This is fun part of being (barely) older than the President of the United States of America... The feeling of condescension towards callow youth is pure and nourishing. "Naive" is the perfect word.

Kaus said this at the inaugural last week:

| Conservatives I've met in D.C.
| so far have been near-ebullient,
| not downcast or bitter. Why?
| a) They know how unhappy they'd
| be now if McCain had won;
| b) Obama has not fulfilled their
| worst fears, or even second-
| to-worst fears; c) now they can
| be an honest, straight-up
| opposition. ....

That's how I feel about it. The fun part of having a black guy in the White House is over. It was important and essential and gratifying, but now it's done, we can get on with the business of resenting his incompetence as with any other President. And he's giving us plenty to work with.

"A tad naive, don'tcha think?"

As you ask, no.

You've finally elected a President with a functioning brain (located in the correct 'head') after a long, long drought.

Why don't you actually give him the benefit of the doubt and rally around his plans?

He's been left a ton of garbage to sort through by the last Administration, and it's plainly in your own interests to help rather than hinder him.

You gave that moron 'Dubya' a longer honeymoon period than this, why not extend him the same courtesy?

Your country (you're not the only ones but you're talking about Obama) is knee deep in ordure.

Rather than try some intelligent policies that may actually work, you'd rather carp at Obama and play Party politics.

Which do you think is better - pulling together for the sake of your country's future (and Obama has already shown that he's willing to listen to a range of opinions) or doing everything possible to hinder change and waste ANOTHER 4 years?

Hell, you've let 8 perfectly good ones go down the toilet, why should I be surprised that you'd throw your future in after them?

This little feller's just a little bitter because he's not one of us. It's a sour grapes kinda thing. What country do you suppose he's from? Would we admire its national character?

Or does it matter?

The problem is, Hammas IS leading the reconstruction effort. Other aid groups haven't had the same access to the people that Hammas has. Hammas has, over the years, been very good about support widows and compensating people with bulldozed houses. That's why they enjoy such strong support. And now, they will have even stronger support.

James:

Why don't you actually give him the benefit of the doubt and rally around his plans?

Because his plans are the thing I most object to about the man. His plans are to turn America into a socialist basket-case like most of Europe. The best hope for America's success is Barack Obama's failure

Which do you think is better - pulling together for the sake of your country's future (and Obama has already shown that he's willing to listen to a range of opinions) or doing everything possible to hinder change and waste ANOTHER 4 years?

Obama has NOT shown any such willingness ("I won"). He's made it perfectly clear that he believes that he has a mandate to move this country far to the left.

And change for the sake of change is idiocy of the highest order. It's like saying "I'm out of nutmeg, I'll just change the recipe to use this random powder I found". What if that powder is poisonous? Isn't change bad in that situation?

You've finally elected a President with a functioning brain (located in the correct 'head') after a long, long drought.

We have? That's news to me. From where I sit, we've awarded the presidency to a room-temperature IQ affirmative-action hire. And given that he's got no testicular fortitude at all, he's going to lay down and let the stupidest woman on earth roll all over him.

We are so fucked.

Oh, and obtopic:

Either Obama's triangulating (which only Bill Clinton could pull off), or he's showing his true colors, and turning his back on Israel as many of us had feared he would.

Wonder what his response will be when Iran nukes Tel-Aviv?

"This little feller's just a little bitter because he's not one of us. It's a sour grapes kinda thing"

Keep on dreamin' Crid. That cloud cuckoo land you're in is the only place where America currently works well.

Fancy your chances of getting another job should the one you, I assume, currently occupy tank?

"Would we admire its national character?
Or does it matter?"

Certainly doesn't matter to me, unfortunately you neo-cons have a habit of spreading beyond your own borders so your massive mistakes (you actually voted Dubya back in? WTF were you (not) thinking?) tend to impact on everyone else.

"From where I sit, we've awarded the presidency to a room-temperature IQ affirmative-action hire"

That's a room-temperature Harvard-educated IQ then is it?

And if his IQ functions at the 20 Celsius mark, then Dubya's must be somewhere in the Kelvin range.

As for 'testicular fortitude' old Dubya showed a lot of that in the ANG didn't he? His old man may have had balls, but old "mission accomplished" couldn't (and didn't) fight his way out of a paper bag.

James -

You might want to sit this one out. Your comments indicate a distinct lack of understanding of the players involved.

If you think that John Kerry would have been the superior choice for president in 2004, then you cannot be reasoned with.

If you think that Obama is intellectually superior to Bush, then you might want to do the same.

And getting in to Harvard is not terribly difficult (after all, Bush did it). Especially when you've got a recommendation from Columbia, where you got in because someone from Chicago recommended you.

Everything Obama's "achieved" in his life has been handed to him because it benefits someone else. The man has absolutely NO record of independent achievement.

Don't get me wrong, I didn't vote FOR Bush, I voted AGAINST Gore, and then AGAINST Kerry. I didn't want McCain, but Fred just didn't have the fire in his belly to fight it out.

But to insinuate that Obama is worthy to the office is just asinine. The man is a dolt, and with every passing day, he expresses it more and more.

Obama's a fucking idiot. Bravo to the fellow idiots who voted him in. Get your bomb shelters built now!

I voted for Bush neither time. In retrospect, I'm glad he won, of the choices available. ANd I have seen the light as far as the socialistic democratic party. You're never too old to learn.

I got into Harvard. It ain't hard. My older, white skinned male brother, got in and actually went. The man couldn't run a garage sale, much less a country. So try again.

How has Obama proven he'll listen to other sides of topics? By sending US tax dollars to pay for abortions in OTHER countries? Like we've got so much money to burn, never mind the fact that so many people are against them at all. Condemning Israel while siding with terrorists? How, exactly?

"President Barack Obama urged Israel on Thursday to open its borders with Gaza."

Good God, if he thinks Israel should open its borders to masses of an unemployable, hostile population, what's he going to do to ours?

I will quote Brian in answer to your question, Snoop: "We are so fucked." o.O

Sing it, sister. Obama's "plan" is just more appeasement. We all note how successful that's been for the past forty years.

The one and only hope for the Palistineans is that Hamas (and Hezbollah) must be completely, utterly destroyed. It is a malignently narcissistic organization, and cannot be bargained or reasoned with. I too think that open borders will inevitably lead to some kind of CBRN attack on Tel Aviv, and it probably won't take long.

> Certainly doesn't matter to me

Is there any doubt that for the whole of this commenter's lifetime, the financial and warmaking power of the United States has protected his nation's safety?

Let's all guess. He's

[ ] Canadian
[X] British
[ ] French
[ ] Other Euro
[ ] Pac Islander

There's my guess

Why don't you actually give him the benefit of the doubt and rally around his plans?

Because his "plans" will end up with me unemployed and my wife wearing a burka.

Why is it partisan bickering when Republicans don't rally around Obama's plans (the ones they don't agree with) when the Democrats are in power? Yet it wasn't partisan bickering when the Democrats sniped at every little thing Republicans did when they were in power.

That's a room-temperature Harvard-educated IQ then is it?

I've met many people who matriculated at Harvard. I've yet to meet someone who was educated there.

And, if an Ivy League degree is the bellwether of intelligence, remind me again which schools Bush attended.

You've finally elected a President with a functioning brain (located in the correct 'head') after a long, long drought.

"You've?" So, you're not from around here?

"Everything Obama's "achieved" in his life has been handed to him because it benefits someone else. The man has absolutely NO record of independent achievement."

I don't agree with you, but one has to ask how is that different from Dubya's record?

His climb up the greasy pole was more than a little assisted by Dad and assorted pals (not to mention the handy little bit of election fraud his brother helped out with). He was an alcoholic womaniser before he suddenly (and conveniently) "found God" and a draft-dodger to boot.

Great CiC material.

Then we get to his intellect. Bush got into Harvard because his Daddy got him there - expensive schooling helped (but not as much as the fact that Bush Senior was RNC Chairman at the time). He graduated in the bottom 10% of his class.

Obama got in because his scores were good. He worked hard and had (has) goals. He graduated with honours and was the first African-American editor of the Harvard Law Review - hardly a sinecure post.

Bush, by contrast wrote in his memoirs "business school was a turning point.... By the time I arrived, I had had a taste of many different jobs but none of them had ever seemed to fit."

Unluckily for him, business didn't fit well either as his oil company failed and he had to be bailed out by family friends.

He then won the Governorship of Texas (handy that Daddy and assorted rich friends were there to help) and from there the White House.

I think I've got a pretty good measure of "the players involved."

Would I have voted for Kerry? Over Bush, yes. Over someone with a brain cell and a coherent grasp of English? Who knows.

McCain wasn't the right choice against Obama, but then perhaps the RNC could have come up with a better choice of opponent? That, to be honest, is the problem with your system of electing Presidents - too little of the choice is given to ordinary voters.

"Which do you think is better - pulling together for the sake of your country's future (and Obama has already shown that he's willing to listen to a range of opinions) or doing everything possible to hinder change and waste ANOTHER 4 years?"

Hmm. Were you suggesting Americans "pull together for the sake of" America prior to January 20th, 2009? I'm guessing no.

But now, well, now is the time for us to put away partisan differences and support the president, don't you know! Oh, yes. The president is reaching out, so how can those to his right not reciprocate?

Easy. If we disagree with him, we say so and oppose him.

"And, if an Ivy League degree is the bellwether of intelligence, remind me again which schools Bush attended."

You're not wrong, in so far as you apply the analogy. The problem is that Bush got into the schools he did because of Daddy and didn't bother to work whilst he was there (hell, even HE admits that).

His Harvard degree was an MBA (long before they were thought to be worth anything much) and he was in the bottom 10% of his class.

Yes, Obama also attended private schools, but at least he actually took advantage of that privilege.

The difference in the 'sniping' attacks is that even the Dem's, by and large, gave Bush a honeymoon period. And why you're attacking him for 'Socialising' your system of Governance when Bush was already more than half way there already is a bit baffling to be honest.

He can't make your employment prospects much worse than where Bush was taking them, but go ahead - please persist in the delusion that it's Obama's fault that your economy is in the toilet.

In fact, why don't we compare and contrast the value of an Ivy League education versus Presidential success, shall we?

Ronald Wilson Reagan - Graduated Eureka College, BA Econ + Sociology.

George Herbert Walker Bush - Graduated Yale, BA Econ.

William Jefferson Blythe Clinton - Georgetown (BSFS), Yale Law.

George Walker Bush - Yale (BA History), Harvard MBA

Barack Hussein Obama - Harvard Law.

4 Ivies in a row, and they ALL SUCKED DONKEY DICK.

> Would I have voted for Kerry?

Do we care? Apparently not, or you wouldn't have had to ask the questions of yourself. Presumably, you live in a country that elects public servants just like a grown-up nation does... But your nation hasn't taken a big enough stake in world events for you to feel sufficiently respected, so you watch the United States like a soap opera....

This thread could go on for five days. (Which would be a lot of fun, let's face it.)

But James, you could save us a lot of time by just reading the later passages of this. Start on October 1st at 1:27am.

And thanks so much for stopping by. We in the United States are always entertained by the customs and beliefs of the quaint little cultures around the globe!

"Hmm. Were you suggesting Americans "pull together for the sake of" America prior to January 20th, 2009? I'm guessing no"

Well you'd have guessed wrong.

As I recall it, most of the Dems were SUPPORTING his bailout plans for your economy, and WERE pulling together for the sake of the country.

It was the GOP Reps and Senators (you know, politicians from his Party) who were pulling in the other direction and insisting on 'porking' out the package.

The difference in the 'sniping' attacks is that even the Dem's [sic], by and large, gave Bush a honeymoon period.

No, they didn't. The Dems smiled with him when he signed the laws they passed and then went outside and bad-mouthed him to the press. Almost immediately there t-shirts with "Selected, not Elected" or "Not MY President" on them. Bush got no honeymoon.

Gore's (long delayed) concession speech was petulant and a monument to his own self-absorption. McCain's was a moving tribute and quite congratulatory toward Obama.

And why you're attacking him for 'Socialising' your system of Governance when Bush was already more than half way there already is a bit baffling to be honest.

I'm not arguing that Bush was a "big government" president and I disagreed vehemently with him on that. Bush (and spend-happy Congresses of both parties) left us with far too big a role for government.

Obama, however, envisions an even bigger role for government. After Bush, we need a small government president to stand in opposition to Pelosi and Reid, not an big government president who goes along with them.

James - You would do well to shut up now. You're very much out of your element.

The genesis of the financial meltdown predates George W. Bush, and the fault lies almost exclusively with Democrats. I'll name names:

James Earl Carter: Signed the Community Reinvestment Act into law after passage by a Democratic Congress.

Barack Obama: Represented ACORN in their lawsuit against CitiBank in which it was alleged that Citi was engaging in redlining.

Barney Frank: As chairman of the House Banking Committee, prevented any oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Also pushed those institutions to purchase more subprime loans from commercial banks.

Christopher Dodd: As Chairman of the Senate Finance and Banking Committee, prevented a bill proposed by Senator John McCain from leaving committee that would have imposed stricter standards for lending and asset purchase on Fannie/Freddie.

On the flip side, who not to blame:

George W. Bush: As president, proposed increased oversight into FMLA practices multiple times, only to be rebuffed by Frank.

10 days in, and Obama's already a contender to take the crown from Jimmy Carter for "Worst President Ever".

"And thanks so much for stopping by. We in the United States are always entertained by the customs and beliefs of the quaint little cultures around the globe!"

You are indeed, usually just before you go and stick your size nines into a situation you neither comprehend or care enough about to actually resolve.

You'll happily declare yourselves the "world's policemen" but then watch as genocidal regimes (with no oil of course) butcher and enslave their populations.

You'll give weapons to radical groups and then wonder why they're being turned against you.

You'll declare yourselves the guardians of liberty, just before you illegally extradite prisoners.

You'll champion civil liberties right up until you need to torture your next captive.

You'll declare yourselves 'civilised' right before you electrocute the mentally ill.

You'll tout "All men are created equal" but only mean it if they're a (rich) WASP.

You go boys (preferably right back home).

As I recall it, most of the Dems were SUPPORTING his bailout plans for your economy, and WERE pulling together for the sake of the country.

Democrats were, when they weren't complaining that they didn't go far enough.

The people, however? Not so much.

The bailout is probably the worst thing Bush could have done.

The proper thing to do was let Lehman, Bear, AIG, and Goldman fail. Let Fannie and Freddie fail.

Instead, they nationalized FMLA, turning an implied federal guarantee into an ACTUAL federal guarantee. They bailed out Bear, but not Lehman - leading to market insecurity.

And now they are going to save the UAW's ass by bailing out GM and Chrysler, even though there's no amount of money that they could give those companies that will save them.

We invent the internet, and let sods like you pollute it with your venom.

We free all of Europe from a genocidal madman, and this is the thanks we get?

Fuck you. Fuck you to hell.

>> I got into Harvard. It ain't hard.

Momof3- Where did you attend?

> ...in a row, and they ALL...

Thanks for the capitalization there, Brian. It was delicate imagery through thoughtful language, and it would have been a shame to have missed it.

"James - You would do well to shut up now. You're very much out of your element"

I'll take the time to look into your comment rather than off-the-cuff it. I'm always happy to demure in the face of hard facts - we'll see if I have to in this case.

As for "worst President since Carter" - even Carter didn't hand over such a sh#t pile of an economy, two active wars (with a good chance of a third being forced to the fore) and a crumbling civil infrastructure to Reagan.

You'll happily declare yourselves the "world's policemen" but then watch as genocidal regimes (with no oil of course) butcher and enslave their populations.

Every time we try to round up a posse, the "civilized" nations of the world don't want to get their hands dirty.

Feel free to send troops to Durban yourselves if you don't like the way we're doing (or not doing) things.

"We invent the internet, and let sods like you pollute it with your venom.

We free all of Europe from a genocidal madman, and this is the thanks we get?

Fuck you. Fuck you to hell."

WE invent the computer and let YOU steal it. WE invent the jet engine and let you take all the research.
WE cracked the atomic bomb then watched as you used our research to commit massacres (hey - you had to be sure it worked right? Twice.)
WE stood up to that Madman for three long years whilst you pissed around doing nothing but selling us shoddy destroyers which you sold to us at 10 times market value while dithering over whether Adolf didn't have the right idea after all).

Yeah.. I'll join you down there shall I?

Why not rally around his plan?

Because it is a BAD one.

It assumes the best when the worst has been the modus operendi for the last 40 years, it assumes peaceful intent where there is bloodlust, it assumes that everyone can be just nice to one another.

Nobody "happily" calls America the world's police, Americans don't want to be, the rest of the world doesn't want us to be...the only ones who DO want us to be, are the ones who need us at that moment, and not a minute past it.

And as far as the rest of it goes James, you display only your ignorance about my country & its way of life. I try not to make presumptions about our limey bretheren across the pond, looks like the reverse is not quite the norm.

And James...don't try to pretend your country doesn't do party politics...I've seen British politics, we've got nothing on y'all.

Politics is politics the whole world over, our greatest respective virtues in it on both sides of the pond is that we settle it with words and will not bullets.

We don't rally around someone just for getting elected, we rally because he has what we believe is a workable plan. And the fact is we do not believe Obama has realistic plans or productive goals. I don't know that he'll be the worst president we've ever had...I doubt he'll be the best, but I'm not going to say he's got good ideas when he's got bad ones.

I found this little tidbit particularly amusing:

"You are indeed, usually just before you go and stick your size nines into a situation you neither comprehend or care enough about to actually resolve."

How funny that you appear to be willing to nose into said subject with similar innocent naivte & ignorance...and remain blithly unaware of doing what you condemn.

But perhaps it is only that I share the limey penchant for dry humor, that makes me find such amusement.

...even Carter didn't hand over such a sh#t pile of an economy, two active wars (with a good chance of a third being forced to the fore) and a crumbling civil infrastructure to Reagan.

Huh?

Carter handed over a country with double-digit inflation, high unemployment, an anemic US military, an enery crisis (Carter's solution was to urge Americans to wear sweaters), large budget deficits, renewed gasoline price controls (which caused long lines at the pump), a reinstated military draft, agricultural hardships from a cancelled wheat deal with Russia, and the bad taste left over from the hostage crisis...along with Billy Beer and killer rabbits.

WE cracked the atomic bomb then watched as you used our research to commit massacres (hey - you had to be sure it worked right? Twice.)

And what were you guys testing at Cologne? How about Dresden? Even Churchill began to distance himself from the RAF's indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations during World War II.

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate uses of weapons during a war. And the USAAF dropped leaflets warning people to evacuate before dropping the bombs.

"It assumes the best when the worst has been the modus operendi for the last 40 years, it assumes peaceful intent where there is bloodlust, it assumes that everyone can be just nice to one another"

Well we sure take very different messages from his speeches. In any case, how well have your current policies been serving your country (and mine) then?

Israel / Palestine is still as bad as ever, Iran is an enemy (when you had a golden opportunity to get them on side), Afghanistan is still training terrorists, Korea successfully went nuclear... am I missing any outrageous successes?

"And what were you guys testing at Cologne? How about Dresden? Even Churchill began to distance himself from the RAF's indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations during World War II."

Certainly not our finest hour(s), and you'll find a lot of controversy over the honouring of Harris as a result.

As for the atomic bombs - one may have been legitimate (with warnings) but two was (literally) overkill. There use is only really considered legitimate because we won.

Had we lost, I am certain that history (and opinion) would have been very different.

Well we sure take very different messages from his speeches.

Yeah, I listen to his speeches and he doesn't say a God-damned thing

Israel / Palestine is still as bad as ever, Iran is an enemy (when you had a golden opportunity to get them on side), Afghanistan is still training terrorists, Korea successfully went nuclear... am I missing any outrageous successes?

You sir, are a complete and utter imbecile.

Bill Clinton brokered a deal that gave the Palestinians everything they wanted, and Arafat replied with Intifada.

Iran - a "golden opportunity to get them on side"? Are you high?

Afghanistan? You'll note that there are far fewer terrorists coming from that part of the world than there were eight years ago.

North Korea went nuclear during Clinton's term, and after Jimmy Carter brokered the deal with North Korea to NOT go nuclear.

Now, how do you blame these on Bush? And how does Obama propose to fix any of them?

Oh yeah, you can't and he doesn't.

As for the atomic bombs - one may have been legitimate (with warnings) but two was (literally) overkill. There use is only really considered legitimate because we won.

Had we lost, I am certain that history (and opinion) would have been very different.

Well, your opinion is wrong, and history IS different.

Japan was not willing to surrender unconditionally after Hiroshima. It was only after Nagasaki -- once they thought we had an unlimited supply -- that they were willing to do so.

It's useless arguing with James H. His way was and is Nirvana. You can't fight Nirvana with reality - all those limited budgets and conflicting priorities and implacable foes and fickle allies keep getting in the way. If he were in charge, it would have been perfection.

Leave James to his dhimmitude. It's coming.

I'd argue with him about the Atomic bombings, but his mind is made up. My mother-in-law, a survivor of the bombing of Hiroshima, said that terrible as it was, at least it ended the war. She said the Japanese were not about to surrender. I know my dad and uncle were happy not to have to invade Japan. Even if it would have helped James feel better about the icky upstart colonials.

Barry Hussein is no friend of Israel.

The MSM shielded the public on just how much of a non-friend to Israel Obama really is.

How many of you out here knew Obama attended pro Palestine rallies?

On the bright side, Israel may be on the verge of putting Bibi Netanyahu in as Prime Minister. Netanyahu will hopefully provide an antithesis to Obama's kiss-Iran's-ass appeasement.

James - You know, I side with the Yanks (and MarkD's mum-in-law) over the atomic bombs. They were indeed terrible things. But the alternative would probably have been at least as bad in terms of the numbers killed, but half would have been allied troops, almost all Americans. Wars are fought and won by killing them in preference to them killing you, so it's really a no-brainer.

Brian - yes, the internet grew out of an Arpa project. But it didn't take off until Tim Berners-Lee, an Englishman, invented the web. Only then did it get polluted with our venom. There have actually been quite a few inventions of note that did not originate in the US. Don't take your history from Hollywood.

Crid - you don't hesitate to comment on the politics of other countries like Iran. So don't be so coy about your own. If you don't want comment from outside the USA, just close your borders or set up a firewall.

Norman, you're talking to someone who was there. The internet was in use by colleges long before Mr. Berners-Lee came up with the WWW protocol. Remember gopher? MUDs? listserv?

Of course, we also had BITNET and CompuServe and FidoNet.

Oh and while England was building Colossus, we were building digital computers too, at MIT for starters.

I'm not getting my history from Hollywood, friend. I lived it.

As to your comment to Crid - you'll note that other countries routinely tell us to piss off when we carp about their leaders, as is correct. What galls me (I don't want to speak for Crid) is how so many of you on the other side of the pond criticize our leaders using the same lies the moonbat left does here. You can criticize our leaders all you like. But could you at least be bothered to use the truth, instead of the pre-packaged lies from MoveOn or Media Matters? Is that too much to ask?

Oh, and one more thing.

The web, precious development of Tim Berners-Lee, was essentially useless unless you knew where to go.

It was Americans (again) who made it useful. You can thank Digital for creating AltaVista.

Of course these pissing matches are meaningless, but please, maintain a sense of perspective before you declare all Americans to be useless wastes of flesh that contribute nothing of value to the human experience. It makes you look petty.

Brian - yes, I was there too. Good old archie and all the rest. The IBM Xmas Tree virus. Re Colossus - the idiot UK government dismantled these machines after the war and slapped secrecy notices on them until just a few years ago. According to "Colossus" by Jack Copeland et al, OUP, 2006, page 2, Colossus was operational in 1943, 2 years before ENIAC. The result would have been the same either way, however, because the US is much better at picking up the ball and running with it. One real shame is that Tommy Flowers never got the recognition he deserved in his lifetime. If he had, we would talk about Flowers machines, not von Neumann machines.

I don't dispute that the US did lots of good stuff. And I don't think I actually said, or implied, "all Americans to be useless wastes of flesh that contribute nothing of value to the human experience." If I did, show me where and I'll retract, because nothing could be further from my opinion.

James H.,

I've been reading this thread in utter disbelief. What a pile of crap.

Your economic illiteracy seems to know no bounds. Bush has no control over the FED. They operate with no oversight and pretty much pumped too much money into the system. Now Americans are paying for it. The types of policies you and Obama advocate got us into this mess. I can't fathom anyone who does not understand that you cannot guarantee everyone's mortgage without serious negative consequences.

And negotiate with Hamas??? Would you negotiate with someone that has openly declared his intentions to kill you? Hamas hates Israel because the country is controlled by Jews. Read the Qur'an and you'll understand.

Negotiate with Iran? Good grief. What an idiotic suggestion. The leaders of that country believe that Islam has dominion over the entire world. But hey, go negotiate with Iran, we'll see if Mahmoud will negotiate in good faith with a future dhimmi.

Norman - I apologize for lumping you and James H together. He very much implied it. You, however, did not.

However, you are right about the US taking the ball and running with it. This is something that Japan would inherit from us in the late 1970s.

I don't know when Britain became risk averse, as they were the ones who gave us the steam engine and the industrial revolution.

I just felt that James needed a good smacking down before he decided to write us Yanks off.

Brian, from what I've read, that seems to have happened shortly after WWII, when the trade union movement really took off in Europe. Thatcher tried to turn that around, but ultimately she was only able to partially reverse it, and some of what she did has since been undone. I'm seeing some signs, though, that the Brits are starting to get feisty again on issues like self-defense and preserving the common law, so maybe there's still hope there.

Norman has a point about Berners-Lee. My counterpoint would be to refer to the fundemental work that Jon Postel et al did on the TCP/IP protocols, without which none of the rest of the Net works. And Berners-Lee's original spec has been greatly added to over time (some of the additions by Berners-Lee himself). I think there's plenty of credit to go around. But yeah, I was there too in the '80s, hand-routing email (may the memory of ihnp4 live forever!), reading Usenet, and running all-night FTP sessions to move files around.

Brian - I don't know when Britain became risk averse

Me neither. It's a hard thing to pin down, but there is a groundswell of dependency/victimhood/irresponsibility that seems to permeate the atmosphere here. The fact that it's hard to pin down makes it doubly dangerous. You can get a long way down that road before you realise where you're headed.

Some people - just about everyone on this blog, I suspect - will say it's socialism. They could be right. I wonder if the problem is that we - most people everywhere - live in such large economies that it is easy to believe that individual actions have no effect on the big picture. It's like creaming off ten bucks when you are handling a million - too small to notice. But this is an illusion. Whatever you are doing, so are many others. If you are over your head in debt with a mortgage you can't afford, you are not alone. The way we behave in our homes, with our children, with our local shopkeepers - it really does add up. So if you simply look around you and see small things that are wrong - like someone living for years on benefit because it pays better than working, or someone working in the black market, or piles of litter in the streets - then these are signs that the society as a whole is going wrong too.

What exactly to do about it, I wish I knew. I might even stand for public office.

I graduated HS in 3 years, got accepted to Harvard and a handful of others, decided to get married instead of going, got divorced 3 years later, then went to the University of Texas, ya'll :)

So don't tell me you can't be booksmart and dumb as a fucking post at the same time. You sure as hell can be and I was. And since Obama won't tell anyone his grades (oh, but they were good!) we don't even know he was booksmart.

momof3,

We don't even know if he can prove he is a natural born US citizen.

Obama sure sounds smart to me. My republican friends assure me that he's just a puppet - a toom tabard as we say in Scotland. On the other hand my democrat buddies think he's something more wonderful than words can convey.

"We don't even know if he can prove he is a natural born US citizen."

And here's the investigation that really rips the lid off this one!

http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/

> you don't hesitate to comment on
> the politics of other countries
> like Iran.

It's comically, laughably telling that you pose this argument by likening Iran and the United States of America. It's not even funny, it's dadaist and surreal. It's like a game of Exquisite Corpse, except you meant to say that.

OK, maybe that's harsh... You probably meant it in the sense of "everybody poops", as no one should be above criticism...

But infantilism is certainly what comes to mind when you offer such a comparison. How else to explain that you've never pursued discussion about "politics" in Tehran or Tabriz?

(And for the record, it's not just their "politics", I find their entire system loathsome.)

And then I wonder why you never tell us about the wondrous politics in your own land, Norman, and certainly not with the enthusiasm by which you observe ours. I probably won't go through all the comments closely, but did our new friend James H even mention which country he calls home? Did he –or you– explain why your own countries aren't expressing the moral leadership you find so lacking in our electorate?

> If you don't want comment
> from outside the USA

It's not that we don't want comment, we just want evidence of adult seriousness and proportion. Would the USA commenters in this blog ever consider elections in your nation(s) with the devoted attention you give to ours?

Nope. Because the stakes are too low. You're a long way from leading the global mentality (and decency) as the United States so often does.

In second grade, when the boys want to kiss a girl, they want to kiss the prettiest one, not the one who happens to sit next to them. It's like that. James H gave no evidence that he's the handsomest boy, did he?

(But seriously, have I ever said anything here about Iran? That's not to deny it, but nothing much comes to mind except glancing blows during discussions of Iraq.)

Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers,

I expected to get at least one of those references from a michael moore fan club type.

I didn't say Barry Hussein isn't a natural born citizen. I did say he hasn't proven it. Has he produced a bona fide birth certificate as yet? No.

Do references to aluminium foil helmets by ass clowns make this

http://www.soundinvestments.us/files/final_writ_keyes_v_bowen.pdf

null and void? No

Crid - And then I wonder why you never tell us about the wondrous politics in your own land, Norman, and certainly not with the enthusiasm by which you observe ours.

Well, I can tell you all about the furore in my backyard about plans to build 300 houses in Cellardyke. But it's pretty small beer. I don't hesitate to discuss local issues (eg most recently above, at January 28, 2009 2:35 PM). I don't call them "wondrous" however.

Re "the enthusiasm by which you observe ours" - most of the time I just lurk, but, heck, this is a public blog, it invites comments, and sometimes I feel the urge to splurge. Looking at other comments, I think my observations are not significantly more stupid than most others, though I'm always liable to make a fool of myself due to some basic ignorance on my part.

My general position is that I am discussing politics, not specifically US politics, but using US politics (or any other country that is handy) as a case study, in the vague hope of improving my understanding of what it's all about. Why use the US so much? For the same reason that school kids use "The Merchant of Venice" to study anti semitism, or "Othello" to study racism. It's there, it's well advertised and reported, so we all have the same basic information as a starting point to argue about.

I'm not telling you or the US what to do in your own country. Well, occasionally, perhaps, when I have a really good idea that would save the world. But I can always count on you to point out the fatal flaw in it.

"Iran - a "golden opportunity to get them on side"? Are you high?"

Not as high as you, obviously. Iran went cap in hand to Bush after the start of the invasion of Iraq. They were sh#t scared that they were next in line after old Saddam.

They offered to enter talks on their nuclear program, with no pre-set demands.

Your State Department (and Bush) ignored them. That was the golden opportunity.

Another wasted chance would have been to get Iran on-side regarding Afghanistan, again using the leverage of 9/11. The Iranian regime had no love for the Taliban (not their brand of Islam, mainly) but, of course, it would have been completely unthinkable to talk to the 'mad mullah's' so nobody bothered to try.

This comment about sums up your country's problems in the Middle East:

"Negotiate with Iran? Good grief. What an idiotic suggestion. The leaders of that country believe that Islam has dominion over the entire world."

For a start, most Islamic leaders believe that Islam should be the pre-dominant faith. They may not state it quite so openly as the Iranian leadership, but that doesn't mean that they don't hold the view.

You'll get into bed with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait and Turkey - all countries with overwhelmingly muslim populations AND who have regimes that would have appalled your Founding Fathers to boot.

Saudi Arabia is the de-facto head of OPEC, an organisation that doesn't have US interests at the top of its combined agenda. An OPEC squeeze on oil production could, would and has had a far more profound impact on your way of life than a nuclear-armed Iran.

Why will you accept that these countries (inimicable to the US way of life and moral values) are worth talking to when the Iranian boogeyman is so far beyond the pale?

The US has propped up far worse regimes than Ahmadinejad's. You helped to install Mugabe, supported the Shah (arguably the reason Iran's the country it is today), assisted the South Vietnamese, sold Saddam weapons, and kept General Musharraf in the game.

I'm not going to pretend that Iran is the cradle of civilisation it once was, but refusing to talk to them is the dumb option.

Most older ordinary Iranians retain an affection for the US left over from pre-Revolution days, just as most Cuban citizens have. Painting the whole country as mad, bad or dangerous to know is just creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

And let's face it, if Israel wasn't the client-state it is, your businesses would be falling over themselves to 'normalise' the relationship with Iran, regardless of its leadership's proclamations.

"Bush has no control over the FED. They operate with no oversight and pretty much pumped too much money into the system. Now Americans are paying for it."

So Bush had no control (and therefore takes no blame) but Obama somehow does and therefore will? Do I have that right?

If the President had/has "no control" over the economy then why bother electing one?

What was with 'Reaganomics' or "it's the economy stupid" if the President has no effect?

There's an old Jewish saying (once used rather unwisely against Reagan) that the "fish stinks from the head."

Bush doesn't get a free pass on the last 8 years, just as you won't let Obama take one over the next 4. Bush, at the very least, is guilty of taking his eye off the ball.

There was a fascinating program on over here recently which looked at Bush and his use (and misuse) of language. The researchers were able to demonstrate that Bush's linguistic slips were generally confined to when he was talking about something he showed no interest in.

When he was talking about the "War on Terror," his use of language was just fine (he was 'engaged'). Switch the subject matter to the economy or to education or wellfare reform or (virtually) any other domestic policy matter and the malapropism's just grew and grew.

And just to put the record straight, I also don't think "all Americans to be useless wastes of flesh that contribute nothing of value to the human experience" nor was I intending to imply it.

I don't agree with your politics a lot of the time, and I don't think it a bad thing to puncture that "we're the best country on earth, there's nothing wrong with us - it's everyone else" mentality that so often seems to be a feature of US political blogging (especially, but in no way confined to, right-wing blogs).

"I also don't think "all Americans to be useless wastes of flesh that contribute nothing of value to the human experience"."

Gosh, thanks, James H. Regretably, your proud little stone in the sea will soon be subsumed by Islam, leaving finger-waggers like yourself with the stark choice of conversion or death.

And I, for one, intend to do everything in my power to ensure the U.S. does not rescue you from your slow suicide.

James, that you believe a single word to come from Iran's officials show that you know nothing of them.

Do you remember 1979? 1979 is a very important year in US/Iranian relations.

Furthermore, Iran has never once approached ANYONE for talks with no preconditions. And I don't know where you get the idea that Iran didn't like the Taliban, as they have been financing Al Qaeda's expansion throughout the middle east. AQ is a client of the Taliban, you'll recall.

Finally, it's foolish to think that the Iranian regime gives a flying fuck what the average Iranian thinks. They just passed a law requiring women to be veiled that nobody supports. But not supporting the regime's desires is often fatal.

Oh, and as far as Bush and the economy, you really can't blame him. Even when the Republicans controlled Congress, they didn't control the important committees because of some VERY stupid decisions made by the Republican leadership when the Senate was flipped by the perfidy of one Jim Jeffords. Seriously, why did they think that giving half of the committees to the Democrats would yield anything good?

Besides, doesn't your continent have its own problems with mortgage defaults and property value deflation? Seems more likely that the idea of loaning money to people who cannot pay it back is closer to the European "social democracy" than it is to an American conservative position.

If we ever get true conservative leadership with a spine over here, we might see the reversal of some of the stupid that has collected in Washington over the past thirty years that led us to the economic basket-case we find ourselves in.

"And I, for one, intend to do everything in my power to ensure the U.S. does not rescue you from your slow suicide"

Great - we have common goals on something then (not that I agree on the 'suicide' prognosis).

I think you'll find that you need us as much as (you think) we need you though - if for nothing else than to provide that little fig leaf of international consensus your government uses to justify its more dubious actions.

"Besides, doesn't your continent have its own problems with mortgage defaults and property value deflation?"

Oh absolutely we do, some of which (all of which, if you swallow the line our Dear Leader keeps trying to foist on us) is down to "the Global Credit Crisis (TM)" (ie to the problems in YOUR credit market).

Unfortunately no one nation has a monopoly on greed. We have as many stupid wankers (sorry, that should be 'Bankers') as you do.

That's not to take all the blame away from ordinary consumers either (nobody forced them to take out multiple credit cards and high LTV mortgages), but not so long ago banks exercised a duty of care to their customers and shareholders.

And as for Bush, of course he deserves (some) blame! What happened to "the buck stops here"? I'm not trying to suggest he is solely responsible for the economy, but his lack of attention (frankly, my dear, he just didn't give a damn) to it was criminal (like a lot of his mates proved to be).

I guess I'm being over-partisan in this, in response to some very one-sided views expressed on this post.

I am not, contrary to some opinions, naive enough to believe that Obama will cure all the ills that you're facing. However, his plans are much more closely aligned to what the rest of the world is already doing than yours. That doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong, I'll concede that, but even our more conservative politicians wouldn't have allowed Freddie and Fannie to collapse.

"Do you remember 1979? 1979 is a very important year in US/Iranian relations"

1979? Oh yes, isn't that the year that the oppresive and unpopular Shah (who'd been put into power by the US & UK in '53 and propped up ever since) fled the country?

And wasn't it in '81 that the US signed an agreement not ever to interfere in internal Iranian politics again (as part of the price for the return of the hostages)?

Wasn't there some suspicion that members of Reagan's team asked Iran to hold off releasing the hostages until after the elections? (thought I'd try the tinfoil hat on for size).

"Furthermore, Iran has never once approached ANYONE for talks with no preconditions."

They have asked for talks on the basis of a freeze on the enrichment of Uranium, which is as close to no preconditions as you'll ever get from them. As they've pointed out themselves, any further concessions by them BEFORE talks have commenced would be stupid.

You'd excoriate your own government if they were to drop one of the only strategic 'cards' in their deck prior to negotiations, wouldn't you? (I well remember the fuss over unilateral decommissioning of nuclear weapons)

And some conclusions from the CATO Institute about the potential consequences of a conflict with Iran:

In addition, Iran lives in a notoriously rough neighborhood. India and Pakistan possess nuclear weapons, as does Russia, just to the region’s north. Turkey rests under the NATO umbrella, and Israel owns nuclear weapons of its own. In the end, attacking Iran only would underscore further the dilemma faced by states that find themselves on Washington’s hit list. Without nuclear weapons, there is no assurance that the U.S. will not attack--other than supine acquiescence to Washington’s various demands. As Nobel laureate Thomas Schelling explains, the perverse fact is that America’s counterproliferation policy is a prime driver of proliferation.

The next unintended consequence would be the effect Iranian civilian casualties would have on American diplomatic standing and the hatred of the U.S. that it would generate in Islamic countries. While concern for civilian casualties should not be a debate-stopper in terms of policy decisions, any decision to attack Iran should be evaluated in terms of how it would affect the war on terror. Even the vastly more limited attack against Lebanon by Israel in the summer of 2006, which produced, in the low estimate, casualties in the high hundreds, resulted in an extremely detrimental political blowback against Israel. Civilian casualties in Iran would be aired again and again in Arab and Muslim media, and the political consequences almost certainly would be worse for America than the consequences Israel suffered in the Lebanon war. The fact is, starting a war with a third Islamic country in the span of several years surely would be used as evidence that Osama bin Laden’s predictions about U.S. intentions were correct.

Finally, the implications that a U.S.-Iran war would have on the prospect of gradual Iranian political and economic liberalization-- the factors most relevant to the eventual erosion of the clerical regime in Tehran--would be dire. It is quite difficult to find an Iranian dissident who supports an American attack on the Iranian nuclear program; even the hardline NCRI and MEK oppose military action. Nobel laureate and Iranian dissident Shirin Ebadi has warned that "any attack on Iran will be good for the government and will actually damage the democratic movement."

Sorry about the length of that last one.

James - If you are going to continue to base your arguments on outright lies, I'm going to have to stop talking to you.

Like this one:

And as for Bush, of course he deserves (some) blame! What happened to "the buck stops here"? I'm not trying to suggest he is solely responsible for the economy, but his lack of attention (frankly, my dear, he just didn't give a damn) to it was criminal (like a lot of his mates proved to be).

Now I'll grant you may not understand how our system works here. But the President does not have the power to simply wag a pen and make a private entity come to heel. Fannie and Freddie were what are called "Government Sponsored Enterprises". They were not the of government, but they were implicitly backed up by it. Whenever concerns were raised from 2000 onward about the wisdom of carrying so many high-risk assets on their books, the questioner was shouted down as being against "affordable housing".

Bush tried on several occasions to get Congress to pull in the reins on FMLA. He was rebuffed each and every time. What is he supposed to do? He can't call for a new election like the do in some countries. He could go to the people, but in large part the people were perfectly happy with the high-risk loan regime.

So to base your argument about his effectiveness on both a lie (that he did nothing) and a failure to understand our structure (believing he had the power to act alone) is foolishness of the highest order.

Also, you might wish to avoid flights of fancy. There has never been a plan to invade Iran in the United States. The idea that there was one was floated by the far-left in this country that were attempting to get Bush forcibly removed from office "before he can invade someone else". Bush and his people were perfectly aware of the negative consequences of an Iran invasion.

As to Iran asking for talks based on their ceasing enrichment - all lies. They were engaged in such talks with your European buddies. All the while, their enrichment continued unabated. Iran, like North Korea, is the textbook example of a bad-faith actor.

Iran is not interested in doing anything other than obliterating Israel. The troublesome (yet somehow unsurprising) thing about this is that Europe, as a whole, doesn't seem to have a problem with that.

> I think my observations are not
> significantly more stupid

My word was "proportionate". The United States and her lofty moral mechanics are getting more attention from you and James H than they deserve, just like that one girl in the second grade. The Amish in Pennsylvania have tenets about "concerns", acknowledging that sometimes it's more fun to give attention to the things you want to give attention to than to the things you ought to give attention to.

> It's there, it's well advertised
> and reported

Why more reported than events in your own country? Why? Aren't you guys just a little ashamed that it's not your government that gets all the attention? Shouldn't these nuanced observations of yours (or teenage weepings from James) be better spent improving things at home, so that the whole globe can bask in the excellence of your example?

> So we all have the same
> basic information as a
> starting point

No. This is not true.

(I sincerely understand how you could be confused about this. The United States has always been the global leader in modern communications: First to innovate, first to dominate. Our mass media make you feel like it's real and it's now and you're part of it. This was so impressive to me as a child that I've spent a lifetime working for them. But...)

Being an American has all sorts of disciplines and excitements and refinements and habits and challenges and opportunities that aren't present in the souls of people from other countries.

I've seen this with my own eyes, especially in places with seemingly inexplicable poverty. We Americans scratch our heads and think "Why don't these people make sacrifices A, B & C so they can harvest blessings X, Y & Z....?" But it just never happens.

And even when you speak gently and patiently to people from these other lands —curious, receptive souls who open conversation by asking their guests why, as it was once phrased to Jared Diamond, the United States has so much cargo— the answers never seem to sink in. They look you straight in the eye with a 7° head tilt and teeth parted a eighth of an inch, shake their heads as if for a buzzing mosquito, and the moment is lost.

To Americans, this begins to look like a courage problem.

Again, if you (or more obviously, James H) had meaningful insights about how western civilization ought to be running, it's certain that you would first be applying them in your own countries. Instead, we see you (more shamelessly in the guise of James H) repeating the most shallow critiques from our teenage lefties in unrequested comments. It seems pretty obvious that these are just impulsive schoolboy jealousies, petty expressions of personal bitterness. And you don't even have the energy to compose them for yourselves... You borrow them from our shabbiest thinkers and media.

That's beyond ironic. It's deeply pathetic.

When he was talking about the "War on Terror," his use of language was just fine (he was 'engaged'). Switch the subject matter to the economy or to education or wellfare reform or (virtually) any other domestic policy matter and the malapropism's just grew and grew.

Actually Bush ran for office on a domestic policy agenda. He campaigned on a platform of reforming Social Security, education, healthcare, and other domestic matters. He abjured the nation-building and foreign policy adventurism of the previous administration (and of his father's).

Unfortunately for his plans, 19 Muslim extremists hijacked four planes and flew three of them into buildings, killing over 3,000 civilians. In that instant, his presidency was forced to turn on a dime.

Having been in office for less than nine months at that time, Bush's supply of lasting political capital was low. He had a Congress that voted to authorize him to send in the troops and immediately began not only vacillating, but actively attacking the president for doing exactly what they authorized him to do (in case things went wrong they wanted to be able to disavow being any part of it).

He had a Congress that made a habit out of supporting him before a law was enacted and trashing him afterward (as if he could pass laws without the support of Congress).

For example, one of Bush's first Pre-9/11 actions was the No Child Left Behind Act. Ted Kennedy and George Miller co-sponsored the law (which was passed by both houses of Congress) and stood on stage with Bush, beaming proudly as he signed it in Ohio. Almost immediately the two began trashing the law and the president who signed it.

"I think you'll find that you need us as much as (you think) we need you though..."

Either way, you'll be history soon enough.

Actually Bush ran for office on a domestic policy agenda. He campaigned on a platform of reforming Social Security, education, healthcare, and other domestic matters

>> He ran his campaign on playgerism. Those eforms in health care and education were passed over his veto by the state legislature

And brian Bush and co knew the results of an Iraq invasion, buut they went with it antway

He ran his campaign on playgerism. Those eforms in health care and education were passed over his veto by the state legislature

Plagarism is copying someone else's words (see "Biden, Joe").

State legislatures cannot reform Social Security. It's a federal program.

Bush ran his 2000 campaign on coming into office and reforming US domestic programs.

And the point was not whether Texas passed reforms when he was governor, it was to argue James H's assertion that Bush was "disengaged" on domestic policy.

To me, Bush was way too generous with public money in what little of his domestic agenda he did get passed.

Norman - Look up "Operation Olympus", the invasion of Kyushu planned for November 1, 1945. The death toll would have been higher by a factor of 10, minimum, versus that of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Armchair moralists like James ignore this.

No, Armchair moralists like James don't CARE about it.

They'd rather argue like Pat Buchanan, that it was all our fault anyhow, and if we'd just have left Japan alone, then they'd never have attacked Pearl Harbor.

This is, of course, bullshit on stilts. But don't expect the patsies for international fascism to ever acknowledge that.

They'd rather argue like Pat Buchanan, that it was all our fault anyhow, and if we'd just have left Japan alone, then they'd never have attacked Pearl Harbor.

Actually, if we'd made it clear to Japan that we would not interfere in their conquest of Asia, they might have have left us alone. At least until they'd already conquered Asia and Australia and needed more.

Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor in anticipation of US intervention in their war of conquest in Asia. They wanted to disable the US Pacific Fleet so they could complete their conquest of Asia before the US recovered enough to strike back.

What they failed to understand is how strong the isolationism sentiment was in the US. No serious actions were politically feasible against Japan, despite the rape of Nanking, the ongoing conquest of French Indo-China, and the invasion of the Dutch East Indies.

What did we do? We cut off our shipments of oil, rubber, and steel (all of which they could get from their conquered territories). We also allowed about 100 of our military pilots to volunteer for the AVG (the Flying Tigers) and sold China the planes the AVG would use. That was about all we were prepared to do.

Until that Sunday morning. The isolationist movement died that Sunday morning, December 7, 1941. Congress declared war the next day with one dissenting vote.

Of course, if we'd left Japan alone, more Nankings would have occurred. More terriories would have been conquered, including Australia and India.

How many dead? Millions.

How many enslaved? Millions.

If.

The most damning word ever.

The problem is, Japan would likely have tried to take Hawaii at some point just to keep the buffer between their other occupations (Philippines, etc) and the continental US.

Personally, I believe war with Japan was inevitable. Just as I believe our getting sucked into the war in Europe was inevitable.

Japan attacking us before we were on a war footing was the only chance they had. They didn't have the ability to bring anything beyond Pearl, which gave us the opportunity to build up, and take them down.

Ariel - I didn't know of Operation Olympic (Olympus?) - thanks for the pointer.

Conan - "Actually, if we'd made it clear to Japan that we would not interfere in their conquest of Asia, they might have have left us alone. At least until they'd already conquered Asia and Australia and needed more."

Churchill put it like this: "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."

Orwell: "Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist".

This was specifically true at the time it was written.