Worse than Nicolas Cage

The first thing you need to know about Viktor Bout is that everyone knows that he's one of the most heinous gun-runners on the planet. He's openly supplied Charles Taylor of Liberia, rebels and terrorists in Colombia (FARC), Lebanon (Hizbullah) and Afghanistan (Taliban). He essentially has a fetish for giving guns to the most evil people he can find. And everybody knows it. President Clinton approved several operations to capture him, as did several European governments. The UN placed a travel ban on him, and Nicolas Cage's Lord of War was based on him. Everybody knew.

Which is why Bout's arrest in Bangkok as a result of a joint Thai-US operation is so disappointing. The Thai court ruled that since it did not consider FARC a terrorist organisation, it could not extradite Bout to the USA to stand trial. US lawyers and officials cried foul, but everyone's fingers are steeped deep in this pie.

The US themselves used Bout's services during their invasion of Iraq, to transport both military and civilian cargos, hundreds of times. Russia has actually officially stated that they're glad he's not being tried, and that he is "returning to the Motherland", and Thailand is standing firm in ruling that the only possible charge to bring against Bout is a connection to FARC.

Despite the fact that everyone knows. There's even a goddamn tape recording of him speaking to US agents (impersonating FARC), saying that he hopes the weapons he's selling them "will be used to kill Americans, who are my enemies too."

The man is estimated to be worth about $6 billion, providing yet another massive asterisk and energetic footnote to the old canard "crime doesn't pay".

Oh Wait, Nevermind

Goldman and Sachs (pictured above), the prominent Wall Street bank, has posted that it is likely to have made $2 billion profits in the March-June period. That's $2 billion profits, above and beyond the rest of the money they spent to run their unholy operation. They're posting estimates for their profits from March through June, which means they literally have more money than they can count. I don't know how much money I have either, but that's just due to the subliminal terror I have of checking my current account that impels me again and again to press "No." when offered a receipt at cashpoints. And Goldman and Sachs made $2 billion in profits since March.

Happy Monday, everyone.

In other depressing news, the Honduran coup that ousted Manuel Zelaya and instated serial coup-monger Roberto Micheletti is not at all likely to be overturned. The OAS has not yet accepted Micheletti, but it will probably only hold out for another week or two before "starting talks", implicitly recognising that Micheletti is now the de facto, and soon de jure leader of the country (Official Politic Blunder prediction).

Let's not even get into Iran, which major news outlets have pretty much completely stopped reporting on. This was only to be expected, as the thrill of having absolutely no news to report because of the total media blackout imposed by the government gives way to the realisation that there is absolutely no news to report. But like I said, I'm not going to get into Iran.

Television holds no solace either. Pakistani MTV was showing a really bad band fronted by an ugly woman ripping off Evanescence's "Everybody's a Fool", a really bad song, down to the last note, really badly.

Clearly Evanescence must have known about this, and sold them the rights to their song (and soul). Which is almost worse than coups in Honduras and brutal government repression in Iran. Almost.

Returning to the issue of Goldman and Sachs, Rolling Stone columnist Matthew Taibbi described Goldman as "a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money." The hilarious thing about this is that Goldman didn't dismiss this as a malicious characterisation or metaphor, but as a conspiracy theory. Which means they're seriously worried that people might start thinking that's actually how they make $2 billion in profits in 3 months.

Which would make more sense than all this "derivatives" and "risk management" hocus-pocus they keep foisting down our throats.

A Very Silly Decision Overruled

The USA's Supreme Court yesterday threw out one of the sillier judgements made concerning racial discrimination when it overturned Sonia Sotomayor's (Obama's pick for the Supreme Court) ruling in the case of Ricci v. DiStefano. The details of the case, if you haven't already read, concern white and hispanic firemen who are angry that the New Haven fire department annulled the results of a test to determine promotions solely because no black candidate passed. Sotomayor's ruling was that the fire department was justified in annulling the results of the test, because even though the test was not intended to discriminate, it ended up having a “disparate impact” on the black firemen.

The reversal of this silly and politically motivated ruling is a welcome departure from the USA's traditionally snivelling strategy of dealing with racial inequality. 5 out of 9 Supreme Court judges rightly concluded that “The city was not entitled to disregard the tests based solely on the racial disparity in the results.”, highlighting the overt discrimination inherent to the fire department's actions and Sotomayor's ruling. These judges, mislabelled as “conservative”, thus struck against the crux of positive discrimination: the 1964 Civil Rights Act's text on “disparate impact”.

The idea here is that if in any situation a minority (usually blacks) are not performing exactly as well or better with regards to their white counterparts, then regardless of the intention or the fairness of the test, “disparate impact” has occurred, and must be adjusted for. Whilst I understand the basic reason for this attitude; that certain minorities, as a result of discrimination, are less capable and less able to compete with white people even in fair tests, this is a dangerous and ultimately extremely condescending attitude.

At some point we must start treating minorities as competitive equals, and not as retarded children who have to be “included” for fear of a stomping tantrum. What Sotomayor was essentially abetting in her ruling on the case, and what the 4 dissenting Supreme Court judges were arguing for, is that black firemen at New Haven should be issued with different, easier tests to ensure that the outcome is racially proportional, and thus, politically acceptable. Sotomayor and the “liberal” judges want to solidify the notion that certain minorities cannot, and cannot be expected to compete on a level footing with the white majority in the foreseeable future. This, in no uncertain terms, makes them racists.

Spy Kids

The blogging must go on. Even though I am in Sri Lanka, where the heat directly affects the speed of the internet connection, if you turn on the air conditioner for 2 hours before hand, you can get about 20 minutes on the internet before it clogs up with moisture and jungle dust.

The CIA is probably known for more than it would like, as one of the more invasive and aggressive intelligence agencies. Indeed, outside of screaming patriots and fans of Matt Damon's work, the CIA is not too well-regarded. It's dramatic work, but ultimately sordid and underhanded, and deep down, we all know the real work of intelligence agencies doesn't involve buff ninjas humping their way to the truth. It's mostly corpulent computer experts trawling terabytes of email for words like "bomb" and "muslim".

But where the CIA cannot appeal to our intelligence, it appeals instead to our children. The CIA Kid's page proudly announces that "The CIA gathers intelligence in a variety of ways, not just by "spying", like you see in the movies or on TV (though we do some of that, too)". It seems to me that spying, actually having agents intercept classified documents or infiltrate foreign governments, shouldn't really be something the USA, or any other country, lauds itself for. Certainly in diplomatic circles, there is a pleasant fiction that countries never spy on each other, and intelligence agencies are only there to take satellite photos and fight terrorism.

But having to tiptoe around the issue of spying on other governments is a good thing. It shows that we're still uncomfortable with the idea of spying, that we're a bit embarrassed about the prospect of openly admitting that it's done. Children shouldn't be reassured that there's nothing wrong with spying. Of course there is.

It's Proselytime!

Just a quick post on a breaking scandal, courtesy of Al Jazeera English: apparently US soldiers posted in Afghanistan have been conspiring to proselytize while on duty, a gross violation of the US Army Code of Conduct. Al Jazeera reporter Brian Hughes caught footage of Lieutenant-colonel Gary Hensley,  a military chaplain urging soldiers to spread the Good News. In his words:

"The special forces guys - they hunt men basically. We do the same things as Christians, we hunt people for Jesus. We do, we hunt them down. Get the hound of heaven after them, so we get them into the kingdom. That's what we do, that's our business."

This isn't the first time the US Army's policy of "getting people into heaven, one way or another" has been seen. In February, the US Army approved the embedding of two self-proclaimed "gonzo missionaries", presenters of a tv program called Travel The Road. The program follows Tim Scott and Will Decker as they plumb the furthest reaches of the poor-world, where they tape themselves trying to convert increasingly confused natives. 

This caused a mini-scandal, as again, the US Army Code of Conduct mandates that only journalists be embedded. Given that the only pretensions Mr. Scott and Mr. Decker had to journalism were that they carried cameras around and called themselves "producers of dynamic media", this was seen to be somewhat in contravention to the strictures of the US Army.

Right, back to work.

Yoo Make Me Wanna Shout

A lot of criticism has been levelled at President Barack Obama for his refusal to entertain the notion of prosecuting the individuals responsible for allowing torture (often in the form of waterboarding) to be used as an interrogation technique for detainees in American prisons. Mr. Obama's defence of the CIA and various officials under the Bush administration is political, pragmatic, and to an extent legal in nature. 

However, not enough criticism has been directed at John Yoo (pictured above). A professor of Law at the Berkeley School of Law, John Yoo was a pivotal figure in the Bush administration's drive to legalise torture. Mr. Yoo co-authored the Bybee Memo (downloadable here), a document issued by the Bush administration's Department of Justice in response to CIA enquiries regarding the legality of certain interrogation methods. 

Among other things, Mr. Yoo concludes in the memo that even though an act is "cruel, inhuman or degrading", it may yet not exceed the prerogative of the state to authorise it, and thus does not subject any interrogator to legal prosecution. Essentially, the CIA asked if it could torture suspects, and Mr. Yoo is the one who answered "yes".

Mr. Yoo had a chance to defend his position in a debate with Doug Cassel, a human rights scholar, at Notre Dame University. I've reprinted an excerpt:

Cassel: If the president deems he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?

Yoo: No treaty.

Cassel: Also no law by Congress; that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo-

Yoo: I think it depends on why the president thinks he needs to do that.

Mr. Yoo's position is a bald reminder of the vast gulf that exists between what is legal and what is just. There is an argument to be made that what interrogations conducted under the Bush administration were perfectly legal, enshrined as they were in a liberal and disingenuous reading of the law. They were nonetheless despicably criminal.

Obama Proves That Americans Understand Irony

In the days and weeks that went by after Mr. Obama's inauguration, we were patient and accepted that he could not immediately reverse all the damage the Bush administration had wrought on the USA and the world. It's now growing

 increasingly clear that with regards to civil rights and the rule of law, Mr. Obama's administration is not offering "change" at all, and is indeed reneging on some of the most important promises it made during its election campaign.

Mr. Obama has announced the closure of Guantanamo Bay, and has disallowed the usage of the term "unlawful enemy combatants"(a term which essentially gave free reign to those charged with detaining prisoners) with reference to that facility, however, he has repeatedly asserted (and is now contesting for) the government's right to do exactly the same things at a military base in Bagram, Afghanistan. 

When it comes to the protection of civil liberties on the domestic front, the Obama administration's inability to "change" or "progress" is increasingly embarrassing for anyone who wrote articles about Obama with titles like "A New Dawn and a Mythic Hope". Mr. Obama's administration has blocked at least three lawsuits brought against the NSA (National Security Agency) over warrantless wiretapping, citing the argument that state secrets had to be protected, and that to even entertain a trial, or allow any sort of out-of-court settlement would "cause exceptionally grave harm to national security" (source). This is exactly the argument the Bush administration used to justify its executive excesses, and exactly the argument the Obama campaign lambasted, derided, and whipped up fury over.

Further, Mr. Obama and his administration brazenly betrayed a commitment made last year by congressional Democrats to allow members of the Bush administration implicated in illegal surveillance (wiretappings and email interception, mostly) to be prosecuted. When called up on this promise, the Obama administration not only declared that they would not be allowing any of these lawsuits to go forward, they also added that in the future, lawsuits against the government on the grounds of illegal surveillance will be prohibited, unless the government openly disseminates your phone bills itself. By that point, though, I'll already be applying for jobs at Minitruth. 

There is yet hope, though. the outrage that Obama's attitudes has provoked has been vigorous and healthy, and decidedly bipartisan. If anything, Obama's campaign worked too well. You can't base a campaign on reigniting the electorate's interest in politics unless you're actually ready for them to actually be interested in what you do. Thankfully, closing Guantanamo Bay wasn't a salve strong enough to mask the creeping stains of the rest of the administration's actions.

"Change can't just be a slogan" - Barack Obama, 2007 

Actually No Joke

A Politic Blunder is now on video!

Here's a video from Fox News's late night show "Red Eye" that reduces the American tendencies towards belligerence, homophobia, ignorance and arrogance to a 4:24 video (that's 1:06 per trait).



The video's already been heavily criticised in the rest of the world, so I'm posting this video not to anger my reader(s), or provoke derision, but to inform them that the kinds of attitudes long since consigned to satire and leering sarcasm in the rest of the world still actually exist in the USA. Which is the opposite of what Fox intended.

Obama portends grim future for cash-strapped CEOs

The decision by the Obama administration to unilaterally cap the salaries of executives from companies that ask the government for money at $500,000 has caused much controversy among the country's super-rich, who are worried that they may no longer be able to afford caviar baths and solid gold whores.  

The plan, which would be enacted by the US Treasury and thus would not need Congress approval, only limits the cash salaries of executives, not their stock benefits, which form a much higher proportion of their total remuneration. The only caveat is the stocks cannot be cashed in until the money the firms ask from the government has been paid back.  

All this has caused American executives to literally shit all over the faces of the poor and unemployed in America and beyond (metaphorically). James F. Reda of James F. Reda and Associates has been the most flagrant diarrhoetic, calling the $500,000 pay limit "draconian". Meredith Whitney of Oppenheimer & Co. complained that

"no one goes in to Wall Street to save the world(...) compensation is the motivating factor (...) if you can't compensate your employees, they're going to go somewhere else. You're going to get a different variety of folks who are going to come in."

Presumably Whitney means that people like John Thain (pictured above), who spent $1.2 million renovating his office, including an $87,000 area rug (presumably made from derision and greed spun into cloth), will leave if their pay is capped and their ability to cash in their stocks delayed. 

America and the world would be better off with people in banking who consider $500,000 salaries an achievement, rather than an outrageous slap in the face. $500,000 plus corporate benefits plus stocks is more than enough incentive to motivate students to pursue an MBA or financial accreditation. 

America needs to stop being in awe of the rich, and realise that success beyond a certain point is a social failure if there are still the afflicted and poor scraping a living on curbs.

Own Ass Handed To British Judges, Used

British judges today agreed not to divulge details of the treatment of Guantanamo detainee and British resident Binyam Mohamed contained in an earlier court opinion on his case, following explicit threats by the US State Department to sever intelligence flows on terrorism should the UK not comply. The decision by High Court Judges Thomas and Lloyd Jones to bow to the USA's threats has caused something of a diplomatic stir, since the US government is being especially hostile on this issue.

The onus will fall on President Obama to patch things up, even though the threats were actually issued by the Bush administration. This should be a fairly perfunctory task, given how ridiculous the threats were. 

There is no strategic reason to obfuscate evidence of torture or other maltreatment of prisoners in Guantanamo. It doesn't give the terrorists an edge to know that some cock in the US Navy is going to shit on a Koran if they get caught. Additionally, the threat to sever intelligence links with the UK if the passages are released is completely unrelated, and is a mere act of spite. 

In response to this quarrel, the US State Department issued a reassurance:

The United States investigates allegations and claims of torture, and cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment such as those raised by Binyam Mohamed.

We're just not allowed to know when, how, and if it actually does. But we should trust that it definitely does.

Dolls and Their Evil

An insane mother from Indiana recently caused a minor ruckus in the USA over Fisher-Price's Cuddle & Coo baby doll (pictured left), which she claimed said "Islam is the light". Tellingly she also claimed a DS game, Baby Pals, said the same thing to her daughter, and quickly dispatched both the offending toys from her righteous, Christian house. In her house, she would later claim, toys can either proclaim that Jesus is the saviour or shut the hell up.

Fox jumped on the story with their characteristic unthinking gleeful hatred, and quickly printed a story titled "Doll pulled from shelves for spouting hate". They've pulled the article now, realising how incredibly retarded it is to call a doll on "spouting hate" for cooing garbled babblings that could be misconstrued by unfit mothers as "Islam is the light". 

What's sad (but unsurprising) about this whole affair is that it's actually controversial if a baby is cooing "Islam is the light", when it obviously wouldn't be controversial if the baby started saying "I love baby Jesus". Americans (and bigots around the world) will be at pains to tell you that they don't hate Islam, but ultimately they still view it as unfortunate, and possibly problematic that someone is Muslim, though they grudgingly accept his or her right to be.

A similar conception colours the arguments made against gay adoption that run along the lines of "There's absolutely nothing wrong with being gay, but we're concerned that gay parents adopting a child could turn it gay. Not that there's anything wrong with being gay."

If you want to see a video of the doll in question definitely not saying "Islam is the light", go here. (link)

Small-Minded American vs. Small-Bodied Chinawoman!

Ever since people figured out that martial arts prowess would determine the fate of the world (or ever since those teenagers who always believed this grew up and took positions of influence) China has been a solid pick for at least one of the belligerents of World War III. Politic Blunder is proud to bring you the comically inept warm-up bout to the cataclysmic war, with this overblown tiff over currency.

US Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner started the ruckus with his comment that China was manipulating its exchange rate to give itself a trade advantage. It is ostensibly doing so by pegging its currency to the dollar, a long-standing Chinese policy. China responded "tartly", according to the New York Times (Politic Blunder notes that the required expression of all Chinese government representatives is actually "obsequious menace"), stating that such an attitude could sour relations and revive trade protectionism.

This, of course, made the USA freak out. A fantastic article (here) on the Herald Tribune demonstrates the mixture of awe, hatred, and fear that permeates the way China is viewed by the country. Awe in that they care what a country actually thinks of them (There aren't many articles that amount to "USA worried that UK might not like it anymore"). Hatred in that American experts on China are claiming that China was sad to see Bush go since now China doesn't look like the good guy by comparison any more. Most importantly, fear, in that to finance its $825 billion plan for economic recovery, Obama will have to steam Hu Jintao's dumplings extensively, asking America's biggest creditor for yet more loans.

So what Timothy Geithner (pictured above with the man who will beat him harshly for his lack of wisdom) said was perhaps a bit hasty, especially since manipulating the currency supply and exchange rates are pretty basic tools to manage a country's economy. Note the USA's deliberate policy of devaluation over the past few years to promote its exports. 

All I'm saying is, when Bruce Lee (China), faced off with Chuck Norris (USA), in the Coliseum (global politics), Bruce Lee ended up getting a fistful of chest hair (American debt), and Chuck Norris got a faceful of fist (burgeoning Chinese political and economic clout). Look it up (here).

America Gets It Right on Embodiments of Evil

Unambiguous good news from the USA today, which sentenced the son of notorious Liberian ex-dictator Charles Taylor to 97 years in prison. Mr. Taylor's son, also called Charles, was born and raised in Boston before moving to Liberia in his teenage years. He became head of a paramilitary force and engaged in acts of torture and sexual degradation such as using cattle prods on people's genitals and shoveling fire ants on people after shoving them down pits. He is also a known murderer. 

The decision to convict Mr. Taylor is significant as it is the first instance of the USA convicting one of its own citizens for acts of torture committed abroad. The USA is known for its flexible stance on torture, so it is good to see that at least this disgusting caricature of depravity is enough to move the American courts to action. Both Taylor Sr. and Taylor Jr. have represented the wanton sadism and cruelty which has tragically become distinctive of African conflicts, so we should all have a drink and celebrate the end of this bloodline.

A Misplaced Criticism of American Justice

The New York Times ran an article a few days ago concerning the ongoing trial of five mercenaries belonging to Blackwater company who shot 17 civilians dead in Nisour Square, Baghdad. The article is called "Blackwater? So Many Others", and it argues that the Blackwater prosecution is just a photo-op, a show to prove the USA is taking care of business, but that it obfuscates the hundreds of other similar killings that are perpetrated by lawless gangs and terrorists in the country.

But there is a difference between Blackwater killing 17 civilians and one of Sadr's lackeys blowing him (or her) self up to kill as many. And the USA is justified for treating this case much more seriously, and at a much higher profile. 

Iraq's army and police force are nowhere near being able to secure the country of their own accord, and thus the US Army, along with all the UN troops, all international troops, and all mercenaries such as Blackwater contracted by them, are acting as provisional law enforcement for Iraq. As such, it is a much, much bigger deal when these people, invested with the trust of civilians, instead end up massacring the people they are supposed to protect. In addition to the obvious question of justice this raises, it is symptomatic of a failing state agency, which is a much more serious problem than sporadic, if vicious, terrorist attacks. The dozens that die in terrorist attacks in Iraq undoubtedly need to be covered more. 55 died just today in one blast in Kirkuk. But this trial, and the persecution of justice with regards to these murderers, needs to be even more closely watched.

On the 'Lighter' Side of the News...

I'm sure you've heard the Canadian Supreme Court has upheld the 'one-person-one-fare' ruling for its airlines, meaning that obese people have the right to commandeer as many seats as their grossly distended gut will occupy. While it's great fun imagining this sort of vast amoeba-like diffusion, and it's even more fun looking up pictures of the morbidly yet gleefully obese people on google, this law is pretty stupid, in essence.

Next time you're on any sort of Canadian bus, claim that your hand is an integral part of your body that nonetheless requires the seat adjacent to you. They won't be able to touch you. 

Your brave Politic Blunder correspondent will be testing this out in his upcoming visit to Canada by demanding that every seat on the plane be reserved for him and his gargantuan ego.

A Mythic Hope and a Brightening Dawn - A Politic Blunder Feature

I can think of few people who last night were not nailed to the front of their televisions, or nervously clicking the refresh button over and over, or drinking to excess. I was doing all three. Obama's election means a lot to black Americans, and it means a lot to the soldiers in Iraq, on either side. The internet has been awash with testimonies and open letters to this effect. But it bears a special and separate significance to the rest of the world. Obama gave us a short few lines at the closing end of his speech, affirming that we had a shared destiny, with the caveat that it would be under a 'dawn of American leadership'. 

So what fate the billions of non-Americans who hope for not just a change within America, but a change between America and the rest of the world? I am but one small Italian student in London, ostensibly with no stake or power in the events that shape the so-called 'Leader of the Free World'. Obama's presidency means first and foremost the end of the Bush era. Neoconservatism, John Bolton's psychotic proclamations of the primacy of US interests 'above all else', two destructive and unsuccessful wars, and an unhealthy redolence of the Cold War with China and Russia. These were all hallmarks of the Bush doctrine, and we can hope to see these things disappear from American discourse under a successful Obama presidency. America has long been aware that the world despises it, but it is now becoming aware of the fact that this matters. 

Obama is a thoughtful man, and one who clearly prides himself on his intelligence, which is more than can be said for either Bush or the Republican candidate. This, along with his rhetoric of change and his policy promise of negotiations without preconditions mean that we can look forward to a USA that engages with the world more as a participant in the world community, rather than regarding us as either accomplices to their interests or terrorists. Obama's affirmation that this new dawn was one of American leadership was politically inevitable, but it remains disappointing. America should not have to rely on its sense of entitlement and exceptionalism for its identity. I believe we may see change in this direction in the next four years.

Almost as intense as the optimism and hope that swelled following news of Obama's victory was a hard knuckle of cynicism and doubt. You can always count on some pundits to try to take a negative spin on any overwhelmingly hopeful and positive turn of events just to appear more nuanced and sophisticated than those poor naive who truly believe things are worth being happy about sometimes. These commentators point to the huge problems the world still faces. The continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the continuing shitstorm in Sub-Saharan Africa, and a big fuckoff financial crisis that has everyone not only scared for their lives and livelihoods, but collectively embarassed by how little we understand about the forces that control our homes and our markets. 

The pundits are idiots to be cynical about Obama. If anything, we should be more hopeful and optimistic that this kind of starkly positive change happened right when the world truly needed it. Of course no one expects Obama to actually be a messianic figure that will solve world poverty and beat Osama Bin-Laden at Street Fighter Alpha 3. But everyone who is genuinely happy that Obama won and thinks that things will get better from now on is far better an analyst of political opinion than either the grim naysayers of the high-minded broadsheets, or Gore Vidal.

An Obituary and then some Pie

The Red Ring of Death has finally struck my Xbox 360, putting it out of commission for the last time. It's had a good run, seeing as I bought it over three years ago when it first came out, and since then it's given me many a 10-hour session of good times. After keeping it in overheating conditions with dust in the air for far too long, it started fucking up with increasing alacrity. For the last six months of its life, we all pretty much knew it was fading. We had to keep the windows open and artificially keep the room cold for the console to work. It was sad when the Red Ring of Death finally showed up, indicating catastrophic hardware failure, but in a way, it was time to move on. 

To a new Xbox! I went through all my old games and cleansed the ones that I could sell and part with. I ended up getting over £70 for my efforts, £28 of which came from Santez's Guitar Hero

 controller. Santez, if you're one of my two readers, know that your sacrifice was not in vain. (and I will definitely, definitely get you another controller if you come back from New York and need to play Guitar Hero.) This means that I ended up paying only £60 for a brand new console! Fantastic, I'm sure you'll agree.

In other, equally significant news, The Election is happening tonight. For 21 months it has pretty much hijac-

ked the second-tier spot in the news which stories about 10-50 non-nationals dying usually occupies. In recent times it has completely overwhelmed all newspapers with vast swathes of red, white and blue, and it's fair to say that in the rest of the 

world, it is Obama's rhetoric of Change, Hope, and most importantly, Pie which has captured the people's imagination far more than McCain's increasingly simpering petulance and Palin's out-of-this-world psycho-mom folksiness. Americans are making an important decision tonight with their ballots. None of the rest of us can vote, but that doesn't mean that we are condemned to be passive spectators of the process. The world's will is firmly behind Obama, and this has resonated strongly in America. Being the Most Hated Country On The Planet is not a badge of honour for most Americans, and knowing that 200 000 people turned out to watch Obama speak in Berlin truly affects them. 

I will be watching the election coverage tonight with a hand-picked retinue of intrepid friends, and we will be equipped with celebration alchohol and commiseration alchohol. All are invited to attend. Whoever wins the election tonight, Politic Blunder will be featuring its second Special on the new president. Tune in or be left with the paltry exclusives and shallow analysis of all the other syndicated broadsheets around. 

The Vice Presidential Debate and the Undying Lies of the Right: A Politic Blunder Feature

Today in the Evening Standard, on Governor Palin, Vice-Presidential candidate. Drawn from the first paragraph:

'Onto the gladiatorial set of the vice presidential debate she strode, firmly upholstered in a black suit exuding sexy sobriety without being anywhere near fashionable. The trademark beehive had softened into a copper-highlighted style girlishly tumbling around her shoulders, like the shiny-shiny women in the hair colour ads. Homely current (sic) bun eyes were outlined in warrior black kohl.' -Anne McElvoy

Well done, Anne. Within the first paragraph, you have simultaneously lowered the tone of political debate, alerting the reader to the smug and vacuous style that obtains throughout the rest of your piece, and setting back the cause of women seeking to participate in politics as human beings, rather than mannequins. That's a lot of cunting to get done in a few dozen-odd words, and I'm frankly impressed, Anne. You must have gone to a real school.  

As for the actual debate, pundits and commentators are calling it very close, with some saying that they 'both won'. This is nonsense. The surprise here is that Joe Biden, who is known for cluttering his words and saying unfortunate things, did not, and that Sarah Palin did not speak politics like a petulant child. Sarah Palin still embarrassed herself thoroughly from beginning to end. Her assertions on foreign policy, economics and social policy were all firmly refuted by Biden, her several factual inaccuracies, lies, and citations out of context were quashed by Biden throughout, and her smug folksy demeanour seems to be finding less purchase nowadays. 

Biden, on the other hand, performed admirably. Most impressive was the discipline he showed in avoiding personal attacks or tonal insinuations, and sticking to his arguments concerning policy. Of particular note was where Biden specifically held himself back from stating that McCain has been opposed to every major attempt to extend the world's arms control regimes, saying 'I shouldn't say every...'. This is an exaggeration Palin would have been only too happy to make, but the fact that Biden compromised the rhythm and forcefulness of his comment for accuracy is admirable. The entire debate is on Youtube, and both my readers should watch it.

Top Quote:

'John McCain, knows how to win a war, he's been there, he's done it'   - Sarah Palin

If 'he's been there' refers to Vietnam, then John McCain knows how to lose an ill-executed war of aggression against a much smaller power, make an undignified withdrawal, then loudly claim for the following 40 years that 'it was a draw'.

(This is the end of my comments on the debate. The rest of the post consists of my general observations on the political techniques of the Right. Read at your own peril.)

This is by no means surprising though. Neither is it the especial fault of Sarah Palin. The Republican party, as with the vast majority of right-wing parties, have to contend with the peculiar phenomenon whereby democracy requires the majority vote, and the majority of any country is usually the worse off. Yet the Republican party is mind, body and soul a pro-business, anti-redistribution party, with a strong dollop of foreign aggression and domestic social control thrown in. The three main tools that all right-wing parties across the world use to win elections are ever the same: Jingoism and fearmongering, populism, and the Holy Grail of Efficiency.

Everyone is familiar with the first: the Right's incessant notion that the people are under constant siege. In the UK it is from hoodies, from 13-year old black boys with knives, from jihadis living in Whitechapel. In the USA it is from Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan. It becomes a matter of utmost priority to ensure that these elements are eradicated with extreme prejudice. This, the Right will tell you, is far more important than economic reform, diplomacy, or any kind of progressive social reform. This is because of the tried and true political credo that, if a nation feels itself at war, or in mortal danger, it will ignore all other issues. This is the first way the right-wing gets the poorer majority to forget that they are voting for a government that will transparently harm their interests. 

The second main way they do this is through populist lies. The Right, in the USA especially but everywhere else as well, loves spinning stories about the 'honest, hardworking family': usually lower middle-class, devoutly religious, no-nonsense, awash with dignity and sobriety. The implication here is that decency, religion and honesty are all characteristics of the right, not the depraved, 'progressive', vicissitude-ridden left. This is a powerful narrative, especially in countries with huge swathes of fanatically religious ill-educated voters, like most of Latin America, most of Africa, and of course, the USA. This is the key behind Palin's effectiveness. This is how the Right convinces the poor majority, especially those in rural or backwater areas, that it is a government run for people like them, because it is a government formed of people like them. 

The third way the Right deceives the poor it is about to fuck over is through the ubiquitous spectre of efficiency. The right loves to talk about cutting taxes, it is in every election all over the world one of its main talking points. This is because no one likes paying taxes, and it is politically attractive to tell people that you're not going to take as much money from them. But when the Left inevitably brings up the very attractive government projects of redistribution and welfare it has planned, the voters begin to doubt that the Right is really on their side. This is when the Right, in every single election, will say that it can execute just as many government projects as the Left, and levy less taxes. The Right says that it can do this through 'streamlining', 'reform', 'oversight', 'greater efficiency', or a dozen other empty words. There is no reason to believe that the Right is somehow magically better at cutting costs and streamlining operations than the Left. And yet voters consistently see the Right as more down-to-earth, more realistic and ultimately more efficient than the Left.

Of course, all these lies are terribly effective. The rural poor are often the strongest voting base for the Right, and it has been shown to a depressing extent that the lower the education level of the working class, the more likely it is to vote for the Right. It's a basic political truth that Left-wing policies are aimed at ameliorating the lot of the poor and the struggling, and Right-wing policies are not. I'm not saying that you have to be stupid to vote for the Right. I'm saying you have to be stupid to be poor and vote for the Right.  

Thus concludes the first Politic Blunder Feature length post.

P.S. Thanks to Stephen for the source.

What Hubris Does to Foreign Policy

Last Wednesday a secret incursion on the part of a squadron of US Navy Seals (pictured left) resulted in the deaths of approximately 25 'suspected' Al-Qaeda insurgents in Pakistan. The Navy Seals were immediately extracted by helicopter following the raid. Just today an anonymous source confirmed that President George Bush secretly approved orders to conduct incursions into Pakistani territory without the consent of Pakistani authorities. Now that the news is out, the US must be hoping that such a daring raid on the part of the most mythically awesome military organisation in the world will conjure up enough images of crazy Navy Seal ninja shit to deflect major criticism.

This marks one of the most hypocritical breaches of the sovereignty of foreign nations in recent memory. You will recall the heavy criticism the US leveled at Russia for breaching Georgian sovereignty by sending in troops to 'stabilise' the regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The US defends this double standard by claiming that Pakistan has been insufficiently effective at fighting terrorist cells within its own borders. Yet, if the US wishes to be able to enter foreign countries and kill their citizens in order to serve its own interests, it must not get so worked up when Russia does the same. 

Unilateral military incursion into a foreign country's borders was not justified when Russia did it, and it is not justified now, especially when the orders are being given 'secretly'. There is no need for secrecy on this issue. The terrorists already know the US is trying to kill them. The only people the US administration was trying to keep in the dark by giving these orders quietly was the international community.

Oh...

Also, all the fuss the Republican party is kicking up over Obama's speech is laughable and demonstrative of the petty politics anyone voting for them is signing up for.First Obama is criticised for offering an ideology of change and bipartisanship. Now it is charged that Obama offering serious policy statements is 'misleading' because Obama is simply incapable of making policy. Their claim that Obama's plans to tax those making over $250 000 a year is hurting the 'working middle class' is a blinkered statement that treads parody. McCain continues the pretence of being a decent, hardworking, experienced man, while approving sniping attack ads with racist undertones.

The next post won't be on the American elections, I promise.