A Word on Semantics.

We live in strange times and things can get a little confusing especially when writers can't agree on terminology. Take for example the armed thug. Since the beginning of the war on terror, I have seen at least half a dozen titles for the non-state soldier. In the heady early days of the Afghan campaign, I recall constant reports of Northern Alliance "fighters" as they clashed with Taliban "gunmen." Oh, I need to know what separates "insurgents" and "militiamen" from "rebel forces?" Just this week in a report from Karachi, Pakistan,"paramilitary soldiers" were filmed in some nefarious activities and in Somalia, "security forces' had a shoot out with a terrorist leader, a title which may also need to be included here. From a British point of view, didn't that title apply to some of the American Founding Fathers? Wouldn't Ord Wingate's Chindits in WWII qualify as terrorists and gunmen to the Imperial Japanese Army? I need some aspirin.

Britain's Secret War?

Just noticed the Mirror's headline "Britain's Secret War" and was intrigued. I should not make a habit of soiling my fingers with any red top, but sometimes morbid curiosity gets the better of me. They somehow managed to break the incredible story that private military contractors are training the Libyan rebels. INCREDIBLE! Is anyone naive enough to be shocked? Sending a few special operators now obviates sending battalions of conventional troops later. Soon, the Mirror will be giving us the big expose' that war is bad and bullets kill.

The House of Lords: Can Old Ideas Still Make Sense?

The PM and his deputy are setting the stage for a radical restructuring of the House of Lords, but will this yield the rich rewards promised? The glaring question is...WHY? The current system works well and has done so for generations. Fair laws get passed and bad ideas tend to be short lived. Only about half of the Lords bother to take an active part in the few duties of their house, so there is a minimum of congestion and overcrowding is no more an issue than it has ever been. If the two houses are equal, tie-breaking votes and who should cast them will surely become problematic. Finally, demanding elected Lords deprives parties the power to reward their faithful and generous with peerages, which can only mean passage of the election proviso equals dumb politics. Why give up the chance to distribute such political pearls? A balanced bicameral legislature, the logical result of Lords reform isn't a good fit for the UK. Lords reform needs to be scrapped. The current arrangement still works and it still makes sense.

She Who Knows No Shame Thunders On.

Sarah Palin made news recentlyt with her appearance at Rolling Thunder, the event that spotlights and honors American Veterans. According to the Hill, many attending the annual Memorial Day event in Washington, throught Palin should have stayed home. Apparently cheers and applause were far outweighed by boos accompanied by apathy. No one, not even those gathered there who might support her, could have actually been fooled into thinking anything other than her appearance was blatant self promotion. Putting your own agenda ahead of those who have served and died is appalling. The stunt isn't likely to cost her many votes, but is indicative of how self-absorbed and desperate this would-be 2012 hopeful has become.

It's Time to Think Globally

After the 2008 election, the rest of the world breathed a collective sigh of relief knowing we hadn't actually been stupid enough to elect a ticket that included Sarah Palin, but the world was still accustomed to watching the output at the White House with the same curiosity reserved for an episode of Jerry Springer. Once it emerged that we could elect a president capable of speaking with dignity and intelligence, the world began to give the America a proper second look.
Under President Obama's leadership, the economy has begun to show signs of recovery and he is steadily restoring dignity to America's highest office, yet the Republicans find fault. Why? In the months following the Obama inauguration, Dick Cheney and others went on and on about his failings to fix the economic mess they made. Then they spoke ill of his handling of the war they complicated with an unnecessary and arguably illegitimate foray into Iraq. Now, the ever-thinning herd of 2012 GOP hopefuls are gathering what ammunition they can for more pointless rhetoric about why Obama doesn't need a second term.
American voters seldom consider foreign policy, but as the world continues to shrink in the age of international commerce and communication capability, it is more important than ever to elect someone who can inspire confidence among our allies; who can meet our enemies with strength and resolve. The incumbent has proven his ability on each of the points. The opposition has proven...?

AV: The Phantom Menace

AV is dead and buried and it is about time. When I first heard of it, I was amazed that it was receiving so much media attention. Once I understood it, it seemed so completely ridiculous. Then luminaries like Stephen Fry and Colin Firth came out in favor of it. One of my uni professors seemed convinced "its fairer"saying so on more than one occasion causing me to wonder as an American, if there wasn't something I was missing. I asked myself,"could it be that I am missing something here? Do these learned men see something I don't?" Of course, after the measure was so soundly defeated, and common sense actually won out, my initial ideas suspicions were correct. Some ideas really can be taken at face value and as usual, academics and actors are as out of touch as ever.

The Rise of the Haggis Republic

Since the election and the success of the SNP, reports about Scottish independence seem to be everywhere. Just this week, the Guardian's G2 section ran a fifteen page special on the story. The Spectator chimed in as well, but in reality, an independent Scotland would have little impact on Great Britain other than a bit of a revision in the title. Rest assured, before Scotland leaves, concessions over North Sea oil, defence and other provisions would be hammered out in such a fashion that little would really change for Britain. If the Scots want to go, let them. Ultimately, it will be just one less thing Westminster needs to worry about.

The GOP SitRep.

A poll taken at this weekend's conservative Political Action Committee Conference in Washington, DC, the most recent of all the polls yet taken showed Texas Representative Ron Paul winning with 30% of the vote, and former Massachusetts Governor Mit Romney coming in second with 23%. No other candidates finished out of single digits including former House Speaker Newton Leroy Gingrich with 5%,former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty with 4%, and tea party diva Sarah "Lookit! That there is Russia, you betcha." Palin with an impressive 3%. Ten thousand people attended the conference and less than half of the attendees(3,742) bothered to take part in the poll. Talk show host and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee finished with 2%. Haley Barbour walked away with 1%, finishing just ahead of the guy outside parking cars.

Romney came in first in recent straw polls conducted in Michigan and New Hampshire, while finishing second (18%) behind Mike Huckabee (22%) in an Iowa poll conducted in August of last year. The reality is that straw polls have as much bearing on the election as the NFL preseason does on the Super Bowl, but politicians deem them necessary and consider them heavily when determining to declare candidacies or to end them based on poor showing.
If I am drawing any conclusions from the results so far it is that, my earlier convictions are unchanged and Romney is the likely GOP nominee. Ron Paul, is far too radical to be be electable to a nationwide audience. Others to be put in the "Why are they bothering?" category have to be Newt Gingrich, and Haley Barbour. I could wax intellectual of the myriad reasons for their lack of viability, but either could win a Jerry Falwell lookalike contest, which makes either one a difficult product to market in the the twenty-first century. I will make one further observation: much farther down the road, SC Republican Senator Jim De Mint as a running mate is a good way for Romney to shore up his weakness in the south. Stay tuned.

Read about the polls at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/us/politics/13cpac.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/22/mitt-romney-new-hampshire-poll

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/01/28/Romney-leads-2012-Michigan-GOP-poll/UPI-22501296233009/

http://theiowarepublican.com/home/2010/08/16/huckabee-leads-2012-iowa-caucus-poll-%E2%80%93-palin-finishes-fourth-behind-newt/

Stupid Politician Tricks.

Remember the old days when politicians took bribes in smokey backrooms and affairs were conducted in sleazy motels in the suburbs? Well, kids now you don't have to send an investigative reporter around to catch Senator Lothario leaving the Pink Neon Motor Lodge with his trousers unbuckled! With the miracle of modern information technology, politicos can now hang themselves without leaving the office. US Rep Christopher Lee (R-NY) was gracious enough to provide us with a genuine hari-kairi performance on Craigslist. Lee resigned on Feb 9th and has not returned to his home in New York, but is rumored to be somewhere in Florida. Lee seems to be conflicted about morality as he voted against the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but is apparently in favor of adultery. See? Democrats aren't the only ones who can have fun.

Read more at:

http://uk.gawker.com/5755071/married-gop-congressman-sent-sexy-pictures-to-craigslist-babe?skyline=true&s=i

Votes for Prisoners.

     Coming from the States, you can imagine my chagrin when I heard the controversy over the votes for prisoners. I know, I know they're all idiots in the states. Backward, loud and can't possibly have any good ideas. However, they have this crazy notion that if you are convicted of a felony, you forfeit certain priviledges and one of these is the right to vote. No human rights are violated in this and in keeping to this idea, prisoners are simply treated like prisoners. The prison system is far too overtaxed with standard day to day operations to be burdened with the additional responsibility of administering election day in a prison. What politician would want the prison vote anyway? Can you imagine the implications of getting an endorsement from Cell Block six? Parliament is best served by simply ignoring the European judges, and keeping things as they are.

Why Personality Matters in Politics.

     Political Scientists and journalists continually lament the demise of political principle in the information age; that personal charm has become the focus of campaigns while losing sight of the issues. The refrain continues: “politicians these days are only concerned with sound bites and photo ops.” This kind of thinking is, however, terribly short-sighted. We truly cannot and should not try to separate a politician’s charisma and character from his or her stance on the issues. The lessons of this go back to ancient times. To understand my argument, it is necessary to separate the enmity and bias we have accumulated for the leaders I cite through the benefit of hindsight and it requires that we concentrate solely on their political strategies.

     Leaders like Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, and Sulla drew much of their power by utilizing their prowess with the media of their time (word of mouth, paintings, carvings and the like.) but these were not mere soldiers. Rather, they were warrior kings with ideas of government, however crude, and used personality, not intellectual discourse, to achieve these ends. Instead of the image of vigor, warm, and good humor we expect of modern politicians, these ancients concentrated on images of strength, cunning, and ruthlessness to keep their subjects, allies, and enemies in order. If these men had not been able to perform well in the media of their time the ancient world might have been very different and history would not remember them. Napoleon can be said to have done exactly the same thing many years later using the media of his day. (Written and oral reports of battles, paintings and newspapers.)

     Still later, the German people fell in love with Hitler, though not everyone had followed the infant Nazi party or had even read Mien Kampf. He had been little more than a frustrated artist with war service as a corporal before his rise to power. It was only through his exposure and ability to perform well in the media did his power base begin to grow. Those who heard his dynamic speeches displaying his passion and martial spirit became immediate converts. We certainly cannot condone his ideas, but the point to be made here to aspiring politicians is how far personal charm and media savvy can take you.    

     As we have shown, a study of politics, from the ancient world to modern times will reveal myriad examples of leader’s personality taking precedence over policy. Modern students of political science writing on this subject will doubtless regard the 1960 Kennedy/ Nixon debates as being the genesis of this phenomenon. Some may pin these developments to the rise of “The Great Communicator,” Ronald Reagan, but I disagree with both of these assumptions. There are actually three earlier examples of the importance of the necessity of the ability of politicians to perform well in the media: FDR’s leadership through the Great Depression and World War Two, Winston Churchill’s media savvy in the face of Nazi Air Attacks against the British Homeland, and President Truman’s 1948 Presidential Campaign.

           The Great Depression gripped the United States for over three years before Franklin Roosevelt assumed office in March of 1933. People were starving, homes and family farms were foreclosed upon and the previous administration relied on the strength of its policies to carry the day. In the election, millions of impoverished Americans looked to him for change and for hope and elected him.The plight of the nation began to turn around, not when he began issuing executive orders and pursuing relief legislation, but as he delivered his inaugural speech. Quite literally, it was in the echo of his famous quoting “The only thing we have to fear is, fear itself” that recovery began. In the moments of his before he was able to through a series of executive orders and legislation he was able to bring relief, recovery and reform to the troubled country. One cannot neglect Franklin Roosevelt’s brilliant use of his ability to perform well in the media to bring about the end of the great depression, in mobilizing the Unites States for WWII, and in leading his country through to victory in Europe. This is a fantastic example of the power of politician’s media abilities and to the chagrin of academics everywhere it occurred almost eighty years ago, well before anyone had heard of John Kennedy or the Reagan Revolution.

     In his speeches during the Blitz and the Battle of Britain, Churchill didn’t bog down the British people with discourses on policy. Rather, he used personal charm and heroic spirit to rally his people into renewed vigor in defeating those who at that very moment were bombing their homes to rubble during the Blitz. Later, when the British Army was utterly defeated at Dunkirk and a hasty evacuation by sea was completed, a discussion of the events themselves or of future policy would have been like salt in the wounds of the British people. If a lesser man had taken to the airwaves then, perhaps a Neville Chamberlin or similar speaker, he might have conceded the defeat. However, Mr. Churchill took the opportunity to use the event as a rallying cry. With an Army in shambles, armed only with his skill as a speechwriter and his voice, he delivered his famous “We shall fight on the Beaches” speech, which served as a salve for the wounds of defeat and, more importantly, breathed new life into the British war effort. Can there be any finer example where the ability to perform well in the media was far more relevant and necessary than a discussion of policy?

     In the Presidential Election of 1948, no one gave Harry Truman any chance at winning election to the presidency in his own right. The republican candidate, Thomas E. Dewey had been so popular as a district attorney prosecuting organized crime in New York City that he easily won the governorship. In his failed 1944 bid for the White House, Dewey ran a very negative campaign but, keeping to the advice of his handlers, Dewey’s 1948 campaign was a milquetoast one. He injected almost no energy into the campaign and never spoke against Truman. He conducted himself as if he had already won and he was merely waiting for inauguration day. The fatal flaw in Dewey was his personality. Dewey was a cold fish.

     Conversely and with nothing to lose, Truman fought with white-hot spirit and determination.

In his famous whistle-stop campaign, he lambasted Dewey and the Republican congress and through his speeches carried by radio across the nation, he spoke in a folksy, clear style that people could understand and identify with. He used not intellectual discourse, but his own brilliant media skills to secure the biggest upset victory in American political history.

     The modern politician in a democracy is not going to achieve necessary consensus, build alliances, spar with opponents; in short, is not going to achieve anything without that most necessary asset to any politicians in a democracy: charisma. It is what you need for the electorate to put you into office and it is what you need to make deals. People have to like you if you want them to support you. People don’t vote for ideas alone. If that were the case, we could conduct the entire process by post. Names would be taken out of the process completely. One set of ideas would be on a sheet of A4 paper with a little coupon at the bottom for Candidate ‘A.’ Another paper would have a different set of ideas with a coupon for Candidate ‘B’ and so on. You could have as many candidates as there are ideologies.

     The ideas you like determine which coupon you send in to the election commission and you wouldn’t find out who won until the election was over. Issues alone would determine who governs and you could end up with someone in charge with whom you cannot identify. Of course, in this example, I am having a bit of fun, but there are some academics who would agree to a similar system. However, governments do not exist merely for the propagation of policy, but to allow groups of human beings to live in concert with others. If the United States finds a way to remove personality from elections and concentrates solely on issues, we will elect a class of cold, efficient policy experts, capable of crafting brilliant legislation and treaties that lay on a table unsigned, still borne, because the scholars lack the social skills to “sell” them to either lawmakers or the public. How can differences be settled, treaties negotiated, or laws passed without the human element? Ultimately, the academics demanding a campaign sterilized into one where issues alone are the focus is absurd. People don’t want to be governed by automatons enforcing rules without feeling, without passion or compassion. The ability of politicians to perform well in the media is elemental and as we have shown in the earlier examples, absolutely essential.

Thousands of Mad Hatters, One Tea Party: Dispelling the Myth of Victory.

Much has been made of the tea party and its impact upon early twenty-first century American politics. Depending upon your point of view, the weeks leading up to the election were full of hope or anxiety. The media spoke constantly of how the Tea party would be a game changer, a revolt against Washington. A September 2010 article by Kasie Hunt on Politico.com perfectly encapsulated the hype and fallacy leading up to the election. Hunt stated that after Christine “I’m not a witch” O’Donnell of Delaware’s Senate campaign, there were ten top tea party candidates “you need to know.” In addition to O’Donnell’s defeat, five of those featured candidates lost. The demise of one member of the Darjeeling Mafia, Alaska’s Senate candidate Joe Miller, is particularly worth noting.

     Although Miller’s Senate race unfolded in what should have been the fertile grounds of Scary Palin’s back yard, which incidentally has a lovely view of Russia, things went poorly. Miller was personally endorsed by the unholy Tea Queen, but was beaten by write-in candidate Lisa Murkowski. Let’s stress how embarrassing that is, shall we? Successful write-in campaigns for major offices almost never happen. The last time was when Strom Thurmond of South Carolina did it in 1954. What that means is that Alaskan voters proved they would rather go to the trouble of writing in the nine letters it takes to spell Murkowski on a ballot than make one simple ‘X’ beside the name of the Tea party candidate.

    There were many stories circulated about how this election spells the end for President Obama, but did anyone writing this drivel bother to pick up a history book first? A quick review for those keeping score: Harry Truman went into the 1946 mid-term elections with an abysmal 27 percent approval rating, lost forty-five House seats, twelve in the Senate and was elected in 1948. After his first two years as President, Ronald Reagan lost twenty-six House seats, gained only a single seat in the Senate, and was re-elected. Finally Bill Clinton lost fifty-two House seats and eight in the Senate, and was re-elected.    

     Like Reagan’s “Let’s make America great again,” or Goldwater’s 1964 appeal, “In your heart, you know he’s right;” the Tea party was nothing more than a clever Republican marketing tool. Regardless of whatever spin is being shoveled out; the reality is a marked failure for the Tea party. One-hundred and thirty Tea party candidates ran for US House of Representatives, but only forty won. If I smoked a bag of weed and hit myself in the head with ax, I still wouldn’t think this election was a successful outing for the Tea bags.

     So, with it understood that there really was no “Tea party effect,” here are your predictions for the 2012 election: barring any scandals, Mr. Obama has nothing to fear. He will face Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee in the general election and will beat either handily. If she is stupid enough to run, the Marquis de Palin will achieve nothing in the Republican primaries. She will not even get a sniff at a running mate spot, as she has shown herself to be a steaming cup of political and intellectual poison. Or is it tea?

The Rise of J. Edgar Assange.

    

Wikileaks announced today that it would be posting data obtained from a disgruntled former banker. Julian Assange, founder of the so-called whistleblower website, made it known late last year that he would be posting damning information from US banks on his website. The renowned impresario, note the conspicuous absence of the word "journalist" here, announced today he would, instead, soon be posting information about those holding accounts in Swiss banks thanks to data passed to him by Rudolf Elmer.  Apparently, Mr. Elmer (sounds like the host of a television cartoon show) is unhappy over being dismissed in 2002 from Julius Baer. According to a statement issued by the bank, Mr. Elmer has "embarked upon a personal intimidation campaign and vendetta against Baer. The aim of his activities was and is to discredit Julius Baer as well as clients in the eyes of the public.”

     It seems that, like Assange’s charges in Sweden, Elmer is also currently facing some charges. Swiss courts are interested in an unrelated charge of stealing bank information back in 2005. Elmer has been accused of falsifying documents and threatening people at the bank.

     The troubling thing is that this is not an apparent situation where someone who, while working at the bank one day, came across something that troubled his conscience and decided to risk all by going public. No, we have a man who apparently was content with bank policies and practice until he was shown the door. Only then did we hear from him. His actions make him sound less like a hero and more like a vengeful ex-employee. After his sacking, the moment he left the premises with bank data makes his actions suspect: or somewhat calculated.

     Most troubling of all is the seizure of those private records. Any government investigation into tax evading account holders should normally require some form of writ or warrant to obtain private banking records. Why should a private citizen be able to publicly allege corruption with documents of dubious acquisition?

     If any tax evasion has occurred, isn't it the job of governments and not private citizens to pursue the case? By providing a forum for anyone to post anything he thinks is damaging, Mr. Assange has pointed us toward a slippery slope. At what point will anyone who feels wronged, by a former employee, ex-lover, business partner, or any other scenario you can imagine be guaranteed a place to post damaging material on the web and seemingly face no reprisal? How long before reputations are destroyed and people start killing themselves or others over something of unproven credibility posted on Wikitrash? With all of these bits of data at his fingertips, can we be sure someone in Assange’s position isn’t capable of extortion and will he someday fancy himself a modern J. Edgar Hoover, hoarding dirty little secrets to gain power over those in government, the media, or the corporate world? It might be smart to get in his good graces now, before he decides that your secrets are worth sharing.

     No one can be certain what Assanges’ motives are in publishing the data of private businesses and citizens, but the capacity for something sinister is astounding. Perhaps in his concern of a totalitarian, all seeing government, Orwell should have also warned us about the possibility of Big Brother.com.

Mourning a Hero.

     Seems a little strange to weep for someone you've never met. (Apologies to those still crying over Princess Di and John Kennedy, Jr.) So there will be none of that foolish sentimentality here regarding the recent death of Major Richard "Dick" Winters. Most people first heard of Maj Winters in Stephen Ambrose's Band of Brothers. Winters' story is not exceptional; he graduated from college in the summer of 1941. He was not a military academy graduate and had to earn his commission the hard way at officer candidate school. In his career, he received some of America's highest awards, but he always downplayed his hero status. Keeping his dignity and exemplifying what a gentleman soldier should be, he was a shining example on what a common man can achieve in extraordinary circumstances, We could use a few more like him. He will be missed.

Bring Me the Head of Julian Assange: or How to Be a P.R. Genius!

     Wikileaks founder Julian Assange was in court yesterday and he just couldn't resist the temptation to fan the flames of nonsense that the media is trying so hard to keep burning brightly. In a document posted on the worldwide web, Assange says that if he is extradited to Sweden, he could end up in the United States, where he will be executed. This is just another example of Assanges' genius for self promotion. A quick check of the facts reveals that no person has been executed for treason or espionage in the United States since the 1950's.The espionage efforts of Robert Hanssen and Adrich Ames, on behalf of the Russia and the former Soviet Union have been shown to have profoundly compromised America's intelligence efforts and to have resulted in the deaths of informants, yet these men were not executed for their actions and are now serving life sentences in American prisons.
      Assange has the cheek to suggest he could die for posting some data on the web. Who is he kidding? No one, not even this hacker demigod, can actually believe this assertion. Does Assange actually think he is some kind of information age martyr? No, it only confirms his mastery of self-promotion and the media. In putting out this fable of his impending demise, the Wikileaks founder has shown a profound understanding of the rule that if you say something that it is just stupid enough, the papers will print it.

Not Quite Ghandi.

     Poor Edward Woollard is going to be Her Majesty's guest for the next 32 months for his role in the Millbank debacle. Hopefully, young Woollard will get a second chance at an education someday, but the whole protest seems a bit misguided.  Let me see if I can wrap my American mind around this issue. Years ago, students in the UK enjoyed free tuition, then they had to start paying a modest fee and because the government is strapped for cash, they say you have to pay more. So you have a government still willing to subsidize a large part of a degree, but that just isn't enough for the students.  Sounds a lot like getting a five pound note from your uncle and punching him for not giving you a because you a tenner.
     Stranger still is that these students think themselves to be real freedom fighters. I have had this idea in my head of a conversation between one of the recent student fee protectors and one of the kids from the 1989 Tianamen Square protest. "We were out there fighting the good fight!" says the British student. We had the courage to stand up to the authorities." "That's wonderful, says the Chinese student, "What were you protesting for? Democracy? Human Rights? Was it Civil Rights like Martin Luther King or perhaps you were taking a stand against some needless, bloody war?" "No," says the Brit, "much more important than anything like that. The government says my parents will have to pay more for school next year and that means I'll have to get a job to help pay for my Media Studies or Art History degree. That's why we're angry." "What?" says the Chinese student. "Well, um, t-t-tell me about standing up to the British authorities,"the Chinese kid says nervously, "I'm sure it took a lot of courage to stand up to those tanks and hundreds of armed police." "Absolutely," says the Brit. "There were like twenty unarmed coppers. It was terrifying!" The Chinese student gasps with surprise,"You're kidding! How could you even think to compare yourselves to those who have risked their lives to protest to promote freedom and equality? You guys are only out for yourselves!" "Shut it," says the Brit, "or I'll hit you with a fire extinguisher." Wouldn't Ghandi and Martin Luther King be proud?