Activity

My piece on the film Juno is being hosted by Tapmag, an e-magazine that discusses politics and culture from a transatlantic perspective that definitely deserves a visit.

As for this blog, it will lie dormant in the nether regions of the “sphere” until I graduate this May. From then on, it will serve as a constant source of amusement to the humorless, bored and uninformed.

Clinton Vows to Stay in Race Until Convention – Bad move by Billary

Clinton’s campaign is bleeding donors and losing supporters, this pronouncement was an attempt to, at least temporarily, restore some of the lost confidence.

The obvious downside to this recent proclamation is that it is likely to turn much of the democratic establishment against her. The staunchest Clintonites among Superdelegates pledged their support to Hillary early on in the process, very few of them remain in the ranks of the “undecideds”. These party functionaries are primarily concerned with nominating the candidate most likely to secure a democratic white house. A brokered convention, and the drawn-out process leading up to it, is widely considered detrimental to that very aim. For that reason, Hillary’s vow to stay in the race until the convention is counterproductive; it is likely to push nervous superdelegates into Obama’s column faster than would otherwise have been the case. After all, by signalizing her willingness to maraud her way to nomination, Mrs. Clinton is essentially acknowledging that all orthodox means have now been exhausted.

The National Enquirer’s Take on Rev. Wright

The front page of the National Enquirer is probably viewed by more Americans than any other publication or medium. Staring from magazine racks in supermarkets nationwide, it reaches citizens who are otherwise completely unaware of any political debate or discourse. Fortunately, the Olsen twins overwhelm this page, thus clarifying that white people are perfectly capable of destroying themselves.

Intellectual Honesty

In the United States, the word “rhetoric” has developed an entourage of negative connotations. The term “campaign rhetoric”, for example, has become entirely synonymous with triangulation. The word has been infused with emptiness by overly cautious politicians who showed uncharacteristic prowess when pillaging the term of any meaning. No mainstream public official of late seems to have considered that brutal intellectual honesty could be an effective political tool, until Barack Obama strolled onto a Philadelphia stage this Tuesday morning.

Barack Obama’s speech on race, for the first time, gave serious, indisputable weight to his claim that he might indeed be the candidate of real change. His speech suggested that when he says he wants to “change the language of Washington” he doesn’t mean introducing the Spanish version of the national anthem. If his speech is any indication, he means relative intellectual honesty, as an effective counterweight to the ignorance and fear of the opposition.

What remains to be seen now is whether American voters will warm to this new honesty, or even recognize it. After years of being fed hollow speeches by vague opportunistists from both parties, Obama’s speech might seem somewhat alien to them; adding to the widespread fear that the honourable Senator is some kind of dangerous foreign element. Wittgenstein once said, “if a lion could speak, we couldn’t understand it.” Americans have been living in an echo chamber of conventional wisdom for quite some time now. They have learned the language of the inhospitable media jungle, and intellectual honesty has become something of an unfamiliar tongue. One hopes that these men and women, who have been conditioned to barbarity, will still have the ability to recognize a true Mandarin in their midst.

As someone, who generally believes that average Americans are more savvy, pragmatic and tolerant, than liberal pessimists and conservative optimists would like to think, I am hopeful. One thing is clear: if Obama does continue his brave pursuit of honest, unashamedly progressive argument and wins in November, American politics will be forever changed (maybe forever is a tad dramatic: until the next intellectual recession, just to be safe). An Obama victory, fuelled by the audacity to address real problems openly, would shatter, pixilate, conventional wisdom about the tight constraints of electability. The democratic party would finally be emboldened to follow their better instincts, and backwardness would no longer work to the advantage of the right. The inevitable shift to the center come election year would be abolished; the political center, as we now know it, would be disbanded and outsourced to some barbarous state in Eastern Europe. Maybe Yglesias wasn’t entirely wrong when he suggested that Obama could turn out to be an American Trudeau.

Watching the fascist apparatchiks of right wing punditry squirm after the speech, it seemed that they know exactly whats at stake. Since their success depends entirely on the continued intellectual sluggishness of the American people, a radical change of tide, a new sort of consciousness threatens there very existence. On Tuesday, one could see the hamster wheels in their heads overheating. Clearly, they all found it quite difficult to smear something so transparent. After begrudgingly complimenting parts of the speech, they all stooped to hapless attacks.

1) “he didn’t distance himself from Wright enough” – Bill O’Reilly

2) “let us remind you of some of the things Rev. Wright has said” – Hannity

3) “he threw his grandmother under the bus.” – Scarborough and Hannity

“He threw his grandmother under the bus,” is by far my favourite of these arguments. Arguments 1, and 2 (not sure if 2 qualifies as an argument), are signs of helplessness, death cries from men whose faces are starting to look like declining empires. Number 3 is interesting, because its so telling.

“My white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe. These people are a part of me.” Barack Obama

Obama was showing compassion for the prejudiced; he was suggesting that the demonization of prejudice leads to its denial, ultimately leaving it untreated. He was advocating dealing openly with the prejudices we all hold, and he exposed his grandmother for an altogether honourable cause. By suggesting that this amounted to “throwing his grandmother under the bus”, both Scarborough and Hannity seemed to be saying that Obama was doing his grandmother a profound disservice by explaining the contradiction she represented. In doing so, they were essentially advocating that such deep-seated feelings be kept under wraps. In Hannity’s case this comes as no surprise; his hatred is so deeply-rooted in his entire existence, that to purge him of it might well mean to kill him.

Obama’s speech will, at first, prove more effective in wooing the democratic establishment and the media than the general populace (especially all those angry lower-middle-class whites). But, unlike wealth under Reagan, these positive impressions will most definitely trickle down, albeit slowly. Rev. Wright’s tirades have already successfully been drowned out by Obama’s soft voice of clarity on most mainstream networks. Superdelegates were most certainly watching, and judging by the positive responses the speech is garnering from many staunch Clinton supporters, it is difficult to go entirely untouched. This speech locked up the nomination.

Manchurian Candidate

Using the term Manchurian Candidate for Barack Obama isn’t only insanely bigotted, it is also severely out of touch with the origin of the term as laid out by the 1952 novel, and the two films that followed.

In the novel, Sergeant Raymond Shaw and the rest of his platoon are captured during the Korean War in 1952. They are all brainwashed into believing Shaw saved their lives in combat, for which he receives the Medal of Honor when they return to the US.

The Communists intend to use Shaw as a sleeper agent and, using a subconscious trigger, they compel him to follow orders which he doesn’t remember afterwards. Shaw is controlled by none other than his own domineering mother, who is working with the Communists in a plot to overthrow the government.

Captured in an overseas war!?! Returned to the US a war hero!?! Controlled by domineering mother!?!
How is Obama the manchurian candidate in this race?

Optimistic

A McCain presidency would send a strong message to the world: despite the embarrassing state of our health care, and the appalling nature of our national diet, we Americans somehow still manage to get very, very old.

Don Juan McCain, Oedipus and the Stepford Wives

Cindy McCain taking pointers in presentation from Roberta McCain.

McCain looks for women that remind him of his mother – to the point of embalmment.

Illinois Shooter – Pills and guns

Whenever young people, either alone or in pairs, shoot up their place of study, their rampage is followed by tiresome, unimaginative debate. One side, the Joe Liebermans of the world, decry the degeneration of youth culture, and it’s apparently devastating effect on young minds. The other, the more conscientious types, take the more irreverent position, and point to the arsenal of weapons stockpiling in suburban playrooms.

What rarely receives mention, and blame, is medication. Many of the most high-profile school shooters of the last decade have enjoyed quite an unhealthy relationship with dangerous pharmaceuticals. The catch of these pharmaceuticals, is that their side-effects wildly betray their original function.

“A man who killed five students and himself during a shooting spree at an Illinois college had stopped taking medication and become erratic in the last two weeks, buying two guns used in the bloodbath just six days ago, officials said on Friday.”
Reuters

Besides his eventual affinity for guns, the only thing that Stephen Kazmierczak had in common with the Harrises, Klebolds, and Seung-Huis of the afterlife,was his medicinal diet. Eric Harris started off with Prozac, and ultimately upgraded to zoloft. Dylan Klebold, like Seung-Hui a decade after him, was also a regular consumer of Anti-depressants (what brandname exactly, was never disclosed by police).

Now, the obvious counter-argument to blaming medication for this kind of violence, is that all of these men were crazy enough to qualify for the prescriptions they received. Unfortunately, anti-depressants are wildly overprescribed in America; mild depression often serves as a sufficient precondition for heavy medication. My own shrink was no different. After 3 short visits, the honorable gentleman was convinced that my social ineptitude and short attention span could be cured with the drop of a pill.

“There is something to be said here about the word “depression,” which has almost entirely eliminated the word and even the concept of unhappiness from modern life. Of the thousands of patients I have seen, only two or three have ever claimed to be unhappy: all the rest have said that they were depressed. This semantic shift is deeply significant, for it implies that dissatisfaction with life is itself pathological, a medical condition, which it is the responsibility of the doctor to alleviate by medical means. Everyone has a right to health; depression is unhealthy; therefore everyone has a right to be happy (the opposite of being depressed). This idea in turn implies that one’s state of mind, or one’s mood, is or should be independent of the way that one lives one’s life, a belief that must deprive human existence of all meaning, radically disconnecting reward from conduct.

A ridiculous pas de deux between doctor and patient ensues: the patient pretends to be ill, and the doctor pretends to cure him.”
Theordore Dalrymple

Widespread debates on violence only seem to stir up in America, when lone gunmen shoot enough people to get the attention from the media that they never received from their peers. After the shots are fired, and the bodies are bagged, different groups hype their main concerns, with differing levels of self-interest. The fact that medication is rarely mentioned, might well have to do with the indisputable power of the pharmaceutical companies in America. It might also have to do with the fact that medication is so deeply intertwined with American existence, that both sides in the debate can agree on it’s necessity. Of course, gun control should remain the central issue in this debate (after all, its hard to stab your way through a full assembly hall) but the liberal distribution, and reliance on these heinous chemicals also deserves mention.

PS: I’m not a member of the church of Scientology.

Quick Quote – Straight Talk

“He beat me. I certainly would be glad to get his advice. I don’t think I’d want to revisit how he did it. And I mean that. Not about South Carolina. I mean I don’t feel like reliving my defeat,” – John McCain on Karl Rove.

Sounds like somebody is coming to terms with their illegitamite child.

Obama: A cult of Personality?

“These kids get drunk off hope and change, and before you know it they’re doing…these things; handing out pamphlets, calling relatives to follow this man as well. It’s like Waco…but this time David Koresh…he’s black.”
Sheriff Ben Adam of Waco, Texas

A Liberal Conscience

In yesterday’s op-ed piece in the New York Times (the quite aptly titled “Hate Springs Eternal“) Paul Krugman did himself few favours. Anyone who thought that Mr. Krugman was unduly harsh to Barack Obama in the past, now has a full page of evidence to support that view. Krugman’s intellectual dishonesty boggles the mind. Under the impression that the media are unfair in their criticism of Sen. Clinton, he actively tries to correct this imbalance by attacking her opponent with a similarly unsupported slant.

It is unclear what Krugman aimed to do with this piece. The central claim of the article, that Obama’s supporters are behind much of the venom in the campaign, receives no relevant proof in his arguments. He just plants this assertion on the page, as if his liberal conscience should be assurance enough that it is indeed legitamite.

The most vicious attacks he can point to, all emanate within the media. Krugman seems to be implying, that because these outlets attack Hillary disproportionately, they are by default supporters of Obama. This is, a completely faulty argument. The kind of argument, which, in a fair society, would only find expression in the form of excrement smeared on alleyway walls. MSNBC are as much surrogates of Obama, as Krugman is a surrogate of Hillary’s. As for Hillary’s real surrogates, the Bob Johnsons, Tom Vilsacks, Andrew Youngs, like the Iraq War, they receive little mention in Krugman’s writing.

Obama must be glad to see his most credible adversary make such an unfortunate fool of himself.

Sharia

The donkeys of conservative European punditry are mad at the Archbishop of Canterbury, because of his recent comments on sharia courts in English mosques. His colleagues are calling for his replacement, after all, he is the principle leader of the church of England, and thus wields considerable power. What worries me is not the position taken by said archbishop, it is the power intrinsic in the position he holds within church, and, as a result, State.

Why should his comments come as such a surprise? After all, despite doctrinal differences, most Abrahamic faiths agree on more than they disagree on. I would argue that most pious Christians of good conscience, have more regard for a practicing muslim than for a theoretical atheist.

One of the main differences between Christians and Muslims these days, seems to be that Muslim leaders seem to have more control of their flock. Next to natural demographic shifts, it is also this aura of certainty and heavy-handed leadership that has lead to the swelling of Islamic ranks within Europe through conversion. Despite what Americans might believe about Europe, a lot of Europeans are still, very much, men and women of god. Religiosity requires a certain submissiveness, and submissive characters oftentimes fiend for less carrot and more stick; for such people, Islam, and especially it’s popular image, have much to offer. Arguably more than Christianity, a faith blurring with capitalism, and seemingly drowning in paedophilia and doubt.

Hence, reports of Islam rivalling Christianity as the predominant religion of Europe aren’t solely the products of Xenophobia, they are also the results of sober calculation. Moreover, the xenophobia lies in the fear of this development. Personally, I am not so worried. As far as I’m concerned, religious people can plaster the streets, bleeding from crosses or kneeling on rugs, as long as I am allowed to whore about and indulge while they fast and abstain.

Yes, I’m very much a live and let live guy, and sharia law, as it is practiced already in many mosques in England, doesn’t threaten this glorious lifestyle. Like the Beth Din courts upheld by European Jews since the Middle Ages, these ‘courts’ (where Allah, peace be upon him, is both judge and jury) merely resolve petty civil and financial disputes, and don’t affect the lives of infidels. They don’t involve themselves in prosecution of any sort. The archbishop merely argued that these already existent courts be acknowledged, and integrated into the system so they stay under state control. This, of course, doesn’t calm the, usually so tranquil, European conservative mob. They argue in their newspaper columns and coffeklatsches, that once you loosen up the law for minor insertions of sharia, the consitution becomes fertile ground for the same Sharia’s feared “penal code”. According, to their “logic”, demographic shifts could allow such a “Machtergreifung” to happen within fully democratic terms.

Such conservatives also tend to characterize immigrants as perepetually coming in “floods”, “waves” or “invasions”; basically, whatever image they can conjure up to suggest both conspiracy and uniformity. These same xenophobes might find it hard to consider that these invaders are a tad more differentiated; in fact, many of them might be quite unenthusiastic about life under the Sharia penal code. After all, their personal experience of such laws, might make them altogether appreciative of their limbs and sinfully uncircumcised spouses. I would argue (for no particular reason except that I am extremely opinionated) that the extremists we really have to worry about are the converts. Converts, generally, have too much to prove. They try too hard to make up for their lack of natural fieriness. (case in point: Assam the American)

The beforementioned conservatives, have pamphlets for both the poor (the sun, Bild) and the rich (Spiegel, Times). In these publications they are rarely concerned with religion as a whole, they focus solely on the evils of Islam. At the same time, they often decry the moral depravity of contemporary society with the same peasant seriousness as any Mullah or Omar. Their habitual “we are capitulating”-bullshit is as disturbing as it is intellectually lazy. Note their obsessive use of the habitual, ill-defined “we.” “We” I often take to mean us “Christians” and, herein lies the great hypocrisy. Many European societies from Denmark to England have tighter bonds between church and state then, the oh-so-conservative United States. In England the Queen is both the head of church and of State, she can veto whoever the people choose as their prime minister. Now, she generally doesn’t decline the peoples choice, and so, this power is often considered purely theoretical, but, as long as its on the books this bond exists. In countries like Denmark and Germany, part of a citizen’s taxes unwillingly end up as tithe to the church.

As long as European conservatives aren’t dedicated to the complete secularization of their own states, they have little right to whine and worry about islamization and the inevitable capitulation to it. Unless you work to completely severe the bond between god and country, and create lasting institutions to protect this secularism, you can’t complain if your state is islamacised, once a significant portion of the population is Muslim.

_uac

David Shuster – Temporary Eulogy

David Shuster is a hollow character, who went with the irreverent flow at MSNBC and got carried away. What he said about Chelsea Clinton was tasteless, but, in the context of pigheaded American punditry, forgiveable. Unfortunately, artificial controversy is easy to whip up and hard to control in America. Something is said, someone gets offended, and before you know it everyone is dismayed, alleging, suggesting, decrying, until another empty face disappears from the screen.

At the same time, I am not shedding a tear for Mr. Shuster. He should have lost his job a long time ago, more specifically, after the release of the documentary “Control Room”. In the brilliant film about media coverage of the Iraq War, Shuster is shown being just another patriotic hyena, conditioned by the governments drumbeat to war, cheeringleading for our boys. In those days, he was just another Junior reporter at MSNBC. Despite his failure to do anything but toe the government line, he somehow rose through the ranks of the channel in the years that followed.

In Control Room, Shuster is shown jublilantly celebrating as “our boys” entered Bagdhad. The talking head gets to open his mouth as well. Joking about Iraqis looting in the streets after the regime fell, he quips happily “looks kind of like wheel of fortune.” His other big moment in the film, is when he speaks with great condescension about his Al Jazeera colleagues and their “rebelliousness”. Shuster attributes the superiority of American coverage of the war to “200 years of free speech.” How unfortunate, that he was on the wrong side of history.

Whoever still has any pleasent feelings for this man, shouldn’t be too worried. His face is sure to reappear sometime soon on a screen near you, once the public has forgotten his infractions. It shouldn’t take more than a news cycle or two. Until then, his body will be frozen to preserve it’s natural nothingness, and he will await ideological injection in some secret lab in Burbank, California.

McCain vs. Obama

General election polls, at this point, are not to be trusted for a whole lot of reasons. Just take into consideration the differences in turn-out between the democratic and republican contests, and it becomes clear that John McCain’s advantage in match-ups with Barack and Hills is not to be taken seriously.

A lot of voters I know, are so empassioned by Barack Obama that they proclaim that they wouldn’t vote for Hillary if she won the nomination, and I’m sure some of the Hillary-drones feel the same way. Because, a lot of this is hot air, and many of these voters will turn out for whichever democratic nominee, the polls are currently innaccurate.

At the same time, I think that Hillary-enthusiasts are more likely to be swayed to vote for Obama than vice versa. This has much to do with the different conduct of the two campaigns, Obama supporters (especially African Americans) are more likely to leave this primary season with a general sense of disillusionment if their candidate of choice isn’t the nominee.

Hillary could beat McCain, Barack Obama will.

Barack’s current platform translates easier into a platform for the General Election than Hillary’s. After all, “experience” is an altogether unsuitable mantra, when running against the oldest presidential candidate in American history. “Change” seems much more apt.

McCain is closely associated with the surge, John Edwards cleverly branded it the McCain doctrine. Since then, McCain has been at his most hawkish, embracing another 100 years of American occupation in the country. While this may appeal to some republicans, it is ultimately a gamble. McCain’s credibility is closely aligned with the stability of the most volatile region in the world.

The surge may have improved the conditions in Iraq superficially, but violence is still rampant, Baghdad is still the most dangerous city in the world, and political reconciliation is as unlikely as ever. Many Americans see just enough betterment in Iraq for it to no longer be their primary concern.

If this is success, then, besides being the product of incredibly low expectations, it is also immensely fragile. As soon as this lull discontinues, McCain’s “100 years in Iraq” will be immensely unpopular, and his stance will reemerge as a liability. Who better to exploit that than Barack Obama, the anti-war candidate? On Iraq, similarly to many veterans of the war, Hillary has no leg to stand on. Hillary has been vague, at best, about her withdrawl plans. She has mentioned withdrawing within 6 months of her presidency, but only “if it’s reasonable to do so.” Similarly, McCain wants to withdraw when he thinks its reasonable to do so, and he is thinking along the lines of 100 years. After all, that’s how long he’s been fighting his personal battles.

This leads us to another one of McCain’s central problems; he tends to get very, very angry. Americans surely want a tough president, but it is unlikely they want an unpredictable one, who succumbs to his temper so easily. Obama, on the other hand, has shown himself to be extremely cool. Mrs. Clinton has thrown some scathing jabs at the man while they were on stage together, and he has remained remarkably calm, without seeming weak in the slightest. Under attack, Obama tends to stir, while McCain tends to boil. Another clear contrast that would seem to work in Obama’s favour.

Obama makes McCain look ancient; a problem in itself for a candidate who is constantly being asked whether he is “too old.” As far as oratory goes, Obama is vastly superior to McCain, their Super Tuesday victory speeches couldn’t be more different in quality.

To sum up, which match-up could possibly present more obvious, advantageous contrasts than this one? Obama vs. McCain, would be old vs. young, effortless vs. tortured (literally), hopeful vs. bitter, anti-war vs. pro-war; to fall back on a stereotypical, slightly inaccurate historical comparison, it’ll be JFK vs. Nixon all over again. Hillary has none of these advantages. Regardless of what the polls say now, I can’t see McCain doing very well if he goes head-to-head with Obama on the “Electromechanical television set” (McCain).

Imagine Bush being subject to such scrutiny.

I salivate at the thought.

Police Brutality

This is what happens when policemen get bored. The job itself tends to attract people who, more than anything, want respect. As this video shows, it doesn’t take much to put a dent in this fragile sense of authority. Americans respect their local officials too much. According to national folklore, criminals are innately dangerous and aimlessly destructive, and policemen are all that stops them imposing their evil upon us. Hence, we should be as patient and forgiving with our police, as we are unforgiving with the men they protect us from. After all the moral grey area they inhabit, serves as a buffer zone between criminal chaos and righteous serenity.

I think that a healthy society should be more weary of abuses of official power, than petty criminal infractions. After all, if our society is built on the assumption that certain people assume the moral highground of official power, our society’s credibility suffers more when these officials infringe on their power, than when powerless individuals break the laws these officials uphold. The few common values we share as a society become increasingly hypocritical to citizens constantly confronted with corrupt politicians, and violent policemen who seem immune to serious prosecution, while drugdealers are demonized and waste away in state dungeons.

An economic depression occurs when people lose their belief in the worth of money. A state’s monopoly on violence suffers similarly when people become disillusioned with the fairness of law. Our uncritical worship of our police forces, paired with our unforgiving stance on criminality, further bolsters the fringes and margins of society.

House of Commons Magic

Chuck Norris long ago endorsed Mike Huckabee, today, Sylvester Stallone followed suit and endorsed John McCain. Every republican needs a two-bit action star backing his nomination. Who will be next? My prediction: Wesley Snipes to endorse Ron Paul.
Just a wild stab in the dark…

I can’t help but feel sorry for Bill

Bill is an aging bear, tortured, constantly negotiating between unhealthy passions and predatorial political instincts. Willing to claw his way back home, Bill eats, fornicates, screams, eulogises, threatens, convicts, decries, scolds until he grows splotchyfaced. Then, all of a sudden, in the darkest of places, overwhelmed by his impulses, the animal collapses.

Quick Quote

“At the end of the event, a man yelled out to Obama that he will be a better president than George Bush. Obama responded, “So would you!”
- CBS News

Obama and Reagan – Back like cooked crack

Besides being a muddled primary election, this season’s GOP race, has also been a contest of which candidate can best hijack the legacy of Ronald Reagan. Reagan was the GOP’s last successful president, especially when seen in contrast with the two most recent republican presidential miscarriages. Fiscally conservative, morally completely bankrupt, socially utterly unconscientious; Reagan’s policies (and personality) still serve conservative politicians as a blueprint for their own miserable platforms. George W. Bush himself, crept out of the slime of this hateful ideology, but so did Bill Clinton.

Obama’s recent monologue on Reagan’s presidency, contains a few sentences that could well be understood as praise for the gipper, for this I condemn him! Once my great disappointment for Obama slowly melted into slick cynicism, I revisited his little speech, and found that, despite the sentence that can be read as praise for Reagan, I don’t disagree.

“I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not.”

Besides skillfully positioning Big Willy next to the equally impeachable Richard Nixon, Obama makes a valid point: Reagan’s presidency, for worse or worse, had much more of a lasting effect on American politics than Clinton’s. For one, Reagan had more of an effect on American politics today than Clinton, because Clinton himself was a continuation of Reagan.
Much in the same way Tony Blair’s policies were an (ever-so-slightly) more socially conscious continuation of Thatcher’s work, Clinton was a continuation of Reagan’s legacy. Clinton’s was a neo-liberal platform, a program of free-trade, deregulation and small government. Clinton submitted welfare, budget and tax bills in the Autumn of his presidency, further completing the Reagan revolution.

What the media have described as Obama’s praise for the gipper, is a most superficial account of Reagan’s presidency and his lasting popularity, “he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.” Obama, of course, doesn’t go into any detail, because this loose definition of Reagan is just general and empty enough for Obama to creep into, like Hannibal Lectar slipping into a disemboweled human carcus. This is cheap, but could be effective in wooing Californian voters, who, for some reason or another, still feel sentimental about the Gipper. At the same time, Obama seeks to destroy the battlefield he can’t win on; he doesn’t want the last successful democratic presidency to serve as an orientation point for democratic candidates and voters in the same way that Reagan’s administration serves for the GOP. Hence, Obama’s awkward differentiation.

The primaries are a game of chess. After Hillary successfully provoked Obama into “playing the race card” (the coverage of these unfortunate events, by the way, are an excellent testament to the state of racism in this country), Obama is trying to make Bill play “angry old man”. Because, every time Bill feels attacked, he becomes red-faced, splotchy and says something unfortunate, further chipping away at his positive legacy. Bill, in his old age, is the true renagade of the Clinton camp, he seems prone to forgetting campaign strategies, instead relying on political instincts – instincts that nowadays seem clouded by senility and temperament.

Besides the validity of Obama’s argument, I hope that in the future he will refrain from participating in such tastless acts of political necrophilia. If Obama feels like comparing someone to Reagan. he should compare Hillary. She has played the race card as skillfully as Reagan in 1980; just overt enough to catch people’s attention, and just minute enough to shrug off.

Success, and it’s ability to vindicate

For some reason, in this country, success has the immense ability to vindicate a public person instantly. In America, success proves you right, regardless of your wrongdoings. That is why Ronald Reagan is considered such a great president, despite his racist presidential campaign of 1980.

The same blogs that have been spanking Hillary Clinton for her ruthless attack campaign against Obama in New Hampshire (much of it with nauseating racial undertones), are now ruefully bowing their heads to the senator from New York. How does one do that? How does one negotiate such ideological changes of heart with one’s own morals? I don’t understand.

Hillary won New Hampshire, and there is nothing honorable about her victory. American “liberals”, for some reason, have bought into the narrative that if the conservatives attack someone, that person must be worthy of “our” defense, especially a Clinton. I hate to say it, but even the conservatives, the Chris Matthews’ of the world, get it right once in a while, and they are right about Hillary, even if they are no better. She is an opportunist, she will do anything to get elected, recklessly endangering her opponents chances of winning the general election in the process. It isn’t about the people, it isn’t about “what’s right”, its about her personal success, that much she has proven.

Women came out to vote for Hillary. Not surprising, in light of the popular narrative she has woven over the last few days, of being just another woman, fighting for recognition in a man’s world. It started off with the debate, where she fought two men, amongst them, John Edwards, a heroic liberal who is unfortunately inclined to dropping the odd chauvinistic sound-bite. Only 2 days later, far behind in the polls, she broke into tears, lamenting the immense pressure of the working world in a New Hampshire neighbourhood kaffeeklatsch. The question was very convenient, “”How do you get out the door every day? I mean, as a woman, I know how hard it is to get out of the house and get ready. Who does your hair?,” a woman, outside of the camera’s margins asked. With camera’s flashing on her face, Hillary choked up, croaking “it’s not easy” as the television camera zoomed in on her face. The news media, the media considered so hostile to Hillary, didn’t question the moment’s authenticity. Except, Fox News, who, with unsurprising vitriol, laid into the weeping candidate. Liberal blogs, jumped to her defense, despite their issues with the moral deficiencies of her campaign. At the time, I didn’t think voters would buy it, but it now seems that they did. Only a day later, two men, quite conveniently I think, showed up at a Clinton campaign rally, holding “iron my shirt” placards. Call me cynical, but if the campaign itself didn’t explicitly design this course of events, they fell into place quite neatly, and just in time.

Now, I am not denying that there is an obvious element of sexism to the right-wing’s hate of Hillary. I think such sentiment is distasteful, I don’t, however, think that these unreasonable attacks should awake sympathy for a candidate who so freely deals in prejudice herself. She hit Obama for supporting an end to mandatory minimum sentences for federal crimes, a flaw in the judicial system that leads to disproportionate incarceration of black males. What’s more, she has pledged support for the same measure, in the past. This was, of course, more subtle than other racially-tinged attacks emanating from the Hilary campaign. These include, the circulation of an email accusing Obama of being a “Muslim” (my, oh my, a MUSLIM!), and the repeated questioning of Obama’s past by Clinton’s aides, wondering aloud, “When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?’” The racial OVERTONES of such attacks should not be ignored.

So, now when I read “liberal” blogs coming to terms (Huffpo), or even worse, voicing their enthusiasm (TPM, C&L), for a Hillary nomination, I am heavily reminded of the free pass given to Ronald Reagan by the mainstream press. Success proves them both right, despite both of their racially-charged campaigns.

The American left deserves Hillary Clinton, and as a result, also deserves John McCain, or Mike Huckabee. You are as immoral, as opportunistic as the candidates who you accept as your own. Good Riddance.

Crocodile Tears

In what appears to be a desperate attempt to appeal to overworked Female Voters, Hillary Clinton became all teary-eyed in front of a bunch of flashing cameras this morning. I think the question of whether this was staged (it was) is utterly beside the point, the question is, will it be effective? Personally, I think this is another example of Hillary’s campaign thoroughly underestimating democratic voters. The cameras flashing on her face gives the whole affair the air of a Tonya Harding press conference. Unfortunately distasteful.

I am not going to say I knew this was going to happen, but I did write that it would. If you had been following this blog you wouldn’t be suprised:

“Much like the promqueen from the beforementioned 80s teen comedy, I see Hillary throwing an embarassing fit it if she doesn’t receive the nomination.”
LDB, 11/26/2007, It’s my party and I’ll cry if I want to.

Hillary – on the attack? I hope so.

Anybody who has been following this election cycle on the “television set”, will have noticed that pundits bestow the honour of being “famously opposed to negative campaigns” on the voters of virtually any state quite liberally. Negative campaigns have been very successful in the past (in Texas, for instance, the most horrendous smear campaigns have proven frighteningly effective), but, to state the obvious: not all attack campaigns are equal. When Hillary attacks, she doesn’t do herself any favours.

An Obama attack, for instance, consists of the fresh-faced junior senator respectfully lumping his opponent into the corner of outdated, divisive, cynical politics, that the country doesn’t need at this crucial time – the kind of attack that makes you feel all warm inside. When Obama takes off his gloves, for lack of a better metaphor, he is wearing a fuzzy pair of mittens underneath them.

Hillary, on the other hand, as her campaign never tires of pointing out, is battle-tested, battle-hardened, battle-hungry, ready to battle it out with 100 million dollars in her battle chest. Hillary was in the White House during one of the worst periods of mudslinging and remorseless political throttling America has seen, but the lessons she has drawn from that period, and the skills she developed in response, have, as of yet, served her badly in this campaign.

Obama, on the other hand, has made good use of Hillary’s willingness to attack. One of the crucial moments of this campaign, as far as I’m concerned, was the Democratic debate of Oct. 31. Before the debate, Hillary was comfortably ahead of Obama in all important states, and Obama promised to draw important distinctions between himself and his opponent. Prior to the occasion, the event was hyped as Obama finally “going on the attack”; what happened was slightly different. Obama did exactly what he said he would, he drew distinctions. John Edwards, on the other hand, laid into Clinton, calling her out on her corporate backing and her Iran vote, amongst other things. Obama had played a very smart hand, it seems, he let Edwards go on the attack, and left Hillary feeling embattled.

Hillary, feeling comfort in her embattlement, reflexively went on the counter-attack in the weeks to come. However, since Edwards, the real aggressor, was never a threat in the polls, she went after Barack Obama. Members of her campaign staff, highlighted Obama’s Muslim background, his admittance to past drug use (drawing connections with his views on the disparity between crack and powder cocaine laws), in what seemed like a coordinated smear campaigns of made and withdrawn statements (withdrawn attack statements were to become one of the main political trends this election season).

The attacks were counterproductive, especially among the black electorate. Hillary’s advisers honourable mentions of Obama’s Muslim background, and their allegations that Obama might also have “dealt drugs” during his teenage years, were widely seen as racist. This can’t have appealed to the very liberal voters in Iowa either, it occurs to me. During this period of attacks, Obama remained calm, and, more than ever, stuck to his positive and hopeful shtick; he stayed above the fray and created a very favourable climate for himself.

Despite what the sensationalist media might say, this campaign is still an uphill battle for Obama. Until Obama wins New Hampshire, this is still Hillary’s race to lose. Fortunately for Obama, Hillary’s campaign is preparing to “get nasty” (at least according to Hillary’s top aide, the unbelievably pigheaded Mark Penn). This comes as somewhat of a surprise, after what seemed like an attempt at dignity and humility in her concession speech after the Iowa caucus yesterday.

Unless Hillary’s camp has any substantial new dirt on Obama, this battle cry from within her ranks looks like the prolonged use of a failed strategy. Obama has high positive ratings, voters won’t appreciate another smear campaign against him, to the contrary, such a campaign might well feed his “different type of politics” gimmick, if he manages to stay above the fray. When Hillary’s campaign takes off its gloves, it harms itself. The gloves on her campaign, are similar to the gloves put on patients on suicide watch; you know… the gloves you can’t hold razorblades with.

If he doesn’t have any residual skeletons in his closet, Obama must really Hope that Hillary does indeed go after him.

Why I hope that Obama wins

Now, I don’t want to sound overenthusiastic. I do want Obama to win, I am, however, not as enthusiastic about his candidacy as I was just half a year ago. His stance on Social Security is borderline neo-conservative, his healthcare plan isn’t entirely universal, however (one of those loud british HOWEVERs), he is definitly the lesser evil, and more than that.
There are many reasons to hope that Obama wins.

1) He isn’t “the corporate candidate”
Nader is entirely accurate when he describes Clinton as “the Corporate Candidate”. Clinton has raised more money from Washington lobbyists than any other candidate in the race, Republican or Democrat. Clinton has raised more money from the health industry (insurance companies and drug companies) than any candidate in the race, Republican or Democrat. Obama, on the other hand, raised all of his campaign money from private citizens, much of it small donations. This alone, is a good reason to vote for Obama, he doesn’t owe anything to big business, and hence, will enjoy more maneuverability than Clinton if he wins the presidency, even on health care.

2) He can deliver a strong majority in senate and congress
I think that, despite what Paul Krugman says, there is something to be said for avoiding a divisive candidate in this election. Especially if the candidate in question creates discord with personality and name alone, and not policies. A candidate like Obama, who so appeals to Independents (and even some republicans) is much more likely to help the democrats win senatorial and congressional seats, than a divisive candidate like Clinton. Winning a strong majority in the senate and congress, would make it easier to pass legislation and reverse much of the damage done to the constitution by the Bush administration. Hillary with her high negatives, is, despite what many democrats think, a worse bet for the general election* , but also less likely to deliver a strong majority in senate and congress. Incidentally, (something my friend MK finds especially surprising) polls suggest that Edwards would be the safest bet for the general election, and the candidate most likely to deliver a wide majority in senate and congress. Democrats, unfortunately, are oblivious to such polls (or computer illiterate), and Edwards has little chance to transform a win in Iowa to a cruise to candidacy.

3) His Face
Now, a lot has been written about this subject. Andrew Sullivan wrote a suprisingly sane and decent piece on why Obama is the best candidate for president. Besides mentioning Obama’s potential as a unifer, his disconnect from the culture wars of the 1990s, Sullivan ruminated on the power of Obama’s face, and what a great message it would send to the world. Sullivan suggested, correctly I think, that an Obama presidency would change America’s image in the third world, more specifically the Middle East.

“Consider this hypothetical. It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can.” Sullivan**

Seymour Hersh echoed this assertion, writing that Obama represents”the only hope for the US in the Muslim world.” I agree with all this, and would like to add something to it; I think Obama’s presidency would send a strong message to the first world, specifically Europe. In November 2005, Time Magazine had a coverstory dedicated to the riots in the Banlieues with a headline that read something like “Message to Europe: Time to Wake up”. At the time, I, as a European, felt this to be correct, yet, to a certain extent, arrogant, because America had its own problems with anti-immigrant sentiment; Minutemen, fox news…
My sentiment of the time, was overly simplistic, and disgustingly continental; America still has much fairer immigration policies than Europe. Having the son of an immigrant as president would be a testament to the potential success of such policies.

European publications, even the very best ones, often have a very limited understanding of American politics and society. Few of these publications have even considered that Obama is a force to be reckoned with in this presidential race (the ones that have, Spiegel.de, have caught on, comfortably late). This has something to do with the beforementioned poor understanding of American politics, but also with a reflexive holier-than thou attitude which, sometimes correctly, reduces America to a supremely powerful, but politically reactionary and culturally backwards society, in continental minds. (Americans often, somewhat simplistically, reduce this sentiment to anti-americanism, or if the speaker in question is especially cowardly and proposterous, anti-semitism.) This European standpoint dictates that a candidate of Obama swarthiness, has no chance of gaining the confidence of a population, that Europeans regard as intrinsically racist. European contempt for American patriotism and institutional racism, often masks their own contempt for their immigrant (muslim) population and their inability and unwillingness to share a society with this population. Minority Rule in the United States, would force Europe to come to terms with being the prime bastion of outdated, white, christian stubborness.
An Obama presidency would force Europeans to reconsider their preconceptions about America, and rethink their own image in the world. I hope I’m right.

*http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html
**http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama

Primary Colors

I’m back! Weeks of coughing up essays and blood hindered me from blogging, but no more, I tell you!

The Iowa Caucus is tommorow, and since it’s all up in the air, I will refrain from making predictions.

If Romney doesn’t win Iowa, then McCain looks the likely candidate for the Republicans, leaving Huckabee with an outside chance. If Huck takes Iowa, which the Demoines Register thinks he will, then it will be up to republican voters to prove themselves backward enough to vote for him. As a democrat, once can only hope that they do, because this man is incapable of beating any Democrat in a general election. He is too religious, too radical and too ignorant of the rest of the world for the average American; which is, in itself, quite an achievement. McCain is the one to worry about. The question is, again, whether Republicans can overlook the man’s obvious flaw; that he doesn’t seem to have the stomach to torture terrorists.

Democrats seem to think that Hillary is the safest bet in the general election, polls suggest the opposite. I see McCain having a good chance of beating Hillary, Obama, on the other hand would maul McCain.

Obama vs. McCain would be good for the democrats. Which match-up could possibly present more obvious, advantageous contrasts than this one? Obama vs. McCain, would be old vs. young, effortless vs. tortured (literally), hopeful vs. bitter, anti-war vs. pro-war; it’ll be JFK vs. Nixon all over again. Hillary has none of these advantages.
If he runs against Hillary, McCain will be able to mobilize the Republican base that has so eluded him in the past. Additionally, McCain appeals to independents a great deal. National polls suggest McCain having a 5% edge on Hillary in direct comparison, as of now. Obama draws even with McCain according to the same poll, but, as mentioned before, I can’t see McCain doing very well if they go head to head on the “television set” (McCain).

_uacct = “UA-3100361-1″;
urchinTracker();

On the wrong side of history

Torture, scepticism about “global warming”, opposition to “socialized medicine”, further support for a futile military effort, enthusiasm for a new disastrous campaign in a country of similar name; the Republicans are on the wrong side of history. I have a feeling that the reason these neanderthals so stringently deny Evolution, is that their own prolonged survival seems dependent on its non-existence. “Da ist der Wunsch der Vater des Gedankens,” as they say in Germany, awkward translation: there, the wish is the father of the thought.

There is, however, no reason to be afraid of these people. None of them look like they can win.

Giuliani is a mafiosi, 9/11 “achievements” aren’t necessarily political currency anymore. Recent disclosures of using-state-officials-to-protect-a-not-all-to-natural-mistress-while
-using-state-funds-to-fornicate-with-beforementioned-lady-in-roadside
-motels, align him much to closely with Sir Bernard Kerik, a man of similar distinction and exploits.

Fred Thompson is an alligator, popular only in the swamps of the South.

Romney is a Mormon. If nominated, the cult which he emerged from will quickly become subject to such public scrutiny, that this duck will soon be as lame as his freakish family looks. (If you are interested in the specifics of this “religion” read Hitchens expose on Mormonism and Romney http://www.slate.com/id/2178568/) Additionally, Romney has a record so liberal that it would put Mike Gravel to shame. Not that Mike Gravel, in his old age, is prone to such feelings.

Huckabee seems like a fun, decent guy; but his is a record of incompetence and ignorance, character traits that cease to impress outside the trailerparks of Middle America and the churches of the South. Independents will find it hard to come to terms with this guy’s record; being completely ignorant of the earth-shattering NIE report two days after its publication, calling for a quarantine of Aids victims in 1992, pardoning a rapist because of the victim’s relation to the Clinton family, only to see the same rapist reoffend with similar vigour shortly afterwards. Not even Chuck Norris can help this man.

McCain is the republicans best bet for the general election. But they won’t nominate him, because he’s opposed to torture.

Pro-torture is an interesting stance, and is often justified with the odd “we’ve never faced such a threat” or “what would you do if the bomb was ticking and everyones life was in your hands?” (The ticking bomb is in itself interesting; the Quaeda guys do seem somewhat midievaly inclined, but as far as technology goes, they have rarely relied on such backward devices.) The idea of this unprecedented threat is in itself interesting; the terrorist threat warrants methods that were unnecessary in fighting both the genocidal Nazis and the Nuclear Soviets. In fact, it occurs to me that such treatment is mostly reserved for nationaless enemies, such as the Viet Cong, who also received a healthy dose of torture at the hands of American soldiers.
Torture, as an issue, should be the biggest no-brainer. The argument should be simple: “IF these FOLKS Hate our FREEDOM, and our LIBERTY, we should make sure to HOLD ON to those VALUES when we go to WAR with them. OTHERWISE, what are we DEFENDING?” But such long-winded arguments don’t seem to play well at Rodeos and Nascar races.
The Republicans are on the wrong side of history, though it’s quite possible they will soon call the concept of history itself into question. Romney does already; as a Mormon, he believes Jesus lived in Albany, NY (beautiful place) and fought indians and blacks. So, let me rephrase for the sake of fairness: the republicans are on the wrong side of what elitist, left-wing, academic-types refer to as “history”, or L’histoire.

Casualty Mathematics and the 9/11 Yardstick

My fellow blogger and dear friend SLH, had this to say in a recent post: “Can we all please stop using 9/11 as a measuring stick whenever an earthquake or an epidemic kills more than 3000 people.” My answer to that is no, we cannot, my dear SLH.
SLH further: “If Such a concept held any substance the people who apply it would realize that numerically 9/11 was not so appalling.”
You, my friend SLH, just aren’t familiar with the necessary equations. The numbers were, by international standards, extremely appalling. It’s what I call 9/11 maths. Here’s how it works:

Using the recent hurricane in Bangladesh as an example, I will judge the severity of their troubles with my 9/11 measuring stick.
American GDP per capita: 43,500 – Bangladeshi GDP per capita: 1,700
43,500 divided by 1700 = USA has roughly 25 times the GDP per capita of Bangladesh

So, 9/11: 3,000 dead
Bangladesh 4000 dead
3,000 times 25 = 75,000 Banglas
So, if 75,000 Banglas die in an unprovoked attack, they can call that their 9/11.
Conversely: 4000 / 25 = 160
If 160 Americans die in an unprovoked attack, it’s our Bangladeshi hurricane.

Hugo Chavez – Disappointingly Annoying.

I wish I liked Hugo Chavez. The idea of an independent South American state, nationalizing it’s resources, emerging from under the yoke of American influence, appeals to me profoundly. But Hugo Chavez doesn’t, he is just to annoying.

My problem with Chavez isn’t necessarily that he is undemocratic. I think it is important to note the innate hypocrisy of American criticisms to that effect, when
actions by the US government directly contributed to the near collapse of Venezuela’s fledgling democracy in 2002. In April of that year, a coup intended to oust Chavez, removed the democratically elected leader from power for 48 hours. The new government under businessman Pedro Carmona, was immediately endorsed by the United States. Not surprising, in light of the fact that the White House had supported and helped orchestrate the whole thing.(http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,688071,00.html)

That is why, when Chavez shuts down opposition television stations, or suggests an overhaul to his country’s Constitution that could allow him to remain in power indefinitely, I don’t think of him primarily as a dictator or despot. Moreover, I think of him as an overambitious entertainer, a man who has repressed his own flaws, who can’t face the fact that he is hopelessly untalented. This reminds me of my good friend EDB’s concept of “Evil of Banality.” Chavez isn’t necessarily ideologically driven to undermining his country’s democracy and paralyzing free speech (evil), he just wants more people to tune in to his show (pure and utter banality).

The same EDB recently articulated my own hopes for the region, “I just hope that the less demagogic lefties in South America outshine him,” she wrote. It would also be nice to see less repetitive, more original leaders emerge. I just can’t hear any more “Bush = el diablo” speeches. There is, after all, a more sophisticated argument to be made. Chavez’s thoughtless propaganda in no way benefits his people, all it does is serve his desire to demonstrate his endless balls. His daily display of buffoonery, does more harm than good to what is otherwise an entirely legitimate cause. It is in this spirit of vanity and pomposity, that Chavez isolates himself from decent, intelligent, liberal world leaders such as Zapatero, who might otherwise be entirely sympathetic to a country like Venezuela’s struggles.
The King of Spain was right to shut the man up.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/19/video-king-of-spain-tell_n_73318.html

Sexy dimplomacy

Only a year after his somewhat unfortunate attempt to harass the, admittedly quite saucy, German chancellor Angela Merkel, Dubya yesterday continued his worldwide campaign of sexual intimidation. In a press conference, Bush fondly recalled his conquest of Pakistan’s “Boy of Destiny” Perverz Musharraf, “my message was that we believe strongly in elections, and that you ought to have elections soon, and…you need to take off your uniform.” This conjures up images worth repressing.

Surprisingly enough, many GOP leaders have echoed Bush’s call for the disrobing of the plump Pakistani. GOP candidate Tom Tancredo, sensing hypocracy, took it a step further and advocated asking Mubarak, Karzai and King Al-Saud to take off their uniforms. According to sources close to the campaign, if elected president, Tancredo would, in his first week as president, invite these leaders to the white house, strip them of their uniforms and force them to form a human pyramid (Mubarak, after all, knows his pyramids…). Bush could then bring in his dog “Spot”, and take some pictures, while Tancredo bombs Mecca and Medina. Abu Great!

Will this appeal to the base? I think so.

Newsweek, You Try So Hard (Old Blog)

Newsweek, oh Newsweek, you try so hard. The country seems to be taking a swing to the left, and you, dearest Newsweek, are, and always have been, so…accomodating. Acknowledging the emancipation of womankind from the long shadow of male prowess and achievement seemed right up your new alley: you had the best intentions.

Look at Miss Huffington, beautiful and smart in a little woman suit, her sharp elbows sticking out of your considerable margins . Next to her, Shirley Franklin, Mayor of Atlanta: beflowered, arms wide open, her legs looking like something straight from Walter Reed hospital. To the right of them, towering: Rachel Ray, America’s favourite housewife. The queen of breadcrumb batters, shakes and bakes, baseball breakfasts, candy apples and cherry tarts; womankinds finest moment, and she outshines them all.

This is feminism’s equivalent of Marion Barry heading the Million Man March. Rachel Ray: ballpark feminsm, with a strong swig of trailer park cola. Turkeys and titties, silent protest. American Women: Eat your little hearts out. Newsweek, step your liberal game up!

Niqab Controversy (From Old Blog)

Jack Straw, MP of Blackburn, aroused some controversy last week with statements he made in the Lancashire Telegraph regarding Muslim Women who sport full veils. Mr. Straw’s remarks angered members of the Muslim community in Great Britain, which is suprising because the Muslim community in England is well-known for its serenity and its adversity to easy provocation. Describing the veil as “a visible statement of separation and difference” Mr. Straw also revealed how he persuades Muslim women to remove their headdress when visiting his constituency. With controversy swirling like an unfastened veil in a wind, I took to the streets to conduct a survey of public opinion that would help me make up my own mind.

My first interview partner was a Mohammed. I ran into Mohammed at Bethnal Green Station, where he stood out with his long beard and black robe. He proved to be a mere student like myself, reminding me to fulfill the Pope’s wishes for religion and reason to coexist. Mohammed gave me some interesting insights into his Beliefs:

“The veil is compulsory! Compulsory. Especially if you’re a woman, who is beautiful.”

This struck a chord in me. This was advertising. No wonder every woman was dying to sport a Niqab — it signifies beauty, such glaring beauty that it needs to be concealed. Such beauty, that it could turn a normal, respectful man within seconds into a rapist. What woman wouldn’t want people to consider her too beautiful for the naked eye? Which husband wouldn’t want his friends to think that his wife was such a great catch? Whoever wanted women to wear veils had developed the perfect strategy for making them desireable as a fashion. But then Mohammed continued:

“Veils protect women against men.”

In other words, eyes can rape too. The truly sensitive pure woman does not want to be violated by a man’s eyes.

To their defence, rambunctious males do have some taste. So, wouldn’t disclosing the fact that the niqab was primarily for beautiful women make unbridled men all the more curious?

Next, I stumbled into Harvey. One whiff of the old irishman’s breath suggested that he wasn’t a muslim, at least not a devout one. “The unveiling of these women is just the beginning,” Harvey drooled, before delving into the nether regions of his imagination.

The clarity of Harvey’s thoughts had fallen victim to his conviviality. But Harvey proved my point — the Niqab serves two purposes that don’t exactly compliment each other. A Niqab is a way of telling a woman that she is beautiful. Yet it is also a shield, a woman’s protection from the glances and advances of the wicked man. The problem being that many a wicked man has expert taste to compliment his rapist wit; and this expertise reduces dark robes to clearly defined hurdles, and their inhabitants to mere challenges.

I ended my survey. A resourceful journalist can extract an expert opinion from anybody, even those inebriated in one way or another. I knew enough — Jack Straw is a lucky and also a very clever Bastard.