just made the McCain camp seem even more the bunch of liars they protested the media was calling them. When these were pointed out, the McCain campaign replied back that they were “quibbling with ridiculously small details when the basic things are completely right.” Regard that as you may.

But the McCain campaign is really laying it on. One can assume either that they have informed the base of the talking points, or set up a woman attending an event to scold and shame the media back into McCain’s camp from the public’s angle:

Schmidt’s anger has apparently bubbled over to McCain supporters as well. At a town hall in Scranton today, instead of asking the candidate a question, a woman issued a diatribe against the media.

“I also want to take the opportunity to ask the media, where is your 30 investigators over in Chicago looking at Ayers? We want the media to start doing their job and stop picking on little children because of their age and their pregnancies. Shame on you! Shame on all of you’s!”

“That is a great question,” McCain responded.

Did I mistake that, or did McCain just morph into Bush? Remember Bush’s phony town halls where people just got up and praised him without asking anything, and Bush thanked them for the “question”? The student has become the master.

Obama has come out with a statement of how the bailout of banks has to be handled. Here’s the rundown:

• There must be accountability and oversight, no blank check;
• Taxpayers must be protected and allowed to recoup this investment;
• Homeowners must be helped in keeping their homes;
• Many nations should be called upon to help, as they have stakes in this as well;
• Rescue the American people, not just predatory bankers; and
• Reform and regulate the industry so this does not happen again.

The Republican response: don’t add extras. (True, the fifth one about rebuilding Main Street, not just Wall Street, seems to be a tack-on; the rest, however, is solid thinking and a good plan.) While there is some talk of protecting taxpayers amongst Republicans, there is wide disagreement among in the GOP about the plan itself, and resistance to doing more than just generally “protecting taxpayers,” which is what they claimed to be doing when they deregulated the industry. Since they should have learned their lesson with the Savings & Loan debacle and yet just went right ahead and did it again, one should have little confidence that they will do the right thing here.

And John McCain? He chimed in on “broad oversight,” but other than that, said that the CEOs of these companies should receive limited salaries. Oooo, harsh. Oh yeah, and he wants to blame Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Chris Cox and fire him. That’ll fix a lot of problems.

Meanwhile, the bill for U.S. taxpayers might be getting bigger, as foreign banks are now added to the protection we’re paying for. One of the biggest beneficiaries: UBS, the Swiss financial services company that top McCain economics advisor Phil “Americans are whiners” Gramm has close ties to. So foreign banks get bailed out by U.S. citizens, and Republicans are calling it an “extra” to have not only the institutions being bailed out but the countries invested in them join in paying the costs? Yeah, that would be a bad idea, adding extras like that. Maybe they just realize that they couldn’t swing it–but I’d bet that Obama could.

Actually, it might be hard to imagine right now. Though it wasn’t right after 9/11–we had the world standing beside us after that day. Of course, it didn’t take us long to kill that dead. All it took was the Iraq War and the inconceivably idiotic manner of taking anyone who didn’t agree with us and mocking them or calling them cowards, enemies, or worse. Those were the days of freedom fries, and Americans traveling overseas had to start pretending to be Canadians. And McCain is just more of the same; it is doubtful that he’ll instill worldwide confidence in our country again.

Obama, he’s a different story. Look at his reception in Germany. You think McCain could have pulled in that crowd there? Hell, no. That’s why McCain complained; he said the media was giving unfair coverage to Obama because when he had done the same kind of thing, it wasn’t covered so much–except McCain hadn’t done the same kind of thing as Obama–despite all his “experience,” he just doesn’t inspire admiration or confidence in people around the world. McCain couldn’t get those crowds, McCain couldn’t have gotten the Iraqi leader to go along with his hundred-year strategy… but Obama is more in tune with the rest of the world. And the rest of the world loves him. Even here in Japan, it’s “Yes, I love Obama!” and “McCain who? Oh yeah, the other guy.”

Granted, it’s not through understanding of his exact platform; granted, a lot has to do with his race. But that’s more relevant in the rest of the world; one of America’s long-standing icons of arrogant dismissal of the rest of the world has to do with race, with color. That America would vote for a man of color as our leader is far more significant than most Americans understand. It’s a signal to the world that we are truly ready for change. And that idea has excited the world.

Brazil is just one example. Under that country’s election laws, politicians can register under any name they wish. As a result, there are now six Barack Obamas running for various levels of office around the country.

The article didn’t say how many John McCains there are, but it’s a safe bet that there are fewer than six. Maybe five or more fewer.

Call it a matter of race, call it a popularity contest, call it a negative backlash against Bush. But after this administration pissed away the whole world’s good will and trashed it so thoroughly as to be virtually unrecoverable, the ability to recover that good will and once again be respected by the world is no small gain.

Many conservatives, being isolationist and/or nationalistic, might snort and dismiss such an idea. But it is worth an incredible amount to us, and anyone who dismisses it is, shall we simply say, unwise.

Though we officially got married in the Toshima Ward city hall six months ago, that was just paperwork–we didn’t even raise a hand and swear to do anything. Just signing papers. They wouldn’t even give us a wedding certificate–they asked us why we would want such a thing. But we were officially husband and wife.

Well, if that made us legally married, today made us feel really married. After a week of heavy planning, buying, checking, rechecking, and so forth, the big day came, and we had the ceremony in the United States with our family. Despite a few minor hiccups, the event went very, very well. We came to the Gatehouse just after noon. The Gatehouse is a kind of semi-public house on the same plot of land with Menlo Park’s city hall, police station, library, and sports center. It is surrounded by brush and trees, with a nice yard with a fountain. You can rent it out for occasions, as we did.

We dragged in the chairs, the audio equipment, and all of our gear. Sachi came in and the hairdresser got started on her. With a team of four assistants, they got her ready faster than expected, and the photographer could get more good shots done than we expected. Then guests started arriving, and things got crazy as I was still setting up the video cameras, we were still taking portrait shots, and I wanted to greet so many relatives I had not seen for years and years.

Eventually, we got to the ceremony and it went more or less flawlessly. Sachi and I said our vows with tears in our eyes, put rings on each other’s fingers, and kissed. Husband and wife, Mendelsohn’s march, and then more photos. And a few more photos. Then chatting while we short-handedly rushed to put everything back in the cars and prepped to go to the restaurant. Everyone was great. Relatives came in from Oregon, southern California, Sacramento, and even the east coast. All for a few hours of ceremony and dinner. We love them all.

After a great meal and as much talking as we could cram in, we called it a night–had to, as we leave early tomorrow morning for the airport. We leave the house before 9am Sunday, and will arrive in Japan late afternoon or early evening Monday–then Tuesday we have a meeting with wedding planners and a wedding rehearsal to attend.

That’s for our second wedding in Tokyo, a week from today.

We’re tired!

But we’re having great fun. The video seems to have turned out fairly well (three cameras, one not placed as well as I’d hoped), and the photographer should be getting the images to us fairly soon. When all that comes in, I’ll make another post with full details.

But right now we’re beat, and have to pack. More later.

Do you remember this guy on the right? Gabriel Schwartz. An attorney, and a “fixture in Colorado Republican politics,” he was an acting GOP delegate for the state of Colorado. He was interviewed for LinkTV, and he said some really hardcore right-wing stuff, delivered with an arrogant, smug, self-important grin. I forget where I saw this interview, but I remember it pretty well–he kind of personified unrestrained, uninhibited right-wing ideology–kind of what you would expect a neocon to say when under sodium pentathol or something. Watch the interview:

Here’s a transcript of the first half:

Hamilton: What is your vision for change under a John McCain administration?
Schwartz: Less taxes and more war.
Hamilton: Less taxes and more war?
Schwartz: More war.
Hamilton: So, where should the United States bomb next?
Schwartz: Iran, baby!
Hamilton: Why? Why should we bomb Iran?
Schwartz: To protect Israel.
Hamilton: So you think Iran is threatening Israel right now and the US should intervene on behalf of them?
Schwartz: Absolutely. Or Israel do it themselves.
Hamilton: So what would that look like, what would a war on Iran look like?
Schwartz: Hopefully, just bomb the hell out of them from the sky, no troops.
Hamilton: Um, are you worried about the escalating costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? I mean, how would we pay for our war on Iran?
Schwartz: We should plant a flag. Take the oil, take the money. We deserve reimbursement.

That pretty much says it all, doesn’t it?

Well, it turns out not. While this may be old news, it is still quite a thing to behold. Just a few hours after the interview, Schwartz met a good-looking lady in a hotel bar who introduced herself to him. He asked her to go up to his room, and she agreed. She told him to get undressed, and she would mix some drinks. That’s the last thing he remembered, as the knockout drugs took effect. When Schwartz woke up, $120,000 of his money and belongings were gone. Schwartz disputes that report as inaccurate. Not the part about the woman, but about the amount. He says it was only $50,000 worth of stuff that was stolen.

Which makes it all much more understandable. The haul, according to police, included “a $30,000 watch, a $20,000 ring, a necklace valued at $5,000, earrings priced at $4,000 and a Prada belt valued at $1,000, police said. … Aside from the watch, ring, necklace, earrings and belt, Schwartz also reported a $1,000 purse or wallet, a $1,500 cell phone, $500 in cash and a couple of rings worth $50 had been taken.” What the hell, is this guy an attorney or a jewelry salesman? Who the hell brings along $50~120,000 in money and jewelry to a political convention? And how did the police report get this all wrong? They just write down what the victim says; when he said “$10,000 watch,” did the police officer inflate it to $30,000? That’s kind of strange.

In any case, you’ve got to admit that the irony is dazzling. The woman took his advice: she planted her flag and took the money. She deserved reimbursement. Didn’t she?

And really, this serves as a pretty good metaphor for the whole country. Liquored up, we see these Republican candidates who talk pretty to us. We vote for them, inviting them to run the nation for us, and the next thing we know, all of our money is gone and we’re sitting there stripped naked, feeling like idiots.

Schwartz’s sum-up of his experience? “I used poor judgment.” No shit, Sherlock. You’re a McCain delegate. The question is, can the country show slightly better judgment this November? Let’s hope so.

John McCain ran an ad recently claiming that Obama is mired in the current mortgage crisis because a former CEO of Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines, advised Obama on economic matters, making Obama a despicably corrupt Fannie Mae insider. However, this is all based on a third-hand claim with no evidence that Raines played more than a minor side-role at best. The Washington Post debunked the claim:

The McCain campaign is clearly exaggerating wildly in attempting to depict Raines as a close adviser to Obama on “housing and mortgage policy.” If we are to believe Raines, he did have a couple of telephone conversations with someone in the Obama campaign. But that hardly makes him an adviser to the candidate himself — and certainly not in the way depicted in the McCain video release.

Then this tidbit came out about the McCain campaign, a letter written to the New York Times by a former Fannie Mae executive, published in The Politico:

To The Editor:

Yesterday, Senator John McCain released a television commercial attacking Barack Obama for allegedly receiving advice on the economy from former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines. From the stump, he has recently tried tying Senator Obama to Fannie Mae, as if there is some guilt in the association with Fannie Mae’s former executives.

It is an interesting card for Senator McCain to play, given that his campaign manager, Rick Davis, was paid by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac several hundred thousand dollars early in this decade to head up an organization to lobby in their behalf called The Homeownership Alliance. …

I worked in government relations for Fannie Mae for more than 20 years, leading the group for most of those years. When I see photographs of Sen. McCain’s staff, it looks to me like the team of lobbyists who used to report to me. Senator McCain’s attack on Senator Obama is a cheap shot, and hypocritical.

Sincerely,

William Maloni
Fannie Mae Senior Vice President for Government and Industry Relations (1983-2004)

Oops.

Meanwhile, Sarah Palin is doing little better. She claimed that she fired Alaskan Public Safety Commissioner, Walt Monegan, because he insisted on making an “unauthorized lobbying trip to D.C.,” making it sound like Monegan was some sort of lobbyist seeking earmarks, and Sarah Palin, being the reformer and maverick that she is, just had to fire the schmuck. However, it turns out that the trip, to seek funds for “an aggressive anti-sexual-violence program” (a big problem in Alaska), was in fact, authorized by Palin’s chief of staff.

Double oops.

Another lie. And like so many others, she makes the lie despite leaving a paper trail behind her with proof that she’s lying. And most likely, like all the other lies, she’ll keep on telling this one even after it has been publicly proven to be a lie.

That’s just how the McCain campaign rolls. They don’t give a rat’s ass about the truth, they just make up their crap and sell it, in broad daylight, clearly hoping that people will believe them despite all the evidence.

It has caused articles like this one to start popping up:

Usually when a candidate tells something less than the truth, we mince words. We use euphemisms like mendacity and inaccuracy … or, as the Associated Press put it, “McCain’s claims skirt facts.” But increasing numbers of otherwise sober observers, even such august institutions as the New York Times editorial board, are calling John McCain a liar. …

McCain’s lies have ranged from the annoying to the sleazy, and the problem is in both degree and kind. His campaign has been a ceaseless assault on his opponent’s character and policies, featuring a consistent—and witting—disdain for the truth. Even after 38 million Americans heard Obama say in his speech at the Democratic National Convention that he was open to offshore oil-drilling and building new nuclear-power plants, McCain flatly said in his acceptance speech that Obama opposed both. Normal political practice would be for McCain to say, “Obama says he’s ‘open to’ offshore drilling, but he’s always opposed it. How can we believe him?” This persistence in repeating demonstrably false charges is something new in presidential politics.

Worse than the lies have been the smears. McCain ran a television ad claiming that Obama favored “comprehensive” sex education for kindergartners. (Obama favored a bill that would have warned kindergartners about sexual predators and improper touching.) The accusation that Obama was referring to Sarah Palin when he said McCain’s effort to remarket his economic policies was putting “lipstick on a pig” was another clearly misleading attack — an obnoxious attempt to divert attention from Palin’s lack of fitness for the job and the recklessness with which McCain chose her. McCain’s assault on the “élite media” for spreading rumors about Palin’s personal life — actually, the culprits were a few bloggers and the tabloid press — was more of the same. And that gets us close to the real problem here. The McCain camp has decided that its candidate can’t win honorably, on the issues, so it has resorted to transparent and phony diversions.

Wow. That from TIME Magazine. This is getting pretty intense. But amazingly, despite McCain’s repeated, blatant, brazen lies and shocking smears… still the media is not giving McCain that general description, as it did Al Gore in 2000 when Gore did stuff like claim rightful credit for shaping the Internet, or when he lots track of exactly which local politician he went to several fires with.

In any case, let’s end with a nice blast from the past: a photo of John McCain partying it up with Charles Keating, celebrating their birthdays with booze and a live band–not to mention an unfortunate hat. Because unlike today, McCain back then did not have close ties to financial scandals and lobbyists for big loan firms.

Keating was, what, a pet shop owner or something, right? No, a musician, or some kind of music agent. Yeah, that must be it. Or maybe just a friend from Cindy’s beer distributorship. But not some head honcho of a corrupt financial organization that cost taxpayers big-time in some bailout, no sirree! John McCain would never do that, because he was a POW.

Here’s McCain despairing at his negativity:

So, McCain lies about why Obama didn’t visit some troops, he lies about Obama wanting to tax the middle class, lied about Obama being the second term of Jimmy Carter and the third term of Dubya Bush, and blamed Obama for everything from high gas prices to the current economic downturn. McCain, immersed in a sea of lobbyists, accused Obama of being in the pockets of lobbyists. McCain claims that Obama’s a virtual traitor to his country, that he’s a snotty, elitist celebrity who’d probably like to get at white girls like Britney and Paris, and runs an ad that makes Obama look like a pedophile. He accused Obama of playing the race card, of insulting McCain’s age and of being sexist in regards to Sarah Palin.

And now, like before, he claims that he “regrets” the negativity of the campaign, that he really hates it, truly–as if he has nothing to do with it. Just another way to blame everything on Obama–in this case, the claim being that the negativity is Obama’s fault for not agreeing to structuring the debates around McCain’s home territory, accepting McCain’s offer to let Obama tag along on McCain’s town hall meetings.

McCain is trying to have it all ways, in fact–run so negative that it is jarring many of his former supporters into disowning him, and yet claiming that it’s Obama who is negative and/or responsible, while McCain stands by helplessly, regretting and tsk-tsking about how negative it’s all become.

Yawn… just more stunningly blatant hypocrisy from McCain. Nothing we haven’t seen time and time and time again from the hollow shell of the hollow shell he’d made everyone think was a maverick.

Story out of Michigan: a left-leaning web site reported that the Macomb County, Michigan Republican Party Chairman James Carabelli stated that he plans to use lists of families with foreclosed homes as a target for challenging their voter eligibility. In just the second quarter of this year, about 63,000 homes were foreclosed in Michigan alone, and reportedly more than half of the foreclosures in Michigan are on homes owned by African-Americans–likely Democratic voters, as are the others who lost their homes. As the saying goes, a Democrat is a Republican who lost his job, or in this case, his home.

While it is true that the report came from a left-leaning web site and that the source denies the story, it fits in very closely with Republican voter-suppression tactics of the past. In 2004, Michigan Republican state senator John Pappageorge said, “If we do not suppress the Detroit vote, we’re going to have a tough time in this election.” Publicly. Also in 2004, the GOP played a dirty trick by sending mass mailings to black college students during the summer break when they were inevitably not at their college addresses; when the letters, marked “do not forward,” were of course returned, they were used to challenge these strongly Democratic-leaning voters their right to vote in that election. So going after people, mostly black, who had their homes foreclosed–most likely strongly Democratic–fits in perfectly with documented past Republican efforts.

The Republicans who are denying this story claim that it can’t be true because “the lists don’t give them information on where a voter lives.” However, this is not a deterrent for the GOP voter caging program–in fact, it’s a perk for them. Remember, in the 2000 election, they successfully disenfranchised tens of thousands of African-American Florida voters, overwhelmingly Democratic, simply because they had names resembling those of convicted felons. Here again, they have a list which is mostly black and Democratic, and would likely use the same tactic of overreaching to try to disenfranchise everyone in the state with names matching those on the lists. As stated, it fits in with past documented Republican disenfranchisement efforts.

So, while there is a possibility that this story is not true, the Obama campaign is quite wise to file in court for an injunction to prevent Republicans from doing this. Because despite their current spate of denials, Republicans also have a past record of not only denying stuff they’re doing, but also of doing reprehensible acts and then defending it with thinly-veiled arguments to make it sound like it was somehow necessary, justified, or even patriotic. After all, the whole voter caging and disenfranchisement effort is based upon accusing hundreds of thousands, if not millions of honest American citizens of being vote-stealing criminals. Which also fits this story.

Via Andrew Sullivan’s site, here are the two candidates’ messages on how to fix the economy:

Quite a difference. Obama’s plan:

1. Reform tax system with $1000 tax break to middle-class families, not the rich;
2. Real regulation that protects your investments and pensions;
3. Fast track “energy made in America plan” to end dependence on Middle East oil;
4. Crack down on lobbyists;
5. Bring a responsible end to war in Iraq so money can be spent on America.

McCain’s Plan:

1. Reform Wall Street
2. Fix Washington

This is better than Obama’s plan because:

1. His “opponent’s” solutions are only “talk and taxes.”

How stark can it get? One lays out a 5-point plan (with a link to a web site with a great many details on how this will be accomplished), and the other says he’ll “fix things” without saying how, while bragging that he’s “taken on tougher guys” than Obama.

I’m sorry, but if you’re voting for John McCain to reform the economy better than Barack Obama, then you’re a complete idiot.

Me, I’ve seen my stock price fall a lot chiefly because of market pressures due to Bush/McCain deregulation. No more, thanks. The economy has gone far better under Democrats than under Republicans for a very long time. Let’s stop the BS and turn the economy around, something possible under Obama but not under McCain.

Carly Fiorina, CEO of HP, recently got into trouble when she said that Sarah Palin couldn’t run a corporation. She quickly amended that to say that she was talking about specific business credentials, and that John McCain (who was responsible for the BlackBerry, don’t you know), Barack Obama, and Joe Biden were similarly unqualified.

That brought me to think about exactly that question–how would each of the four perform as a chief executive of a corporation? Having no experience in or knowledge of the job or the environment, let me give my completely unqualified assessment, and see if you agree.

McCain would be the closest thing to a pointy-haired boss; especially in a tech corporation, he would likely not understand what he was selling. He would probably lead by whim more than by far-sighted planning, and would probably be easily influenced by those around him, doing either the last thing someone told him was a good idea, or the thing that the most people on his senior staff thought was a good idea. His mercurial temper would not help. He might have a few priorities and directions he would want to go in, but these would be limited in scope and importance. He would be uninspiring overall–workers would be less than impressed with grampaw’s war stories, and more affected by his poor speaking style. His health would spark concerns that would dampen (or, I suppose, spark) stock prices, and people would always be asking about who’s next in line to take over.

Palin would be the usurper, the lightweight that shot up to the top for a variety of reasons not having much to do with actual talent. Though sharp and ambitious, she would not be the productive type; she would have gotten to where she was over the backs of others she tore down along the way, or by the helping hand of those above who favored her. There would be widespread concern about how capably she would govern, and while she might win over the PR crowd, the professionals would have strong doubts. The social pages of the newspapers might herald her self-proclaimed accomplishments, but those in the know would laugh at the claims and understand her for the lightweight she is; look to the boring columns in the financial sections to read far-less-optimistic reviews. Those working for the company would be unhappy–people in any management position would be in constant fear of being fired (except for the neophytes, cronies, and kiss-ups), and those below would be wondering what draconian edicts would restrict their working conditions next. She would bring light to the company, but not progress, efficiency, or productivity.

Biden would be the college-professor type of CEO–a good deal of knowledge and experience, but otherwise uninspiring. He might miss the big picture for the details, and some would see him as ineffectual. While some workers would be comfortable with the low-key professional, others would be worried about whether or not this leader could take the business where it needs to go, and whether the big boss had what it takes to sell the company and make it thrive. Biden would have connections, but not necessarily the power to bring the company to the heights expected of it. He would be far preferable to McCain or Palin, but would just not be the type who would make a company a great one. The corporation he ran would be as low-key as he is–getting by, doing OK, but never in the big leagues.

Obama, while a new face, would be the only one who would really do well as a CEO. While relatively inexperienced, he would have two necessary things that any of the other three would not: the charisma to drive the company and sell the product, and the intellect to grasp what the company needs to do and how to do it. While Obama technically has no executive experience, he did start from virtually nothing and build a multi-hundred-million-dollar organization which took on and took down one of the biggest, if not the biggest political dynasty around. Obama is, in fact, closer to a self-made dotcom startup that offers a great new product that everyone wants to try. It might be heavy on flash and style, and it will have bugs, but still has the substance to sell. There is the same effect in both cases–people who like the product say it’s really great, and the naysayers quickly tire of the fans, exaggerate the expectations, and then try to shoot down the company for not being 100% perfect and delivering a product of god-like perfection. But the product is still solid and sells well. Obama is similar to Steve Jobs–someone with very good business intuition and the public persona to sell it. Everyone working for him might wonder if he could take on Microsoft after leaving Dell in the dust, but they’d be optimistic about the stock options and excited about the person leading their corporation.

Thoughts?

You live in a place, and you tend not to go see the tourist spots. I’ve been on this tour before, however–but only once. Today, Sachi and I took the bay cruise (Red & White Fleet edged out Blue & Gold by a dollar and by allowing reservations by phone), and were not disappointed. It’s an hour on the bay, and so long as you avoid the fog, you get a great deal. Here are some of the photos from the day.

This plucky gang of gulls had the gall to knock over a guy’s fried shrimp basket. Gulls: 1; Humans: 0.

This guy seemed like a homeless guy, but it’s not clear. He was not panhandling (best sign: “Need Money for Hookers,” seen elsewhere on the Wharf), instead he hid behind a trash receptacle and scared people as they passed by. 10 points for originality and local color.

Sachi spotted some Murrelets, I knew what they were. Well, sort of–they’re Murrelets, but I don’t know what kind. An interesting catch nonetheless. The little guys even resemble penguins to a degree.

Pelicans graced the bay, here just the one, but elsewhere in flocks.

What Fisherman’s Wharf visit would be complete without the Pier 39 seals?

And, of course, Alcatraz.

A generic shot of the Golden Gate Bridge.

Less generic.

Hi, everyone!

Went on a quick-stop birdwatching trip today, amongst a variety of other tasks that had to be done to prepare for the wedding. We visited the Radio Road lake by the water treatment plant in Foster City, it being a quick and sure way to see lots of birds in the very little time we had budgeted for this. I offer most of these without comment…

I was surprised to find a Killdeer in among the other sandpiper-types.

These are probably just Barn Swallows. I didn’t have a bird book today, nor would I have had the time to use one to look all of these up…

Here are a whole bunch of birds in flight; the first, a virtual cacophony of birds, is available in a larger version.

Finally, Sachi spotted this unusually large visitor to the Radio Road Lake–a Pelican.

I’ve heard a lot of people suggest that we ignore Palin, either because of or despite her popularity, and focus on McCain. I have no trouble with focusing on McCain, but I think there is a great danger in ignoring Palin. The reason why is because she is not just a lightning rod to take attention away from McCain–she has, in fact, quickly become the heart and center of the McCain campaign. She’s the one drawing huge crowds, she’s the one who is revitalizing the base, she’s the one who is bringing his numbers up. Ignore her and you ignore McCain’s greatest new strength. I don’t think that’s wise.

Furthermore, she has maintained her popularity precisely because there has not yet been enough critical attention paid to her. Her lies go relatively unchallenged, her claims about reform and accomplishment pretty much non-fact-checked, her background allowed to mostly slide while America focuses on the trivial irrelevancies which she can use to her advantage.

This is beginning to change. The blush is off the media rose, the honeymoon is beginning to end, insert your metaphor here. Gibson’s interview started that process, and now we are seeing more and more about her finally begin to leak through to the media sources that most Americans pay attention to. And the McCain-Palin lead is beginning to erode and evaporate.

One thing beginning to come through is her lie about the Bridge to Nowhere. It has been noted that she stopped telling that particular whopper when she went to Alaska, but now that she’s back in the lower forty-eight, she’s right back at using the lie again–as if she were aware that Alaskans knew her too well to buy that particular line of horse manure.

But for those who are confused by the claims or don’t know the whole timeline, I have pieced it together here:

November 2005: Congress strips funding for the bridge project.

September 2006: Palin shows up in the town where the bridge is supposed to link, brandishes a “Nowhere, Alaska 99901” T-Shirt, and proclaims she “feels the pain” of the townspeople for their town being called “Nowhere.”

October, 2006: In a direct answer to whether or not she supported the bridge to nowhere, Palin wrote, “Yes. I would like to see Alaska’s infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now — while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.” Palin says publicly, “I support these infastructure projects,” “I’m going to fight hard with our federal delegation for the federal financial support of our infrastructure that Alaska deserves.”

November 2006: Palin says “I would not get in the way of progress of” the bridge to nowhere. She wins the election and becomes governor of Alaska.

August 2007: Congress allows Alaska to keep $233 million even though the bridge is long dead.

September 2007: Palin finally kills the project, saying: “Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398-million bridge is not the answer. Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329-million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island. … Much of the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here, but we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened.”

September 2008 (repeatedly): “I told Congress, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’ on that bridge to nowhere!”

And McCain: “Yes, the pork barrel project, a $233 million bridge in Alaska to an island with 50 people on it,” McCain said. “She, as governor, stood up and said, we don’t need it, and if we need it, we’ll pay for it ourselves. Now, that’s guts. I saw that, and I said, this, this is what we need in Washington.”

So: Ted Stevens gets the money for the bridge, but then Congress and the public react in disgust, stripping the funding. For two full years, Sarah Palin maintains her support for the bridge project–starting her campaign for governor on it–telling the people of the town that she feels their pain, and the people of Alaska that she’ll fight for federal money. She repeatedly voices support for the bridge, specifying federal funding. Then Congress decides to allow Alaska to keep much of the money that had been set aside for the bridge. ONLY THEN did Palin kill the project, saying the feds were not going to give them enough money for the bridge to be built. But she kept the money they gave her.

“I told Congress, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’ on that bridge to nowhere!”

Liar!

To be honest, I was not aware of much of this timeline. I didn’t know that Palin supported the bridge for a full two years after funding had been cut, or that Palin killed the project right after Congress released the funds to Alaska. Let me tell you, making those claims about saying “no” to Congress, “thanks but no thanks” to the bridge, “We’ll pay for that bridge ourselves!”–that takes guts, lying so blatantly and outrageously!

That’s the kind of thing that needs to be told everywhere, made clear to everyone. Obama should make a commercial showing the timeline:

After Congress cut the wasteful spending on the bridge to nowhere, Sarah Palin fought for two years to get it back. She went to the town where the bridge was going to and began her campaign for governor telling them she’d fight for the bridge (show photo with the “Nowhere Alaska” T-shirt). She made the bridge a part of her campaign, repeatedly promising to get the federal funds. (Show video clip of Palin saying, ““I support these infastructure projects!”) But only after Congress cut her a check for 233 million in your taxpayer dollars (show graphic: “Palin accepts $233 million in federal pork”) did she finally kill the project–and she kept your money to boot. Then she said: (show clip after clip after clip) “I told Congress, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’ on that bridge to nowhere!” And McCain was right behind her: (show clip) “She, as governor, stood up and said, we don’t need it, and if we need it, we’ll pay for it ourselves!” She demanded pork. She got it. Then they both lied.

Heavily cutting, and completely, 100% factually correct.

That’s a campaign commercial we can believe in.

I took these photos a little while ago but forgot to post on them. THese are our new wedding rings, back from the ring shop (they took a few weeks to put the inscriptions in them).

Remember how the McCains and Palin jumped into action when Gustav threatened New Orleans during the Republican convention? They visited the region threatened so they could “help out” by getting in the way, showing how much they cared. Obama wisely stayed out of the way, offering support from afar, curtailing his campaign events and raising money for storm victims, the most constructive form of help a politician can muster.

Now, Ike has hit Texas. Obama is reacting the same way–he has canceled his appearance on SNL (hopefully he’ll come back for it next week), and again raises money for storm victims (his site’s main page is wholly given over to raising funds for storm relief) and monitor things from afar, staying in touch with officials in Texas by phone and offering whatever help and support he can.

McCain? Well, his main page now has a panel for storm relief among his other stuff, but that’s about it. No canceling of stump events that I can see–Palin is still going to Nevada to stump, and they will still have the NASCAR event this weekend. But what is most telling is the fact that neither McCain, his wife, nor Palin are rushing out to the site of the storm damage to “help out” again. Frankly, I think that such “help” is a bad idea and the people in the storm path are better off without it–but McCain obviously doesn’t think so, and certainly never noted such himself.

If you recall, McCain once deeply cut into Obama for canceling a visit to the troops because reporters with cameras would not be there, a charge which was patently and demonstrably false. But now that the media glare from the convention is no longer around, McCain is not visiting the storm-ravaged areas like he did when the cameras were greater in number.

Obviously, McCain cares far more about the media spotlight than he does about the people of his country, which, from what I have heard, is supposed to come “first.” Unless that’s just some throwaway line in a sales pitch.

I don’t know about the rest of the interview, but this part is highlighted on TPM. In it, Gibson asks Palin what she thinks about the Bush Doctrine. She is obviously clueless–does not know one of the major policy stands of the current administration–and after trying to fake her way out of it, trying to trick Gibson into giving her the answer, she takes a blind stab instead of saying “I don’t know what you’re talking about.” Given how she went into specifics about a few other things but failed to know such a broad, basic element of current governance shows up how she has crammed so much as of late; such rush study allows you to appear schooled until you hit a hole in your study, and the shallowness of your knowledge becomes apparent. This is not a person who is familiar and well-versed in policies and current events, this is someone who stays up late reading CliffsNotes.

Then Gibson actually pushes her to say whether or not she approves of the recent crossing of the border into Pakistan–a beautiful question, as it shows up a McCain hypocrisy, as McCain ruthlessly slammed Obama for suggesting such a thing be possible, and now Bush is carrying out such raids himself–so Palin either has to support Obama’s judgment over McCain’s, or call attention to the hypocrisy of her running mate. Pressed three times for a straight answer, Palin comes back only with bluster about “all options” being “on the table.” While a weasel answer, it effectively agrees that the decision to make the raids–thus confirming Obama was right and McCain was wrong–and shows up McCain’s hypocrisy. Plus, we get to see Palin rather blatantly trying to squirm out of giving a straight answer.

I didn’t know Gibson had it in him; I would guess that he heard all the criticism about how people would react to a fluff piece and decided it was better to risk being kicked out of the rest of the coverage than to be shown up for a shill. If the rest of the interview went like this, then Palin is in big trouble. If it was just this and the rest was fluff, then at least Gibson got a few points for not letting Palin get away scot-free.

Update: Here are a few more excerpts. Palin still acts the part of the consummate politician, dodging questions instead of answering them, and Gibson lets her get away with a lot. Palin, for example, claims that foreign policy is not important because (a) energy is more important, and (b) gosh, Charlie, lots of vice presidents had little or no experience, so I’m in good company.

By the way, did anyone else notice the inordinately high number of times she called Gibson “Charlie”? Not that she was being informal or presumptuous, but who repeats a person’s name so often in a conversation? Small point, but kinda weird.

Trust me on this, she’ll be ready with an answer for the “Bridge to Nowhere” lie, though it’ll probably have to be a whopper in and of itself, as there’s no substance to her claim at all. She’ll also be ready on Troopergate, Lipstick on a Pig, and the eBay Jet.

Instead, she should be asked technical questions. She has experience with Russia? Fine. Sarah, name three foreign policy issues you dealt with regarding Russia during your term as governor so far. Outside of the Georgia issue, what are the three biggest policy challenges the United States faces with Russia?

She has Commander-in-Chief experience? Great. Ask her some questions about how she would respond to specific military challenges. Ask her to highlight three military programs currently in Congress that she feels need attention.

Not only do such questions have substance (more than just “Who is the leader of Pakistan?”), but they would be hard for her to answer without (a) someone feeding her information through a hidden earpiece, or (b) actual experience or knowledge in the areas Republicans have been claiming are her strengths. Not to mention that all of these are questions that would not even begin to faze Obama or Biden, who speak regularly on such issues with thoughtfulness and clarity.

As for McCain, ask him about Czechoslovakia training al Qaeda terrorists crossing over the Iraq/Pakistan border during the Miss Buffalo Chip contest, and his head will simply implode.

New Rule: whenever someone is interviewing a politician and the politician (a) doesn’t answer the question, or (b) replies with a rather plain lie, the “journalist,” in order to earn that title, must follow up and insist upon an answer, and a truthful one. No more letting any statement a politician makes go unchallenged. This should also apply to outrageous exaggerations (as when McCain claimed that Alaska being close to Russia gave Palin foreign policy experience, and Charlie Gibson didn’t even bat an eye), and, hopefully, any claims that have strong evidence to the contrary. No more accepting claims simply because they’re claims. No more giving interviews without thorough understanding of the facts.

The excuse that if reporters did this, they would be denied access, is summarily dismissed, because if all reporters did this, politicians could not deny them all access. If controlling journalists is such a problem, then the profession needs to be reorganized, with a guild or other controlling agency that would award credentials (like the bar association does for lawyers) that requires adherence to these rules else face losing accreditation as a journalist. Politicians who then favored non-accredited reporters would soon be mocked.

Until this happens, there are few if any people out there that truly deserve the title “journalist.” If they don’t measure up, they’re nothing more than weak-kneed hacks who aren’t worth the price of their tailored suits.