D.C. and the inauguration

Kat and I made arrangements to travel to D.C. for the inauguration a few months before the election. Our plan was to attend regardless of who was elected president, but we preferred Obama over McCain and his winning the election solidified our plans. We flew to D.C. on U.S. Airways Flight 44 to see the 44th president inaugurated, leaving 72-degree weather in Phoenix and arriving to 26-degree weather in D.C. We had prepared with layered clothing, but I found that my toes were still freezing in my shoes with two layers of socks, so we visited a mall near our hotel and found evidence of massive price deflation in coats and boots. I picked up a nice pair of Dupont "thinsulate" insulated boots, and Kat bought a full-length padded coat, each of which were only $20. We saw some further evidence of price deflation in goods at the Smithsonian gift shop in the National Museum of the American Indian, where T-shirt prices had been lowered from $20 last time we visited to $16 this trip. Food prices, however, seemed to be about the same, and the price of a 7-day Metro pass had climbed from $20 to $26.40 (no doubt still a subsidized price).


On Saturday, we visited the newly-reopened National Museum of American History, where there were special events going on with actors portraying figures from American history such as Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr., Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington. We paid a visit to the American flag from Fort McHenry (the star-spangled banner), the First Ladies' dresses collection, the pop culture exhibit, "The American Presidency: A Glorious Burden," musical instruments, the Gunboat Philadelphia, and a few other exhibits. We followed this up with lunch at the National Museum of the American Indian, then checked out the new Capitol visitors' center and took a look at the setup for the inauguration. We then walked over by the Newseum, passing the Canadian Embassy and its huge banners welcoming President Obama.

The theme of pending change was everywhere--not only the expected political banners, but in commercial advertising (e.g., Metro ads from Pepsi and Ikea), religious advertising (the Seventh-Day Adventists were handing out a magazine with Obama's photograph on the front), and even by the homeless begging for "change I can believe in."


On Sunday we went to the Columbia Heights Metro station and were amazed at how much the area has changed. We visited an apartment building in the area where Kat used to live in the 1990s, finding it boarded up and for sale (last sold 10/16/2008 for $1.1M). Next was Adams-Morgan, where there was a kiosk to "Tell the President ... tell him what you think! tell him what you want!" by sticking up handwritten notes. A few examples: "TAKE A STAND 4 PALESTINE," "WE ARE HUMANS NOT MACHINES," "GAY MARRIAGE," "Make Weed Legal," "fix our schools," "NO MORE LIES PLEASE," "Respect our privacy! Stop USA spying on Americans!," and "MAKE LOVE TO ME."

We visited a friend's clothing store (Redeem, on 14th St. south of S), walked past the Church of Scientology near Dupont Circle that was in the act by offering free "touch assists" for D.C. visitors, and approached as close as we could to the White House, which was to walk on Pennsylvania Ave. near the president's inaugural parade viewing stand. From there we could hear U2 playing at the "We Are One" concert on the Mall, which we chose not to brave the crowds to see.


Monday we spent time with family in the early afternoon, and spent the rest of our afternoon paying a visit to the American Humanist Society's MLK Day open house. In the evening, we went back to Dupont Circle, where a giant inflatable George W. Bush with a giant nose labeled "GIVE BUSH THE BOOT" was available to throw shoes at.


Tuesday morning, we got up at 5:30 a.m. and got to the Silver Spring Metro Station by 6:40 a.m. The station was packed, and we squeezed into a very crowded train. We got out at Gallery Place and walked towards the Mall, where we ran into an immense crowd at 7th and E that was waiting to go through security screening to the inaugural parade seats. We hung out there for a while, where several people from Meetup.com were handing out nametags and pens, and then walked around the security perimeter to the west to get to the Mall. This required us to go back north to I St., and west to 19th St. (we could have gone down 18th, but 19th was less crowded). We went through no security and had no trouble getting to the Mall.

We walked east past the Washington Monument, but U.S. Army soldiers suddenly closed the road at 15th St. and so we went back and found a good spot in front of the Jumbotron just northeast of the Monument. The crowd continued to build, and the Jumbotron showed a replay of the "We are One" concert from Sunday (which would might have been annoying if we had already seen it).

At long last, the Jumbotrons switched to a live (with audio slightly delayed) feed, with a live mike somewhere in the expensive seats that seemed unintentional. We got to hear one side of multiple conversations, including Sen. Joe Lieberman telling someone, "I love your mother!" The captioning was a little behind the already-delayed audio, and occasionally bizarrely off. When Aretha Franklin sang, one caption at the end of her song said "THREAT RING."

I thought that Pastor Rick Warren's invocation was awful--it was sectarian and it was blatantly hypocritical (cf. Matthew 6:5-7), and I considered it, along with the cold, to be the low-light of the swearing-in ceremony.

George W. Bush attracted some mild booing, and we almost (but not quite) felt sorry for him. But the crowd was ecstatic at Obama's being sworn in (and at Bush's helicopter leaving).

Obama's inaugural speech seemed to mostly be fairly generic new-politician-in-office platitudes, but there were a few standout positive points for me. First, his acknowledgement that some Americans are nonbelievers and we have a stake and a voice in this country was a breath of fresh air. I cheered that line, and several people near by looked at me and smiled. His affirmation that science must be "restore[d] ... to its rightful place" was another good one, as was his statement that we cannot give up the Constitution for safety.


It is a pleasure to again have a president who can speak in complete English sentences and not make me cringe every time I hear him.


After the swearing-in ceremony was over, it took us well over an hour to leave the Mall. People were packed in trying to leave, and at one point we saw the crowd knock down a barricade on the north side of the Mall, and a second barricade just north of that, to get access to Constitution. We moved in the opposite direction, which proved to be the right move to get to a flowing stream of people moving towards the actual exit. Police showed up at the downed barricades after about ten minutes, and put them back in place.


On Wednesday, we visited the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, the largest Catholic church in North America, on the grounds of Catholic University of America. It was interesting to see the different ethnic versions of Mary, Mother of Jesus in the Shrine, including Our Mother of Africa, the Virgin of Guadalupe, and Our Lady of La Vang (Vietnam). We did a little shopping for Obama swag at Union Station.

On Thursday, our last day in D.C., we visited Battleground National Cemetery on Georgia Ave., a little-known burial ground of Union soldiers killed at the battle of Fort Stevens, the only Civil War battle that occurred in D.C. We also visited Fort Stevens itself, which has a monument where President Lincoln stood on the rampart and was told to "Get down, you fool" as he was likely to be killed by attacking Confederate soldiers there. Finally, we visited the recently restored Lincoln Cottage at the Old Soldier's Home, just north of Catholic University of America, where Lincoln spent about a quarter of his presidential term, made many of his decisions, and drafted and finalized the Emancipation Proclamation.

Behind the scenes during the election process

Newsweek reports some interesting tidbits from behind the scenes of the election process in both the McCain and Obama campaigns:

• Both the McCain and Obama campaigns had computers compromised by "a foreign entity or organization [which] sought to gather information on the evolution of both camps' policy positions." And that entity was successful in collecting such data, apparently.
  
• Palin's shopping spree was more extensive and expensive than has previously been reported: "While publicly supporting Palin, McCain's top advisers privately fumed at what they regarded as her outrageous profligacy. One senior aide said that Nicolle Wallace had told Palin to buy three suits for the convention and hire a stylist. But instead, the vice presidential nominee began buying for herself and her family—clothes and accessories from top stores such as Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus. According to two knowledgeable sources, a vast majority of the clothes were bought by a wealthy donor, who was shocked when he got the bill. Palin also used low-level staffers to buy some of the clothes on their credit cards." The spending was allegedly tens of thousands of dollars more than reported.
  
• McCain rarely spoke to Palin during the campaign, and although she wanted to speak in Phoenix along with McCain for his concession speech, this was vetoed by McCain's campaign strategist, Steve Schmidt.
• The Secret Service reported "a sharp and disturbing increase in threats to Obama in September and early October, at the same time that many crowds at Palin rallies became more frenzied."
• Palin attacked Obama about his connection to William Ayers before the campaign had finalized its plan about that issue--McCain had not given his approval, and a top advisor was resisting it.
• Hillary Clinton was on much better terms with McCain than with Obama, and McCain feared that Hillary Clinton would be named as Obama's VP, and was glad when he chose Biden.

There are lots of other interesting bits in the article, as well.

Arizona election results

Arizona will now have a majority of Democratic Representatives in the House, as Rick Renzi is replaced by Ann Kirkpatrick in District 1 in a close race. The other close race is District 5, where Harry Mitchell has defeated David Schweikert. This means the Arizona delegation will be Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl (both Republicans), and Representatives Ann Kirkpatrick (D-District 1), Trent Franks (R-District 2), John Shadegg (R-District 3), Ed Pastor (D-District 4), Harry Mitchell (D-District 5), Jeff Flake (R-District 6), Raul Grijalva (D-District 7), Gabrielle Giffords (D-District 8).

Bad news: Andrew Thomas was re-elected as Maricopa County Attorney, and Joe Arpaio was re-elected as Maricopa County Sheriff. And Arizona went for John McCain as president, though he has graciously conceded to Barack Obama.

Some bad results on the propositions: Prop. 102 is passing, amending the Arizona constitution to ban same-sex marriage, Prop. 101 on medical choice is failing. But there's also good news: the payday loan industry-backed Prop. 200 is failing (that would add barriers to entry to new payday loan companies, as well as prevent the current payday loan legislation from sunsetting), and Prop. 100's ban on additional home transfer taxes is passing.

UPDATE (November 5, 2008): Prop. 101 is still too close to call, with "no" votes leading by 2,195 votes (867,924 no, 865,729 yes). There should be a conclusive result tomorrow.

UPDATE (November 6, 2008): Still counting on Prop. 101--it's now a 2,944-vote lead for no, 887,821 to 884,877.

UPDATE (November 12, 2008): Prop. 101 has been defeated, 961,567 no votes to 950,440 yes votes.

Republicans kicked out of McCain event for not looking right

From the Iowa State Daily:

Audience members escorted out of Sen. John McCain’s, R-Ariz., campaign event in Cedar Falls questioned why they were asked to leave Sunday’s rally even though they were not protesting.

David Zarifis, director of public safety for the University of Northern Iowa, said McCain staffers requested UNI police assist in escorting out “about four or five” people from the rally prior to McCain’s speech.

Zarifis said while the people who were taken out weren’t protesting or causing problems, McCain’s staff were worried they would during the speech.

“Apparently, they had been identified by those staffers as potential protesters within the event,” Zarifis said.
...
Lara Elborno, a student at the University of Iowa, said she was approached by a police officer and a McCain staffer and was told she had to leave or she would be arrested for trespassing.
...
Elborno said even McCain supporters were among those being asked to leave.

“I saw a couple that had been escorted out and they were confused as well, and the girl was crying, so I said ‘Why are you crying? and she said ‘I already voted for McCain, I’m a Republican, and they said we had to leave because we didn’t look right,’” Elborno said. “They were handpicking these people and they had nothing to go off of, besides the way the people looked.”

Love the War, Neglect the Warrior: McCain's lack of support for veterans

Amy Silverman's "Love the War, Neglect the Warrior: His fame's based on his POW status, but Senator John McCain's made a point of voting against fellow veterans," tells the story of McCain's voting record on support for war veterans, and how various veterans' groups and retired military personnel feel about him:

Most vet special-interest groups decline to officially take sides (even VoteVets hasn't made a presidential endorsement).

But VoteVets is among many veterans groups to note the discrepancy between John McCain's talk and his actions.

In both 2006 and 2007-08, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave McCain a D for his record on key congressional votes.

The Disabled American Veterans scored him at 20 percent in 2006; 25 percent in 2005; and 50 percent in 2004.

And the Retired Enlisted Association gave him a 0 in 2006 and a rating of 18 percent in 2004. These are the most recent rankings released by the groups.

Another organization, Veterans for Common Sense, posted this comment on its website earlier this year: "John McCain is yet another Republican...military veteran who likes to talk a big game when it comes to having the support of the military. Yet, time and time again, he has gone out of his way to vote against the needs of those who are serving in our military. If he can't even see his way to actually do what the troops want, or what the veterans need, and he doesn't have the support of veterans, then how can he be a credible commander in chief?"

The article notes that while polls tend to show military support for McCain over Obama, Obama has raised $74,000 from active military personnel, to McCain's $16,000.

Palin "going rogue"

There are reports that Sarah Palin is "going rogue" by continually going off message and clashing with key McCain aides. One McCain aide reports:

"She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone," said this McCain adviser. "She does not have any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else.

"Also, she is playing for her own future and sees herself as the next leader of the party. Remember: Divas trust only unto themselves, as they see themselves as the beginning and end of all wisdom."

This is not the kind of person who should be in a position of political leadership in a representative democracy--perhaps in a banana republic, but not a first-world nation.

(I do agree with her that "robocalls"--prerecorded political advertisements--are extremely annoying.)

Muslim McCain supporter shut down by McCain

Daniel Zubairi, one of McCain's state leaders for Maryland, stepped forward to publicly criticize a person who was criticizing Obama and claiming that he's tainted because of a Muslim background. CNN wanted to put Zubairi on air, but the McCain campaign said no.



(Via Daily Kos.)

Blatant deception on Arizona Proposition 101

Arizona ballot proposition 101, the Medical Choice for Arizona amendment, says this:

Be it enacted by the People of Arizona:

1. Article II, Section 36: Constitution of Arizona is proposed to be added as follows if approved by the voters and on proclamation of the Governor:

ARTICLE II, SECTION 36. BECAUSE ALL PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT THEIR HEALTH CARE, NO LAW SHALL BE PASSED THAT RESTRICTS A PERSON'S FREEDOM OF CHOICE OF PRIVATE HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS OR PRIVATE PLANS OF ANY TYPE. NO LAW SHALL INTERFERE WITH A PERSON'S OR ENTITY'S RIGHT TO PAY DIRECTLY FOR LAWFUL MEDICAL SERVICES, NOR SHALL ANY LAW IMPOSE A PENALTY OR FINE, OF ANY TYPE, FOR CHOOSING TO OBTAIN OR DECLINE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE OR FOR PARTICIPATION IN ANY PARTICULAR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM OR PLAN.

2. The Secretary of State shall submit this proposition to the voters at the next general election as provided by Article XXI, of the Constitution of Arizona.

It prohibits the State of Arizona from passing any legislation that prevents individuals from choosing to purchase or decline to purchase any type of health care or health care insurance from what's available, or that imposes a penalty or fine for doing so. That's it. It doesn't introduce any new taxes, it doesn't ban any state spending on health care programs, it doesn't prevent anything except the institution of a state health care or health care insurance program that requires mandatory participation, and it guarantees your right to privately arrange for health care with your own funds from the health care provider of your own choice.

Now, this does ban some kinds of health care program that some people advocate, such as the Massachusetts Health Care Reform Law of 2006, which required all Massachusetts residents to purchase health care insurance or face legal penalties--similar to mandatory automobile insurance. That program, supported by Gov. Mitt Romney, is similar to Hillary Clinton's health care proposal, but neither Obama nor McCain advocates mandatory health care insurance. If they did, however, this proposition would not prevent such a program from being instituted at the federal level.

But the opposition to Proposition 101 has been wholly deceptive. Here's some text from a mailer sent out to most Arizona residents last week:

Top 5 Reasons To Vote No On 101

Is an unclear permanent constitutional amendment that is so poorly written that it will ensure that our health care decisions will be dictated by the courts for years to come.

Makes health insurance so expensive, employers will be unable to provide coverage for their employees.

Jeopardizes Arizona's Medicare and Medicaid programs by destroying the cost containment measures adopted to provide affordable health care.

Is opposed by Doctor groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Will increase health care costs to Arizona taxpayers by $2 Billion.

Most of these items are simply fabrications or non sequiturs put forth without argument, and the mailer conveniently fails to mention anything about what the proposition actually says. Further, this mailing contained a photograph of Gov. Janet Napolitano under the State Seal of Arizona, which is a violation of state law, a class 3 misdemeanor.

The signs by the roadside urging opposition to Proposition 101 are equally deceptive, and include the claim that it will increase health care costs to Arizona taxpayers by $2 billion.

I've also seen claims online (in the comments on about.com's discussion) that Prop. 101 is backed by the insurance industry. That's false--it's opposed by the insurance industry, because they support mandatory health insurance programs for obvious reasons. This was a grassroots effort, led by Arizona doctors Eric Novack and Jeff Singer. (I contributed to the funds for signature collection for this ballot proposition.)

I've also seen claims at about.com that Prop. 101 will deregulate the healthcare and health insurance industries. Again, nonsense--the proposition has no effect on the state's ability to regulate healthcare or health insurance, except that it can't impose mandatory insurance or prevent you from purchasing any legal healthcare service or program. It doesn't say that the state can't ban or regulate healthcare, or determine what constitutes lawful healthcare.

The opponents of Prop. 101 are engaging in the most deceptive campaign against a ballot proposition that I've seen in several years. If you think the state of Arizona should be able to impose mandatory health insurance, then that's a reason to vote no on Prop. 101. If you think the right to opt-in or opt-out of health care or health insurance coverage should be left to the individual, then that's a reason to vote yes on Prop. 101.

Clint Bolick of the Goldwater Institute has issued a press release about the deceptive arguments against Proposition 101. I've been meaning to write something about it since I received the dishonest mailing, but seeing his press release prompted me to actually do it.

UPDATE (November 12, 2008): Prop. 101 was defeated in a very close race, 961,567 votes against and 950,440 votes for.

Bigoted and ignorant McCain/Palin supporters in Ohio

This is no doubt not a representative cross-section of McCain and Palin supporters, but it's a disturbingly ugly set of them. It's fortunate that most of the worst comments are from the older generation--I hope that younger people are less likely to hold such views. McCain has shot down such remarks from supporters when they've been made in his presence, to his credit. (And yes, this is from Aljazeera.)



UPDATE: Here are more bigoted McCain and Palin supporters in Johnstown, Pennsylvania:


UPDATE (October 20, 2008): Sarah Palin says if she heard such bigoted comments she'd shut them down:

"What we have heard through some mainstream media is that folks have hollered out some atrocious and unacceptable things like kill him,' " Palin said, referring to a Washington Post story two weeks ago about angry supporters at a Palin rally in Florida. "If I ever were to hear that standing up there at the podium with the mike, I would call them out on that, and I would tell these people, no, that's unacceptable."

She goes on to break with McCain by supporting a U.S. Constitutional amendment to oppose gay marriage and claim that "Faith in God in general has been mocked through this campaign, and that breaks my heart and that is unfair for others who share a faith in God and choose to worship our Lord in whatever private manner that they deem fit."

UPDATE (October 21, 2008): And here's another video, from Bethlehem, Pennsylvania (same link provided by Hume's Ghost in the first comment), of McCain and Palin supporters entering Lehigh University (the school where intelligent design advocate Michael Behe is a professor):



UPDATE (October 22, 2008): And be sure to check out this woman's reasons for voting for McCain, at the Secular Web.

UPDATE: And more videos of McCain supporters heckling early voters (most of whom were from an Obama rally) in West Virginia.

The Economist's poll of economists

The Economist conducted a poll of 683 research associates of the National Bureau of Economic Research. 142 responded, of whom 46% self-identified as Democrats, 10% as Republicans, and 44% as neither.

80% of respondents, 71% of those who did not identify a political affiliation, and 46% of those who identified themselves as Republicans said that Obama has a better grasp of economics than McCain. (Only 23% of those who identified themselves as Republicans said that McCain had better understanding of economics.)

81% of respondents, 71% of the unaffiliated, and 31% of the Republicans said that Obama will pick a better team of economic advisors to run the country than McCain.

The full results can be found at The Economist's website.

Comparing Obama's and McCain's economic advisors

McCain's economic advisors:

Doug Holtz-Eakin source
Holtz-Eakin is a formerly respected academic and government economist who has been reduced to making distortionary arguments to paper over the massive deficit black hole McCain's tax cuts would create.

Arthur Laffer source
Laffer is the originator of the Laffer curve, the fringe view that claims government revenue increases when tax rates are lowered. There is zero empirical evidence this is true at current tax rates. McCain has repeatedly said that he believes this foolishness, but Holtz-Eakin has said (also repeatedly) that McCain does not.

Phil Gramm source
Gramm is a lobbyist who was vice president of one of the investment houses most heavily implicated in the mortage industry scandal. As a senator he pushed for the banking deregulation that contributed to the current crisis. See more here.

Kevin Hassett source
Hassett has been widely ridiculed for writing the book Dow 36000: The New Strategy for Profiting from the Coming Rise in the Stock Market in 1999, predicting that the Dow would hit 36,000 within five years, if not sooner.

Donald Luskin source
Luskin has been repeatedly named the Stupidest Man Alive by Brad Delong. See here for an example. I can attest based on my own interaction with him a few years back that in addition to being not the sharpest tack in the box, he is also an extremely unpleasant person.

Nancy Pfotenhauer source
Pfotenhauer is a pure distilled product of Koch Industries, an oil company which funds much of the right wing message machine. See here for details.

Carly Fiorina source
Fiorina was spectacularly fired from her previous job as CEO of HP. According to the Times,

... Republicans say Ms. Fiorina is using the McCain campaign to rebuild her image after her explosive tenure at Hewlett-Packard. They also say it is hard to see why a woman widely criticized for mismanaging one of Silicon Valley’s legendary companies is advising and representing a candidate who acknowledged last year that he did not understand the economy as well as he should.

Regarding Fiorina, Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, the senior associate dean for executive programs at the Yale School of Management, says "What a blind spot this is in the McCain campaign to have elevated her stature and centrality in this way. You couldn’t pick a worse, non-imprisoned C.E.O. to be your standard-bearer.”

Obama's economic advisors:

Jason Furman (director of economy policy) source bio
Austan Goolsbee (senior economic policy advisor), University of Chicago tax policy expert source Wikipedia website
Karen Kornbluh (policy director) source bio Wikipedia
David Cutler, Harvard health policy expert source Wikipedia website
Jeff Liebman, Harvard welfare expert source Wikipedia website
Michael Froman, Citigroup executive source bio
Daniel Tarullo, Georgetown law professor source bio
David Romer, Berkeley macroeconomist source website
Christina Romer, Berkeley economic historian source website
Richard Thaler, University of Chicago behavioral finance expert source Wikipedia

Robert Rubin, former Treasury Secretary source Wikipedia bio
Larry Summers, former Treasury Secretary source Wikipedia bio
Alan Blinder, former Vice-chairman of the Federal Reserve source Wikipedia bio website
Jared Bernstein, Economic Policy Institute labor economist source bio
James Galbraith, University of Texas macroeconomist source Wikipedia website

Paul Volcker, Chairman of the Federal Reserve 1979-1987 source Wikipedia
Laura Tyson, Berkeley international economist, Bill Clinton economic adviser source Wikipedia
Robert Reich, Berkeley public policy professor, former Secretary of Labor source Wikipedia weblog
Peter Henry, Stanford international economist source website
Gene Sperling, former White House economic adviser source Wikipedia

My comment on the Laffer curve--Laffer's basic point is obviously correct, that there are points at which raising taxes further would cause revenues to decline and points where lowering taxes further would cause revenues to increase (most obviously at a 100% tax rate), but to the best of my knowledge he never did any empirical or mathematical work to show what the Laffer curve actually looks like and what factors play into it. If you don't know the shape of the curve or where we currently fall on it, you don't know without testing that raising taxes will reduce revenue or lowering taxes will increase revenue. Factcheck.org looks at the actual effects of some U.S. tax cuts in this regard.

I do think that we can speculate that reducing U.S. corporate taxes (currently the highest in the OECD with the exception of Japan) could increase corporate tax revenue, given Ireland's experience with just that happening. Multinational companies will do their best to book their profits in the countries with the lowest corporate tax rates, thus increasing the tax revenue in those countries. Of course, there are other factors, such as regulatory environment, cost of labor, risk of litigation, etc.

Sam Harris on Sarah Palin and elitism

Sam Harris has a great op-ed piece at Newsweek:

The problem, as far as our political process is concerned, is that half the electorate revels in Palin's lack of intellectual qualifications. When it comes to politics, there is a mad love of mediocrity in this country. "They think they're better than you!" is the refrain that (highly competent and cynical) Republican strategists have set loose among the crowd, and the crowd has grown drunk on it once again. "Sarah Palin is an ordinary person!" Yes, all too ordinary.

We have all now witnessed apparently sentient human beings, once provoked by a reporter's microphone, saying things like, "I'm voting for Sarah because she's a mom. She knows what it's like to be a mom." Such sentiments suggest an uncanny (and, one fears, especially American) detachment from the real problems of today. The next administration must immediately confront issues like nuclear proliferation, ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and covert wars elsewhere), global climate change, a convulsing economy, Russian belligerence, the rise of China, emerging epidemics, Islamism on a hundred fronts, a defunct United Nations, the deterioration of American schools, failures of energy, infrastructure and Internet security … the list is long, and Sarah Palin does not seem competent even to rank these items in order of importance, much less address any one of them.

...

What doesn't she know about financial markets, Islam, the history of the Middle East, the cold war, modern weapons systems, medical research, environmental science or emerging technology? Her relative ignorance is guaranteed on these fronts and most others, not because she was put on the spot, or got nervous, or just happened to miss the newspaper on any given morning. Sarah Palin's ignorance is guaranteed because of how she has spent the past 44 years on earth.

...

What is so unnerving about the candidacy of Sarah Palin is the degree to which she represents—and her supporters celebrate—the joyful marriage of confidence and ignorance. Watching her deny to Gibson that she had ever harbored the slightest doubt about her readiness to take command of the world's only superpower, one got the feeling that Palin would gladly assume any responsibility on earth:

"Governor Palin, are you ready at this moment to perform surgery on this child's brain?"

"Of course, Charlie. I have several boys of my own, and I'm an avid hunter."

"But governor, this is neurosurgery, and you have no training as a surgeon of any kind."

"That's just the point, Charlie. The American people want change in how we make medical decisions in this country. And when faced with a challenge, you cannot blink."

Read the rest at Newsweek.

UPDATE: A letter written to The Economist (September 20, 2008, p. 26) from Sue Crane of Johns Creek, Georgia, expresses the anti-elitist pride in ignorance Harris condemns, when she writes:

Sir - Lexington (September 6) lapsed into the same mode of thinking that exists in the powdered-wig political salons and among the media twitterati in his assessment of Sarah Palin, which stopped him from understanding why she strikes a chord with America's heartland. Mrs. Palin connects with voters because she is one of us, not some elite politician entrenched in Washington's ways. John McCain had a problem with energising the Republican base, hence his choice of Mrs. Palin. I, along with many other Republicans, was prepared to sit this contest out had he chosen either Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge.

This contrasts with a letter on the same page from Michael Golay, professor of nuclear science and engineering at MIT, who writes:

Sir - Alaska is very different from the rest of the United States, and this difference affects the fitness of Mrs Palin to be vice-president. Fundamentally, Alaska is a pre-modern welfare state, where the economy is almost purely extractive (with the exception of defense and tourism). If you don't kill it, dig it or cut it down you don't get it. From that perspective "bridges to nowhere" are simply further extractions, or tokens for transfer payments from the rest of us, as are the annual payments to residents from North Slope oil revenues.

Not surprisingly Alaska is largely an innovation-free zone. It is also the only world that Mrs Palin has known. Along with her chronological and career inexperience this background renders her unprepared to lead the country.

In the same issue of The Economist, the Lexington column, "Richard Milhous McCain," points out that the McCain strategy in selecting Palin "is perfectly designed to create a cycle of accusation and counter-accusation. The 'liberal media' cannot do its job without questioning Mrs Palin's qualifications, which are astonishingly thin; but they cannot question her qualifications without confirming the Republican suspicion that they are looking down on ordinary Americans." It attributes this strategy to Richard Nixon, who "recognised that the Republicans stood to gain from 'positive polarisation': dividing the electorate over values."

Palin's Christianity

I've previously written to critique claims that Sarah Palin is a Christian reconstructionist or dominionist, or that she's a young-earth creationist or tried to put creationism in the public schools.

I still stand behind the former argument, but I think there is now some evidence that she is a young-earth creationist and supported Mat-Su Borough School Board candidates who aimed to put creationism in the public schools, but never got a majority on the school board. There's also now evidence that Palin is an advocate of pushing an allegedly secularized version of principles from Bill Gothard's Institute in Basic Life Principles, which I previously wrote about here when serial killer Matthew Murray blamed them for his problems.

Palin's Creationism
David Talbot's article at Salon.com about Sarah Palin's clashes with Rev. Howard Bess over his book about how churches should deal with homosexuality contained a passage that stated that she is a young-earth creationist:

Another valley activist, Philip Munger, says that Palin also helped push the evangelical drive to take over the Mat-Su Borough school board. "She wanted to get people who believed in creationism on the board," said Munger, a music composer and teacher. "I bumped into her once after my band played at a graduation ceremony at the Assembly of God. I said, 'Sarah, how can you believe in creationism -- your father's a science teacher.' And she said, 'We don't have to agree on everything.'

"I pushed her on the earth's creation, whether it was really less than 7,000 years old and whether dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time. And she said yes, she'd seen images somewhere of dinosaur fossils with human footprints in them."

Munger said the same thing on his own blog:

In June 1997, both Palin and I had responsibilities at the graduation ceremony of a small group of Wasilla area home schoolers. I directed the Mat-Su College Community Band, which played music, and she gave the commencement address. It was held at her [former -jjl] church, the Wasilla Assembly of God.

Palin had recently become Wasilla mayor, beating her earliest mentor, John Stein, the then-incumbent mayor. A large part of her campaign had been to enlist fundamentalist Christian groups, and invoke evangelical buzzwords into her talks and literature.

As the ceremony concluded, I bumped into her in a hall away from other people. I congratulated her on her victory, and took her aside to ask about her faith. Among other things, she declared that she was a young earth creationist, accepting both that the world was about 6,000-plus years old, and that humans and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time.

I asked how she felt about the second coming and the end times. She responded that she fully believed that the signs of Jesus returning soon "during MY lifetime," were obvious. "I can see that, maybe you can't - but it guides me every day."

I spoke with Philip Munger by telephone on September 17, hoping to be able to find others who could confirm Palin's creationist views. Unfortunately, he said that there weren't other witnesses to his conversation, but he did give me a lot of background information about Palin's political career. He said that the Wasilla government had been dominated by Democrats until 1994, when it shifted to Republicans and John Stein became mayor. Stein was Palin's original political mentor, but she decided to run against Stein in 1996, under the tutelage of Alaska State Rep. Victor Kohring, Republican representative from Wasilla, who began a 3.5-year prison term for corruption in July. Munger described Kohring, a member of the Christian Businessman's Association, as a member of the religious right. Stein, while a Republican, was vulnerable to attack as being not sufficiently conservative, due to the fact that his wife is a pro-choice Democrat who hasn't taken his last name.

Munger told me that Palin also supported a slate of religious right candidates for the Mat-Su Borough School Board, including Cheryl Turner, who he described as a creationist. But he said that the creationists didn't win a majority on the school board, and as a result made no attempt to push that agenda.

Munger said that he called in a question to Sarah Palin when she appeared on the Don Fagan program around October of 2006, and he asked her if her views on creationism had moderated since the Dover case. Her response indicated that her views had not changed, and that she had no idea what the Dover case was. Munger offered to explain it to her in detail if she contacted him, but she never did. He said that she didn't say anything to explicitly endorse creationism, instead resorting to the same tactics suggested by the Discovery Institute of protecting academic freedom, allowing "both" views to be taught, teaching the controversy, etc.

My impression is that Palin is likely a young-earth creationist, but not one who knows much about it or has it high on her agenda for political change. She's probably smart enough to see that such could be a liability for her future political career and so will avoid questions about it or answer in generalities.

Palin and Bill Gothard
Sarah Posner has a new article at Salon.com titled "Sarah Palin, faith-based mayor." This article points out that the Wasilla City Council passed a resolution in April 2000 at her direction declaring Wasilla to be a "City of Character" and a supporter of the International Association of Character Cities, run by Steven Menzel. This organization promotes a secularized version of the principles from Bill Gothard's Institute in Basic Life Principles, which is a sort of Christianity-lite cult that promotes the prosperity gospel and a whole lot of craziness like this:

Wives who work outside the home are to be compared to harlots — Bill Gothard

It is a total insult in Scripture to be called uncircumcised, and the only moral choice parents can make is to have their sons circumcised in order to follow in the footsteps of Jesus — Bill Gothard

“Unmerited favor” is a “faulty definition” of grace. Grace for sanctification is merited as we humble ourselves before God — Bill Gothard

Females who enjoy horseback riding have a problem with rebellion — Bill Gothard, from testimonies of people who use their real names who have heard him say this in person

Unbiblical submission taught — Abigail was WRONG to do what she did in saving Nabal and his servants — Bill Gothard

Tamar was partially at fault for being raped, because she wasn’t spiritually alert and didn’t cry out — Bill Gothard

Rock music is evil because it is evil — Bill Gothard

Cabbage Patch dolls are demonized — Bill Gothard

Palin learned about the IACC at a conference held at Gothard's IBLP International Training Center in Indianapolis in April 2000, a conference at which speakers included Bill Gothard and crackpot pseudohistorian David Barton, who argues that the separation of church and state is a myth.

It appears that the IACC features actually implemented in Wasilla are pretty mild and unobjectionable--giving out certificates of good character to citizens who do things like return lost wallets, as an example given by the executive assistant to Wasilla's current mayor.

Palin's also clearly no hardcore advocate of Gothard, at least with respect to the first rule listed above about women not working outside of the home. And I still don't think the fears of theocracy, dominionism, and Christian reconstruction have any substance. But what is concerning about her IBLP involvement is that she looks very much like another George W. Bush. As Posner's article notes, Gothard promotes the idea of "confidence that what I have to say or do is true and just and right in the sight of God," which seems to promote the idea of moving confidently forward in decisions with blinkered ignorance and disastrous consequences that are simply ignored. Palin seems to have governed Alaska in such a manner, acting above the law in "Troopergate" with her husband refusing to show up to testify and claiming to support the environment while implementing policies that have left both lakes in Wasilla devoid of life. She also seems to be submissive to her husband in ways which do not seem appropriate for a governor, such as allowing him to play a role in making government decisions, adding some real substance to the concerned questions raised at Debunking Christianity:

• Is it now your view that God can call a woman to serve as president of the United States? Are you prepared to renounce publicly any further claim that God's plan is for men rather than women to exercise leadership in society, the workplace and public life? Do you acknowledge having become full-fledged egalitarians in this sphere at least?

• Would Palin be acceptable as vice president because she would still be under the ultimate authority of McCain as president, like the structure of authority that occurs in some of your churches? Have you fully come to grips with the fact that if after his election McCain were to die, Palin would be in authority over every male in the USA as president?

• If you agree that God can call a woman to serve as president, does this have any implications for your views on women's leadership in church life? Would you be willing to vote for a qualified woman to serve as pastor of your church? If not, why not?

• Do you believe that Palin is under the authority of her husband as head of the family? If so, would this authority spill over into her role as vice president?

• Do you believe that women carry primary responsibility for the care of children in the home? If so, does this affect your support for Palin? If not, are you willing to change your position and instead argue for flexibility in the distribution of child care responsibilities according to the needs of the family?

(As I've already noted here, there are some evangelicals who oppose Sarah Palin because they don't think a woman should be in such a position of authority, which is more consistent with Gothard.)

UPDATE (September 24, 2008): David Talbot's "Mean Girl" at Salon.com confirms several things that Munger told me, including Palin's betrayals of former mentors and (something I didn't write about here) her allusions that John Stein wasn't really a Christian, but a Jew, as part of her campaign to defeat him as mayor of Wasilla.

UPDATE (November 19, 2009): Palin's book shows that she's certainly a creationist.

Cindy McCain's drug-related crimes

Radley Balko at The Agitator replies to Jennifer Rubin at Commentary about why the Washington Post's coverage of Cindy McCain's addiction to painkillers and commission of crimes to support it is newsworthy.

Balko gives two reasons:

• John and Cindy McCain have touted her addiction an example in overcoming adversity. That presents quite the contrast to McCain’s legislative history as an ardent drug warrior. People accused of crimes similar to those Cindy McCain was accused of committing usually go to prison (even when they’re innocent). Her crimes haven’t been well-reported in the media. And they show how John McCain (who, by the way, is running for president) believes in one set of rules for the friends and family of powerful politicians, and a different set of rules for everyone else.
• While Cindy McCain’s addiction and theft from her children’s charity to support that addiction were lightly covered at the time, there has yet to be much coverage of it at all during this campaign. And one aspect of the case that’s been covered even less is John and Cindy McCain’s attempt to railroad Tom Gosinski, the guy who blew the whistle on Cindy McCain’s theft from her children’s charity. The Post story is one of the first to get his version of what happened.

And Balko concludes:

So here we have a U.S. senator who tried to destroy the guy who blew the whistle on his wife’s crimes, who then used his political power to work out a sweetheart deal with prosecutors to get his wife a slap on the wrist for those crimes (which often send others to prison), and who has then spent his entire career fighting for longer sentences and less leniency for people who commit similar crimes. And he’s now running for president.

The Washington Post story is here. Phoenix's New Times covered the story of Cindy McCain's drug addiction and Tom Gosinski whistle-blowing back in 1994. The New Times story contains much more detail than the Post story, including lies told by Cindy McCain as part of the McCains handling of the unwanted media coverage of the story.

Amy Silverman of New Times, who has covered McCain in detail for many years, has a lengthy recent article about McCain here, which includes stories about McCain such as his sabotaging a hearing of Arizona Gov. Rose Mofford, Barry Goldwater's irritation with McCain, McCain's exploitation of the illness of Mo Udall for publicity, and more.

McCain and Palin lie about factcheck.org

A McCain-Palin ad cites factcheck.org to claim that Obama has made false attacks on Palin--but the attacks haven't come from Obama. McCain and Palin are appealing to factcheck.org's accurate content in order to lie about Obama, and factcheck.org calls them on their dishonesty.

Palin falsely claims Alaska produces 20% of U.S. energy

Sarah Palin said in an interview with Charlie Gibson that Alaska "produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy."

Not true.

Alaska produces 14% of the oil from U.S. wells (not 14% of oil consumed), produces 3.5% of domestically produced U.S. energy, about 2.4% of U.S. energy consumed.

McCain repeated the same falsehood to Gibson, saying "[Palin's] been governor of our largest state, in charge of 20 percent of America's energy supply."

(Via factcheck.org.)

If they keep repeating this claim, they are liars. There's already good evidence that they are bullshitters.

Candidate charitable contributions

USA Today reports that the Biden family has given $3,690 to charity over the last decade, an average of $369 per year, on "modest" income that has ranged from a low of $210,797 in 1999 to a high of over $320,000 in 2005. Last year, they gave $995 on income of $319,853 (0.3%), their highest giving rate of the decade.

A 2005 study of households with incomes from $200,000 to $500,000 per year shows average charitable giving of $40,746 per year.

John McCain has given $202,000 to charity in the last two years, about 25% of his income--but of course he is married to a very wealthy woman who earned more than $6 million in 2006. Last year he gave $105,467 (half of what he and his wife donated as a couple) on income of $405,409, which would be more impressive if it weren't just an even division of their reported expenses reported without the comparison figure of her income.

The Obamas gave $240,000 to charity last year on income of more than $4.2 million (5.7%). In 2000, they gave $2,350 to charity on income of $240,726 (1%).

Palin's tax data hasn't yet been released. There may be some tax problems lurking in her records.

John McCain's personal charitable giving appears quite generous, but it's somewhat less so considering his wife's much higher separate income and my suspicion that she effectively subsidized his charitable giving as the chief breadwinner and provider. The Obamas were very generous last year, but not so much in 2000. The Bidens, not at all generous. This seems to lend further support to the thesis that conservatives are more generous with their own money than liberals.

My feeling is that most professionals earning six-figure incomes should be able to give 5-10% of their gross income to charitable causes without much trouble. The average figures for those earning $200,000 to $500,000 strike me as just about right.

(UPDATE, 17 May 2021):  The Bidens' 2020 tax returns show much more generous charitable contributions:

The Bidens donated $30,704 to 10 charities last year. The largest gift was $10,000 to the Beau Biden Foundation, a nonprofit focused on child abuse that is named after the president's deceased son.

But that's on $607,336 in income, so it's just over 5%.  Kamala Harris and Doug Emhoff gave just under 1.6%:

Vice President Kamala Harris and her husband, Douglas Emhoff, also released their 2020 tax filings. They paid a rate of 36.7% on income of $1,695,225 and contributed $27,006 to charity.

 

Palin collected per-diem from Alaska while at home

Yahoo reports:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has charged her state a daily allowance, normally used for official travel, for more than 300 nights spent at her home, The Washington Post reported Tuesday.

An analysis of travel statements filed by the governor, now John McCain's Republican running mate, shows she claimed the per diem allowance on 312 occasions when she was home in Wasilla and that she billed taxpayers $43,490 for travel by her husband and children.

Per diem payments are meant for meals and incidental expenses while traveling on state business. State officials told The Post her claims — nearly $17,000 over 19 months — were permitted because her "duty station" is Juneau, the capital, and she was in Wasilla 600 miles away.

Palin spends little time at the governor's mansion in Juneau, especially when the Legislature is out of session, and instead prefers to live in Wasilla and commute to her office in Anchorage.

I think the travel to and from Wasilla is arguably reasonable, depending on frequency, but per diem for meals and incidentals in Wasilla seems as wrong as if she were taking the per diem for meals and incidentals while staying in the governor's mansion.

UPDATE (September 15, 2008): The Palins haven't yet released their tax records, and it may be that she owes taxes on those per diems.

Ian McShane narrates McCain: Reformed Maverick

The Daily Show has outdone itself with this one.



UPDATE (September 8, 2008): The part about McCain crashing five planes isn't true.

CNN finally does its job

Campbell Brown at CNN shows what a reporter is supposed to do when questioning the representative of a political candidate--insist that they actually answer the questions asked in a meaningful way. After this interview with McCain representative Tucker Bounds, McCain cancelled an interview with CNN in response to what he viewed as unreasonable behavior.



(Via Juan Cole.)