This is incredibly cool

I have lots of thoughts on the Democratic National Convention which I'll share later, but this was too awesome to pass up:

"Dezie Woods-Jones plans to stand Thursday night with her California delegation in a stadium here and listen to Barack Obama, the first black major-party presidential nominee in the nation’s history, give his acceptance speech. Ms. Woods-Jones, now in her 60s, is one of a tiny handful of delegates who on the same day in 1963, Aug. 28, stood with hundreds of thousands at the March on Washington and heard a young minister, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., deliver his soaring “I Have a Dream” speech."

Quick Hit: John McCain on reproductive choice

Must read from Slate on John McCain's anti-choice record.

It's not just that I disagree with McCain on this, which I do. It's that so far he's gotten to have his cake and eat it, too, on the issue of family health and reproductive rights. People buy his branding as a "maverick" and assume that this means he's moderate on every issue. He's not.

Hey, if you're one of the 20 percent or so of Americans who think that surgical abortion should be illegal in every case, and one of the even smaller percentage who think that women can't even be trusted to use birth control pills or decide to give birth at home in the tub, then by all means vote for McCain. But if you don't agree with those positions, please, please, PLEASE educate yourself and don't buy the hype.

Blast from the Past: Jon Stewart vs. Crossfire

In light of this week's lovely post-modern examination of why anyone should care how many houses John McCain owns - i.e., it's tacky to forget how rich you are when you've been accusing someone else of being "elitist" because he dares to eat vegetables - I thought it would be timely to revisit Jon Stewart's legendary smackdown of the late, unlamented "Crossfire" in 2004.

This clip is Exhibit A in the case of "Why Sara Loves Jon Stewart." I love watching him attempt to explain to Tucker Carlson why professional journalists have an obligation to do more than jump at spin and minutiae like fish going after a lure from the Wal-Mart craft aisle, and the fact that Carlson refuses to get it is a pretty good explanation for why no one under the age of 40 trusts anything they see from the mainstream press.



Favorite moment:

Tucker Carlson: You need to work at a journalism school.

Jon Stewart: You need to go to one.

SNAP!

John McCain's housing crisis

John McCain can't remember how many houses he owns. For real.

Yeah, I have that same problem. Oh, wait.........NO I DON'T.

And, in my humble opinion as a public relations professional, McCain needs to keep this guy away from the press. First of all, don't threaten to bring up someone else's relationship with a shady financier when you work for the guy who the Senate Ethics Committee officially determined exercised "poor judgment" as one of the Keating Five. Second, one "mansion" =/= seven houses and $750,000 in credit card charges in one month. Third, you really shouldn't use language like "frickin'" and "arugula-eating, pointy headed professor-type" unless you're running for president of the South Park Elementary student council.

But finally... McCain and his handlers have been accused of exploiting the fact that McCain survived five and a half years in the Hanoi Hilton, using it whenever they need to deflect criticism. As the child of a Vietnam vet, I keep my mouth shut. Both sides have waved the bloody shirt for political gain over the years. But this:

[Rogers] also added: "This is a guy who lived in one house for five and a half years -- in prison," referring to the prisoner of war camp that McCain was in during the Vietnam War.

Yeah, that just pisses me off. What, a Vietnam vet automatically deserves to marry a gazillionaire trophy wife with so many houses he can't keep track of them all? I'm sure these guys are thrilled to know it. Or maybe they can just drop in on John and Cindy sometime...if they can figure out which house to go to.

Reflections on the Saddleback Church forum

I was really impressed with the candidate forum put together by Rev. Rick Warren, held at his ginormous Saddleback Church last Saturday night. I wanted to think about it a little more before I wrote anything. (Like chicken and dumplings, pinto beans and my mom’s spaghetti sauce, some things are just better when they’ve had a chance to sit awhile.)

First of all, I really don’t get the sturm and drang from some of my fellow progressives, who seem to object on principle to any candidate appearing in a house of worship, especially a largely conservative evangelical Christian church. I didn’t really see this as Obama “pandering” to people who won’t vote for him (which seems kind of condescending toward evangelical Christians…), and I didn’t see this as a sort of religious test that must be passed for one to be eligible for the presidency (which is, you know, un-Constitutional and all). I saw it as I believe Warren intended – a chance for each presidential candidate to talk more about his values. People vote on their values – in some cases, against their own economic interests. You might think it’s illogical, but it’s a reality for millions of people in this country.

Obviously, I’m biased, but I think Obama did a good job explaining his thoughts on several issues. We definitely got a look at each man’s thinking style, for better or for worse. Whereas Obama talked through the nuances of each answer, McCain answered with short, one- and two-word sound bites. Me, I like leaders who think through things, rather than blurting out a bullet point that’s calibrated to work back around toward our nation’s burning need to bomb random brown people…but like I said, I knew about that particular bias going in.

On the whole, I thought Warren was fair to each candidate, asking mostly the same questions (McCain got more, because of his shorter answers). With the glaring exception of asking when “babies” can have human rights (um, Pastor Rick? “Babies” already do), Warren kept his personal views out of it. I do wish Warren had pushed McCain to elaborate on his, er, efficient answers a bit. I’m not as interested in the “what” as I am the reason for the “what.”

For example, McCain assured Warren that his administration’s policies would be “pro-life.” [SNARK ON] I am so incredibly happy to hear that! McCain is going to establish public health care, stop indiscriminately bombing random brown people, end capital punishment, double what we’re spending on food stamps/free lunches, etc., and all sorts of wonderful things! Best of all, he’s going to end the global gag rule that prevents the U.S. from funding family planning efforts in other countries. Yay! I’m so glad we finally have a REAL pro-life president! [SNARK OFF]

Seriously, I want to know what McCain means when he says he’s pro-life, and that his administration will be pro-life. Does he just want to outlaw surgical abortion (even though this does nothing to reduce the number of abortions)? Will he increase funding for comprehensive sex-ed and other programs that keep unplanned pregnancies from happening in the first place? Is he coming after my Ortho-TriCyclen? I need specifics here. A few weeks ago, McCain didn’t even know that he’d voted against requiring health insurance providers to cover birth control, and why this might be an issue for some people. If he’s going to presume to legislate on the subject, then someone sure as hell needs to make him think about it.

Another thing…Warren asked each man which Supreme Court justices he would not have appointed. Obama put Clarence Thomas out there, explaining that he didn’t feel Thomas was qualified at the time of his nomination. He went on to say that, while he admired Justice Scalia’s intellect, he disagreed with him on several interpretations of the Constitution. McCain just named the four most liberal justices, with no explanation. See, I like the idea of a president who grasps the difference between “disagrees with me” and “Wrong! EEEEEvil! Must be BANISHED FROM THE FACE OF THE EEEEEEEEERTH!!!” You know?

For me, the forum already confirmed my support for Obama, and the reasons for that support. It also confirmed that, while I still admire and like McCain, he’s pretty much the polar opposite of what I want in a president. But I agree with both of them on one thing – that kind of relatively un-contentious dialogue, designed to educate votes, is something of which we sorely need more.

Money can't buy you class

The Bristol Herald-Courier has a fantastic article about life outside the upper reaches of NASCAR’s Name-That-Cup Series, focusing on Abingdon, Va.-based driver Eric McClure. Aside from being a former classmate of mine at Emory & Henry (I didn’t know him – at least I don’t think so…), McClure is a member of the family whose Morgan-McClure Motorsports finally shut down last year due to financial constraints.

This has happened to a lot of the smaller teams in recent years, unfortunately. Despite NASCAR’s position that setting strict templates and requiring the purchase of this body type, that tire, etc., actually makes it cheaper to field a car, the gap between the haves and have-nots gets wider every year. And we’re seeing the result, in the form of yawn-worthy races and drivers selected more for their ability to film a commercial than to wheel a car.

We’re also losing a vital piece of our culture – and by that I mean both our regional culture and our sport’s culture. NASCAR developed such a rabid fan base in the middle part of the 20^th century because, unlike other pro sports, racing was inherently democratic. The guy that you saw at Bowman Gray this week could conceivably win a Cup championship a year or so later. Drivers who spent 10 or 15 years banging out their dents and rebuilding their own engines had a little more appreciation for success when it came to them, and they were better racers for it (I’m talking to you, Kyle Busch).

Of course, high-dollar sponsorships are wonderful things – they allow teams more stability, professionalism and all that. Of course a sponsor shelling out $20 million deserves a return on that investment. But they also have to be realistic. I think, in trying to sell the idea that NASCAR is just like every other sport, the powers-that-be have done a real disservice to drivers, team owners, new fans, old fans and sponsors, too. I can’t help but think that NASCAR could do more to keep the Roushes, the Hendricks and the Gibbses of the world from sucking up all the oxygen.

Eric McClure still drives in the Nationwide (formerly Busch) Series, the #24 Hefty Brand Chevrolet. In that same series, two Joe Gibbs Racing teams felt they didn’t have quite enough of an advantage already, and fixed a chassis dyno test to make it look like the cars had less horsepower than they actually did. For this they were “slammed” with a whole $100,000. In a perfect world, that cash would go to the Nationwide regulars, who – if you ask me – were the real losers here.

My mom always told me, money can't buy you class.

UPDATE: ESPN.com's Ed Hinton gets Junior Johnson's take on cheating in NASCAR, which the ex-felon euphemistically considers "creativity." I have to tell you, as much as NASCAR's templates annoy me, I have a real problem with glamorizing cheating, or the breaking of federal laws, for that matter. For instance:

"Junior's daddy was imprisoned three times for moonshining. His mother was booked, fingerprinted, her mugshot taken, but never did time. All the Johnson family of Wilkes County, N.C., ever did, they felt, was earn their living the best they could on hardscrabble land that would barely grow corn for the sour mash. Making liquor in the hollows was hard work, and outrunning the law on the road was harder."

Hmm. Change "moonshining" to "dealing crack," "Wilkes County" to "South Central" and all that mythical BS about hardscrabble land to something about inner cities, and something tells me NASCAR's core audience wouldn't be quite so empathetic.

And I still don't see why we should pat a behemoth like JGR, with its bottomless pockets, on the back for their "creativity" while drivers like Eric McClure struggle to put together a season. Don't misplace your sympathy.

And by the way, my family and plenty of others managed to survive in those same hollers - that's what we call them, ESPN.com - without ever having to go to the federal pen.

Tastes like chicken...?

Being as how I've never lived anywhere but where I live now, lots of nation-wide advertisements puzzle me (e.g. what the heck is "Carl's Jr.?" Why can't they just call it Hardee's as God intended?). But when McDonald's rolled out its new campaign promoting the revolutionary idea that one could eat chicken for breakfast, I figured I'd had enough. I've been able to order a chicken biscuit at Mickey D's for as long as I can remember - Hardee's, Bojangles and Biscuitville, too, for that matter. Is this not the case for the rest of the country? Good heavens, and they call us the ignorant ones!

Apparently McDonald's "new" chicken biscuit is meant to compete with Chik-Fil-A's. Now, I can't eat at Chik-fil-A because they cook in peanut oil, so apparently I missed the fact that they also doctor their chicken biscuits in pickle juice. Okay, can I say something here? I've lived in the South my entire life, and I have never, not once, EVER seen anybody put pickles on fried chicken. And we're a people that will, generally speaking, fry anything and put pickles on anything, so that's saying something.

So, a few weeks ago, I forgot to eat breakfast two days in a row. This is huge for me - I NEVER forget to eat. There have been times when I forgot that I ate, but for me to skip a meal usually involves unconsciousness. Seriously, I eat when I have a stomach bug. Anyway, I didn't realize that I'd forgotten to eat until I was almost to work, well past the Biscuitville in Kernersville. So I stopped at the McDonald's around the corner from my office and got the chicken biscuit that - just to reiterate - I've been eating since McD's opened a franchise in my town my sophomore year in high school.

Yes, it tasted like pickles. Yes, I ate it anyway, even though I hate pickles (unless they're kosher, in which case I will steal them off of your plate). Yes, I assumed that this particular McDonald's was just sloppy, or weird or something. But then last weekend when I was visiting my parents, the same thing happened. Pickle chicken. Yeccccch.

What is McDonald's thinking? They sell one kind of chicken biscuit for years, and then inexplicably switch to some freaky pickle-chicken in order to poach market share from some Chik-Fil-A in Manhattan or some sh*t. And the kicker - they market this as the "Southern Fried Chicken Biscuit" - never mind the fact that actual, real-live Southerners - we exist, believe it or not - have been perfectly happy eating non-pickle-chicken for decades.

F*ck you, McDonald's. Thank goodness I still have Bojangles.

I thought they were the old, experienced ones...?

I've grown mildly addicted to CNN.com's Political Ticker, which is basically a gossip column devoted to U.S. politics. Here's where they post the stories that may or may not be heavy enough to go up on the Top Stories list with the latest news about how Lindsay Lohan was abducted by a dog that can do backflips (...or something). For instance, there's a story up today reporting (in a somewhat breathless tone) that Barack Obama has sent a letter to the Pentagon about increasing benefits for war veterans suffering from traumatic brain injury (TBI), and - ooh! ooh! - Evan Bayh signed it, too!!! OMG, Obama is, like, so totally going to pick him as his VP! Wounded Iraq/Afghanistan vets, what? (You get the picture.)

And then there's this story about the McCain campaign's "response" to Obama's comment that inflating tires properly can increase fuel efficiency. They printed up little tire gauges with "Obama's Energy Plan" written on them, and then distributed them to the press corps. According to this, the campaign also intends to sell the tire gauges as a fund-raiser. Putting aside the idea that I don't really understand the strategy behind using one's own campaign funds to make souvenirs imprinted with your opponent's name...

What's the punchline? Am I missing something here? Using the optimum tire pressure does improve gas mileage, which means you use less gas (right?), which means ultimately you're helping conserve oil. Now, if tire pressure didn't in fact affect mileage, Obama saying that it did would be mock-worthy ... kind of like if Obama's folks started selling maps showing the Iran-Pakistan border.

Actually, no. I can't tell you how big a turn-off it is for me to see the campaign of a person who presumes to be my president acting like a bunch of middle-schoolers. I've always felt that campaigns, like job interviews, are about more than exploring a candidate's list of qualifications. I look for how the prospective president manages people and puts out fires, how he or she acts under pressure. We've just put up with eight years of this WASPy frat-boy entitlement BS, and this kind of stuff doesn't do much to convince me that a McCain presidency would have a very different mentality. Grow up, please.

UPDATE: The NY Times' political blog has more... Apparently someone (it's not clear from this whether it's the McCain campaign, the Republican National Committee or another group) sent Obama one of the tire gauges as a birthday present. Seriously...? I need to stop before I start suggesting birthday gifts for McCain...