FINALLY my website is up and running.
The address is http://www.socialmusing.wordpress.com
I'll be updating that website from now on.
Cheers
R
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Friday, March 7, 2008
site news
Some of you may remember that last year I talked about switching sites. Well after negotiations with my web server it looks like i'll hopefully be changing to my own domain name within the next week or so. Looks out for a less confusing domain name :)
More info to come.
More info to come.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Hand Over Your Toothpaste!
A brilliant counter-point from the Jerusalem Post today:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1204127199289&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
DAVID FORMAN
I was standing in the security line at the airport in Atlanta. I removed my shoes and my belt, emptied the change from my pockets, discarded my water bottle and placed my tote bag on the belt that would carry it through the X-ray machine.
Suddenly, I was pulled aside. "Sir, do you know that you are not allowed to carry on board more than a 3.2 ounce tube of toothpaste?"
Asked to explain my blatant breach of security, I sheepishly responded that I had brushed my teeth a number of times with the toothpaste, and surely there must now be less than 3.2 ounces. At that very moment, the assistant head of security for the airport walked by and inquired what the problem was.
I protested that my toothpaste was being confiscated. He explained that the Transportation Security Administration bans passengers from taking aboard such a potentially deadly quantity of toothpaste. I muttered under my breath that we do not put people through such nonsense in Israel. Overhearing me, he became curious about how Israel's airports were secured; and ushered me into a private room for a discussion on airport security, as if I were an expert on such matters.
I asked him if anyone checks cars as they enter the airport. He was surprised that this was routine procedure in Israel and remarked what a brilliant idea it was. I then asked if there were plainclothesmen watching every door that leads into the terminals. I asked if the desk clerk thoroughly checks a traveler's passport to see the countries visited.
I asked my interrogator how many people he estimated were waiting in the security line. He ventured about 250. I pointed to a nervous-looking character who was about to place a heavy-looking bag on the security belt. I asked the TSA executive if it were possible the man could be concealing 20 pounds of explosives in the bag; he replied that it was entirely possible. When I asked him to approximate how many people might be killed if the man set off those explosives, he said virtually everyone standing in line; to which I exclaimed: "Aha - but, you have my Colgate!"
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS recently ran an article that airport security in America had not even marginally improved since 9/11. Given my experience, it is obvious why. But there is a deeper and more serious concern - the belief in the US intelligence community's ability to assess real threats around the world, which leads me to the US National Intelligence Estimate report which said that Iran ceased its nuclear weapons program in 2003.
Who could possibly believe the NIE after the total fiasco of its intelligence analysis about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction? Or, more to the point, after the same NIE authoritatively stated in 2005 that Iran was an imminent nuclear threat? Under obvious political pressure from the Bush administration, US National Intelligence director Michael McConnell is now equivocating on the NIE findings on Iran, which further undermines its credibility.
If one really wants to know what some Arab nations are plotting, don't rely on American intelligence agencies, but on those Arab and Muslim leaders who boldly state what weapons their countries possess, do not possess or wish to possess, what they are capable of or will be capable of doing.
So - screw American intelligence. Let's listen to these Arabs nations.
After Iraq invaded Kuwait, Saddam Hussein said he would fire Scud missiles at Israel if America attacked his country. I still have my gas mask as a reminder of the days our family sat in our sealed room as Saddam fulfilled his pledge.
He later insisted he had no weapons of mass destruction. America refused to believe him, and the result is the disastrous war in Iraq that has not turned up the slightest trace of WMDs. One need not be a rocket scientist to know Saddam was telling the truth.
In 1981, Israel bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor, and, in the Gulf War, George Bush Sr. wiped out any possibility of Saddam jump-starting his nuclear program. If Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announces he plans to destroy Israel, should he not be taken at his word? Common sense dictates that the only way Iran could turn Israel into a heap of ashes is by developing nuclear weapons.
Ahmadinejad has dropped sufficient hints that he would be willing to sacrifice millions of Iranians in a nuclear conflagration with Israel. Indeed, Iran has proven its intentions of striking Israel by arming its surrogate, Hizbullah, whose Katyusha rockets turned our lives into a living hell during the Second Lebanon War - exactly as Ahmadinejad promised.
The NIE assessment on Iran is not worth the paper it is written on. Given the US government's homeland security directives that warn the American people that flying with more than 3.2 ounces of Colgate, Crest or Aquafresh in a carry-on bag is a threat to American security, it should be abundantly clear that American military intelligence is an oxymoron. More frightening than farcical, it is completely unreliable.
On the other hand, Arab and Muslim declarations of hostile intentions, especially toward us, have proven absolutely reliable. Consequently, if we Israelis want an accurate assessment of what lies in store for us, we damn well better pay attention to Ahmadinejad's almost daily admonitions. He, not the NIE, knows best; and, he is telling us that soon Iran will have nuclear weapons.
Let's hope that our government has a plan of action before they are deployed against us
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1204127199289&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
DAVID FORMAN
I was standing in the security line at the airport in Atlanta. I removed my shoes and my belt, emptied the change from my pockets, discarded my water bottle and placed my tote bag on the belt that would carry it through the X-ray machine.
Suddenly, I was pulled aside. "Sir, do you know that you are not allowed to carry on board more than a 3.2 ounce tube of toothpaste?"
Asked to explain my blatant breach of security, I sheepishly responded that I had brushed my teeth a number of times with the toothpaste, and surely there must now be less than 3.2 ounces. At that very moment, the assistant head of security for the airport walked by and inquired what the problem was.
I protested that my toothpaste was being confiscated. He explained that the Transportation Security Administration bans passengers from taking aboard such a potentially deadly quantity of toothpaste. I muttered under my breath that we do not put people through such nonsense in Israel. Overhearing me, he became curious about how Israel's airports were secured; and ushered me into a private room for a discussion on airport security, as if I were an expert on such matters.
I asked him if anyone checks cars as they enter the airport. He was surprised that this was routine procedure in Israel and remarked what a brilliant idea it was. I then asked if there were plainclothesmen watching every door that leads into the terminals. I asked if the desk clerk thoroughly checks a traveler's passport to see the countries visited.
I asked my interrogator how many people he estimated were waiting in the security line. He ventured about 250. I pointed to a nervous-looking character who was about to place a heavy-looking bag on the security belt. I asked the TSA executive if it were possible the man could be concealing 20 pounds of explosives in the bag; he replied that it was entirely possible. When I asked him to approximate how many people might be killed if the man set off those explosives, he said virtually everyone standing in line; to which I exclaimed: "Aha - but, you have my Colgate!"
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS recently ran an article that airport security in America had not even marginally improved since 9/11. Given my experience, it is obvious why. But there is a deeper and more serious concern - the belief in the US intelligence community's ability to assess real threats around the world, which leads me to the US National Intelligence Estimate report which said that Iran ceased its nuclear weapons program in 2003.
Who could possibly believe the NIE after the total fiasco of its intelligence analysis about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction? Or, more to the point, after the same NIE authoritatively stated in 2005 that Iran was an imminent nuclear threat? Under obvious political pressure from the Bush administration, US National Intelligence director Michael McConnell is now equivocating on the NIE findings on Iran, which further undermines its credibility.
If one really wants to know what some Arab nations are plotting, don't rely on American intelligence agencies, but on those Arab and Muslim leaders who boldly state what weapons their countries possess, do not possess or wish to possess, what they are capable of or will be capable of doing.
So - screw American intelligence. Let's listen to these Arabs nations.
After Iraq invaded Kuwait, Saddam Hussein said he would fire Scud missiles at Israel if America attacked his country. I still have my gas mask as a reminder of the days our family sat in our sealed room as Saddam fulfilled his pledge.
He later insisted he had no weapons of mass destruction. America refused to believe him, and the result is the disastrous war in Iraq that has not turned up the slightest trace of WMDs. One need not be a rocket scientist to know Saddam was telling the truth.
In 1981, Israel bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor, and, in the Gulf War, George Bush Sr. wiped out any possibility of Saddam jump-starting his nuclear program. If Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announces he plans to destroy Israel, should he not be taken at his word? Common sense dictates that the only way Iran could turn Israel into a heap of ashes is by developing nuclear weapons.
Ahmadinejad has dropped sufficient hints that he would be willing to sacrifice millions of Iranians in a nuclear conflagration with Israel. Indeed, Iran has proven its intentions of striking Israel by arming its surrogate, Hizbullah, whose Katyusha rockets turned our lives into a living hell during the Second Lebanon War - exactly as Ahmadinejad promised.
The NIE assessment on Iran is not worth the paper it is written on. Given the US government's homeland security directives that warn the American people that flying with more than 3.2 ounces of Colgate, Crest or Aquafresh in a carry-on bag is a threat to American security, it should be abundantly clear that American military intelligence is an oxymoron. More frightening than farcical, it is completely unreliable.
On the other hand, Arab and Muslim declarations of hostile intentions, especially toward us, have proven absolutely reliable. Consequently, if we Israelis want an accurate assessment of what lies in store for us, we damn well better pay attention to Ahmadinejad's almost daily admonitions. He, not the NIE, knows best; and, he is telling us that soon Iran will have nuclear weapons.
Let's hope that our government has a plan of action before they are deployed against us
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Finally
The U.S. House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee approved a resolution calling for equal treatment of Jewish refugees in any peace deal.
"For any comprehensive Middle East peace agreement to be credible and enduring, the agreement must address and resolve all outstanding issues relating to the legitimate rights of all refugees in the Middle East, including Jews, Christians, and other populations displaced from countries in the region,"
Too many times have I heard the claim that Israel forcefully removed Palestinians from their homes to make way for Jews coming in. This is where the Jews were coming from. It's estimated that around 850,000 Jews were forcefully removed from their homes during the creation of the State of Israel yet these voices are forgotten in any debate about the Middle East. The reason they are forgotten is that they were absorbed by Israel whilst the Palestinians were rejected by their Arab brethren and since 1967 have been regarded as little more than pawns for the political purposes of those that wish to demonize the Jewish state. Hopefully now the Jewish refugee problem will be given more press than those of their Palestinian counterparts.
"For any comprehensive Middle East peace agreement to be credible and enduring, the agreement must address and resolve all outstanding issues relating to the legitimate rights of all refugees in the Middle East, including Jews, Christians, and other populations displaced from countries in the region,"
Too many times have I heard the claim that Israel forcefully removed Palestinians from their homes to make way for Jews coming in. This is where the Jews were coming from. It's estimated that around 850,000 Jews were forcefully removed from their homes during the creation of the State of Israel yet these voices are forgotten in any debate about the Middle East. The reason they are forgotten is that they were absorbed by Israel whilst the Palestinians were rejected by their Arab brethren and since 1967 have been regarded as little more than pawns for the political purposes of those that wish to demonize the Jewish state. Hopefully now the Jewish refugee problem will be given more press than those of their Palestinian counterparts.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
The assassination of Imad Mughniyeh
It's been over a week since the assassination of Imad Mughniyeh, one of the leading Hezbollah terrorists, and Mossad has taken the blame. I have no information if it was the Israeli government who killed this man but it seems they have already been accused by the Hezbollah leadership. In a previous post i proclaimed my support for these assassinations and i reiterate that once again.
This man was evil; his deliberate attacks on civilians led to an enormous loss of life not only within the Middle East but he is also believed to be behind the 1994 bombing of the AMIA centre which killed 85 people.
Whilst it would have been preferable to have this man face justice in an Israeli courtroom he was notorious for his paranoia; often changing his clothes, sleeping in separate houses every night and strangely having no bodyguards. He did this in order to avoid any kind of information being leaked to the various intelligence agencies that were hunting him.
However whoever did assassinate him did an astounding job (it was believed that the small explosive was placed in the headrest of his car-seat) and whilst i'm sure Israel did have a hand in it, it could not have been done without the support of their Arab neighbors. Hezbollah is a threat to the entire region with its tentacles, funded by Iran, being able to reach into Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordann and various other countries. This way why three Arab states openly aligned against Hezbollah (and by default, allying with Israel) in the beginning of the 2006 war.
Many of them are afraid of what would happen should Hezbollah and Iran get too strong (they're also deeply concerned about an Iranian nuclear weapon) and topple their regimes. Many, like the Mubarak regime in Egypt, are far from perfect. The Egyptian dictatorship has oppressed citizens and media alike and routinely imprison political opponents who wish for democratic change. However they are also funded largely by the Americans who have given this dangerous regime a modern and very deadly army. Mubarak and many other Middle Eastern governments are fearful of Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood's influence in Egypt, for they could soon gain power, and so are hoping for their downfall.
Whether or not Israel planned this assassination is irrelevant. There are plenty of Arab states who wanted Mughiniyeh dead and they could have taken care of this problem themselves.
This man was evil; his deliberate attacks on civilians led to an enormous loss of life not only within the Middle East but he is also believed to be behind the 1994 bombing of the AMIA centre which killed 85 people.
Whilst it would have been preferable to have this man face justice in an Israeli courtroom he was notorious for his paranoia; often changing his clothes, sleeping in separate houses every night and strangely having no bodyguards. He did this in order to avoid any kind of information being leaked to the various intelligence agencies that were hunting him.
However whoever did assassinate him did an astounding job (it was believed that the small explosive was placed in the headrest of his car-seat) and whilst i'm sure Israel did have a hand in it, it could not have been done without the support of their Arab neighbors. Hezbollah is a threat to the entire region with its tentacles, funded by Iran, being able to reach into Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordann and various other countries. This way why three Arab states openly aligned against Hezbollah (and by default, allying with Israel) in the beginning of the 2006 war.
Many of them are afraid of what would happen should Hezbollah and Iran get too strong (they're also deeply concerned about an Iranian nuclear weapon) and topple their regimes. Many, like the Mubarak regime in Egypt, are far from perfect. The Egyptian dictatorship has oppressed citizens and media alike and routinely imprison political opponents who wish for democratic change. However they are also funded largely by the Americans who have given this dangerous regime a modern and very deadly army. Mubarak and many other Middle Eastern governments are fearful of Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood's influence in Egypt, for they could soon gain power, and so are hoping for their downfall.
Whether or not Israel planned this assassination is irrelevant. There are plenty of Arab states who wanted Mughiniyeh dead and they could have taken care of this problem themselves.
Friday, February 15, 2008
What's wrong with gun control?
There has been another tragedy today in America. As of writing 4 students are dead, 17 are wounded and the gunman committed suicide before the police could arrive. According to reports the gunman simply walked into the classroom, raised his weapon and open-fired on the students without saying a word.
The gunman has thus far not been named but i'm quite certain that he suffers from a mental disease; whilst this is bad enough one has to wonder how he managed to get ahold of a firearm in the first place. This will be the subject of an intense investigation and will hopefully renew calls for gun control in America.
Whilst most countries have effective gun control, Australia and Britain have each outlawed firearms for the majority of civilians, the United States is the only major Western power not to do so; the reason is wrapped up in it's history and constitution. The United States was formed through rebellion against the British government who they had fled to avoid religious persecution hundreds of years ago. When the constitution of the United States was written in 1787 and the Bill of Rights written in 1789 America was battle-hardened and scars from the recent conflicts with England were still fresh. So an amendment was placed in the Bill of Rights, deemed so important that it followed freedom of speech, and it was:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
This amendment is arguably the most controversial of all the Bill of Rights; it is cherished by the NRA and worshipped by the militias who consider it their patriotic duty to raise a citizen army.
Yet it is also the clause that allows guns to remain free on the streets of America.
There are several procedures in order to obtain a weapon in the United States. First one must undergo a background check to make sure that you are not a criminal or that you suffer from a mental disorder, after that your weapon must be registered and locked up safely. You're not allowed to bring weapons into certain buildings and some states do not allow weapons to be concealed from public view. Those that follow these rules and regulations are often very happy with their purchase and often during their lives never have to brandish their weapon in self defence. However those that do not acquire their weapons legally are affected by no such stringent rules. Rather for paying only a few hundred dollars on the black market they can acquire handguns, sub-machine guns, assault rifles and the such which have their serial numbers removed to prevent any trace being made back to any other gun owners. These illegal weapons are the cause of many gang shootings in the United States and are untraceable.
Many gun supporters disagree with the outright banning of firearms, rather they say that should firearms be given to all Americans then a shooter would only be able to get a few shots off before being shot dead by a potential victim. This theory is moronic. Gun control works; in all major countries where gun control is effective there has been a noticeable drop in gun-related violence and shootings. Australia, after the Port Arthur Massacre in which more than 30 people died, banned guns outright. There has always been strong support for this position. Many don't wish to see Australia turn out like America, diseased with weaponry. If all citizens were to be given guns it would lead to more death and violence. Removing guns from the hands of potential killers is the only way to severely halt gun violence; whilst there is no way that you can successfully remove guns from a country banning them does make it harder for ordinary citizens to get their hands on them.
The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact. The outdated amendment is often taken out of its' historical context and that ignorance is the cause of the powerful gun lobby. A greater understanding of the constitution and the outright banning of guns is the only realistic effective gun control.
The gunman has thus far not been named but i'm quite certain that he suffers from a mental disease; whilst this is bad enough one has to wonder how he managed to get ahold of a firearm in the first place. This will be the subject of an intense investigation and will hopefully renew calls for gun control in America.
Whilst most countries have effective gun control, Australia and Britain have each outlawed firearms for the majority of civilians, the United States is the only major Western power not to do so; the reason is wrapped up in it's history and constitution. The United States was formed through rebellion against the British government who they had fled to avoid religious persecution hundreds of years ago. When the constitution of the United States was written in 1787 and the Bill of Rights written in 1789 America was battle-hardened and scars from the recent conflicts with England were still fresh. So an amendment was placed in the Bill of Rights, deemed so important that it followed freedom of speech, and it was:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
This amendment is arguably the most controversial of all the Bill of Rights; it is cherished by the NRA and worshipped by the militias who consider it their patriotic duty to raise a citizen army.
Yet it is also the clause that allows guns to remain free on the streets of America.
There are several procedures in order to obtain a weapon in the United States. First one must undergo a background check to make sure that you are not a criminal or that you suffer from a mental disorder, after that your weapon must be registered and locked up safely. You're not allowed to bring weapons into certain buildings and some states do not allow weapons to be concealed from public view. Those that follow these rules and regulations are often very happy with their purchase and often during their lives never have to brandish their weapon in self defence. However those that do not acquire their weapons legally are affected by no such stringent rules. Rather for paying only a few hundred dollars on the black market they can acquire handguns, sub-machine guns, assault rifles and the such which have their serial numbers removed to prevent any trace being made back to any other gun owners. These illegal weapons are the cause of many gang shootings in the United States and are untraceable.
Many gun supporters disagree with the outright banning of firearms, rather they say that should firearms be given to all Americans then a shooter would only be able to get a few shots off before being shot dead by a potential victim. This theory is moronic. Gun control works; in all major countries where gun control is effective there has been a noticeable drop in gun-related violence and shootings. Australia, after the Port Arthur Massacre in which more than 30 people died, banned guns outright. There has always been strong support for this position. Many don't wish to see Australia turn out like America, diseased with weaponry. If all citizens were to be given guns it would lead to more death and violence. Removing guns from the hands of potential killers is the only way to severely halt gun violence; whilst there is no way that you can successfully remove guns from a country banning them does make it harder for ordinary citizens to get their hands on them.
The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact. The outdated amendment is often taken out of its' historical context and that ignorance is the cause of the powerful gun lobby. A greater understanding of the constitution and the outright banning of guns is the only realistic effective gun control.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Super Tuesday
It has been over a month since i last posted. I apologise but i was on a very relaxing vacation.
The US election has been defying every pollster and pundit every week. Since Obama's win in Iowa and Hillary's win in New Hampshire everyone simply said that Super Tuesday would define a candidate.
Super Tuesday is when more than 22 states hold their primaries and is traditionally a nod to the future nominee of each party. John McCain is the expected nominee with Mitt Romney pulling out and Huckabee too far behind to be a significant threat. However Huckabee's continued presence in the Republican primaries is evident that the conservative base does not trust McCain with their nomination just yet.
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton however are in a very tight race. Whilst Obama won more states he did not win the large delegates. Clinton won fewer states than Obama but won the states with the larger delegates. It appears that whilst more states liked Obama the electoral college swings in favour of Clinton.
The recent primaries held today in Maryland, Virginia and Washington D.C had Obama taking all of the delegates. It appears now that Obama has surpassed Clinton by 107 delegates. Whilst this is not a huge number of delegates it is important as it shows that the Obama-train is full steam ahead. With this momentum he won't have much trouble unseating Clinton in the next primary. Whilst i'm hesitant to call these primaries, considering everything that has been polled, i'm quite certain that Clinton will win several more primaries in the near future. However with Obama's momentum and the fact that his campaign is receiving over a million dollars a day in support (clinton's is around half that) and the free media exposure it is obvious that Barack Obama was the (no-pun intended) dark horse of the 2008 Presidential race. No one expected him to make a dent in the race but he has surprised us all. What we are seeing today and will continue to see in the future is the audacity of hope. A people so tired of two terms of Bush (and possibly afraid of another term of Clinton) that they will latch on to the charismatic leadership of a man demanding change for the people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_authority
The US election has been defying every pollster and pundit every week. Since Obama's win in Iowa and Hillary's win in New Hampshire everyone simply said that Super Tuesday would define a candidate.
Super Tuesday is when more than 22 states hold their primaries and is traditionally a nod to the future nominee of each party. John McCain is the expected nominee with Mitt Romney pulling out and Huckabee too far behind to be a significant threat. However Huckabee's continued presence in the Republican primaries is evident that the conservative base does not trust McCain with their nomination just yet.
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton however are in a very tight race. Whilst Obama won more states he did not win the large delegates. Clinton won fewer states than Obama but won the states with the larger delegates. It appears that whilst more states liked Obama the electoral college swings in favour of Clinton.
The recent primaries held today in Maryland, Virginia and Washington D.C had Obama taking all of the delegates. It appears now that Obama has surpassed Clinton by 107 delegates. Whilst this is not a huge number of delegates it is important as it shows that the Obama-train is full steam ahead. With this momentum he won't have much trouble unseating Clinton in the next primary. Whilst i'm hesitant to call these primaries, considering everything that has been polled, i'm quite certain that Clinton will win several more primaries in the near future. However with Obama's momentum and the fact that his campaign is receiving over a million dollars a day in support (clinton's is around half that) and the free media exposure it is obvious that Barack Obama was the (no-pun intended) dark horse of the 2008 Presidential race. No one expected him to make a dent in the race but he has surprised us all. What we are seeing today and will continue to see in the future is the audacity of hope. A people so tired of two terms of Bush (and possibly afraid of another term of Clinton) that they will latch on to the charismatic leadership of a man demanding change for the people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_authority
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Why everyone got it wrong!
In the wake of the Clinton win in New Hampshire last night it seems that everyone is taking a closer look at the polls and wondering where they failed.
Many polls predicted an Obama landslide a'la Iowa but ended with Clinton winning by 3 points.
Does this mean that polls are unreliable, that we shouldn't trust them?
Many candidates and skeptical members of the public take polling data with a grain of salt. There are many variables that have to be taken into consideration when reading a poll. When the pollster called? Which member of the house they were speaking to? The gender? The skin colour? etc etc etc
Any number of these variables can skew a poll. The pollsters shut down their data collection services around 36 hours before the voting began. Doing that was a mistake because they missed the one event that changed this primary:
The tears almost shed by Hillary Clinton led to an outpouring of emotion from women and the elderly who drowned their sorrows in the voting booths by ticking the name 'Hillary Clinton'. Clinton, who was always lambasted for being to steely and never showing any emotion, won over these voters in the 36 hours that the polling booths were shut down. In this day and age of instant news it's well known that a single event can change the outcome of an election and this was that event. Polls should be open until the voters walk through the front door. After that they should conduct exit polls. Here's Hillary's victory speech, she seems as surprised as anyone else in the room:
I'm sure that polling will be scrutinized a great deal over the next several primaries up to Super Tuesday. I'm sure Barack Obama is feeling awful, he was floating on a cloud and a sure thing for the New Hampshire primary. As i stated in a previous post i'm sure that Obama will make an amazing president once he's had some on-the-job training, hopefully as Hillary's VP. I only hope that he realizes this before he gets too big for his own boots and implodes; denying America of an astounding politician.
Many polls predicted an Obama landslide a'la Iowa but ended with Clinton winning by 3 points.
Does this mean that polls are unreliable, that we shouldn't trust them?
Many candidates and skeptical members of the public take polling data with a grain of salt. There are many variables that have to be taken into consideration when reading a poll. When the pollster called? Which member of the house they were speaking to? The gender? The skin colour? etc etc etc
Any number of these variables can skew a poll. The pollsters shut down their data collection services around 36 hours before the voting began. Doing that was a mistake because they missed the one event that changed this primary:
The tears almost shed by Hillary Clinton led to an outpouring of emotion from women and the elderly who drowned their sorrows in the voting booths by ticking the name 'Hillary Clinton'. Clinton, who was always lambasted for being to steely and never showing any emotion, won over these voters in the 36 hours that the polling booths were shut down. In this day and age of instant news it's well known that a single event can change the outcome of an election and this was that event. Polls should be open until the voters walk through the front door. After that they should conduct exit polls. Here's Hillary's victory speech, she seems as surprised as anyone else in the room:
I'm sure that polling will be scrutinized a great deal over the next several primaries up to Super Tuesday. I'm sure Barack Obama is feeling awful, he was floating on a cloud and a sure thing for the New Hampshire primary. As i stated in a previous post i'm sure that Obama will make an amazing president once he's had some on-the-job training, hopefully as Hillary's VP. I only hope that he realizes this before he gets too big for his own boots and implodes; denying America of an astounding politician.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
New Hampshire
Well for the last few hours i've been sitting at my computer addicted to the drudgereport. John McCain was an early call, beating Mitt Romney by several points but Clinton and Obama were within 2-3% of each other for about 2 hours. Drudge is calling it for Hillary Clinton so i send her all the congratulations i can. To Barack Obama i only hope that this doesn't deflate the wind from your sails.
Lets see what happens come Super Tuesday.
Lets see what happens come Super Tuesday.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Interesting article in 'The Australian'
This was a very interesting article in the Australian newspaper. It comments once again, on the US Iowa caucus and Barack Obama. I'm going to be travelling for the next few weeks. I'll try to update throughout the month but i'll be back in the middle of February.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23013962-7583,00.html
A Democrat even Republicans can like
Andrew Sullivan | January 07, 2008
THE historical analogies for the phenomenon that is Barack Obama have already stretched credibility. For a while, pundits likened him to the Democratic Party's 1950s effete loser Adlai Stevenson. But Obama doesn't seem like such an airhead after his gritty, crushing defeat of Hillary Clinton in Iowa.
So now the favourite analogy is JFK: the young, hopeful rhetorician urging a New Frontier after two terms of conservatism. But that doesn't work either: John F. Kennedy won by out-hawking Richard Nixon in 1960, and Obama is a clear anti-Iraq war candidate. Bobby Kennedy is more apposite: a mix of inner steel and an evolving moral candidacy. Just as a vote for RFK in 1968 was seen by many as a form of collective self-absolution for Vietnam, so Obama resonates among many Americans who do not recognise what their country has become these past few years.
The analogy that worries Republicans the most is a more recent one. Could Obama be a potential liberal version of Ronald Reagan? Could he do for the Democrats what Reagan did for the Republicans a quarter century ago? It's increasingly possible. Reagan was the cutting edge of the previous realignment in US politics. With a good-natured civil appeal to Democrats who felt abandoned by their party under Jimmy Carter, Reagan revolutionised the reach of his party.
He didn't aim for a mere plurality, as Bill Clinton did. Nor did he go for a polarising 51 per cent strategy, as George W. Bush has done. He ran as a national candidate in search of a national mandate, a proud Republican who nonetheless wanted Democrats to vote for him.
He came out of a period in which Americans had become sickened by the incompetence of their government. Reagan shocked US elites by pivoting that discontent into a victory in 1980. And by his second term, he won 49 out of 50 states.
You can see the same potential in Obama. What has long been remarkable to me is how this liberal politician fails to alienate conservatives. In fact, many like him a great deal. His calm and reasoned demeanour, his crisp style, his refusal to engage in racial identity politics: these appeal to disaffected Republicans.
He is particularly attractive to those on the US Right who feel betrayed by the Bush administration's version of conservatism, just as many Democrats felt betrayed by Carter's liberalism.
These voters -- non-evangelical, fiscally and militarily prudent, socially tolerant -- do not feel at home in the angry, southern, anti-immigrant Republican Party of the past few years.
Almost one-quarter of those voting in the Democratic caucus last Thursday night were Republicans or independents. In both categories, Obama beat Hillary Clinton by more than two to one. In New Hampshire, independents are even more prevalent and may well represent 40 per cent of the Democratic vote. (In Iowa as well as New Hampshire, you can change your party registration on the day of the vote.)
Reagan won a national victory on the strength of Reagan Democrats. Obama could win with Obama Republicans. That's remarkable in itself. When you realise he's also a liberal urban black man whose middle name is Hussein, it's gobsmacking.
Put these disaffected Republicans together with a spectrum of minorities and a black vote potentially greater than at any time in history, and you begin to see what Obama offers his own party.
The other strikingly Reaganite aspect to Obama is his appeal to the younger generation. People forget that the oldest president was extremely popular among the under-30s.
Obama has an almost cult-like standing on college campuses. The youth vote is always touted every four years but never materialises on polling day. Last Thursday, it came out in force. In Iowa, where the over-65 cohort usually outnumbers the under-30s by five to one, the old and the young were evenly divided.
Among the under-30s, Obama beat Clinton by 57 per cent to 11 per cent.
This generation, moreover, is a huge one: the boomer echo. Between Bush pushing them and Obama pulling them, the Democrats' advantage could define a generation's politics. And that's increasingly Obama's ambition. He has kept his ego in check, but he is clearly aiming for a large mandate rather than a small win. He isn't a Clinton in this respect or even a Bush. He is a Reagan, a Margaret Thatcher of the Left.
Mike Huckabee, meanwhile, is being discounted as not significant in the same sense. But it is, I'd say, very foolish to underestimate him as well. In the wreckage of the post-Bush Republican Party, Huckabee is the most talented natural politician. And he has taken Bushism to its logical conclusion.
He argues, proudly and simply, for a politics based overwhelmingly on religion. He refuses to apologise for previous statements that he wants to reclaim America for Christ or that people with AIDS should be quarantined. In Iowa, he won the born-again vote and the vote of Bush fans. He's the kind of preacher who lets you know he likes a beer and knows his rock'n'roll. It works. One slogan seemed as powerful as it is simple: I Like Mike. And so many do.
And, unlike Bush, Huckabee has combined a belief in the paternalist state with a hostility to Wall Street.
He is a potential builder of a future Republicanism that is as socially conservative as it is economically populist: extremely hostile to illegal immigrants, gay couples and abortion, but just as angry at big corporations, free trade and the globalised gilded elites. In making the case against Mitt Romney -- a multimillionaire former business consultant -- Huckabee argued that it was a choice between the bloke you work with and the man who sacks you.
The simmering class resentment, which is just beneath the surface, clearly motivates his supporters. When they were attacked by Washington Republicans as know-nothings, they responded by surging to the polls. They can smell the condescension. And it angers them.
It may be that Huckabee, as the conventional wisdom has it, cannot win the nomination. Underfunded, underorganised and a foreign policy embarrassment, he is unlikely to win New Hampshire against that state's favourite old codger, John McCain, or the slick former governor of neighbouring Massachusetts, Romney.
But South Carolina, brimming with evangelicals, is another matter. And talent counts. Huckabee's underrated skills have already begun to bring in more established advisers such as former Reagan aide Ed Rollins (now Huckabee's campaign manager) and Bill Clinton's scruples-free guru Dick Morris. Clinton himself is a fan.
Even if Huckabee falters this time around, he represents a viable future for the Republicans, albeit a very different one from the past. Huckabee represents the consolidation of the Republicans as a southern, religious, working-class party.
If he wins the nomination, he could push a lot of economic conservatives into the Democratic camp, lose badly and yet reshape his party: a reverse Barry Goldwater, turning Republicanism into something closer to religious populism than Yankee conservatism.
There is, of course, a natural tendency to overestimate the import of a single caucus. But so far the underestimaters have been the ones who have got this election wrong. Washington's elites assumed a match between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani this year. But they didn't see the turmoil remaking the US, and the deep hunger for a new direction. As unrest grows in Pakistan, as the US economy looks headed for a nasty downturn, I see no reason to think that the forces behind Obama and Huckabee will abate soon.
Yes, history happens. And Americans, exhausted from fear and war and economic insecurity, have just informed us that they can shape it again. I wouldn't bet against them.
Andrew Sullivan is a columnist for Britain's The Times.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23013962-7583,00.html
A Democrat even Republicans can like
Andrew Sullivan | January 07, 2008
THE historical analogies for the phenomenon that is Barack Obama have already stretched credibility. For a while, pundits likened him to the Democratic Party's 1950s effete loser Adlai Stevenson. But Obama doesn't seem like such an airhead after his gritty, crushing defeat of Hillary Clinton in Iowa.
So now the favourite analogy is JFK: the young, hopeful rhetorician urging a New Frontier after two terms of conservatism. But that doesn't work either: John F. Kennedy won by out-hawking Richard Nixon in 1960, and Obama is a clear anti-Iraq war candidate. Bobby Kennedy is more apposite: a mix of inner steel and an evolving moral candidacy. Just as a vote for RFK in 1968 was seen by many as a form of collective self-absolution for Vietnam, so Obama resonates among many Americans who do not recognise what their country has become these past few years.
The analogy that worries Republicans the most is a more recent one. Could Obama be a potential liberal version of Ronald Reagan? Could he do for the Democrats what Reagan did for the Republicans a quarter century ago? It's increasingly possible. Reagan was the cutting edge of the previous realignment in US politics. With a good-natured civil appeal to Democrats who felt abandoned by their party under Jimmy Carter, Reagan revolutionised the reach of his party.
He didn't aim for a mere plurality, as Bill Clinton did. Nor did he go for a polarising 51 per cent strategy, as George W. Bush has done. He ran as a national candidate in search of a national mandate, a proud Republican who nonetheless wanted Democrats to vote for him.
He came out of a period in which Americans had become sickened by the incompetence of their government. Reagan shocked US elites by pivoting that discontent into a victory in 1980. And by his second term, he won 49 out of 50 states.
You can see the same potential in Obama. What has long been remarkable to me is how this liberal politician fails to alienate conservatives. In fact, many like him a great deal. His calm and reasoned demeanour, his crisp style, his refusal to engage in racial identity politics: these appeal to disaffected Republicans.
He is particularly attractive to those on the US Right who feel betrayed by the Bush administration's version of conservatism, just as many Democrats felt betrayed by Carter's liberalism.
These voters -- non-evangelical, fiscally and militarily prudent, socially tolerant -- do not feel at home in the angry, southern, anti-immigrant Republican Party of the past few years.
Almost one-quarter of those voting in the Democratic caucus last Thursday night were Republicans or independents. In both categories, Obama beat Hillary Clinton by more than two to one. In New Hampshire, independents are even more prevalent and may well represent 40 per cent of the Democratic vote. (In Iowa as well as New Hampshire, you can change your party registration on the day of the vote.)
Reagan won a national victory on the strength of Reagan Democrats. Obama could win with Obama Republicans. That's remarkable in itself. When you realise he's also a liberal urban black man whose middle name is Hussein, it's gobsmacking.
Put these disaffected Republicans together with a spectrum of minorities and a black vote potentially greater than at any time in history, and you begin to see what Obama offers his own party.
The other strikingly Reaganite aspect to Obama is his appeal to the younger generation. People forget that the oldest president was extremely popular among the under-30s.
Obama has an almost cult-like standing on college campuses. The youth vote is always touted every four years but never materialises on polling day. Last Thursday, it came out in force. In Iowa, where the over-65 cohort usually outnumbers the under-30s by five to one, the old and the young were evenly divided.
Among the under-30s, Obama beat Clinton by 57 per cent to 11 per cent.
This generation, moreover, is a huge one: the boomer echo. Between Bush pushing them and Obama pulling them, the Democrats' advantage could define a generation's politics. And that's increasingly Obama's ambition. He has kept his ego in check, but he is clearly aiming for a large mandate rather than a small win. He isn't a Clinton in this respect or even a Bush. He is a Reagan, a Margaret Thatcher of the Left.
Mike Huckabee, meanwhile, is being discounted as not significant in the same sense. But it is, I'd say, very foolish to underestimate him as well. In the wreckage of the post-Bush Republican Party, Huckabee is the most talented natural politician. And he has taken Bushism to its logical conclusion.
He argues, proudly and simply, for a politics based overwhelmingly on religion. He refuses to apologise for previous statements that he wants to reclaim America for Christ or that people with AIDS should be quarantined. In Iowa, he won the born-again vote and the vote of Bush fans. He's the kind of preacher who lets you know he likes a beer and knows his rock'n'roll. It works. One slogan seemed as powerful as it is simple: I Like Mike. And so many do.
And, unlike Bush, Huckabee has combined a belief in the paternalist state with a hostility to Wall Street.
He is a potential builder of a future Republicanism that is as socially conservative as it is economically populist: extremely hostile to illegal immigrants, gay couples and abortion, but just as angry at big corporations, free trade and the globalised gilded elites. In making the case against Mitt Romney -- a multimillionaire former business consultant -- Huckabee argued that it was a choice between the bloke you work with and the man who sacks you.
The simmering class resentment, which is just beneath the surface, clearly motivates his supporters. When they were attacked by Washington Republicans as know-nothings, they responded by surging to the polls. They can smell the condescension. And it angers them.
It may be that Huckabee, as the conventional wisdom has it, cannot win the nomination. Underfunded, underorganised and a foreign policy embarrassment, he is unlikely to win New Hampshire against that state's favourite old codger, John McCain, or the slick former governor of neighbouring Massachusetts, Romney.
But South Carolina, brimming with evangelicals, is another matter. And talent counts. Huckabee's underrated skills have already begun to bring in more established advisers such as former Reagan aide Ed Rollins (now Huckabee's campaign manager) and Bill Clinton's scruples-free guru Dick Morris. Clinton himself is a fan.
Even if Huckabee falters this time around, he represents a viable future for the Republicans, albeit a very different one from the past. Huckabee represents the consolidation of the Republicans as a southern, religious, working-class party.
If he wins the nomination, he could push a lot of economic conservatives into the Democratic camp, lose badly and yet reshape his party: a reverse Barry Goldwater, turning Republicanism into something closer to religious populism than Yankee conservatism.
There is, of course, a natural tendency to overestimate the import of a single caucus. But so far the underestimaters have been the ones who have got this election wrong. Washington's elites assumed a match between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani this year. But they didn't see the turmoil remaking the US, and the deep hunger for a new direction. As unrest grows in Pakistan, as the US economy looks headed for a nasty downturn, I see no reason to think that the forces behind Obama and Huckabee will abate soon.
Yes, history happens. And Americans, exhausted from fear and war and economic insecurity, have just informed us that they can shape it again. I wouldn't bet against them.
Andrew Sullivan is a columnist for Britain's The Times.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Barack Obama
It's hard not to be swept up in Obama-mania.
He's just won the Iowa caucus and is giving a rousing speech thanking the people for having faith in him.
Here is a charismatic young man who has overcome the adversity of youth, financial difficulties and most importantly the colour of his skin. He's 20 years younger than his nearest Democratic rival and is a graduate of Harvard Law School. The man gives an amazing speech.
He will make an amazing president. Just not yet.
If Obama would accept the Vice President under Hillary Clinton (who has a wealth of foreign policy experience) it will remove all political taboos in the country. There will no longer be old, white, men running the country. With Hillary improving America's relations overseas and Obama taking care of the domestic front i'm sure that over the next 16 years of Democratic rule in the White House (8 for Hillary, 8 for Obama) i'm sure that America will be improved.
However, if Obama were to win presidency then i'm sure that he would surround himself with the best and the brightest of all the administration, including Hillary. I'm sure she'd make an amazing Secretary of State :)
He's just won the Iowa caucus and is giving a rousing speech thanking the people for having faith in him.
Here is a charismatic young man who has overcome the adversity of youth, financial difficulties and most importantly the colour of his skin. He's 20 years younger than his nearest Democratic rival and is a graduate of Harvard Law School. The man gives an amazing speech.
He will make an amazing president. Just not yet.
If Obama would accept the Vice President under Hillary Clinton (who has a wealth of foreign policy experience) it will remove all political taboos in the country. There will no longer be old, white, men running the country. With Hillary improving America's relations overseas and Obama taking care of the domestic front i'm sure that over the next 16 years of Democratic rule in the White House (8 for Hillary, 8 for Obama) i'm sure that America will be improved.
However, if Obama were to win presidency then i'm sure that he would surround himself with the best and the brightest of all the administration, including Hillary. I'm sure she'd make an amazing Secretary of State :)
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Two very interesting news articles
Shin Bet data shows dramatic drop in 2007 terror fatalities
By Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondent
Thirteen Israelis were killed by Palestinians in 2007, the lowest number in years, according to data released yesterday by the Shin Bet security service.
The fatality figures for 2006 and 2005 were 24 and 50, respectively.
Moreover, there was only one successful suicide bombing last year, down from six in 2006 and 60 during the intifada's worst year, 2002. That bombing, in Eilat last January, killed three people.
According to the Shin Bet, the sharp decline in terror stemmed not from a drop in the terrorists' motivation, but from Israel's success in foiling attacks. This success is based on three elements: the separation fence, superb intelligence, and the Israel Defense Forces' almost complete freedom of action in the West Bank.
The data show "as close as possible to a victory over terror," a senior defense official told Haaretz. "The IDF and Shin Bet succeeded in thwarting suicide terror, reducing it to a tolerable level."
In contrast to the sharp decline in suicide bombings, however, rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza continued apace. In total, Palestinians fired 1,263 rockets and 1,511 mortar shells at southern Israel last year, compared with 1,722 rockets and 55 mortars in 2006. Rocket attacks accounted for two of last year's fatalities, both in Sderot.
The Shin Bet estimates that 80 tons of explosives have been smuggled into Gaza since Hamas ousted Fatah in the strip last June, and that Hezbollah funnels $10 million a year to Palestinian terror groups.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/940526.html
and
Study: Number of Palestinians killed by IDF dropped 43% in '07
By Avi Issacharoff
The number of Palestinians killed by the Israel Defense Forces in 2007 decreased by 43 percent since last year, to 373, but the total number of Palestinians killed this year reached a record high because of the 344 Palestinians killed in the internecine conflict, the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem said in its year-end report.
The report also found a significant drop in the proportion of civilians killed, which decreased from 54 percent of the 657 Palestinians killed by IDF fire in 2006 to 35 percent of the 373 Palestinians killed between January 1 and December 29 of this year.
Fifty-three of the Palestinians were minors and the vast majority - 270 - were killed in the Gaza Strip.
In addition, seven Israeli civilians were killed by Palestinian fire in 2007 - the lowest number since the second intifada began.
Civilians killed
Three of the civilians were killed in a suicide bombing in Eilat, two by a Qassam rocket in Sderot and two in a shooting attack in the West Bank, while six Israeli security personnel were killed by Palestinian fire this year. In contrast, 17 Israeli civilians were killed in 2006, according to B'Tselem.
The organization also found that the settler population grew by 4.5 percent this year, far exceeding population growth but showing a lower rate of growth than last year, when the settler population increased by 5.8 percent.
There are 36 manned roadblocks in the West Bank that are along the Green Line, and another 66 that are not, B'Tselem found. It said the number of unmanned roadblocks, such as heaps of dirt or cement blocks blocking the entrance to villages, increased to 459 this year, compared to 445 in 2006 and 410 in 2005, but that the number of surprise IDF roadblocks decreased in the second half of 2007.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/940067.html
These reports indicate that the war on terror in Israel is being won with fewer civilian casualties on both sides. An aggressive military approach is halting terrorists before they have the chance to attack. Furthermore the army is adapting their methods to cope with urban warfare and using more non-lethal tactics. Hopefully within the next few years there will be results in single figures, and please god that figure will be 0.
By Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondent
Thirteen Israelis were killed by Palestinians in 2007, the lowest number in years, according to data released yesterday by the Shin Bet security service.
The fatality figures for 2006 and 2005 were 24 and 50, respectively.
Moreover, there was only one successful suicide bombing last year, down from six in 2006 and 60 during the intifada's worst year, 2002. That bombing, in Eilat last January, killed three people.
According to the Shin Bet, the sharp decline in terror stemmed not from a drop in the terrorists' motivation, but from Israel's success in foiling attacks. This success is based on three elements: the separation fence, superb intelligence, and the Israel Defense Forces' almost complete freedom of action in the West Bank.
The data show "as close as possible to a victory over terror," a senior defense official told Haaretz. "The IDF and Shin Bet succeeded in thwarting suicide terror, reducing it to a tolerable level."
In contrast to the sharp decline in suicide bombings, however, rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza continued apace. In total, Palestinians fired 1,263 rockets and 1,511 mortar shells at southern Israel last year, compared with 1,722 rockets and 55 mortars in 2006. Rocket attacks accounted for two of last year's fatalities, both in Sderot.
The Shin Bet estimates that 80 tons of explosives have been smuggled into Gaza since Hamas ousted Fatah in the strip last June, and that Hezbollah funnels $10 million a year to Palestinian terror groups.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/940526.html
and
Study: Number of Palestinians killed by IDF dropped 43% in '07
By Avi Issacharoff
The number of Palestinians killed by the Israel Defense Forces in 2007 decreased by 43 percent since last year, to 373, but the total number of Palestinians killed this year reached a record high because of the 344 Palestinians killed in the internecine conflict, the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem said in its year-end report.
The report also found a significant drop in the proportion of civilians killed, which decreased from 54 percent of the 657 Palestinians killed by IDF fire in 2006 to 35 percent of the 373 Palestinians killed between January 1 and December 29 of this year.
Fifty-three of the Palestinians were minors and the vast majority - 270 - were killed in the Gaza Strip.
In addition, seven Israeli civilians were killed by Palestinian fire in 2007 - the lowest number since the second intifada began.
Civilians killed
Three of the civilians were killed in a suicide bombing in Eilat, two by a Qassam rocket in Sderot and two in a shooting attack in the West Bank, while six Israeli security personnel were killed by Palestinian fire this year. In contrast, 17 Israeli civilians were killed in 2006, according to B'Tselem.
The organization also found that the settler population grew by 4.5 percent this year, far exceeding population growth but showing a lower rate of growth than last year, when the settler population increased by 5.8 percent.
There are 36 manned roadblocks in the West Bank that are along the Green Line, and another 66 that are not, B'Tselem found. It said the number of unmanned roadblocks, such as heaps of dirt or cement blocks blocking the entrance to villages, increased to 459 this year, compared to 445 in 2006 and 410 in 2005, but that the number of surprise IDF roadblocks decreased in the second half of 2007.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/940067.html
These reports indicate that the war on terror in Israel is being won with fewer civilian casualties on both sides. An aggressive military approach is halting terrorists before they have the chance to attack. Furthermore the army is adapting their methods to cope with urban warfare and using more non-lethal tactics. Hopefully within the next few years there will be results in single figures, and please god that figure will be 0.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
