Dave Letterman Talks About John McCain Dissing Him

John McCain was supposed to be on Letterman, but because he "suspended his campaign" he did not appear on Letterman. Above are some of Dave's thoughts on this.

"What are you going to do if you're elected and things get tough? Suspend being president? We've got a guy like that now!"
-Dave Letterman

9-11, Seven Years Later

Everyone of course remembers exactly where they were when they heard or saw.

I wasn't one to wake up early back in those days, but on that particular day I had a doctors appointment for 9:00am. Therefore, I was up and on the way when it happened. Immediately after my appointment I headed to school (TCU, go Frogs) just to be with other people, hoping they might help me process this changed environment in which we found ourselves. I was in the student center watching the news with many others when the second plane hit. I felt sick to my stomach. I still have a problem watching the footage as it reminds me of when I saw it happen live.

Everyone alive at that time will always be marked by what happened that day and the effects of that event continue to affect us today as we get nearer to the most important election in the history of our great country, a country that has been pushed far off course in the last 7 years at the hands of George W Bush.

Jim Wallis, creator of social justice oriented website and magazine Sojourners as well as author of The Great Awakening. Reviving Faith & Politics in a Post-Religious Right America and God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It, had this to say today in his Sojourners email, and I think it is worth sharing and contemplating.

Reflecting on Our Response to 9/11

Seven years ago this morning, airplanes were flown into the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon, and a field in rural Pennsylvania. The next day I joined with a few others to draft the following statement. In a few weeks, more than 4,000 of America's religious leaders of all faiths had signed it and it was printed as an ad in The New York Times.

Seven years later, as we remember that day, it is appropriate to reflect on this statement and to wonder how the world would be different if its counsel had been heeded.

We demanded "that those responsible for these utterly evil acts be found and brought to justice. Those culpable must not escape accountability." Yet after seven years of war in Afghanistan, we are still engaged against a resurgent Taliban and al Qaeda, and Osama bin Laden has still not been found. Then, 9/11 was used as a rationale to invade and occupy Iraq, a conflict that has now taken the lives of more than 4,000 American troops and countless Iraqis. Rather than "the vision of community, tolerance, compassion, justice, and the sacredness of human life, which lies at the heart of all our religious traditions," we have seen the erosion of our civil liberties, torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, and indefinite detentions without trial.

Today on this anniversary, let us pause to remember those who died, to reflect on what has happened since, and once again, "Let us rededicate ourselves to global peace, human dignity, and the eradication of the injustice that breeds rage and vengeance." We offered a different way to deny the terrorists their victory, which, I believe, could still be followed. It's not too late to change our course. Please read and reflect upon the original statement.

Deny Them Their Victory: A Religious Response to Terrorism

We, American religious leaders, share the broken hearts of our fellow citizens. The worst terrorist attack in history that assaulted New York City, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania has been felt in every American community. Each life lost was of unique and sacred value in the eyes of God, and the connections Americans feel to those lives run very deep. In the face of such a cruel catastrophe, it is a time to look to God and to each other for the strength we need and the response we will make. We must dig deep to the roots of our faith for sustenance, solace and wisdom.
First, we must find a word of consolation for the untold pain and suffering of our people. Our congregations will offer their practical and pastoral resources to bind up the wounds of the nation. We can become safe places to weep and secure places to begin rebuilding our shattered lives and communities. Our houses of worship should become public arenas for common prayer, community discussion, eventual healing, and forgiveness.

Second, we offer a word of sober restraint as our nation discerns what its response will be. We share the deep anger toward those who so callously and massively destroy innocent lives, no matter what the grievances or injustices invoked. In the name of God, we too demand that those responsible for these utterly evil acts be found and brought to justice. Those culpable must not escape accountability. But we must not, out of anger and vengeance, indiscriminately retaliate in ways that bring on even more loss of innocent life. We pray that President Bush and members of Congress will seek the wisdom of God as they decide upon the appropriate response.

Third, we face deep and profound questions of what this attack on America will do to us as a nation. The terrorists have offered us a stark view of the world they would create, where the remedy to every human grievance and injustice is a resort to the random and cowardly violence of revenge -- even against the most innocent. Having taken thousands of our lives, attacked our national symbols, forced our political leaders to flee their chambers of governance, disrupted our work and families, and struck fear into the hearts of our children, the terrorists must feel victorious.
But we can deny them their victory by refusing to submit to a world created in their image. Terrorism inflicts not only death and destruction but also emotional oppression to further its aims. We must not allow this terror to drive us away from being the people God has called us to be. We assert the vision of community, tolerance, compassion, justice, and the sacredness of human life, which lies at the heart of all our religious traditions. America must be a safe place for all our citizens in all their diversity. It is especially important that our citizens who share national origins, ethnicity, or religion with whoever attacked us are, themselves, protected among us.

Our American illusion of invulnerability has been shattered. From now on, we will look at the world in a different way, and this attack on our life as a nation will become a test of our national character. Let us make the right choices in this crisis -- to pray, act, and unite against the bitter fruits of division, hatred and violence. Let us rededicate ourselves to global peace, human dignity, and the eradication of the injustice that breeds rage and vengeance.
As we gather in our houses of worship, let us begin a process of seeking the healing and grace of God.

Biggest Political Blunder Ever?

Let's take the world's stupidest stand and truly mean it.
-Okkervil River

Yesterday morning, just before 10:00am Central Standard Time, CNN reported that John McCain had made his VP selection, Sarah Palin.

Needless to say, I was shocked.

The entire push of the McCain campaign seemed to be centered around the argument that Barack Obama didn't have the necessary experience to become president. Less then 12 hours earlier, after Obama's outstanding speech to close the Democratic National Convention, McCain's staff had issued a release trying to point out just that. They said as inspirational as Barack Obama is, he's still not ready. This even after they knew that their choice for the person to be "a heartbeat away from the Presidency" (as it is said) is even less experienced.

One advisor of John McCain shared that opinion with the New York Times, admitting that McCain's own advisors were surprised by the pick.

From the New York Times

As reports circulated on television and cable networks on Friday morning that Senator John McCain might have selected Ms. Palin as his running mate, McCain advisers expressed bewilderment. One adviser said that while Mr. McCain thinks highly of Ms. Palin, who is opposed to abortion rights and would be welcomed by Christian conservatives, her less than two years in office would undercut one of the McCain campaign’s central criticisms of Senator Barack Obama — that he is too inexperienced to be commander-in-chief.

“While it’s a dramatic and interesting choice, it would make the argument he’s making difficult to make,” said one McCain adviser.

I love that. "McCain advisors expressed bewilderment." Now, of course, the Republicans have had time to get "on message", and the argument they have decided to make (as ridiculous as it may be) is that Palin is actually more experienced then Obama. Let's take a closer look at this claim.

Their argument is that since Palin's experience is executive experience, while Obama's is strictly in the Senate, her experience is somehow worth more. I might agree that extensive executive experience is worth more then extensive experience in the Senate, but there is no way that less then two years as Governor of Alaska is worth more then over 3 years in the Senate. Looking at it another way, Palin has less then 2 years of experience in politics at a State or higher level, Barack Obama has over 11 years of experience in politics at a State or higher level.

Doesn't really seem close.

And while Palin's experience is executive, it should be pointed out that she is the governor of the smallest state in America population wise. The population of all of Alaska is roughly the same as the population of Austin, Texas.

Palin won her governorship with approx. 115,000 votes. Meanwhile, over 85,000 people were at Invesco field to hear Barack Obama speak Thursday night.

So, while Palin's experience is executive, I would argue that it is worth a lot less then the experience that Barack Obama has accrued in his political career. And in the executive experience that Palin has been able to accumulate in her less then two years in office, there has been no way for her to learn about inner-city violence, drugs, or the other issues that large cities are infested with, but are relatively rare in Alaska, and that's to say nothing of foreign policy, the most important issue facing our Country today. So, in that case, perhaps McCain should have chosen the mayor of Austin. The experience of that job arguably outweighs the experience gained from being the Governor of Alaska.

And their work before entering politics is in favor of Obama as well. Barack having been a civil rights lawyer and a community organizer seems more apt towards becoming president someday then being a beauty pageant runner up and a sports reporter. (Palin reportedly wanted to work for ESPN so badly that she named one of her daughters Bristol, the town in Connecticut that houses ESPN headquarters.)

So, the only way to argue that Palin is the most experienced is to grossly outweigh executive experience over legislative experience. If you make that argument, you are actually saying that Palin is more experienced then John McCain.

And that's just laughable.

Therefore, so is the idea that Palin is more experienced then Obama.

But really, the question isn't about whether Palin is more experienced or just as experienced as Barack Obama (which I think it's clear that she is not). What it means is that the Republicans, specifically McCain's campaign, must not view experience as that important, since the person they have chosen to be a heartbeat away from the presidency (and a president who is at 72 years old, set to be the oldest president ever elected, and has had four occurrences of melanoma, a potentially lethal type of skin cancer) has so little experience.

Therefore, simply, the argument that Obama is not experienced enough for the presidency is no longer a valid one. McCain should not get to try and make it again.

So, why would McCain make this choice?

Well, there is only one reason that I can think of for McCain to have picked a woman whose selection takes away the only argument he had against Obama. He's trying to pick up the vote of the disgruntled Hillary supporters.

First of all, I thought that the speeches by Hillary and Bill Clinton at the DNC went a long way towards healing the separation. So, is it possible that some of the Hillary supporters will head over to McCain's ticket? I suppose that anything's possible, but choosing an inexperienced and unknown woman with exactly the opposite values isn't the way to win over Hillary's supporters in my mind. In fact it's actually quite condescending. Two women who voted for Hillary in the Texas Primary that I have spoken to have both called it insulting.

James Carville, Clinton supporter and famous democratic advisor, said on CNN the night of this announcement that the idea of Clinton supporters voting for McCain because of Palin was insulting. His feeling was that if Clinton got 18 million votes, 8 of them might vote for a creationist, gun-toting, pro-lifer with no experience.

By picking someone who goes against his message ("Obama's not ready") there is little question that picking up the disgruntled Hillary supporters is what this choice was really all about.

The sad thing is, McCain had two other females available who are extremely qualified and therefore better suited to winning over the female voters, Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (arguably one of the most popular politicians amongst Republicans right now and no question holds that spot amongst Texas Republicans) and Condoleezza Rice, the current Secretary of State. However, by choosing a woman with so little experience, this choice smacks of condescension. We have a woman on the ticket, you voted for another woman, therefore you'll vote for us despite the facts.

There is no question that this is anything other then insulting.

McCain and Palin are ignoring this however and flaunting their desire to try and win over Clinton's supporters. When Palin was introduced as McCain's running mate, she referenced Geraldine Ferraro (the first woman on a major party ticket, she was Mondale's VP in 1984) and Clinton, specifically saying, "Hillary left 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America. But it turns out the women of America aren't finished yet, and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all." The women that voted for Clinton are smart enough to recognize that Palin stands for everything Clinton was running against and that voting for her just because she's a woman wouldn't be continuing what Hillary stood for in her historic run.

One rumor that I've heard is that Kay Bailey Hutchison was the top pick for the spot, but she declined to be considered saying that she wanted to focus on running for Governor of Texas in 2010 (and possibly her own run at the White House in 2012 or 2016). If that is true, I can't help but wonder if Senator Hutchison didn't want to be used that way (or perhaps figured McCain wasn't going to beat Obama anyway and didn't want to be a losing Vice Presidential candidate).

So, McCain's hope is clearly that by choosing a woman as his VP he'll win votes simply because she's a woman. Another problem I have with this attitude is that I don't think the majority of the 18 million plus votes received by both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were cast because the candidate was a woman or black. The candidates themselves are about so much more then either their gender or their race.

Republican's of course will argue that Palin is the same type of candidate. They will point to her record as someone who took on her own party to clean up the corruption that was rampant in Alaskan politics. That is impressive, but the same day she was announced as the Republican VP candidate the story of her own corruption was released.

Alaskan State Trooper Mike Wooten also happens to be the ex-brother in law of Sarah Palin. Palin, her husband, and her sister called for his firing during a particular nasty child custody case between Wooten and Palin's sister.

The Department of Public Safety apparently made an investigation of the claims against Wooten (including that he used a Taser on his step-son, shot a moose out of season, lied on his application, and faked a workman's comp claim.) Yet Wooten was not fired.

In a phone call (apparently one of many made) from one of Palin's aides to a representative of the Department of Public Safety, Frank Bailey, Palin's aide, asks why Wooten has not been let go. He lists the reasons they feel Wooten should be let go.

The first five minutes of the audio call that has been uncovered by the media is concerning a contract situation that the DPS representative seems to think is an odd reason for such a phone call. Finally, Bailey gets to the real reason for his call, Mike Wooten. One has to wonder why an aide should make such a phone call. He gives his info on why Wooten is a bad trooper and claims that the trooper is "a bad recruiting tool" as if the claims they are making are known by the Alaskan population at large and would keep good people from wanting to be a State Trooper.

It seems as Bailey is working towards his real goal he feels uncomfortable about making this call, which leads me to believe he had been told to make this phone call and told to pressure the DPS to fire Wooten.

One part of the recording I found interesting was when Bailey brings up the alleged falsehood Wooten put on his application. The DPS representative asked how Bailey knew that Wooten had lied on his application, saying such info is classified. Bailey answers he doesn't feel comfortable answering how he knows. Pretty suspicious.

After the audio of this call was released, Palin admitted to the Anchorage Daily News that it was "a smoking gun" conversation. After having previously said that no one in her family or administration was attempting to get Wooten fired she now admitted that she did "now have to tell Alaskans that such pressure could have been perceived to exist although I have only now become aware of it."

After Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan refused to fire Wooten, Palin fired him. She claims that her firing of Monegan had absolutely nothing to do with Wooten at all, but it sure is suspicious. Monegan claims his firing came completely "out of the blue".

There are two ways of looking at this situation. One, Palin used her station and power to try and get her ex-brother in law fired out of anger, and when she failed, took her anger out on Wooten's boss. Or two, that she has so little control of her staff that aides are using her station and power in order to pressure the Department of Public Safety to fire Wooten. And, again, remembering that the population of Alaska is roughly the same as the population of Austin, Texas, that staff is nowhere near as extensive as say the staff of the Vice President of the United States would be.

So, if we take Sarah Palin at her word, then we can only conclude that she is unable to handle her own staff, which at the moment is no where near the size that it would be if McCain were to win.

I think it is far more likely, however, that Palin was attempting to use her position as Governor of Alaska to settle a score with her ex-brother in law, and that scares me that McCain wants to give her an even more powerful position.

Of course, it makes it even more ironic that she ran and was elected on the platform of cleaning up political corruption and is under investigation less then two years into her term. And that despite this glaring mark against her one strength, McCain still chose her for the Republican Vice Presidential spot (causing bewilderment on behalf of his top advisors).

Of course, I suppose that it's possible he didn't know about this situation. After all, McCain had only met Palin once before naming her as his choice for VP. They met 6 months ago for the first time. They had one phone conversation after that (last Sunday) and then McCain offered her the position.

Couple this troubling news with the fact that his advisors were "bewildered" by the pick and one has to wonder if McCain knows exactly what he is doing. Any plusses that can be found in picking an inexperienced, creationist (Palin told the Anchorage Daily News that she believes Creationism should be taught alongside evolution, they then informed her that the Supreme Court had called the teaching of Creationism an illegal infusion of religion into public schools, which she apparently didn't know, because she then backtracked and said it should be taught if it came up), life long NRA member, and fiercely pro-life candidate (which will help appease the base who aren't thrilled with McCain) would be outweighed by all of the negatives, including her age (younger even then Obama) which one McCain supporter said might negatively reflect on McCain's age (an issue that hadn't been brought up too often by the democrats until this decision) as the election grew closer. And while the base might be appeased by this appointment (although that isn't guaranteed), most people believe that this is an election that will be decided by the moderate Republicans and independents, who are not going to look at this pick as anything but ridiculous.

And after writing all of this, I still haven’t brought up the fact that McCain is choosing for his vice-presidential spot someone who is completely unsure exactly what a Vice President does. When asked less then a month ago in an interview about the possibility of her becoming McCain’s pick for VP, this was her answer…

I'll tell you, I still can't answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day.

Maybe it’s time to find out, Governor Palin. Of course, I would like the Vice Presidential nominee to already have a handle on it before being chosen for the position, but to each their own, I suppose.

So, is this the biggest political blunder ever? Has there ever been a worse decision in American politics? Not since Alexander Hamilton agreed to a duel with Aaron Burr (because Dick Cheney isn't the only vice-president to have shot somebody while in office).

Football Predictions

A week from today, the NFL kicks off another season. Already two of my fantasy football teams have drafted, this weekend the final three will have their drafts. In other words, yes, I'm ready for some football.

Today, I'm going to put up my preseason predictions for where all of the teams are going to finish, who will make the playoffs, and what those teams will do in the playoffs.

Let's get started...

NFC

East
1st-Philadelphia Eagles 11-5
2nd-New York Giants 10-6
3rd-Dallas Cowboys 8-8
4th-Washington Redskins 8-8

West
1st-Arizona Cardinals 9-7
2nd-Seattle Seahawks 8-8
3rd-St Louis Rams 6-10
4th-San Francisco 49ers 5-11

South
1st-New Orleans Saints 11-5
2nd-Tampa Bay Buccaneers 9-7
3rd-Carolina Panthers 5-11
4th-Atlanta Falcons 2-14

North
1st-Chicago Bears 12-4
2nd-Minnesota Vikings 10-6
3rd-Green Bay Packers 7-9
4th-Detroit Lions 3-13

I have the Vikings and the Giants making the playoffs as the wild card teams and the Bears surprising the NFL to take the #1 seed in the NFC due to the surprising (to some people) play of Kyle Orton and the stellar defense and special teams.

AFC

East
1st-NY Jets 11-5
2nd-New England Patriots 9-7
3rd-Buffalo Bills 8-8
4th-Miami Dolphins 3-13

West
1st-San Diego Chargers 14-2
2nd-Oakland Raiders 7-9
3rd-Denver Broncos 4-12
4th-Kansas City Chiefs 3-13

South
1st-Jacksonville Jaguars 12-4
2nd-Indianapolis Colts 10-6
3rd-Houston Texans 10-6
4th-Tennessee Titans 4-12

North
1st-Cleveland Browns 11-5
2nd-Pittsburgh Steelers 11-5
3rd-Cincinnati Bengals 10-6
4th-Baltimore Ravens 2-14

The Steelers and Colts make the playoffs as wild card teams, the Texans and Bengals left out due to tiebreakers, and the Chargers look almost unbeatable.

Most Valuable Player-LT
Offensive Player of the Year-LT
Defensive Player of the Year-Brian Urlacher
Offensive Rookie of the Year-Matt Forte
Defensive Rookie of the Year-Glenn Dorsey
Coach of the Year-Norv Turner

Playoffs

NFC
1st round-
New York Giants at New Orleans Saints
Minnesota Vikings at Arizona Cardinals
Giants and Vikings move on.
2nd round-
New York Giants at Chicago Bears
Minnesota Vikings at Philadelphia Eagles
Bears and Eagles move on.
NFC Championship Game
Philadelphia Eagles at Chicago Bears
Da Bears are in the Super Bowl for the second time in 3 years

AFC
1st round-
Indianapolis Colts at NY Jets
Pittsburgh Steelers at Cleveland Browns
Jets and Steelers move on.
2nd round-
NY Jets at Jacksonville Jaguars
Pittsburgh Steelers at San Diego Chargers
Jags and Chargers move on.
AFC Championship Game
Jacksonville Jaguars at San Diego Chargers
San Diego Super Chargers are Super Bowl Bound.

SUPER BOWL
Da Bears vs the Super Chargers

DA BEARS!!!!!!

Okay, I admit that I'm a huge Bears fan. But I truly believe that the Bears are going to be much better then anyone else is predicting, and I'd rather have predicted them to win the Super Bowl the year that they do then predict that they wouldn't and be proven wrong. What type of fan would I be then?

Other Predictions...
The Cowboys are going to be hurt by a suspect Offensive Line that played better then they were last year for Tony Sporano. This year they'll come back to earth. The defense is very suspect. The offense will fall apart if there is an injury to either TO or Witten, and the running game will suffer because Barber will be unable to carry the full load and will miss Julius Jones, because Felix Jones is not going to be able to cut it.

The Eagles will be good thanks to the resurgence of Donovan McNabb who will be the best QB in the league.

The Patriots will struggle because of their Defense which will show its age this season. The offense will still be explosive, but without a good defense they'll lose some high scoring games.

Arizona will go 6-0 against their own division and 3-7 against everyone else (3-8 counting the playoffs).

Aaron Rogers will be hurt by week 3 while Farve has a pro bowl season for the Jets.

Can't wait to see how my predictions turn out.

Are You Ready For Some Football?

The Olympics (My thoughts on the Games so far, plus I Solve the Gymnastic Judging Problem)

I'm not going to lie, I love the Olympics. Partly because I love competition. That's part of it. But a larger part is probably the pageantry excites me. I like the dedication that the Olympics requires of a majority of its athletes. That's impressive. And there are always good stories at the Olympics and I'm a sucker for good stories.

These Olympics have been outstanding so far. There have been many memorable moments, Jamaican Usain Bolt winning gold and setting world records in the 100m and 200m while jogging, Jonathon Horton going all out on the Men's Horizontal Bar to win Silver, Jason Lezak in the Men's 4x100 freestyle relay to keep Phelp's hopes alive, and the comeback against the Belgium team to keep Misty May and Kerri Walsh from losing even a set in Olympic play all come to mind. For me, the most memorable moment will always be the men's 100m Butterfly. I was watching with a group of friends all of whom felt like as it happened that Phelps's quest was over. However, just as his hand hit the wall I knew that somehow against all odds he had won. I immediately yelled out that he had won and was quickly vindicated by the screen, his name and the number 1 appearing in his lane. I'll never forget watching the numerous slow motion replays from multiple angles confirming that which I was already sure of, that Phelps was the greatest athlete I had ever seen.

There have been many shocking moments as well, including early this morning when the US women's softball team lost the gold medal match to Japan. The first time ever that the US hasn't won the Softball gold. In fact, many people believe that the reason Softball isn't in the Olympics anymore after this year is because the IOC didn't believe that the US Softball team could ever be beat. I for one didn't think that there was anyway the US wouldn't be coming home with gold in softball, yet they'll have to settle for silver. Meanwhile in Baseball (also in it's last hurrah at the Olympics) people are shocked at the extra innings rule. If the game goes into the 11th inning, both teams will start the inning with runners on 1st and 2nd, no one out, and can start their lineup wherever they want. (For more on my thoughts on this, check out my post at 100 Years Later.) But perhaps the most shocking is the tie breaker in Woman's Gymnastics.

This tie breaking procedure was brought to light due to the Woman's Uneven Bars Final. Both He Kexin of China and Nastia Luikin of the US finished with an execution score of 9.025 (the difficulty for both was 7.7). Under the old rules, both would be awarded a Gold Medal.

The way that they come up with the execution score is that 6 judges all score the gymnast on a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being perfection). The highest score and lowest score are dropped. The remaining four scores are averaged together.

Here are the four scores remaining for each in this case.

He Kexin
9.1 9.1 9.0 8.9
Avg. 9.025

Natsia Luikin
9.1 9.0 9.0 9.0
Avg. 9.025

So, under the new rules, if tied at this point, the lowest remaining score is now dropped. This appears sort of arbitrary it could just as easily being the highest remaining score that is dropped. If that had been the case, Luikin would have won gold. As it is, she had to settle for silver.

Gymnastics have always been controversial. Everyone has talked about how the Chinese gymnasts are most likely under the Olympic required age of 16, but I don't really think that there should be an age requirement. If an 11 year old can compete at this level, she should be allowed to. That's just me. The new scoring system was brought about because of controversy. It is hoped that the difficulty score would take out some of the subjectivity from the judges.

Also, judges from the countries involved in the medal rounds are not allowed to judge, again trying to remove bias. This causes new problems, however. Primarily because the most experienced judges are from countries that are involved in the medal round and therefore the judges in the medal round are from countries that don't have a strong gymnastic program and therefore aren't as experienced at judging the execution of the athletes.

Of course, the bias of judges is a problem, even when the countries competing aren't being judged by judges from their own country or another country competing against them. While the NBC commentators are certainly biased themselves, they all agreed that Nastia Luikin had outperformed He Kexin, but the cheers of the Chinese crowd probably influenced the judges and caused slightly higher scores then she deserved.

So, what can be done about this? It seems no matter what there will be bias. Judging for gymnastics is just too subjective. Perhaps we should just stop watching it.

But wait, maybe there is an answer. And I am here to provide it.

If you've watched football recently (American football, but congrats to the US Women who just won the gold medal in the other football against Brazil) then perhaps you've seen the new technology that allows the announcers to turn all of the players into computer generated versions of themselves, allowing us to see the play from all different angles. The same thing could be done to the gymnasts.

In my idea, the judges would be seperated from the crowd, not allowed to watch the competition live. Instead, they would be shown a digital representation of the event. Not knowing who the gymnast was or what country he or she was from would remove all subjectivity, all bias, from the judging and allow the best judges to work throughout the contest.

Yet another problem solved by me. Same thing could work in Ice Skating in the Winter Olympics.

I'm just here to help.

Some Literary Thoughts

I've been really into the books for Young Adults lately, partly because of the Harry Potter phenomenon, I suppose (at which I was at the forefront, I was into Harry before Goblet of Fire came out), and partly because of my time working at the ol' B&N. Many of my coworkers were reading a lot of the YA stuff as well, so we would often be reading the same things.

It is because of them I got into the Percy Jackson series by Rick Riordan (and meeting him didn't hurt, he's an awesome guy and very friendly unlike some authors who are a bit full of themselves.)

It's also because of them that I got into the Artemis Fowl series by Eoin Colfer. And I just finished the latest book in that series, which I think is actually the best of the entire series so far.

One book that they all raved about but that I never read despite their insistence was Twilight by Stephanie Meyer.

Until now.

I'm over 200 pages in now and I'm hooked. It's brilliantly well written, and despite the fact that it is pretty much a romance (which I'm not generally that into) I'm finding myself very intrigued by the story.

I wonder why I'm finding the best books that I've read lately are intended for a younger audience. Are all the best writers focusing on this market? Maybe I'm just not reading the right things for adults.

I don't know, but I definitely haven't been as impressed with the books I've read recently that are intended for adults as I have been with the ones that are intended for younger people. Maybe I'm still just young at heart.

Anyway, I heartily back the thirteen and fourteen year old girls when they tell you that Twilight is just amazing!

Reunited and It Feels So Good

Quote of the Day

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
-JRR Tolkien
(The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring)

So I thought I would share this story from CNN.com as I thought that it was quite heartwarming and since there is always so much negativity in the news, a story like this is a welcome change.

From www.cnn.com

DONETSK, Ukraine (CNN) -- A frail Irene Famulak clutched her brother on the airport tarmac, her arm wrapped around him in a tight embrace, tears streaming down their faces. It was the first time since 1942 they had seen each other, when she was 17 and he was just 7.

That was the night the invading Nazis came to take her away from her Ukrainian home.

"I remember it well because I kissed him good-bye, and he pushed me away," she said of her brother. "I asked, 'Why did you do that?' And he said that he doesn't like kisses."

"The Nazis told my mother that I was being taken to work in a German labor camp for six months. But it was, of course, much longer. I was there for years."

Both siblings survived the Holocaust and grew up on different sides of the Iron Curtain, not knowing the fate of the other.

But after 66 years apart, Famulak, 83, was reunited with her long lost 73-year-old brother, Wssewolod Galezkij. They held each other close this time, cherishing the moment.

"I don't believe anyone has ever known such happiness. Now, I truly believe I can die satisfied," Galezkij said.

Famulak made the long journey to Donetsk in eastern Ukraine from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, after being contacted by the American Red Cross. The organization told her they had located her only surviving sibling.

Famulak said she spent World War II in a labor camp in Munich, Germany, working in the kitchens. She had been taken to the camp with her older sister. When it was liberated in 1945, Famulak stayed in Germany for several years, eventually emigrating to the United States in 1956.

She never saw her parents again after that day in 1942 when Nazis separated her from her family. She and her brother still have no idea what happened to their mother and father. Some of their siblings lived through the war, but later died; others, they never heard from again after being separated.

But her younger brother never gave up hope of tracking his sister down. He, too, was sent to a German labor camp, but after the war, he moved back to Ukraine, then a republic of the Soviet Union.

Under Soviet leader Josef Stalin, information on lost relatives was kept sealed, and Galezkij said it wasn't until reforms in the late 1980s, followed by the Soviet collapse, that he started making progress in finding his sister.

Even then, it took him more than 17 years to locate her in the United States. He broke down in tears as he spoke of his overwhelming happiness at finding her.

"When the Red Cross told me they had found her in America, it was such a joy," he said, sobbing.

In fact, he had to be taken to the hospital because he was so overcome when he first learned she was alive. At this week's reunion, there was a doctor on hand at the airport as a precaution.

Back in the United States, there were tears, too.

Linda Klein, the director of the American Red Cross Holocaust and War Victims Tracing Center, said the volunteer who helped the siblings find each other got caught up in the emotion herself.

"When I showed her the picture, she stood there and wept," Klein said. "She was beside herself."

Klein's group has reunited 1,500 families since it began work in 1990. She said the former Soviet Union released records in 1989 of concentration camps it liberated, greatly helping organizers find information on Holocaust victims.

The organization has 100 volunteers -- a third of them Holocaust survivors, Klein said. The group also helps families find information about their loved ones who died during the Holocaust. They have brought together more than 50 families this year. All of their work is free. She says it's often like "looking for a needle in a haystack."

"We're playing beat the clock right now," she said, adding, "It's about families that one day they were together and then they were apart."

"When a connection is made, there are just smiles all around."

That was the case for this family in Ukraine. Years of trauma, of separation, of not knowing what happened to loved ones, have been replaced by celebration.

In a picturesque orchard overlooking rolling fields, Galezkij, his wife and their neighbors laid out a feast for his American sister. As the vodka flowed, he told her how he had survived for a lifetime without her.

"He says he always thought he'd see me someday. He dreamt lots about me," Famulak said, as she sat next to her brother.

"And he wrote a song for me. When he went to sleep, he sang every night and cried."

With that, Galezkij, weakened by illness and age, burst into song. But this time, he sang the words with pure joy.

article by Matthew Chance, CNN