The American election campaign has made life better for those of us living here and identified as non-enemies of President Bush or, even worse, one of the "neo-cons" David Cameron went all the way to Islamabad to denounce.
It is not that our British friends have fallen in love with George Bush, or adopted a more tolerant attitude towards those of us who think the world might be a more dangerous place if America were to retreat into reliance on the United Nations to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
No, it is that Brits with any interest in America, which means most of you, are so distracted by the campaign that they don't have time to share with us their latest reason for Bush bashing, or to tell us at dinner parties that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if the Jews hadn't been so ghastly to the Arabs, or to accuse us of over-heating the globe.
Now, there is only time for, "Tell us about the elections? Is it really possible that Obama won't win?" That's the easiest question. Yes, it is possible that Barack Obama's rhetoric will not succeed in fooling enough of the people enough of the time to gain him the keys to the White House.
He claims to be a bipartisan healer, but has never voted against his Democratic leadership in the Senate. He claims to love America, but spent 20 years as a disciple of a pastor who urged his congregation to "God damn America", rather than call on God to bless it.
He is a man whose list of ways young people might serve their country definitely does not include enlistment in the military.
No matter. In Britain, as in the rest of Europe, Barack Obama is seen as the second coming, at least of John F Kennedy, if not of that other fellow.
Tall, articulate, handsome, with a stylish wife and engaging children (paraded on stage at the Democratic convention before 80,000 fans and tens of millions of television viewers, but, says the candidate, "off limits" to reporters). Better still, he is black but, as Charles Moore reminded us last week, borrowing from Colin Powell, "not that black".
There is, we have found, no use laying out such facts before Brits who want to see Obama in the White House.
It is, however, productive to discuss Sarah Palin, John McCain's choice for vice-president. The first question goes something like this: "My God, does she really believe in God, just like those jihadists we are supposed to be fighting?"
Well, yes and no: yes, she is deeply religious, but no, she is not about to engage in a holy war against Islam, or even against Europe's secularists. Nor is she about to denude the nation's libraries of books with which she disagrees, or bar the teaching of Darwinism in schools, even though she thinks there should be a place to advise students that there is another point of view as to the origin of man.
Should she want to do just that, our founding fathers had the sense to reserve power over education to local communities and the states.
Next question: "She shoots moose and wolves, poses with the sort of weapons favoured by Vladimir Putin and drug lords, and seems to have no objections to the proliferation of arsenals in the homes of Americans. Doesn't that worry you?"
Not very much. The second amendment to our constitution guarantees Americans the right to bear arms, a right affirmed only recently by the Supreme Court in a decision Obama says he supports.
Also, we have long known, as Britain is now learning, that laws do not keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys; they only disarm law-abiding citizens and reduce their ability to defend themselves. Surveys in prisons show that burglars fear two things: trained guard dogs and armed potential victims.
Many Americans find it encouraging that the McCain-Palin ticket includes a man willing to defend his country and a woman willing to defend her home.
Then there is abortion: "Won't she deny women the right to choose?" Well, no. Sarah Palin is opposed to abortion - witness her "hillbilly fecundity", as Mark Steyn describes liberals' reaction to her five children, her willingness to bear a Down's syndrome baby, and support for her unwed daughter's decision to carry her baby to term. But Governor Palin has shown no inclination to impose her view on others.
In the end, the Supreme Court will remain the arbiter of the battle between "pro-life" and "pro-choice" Americans. Which perhaps is unfortunate: were the electorates in several states given an opportunity to pronounce on the issue, the minority might be more willing to accept the verdict than it is when eight men and one woman in black robes opine.
What many foreigners might be missing is that Palin's supporters don't much care what she thinks about babies, guns and Jesus. They seem to care only that she is what one British friend described as "a real person".
Fortunately for the American electorate, there is nothing much that the British commentariat can do to prevent its worst nightmare from becoming a reality: Sarah Palin sworn in as President of the United States, dining with the Queen at a state banquet.
So sit back and enjoy the show. It is far more entertaining, and certainly more democratic, than waiting for the defenestration of a prime minister by a cabal of his colleagues.
#1
I guess I never really realized how neutered British males were until recently. Kind of makes me rethink my philosophy on Yobs. They are wolves, in a country of sheep, and if god did not want them sheared, he would not have made them sheep.
Posted by: Bob Glemble5143 ||
09/17/2008 23:49 Comments ||
Top||
Bet this 'flips' over the weekend to somehow being Palin/McCain's fault ("They didn't tell us, etc."). Bet the beast (or even the Big O or 'Plugs') shows up anyway ("Mistakes were made...under the bus...etc.").
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
09/17/2008 22:39 Comments ||
Top||
. . . To prove his newfound determination, bare-knuckle Obama unveiled a new TV ad, to air in key states.
It begins with the date 1982, a picture of a disco ball and footage of McCain in clunky glasses from his first year in Washington. Things have changed in the last 26 years, but McCain hasnt, says the announcer. He admits he still doesnt know how to use a computer, cant send an e-mail, still doesnt understand the economy and favors $200 billion in new tax cuts for corporations, but almost nothing for the middle class. All the while it shows ancient computers and a cordless phone that looks like a walkie-talkie from Ice Station Zebra.
The tax-cuts and economy barbs are familiar boilerplate. Whats new is the charge of computer illiteracy and the blatant attempt to attack McCain as too old for the job and that speaks volumes.
First, the ad is dishonest. McCain has been one of the Senates leading authorities on telecom and the Internet. . . .
One reason McCain is not versed in the mechanical details of sending e-mail and typing on a keyboard is that the North Vietnamese broke his fingers and shattered both of his arms. As Forbes, Slate, and the Boston Globe reported in 2000, McCains injuries make using a keyboard painfully laborious. He mostly relies on his wife and staff to show him e-mails and Web sites, though he says hes getting up to speed.
Its extraordinary, Obama spokesman Dan Pfeiffer said, that someone who wants to be our president and our commander in chief doesnt know how to send an e-mail. For the record, President Clinton sent exactly two e-mails while in office.
Besides, by this logic, Obama is even less qualified to be commander-in-chief because, unlike McCain, Obama has never fired a gun, flown a plane, or led men during wartime.
And if the Obama campaign didnt intend to mock a disabled veteran, (the jury's still out on that one)
what does it say about his supposedly cybersavvy staffers that they dont know how to conduct a five-minute Google search?
But the most revealing aspect of the ad is its target audience: Obama has a 20- to 30-point advantage over McCain among 18- to 29-year-olds. Indeed, his base (not counting black voters) is upscale college kids and new-economy young voters. They may think being able to send an e-mail is, like, totally crucial.
The only other constituency other than the press that will be jazzed by such an attack are the Web-symbiotes of the left-wing netroots, another demographic Obama has locked up.
But older Americans, working-class Americans, veterans, and other voters Obama desperately needs probably wont care and might even take offense at Obamas condescension and insensitivity.
There are two explanations for the ad. One is that Obama released it to reassure his base that hes serious about attacking McCain, not to win over swing voters. That, or the campaign actually thinks its an effective ad.
Either way, the lesson is the same: Obama doesnt know how to get outside his echo chamber. He talks about being bipartisan to hard-core liberals who like the words, but he rejects actual deviation from the liberal line. He talks about new ideas while repackaging old ones.
He is a candidate who has never had to sell himself to voters who werent already sold. And it shows.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/17/2008 08:21 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I'm in a Marketing Management class right now for my MBA. Generation Y is known among marketers for their insatiable appetite for brand names, logos, and above all marketing BUZZ! It is common strategy to over-hype a product if you want to sell it to Gen-Y audiences. Enter Obama....He's a natural for the Gen-Y vote (18-29 year olds).
#2
Does the McCain camp have someone on Obama's team feeding them ad ideas that will backfire on them? Sabatoge is the only explaination I have for Obama to set himself up to get shot down like this. It allows McCain to once again bring up his POW experience and to display his experience in the Senate on internet and telecom issues. Then what? We are reminded that Obama looks like a stupid, spoiled little kid by comparison. Way to go, McCain-plant-in-Obama-staf. Way to go. I wish I could see this ad, but it's not likely to play in Oregon. We're not in play.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
09/17/2008 11:10 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I'm guessing Obama's people are all young and don't realize that not only are they insulting McCain but all of the elderly that find tech a bit off-putting.
#4
Generation Y is known among marketers for their insatiable appetite for brand names, logos, and above all marketing BUZZ!
It's just because they are young and stupid. Consider that Obama's lefty boomer base is made up of the perpetual adolescents who bought into the "packaged rage" sold to them by the evil corporations. Forty years later they are still too dense to see that the brand they are buying is nothing but pleasant sounding hype; promising all and delivering nothing.
#5
18-25 are millenials. I know 2. They aren't Gen Y. My 25 y.o., NYC living, ardently pro-abortion daughter is so turned off that she's starting to lean McCain with no encouragement from her parents who know better than to question her wisdom. Barry's got problems. The 22 y.o. in Chicago is just going to vote for McCain because after 4 years she knows enough.
#1
Petraeus did something astonishing here. It wasn't simply managing the "surge" of U.S. troops, whose precise effects military historians will be debating for years. It was that he restored confidence and purpose for a military that had begun to think, deep down, that this war was unwinnable and unsustainable.
When Ridgeway took over the command of 8th Army in Korea after the debacle created by the Chinese intervention, he found a staff planning to evacuate the peninsula. Our contemporary satellite photos showing the lights across the peninsula demonstrate the same sort of leadership we've witnessed. We have the leaders, we just need to get the bureaucratic managerial lifers out of the way. That's the trick. The puzzle palace can manage peacetime but it can not deliver leaders in wartime, particularly a wartime that last longer than the usual administrative imperative found in 'business as usual' environment.
#2
I disagree with Ignatius regarding his comment that "Petraeus/Bush didn't win in Iraq" but created and honorable exit. BS. We are winning and will win. This is unlike any war - not a Forever War of Dexter Filkins (did you see the picture of him all outfitted in flak jacket and knee pads?) but a "long war" and one the Islamists have no chance of winning even with the bomb (I think we have a few more than they have and I don't think the Muslim world is happy that Iran may want to have one). It will take a toll on our youth and our military leadership but from Iraq and Afghanistan we now have the most experienced and combat tested armed force in the world. Even China and Russia are creating little firestorms on their borders in order to get some experience into their forces but they are a long way from our performance. No, with Petraeus now in the catbird seat and hopefully before W leaves in a more senior position even, we can now start structuring the forces into the right combination of strategic and tactical to complement the new world reality.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
09/17/2008 12:07 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Took a few tries before we had the right guy to dig the Panama canal. You need the right man for the right job, and the bigger the job the harder it is to find the right guy. Well done Petraeus.
Or is this particular person just a pathetic human stain in our world?
What is this young womans pregnancy to him? Shes NOT filing for welfare or government assistance that would suck-on his tax dollars. How is her pregnancy and her baby any business of his? Exactly how low below the fucking dog-pissed curb does someone have to be to initiate such a public display of flashing the miniscule size of his pubic equipment?
I want this slug to tell me in full detail exactly how he is directly effected by this young womans pregnancy and her baby? And a footnote, those same qualifications regarding her older brothers volunteering for military service to this country?
At what point does such pathetic levels of narcissism become public masturbation?
The BVD brown-stain calls himself a comedian who knows how and what buttons to push.
Thats nice. Im happy for him. And I am certain that forces in the world, such as BAD instant karma WILL someday catch-up with him and reward him for all the positive energy he has farted forth in his adult life.
Me? I am 99% certain I wouldnt spit or piss on him were he afire. The remaining 1% attributed to any danger his stinking blaze might present to surrounding structures and/or other more worthy humans.
THESE are the kinds of people who are Obamas biggest supporters and champions. Personally, if I had people like this in my corner Id take a long hard look at myself in a mirror.
Read the whole thing at the link (with videos)
Posted by: DanNY ||
09/17/2008 19:28 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Look this is sad, but on the other hand I did set up a trust fund back in 1998 to fund a $50 million payout to Chelsea for tying her tubes. Crude yes, politics, yep.
Bisbee is noted for its gay-friendliness [5] [6], and its Gay Pride Days is considered one of the top 5 rural Gay Prides in the United States by the online site at gay.com. Bisbee gays have their own website at bisbeepride.com This year's (2008) Bisbee Gay Pride celebrations included a Leather and Lace Street Party, poolside BBQ, a lingerie pub crawl, the Bert Lundy Dance Party, and a turn-of-the-century ball. [7] Ten U.S. AIDS Memorial Quilt panels were on display at Bisbee's famed Copper Queen Hotel.
Americans have been debating the fairness and efficacy of racial preferences in college and graduate school admissions for more than 30 years. Now a UCLA professor is seeking to test his hypothesis that affirmative action programs actually hurt the career prospects of minority law school graduates. But he has been hampered in his research by the indefensible failure of the State Bar of California to provide the statistics he needs.
The professor, Richard H. Sander, has requested data about the performance of white and minority law school graduates on the bar examination, along with information about the schools they attended and their grades. In resisting his request, bar officials cite the need to protect the privacy of test takers and to honor an agreement that test material will remain confidential. At the same time, some defenders of affirmative action have argued against releasing the data because they think Sander's project could have only one purpose: to discredit the idea of racial preferences.
The privacy and legal arguments strike us as spurious, a view shared by the executive director of the California First Amendment Coalition, which has joined Sander and his colleagues in asking the state Supreme Court to order the release of the information. Sander has promised that no individual student would be identified by the statistics, which would break down performance by law school.
It's also unfair to accuse Sander of seeking to dismantle racial preferences. True, his hypothesis is that affirmative action students are disserved because they derive less benefit from an elite law school than students who meet the usual admission standards. This is the "mismatch" theory, which suggests that students who are weaker than their classmates will often do better academically -- and on the bar exam -- if they attend a less-competitive school.
The mismatch theory may be mistaken. But suppose it were found to be valid? That wouldn't necessarily lead to the abolition of racial preferences. Another result might be the strengthening of mentorship and other programs to help less-well-prepared students achieve at higher levels.
An additional objection to Sander's project is that good marks on the bar exam don't guarantee success in the practice of law. Perhaps so. If the exam does a poor job of measuring the credentials of lawyers, it ought to be revised. But that has no bearing on Sander's request.
In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that carefully tailored affirmative action programs didn't violate the Constitution. California, when it approved Proposition 209 in 1996, exercised its right under that decision to outlaw racial preferences in public educational institutions. The debate over affirmative action continues.
Regardless of what we think of Sander's hypothesis, he should be given the data he seeks. Defenders of affirmative action should not fear a serious examination of how well it's working.
#1
It's amazing [but not a surprise given human behavior] that the Priests of the Law exempt themselves from the Law. Race quotas have been struck down by SCOTUS as far as being 'legal', but that hasn't stopped Law Schools and their accreditation organizations in continuing to engage in the practice. One set of rules for me, another set of rules for thee. Unfortunately, their actions make that branch of government an exclusive self selection organization that has more in culture common with the self rationalization of power of the aristocrats than a republican society. Unaccountable to the people for their power. They just grant themselves ever more.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
