Who on Earth is Writing Sarah Palin's Speeches?

The exact nature of the content and theme of Barack Obama's official speech about the aftermath of the shootings in Tucson has been the subject of extreme speculation in the days running up to it. Would he use it to directly attack the Tea Party and Sarah Palin? No. Would he call for unity in the wake of the shootings? Yes. Would he attempt to capitalise politically on it by smearing the more vocal of his opponents and claim they were actually responsible for it and not just some lone nutter? No. The speech I think went down pretty well. He obviously highlighted on calling for national unity and an opportunity to restore debate to bringing people closer together not further and violently apart. Of course his speech focused heavily on the victims of the attack. Such as news that Gabrielle Giffords had actually opened her eyes for the first time since the attack, and then onto the less fortunate victims especially Christina Green who was born when 9/11 occurred and was sadly killed in the shooting. Now it is fairly obvious that Obama is a cool and analytically minded man with a process based legal mindset. Not counting that due to the violent nature of the crime that led to the speech would be difficult for anyone to find the right words to say - this was from a speech perspective not Obamas strongest area (and in a nation that requires a lot of emoting from a leader this has worked against him), however he pulled it off pretty well. The speech was moving and a celebration of the victims lives and the spirit of the nation, not an angry opportunity for a polemic to name names and point fingers. It never seemed either overly sentimental or forced, which is a difficult act to pull off for someone who is not a naturally emotive person. It was as fitting a tribute to the victims and to the country as could have been expected by the head of state. The same can't be said for another speech given by Sarah Palin.

Palins speech; the first one she has made on the shootings since the attack happened wasn't before a live audience but pre-recorded on her website. This makes the biggest gaffe in it totally unfathomable. But let's look at the speech itself. In contrast to Obamas, there was a much greater sense that she used her words to help her own ends into the bargain. A bit of back peddling on her behalf to distance herself from the affair. (Note she wasn't directly responsible for what happened btw) One particular example that stuck out for me was when she quoted something Ronald Reagan had said about rejecting the notion that when a law is broken, society is not at all assumed to be to blame, but the lawbreaker is, and that lawbreaking begins and ends with the lawbreaker. Whether you believe this or not, it is awfully handy to use to distance oneself from the accusations that incendiary rhetoric is fanning the flames in the minds of gunmen with an axe to grind. The speech had a much more self indulgent theme than Obamas did, his was largely an appeal to unity and a memorial to the victims. Palins seemed primarily some kind of damage limitation exercise on her behalf. But the biggest gaffe of all had to be the use of the term "blood libel" to describe the liberal medias attempts to link herself and the Tea Party (I presume that is who she meant) to the shootings. Now let us leave aside that this was supposed to have been a speech lamenting the deaths, and; oh - not about lamenting the bad PR you have been getting from it, I mean who the hell thought using the term "blood libel", a biblical phrase first used to describe the collective guilt the Jews would have to carry the can for for killing Jesus, and was then used to justify the pogroms the Jews faced at the hands of vengeful Christians, was a good idea? Did Palin (or whoever wrote the speech for her) really think that the flack she got was on a par with the victims of these purges? That the fact that Gabrielle Giffords is Jewish should have perhaps raised questions about the suitability of the analogy? That it displayed a staggeringly crass lack of perspective? You really have to ask who put this into the script, a pre recorded one at that; so it can't be dismissed as a slip of the tongue either (admittedly it would have been a very strange one as well). We really have to ask is this women actually more ignorant and gormless than we already suspected. And is it time someone so monumentally unfit for high office should perhaps shuffle off back to her day job sometime soon?

Who Was to Blame for the Massacre in Tucson?

A few of the Telegraph bloggers are suddenly very keen to point out that "the left / liberals" are a bit too eager to pin the blame on the Tea Party and people like Glenn Beck, for encouraging the terrible shootings that have led to six deaths and thirteen injured when lone gunman Jared Loughner opened fire at a meeting where the right wing Democrat congress woman Gabrielle Giffords was holding a meeting, an apparent assassination attempt which has led to Mrs Giffords needing life saving treatment for a bullet to the head, and has caused the deaths of a 9 year old girl; Christina Green*, and several elderly people dead as well. The Torygraph bloggers who have been pretty supportive of the Tea Party are keen to highlight that the left are trying to politicise the massacre for their own ends, and to discredit the Tea Party itself for their own ends.

Obviously the blame ultimately lies with the Loughner himself. He fired those shots, he decided to murder people for whatever twisted "reasons" he may have had. But the controversy around Palin and Becks antics on the part of "the left" and others in relation to the shooting is not a politicising act as such, but (IMHO) serious questions about the nature 0f the kind of rhetoric emanating in some right wing; anti government; libertarian circles. Now there is no evidence that Lolughner was a Tea partier, and if you can stomach reading the self pitying incoherent drivel he has posted in the past, he comes across as an unbalanced anti-government paranoid conspiracy theorist who is attracted to both hard left and hard right sentiment, a classic self pitying fanatic with an axe to grind who thinks the system is spying on him and is to blame for his own failings as a person, and that all us schmucks are too thick to see what he can.

Now back to the criticisms of Beck and Palin. Obviously they aren't responsible for the massacre, and should not take direct blame for it. However, and this is where I'm sorry to say - mud sticks. The level of some of the sentiment from their supporters has been geared towards implied violence. Some of the more fringe extremes have been echoing sentiments in the mould of the placard above. There has been rather a lot of use of metaphors relating to aggression and violence and an inability to even entertain the notion of listening to the opposing side. Not even taking into account the innocuous "Mama Grizzly" thing. Stuff like the rattlesnake poster saying "don't step on me!" or Palin using the "gunsight map" to make a stand against the 20 reps who voted for the healthcare reforms (including Gabrielle Giffords herself). Palin has been keen to remove it from her website since the attack occurred. Now let me emphasise again, Sarah Palin did not guide the hand that fired the bullets, the killer is to blame for what happened. But that does not excuse the harsh incendiary rhetoric that has been doing the rounds. To quote the republican David Frum (so it isn't just leftys who have condemned the militant language):

"Conservatives have been quick to repudiate – to brand as offensive and disgusting – any suggestion that the Tucson shooting was somehow inspired by the extreme anti-Obama political rhetoric of the past 2 years.

In this, conservatives have the facts on their side. By all reports, the Tucson shooter was a very mentally disturbed person. Even if Jared Lee Loughner was aware that Sarah Palin’s PAC had posted a gun sight next to Congresswoman Gifford’s name, that awareness cannot be translated into a motivation. It makes no sense to talk of the “motive” of someone who is fundamentally irrational.

That point should be acknowledged, accepted, and internalized. Yet as we acknowledge that extremist rhetoric did not incite this crime, it should also be acknowledged that the rhetoric has been extreme, and potentially dangerously so. I wrote in April 2009:

A man bearing a sidearm appears outside President Obama’s Aug. 11 town hall meeting in Portsmouth, N.H., under a sign proclaiming, “It is time to water the tree of liberty.”
That phrase of course references a famous statement of Thomas Jefferson’s, from a 1787 letter: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.”

Earlier that same day, another man is arrested inside the school building in which the president will speak. Police found a loaded handgun in his parked car.

At an event held by Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona last week, police were called after one attendee dropped a gun.

Nobody has been hurt so far. We can all hope that nobody will be. But firearms and politics never mix well. They mix especially badly with a third ingredient: the increasingly angry tone of incitement being heard from right-of-center broadcasters.

The Nazi comparisons from Rush Limbaugh; broadcaster Mark Levin asserting that President Obama is “literally at war with the American people”; former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin claiming that the president was planning “death panels” to extirpate the aged and disabled; the charges that the president is a fascist, a socialist, a Marxist, an illegitimate Kenyan fraud, that he “harbors a deep resentment of America,” that he feels a “deep-seated hatred of white people,” that his government is preparing concentration camps, that it is operating snitch lines, that it is planning to wipe away American liberties”: All this hysterical and provocative talk invites, incites, and prepares a prefabricated justification for violence.

Again: this talk did not cause this crime. But this crime should summon us to some reflection on this talk. Better: This crime should summon us to a quiet collective resolution to cease this kind of talk and to cease to indulge those who engage in it.

Although there is always the risk of a loony with an axe to grind going on a shooting rampage whatever you say, or however eloquently you word your views. The sentiments on Glenn Becks show, and the more militant talk on the murky ends of the tea party are music to the ears of a paranoid misfit with an irrational hatred of big government, or any for of government whatsoever and in any form. When Beck equates firearms control with the rise of National Socialism, or calls Obama a white hater without any evidence to back that up, these kinds of people are going to listen. When suggestive imagery about "gunning" after your opponents may cause someone like Palin to perhaps worry that someone could take her literally, especially when people have been turning up to these meetings brandishing firearms that would not be out of place on a bloody battlefield (why do you need such a large arsenal by the way. How big are the coyotes on your farm?) When right wing news networks totally exaggerate the perceived dangers of social democracy such as health care reform as "some doctors are going to send granny to the gas chambers." or pro abortion as "Stalins USSR". This feeds the paranoia of frightened disturbed individuals who think the establishment is out to get them. Is it not too much to ask that those who may be cynically manipulating this stuff, to see that they may be stirring things up that they may not be able to control. Do they even comprehend where it could lead? The right are often quick to highlight European nations slackness on zealous ultra Islamic preachers using militant rhetoric, and that we shouldn't be surprised if a devotee may take their words to horrific conclusions. The same applies here. For all the talk of liberty, there seems a lot of fascistic violent sentiment doing the rounds. Time for more constructive dialogue with opponents, and less threatening demagogy .

THIS VIDEO IS AN INTERESTING AMERICAN PERSPECTIVE ON THE MILITANT SENTIMENT THAT WAS DOING THE ROUNDS, THOUGH BEFORE THE SHOOTINGS HAPPENED. IT IS EVEN MORE PERTINENT IN LIGHT OF WHAT HAPPENED.

*Christina was born on September 11th 2001. She was at the meeting to highlight the positive things that happened that day. What a tragc irony. Utterly heartbreaking.

Banning the N - Word from Huckleberry Finn Isn't Just PC Gone Mad.

There has been a controversy in the US this past week about a book editor called Alan Gribben who has brought out a version of Mark Twains popular "Huck Finn" with the word "nigger" excised and replaced with the less racially charged "slave." instead. This has led to Gribben being pilloried as some kind of politically correct vandal kowtowing to "hurt feelings" of "minorities", the usual spiel which we see associated with stuff like this. But people who have only heard that bit of the story are missing the point. Mr. Gribben is a well known scholar on these stories, possibly the only man who knew more about them was old Mark Twain himself. The reasoning [on Gribbens part] behind this act was to actually stop schools in the South from banning the book outright for it's perceived racist connotations, that the editorial would explain the change and allow everyone to understand the racial terminology in the correct context. It was not an act of censorship, but an attempt to circumvent it. Alan Gribben should be applauded, but I doubt many see beyond what they want to see in this whole affair.

In an ideal world the book should be printed as Twain wrote it. People should have at least some grasp of artistic and narrative context. Just because someone uses iffy terminology or controversial stuff doesn't mean that they are endorsing or approving it. There are three reasons I see that results in people wanting to ignore the whole thing, all of which are in some way a response to people not taking what I have just said on board. Firstly the racism and slavery that are themes of the book are still very uncomfortable topics in that part of the US. There is shitloads of baggage around the whole thing. Just overlooking the Huck Finn books is one easy way for teaching boards to skirt the issue. Secondly some black commentators and others hear about all this racist talk without actually reading the books and jump to the wrong conclusions, calling for this "racist nonsense" to be barred in the classroom, which gives the boards another reason to do the first thing. And finally because racist boneheads start calling for the books to be taught ostensibly as it is PC Marxism not too, but largely because they get off on books with nigger written in them. These people don't realise that Twain's works actually condemn racism, as subtext and context don't mix well in the literalists mind. It's rather like those BNP people who deliberately buy gollies and black and white minstrel memorabilia. They think they are being rebellious.* Or on the other side, why on later film versions of "Oliver Twist" Fagin's overt Jewishness** had to be toned down as the perceived anti-Semitic nature of the character began to overshadow the "message" of the story. So we have a mixture of - on the firsthand - being well intentioned and buck passing at the same time, others missing the point totally, and for the latter - missing the point and being racist as well. Alan Gribben has discovered (I hope) a method of getting Twains brilliant books back into the classroom avoiding the above in one stroke.

It really is a shame these books are banned. They aren't racist. Mark Twain wrote them precisely to challenge the prejudice of the age. As his readers perhaps would have thought back then, that Huck Finn was right to think that Tom Sawyer was wrong to help some (and someone elses) mere slave boy escape. Huck and the readers learn through getting to know "nigger" Jim and to learn about his plight and see how he is a victim. To see him as a human with feelings and emotions and not just some piece of property. To see that Tom Sawyer was right to challenge the racist "wisdom" of the age, to his conscience. Twain is challenging the reader to see the wrongness of treating human beings as slaves and to appeal to the plight of your fellow man and not to the racist dogma of the age. These are important stories, and no-one is going to come out a raving bigot if they read them properly. So far from being a PC busybody perhaps Alan Gribben will end up doing us all a favour.

* This scientific phenomenon is also known as "looking like a bit of a prat."

** That was the point really. Fagins Jewishness wasn't really all that relevant to the actual story. It is sort of hinted at in dead exposition in the books that he was a Jew who had fled from pogroms in his native land to London. But anti Semites blew it up as his "Jewishness" being responsible for his villainous character. The simple fact is Fagin could have been from Birmingham and it would not have changed the story in any real way. You just need a grotty looking weirdo who's dodgy and gets kids to steal for him. It doesn't matter where he came from.

Glenn Beck is NOT Martin Luther King!

The right wing libertarian group the "Tea Party" have kicked up a bit of a pen and ink with a rally held yesterday at the Washington National Mall, ostensibly aimed at "Restoring Honour", fronted by the preposterous Fox pundit Glenn Beck. The rally was about err... restoring some - err... stuff, with a bit of right wing spiel about God having a bigger role in America (Beck is a born again.) and paying more respect to the armed forces. (I thought these guys didn't like taxes and government spending? Who pays for all those tanks and guns and planes anyway?) The content of his speech isn't really all that interesting. It just gives a silly blow hard a chance to look all dangerous and subversive by explaining how hard up and persecuted people like the multimillionaire broadcaster who has ample access to the nations airwaves - really are. As usual for a Tea Party speech there was references to the horrors of Barack Obamas tyranny, what with him doing some stuff or something like that.

No, what makes the rally interesting is not the content of the speech itself (it was pretty dire stuff.), but the greater context around it. The speech happens to fall on the 47th anniversary of Martin Luther Kings "I have a dream" speech, you may have heard of. And was made in the same location as Becks speech. This has caused some ripples (though not calls to censor the rally.) with people like Reverend Al Sharpton, a well known black, left wing preacher and civil rights activist - who question the tactfulness of a potential PR stunt on behalf of Beck, claiming somehow he is a latter day Luther King (to an almost all white audience.). Beck himself claims he didn't make the connection before his speech, putting it down to "divine providence" (Oh give me a fucking break!). Whether he knew or not, he apparently stuck a few "Kingisms" in the speech for good measure. But it was a comment by - who else; but the Tea Party's poster girl Sarah Palin, that sparked my interest in the affair.

Palin, greeted by chants of 'USA, USA, USA' from many in the crowd, told the gathering, 'It is so humbling to get to be here with you today, patriots. You who are motivated and engaged ... and knowing never to retreat.'

Palin likened the rally participants to the civil rights activists who came to the National Mall to hear King's historic speech, which came at a crucial moment in the civil rights struggle.

She said the same spirit that helped civil rights activists overcome oppression, discrimination and violence would help this group as well.


'We are worried about what we face. Sometimes, our challenges seem insurmountable,' Palin said. 'Look around you. You're not alone.'

Apparently Sarah had such an uphill struggle in life, she had slum it and to get herself nominated as a vice presidential candidate. Bummer!

The interesting comment (all of Palins speeches are interesting for unintentional reasons.) is her comparison of the Teabaggers (or whatever the collective term is.) with Dr. Kings civil rights marchers. I hope that many right minded people would see the comparison she makes as insultingly facile as it deserves to be seen. It is also what pisses me off about this group of people (the teabaggers, not the civil rights advocates.) The civil rights marchers genuinely did face oppression, discrimination and violence, and a lot of it was extremely severe too. Let us not forget, the Dr. King was killed for what he believed in. The civil rights movement went through seven shades of shit, and a hell of a lot of hardship and sacrifice to try to rectify a genuine social evil, like state enforced racism, and horrendous prejudice. The Teabaggers cause on the other hand, is merely a self indulgent one. The maximum extent of the "persecution" they face, is being called a bunch of fuckwits by vocal lefties. The "oppression" they claim they face is also rather nebulous. It is a dead give away that they find it hard to articulate precisely what shape this "oppression" takes. The teabaggers are really only annoyed that their right wing; libertarian; uber free market manifesto was rejected by their countrymen at the elections. Tough, that's democracy. There's a hell of a lot of loser sour grapes on their behalf. A bit of advice, get some more votes on your side. Life, as ultra free market enthusiasts like themselves love to remind us -isn't very fair.

One final thing, when the civil rights movement was at its peak in the 60's, there was a lot of sentiment around about "uppity niggers.", "the civil righters are un American / Communists.", "Martin Luther King is unpatriotic." etc. One wonders that if Beck and Palin had been around in the 60's, would their sentiments be with the civil rights marchers, or their detractors? I think I can can guess which.

A Mosque "at" Ground Zero.

There is quite a furore going in in the US at the moment about proposals to build a 13 storey £100 million dollar "super mosque" in New York about two blocks from (180 m or 600 ft) away from ground zero (you can see the location here on Street View. The grotty looking "Burlington Coats" building in front of you is to be razed for the proposed centre.) . Many are up in arms about a mosque (it is actually proposed to be a community centre, auditorium and other stuff. The prayer room will not be classed as a mosque to give the developers more say over who can use it.) being built so close to a place devastated by Islamist inspired terrorism. Indeed some of the wording on articles hostile to the plans, is designed to make out that the "mosque" is going to be built on the site itself. (It isn't.) So what is going on here do we ask? Well let's rewind a bit to see how the whole thing kicked off.

On 9/11 the morning staff of Burlington coats were in the basement ready to start work. They never would. One of the landing gear from the hijacked planes fell onto their workplace and crashed through two floors (no one was hurt, it was empty on those levels.). Burlingtons closed down permanently, and eight years later a nearby mosque that was overfilled, used the building as an overspill prayer room. The imam of that mosque, Feisal Abdul Rauf - a Sufiist who had founded a group promoting understanding between American Muslims and their non Muslim countrymen saw the irony in using a place damaged by terrorism to be used to promote a more stable situation. No-one seems to have batted an eyelid at this, as like many of these kinds of stories - a single quite innocuous story gets mega coverage out of the blue. This time a right wing blogger who founded the "Stop the Islamification of America." got wind of Raufs plan to develop the site of his prayer room to create his centre. A thereonin all hell broke loose. Sarah Palin started twittering. Newt Gingrich got quite cross. Glenn Beck. Well just acted like Glenn Beck.

On one level the reaction is unsurprising. It would have been difficult to have justified building a thirteen storey mosque at ground zero itself. The sad truth is that those towers were destroyed in the name of the most radical elements of that faith. I must emphasise that I don't think all Muslims were complicit (they weren't.). But it would be [a bit] like building a tribute to the RAF in Dresden. Both these organisations are mainly composed of upstanding people, but the unpleasant links are there. I do understand why the families of the victims (but some others have more questionable motives.) were alarmed. But on the other hand, the proposed centre is being built by Sufi Muslims, who have no links to Al-Quieda (how could they?) which is an important distinction. I doubt anyone would object to a Methodist community centre near Manchester's Arndale Centre (attacked by the supposedly Catholic aligned IRA.) That is a distinction that has not been mentioned much. Also Rauf himself seems an impressive figure. I am always wary of these religious "centres", but the guy seems legitimate in wanting to promote harmonious relations, and we need that now more than ever. He seems the kind of prominent moderate who may be able to do that. Lastly geographically the street is quite concealed (you'd hardly give it a second glance). From street view, ground zero is not visible, screened by the surrounding streets. The existing building is surrounded by large buildings, and I doubt even a thirteen storey structure would look conspicuous there. It certainly isn't right in the noses of people wanting to go to ground zero In fact had this story not received so much coverage, the new centre would likely have gone unnoticed to the greater world. In the end it is really an issue for Rauf and the victims to come to an accommodation with. It would be churlish for me to go one way or the other. But that hasn't stopped a few people, who I think have less than admirable reasons to nail their colours to the mast.

Littlejohn has done an article covering this story. The article focuses on the effects of the story on Barack Obamas popularity. There isn't really much to say about the story (insults out of touch lefty's, who hate normal people.) but he takes Obama to task for saying

"As a citizen and a President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practise their religion as anyone else in this country."

I know that may not go down well with a lot of Americans, but it is from a constitutional point of veiw correct. But in practice Obama can't really do much to stop it (assuming he would want to anyway.) It is a private venture on private land. Sarah Palin, and Gingrich and whoever always like to nail their libertarian, small government; colours to the mast on every occasion possible. Wouldn't Obama cracking down on a private building on private property, be an example of the most heavy handed statism any horrid property hating socialist could only dream of? Or does libertarian principle only apply to certain things. (hey it is them who bang on about this all the time.)

The article highlights the barmy "theories" that Obama is a Muslim because err.. his middle name is Hussein, or something. Apparently in the wake of this, a quarter of Americans believe this to be so. (Yikes!) This emphasis on Obamas "otherliness" has been a recurring theme. As well as all Muslims being perceived as fith columnists ("Muslim Obama" being a sleeper is a popular conspiracy.) It all has the air of some very murky rhetoric being chucked about. For all Littlejohn may berate the US president for not condemning the "mosque", I find it rather admirable he is trying to ride the storm a little, not giving some of the more extreme sentiment a platform. It does however highlight the lengths that the ultra conservatives will go to attack their president. At once tawdry, depressing and rather scary. These people are sore losers to say the least. I hope Obama knows what he really is up against.

PS Littlejohn comes out with this corker:

"In so doing, he displayed an ignorance of history which made David Cameron’s recent confusion over the timing of America’s entry into World War II look like a minor clerical error.

Obama’s words would have come as a surprise not only to the Founding Fathers, who established the United States on concrete Christian principles"

Didn't they do all that freedom from religion as well as of it too? They were strict in stipulating the divide between religion and the state. Looks like Cameron isn't the only one who needs to do his homework.

*This link below highlights the origins of the "mosque" in greater detail.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/nyregion/09mosque.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

BP Stops My Postings (And Oil Leaks... Or Not.)

In regards to the Deepwater Horizon Oil leek in the Gulf of Mexico, I was going to write an entry saying that President Obama should perhaps give some consideration to the views of scientists who proposed using a nuclear charge to seal the borehole that was seeping out the huge volumes of oil (a shy 4 million barrel fulls), which was caking itself all over the sea and coast of that region, doing awful damage. The nuke -in theory; should have melted the hole, sealing it off. This would have been a pathetic attempt on my part to look all controversial. Dropping nukes on the US coast? What next? Although the USSR (when it existed of course) did use nukes to seal gas leaks. The gist of my argument was if an environmental disaster like this one couldn't really be abated after two months, after several attempts to seal it failed, and they were forced to put a big metal box over the leak and try to gather up the oil collected to surface tankers (a sticking plaster solution), whilst the black stuff was tarring up such a vast region. How far would a democracy in peace time situations go in order to combat such a catastrophe. The nuclear option would have been REALLY unpopular, but it may have had a decent chance of actually sealing the borehole. (although the geological nature of the well seems not clear, which some have contributed to causing the blast) It really was down to how receptive to "novel" (an understatement) solutions were the White House going to be.

But as of the 16th July, those tasked with stopping it, seem to have put a cap on the leak that has contained it. Put those nukes away then, we don't need them. The tests on the caps integrity over 48 hours seemed to show the leak is contained, however there are some tentative reports that gas and oil has been detected seeping out of this cap too, so it may not be over yet. The plan is to settle the flow of the well, so that the water above it keeps the oil in it by the use of relief wells extracting the oil, where the cap can then be removed and mud and cement will plug the well, like a kind of dental filling for the rockbed. So fingers crossed this is; at last - the beginning of the end.

The whole affair is as messy as the oil it dumped on the beaches and the creatures that got in the way, by having the misfortune of living around it. When we hear that the crew of the Deepwater Horizon had concerns for the safety of the rig. That the amounts of methane in the well was not known. That the rig had reportedly felt unstable during drilling. And most importantly eleven men never returned from the Horizon, which is now a lump of burnt metal on the sea floor. Then there is the financial costs, three and a half billion dollars of BP's money in stopping the leak and cleanup fees. The lowest company share values in 14 years. The fact that BP will have to sell off petrol stations (and the jobs of people who had nothing to do with the leak.) and other things to meet the costs. The compensation to the people who live in the area and the victims families (who deserve every penny). The fall out between the U.S and a company with British in the title. And the ecological damage. Oiled creatures, and the fact that lots of the oil is on the sea bed where it is harder for nature to degrade it. (though there is little British about it these days.) A truly horrible situation, hopefully coming to an end.

Slightly Loopy "Antichrist Poll" about Barack Obama

If this Harris poll is to be believed a quarter of U.S Republicans think the president of their nation is the Antichrist (14% of the general population). Over half [of Republicans] also think he's a Muslim, 38% think he's quite a bit like Hitler, and oh yes he's a socialist too (about 70%). I repeat 1 in 4 (if the poll of 2000+ is a microcosmic representative of the whole of course.) think Barry has come straight from hell, and is comparable to history's biggest mass murderer. Now I'm not saying that this poll is proof of crackers democracy, but what I am saying is that the results of this poll has proven that some elements of US democracy are a bit mad. This really does bring up serious questions about the kind of ideological paradigms that are making up popular Republican thoughts these days. The sheer visceral stirring up of base prejudices towards the new president is a worrying affair for the overall state of the worlds most powerful nation. I mean for God sake, Obama hasn't crushed the skulls of his enemies in the oval office, or purged Wisconsin, or broken into Sarah Palins house to drank the blood of virgins whilst worshiping a Baal idol in her bathroom, but what he has done has passed his Health Bill through congress this Sunday. The USA should have 95 percent health coverage if it all goes to plan, but opponents of it are going into meltdown, saying it is "Socialised Medicine" and Socialism, in part because the bill means people are obliged to obtain insurance (like car insurance) and the very wealthy will see an (around 1%) increase in their insurance costs, but mostly because calling something that they don't like "socialist" is a nice easy catch all smear, and a good way to scare the shit out of American society. This inevitably results in organisations like the tea party activist group playing the "big government is evil, erosion of god given liberty" card. Now like many in the UK, I see the sheer outwelling of hostility to a relatively modest extension of healthcare provision as pretty baffling stuff, a bizarre glimpse into another societies cultural workings. I also think that these kinds of people are twisting the greater publics genuinely legitimate fear of the risks to liberty by heavy handed government, to their own selfish ends, and observer comments like this don't alleviate this feeling

"They claim that the bank bailout, new taxes on the rich, the trillion dollar cost of health reform over the next decade, threaten the prosperity and even solvency of every family in their land."

I don't think that governments providing healthcare assistance for the poorest citizens is by any means "Evil Socialism" or "Stalinism" It ignores two issues to allow this theory to have any credence. The first being it is just taxing the "hard working" against the "layabouts", not everyone is poor due to idleness, and loaded due to merit and effort. Bad circumstances, luck, prejudice, mental state, outward conformism - can all affect your earning power. Just as inherited wealth and family connections can lubricate the gears of success (the Bush, Clinton and Kennedy dynasties in Washington society.) Secondly does the assumption that all government "interference" is bad always apply to all situations? Shouldn't democratically elected officials be obliged to shield the most vulnerable from the worst aspects of raw market forces, and external threats (strange they never seem to moan about socialised military, who pays for those badass battleships and fighter jets after all?? The scary ass battle corporation) I wonder how you would explain precisely to someone hemorrhaging away their savings to pay for the chemo and drugs they need, that they were "free."

I actually think when the scheme goes active, and when the dividends are reaped by the Americans at large; the lofty protests will end up blowing in the wind. Obama has possibly seen that he will get flack whatever he does and has decided to ride the storm and let the rest of his bill hopefully fight off the hurricane. I don't think he's out of the woods yet, and I leave with this analysis of how polarised the U.S is becoming. Take this example of when we hear of death threats, from this analysis from commentator Max Hastings, I just end up thinking, is this what liberal democracy has come too? And where will it lead too?

"A political scientist friend said to me in Chicago last week: 'I have never felt as apprehensive about the physical safety of a president as I do about this one.'

He perceives a climate in which frightening passions are in play. At the extreme end of the rancour which the health care debate has provoked, more than a few Republicans who own guns hate their president. Pity the Secret Service, who must protect the White House.

Chilling as it seems to Europeans, there are those in this nation with a tradition of attempted and successful assassinations, who believe it would be a patriotic act to shoot Barack Obama."