Eyes Open, Please.

Already, the mumbling and grumbling have begun. Liberals are discovering that, lo and behold, Barack Obama is—horror of horrors!—a politician.

People have, for months, been crusading for a new kind of politics, and a clear choice against war, and a candidate who will bring us all together, a pure candidate. Now they’re discovering that Senator Obama first, and foremost, wants to win the election.

The liberals made the same miscalculation about Governor Howard Dean, the current Democratic Party Chairman. He, like Obama, believed in a fair and well-run government, but he was also a politician.

I disagree with Alvy Singer, Woody Allen’s character in his masterpiece, “Annie Hall,” who says “Lyndon Johnson’s a politician. That’s one notch underneath child molester.”

There’s no purity in politics. It’s not a field for people who don’t want their food to touch on the plate. In a democratic republic, the American form of government, compromise is called for in the Constitution. That was the whole point of dividing up the power.

Any candidate for the Presidency is committed to formulate policy that will work best for the United States. If that means you pledged “no new taxes,” but now find you have to raise taxes, you do it. Not because you lack character, but because nobody campaigning for the White House can possibly know how our circumstances will change.

If the Illinois senator has shared a detail or two about potential future policies, and those details don’t fit the liberal or independent orthodoxys, that’s no reason to withdraw your support.

The devil is in the details, of course. Which leads me back to my original reservation about Obama. Not that it would ever sway me over to vote for Senator Doubletalk.

My reservation is, Mr. Obama’s enjoys listing all the specific ways that the politicians and the politics of the last thirty years have failed. But he talks about the future in lofty generalities.

While he’s spoken nobly of improving all of our lives, and the character of our country, in general, I know of no one precise policy that Mr. Obama has promised to uphold. Perfect for an era where specifics make you vulnerable.

And just like a politician.

Conservation Guru, Anyone?

Advocates are calling on us to reduce fossil fuel emissions and conserve energy by reducing our speeds on the road. We’re also recycling more, to reduce waste and get more out of the packaging we use.

Plus, it helps to reduce the amount of air conditioning we run and to turn off lights once you leave the room.

All good ideas, but I need to find a “Conservation Guru” on some mountaintop to ask (after removing my sandals and bowing in humility):

If I’m driving uphill, do I conserve more energy by driving slowly, or by getting out of first gear, where my car works the hardest?

If I’m going downhill, do I conserve more energy by braking the car to slow down, or by using the momentum of gravity to create some of my cars acceleration?

Do I save more energy by shutting off the air conditioning completely when I leave, or by setting it at a reasonable temperature so that when I come in at 2 in the afternoon I don’t have to blast it to cool it down?

Do I save more energy by turning the lights off every time I leave the room, or only if I’m sure I’m not coming back in in a couple of minutes? In other words, does it take more energy for the bulb to burn, or to turn it on? Actually, I have the same question about the car. If I’m stopping for under a minute should I keep the car running? Doesn’t it use the most fuel when I start it up?

Does the amount of energy and water used to clean my recyclables, and the resources necessary to reconvert the plastics back into usable plastic objects, justify the recycling process?

How about paper? Why don’t newspapers simply pick up the papers at the end of the week, the way milkmen did back in the day?
Pick up the “empties,” recycle them, and send ‘em right back to us the next week.

Is it fair?

I rent my home.

It’s not that I don’t want to own a house. It’s not that I don’t understand that home ownership is one of the keystones of our communities.

It’s that I can’t afford to buy a house.

My work supports me. But when I looked at the cost of houses, the crazy mortgage terms out there, the important additional budgeting you need for repair, maintenance and upgrading the property, and the insecurity of the business I’m in, I felt that it’d be irresponsible to buy a home.

If you bought your home, that’s terrific. I think it’s wonderful.

Now, here comes the tough part. I pay taxes. Including property taxes, by the way—they’re passed along in my rent. But why should my tax dollars be used to help out homeowners who got in over their heads?

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t want anyone to go homeless, or needlessly suffer.

But while I’ve been living within my means, people have been going out and getting second and third mortgages, and buying themselves everything they “deserve.”

Life challenges all of us. All of us deserve the best.

But if you’ve just eaten a lavish gourmet meal, why should somebody who never entered the restaurant have to pick up the check?

S U V; No C U

While we’re on the subject of happy motoring, let me mention… gas guzzler gas guzzler gas guzzler… that’s all I hear about SUVs. Believe me, they’ll eventually find a way to make SUVs a lot more fuel efficient. And when they do… SUVs will still be a terrible idea.

Let’s remember that all of our roads, parking spaces, no parking zones, signs, lights, intersections and lane lines, are all based on the idea of a society predominantly filled with sedans, wagons, or coupes, their widths fairly standardized, their drivers relatively close to the ground.

All these years, when the surveyors came out with their little tripods and markings, they’ve based their measurements on the standard lines-of-sight in a sedan-dominated world.

Our roads are a national, state and city “common.” They’re an area we all share. It’s like a neighborhood grazing ground. If your cows eat more, it’s less for everyone else. If your vehicle is taller and wider, you take away visibility, maybe safety, and certainly peace of mind, from everyone else on the road.

If you’re in front of me in an SUV, I can’t see where I’m going. If you’re parked next to my car, in an SUV, I can’t see oncoming cars when I back out.

In traffic, the driver behind you has no idea what’s going on—what other traffic is in the area, why there’s a delay, or what obstacles might be coming up.

My first objection to the whole giant car craze is, you’ve just built walls around the rest of us.
Sure, then there’s that whole thing of consuming the same amount of gas that I use when I drive my sedan, if I’m towing a flaming gas tank behind me.

I Hate to Nit-Pick

On July first, California's new "hands-free" cellphone law went into effect, requiring all drivers to use hands-free cellphones.

There are only 2 things wrong with the law:

1. Drivers aren't complying with it. I've seen dozens of fellow motorists zipping by with their hands welded to their ears; and

2. If everyone complies, it won't work. The National Safety Council did a study on the dangers of cellphone use while driving. Their conclusion? It's not what your HANDS are doing; it's what your HEAD is doing:

"The study found that driver distractions due to cell phone use can occur regardless whether hand­held or hands­free cell phones are used, and that cell conversations create much higher levels of driver distractions than listening the radio or audio books.

The authors suggest that banning hand­held devices, but permitting hands­free devices in motor vehicles is not likely to significantly reduce driver distractions associated with cell phone conversations."

Carnegie Mellon Professor Marcel Just told the Pennsylvania State Legislature the same thing, in March of this year.

But there are benefits. If you own a company that makes Bluetooth or other hands-free gadgets, this is a terrific law.

It's not that hands-free is a bad idea. It just doesn't solve the problem.

Welcome to "Carry the 3," a running commentary about social, political and entertainment/ cultural issues, and whatever else comes to mind.

The title comes from an episode of the "Batman" tv series. The episode features Victor Buono, as the archvillain "King Tut," a gentle Egyptology professor who occasionally has psychotic breaks where he thinks he's the reincarnation of King Tut and wreaks havoc on Gotham City.

In this episode, King Tut discovers that the Batcave is directly under "stately Wayne Mansion"!!! Buono is hilarious, as "Tut" says "Why...carry the three...why that means Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson are Batman and Robin!!"

So, "Carry the 3" is my shorthand for processing the information we have and making some sense out of it.

Tim Russert, 1950 -2008

We had him, we didn’t realize what we had, and now he’s gone. Tim Russert was so consistently excellent at his job, and so grateful and delighted to be doing it, that it was easy for most of us to take him for granted. He acted as though he was just a working stiff, and we took him at his word. Mr. Russert loved the workings of politics; he loved to dig in and find out who had the cards and who was bluffing.

It was never an ego trip with Russert; it was the process of getting at the heart of things. It was never done with anger or arrogance; it was done with delight at being part of it all. That’s why so many of his interview “victims” have been praising him over these past few days.

At a time when politicians hire a staff of people to control access to them, Mr. Russert established himself as the one interviewer who had to be told the truth. And no one who wanted political power could afford to avoid his forum.

I don’t mean to diminish all the tributes pouring in about what a wonderful family man, friend, and humanitarian Tim Russert was.

For most Americans, though, what we’re most grateful for, is a man who insisted that powerful people stop tap dancing and tell us the truth.

From 3/16/08:

Another 5 tenths of a percent, and this would be a blowout.

To be totally upfront about this, let me start by saying, Barack Obama has the delegate lead he has, fair and square. He has the popular vote lead as well, fair and square.

So, why doesn’t Hillary just concede and quit?

Here’s one reason.

2.6%. That’s Obama’s lead in vote totals. Superdelegates have already started to say, “the voters have spoken, so we’ll go with Obama.”

Well, once again, here’s what the voters have said when they’ve spoken: 13.3 million for Barack, 12.6 million for Hillary. With Pennsylvania, and North Carolina still undecided, and however they resolve those pointless primaries in Michigan and Florida (whose votes obviously shouldn’t count, but something’s gotta be done.)

Yup. A clear consensus. Out of about 26 million votes, Barack Obama leads by about 700,000.

It’s March. The convention is this summer. I say, let's all take a nice deep breath. Everything will be just fine.

From 3/19/08:

SUPERDELEGATES! Who have powers far beyond mortal delegates. But, how should they vote? We're asking the wrong question, says Professor Stanley Fish, in this fascinating piece in the New York Times.

From 3/19/08:

HAMMER TIME!!

Wanna feel really terrific?? Then do what I just did. About fifty different websites say, the simplest way to protect your security when you recycle your old computer, is to HAMMER THE BEJEBUS OUT OF YOUR HARD DRIVE!!! My hard drive served me well, I know. Even so, I thought of it as revenge. I decided to punish the hard drive for every
$*&#(% “error message,”
every rassafrassin'
“you have performed an illegal operation”
(right. I tried to save a Word document. Take me in, officer...),
all the nonsense these contraptions cause.
“Contraptions?” Are they “new-fangled” contraptions? Do the “youngsters” enjoy them? I guess it’s about 5 minutes before liniment over at my place. And get off my lawn, by gum. The good news: a hard drive is pretty durable.
You really get to release all your anger to get the job done. Running it over with my car didn't even make a dent. I may be buying new hard drives, just for therapy.

From 3/18/08:


FUN WITH PHOTOS!
President Bush: "Our economic policy is just this far off. Not too bad."
Treasury Secretary Paulson: "Dear Lord, no! He's talking again!"

From 3/13/08:

When Senator Barack Obama was kind enough to respond to our request for a hands-off policy toward other Democrats, he was quick to remind us that pointing out differences isn't the same as attacking. Wouldn't it be great if everyone in the Obama camp grasped this concept? Of course, strongly in his favor is the fact that, at least Senators Obama and Edwards, and Democratic Chairman Howard Dean responded. I haven't heard word one from Senator Clinton. So, as always, it's a mixed bag. You've got to credit the Senator, and his campaign, for being attentive and responsive to different points of view. But you've also got to wonder what all the griping is about.

From 3/4/08:
"Let the seas clap hands in gladness about how wonderful I am"

Hang on for a second. I’ve got the vertigo again. Always happens when I hear the Oracle of Illinois, Barack Obama, once again give his commencement speech. For months, Senator Obama has done his thing… his well-written mash-ups of Franklin Roosevelt, Mario Cuomo, John F. Kennedy and the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, with a little Thomas Jefferson tossed in.

Other candidates, especially Hillary Clinton, have stood there like a stunned moose, either dazzled by his eloquence, or afraid to challenge him. Mrs. Clinton, in particular, had been seeing this as some sort of “America’s Next Model” competition, trying to prove that she could be as smooth and attractive and genial as Senator Obama. Nice try, Hill. Nobody beats Barack Obama on that score. Senator Clinton has moved on from that approach. Now we’re in a new phase. After all these months of listening to Obama’s orations from Mount Olympus, Hillary has begun to campaign as though she wants the job. First the Oprah challenge: After months of hearing that Obama’s “story” makes him the best candidate, Hillary is piercing that by talking about the actual requirements of the job.

The reaction from the Obama camp is “how dare she?” Like she’s spitting on the flag by going beyond the “story.” Then, she talks about “experience.” For a while, the Clinton campaign had been acting as though if she didn’t mention her age, everyone would think she was 41. Finally, Senator Clinton is talking about her own resume, and pointing out specific ways that she’s been tested, that Senator Obama hasn’t. I’ve heard two responses from the Obama camp: first, experience doesn’t count if you’re wrong. Second, what experience has she had?

Notice that neither of those questions responds to the issue. Because she has had vastly more experience, in a variety of kinds of service. But let’s answer those questions. The answer to the first: one of the values of experience is understanding that inevitably, you will be wrong, not infallibly “right” , that your adversaries have reasons for what they do, that might be no less noble than your own, and a grasp of the massive complexities involved in running this country. That decisions about defense, about health care, all the decisions you make, aren’t necessarily about how noble you are, but how willing you are to take a half a loaf when that’s all that’s on the table.

The answer to the second, is that she’s worked for children, for foster children, for parents, worked on laws to fight child abuse, and was on the staff of the House Judiciary Committee when it considered impeaching Richard Nixon, who left office before that impeachment could take place. She ran a legal aid clinic for the poor in Arkansas, President Carter appointed her to the United States Legal Services Corporation, a federal nonprofit program that funds legal assistance for the poor. She improved education in Arkansas, serving on that state’s task force. She also led the American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the Profession, fighting against sexual harassment and for equal pay for women. All this was before the White House.

She’s done plenty since, including her service in the U.S. Senate since 2000, and she’s served on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Democrats are angry about Bush’s treatment of the CHIP program. (Children's Health Insurance Program). But it seems few remember how Senator Clinton has worked to build it. You can read for yourself on her website. The point is, there’s plenty of experience there and the question is kinda ridiculous. The Clinton campaign has called attention to how often Senator Obama has voted “present” rather than yes or no, on a variety of Senate issues. Obama’s supporters say they’re nitpicking. They don’t say he hasn’t voted “present” a great many times. On the meeting between a senior economic adviser from the Obama campaign and Canadian officials, Obama’s campaign says that nobody said anything to anyone. But in fact, there was a meeting.

I don’t expect anyone to be able to openly discuss the meeting. I’d expect everyone to deny the statements in the resulting memo from a Canadian official, saying that Obama’s opposition to NAFTA was more political than actual. But we don’t know what happened. Obama supporters are quick to blame Senator Clinton. Right. Now let’s take a look at some of the punches and slices Senator Obama has dealt Mrs. Clinton. Much has been made about how savvy the Obama campaign is about new media. But check out a chat room sometime, and you’ll hear plenty. You’ll see, over and over again, how the Obamans link the Clintons and the Bushes. As though we haven’t just spent seven-plus years with the lamest president of the modern era, who followed eight years of peace and prosperity, social progress, and a far more compassionate government, with Bill Clinton. Somewhere, on his nightstand, or inscribed in the breast pocket of every jacket, Barack Obama must have the phrase, “she was for the war before she was against it.” In this campaign, the Iraq War is a loser issue for Senator Clinton, so she tries to zip through a response and change the subject. But it sure would be nice if someone would just point out what a pile of disingenuous nonsense that remark is. It worries me that someone who wants to lead the free world is that glib and facile in making political hay out of that difficult vote. And I can’t wait until he has to deal with the Senate and the House. Beyond that, we’ve heard lecture after lecture about the divisiveness of the “old politics.” That “divisiveness” is an American tradition going back to the founders of this country. In fact, even before.

If you’d have put it to a vote, historians say, you’d have been hard pressed to find a majority who wanted Independence from England. Granted, the Bush administration has created a far more vitriolic form of governing and settling scores than anyone since James Buchanan, back in the 1850’s. Where we can work together, we should. But where we differ, we should point that out too. It’s messy. It’s upsetting. But all that noise is what the pulse of a democracy sounds like. Maybe that’s why I’m able to avoid going ballistic when Obamans repeatedly call for Hillary to drop out of the race. Entering the March fourth primaries, Obama has a 160-delegate lead. Again, as always with Obama’s campaign, the tactics are perfect. Time to start selling your own inevitability. I understand why many Obamans want Clinton out. They want the new politics, where you run unopposed and are ushered into office by an omni-partisan welcoming committee of noble, gentle, people. For all this time, Senator Obama has been saying “this campaign isn’t about me—it’s about YOU!!!! It’s taken all this time for Senator Clinton to say, “But what if it IS about you? Not about your story, not about your parents, not about everyone else in America and the world, but about you, your short track record, meteoric rise, and your campaign, based not on achievements, but on the power of your personality?”