Fun Fact #50: Palin is from Alaska? Really?!

Today was a big day in politics. Now, thanks to Palin becoming McCain's running mate, getting either McCain or Obama into the White House will be a historical event. A lot of people have issues with Palin considering her stances on abortion and off-shore drilling. Personally, I think it's an obvious ploy to try to get the disgrunteled Hilary voters and I hope those voters will realize that though Palin is a woman, she might not be the best person to push a lot of the "women's" issues forward. And while it's always nice to see a woman "break the glass ceiling", it's also kind of uncomfortable to realize that the main reason Palin got her position is due to her gender. I don't see how a man with the same experience (or lackthereof) would've even been considered by McCain.

McCain's choice of Palin seemed like it took a lot of the media by surprise. The NYT.com seems to have been going through all their footage of Palin to try and find one that conveys the proper image as their main picture has been changing constantly. They seemed to have settled on one and it's certaintly an intersting choice:


I love how Palin is dwarfed by both the bear carcass she's sitting on and the giant crab in front of her. It's really just such an awkward picture for the NYT to chose, though I guess they could be trying to showcase her Alaska roots. I'm not a fan of Palin, but I think a lot of their earlier picture choices were more appropriate. Maybe, if we're lucky, tomorrow's picture will have her frolicking in the Alaskan wilderness with some huskies and polar bears while wearing an Eskimo outfit!! Because what could get more Alaksan than that?!

Fun Fact #36: Over 1% of the US adult population is behind bars

It's pretty common knowledge that the prison system in the US leaves a lot to be desired. Harsher punishments and sentences mean that the current prison population is at an all time high. A new non-partisan study reports that more than one in 100 adults are behind bars. This new record high makes the US a clear front runner in prison population rates; China, with a far larger population, comes in second. States are spending about $50 billion a year on corrections.

The statistics regarding minorities are even more mind-boggling: "One in nine black men ages 20 to 34 is behind bars. For black women ages 35 to 39, the figure is one in 100, compared with one in 355 for white women in the same age group". More than 10% of the young black male population is in prison.

The increased prison population could be attributed to a variety of things, there's no single dominating factor. But, as a future law student, one argument is particularly interesting. The amount of defendants who actually utilize a "true" trial has greatly diminished; most people are not tried in front of a jury of their peers (no matter what Law & Order would like you to believe). Many defendants choose to take the deals offered to them by judges (even if they are innocent) because they fear that turning down an offer would result in harsher sentencing if they're found guilty during a trial. Going to trial is risky; there's no guarantee regarding the outcome. Therefore, more defendants are probably going to prison (even for short amounts of time) than there would be if most defendants chose the trial route. And this could contribute to to the increased incarceration rate that we're now seeing.

The statistics I quoted would be somewhat acceptable if our correction system worked, but, fun fact, it doesn't work. A high percentage of people who come out of prisons just go right back in, it's a sad cycle. The violent and dangerous criminals should obliviously be incarcerated, but what about the non-violent offenders who make up almost half of the prison population? The article suggests that "less-expensive punishments such as community supervision, electronic monitoring and mandatory drug counseling might prove as much or more effective than jail".

I consider myself to be a moderate. I don't believe in letting all the non-violent offenders run free or anything like that because I realize "non-violent" may very well just mean "not caught doing anything violent". But something needs to change and I hope that our new president will be up to helping the states with that task. Spending billions of dollars to imprison someone, let them out, and imprison them again just doesn't seem like the best bet.

Fun Fact #35: A bipartisan ticket is not outside the realm of possibilities

I'm not naive, I don't really think a bipartisan ticket is actually going happen in this election. But it is definitely an intriguing idea that could bring about some major changes. And, as I learned in one of my favorite classes, it's not unheard of.

Abraham Lincoln, one of our country's greatest Presidents, actually had a bipartisan ticket when he ran for re-election in 1864 because the country was so divided by the Civil War. Lincoln was a Republican and he asked his Republican Vice President from his first term, Hannibal Hamlin, to step down and Andrew Jackson, a War Democrat, became his new Vice President. They ran under a new party called the Union Party, a coalition of the War Democrats and the Republicans, and won the election. But no one will really no how a bipartisan presidency would have actually worked since Lincoln was assassinated only a little more than a month after his inauguration in 1865.

Also, in 2004, Kerry unofficially asked McCain to be his running mate for the 2004 elections. McCain declined the offer numerous times because he thought it wasn't a viable option. I personally think a Kerry/McCain ticket would have been pretty powerful.

I don't know how feasible a bipartisan ticket actually is but it could happen. Our country is extremely divided now, though not to the extent of America in 1864, and maybe a bipartisan ticket could pull it together. I just doubt that a bipartisan ticket, in this day and age, would every really come to fruition. But a McCain/Hilary ticket is certainly an intriguing concept.

Fun Fact #29: Politics can be utterly confusing

I don't really know what I think should happen with politics. Things are really messed up right now and I cannot imagine anyone coming in and making everything "all better". People talk about the Clinton days as though they were the best times ever, the glory days of our recent political history. But people were complaining and bitching about things then too, politics was just as dirty and fake then as it is now. The Clinton days just look good relative to what Bush has done.

I think the vast majority of Democrats would be more than content with either Obama or Hilary, but I think they're also going to be disappointed. People are expecting huge changes and, as you say Gabe says, that's just not going to happen. Massive changes, the kinds people are are naively demanding and even thinking are going to happen, are way more of a risk than any politician will be willing to take. Big changes can be met with success but they can also be be met with total failure.

People say that Obama is not part of the "political elite" and his presence will shake things up, but I think that's total bullshit. He may not have started as a member of the "elite" but he sure is one now. He's smart and he knows our country wants an "outsider" but that he needs to be an insider to be elected. There's no way the Washington power players would be willing to accept someone like him if he wasn't going to play by their rules. Politics is all about playing the game correctly and Obama has proven to be a master at that with vague statements that provide assurance and hope but no actual promises or plans.

Democrats will get the same outcome with either Hilary or Obama. They'll be happy with finally having a Democrat as president for awhile but soon their hopes for something different will be crushed and they'll realize it's the same as always. Our country goes through cycles; right now we're in a downswing and people will get all excited when the economy inevitably picks up again whoever is in office will be praised and glorified. But our economy will start to falter again and then that person will be vilified.

Also, people seem to think that the President holds more power than he (or she?) actually does. The President is the figurehead of our country, the actual power lies in the cabinet that they pick and the officials that they appoint. And Hilary and Obama will probably be drawing their choices from the same, small pool of Democratic elites.

I would like to see changes, like some form of universal healthcare, but I just don't know how possible they are. The universal health care thing seems to be more of a dream than a reality and I will be amazed if it actually happens. It will take an amazing amount of compromise between all the key political players to even get something feasible on the table.

People often ask me what I would do and how I would change things, but, the truth is, I really have no idea. I don't even know much things can be changed. I don't even know if I like Hilary or Obama better. I really like following politics but it's not because I'm passionate about one candidate or another, I do it because I like watching the "game" that politics have become.

Fun Fact #26: There's an obession with being "PC"

I've always been a news junkie and I like being informed of what's happening around me. The news for the past days has either been focused on the recession we are probably entering (or, according to some sources, already entered) or the current primaries. Economics isn't really my strong point, so I tend to focus more on the political side of things. Though those are admittedly tied together as voters realize that, once again, "It's the economy, stupid".

But while all the candidates are trying to explain how they'll fix the economy, Obama and Hilary have also been engaged in mudslinging fight against each other. They've each brought up the issues of race and sex, and, though they claim they want to focus on the issues, the personal attacks don't look like they're stopping.

The Weekly Standard, a neo-con magazine, printed an article entitled The Wages of Sensitivity. I don't usually read The Weekly Standard, as I find their ultra-conservative rhetoric too extreme, but this article touches on some interesting points about the Hilary v. Obama battle we're currently witnessing.

The article argues that the Clinton's helped define the political correctness in the 1990s that now defines much of the party's rhetoric, but they're being forced to undermine their own ideals in this current race. As the article states:

"In its campaign season from hell, the party of sensitivity has found itself in a head-banging brawl between a black man and white woman, each of them visibly loathing the other, in a situation in which anything said in opposing one of the candidates can be defined as hateful, insensitive, hurtful, demeaning, not to say bigoted, and, worst of all, mean."

I don't agree with everything the article says, but it's a good read that deftly analyzes the cut-throat atmosphere of the Democratic primaries among both the candidates and their supporters. All in all, it seems that people can, and will, take offense to almost any comment if they realize it can benefit.

Fun Fact #24: I don't want to get burned

The upcoming election has caused a lot of attention to be focused on my generation, the Millennials (ages 18-29), as we make about 20% of the registered voters. People are saying that our participation in the election could make or break a candidate like Obama. And while that is certainly a notable fact, I find the articles that seek to analyze the various attributes of the Millennials to be far more interesting. I like to compare the overall analysis of the group to myself and other Millennials that I know; it's almost like reading a horoscope, some parts seem right on but other parts just are just painfully off base or seem like idealistic thinking.

One of the better articles I've read was one MSNBC, "'Youthquake' Shakes Up Electoral Politics". I personally feel that the article does a nice job of looking at the various anxieties that seem to shape our generations views. People often wonder why our generation is not taking to the streets to protest the war, but I think that the lack of extreme protesting (at least relative to the social movements of the '60s) can be partially attributed to the growing focus on domestic problems that we're just watching get worse. We've seen our parents get burned by the economy and we don't want that to happen to us. These excerpts from the article summed up a lot my personal feelings about the current state of affairs.

They grew up during the greatest period of wealth creation in modern history, but watched their elders consume resources and run up deficits as if the party would never end. Then came the dot-com crash, terrorism, war, climate change. Epic uncertainty informs their world view. When asked to name the issues they care most deeply about, bread-and-butter concerns such as the economy, health care, and education routinely rank high.

As the government and employers shift more responsibility for benefits like health care and retirement onto the shoulders of individuals, many Millennials see themselves as unwitting victims. Although that trend has been building for decades, this may be the first generation to fully feel the great shift of risk in their bones.

Millennials, like many Americans, may have lost faith in the political Establishment, but they have utter faith in themselves and their wiki-inspired abilities to get things done.

People often ask me why I'm so "obsessed" with getting everything done so quickly and taking the most practical route (often at the expense of something more fun or exciting). A lot of people with a year to kill will travel Europe or do something exciting, I chose to work for a real estate company in Pittsburgh where I'd make good money but live a dull life. The article above discussed many of my reasons.

I've watched people get burned when they're too idealistic. I believe that I can achieve my dreams, but my dreams are based in reality. I'm not pretending that I could magically become a Supreme Court Justice, that just isn't in my reality. I want to do great things in my life, but everything is just so full of uncertainty.

People jokingly mock me for saying that I'd be willing to work for various "evil corporations", but I totally would assuming they offered me a benefits package and salary that would allow me the financial security that seems to be becoming more and more of rarity in today's world.

I consider myself to be a Democrat. I believe the health care and educational systems in our country are in dire need of repair and that we need to do something to revive the middle class. But I also believe we need to watch out for our own well-being because it looks like we're not going to have anything to fall back on but ourselves when the going gets tough.

Fun Fact #23: I'm going to Oregon!

I'm officially headed back to Oregon in mid-February. I'm super excited to see everyone and I wonder if my Pittsburgh experience will make me appreciate Eugene more. I got an amazingly good deal on the tickets...

Oh, and I mentioned that Obama seemed headed for a win in New Hampshire according to the polls, but Hilary managed to squeak by. I'm really getting into this race, both for the Republican and Democratic nomination, because there's no clear front runner.

Fun Fact #22: There's more than one "fun fact" in this post

So it's been forever since I posted a "fun fact", this is not due to a lack of "fun facts" but can instead be attributed to the fact that I've actually been super busy with various things. This will probably be a longish post due to all "fun facts" that I have to share.

1) I learned how to ski in early in December and I wasn't as truly horrible as I thought I would be. My biggest injury involved my toenail getting jammed into my big toe (thanks to some too small ski boots). It doesn't sound too bad, but it was really painful and gross looking. Even now, almost a month later, my toenail is dark purple/black. I was worried it was going to fall off, but I soon realized it was going to stay securely attached to my foot and decided to paint it dark pink to hide the hideousness. Sadly, the nail polish didn't hide it and the purple shows through making my toe look even weirder.

2)I've been flying tons since being in Pittsburgh, but my most miserable flight had to be the flight back to SD in December. My flight was delayed for hours in a barren section of the Milwaukee airport. There was truly nothing there and the people were so stereotypically Midwestern and nice that I didn't even have the heart to silent judge them. I've never been so bored in my entire life. But the airline somewhat redeemed itself by offering fresh baked cookies on board in place of the standard peanuts and pretzels.

3) I went to a Bat Mitzvah that proved to be the epitome of an NY Bat/Bar Mitzvah. It was super extravagant and over the top. I was sadly seated at the kids' table with my 13 year old sister. But I wasn't too annoyed because one of my other relatives, who is over 40, was also at the kids' table with me and my cousins. We were seated right next to some super loud speakers and I was basically deaf by the end of the party. But, on a more postive note, I was able to watch a bunch of awkward thirteen year olds do that stupid "Soulja Boy" dance. I feel as though it's becoming the Macarena of that generation.


4) The Bhutto assassination was probably the most newsworthy events that occurred during my vacation. I think it's horrible that Bhutto was killed and admire her for her courage in continue to campaign even though her assassination basically looked predestined. I think the media has made her into a martyr and, in the process, has glossed over a lot of her faults. Overly fawning obituaries of obviously flawed figures really irritate me.

5) The other major event was Obama's win in Iowa. I posted a few months ago that Hillary looked like the sure-fire Democratic nomination and it's amazing how much has changed in the past few months. Hilary has certainly fallen from grace and it seems like that it's just predicated to continue in New Hampshire, where Obama was leading by a significant margin in the last minute polls. Huckabee won the Republican race but I don't see that as such a big deal because it seems unlikely that he can carry it to a national win. I definitely hope that won't happen as he's one of my least favorite candidates.

6) Oh, and I noticed some graffiti on the way home from the gym. One wall had both "Vote for Kunich" and "Vote for Ron Paul" spray painted on it. I thought it was kind of cute their names were there together because though they are from different parties they do share some major similarities. Namely that they're both the total outcast in their respective parties and they have no chance at all of winning the nomination. And, most importantly, I dislike both them.

Fun Fact #9: The SD wildfires and Katrina are totally differnt situations

I've been paying a lot of attention to the various media sources covering the devastating wildfires. One thing I've been noticing in the coverage is the that comparisons between the wildfires and Katrina are being made a lot. And while I realize comparisons are inevitable, some statements have been made that really irritate me. I'll fully admit my bias toward San Diego considering it is my home, but I still think a lot of the statements would irritate me even without that bias.

A perfect example of these statements can be found in a post from The Daily Kos, a relatively popular political blog. The author discusses the differences in the government response to Katrina compared to San Diego:

Why is the Federal response ..FEMA...to these Wildfires so different that the FEMA response to Katrina? Why aren't there white people begging for water and shelter in a urine/feces filled stadium? Is it because FEMA "learned" from the the mistakes of Katrina, or is it something more obvious?

The wildfires have happened in an area where the people are affluent and white. Everyone is stumbling over themselves congratulating themselves
over how great the Federal response it to the wildfires.

Katrina happened in one of the poorest areas of the country.
San Diego is one of the wealthiest areas of the country.

California has a Republican Governor, Louisiana had a Democratic Governor.

Bush was on Vacation during Katrina.

California Wildfires is happening to RICH WHITE PEOPLE. Katrina Happened to BLACK PEOPLE.

This is not the opinion of just one person, I've read/heard a lot of people making similar statements. But many of these statements seem to stem from broad assumptions and are comparing two totally different situations.

First of all, not everyone in San Diego is wealthy. Yes, cost of living is expensive in San Diego and most people in the affected areas tend to be at least middle class. But since when has being middle class meant you were rich?! The fire did hit some very expensive homes, but it also hit a lot of "normal" homes as well. Some of these people have lived in the area for decades and therefore bought the houses when they were far cheaper. I know plenty of people who lost their homes and I wouldn't call many of them "rich". And even if only "rich" people had lost their houses, how can one try to argue it's not a personal tragedy for them? Yes, it may be easier for them to rebuild, but they still lost their home and all the memories in it. Being "rich" doesn't meant that it wouldn't be a painful experience.

Also, the fires didn't hit a lot of the poorer areas of the city because it stayed in the suburbs, though even if they had I'm sure I'd still be reading accounts of "wealthy" San Diego being hit. And yes, a lot of people in the suburbs are white, but people seem to forget that San Diego, as a whole, has a huge Hispanic population. San Ysidro, an area that's predominantly Hispanic and relatively poor, was evacuated too.

Secondly, as I previously mentioned, the fire hit the suburbs of San Diego, not Downtown where a lot of the city's resources are located. Katrina basically encompassed all of New Orleans. Qualcomm, the stadium where many evacuees were forced to go, is a totally different situation from the Superdome in New Orleans. The fire wasn't happening near it, people weren't trapped there, and vehicles could easily reach it to deliver supplies. Communications (cell towers, etc. ) didn't go down in San Diego like they did in New Orleans, so people were still able to communicate. Also, the local government in San Diego did a great job at responding quickly and effectively to the threat, while the local government in New Orleans certainly faltered on that front during Katrina. And beyond that, San Diego experienced a major fire almost exactly 4 years ago, people knew to be prepared and many knew how foolish it would be to stay.

The seemingly better response shouldn't be attributed to FEMA "caring" more about people in San Diego because they are "wealthy" or white. All in all, I believe that San Diego (and the surrounding counties) were more prepared for a wildfire than New Orleans was for Katrina. People didn't try to "sit it out" and got out quickly, which helps explain the small amount of deaths. And I think that FEMA (and Bush) have appeared to be more proactive because it's their first chance since Katrina to prove to the country that they aren't total screw-ups. I'll admit that California's relative wealth and power (especially compared to that of New Orleans) has helped (and probably will continue to help) the relief efforts. But I think this factors into the state being able to help the victims more, rather than FEMA wanting to help the state more because of it's relative "power".

Basically, I'm just sick of people comparing the two disasters and coming to the conclusion that the wildfires aren't as bad solely because they happened to "rich", white people. Both disasters were totally different and horrible in their own ways, so stop comparing them...

Fun Fact #6: I dislike Erik Prince

Erik Prince is the founder of Blackwater, a private military company that has a strong presence in Iraq and is tied to various evangelical organizations. Blackwater has recently been investigated by Congress due to allegations that members of the organization smuggled weapons into Iraq that later found their way into the hangs of Kurdistan Workers Party, which has been deemed a terrorist group by various organizations. Blackwater is probably best known for the high number of civilian deaths attributed to the group and the December 2006 killing of a VP guard in Iraq by a drunken Blackwater employee.

You would think with all these accusations against the company that Prince would step and "face the music" (for lack of a better term). But in his recent interview with Newsweek he comes across as whiny and at best sounds like an insolent child trying to deflect all responsibility from himself and his organization. Obviously, the CEO of a company is expected to protect it all costs, but I think his evasiveness with the public hurts Blackwater's image more than it helps it. He doesn't answer questions directly and instead provides a sort of half-answer.

An example of this can be seen when Newsweek asked him outright about the high civilian casualty rate:
Newsweek: On recent allegations and events, Blackwater [has been accused of] a higher civilian casualty rate than other contractors and a higher per-convoy casualty rate.
Prince: We operate … in Baghdad, which is where you also find the vast majority of U.S. military casualties, death, attacks. … There's 170-some security companies operating in Iraq. Many [don't have] the screening, vetting, training, oversight requirements we do.

There is no attempt to really explain why the high causality rate may not Blackwater's fault, he basically just says that there are a lot of deaths in Iraq. But how does that explain why his contractors have a high civilian causality rate? He just brushes Newsweek's statement under the table.

People like Prince tend to rub the wrong way. I'm not a super moralistic individual or anything, but I believe that people should try to avoid being evasive when asked about certain key issues (which civilian casualties certainly are).

I think I have too much time on my hands here to mull over issues like this, but on the positive side I also have the time to read articles and stuff that I probably wouldn't have had time to read were I still in school.

Oh, and in regards to my last "political post", I chose not to include Ron Paul in my list of viable candidates because I don't think he has the slightest chance of gaining the Republican nomination. And even if he was able to miraculously pull that off, I doubt he would be able to steal many people from the Democrats because of his obvious pro-life stance.

Fun Fact #3: We have really only known a Bush or Clinton in the White House

I'm still relatively friendless out here, so this blog is one of the only ways for me to share my "fun facts" with people. I've tried with my grandmother, but she's pretty hard of hearing and it basically resorted to me shouting random facts at her.

I have plenty of time at work to cement my status as a "news junkie" since my job has me attached to the computer for much of the day. I read this article, which I've linked to at the bottom, in "The Economist" a few weeks ago and a certain section has stuck with me. The article concerns Hilary Clinton and devotes a lot of time to analyzing the gender gap among her supporters and her of becoming president.

But the key quote, for me at least, wasn't about the gender gap, but was the following statistic: "Over 100 million Americans have never known anybody but a Bush or a Clinton in the White House," suggesting that "American political life is in the hands of a small group of insiders who are organized around semi-royal families."

It's an obvious fact when one looks at the presidential record, but it never really hit me until now. I know that Reagan was in office when I was born, but the only presidents that I truly remember are either a Bush or Clinton. And it increasingly looks like this trend is going to continue.

Obama continues to falter in the polls and the Republicans are struggling to find a candidate that the entire party could support. I personally believe that Giuliani is the only candidate that could beat Clinton in the national arena. I think he could easily siphon off enough liberal votes, especially against somethings as divisive as Clinton/Obama ticket (which many people are predicting), to take the White House. But a lot of Republicans don't even like Giuliani and the likelihood of him winning the Republican primaries is in no way a sure thing.

But then again, I really have no idea how this election is going to turn out. All of the front-runners have a potential major political liability attached to them. Clinton is a woman, Obama is black, Edwards will forever be associated with failed Kerry campaign, Romney is Mormon, Giuliani is socially liberal in a lot of regards, and McCain (who can barely qualify as front-runner these days)comes across as a flip-flopper.

Politics have always both fascinated and repulsed me. I would never pretend to be an expert in regards to them, but they're always interesting and make me think.

Article Link: http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9904609