I was in Prague, one of my favorite cities, last week for a conference. Since there was going to be some free time in the evenings, I wanted to find out what was going on in the city that I could possibly check out. I had read somewhere about a jazz festival going on where performances would be put on in interesting venues. One of the nicer things Tanu and I did in Prague did when we were there was catch a classical concert (neither of us is a big fan) in an old church. It was cool.

So, hoping to find similar things to do with some of my friends, I approached the hotels concierge desk, where a lovely young lady greeted me. On hearing my question about the jazz festival, she promptly turned to her computer to do a search, and her answer (literally) “Google is telling me that it is not on yet. They haven’t posted a schedule”. Asking for recommendations and ideas prompted a response that was (in effect) “why don’t you Google it”.

I miss those times when the concierge was a local who knew the city and made it their business to be plugged into what was going on and where to send people interested in having a good time. They took their job seriously and took pride in making recommendations that they knew was sure to make their guest happy. Now, it seems like hotels don’t really view the concierge as being a service that warrants special attention – anyone who can operate a computer, and more importantly, Google will do.

The art of the hotel concierge is being replaced by an information desk, run by Google. It’s sad.

One of the things we love about our apartment is the view of New York City and the Hudson river. Just sitting in our living room, we can see some pretty interesting things that happen on the mighty Hudson. In the past, we have seen flybys during Fleet Week, speedboat races and plenty of cruise ships. This month, we have already seen two interesting sights.

Earlier this month, the Intrepid returned to Pier 86 after a two year refurbishment project. It was pretty cool seeing the aircraft carrier being escorted back to its place of honor on the west side of Manhattan.

Then, earlier this week, we saw the Queen Elizabeth 2 being escorted out of New York, as she embarked on her last trans-Atlantic voyage to London before being decommissioned and becoming a floating hotel in Dubai.

I am absolutely outraged at the arrogance, condescension and divisiveness of Sarah Palin on the campaign trail. Read what she said at a Greenboro, NC fundraiser Thursday:

“We believe that the best of America is not all in Washington, D.C.. We believe, we believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard-working, very patriotic, pro-America areas of this great nation. This is where we find the kindness and the goodness and the courage of everyday Americans: those who are running our factories and teaching our kids and growing our food and are fighting our wars for us, those who are protecting us in uniform, those who are protecting the virtues of freedom.”

How dare she impune me and those of us living in the so-called “Un-Real America”. Who is she to comment on my work ethic or my contributions to society? Why isn’t Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh or anyone at Fox News ripping into her for suggesting that the people who were murdered on 9/11 were not real Americans, that the firefighters and first responders who showed such bravery and courage that day are not real Americans. Is she forgetting that West Point, where the best (dare I say elite) of our military learn how to fight for America, is in New York? All this from the wife of someone who believes that America is so bad that Alaska should secede from the union.

How dare you, Ms Palin. I hope that Jon Stewart picks up on this and rips into her on Monday. And I hope that all the real Americans in the audience at Saturday Night Live let her have it when she comes on the show tomorrow (if she can bring herself to set foot in this unholy land).

Well, the Presidential debates are over. And while I did blog about the VP debate, I haven’t so far about the Presidential debates because, well, they just were not as interesting. Lots of rhetoric and not enough electricity. I’m not going to talk about how the debates went because I am obviously a biased party (besides, the polls speak for themselves). But I did want to talk about the debates themselves, because I thought that part of it was pretty interesting.

All 3 debates had different moderators (Jim Lehrer, Tom Brokaw, Bob Schieffer) and different formats (podium debate, town hall debate, roundtable debate). What I found remarkable was just how much the moderator and the choice of format affected and influenced how the debate went.

The first debate was pretty bland, and obviously didn’t stick to its stated focus on foreign policy. The questions were stilted, and Lehrer came off looking like a marriage counselor desperately trying to get a feuding couple to talk to each other. Despite that, the format made for a very staid debate (if you can call it that) with the candidates simply reiterating their campaign talking points with little back and forth.

The second debate was marginally better. Time-keeper Brokaw put too much of a stamp on the proceedings in the second debate, acting like a strict school principal trying to keep unruly students at bay. The questions still weren’t that much better, despite coming from the audience (probably because the more interesting ones were not allowed). The town hall format, which was supposed to be McCain’s strength, ended up exposing McCain’s condescending and prickly personality. It also allowed Obama to show his cool in the face of an attacking adversary, reinforcing his credentials.

The third debate was far and away the best debate. Schieffer asked some great, to-the-point questions, many that a lot of people have been wanting to ask. They weren’t off topic, but they were pointed enough that they forced the candidates to talk to the question, and not simply recite their talking points. He was also pretty good at giving them enough time and yet somehow staying on course. The roundtable format also allowed for a more personal, much more intimate debate that let the candidates have a conversation with the audience and a true debate with each other (as much as any candidate every will). If I had my way, this is how all the debates would have been.

Bonus Round: After every debate, the Kaushik household would switch to CNN for the post-debate analysis. We never watched the debate on CNN because (a) we don’t have CNN HD and (b) I do not want to be distracted by the squiggly reaction graphs at the bottom of the screen. And despite the fact that CNN seems to have hired all the analysts in the world to sit on their set and provide analysis (how many analysts do you really need? are they compensating for something?), it is still interesting. The two standouts on their panel are David Gergen, who brings his gravitas and years of experience in the Presidential world to the table, and John King, who (despite his fetish of the multi-touch magic map) is the most balanced, analytical and clear of all the reporter analysts.

Too bad it was actually a debate between the VP candidates. Because it had the kind of fire and the kind of topical discussions that I was expecting from the Presidential debates. It had less rhetoric and more message, and was far more enjoyable, almost living up to the hype. And I am not just saying this because my side won.

Joe Biden was brilliant. Going into the debate, everyone was talking about whether Sarah Palin would make a fool of herself. But there was also concern about how Biden, notorious for his own gaffes, would handle the delicate political task of debating a woman candidate. He came through with flying colors. He responded to Palin’s jabs by taking swinging blows at McCain, never losing sight of the fact that this contest is really about the top of the ticket, not Sideshow Sarah. He kept his answers reasonably succinct, and used facts and anecdotes extremely well. He responded to the attacks with confidence and strength. There were a few times when Palin was making a point that I was almost ready to jump out of my chair screaming about how Biden should respond (ask Tanu about the fist-pumping and sofa thumping). And amazingly, he responded exactly the way I was saying he should, with logical counterpoints hard to ignore. He looked like a way better debater than Obama, which was unexpected.

Sarah Palin did almost exactly as I expected. She didn’t make any gaffes, because she stuck with the gameplan she was taught – stick with her “aw shucks” style, avoid topics she can’t handle, and focus on the keywords (Alaska, Energy, Mom, Maverick). I think the decision chart below (sent to me by a friend) pretty accurately depicts how she handled the debate. Why else would she answer a question on the mortgage crisis with a discussion of energy policy?

What was with all the winking? Any other politician would have been called lewd for flirting so much. And I know that she wants to connect with people and seem real. But do we really want a world leader who speaks with a bunch of “betchas” and “don’tchaknows”? SNL nailed her this last weekend on how she handles public appearances (by the way, I hope Tina Fey is getting her money’s worth, cos she is simply brilliant).

In the end, Biden showed a clear command of the issues, and that he will be a pretty good VP. Palin showed that she has the personality it takes to be on TV, and no more. Let’s hope that’s what the people saw.