flights

I’ve been off the grid for a couple weeks, backpacking with my brothers. We embarked a day or two after McCain announced his surprising (and IMHO almost surreal) choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate. This, and she, dominated the headlines as we headed into the mountains, and I was hoping the shock and awe would have faded by the time we got back.

The press’s attention span is an interesting thing. It’s still all Palin all the time, and the Republicans seem to be fine with that. They can’t win on the issues, so why wouldn’t they be?

Anyway, I’ve designed a graphic for the new Republican ticket (above). Let me know if you want some stickers.

Edward Tufte famously declared that PowerPoint is evil, and in my life as a consultant, I’ve witnessed quite a bit of love and hate directed at the ol’ ppt. OK, maybe not love per se, but you’d think so from the application’s sheer ubiquity in all manner of pitches, strategies and summaries.

It’s a sign of confidence to present without PowerPoint, and many kudos are laid upon the rare folks who can stand in front of a room and communicate sans slides, charts, bullets or script.

Obama does this. Much is made of how eloquent he is, and it’s worth emphasizing that he often speaks without even so much as a note card. Even when he stands behind a podium, he never looks down.

But now, as we find ourselves in the thick of the presidential race, and silly talk of flag pins and tire gauges is starting to give way to headier discussions of the economy and energy policy, maybe it’s time for a little PowerPoint.

As the candidates argue about the efficacy of offshore drilling - one saying it won’t affect gas prices for a decade or two or perhaps at all, and the other saying it will bring down prices in a few months - it’s nothing but two guys arguing until someone busts out some data.

When Obama talks about the economic and national security impacts of importing so much of our oil from questionable dictators, it’s nothing but words until you actually hear factoids like…

• Enough solar energy falls on the surface of the earth every 40 minutes to meet 100 percent of the entire world’s energy needs for a full year.
• We send $2 billion every 24 hours to foreign countries to buy nearly 70 percent of the oil we use every day.

Those, by the way, came from Al Gore’s recent “Generational Challenge to Repower America” speech. I use Al Gore as an example because he won a Academy Award for a PowerPoint presentation. An Academy Award. For a PowerPoint presentation.

Clearly, you can’t fault the medium for the crap that you normally see in PowerPoint.

Remember Ross Perot running for president in 1992? He produced the first-ever infomercials for a presidential campaign. He didn’t use PowerPoint, but he showed us lots of charts and graphs. He was dismissed by many as a cartoon and a crank, but he got nearly 20% of the vote. That’s nearly unheard-of for a third-party candidate.

Bottom line is, the candidates are good at spewing positions and opinions, and they may think that people have no patience for the nitty gritty. But I think they’re wrong. I believe the first candidate who can effectively illustrate his opinions, who can bolster his positions with facts and figures packaged as delicious bite-sized morsels will take a huge leap in the polls.

In a word: compromise.

Now, compromise is often a good thing. I’m all for bi-partisanship. I want a candidate and a president who’s truly willing to look at all sides of an issue and accept that the other party’s point of view might be the right one. I don’t want a candidate who simply panders to the left or the right, and I actually appreciate Obama’s willingness to buck many members of his own party with his recent vote on the FISA bill, as an example.

I’m all for having “no red states and no blue states, but only the United States.”

But then there’s compromise that just seems spineless in a particularly Democrat kind of way, and that’s what I feel like I witnessed this week.

Barack Obama recently took a few steps back from his stance against expanding offshore oil drilling, saying:

If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well-thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage - I don’t want to be so rigid that we can’t get something done.

This is a compromise that seems transparently political. Obama’s lead over McCain has all but evaporated over the last week, and polls indicate that the candidates’ opposing views on oil drilling is a key factor. Obama’s move toward the Republican position on oil drilling, therefore, seems like a calculated attempt to neutralize McCain in this one area where he seems to have shown some strength, rather than a sincere effort to reach bi-partisan consensus. It is, “the same old politics” as Obama himself might say.

The problem with this particular compromise is that Obama has professed to agree with virtually all the experts on this issue (including spokesmen from the major oil companies) who say that expanding offshore drilling will have no effect on fuel prices until at least 2017, and little effect even then. This is the truth, and Obama knows it.

So this compromise feels political. It feels like pandering.

It takes quite a bit of courage for a candidate to stand up for the truth when it means telling people what they don’t want to hear, and Obama has made himself out to be the rare Democrat who has that kind of courage. Obama should tell people the truth. He should make a vigorous, passionate case for the truth.

The Republicans have succeeded in clouding the truth on this issue, and Obama’s response should be to clear away the clouds, to shine a bright light on the truth. Instead, he has chosen to accept the clouds.

My belief is that this kind of compromise is what has killed the Democratic Party. When you compromise on everything, then you stand for everything. And when you stand for everything, you stand for nothing.

And when you stand for nothing, then you don’t really give voters an alternative to what the other party offers.

And come election time, if you don’t offer an alternative to what the other party offers, then the people who don’t want to vote for the other party will simply stay home.

RELATED: Why the Democrats will lose in ‘08 - Part 1

Don’t ask me why, but I was looking at Sean Hannity’s website today. OK, I was looking for a video clip of his recent interview with Shelby Steele that I learned about via Digg or reddit or something. Anyway, once I was there, I found myself clicking around out of sheer amazement.

Right away, I was assaulted by an orgy of red, white and blue that makes Stephen Colbert’s set look sedate. This is the obligatory patriotic pose. When you stand in front of the American flag, you must look proudly into the distance and display the underside of your chin. It also helps to have a second shot of yourself behind you, representing that “over-reaching” quality we want from our government.

Anyway, after I absorbed the full weight of Hannity’s patriotism, I tried searching for “Shelby Steele” and came up with nothing…

I was delighted to see, however, that I can share this page of zero search results with a friend. And I can search for Shelby Steele in the Yellow Pages. Do people still use the Yellow Pages?

Undeterred, I tried searching for Obama…

Nothing. Hmm… An example of “fair and balanced” reporting? How about a search for Clinton…

OK, could be the same thing. How about a couple of searches more in line with Hannity’s views…

Wow! How about another…

So, clearly pure incompetence. Maybe it has something to do with the way every word you search for is transformed into a “Sean Hannity Keyword.”

I want to keep clicking! By far the best thing I found on Sean Hannity’s website was this…

This has to be a joke. It needs to be a joke. But there’s no way Hannity is that funny, so I can only conclude that it’s real. I’m completely hooked at this point, especially when I see…

I love this. Watch out ladies, he’s “ready for it.” He’s actually armed and ready for it, if you look at the picture. Don’t take your eyes off your drink if you’re around this guy, because he’s bound to slip you a rohypnol.  I can’t stop myself from clicking into his profile…

Who would have guessed motor racing and wrestling? I mean, the guy has a high school education. But wait, there’s more…

Wait, twenty-seven? Didn’t your personal information say you were 31?

This dude can’t be real. I’m almost sure he’s fake… but he is the “featured” profile, which either says something about Hannity’s audience (if he’s real) or his ability to run a website (if he’s fake).

I wish I had time to see more, and say more, but it’s midnight, and I’m procrastinating. I have a couple more hours of work left before I can go to bed, so I’ll just leave it here.

It’s not often I agree with Bill Kristol (like… never), but I can’t argue with his op-ed piece in today’s New York Times. Obama gave a commencement address at Wesleyan University, pinch hitting for the ailing Senator Ted Kennedy. He spoke about the importance of public service and self-sacrifice for the greater good, but as Kristol points out:

…there’s one obvious path of service Obama doesn’t recommend — or even mention: military service. He does mention war twice: “At a time of war, we need you to work for peace.” And, we face “big challenges like war and recession.” But there’s nothing about serving your country in uniform.

Whether you agree with a given war or not, dying for one’s country is the ultimate public service and example of self-sacrifice. It’s a shame that Obama didn’t mention it - so close on the heels of Memorial Day. It’s a shame, but it hardly warrants a whole op-ed piece.

Still, maybe Obama should acknowledge the omission. Politicians spend a lot of time pointing out how wrong their opponents are, but it’s amazing what a small capitulation can do.

H.L. Mencken knew this. He used to get a lot of angry letters, and he would often write back. Instead of arguing or digging in or meticulously refuting each point, he would simply say, “maybe you’re right.”

…and not just because my recent investment in oil futures depends on the price continuing to rise.

The sudden upsurge in the price of gas has been the top news story for the past few weeks, and there doesn’t seem to be any relief in sight. Oil is a finite resource, and as China, India and other developing nations have… well… developed, the worldwide demand for oil has shot up. As Americans turn to the government - and the three people campaigning to be the next president - for a solution, it seems amazing that no one saw this coming.

Of course the US leads the rest of the planet by a long shot when it comes to oil consumption, thanks to a combination of massive suburban sprawl, the popularity of gas-guzzling SUVs and a system of government subsidies that keeps our gasoline cheap compared to the rest of the world.

Progressives have lobbied the government for years to raise the mandatory average fuel-efficiency requirements of American cars, and the government’s response over the last eight of those years - especially from that bunch of oilmen in the executive branch - has been predictably dismissive.

The normal Republican philosophy regarding such things is to let the market take care of it. Keep the government out of it, they say. In an ideal world, I totally agree. The government is bloated and slow and bad at getting things done. In reality though, the problem with the Republican hands-off philosophy is that Republicans are totally disingenuous about it.

If the real price of gasoline was actually reflected at the pump, then people would stop using gasoline simply because they couldn’t afford it. People would stop buying gas-guzzling behemoths in favor of smaller cars. People who work in cities would stop moving into houses way out the suburbs, and people who already live in the suburbs would start carpooling or taking public transportation (if it’s even an option). That’s the market at work. We know the market would do its thing because it’s exactly what happened in the past when gas prices shot up for any length of time.

And it’s happening again. Even the modest rise we’ve seen over the past year or so - and it has been modest for Americans, no matter what it feels like - has sent a surge of riders to mass transit, according to this recent article in the New York Times. The difference this time is that given what’s happening with China, India and much of the rest of the developing world, oil prices aren’t likely to level off again… ever.

The bottom line here is that the Republican philosophy works. We just need the courage - yes, courage - to let the market actually do its thing.

Of course there’s another part of me - the part that loves to travel - that’s afraid to see what all this will do to air fares.

“Hillary can’t win, and Obama can’t beat her.”

This seems to be the bottom line in the endless slog toward choosing the Democrat who will run against McCain this fall.

Obama’s platform is “change,” so it’s ironic that nothing changed in the six weeks between Super Tuesday and the Pennsylvania primary.

The American people are certainly craving change, starving for it, so why can’t Obama close the deal? Is he offering the wrong kind of change? Too much change? Too little? Too unspecific?

I admit I’ve sort of stopped paying attention to the Democratic race because frankly the media coverage is painful (all bowling scores, flag pins and other sensationalist trivia), and the candidates themselves seem intent on wallowing in the muck. But when I was more actively following the campaigns of Obama and Clinton, my impression was consistent with the early primary results: Obama was incandescent, dynamic, something new. Clinton was pedestrian, wonky (not to mention cool, ruthless, shrewish).

Obama’s “change” has a lot to do with rejecting the politics of polarization. Obama’s message is about hope and unity (”yes WE can”). When the American people first heard his words, they resonated, and he performed well in the early races. The idea of unity (”not red states and blue states… but the UNITED States”) is powerful, and it’s what Americans want.

But it’s not enough, and that’s what Hillary recognized. That’s why she has been so effective in the last couple of months.

The last eight years have certainly been polarizing, but they have also been characterized by incompetence, arrogance, secrecy and dishonesty. Obama has got the honesty issue in the bag, and he’s effectively positioned himself as the candidate who can unify the country. But Hillary has done a much better job on the issue of competence. On openness and humility it’s probably a toss-up.

Americans want all of this, and so the two candidates - together - sum up the change Americans are craving. That’s the real reason the voters are split almost down the middle. For Hillary to have any hope of securing the nomination (and the presidency), she needs to convince America that she is honest, open and can be a unifying force (not gonna happen). For Obama to win, he needs to convince America that he is no less competent than Clinton.

(to the editors at the New York Times)

Dear Sir:

An editorial in the Times, April 5, observes that “a decade of fierce polemics has failed to resolve this ongoing quarrel” between two contending views: that “the war to preserve a non-Communist, independent South Vietnam could have been waged differently,” and that “a viable, non-Communist South Vietnam was always a myth.” There has also been a third position: That apart from its prospects for success, the United States has neither the authority nor competence to intervene in the internal affairs of Vietnam. This was the position of much of the authentic peace movement, that is, those who opposed the war because it was wrong, not merely because it was unsuccessful. It is regrettable that this position is not even a contender in the debate, as The Times sees it.

On a facing page, Donald Kirk observes that “since the term ‘bloodbath’ first came into vogue in the Indochinese conflict, no one seems to have applied it to the war itself — only to the possible consequences of ending the war.” He is quite wrong. Many Americans involved in the authentic peace movement have insisted for years on the elementary point that he believes has been noticed by “no one,” and it is a commonplace in literature on the war. To mention just one example, we have written a small book on the subject (Counterrevolutionary Violence: Bloodbaths in Fact and Propaganda, 1973), though in this case the corporation (Warner Brothers) that owned the publisher refused to permit distribution after publication. But quite apart from this, the observation has been made repeatedly in discussion and literature on the war, by just that segment of opinion that The Times editorial excludes from the debate.

Sincerely yours,
Noam Chomsky
Professor, MIT

and

Edward S. Herman
Professor, University of Pennsylvania

I want to like, Hillary Clinton. I really do.

She’s an accomplished and well-regarded senator, and she’s the only First Lady in my lifetime who tried to make a meaningful contribution during her tenure in the white house.

I want to like her, but she’s making it really hard.

In her presidential campaign, she could choose to focus on her strengths and her many accomplishments. Instead, she keeps inventing stories, revising history, taking cheap shots and insulting our intelligence.

In the last two weeks alone…

• She invented details about her Bosnia visit and then insulted our intelligence by claiming she simply misspoke (um… misspoke dozens of times?)
• She’s taken great pains to make the case that she’s always opposed NAFTA, despite copious evidence to the contrary.
• Responding to calls for her to drop out of the race, she charged that Obama doesn’t want to give Pennsylvanians their chance to vote. It doesn’t rise to the level of the “plagiarism” allegation, but it’s still a cheap shot, considering no such calls have come from Obama or anyone on his staff.
• Finally, when a reporter asked for her to comment on the recent gains Obama has made in the superdelegate count, she feigned ignorance, claiming she doesn’t pay attention to those numbers.

Even if you take her at her word, is this the kind of leader we want? I don’t know about the rest of America, but I’m done with cheap shots. I can’t take any more sniping. And I know it was just one of those obligatory remarks, but if Hillary isn’t paying attention to the superdelegate count, then there’s something seriously wrong with her. The superdelegates are crucial to the outcome of the most important contest of her life. We want her to be paying attention to that.

The narrative the media has painted about Hillary is that she will do anything, absolutely anything, to win the nomination, that she doesn’t have the capacity to put the party or the country ahead of her own ambitions. This is probably unfair, but she hasn’t done a whole lot to dispel this impression.

As a result, she has completely alienated young voters - a constituency that has always favored Obama, but I have to imagine there was a time when they might have warmed to her. At this point, however, judging by the Digg crowd (a skewed lens, I admit), they are passionately anti-Hillary. This is a pretty powerful segment of potential voters, and it’s unfortunate that she has failed so badly with them.