It sounded grand. When he started the speech I was sure he was going to make a huge announcement. And then John McCain told the nation that his running mate will be Sarah Palin. Immediately a co-worker of mine told me: "He chose her because Tootsie was not available."
His justification: she has a proven track record of fighting big oil and executive experience. OK, I do think that the Democratic ticket lacks executive experience as both nominees have only legislative seats in their resumé. But, with all due respect, being the mayor of a 9,000 strong town in Alaska and then becoming governor of a state with less than 700,000 inhabitants does not necessarily qualify as executive experience in my opinion. The mayor of Newark has more experience than her, if you stop to think about it.
The bottom-line is, why on Earth did McCain choose Palin? Sure, the obvious answer is, she is a woman so with her he can round-up all those Hillary Clinton votes who are not so sure about Barack Obama. And she is young, so he slaps back those who point at his age as a problem for him to become president.
Which, by the way, reminds me: when McCain was born Alaska was not even a state yet. In fact, its statehood completes 50 years in 2009.
Anyway, my point is, did he really choose her for those reasons alone? I mean, seriously, this woman will become president if McCain is elected and dies suddenly - something not that impossible considering he just turned 72.
I am not sure I want to have our first woman president coming from Alaska. And, more important, I am sure I do not want to have a president who chooses his deputy based on gender and electoral appeal.
As Eric Cartman would say, screw you guys, I'm going home.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Thursday, August 28, 2008
She is better off as senator
I finally saw the Hillary Clinton I hoped for during the primaries. Her address to the Democratic convention on Tuesday was powerful, witty, to the point and politically savvy.
I was thrilled listening to it, something that did not happen a single time when I followed the primaries. She strongly supported Barack Obama's bid for the presidency, but discreetly brought the democrats' attention to issues he may not be addressing as directly as she would like.
She also showed bright rhetoric when she began mentioning John McCain, saying he is a friend and has served the nation with valour, just to begin pointing out what are, in her opinion, the reasons why he should not be elected. Sounded to me like she was using McCain's very weapon of heartfelt sincerity against him.
She was more confident than ever, and more powerful too. I am very happy to see that she is going to be a driving force in the Senate during the next term, regardless of who is sworn in.
It was just sad to see that she could not find her full force until she was bowing out of the election.
Oh well, I guess that is it. Hillary Clinton is just better off as a senator.
I was thrilled listening to it, something that did not happen a single time when I followed the primaries. She strongly supported Barack Obama's bid for the presidency, but discreetly brought the democrats' attention to issues he may not be addressing as directly as she would like.
She also showed bright rhetoric when she began mentioning John McCain, saying he is a friend and has served the nation with valour, just to begin pointing out what are, in her opinion, the reasons why he should not be elected. Sounded to me like she was using McCain's very weapon of heartfelt sincerity against him.
She was more confident than ever, and more powerful too. I am very happy to see that she is going to be a driving force in the Senate during the next term, regardless of who is sworn in.
It was just sad to see that she could not find her full force until she was bowing out of the election.
Oh well, I guess that is it. Hillary Clinton is just better off as a senator.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Paris Hilton's energy policy is... stupid.
I just saw this great joke a website put together with Paris Hilton. Check it out. http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/64ad536a6d I love the idea.
Just one problem, when they tried to make Paris look smart by piecing together the energy policies touted by Barack Obama and John McCain, they looked stupid. In what seems to be a moment of genius for the blond celeb, Paris suggests allowing limited offshore oil drilling (McCain's proposal) to make-up for the fuel shortfall while investment in new fuel-saving technologies (Obama's idea) starts kicking-in. Sounds great.
Just one problem: if that were to be done, the new technologies would probably be in the market before the oil from the offshore drilling. See, oil drilling is a long-term process. If the legislation to allow for the new drilling areas were passed, it would take at least another five years before we start pumping oil from our ocean shelf. A more conservative estimate would be ten years. That is plenty of time for automakers to bring new fuel options to dealerships.
Truth is, both programs are skirting the much easier short-term solution: ethanol and natural gas. Brazil has been using both for a number of years with great success. The automakers already have full command of the technology to allow cars to run on these fuels and all it takes is commitment from gas station operators to have a pump for them everywhere.
As for the food crisis that ethanol could cause, as I have been reading over and over again, that only applies if the US is stubborn on its decision to use only its own ethanol made from (expensive and inefficient) corn.
It makes me wonder what are the true vested interests in the energy policies of both candidates. Sorry, I stand corrected, of the three candidates.
Just one problem, when they tried to make Paris look smart by piecing together the energy policies touted by Barack Obama and John McCain, they looked stupid. In what seems to be a moment of genius for the blond celeb, Paris suggests allowing limited offshore oil drilling (McCain's proposal) to make-up for the fuel shortfall while investment in new fuel-saving technologies (Obama's idea) starts kicking-in. Sounds great.
Just one problem: if that were to be done, the new technologies would probably be in the market before the oil from the offshore drilling. See, oil drilling is a long-term process. If the legislation to allow for the new drilling areas were passed, it would take at least another five years before we start pumping oil from our ocean shelf. A more conservative estimate would be ten years. That is plenty of time for automakers to bring new fuel options to dealerships.
Truth is, both programs are skirting the much easier short-term solution: ethanol and natural gas. Brazil has been using both for a number of years with great success. The automakers already have full command of the technology to allow cars to run on these fuels and all it takes is commitment from gas station operators to have a pump for them everywhere.
As for the food crisis that ethanol could cause, as I have been reading over and over again, that only applies if the US is stubborn on its decision to use only its own ethanol made from (expensive and inefficient) corn.
It makes me wonder what are the true vested interests in the energy policies of both candidates. Sorry, I stand corrected, of the three candidates.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Racial profiling in Israel? Just make sure you shave.

My recent exit from Israel proved to be harder than I expected for a very simple reason: I had not shaved throughout my ten days of vacation. Despite my American name and passport, my long facial hair meant special attention when checking in at Ben Gurion airport.
I had already been surprised by their system at the checkpoint for cars entering the airport to drop-off passengers. A uniformed security guard stops the vehicle and asks one question: where are you coming from? After the answer he lets the car in or pulls it aside. I asked the person driving my car how does that work to spot potential terrorists. His answer: the guard just wants to see your accent in Hebrew.
Then came the check-in ordeal. A youngster of little more than 21 made me a battery of questions. Why are you here? How long have you been here? Do you speak Hebrew? How did you learn what you know? Is it your first time? Not to mention he asked me at least three times my name and date of birth to see if I got confused.
You have to give it to them that they are serious about security. But when the person checking my identity walked away with my passport and took almost 15 minutes to reappear, I started to get annoyed. That was when my companion called the beard issue to my attention.
I got comfort when I saw another security person grill a couple of old people who were as American as you get - yes, they were southern, were strongly built, to put it nicely, and the clear hypertension they suffered from gave their skin, and necks, a distinct red color. But then I noticed that the same couple was accompanied by a guide of sorts who looked - you guessed - Arab.
I know they have their reasons. But coming from a country in which during 25 years of dictatorship you could be interrogated by the police just for walking around in groups bigger than three people, I cannot agree with Israel's methods.
I do not mean to pretend that I can teach Israel how to maintain its security tight. But I do wish they were more scientific about their screening and stuck to bomb-sniffing dogs and metal detectors.
I am sorry to say, but it reminded me of the racial profiling Jews suffered during the second world war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)