RIP

Hello. Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me. Is there anyone home?

There is no pain, you are receding. A distant ships smoke on the horizon. You are only coming through in waves. Your lips move but I cant hear what youre sayin. When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse, Out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone. I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb.


I guess that's the end of this experiment. Not a Tumor, a Baby, we hardly knew ye.

Sexism in the Presidential Campaign

McCain's announcement of Sarah Palin - governor of Alaska - as his running mate today has me reflecting on the accusations of sexism in the coverage of this year's race. I've been skeptical of the claims of Hilary backers because she's such a unique figure. If a cable news host calls her "power hungry," is it because she's a woman, because she's is perceived to be where she is because of nepotism, because she lacks Obama's charisma, or for some other reason? It's impossible to say because not only because a woman has never been a realistic presidential candidate, but also because she's such a charged figure from the Clinton Years.

That being said, the "Commander In Chief" vetting that Palin is now undergoing doesn't pass the sniff test. Palin's resume is thin, but not barren. She's been in politics 16 years as a City Councilwoman, mayor, in various state government executive positions, and for two years as a successful governor. Contrast this to Obama's resume: 11 years in politics as a state senator and senator, as well as stint's as a community organizer and law lecturer. Neither of these resume's is clearly better than the other.

Obama is widely seen, however, as (possibly arguably) ready to be President. Yes, readiness is the central message repubs are pushing, but he is leading in the polls. I get the feeling that most people see him as a legitimate President, even if they plan on voting against him. Palin is a different story, though. My gut reaction on hearing her announcement, and what I'm guessing most people feel, is that she's clearly unready to assume the mantle. Part of this, of course, is because of the fact that most of us have never seen her before and because she's a Washington outsider. I do think the fact that she's a young, good looking woman plays a significant role, however. And make no mistake, Sarah Palin is a babe:

Veep Thoughts

If you've got nothing better to do than follow the day to day swings of the presidential election, you know that Obama is likely to announce his running mate tomorrow or Friday morning. Right now the leading contenders are said to be Evan Bayh (Indiana Senator), Joe Biden (Delaware Senator), Tim Kaine (Virginia governor) and Kathleen Sebelius (Kansas Governor). The inevitable whispers of Hilary Clinton are also out there, but they don't seem very likely - sources say she hasn't been vetted by the Obama team, and after reading about her inner circle in the Atlantic article its hard to believe we wouldn't have heard. In any case, here is my take on the four most oft-mentioned candidates.

Kathleen Sebelius

As a national co-chair of his presidential campaign, Kathleen Sebelius has earned Obama's trust and gratitude. She reminds me of Mark Warner; she is extremely popular in a deeply conservative state in spite of holding several liberal positions (pro choice, especially). Her selection, however, is not going to deliver Kansas and may come across as gimmicky. Fair or not, I think it would come across as appeasement of Hillary's supporters. Rather than uniting the party, I think divisions would be reinforced, not forgotten about. Could she be one of the biggest losers of the drawn out primary?

Tim Kaine

I'm not high at all on the Virginia governor. His light resume (Richmond City Council - ooooh, Lt. Governor, Governor) does not bring the right tone to the ticket. He's described as a rising star in the Democratic party, but I don't think any serious pundits can actually mean that. What's his signature accomplishment? Enacting hugely unpopular Abusive Driver Fees? He has no bona fides on either the economy or defense (or anything, really), and frankly, he just doesn't look good on camera. He rode Mark Warner's coattails to power in Virginia, and doesn't bring a single thing to the ticket. I'm sure that the Obama campaign is too intelligent to give him the nod, leading us to...

Joe Biden

Look at that mug! There is the seasoned vet we need. He's not afraid to be aggressive, he's an experienced and competent attack dog, and he brings all the gravitas that Kaine lacks. A senator for decades, he's got foreign policy experience coming out his ass - just witness his most recent trip (and harsh words for Russia) to Georgia! It's not surprising that he's got the most buzz right now. Are there any problems with this selection? As far as I can see, there's just one, but its major. Presidential elections for the last several decades have revolved around one of two issues: the economy and defense. Remember Clinton's "It's the economy, stupid." Remember evil doers, 9/11, and the last eight years? If Democrats can make this election about the economy, they look good. The problem with Biden is that his selection cedes the field to McCain - rather than pushing an aggressive economic message, this pick is defensive. Obama already loses the national security vote and his selection should change the playing field, not play D in a losing battle.

Evan Bayh

I can't find anything interesting to say about Evan Bayh. He's a boring speaker. He's a boring senator from a boring state. He's on the Banking and Housing/Urban Development committees, so he supposedly brings economic experience to the campaign. Unfortunately, however, it doesn't seem like he can deliver Indiana (unless Gary puts him over the top!) If he's the best 'economic message' veep candidate we can find, I'm somewhat depressed for the Democratic party. That being said, of the four most hyped options, he seems like the best to me.

Everyone Else

There are two candidates who are leaps and bounds ahead of these four, and who, unfortunately, will not be picked. The first is John Edwards. As much as I didn't love him as a presidential candidate, as much as I think he comes across as phony and insincere (the haircut, the house, the mistress, the lies), and as much as he is political poison at this point, he is a candidate driven by an economic message. The point is moot now, but before the cheating scandal, ask the average voter about John Edwards and the first thing that comes to mind is "Two Americas." That's the kind of powerful, visceral economic message we need in a vice-presidential candidate. His selection would have set the tone for the entire presidential campaign, but unfortunately thats just a fantasy at this point.
The ultimate, game-over, plan the party selection would be Mark Warner. The former Virginia governor (and soon to be freshman senator) is the best and most effective Democratic politician I've ever witnessed. He's like an authentic Mitt Romney (and if you know me, you know how I feel about my neighbor, Mitt). Warner worked for telecom regulators after law school, went on to make a fortune (on the up and up) founding Nextel, and won the Virginia Governorship. His term (limited) first term was, again, Mitt-esque. He inherited a financial crisis and was forced to renege on a campaign pledge not to raise taxes. Unfortunately, this was the death knell of his political career, as he was labeled a tax and spend governor who was out of touch with normal people, and run out of office with Bush-like approval numbers... Wait a second, that wasn't Mark Warner, it was every single other Democratic politician in the world. What actually happened is that he rescued VA from its financial crisis, got it named the best managed state in the country, left office with approval ratings in the 80s (!), and flipped two senate seats and a governorship from red to blue. As veep, he delivers Virginia, no question, and puts us in line for 16 years in the white house. Current Washington rumor has it that he's cured cancer as well, but doesn't want to politicize it by announcing this development before his current senate race is over. Unfortunately, he took a pledge not to accept the VP nod and continue serving the people of Virginia. I believe that Mark Warner will be president one day, the sooner the better!

So I got a little off track with my Warner excitement. Now I'm depressed thinking about these VP possibilities. If I had to pick one, go with Bayh for the economic message. If you want to play defense on national security take Biden. Or you could go crazy and pick Hillary for a "Unity Ticket." We'll find out tomorrow (or Friday).

I saw this on Barstoolsports. This chick is their "I don't fuck around" award winner of the week. I would have to agree.

The McCains Are Old

From Jonathon Martin's Blog:

Cindy McCain went to a Michigan hospital this afternoon after an exuberant supporter shook her hand hard enough to cause a minor sprain.

With her husband at a mid-day fundraiser in West Bloomfield, McCain was greeting donors when one offered a handshake so vigorous as to exacerbate an "existing carpal tunnel condition for which she has had previous surgeries," according to Melissa Shuffield, her spokeswoman.

McCain left the fundraiser and visited a nearby hospital where she was x-rayed and given pain relief for what Shuffield called "a minor sprain."

She is to return to the campaign trail tomorrow.

I guess this isn't the biggest story of the season, but you kind of have to question the wisdom of the doctor who prescribed her "pain relief." It's not like she doesn't know where to get it herself, after all.

Brad Sucks - I Don't Know What I'm Doing

Solid Stuff. Support independent music!

The Smyth Report: Administrative and Technical History of the Manhattan Project

The Smyth Report is the "official" U.S. government account of the administrative and technical history of the Manhattan Project. Released six days after "Little Boy" was dropped on Hiroshima, the report's stated goal is to educate the American (and worldwide) public about the principals and capabilities of atomic energy, specifically its military applications:

"The ultimate responsibility for our nation's policy rests on its citizens and they can discharge such responsibilities wisely only if they are informed. The average citizen cannot be expected to understand clearly how an atomic bomb is constructed or how it works but there is in this country a substantial group of engineers and scientists who can understand such things and who can explain the potentialities of atomic bombs to their fellow citizens. The present report is written for this professional group and is a matter-of-fact, general account of work in the USA since 1939 aimed at the production of such bombs."

The report addresses three major areas that I find particularly interesting while occasionally providing a glimpse into the personalities and ideologies of the (mostly non-military) scientists involved with the Manhattan Project. First, its treatment of the science behind the bomb is interesting because it is both accessible and built on first principles. Rarely has such such massive research been undertaken, and the focus on applicability rather than "pure science" is easily apparent throughout the report. Lots of space is dedicated to the tension between scientific principles and industrial capacity. In fact, I was surprised by the set of challenges faced. Drawing a blueprint of an atomic bomb turns out to be fairly easy; learning how to refine the fissionable material, manufacture precision explosives, etc turns out to be the limiting factor. Interestingly, this is still true today; Iran is not limited by its technological understanding but instead by its limited industrial capacity.

The tension between the scientific and manufacturing camps raises the second interesting aspect of the Smyth Report; the administrative history of the Manhattan Project. These section really provide insight into the personalities and group dynamic that were involved. Especially regarding the issue of censorship, the report reveals the complicity (or cooperation) of U.S. scientists:

"This arrangement was very successful in preventing publication and was still nominally in effect, in modified form, in .June 1945 Actually the absorption of most physicists in this country into war work of one sort of another soon reduced the number of papers referred to the committee practically to the vanishing point, It is of interest to note that this whole arrangement was a purely voluntary one; the scientists of the country are to be congratulated on their complete cooperation. It is to be hoped that it will be possible after the war to publish these papers at least in part so that their authors may receive proper professional credit for their contributions."

Another interesting nugget is the developing tension, even then, between American heros and French cheese eating surrender monkeys. In the spring of 1939, Neils Bohr led a coalition of eminent U.S. scientists who voluntarily agreed to cease publishing relevant papers; this arrangement failed, however, due to the refusal of "F. Joliot, France's foremost nuclear physicist, apparently because of the publication of one letter in the Physical Review sent in before all Americans had been brought into the agreement. Consequently publication continued freely for about another year although a few, papers were withheld voluntarily by their authors." In it's discussion of the project's administrative history, the report helps us learn a bit more about some of the leading scientists and military leaders. Their wisdom comes through most clearly in report's summary, however.

In the conclusion, the author exhibits remarkable prescience, accurately predicting several future developments in applied atomic science and articulating ways in which the Manhattan Project fundamentally changed the world. The conclusion is short and dense; I won't summarize because the entire thing is worth reading, but this is the final paragraph of the report:

"Because of the restrictions of military security there has been no chance for the Congress or the people to debate such questions. They have been seriously considered by all concerned and vigorously debated among the scientists, and the conclusions reached have been passed along to the highest authorities. These questions are not technical questions; they are political and social questions, and the answers given to them may affect all mankind for generations. In thinking about them the men on the project have been thinking as citizens of the United States vitally interested in the welfare of the human race. It has been their duty and that of the responsible high government officials who were informed to look beyond the limits of the present war and its weapons to the ultimate implications of these discoveries. This was a heavy responsibility. In a free country like ours, such questions should be debated by the people and decisions must be made by the people through their representatives. This is one reason for the release of this report. It is a semi-technical report which it is hoped men of science in this country can use to help their fellow citizens in reaching wise decisions. The people of the country must be informed if they are to discharge their responsibilities wisely."

More than anything, this leaves me nostalgic for a government I feel like I can trust. This attitude is woefully missing from our government today, which instead reflexively hides anything the least bit controversial. I hope that future administrations will recognize the essential role an active and educated populace plays in creating good government, but frankly, I'm not optimistic.