McCain's Plan B

As the New York Times told us yesterday, it has become increasingly apparent that the selection of Sarah Palin was a last-minute rush job. Not that any of us needed to be told that.

“They didn’t seriously consider her until four or five days from the time she was picked, before she was asked, maybe the Thursday or Friday before,” said a Republican close to the campaign. “This was really kind of rushed at the end, because John didn’t get what he wanted. He wanted to do Joe or Ridge.”

I had thought all the talk of Joe Lieberman and Tom Ridge were intentional diversions from the McCain camp with the purpose of keeping the media in the dark of the true running mate pick and signaling to moderates that McCain is such a maverick that he at least considered a "pro-choice" "Democrat." Evidently I was wrong. McCain really was hell bent on selecting Lieberman until the right wing honchos set him straight in the preceding week or two.

Responding to the media drawing the obvious conclusions that they didn't fully vet Palin, the McCain camp said, oh no no no, she got a full FBI check. Never mind that a campaign using the FBI to investigate a candidate would be illegal and the FBI denies it. But wait, they point out, she got a questionnaire that other candidates received that had 70 whole questions. If you ask if they followed up to verify any of Palin's responses you'll find that the McCain campaign people have quickly scuttled away.

What does this say about McCain besides that he may have poor judgment when it comes to picking quality people? For me it makes it clear that the campaign had absolutely no Plan B in place for the very real possibility that Lieberman and Ridge would not work out. If they thought that Romney and Pawlenty were too "conventional," certainly they could have had a couple more quality people in the wings they could have spent time vetting? But no! They were stuck and had to scramble to get their shit together at the last minute.

Haven't we learned the negative consequences of having a guy in the White House who doesn't see the value in planning any contingencies? Haven't we learned there is nothing noble about moving forward with plans without modification despite mounting evidence that it's not going to work? Haven't we learned, now marking the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, that you got to make sure people are up for the job before you give it to them?

John McCain, with 72 years of life experience and having lived through nearly 8 years of the Bush administration, hasn't learned these lessons. Will voters be able to do a better job and not repeat the mistakes of the past?

Preventing kids from binge drinking

I've argued before that the prevailing approach of abstinence-only, when it comes to alcohol, does not teach responsible drinking habits in young people.

From the New York Times comes a thoughtful article called Can sips at home prevent binges? The author has two teenage sons with whom he wishes to share his love of wine, in moderation. He struggles to find the best approach in teaching responsible drinking habits to his sons in a society that is somewhat justifiably paranoid about alcohol consumption.

The most illuminating point contained therein was that the context of the family is all important. One researcher agreed that introducing very moderate alcoholic consumption in a family is a very healthy route if the adults themselves are modeling healthy behavior. If the adults aren't, then allowing adolescents even a little bit of alcohol probably doesn't serve them well.

I wonder that if we as a society could "loosen up" a little bit about alcohol consumption and have healthy choices modeled out in public for young people; might that be helpful even among those with poor practices in their homes? Since young people are by-and-large limited from being in places with alcohol consumption except for family events and perhaps sporting events, where over-drinking abounds, many probably never even see what responsible consumption looks like.

Quote: Science or Beer?

The New York Times reports For scientists, a beer test shows results as a litmus test

Key quote from Dr. Matthew Symonds:

“It’s rather devastating to be told we should drink less beer in order to increase our scientific performance."

Testy McCain

I like the reporter's closing at the end.



As far as I know, McCain still hasn't been directly asked if it is true that he first approached John Kerry in 2004 about becoming Kerry's running mate. Last year, Kerry implied that McCain came to him. The previous understanding is that Kerry approached McCain about being on his ticket and McCain declined. Who approached who is of significant consequence.

I hope that this encourages the press to, ahem, press this question further. I say there are even odds whether this will provoke them to inquire further on this point, or cower away, afraid of being the object of McCain's old-man-style, testy ire.

NY Times looks at doulas

• And the doula makes four

The New York Times takes a look at doulas... and it remains skeptical. The recent piece adopts an overall hostile attitude toward doulas and doesn't really try to be comprehensive. They never even nail down the purpose of the doula.

In short, a doula is a non-medical professional who aids during the labor process. There are also some postpartum doulas out there as well. A doula serves as a patient advocate, labor coach, and general helper. They have knowledge and training on birthing, but aren't medical professionals.

With our two kids, we didn't use a doula, but have known others who have. Indeed, sometimes during labor an extra pair of hands and ears can be helpful. Since it is unlikely that the nursing staff at a hospital have spent more than a few minutes discussing the birth plan with the patient, it may not be a bad idea in some cases to have someone experienced and independent advocating on their behalf. The doctor-knows-best mentality here is a relic from the '70s I suspect.

If there is a pattern of a problem of doulas overstepping boundaries by making medical determinations and giving medical advise for which they are untrained and unlicensed, that would probably require some action. (e.g. enforcement of current laws, adoption of new laws clarifying medical practice, or regulation of doulas.) The New York Times isn't successfully persuasive that there is any pattern of abuse. Yes, a doula walking out on a patient after she chose an intervention the doula didn't like is incredibly unprofessional and unethical. But even collecting a handful of these troubling anecdotes, it doesn't seem to follow in any case that doulas are generally harmful.

The article implies that since they have stories of some patients and hospital staff who were unhappy with the performance of some doulas, that they shouldn't be permitted. I'm sure we can find plenty of patients with negative experiences with a doctor or a nurse, but no one would reasonably suggest we need to remove doctors or nurses from hospitals.

On the other side, you can see the point of view of doulas at DONA International. They cite research that shows how the use of a doula leads to births with fewer complications and medical interventions. If a patient can choose to bring in family members in the room, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to choose to bring a doula.

That first pedicure

From the NY Times we get the following distressing story.

• Never too young for that first pedicure

Apparently, one of the popular trends for girls to get a makeover and look just like Hannah Montana. The girls pictured are seven years old.