OMG I Pikd My VP LOL!

Since Obama announced last week that he would be broadcasting his VP choice first to his supporters via text message, that is how I have been imagining it coming across. And since anonymous "inside" sources have said that he is planning his first public appearance with his VP choice on Saturday in Springfield, it looks like we're down to the last 48-72 hours before we'll all know. So I thought I'd try to play a little Nostradamus and predict it. It is "widely believed" (whatever that means) that the choice is down to 4 candidates: Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, and Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine. Biden has going for him the fact that he is a friend to both the Clintons, a lot of foreign policy experience (as well as experience in general), and is a good debater who will be able to go toe to toe with anyone McCain chooses. However, as one of the eldest serving Democratic Senators he would somewhat undercut Obama's message of change and by potentially drafting him into the White House you lose a powerful force in the Senate, where he may be more valuable. He's also from Delaware, which is going to go blue anyway so he lacks the power to "deliver a state". I don't take Sebelius seriously, not because she's not a viable choice (she is) but because in this current election if he's going to pick a woman it pretty much HAS to be Hillary. Anything other than that is likely to be seen as a slap in the face by her supporters. Evan Bayh seems to be a perenially popular VP finalist (Gore and Kerry also had them on their lists) and Indiana is seen as a swing state, so that goes in his favor. But recently there are concerns that Bayh's wife, who does work for 7 corporate boards and earned over $800k from them last year, could also undercut his message about breaking from corporate ties and being in the pockets of lobbyists. That leaves Gov. Tim Kaine. Virginia has been seen as a Republican stronghold in recent Presidential elections but with a now Democratic governor and the election of Democratic Senator Jim Webb in 2006 that could be poised to change. So, in that respect he certainly passes the "can he deliver a state?" criteria. But outside of Virginia he's not very well known and Obama already has a difficult enough time getting the rest of the nation's undecided voters comfortable with him let alone trying to introduce them to his VP as well. Speculation has really heated up over Kaine considering that he is set to campaign with him today and spend the night as his guest in Virginia tonight. But is it a visit to tell Kaine personally that he's his choice, or is it a consolation prize?

So what do I think (like you asked or care)? I think that as of 10 days ago Obama was leaning towards Kaine. However, I think the Russia-Georgia incident has underscored his need to get somebody with foreign policy experience to undercut the Republican's ability to say that the world is too dangerous to leave the country's security and diplomacy in the hands of someone so inexperienced. I also can't see why he would be publicly campaigning with Kaine the day or two before the announcement. To me it seems like since he knows he's not going to pick him he wants to still use the last day of speculation to draw more attention to them together then they otherwise would have received if the decision had already been made. So, in the end, I think it's going to be Biden and I can't say that I'm unhappy with that pick.

Of course, there's always the possibility that someone comes completely out of the blue and surprises everyone. And I was surprised that 3 names in particular were not among the finalists: Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. From what I've read, Richardson was never really considered and Strickland and Rendell said they didn't want it. Of course, there's the old political axiom that "the VP is the job that nobody wants but nobody turns down."

Guess I'll just have to keep a close eye on my cell phone for the next couple days . . .

I Got . . .Something

OK, still don't have much. Although I've been following politics very closely over the last couple weeks (I fell a little behind on my issues of The Economist but have caught up by reading 3 issues in the last 3 days). However, on the discussion side I've honestly been a little politic'd out. I think it's because I know that with the DNC convention coming at the end of the month and then the RNC one right after it's going to really move the campaigning into high gear and that's likely all we'll hear about for the two months after that till election day. Still, I do have a couple thoughts . . .

First, yesterday in the first Guantanamo war crimes trial the driver for Osama Bin Laden was given what most consider to be a pretty light sentence: 5 and a half years. Since he's already served 5 of those years, that means he is eligible to be released in 6 months. I actually have no interest in discussing whether or not his sentence was fair (because I know what that will quickly devolve into). However, this is the line from the story that really got to me: "U.S. authorities insist they could hold him indefinitely without charge as an 'enemy combatant'." So, that means that someone can be convicted of a crime, sentenced, serve their sentence, and then still not be released? If that's the case, then the trial is nothing but a farce and brings us one step closer to the type of governing you see in places like Zimbabwe, where the incumbent loses an election but still gets to stay in power. Now, the story does go on to say that "defense lawyers and human rights groups say the military will face pressure to release him at the end of his sentence", but the fact that it's even an option that he won't be is apalling. Again, as we should be asking with almost everything we do now, how do you think this appears to the rest of the world?

Next, while catching up on the afore-mentioned Economists I was reading one of their special reports on emerging technologies in energy. In particular, while reading an article on the re-emergence of nuclear reactors I was struck by the latest perversion of language being thrust upon us. As is common knowledge, all nuclear reactors have within them safety mechanisms that are automatically triggered without human intervention if certain conditions exist. These used to be referred to as "fail-safes". However, apparently we can't have any derivation of the word "failure" anywhere near a discussion about nuclear power; so now they're called "passive safety" mechanisms. This got me onto a line of thinking about all sorts of semantic changes we have to endure so that expressions that describe exactly what something is are replaced or softened because they are unpallatable for some reason. Speaking of failure, a few years ago a British Teacher's Union debated removing "failure" from all situations in school and replacing it instead with deferred success. Thankfully, that was voted down, but now we are treated to debates that aren't much less ridiculous. After Al-Maliki has started to come around on the idea of setting some goals for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, we now get to hear that the Bush administration, while still against "timetables" for withdrawal, are ok with having time horizons. The fact that we will really have to listen to our prospective future Presidents seriously debate the difference between the two makes me want to weep. My favorite quote about this was from The Daily Show the other night ("Isn't a horizon something that you keeping moving toward but never reach?"). George Carlin was someone who was greatly annoyed by euphemisms, and has a lot of classic bits about just this type of language softening. One of the best is on what we've done to the term describing when someone in combat has their nervous system stressed to beyond the breaking point. It used to be called shell shock in WWI; then it became battle fatigue in WWII; then Operational Exhaustion in Korea; and then finally we arrived at Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in Vietnam. As he was so great at doing, he takes a somewhat goofy premise and lets us know why we should care about it: "I bet you if we'd still been calling it shell shock, some of those Vietnam veterans might have gotten the attention they needed at the time."

I Got Nothin' . . .

So, yeah this is more a blogging for the sake of blogging and so that I don't have to remind myself that it's been 10 days since I posted anything and over two weeks since I really posted anything. Well, not too much to report. The trip to Texas was good; the pizza place is starting to take off and get consistently busy. Got out to play golf twice, which is enjoyable even though I'm not very good. Saw a couple movies while we were there (The Dark Knight and Wall-E); both of which were excellent. Now this week I'm just trying to get back into the swing of things work-wise and starting to count down the days till my next vacation (a trip to Vegas in September for my friend Shoma's wedding).

This weekend we are going to yet another Cubs game; our 2nd and final trip of the year to the bleachers. Pending today's outcome, hopefully we will be seeing the Cubs go for 7 in a row with Zambrano on the mound. I am a bit leary because they are playing the Pirates. I have personally attended three Cubs/Pirates games where the Cubs blew the game in the 9th and lost. Of course, I also have seen the Cubs pummel the Pirates in Wrigley and I was there in 2003 the day they swept a double-header from them to clinch the division. Other than that, should be a pretty relaxing weekend, especially since I have Monday off.

On another note, next weekend is the half marathon and . . .well, I'm thinking I'm not running it. The two main motivations I had when I signed up were 1) getting Christy motivated to do it; and 2) giving myself a goal to train for rather than just running for the sake of running. Well, motivation #1 went out the window in early June, and motivation #2 went out the window 3 weeks ago when I stopped running. So now, considering I already ran the half last year, I can't really think of a good reason to try and squeeze a month's worth of training into a week just so I can have the pleasure of waking up at 4:00 in the morning next Sunday to run 13.1 miles on what will likely be a sweltering day. So, all in all, looks like that was $100 well spent for the both of us . . .

One brief foray into politics; I was happy to read this in this week's Economist: "A few year's ago, no politician would have been seen with a book called 'The Post-American World'. Mr. Obama has been conspicuously reading Fareed Zakaria's recent volume."