I wish that every human life might be pure transparent freedom - Simone de Beauvoir

Note: If this page opens on my post, A Vision of Hope, please click on the blog title, Loving The Wolf, for the latest updates.

I don't have time to update my blog very often, so please check my Twitter Feed below.

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Sunday, February 3, 2008

    A Wolf At The Door


    By way of introduction
    - and I think this relates very specifically to my take on where America is at as a country right now, economically, politically and socially - I want to explore for a moment the decision I made in 2006, as someone who was born, grew up and spent a good deal of my adult life in Britain, to become a US citizen.  I was sworn in as such, with a good deal of pride and excitement on my part, despite my immeasurably negative feelings about the present US Administration, on September 22, 2006.

    It was not an easy decision.  It was prompted in no small part by the fact that I am married to an American (or to be more accurate, a Chinese-American, for my wife was born in Taiwan although she grew up in Florida), and even more so by the fact that we became the over-the-moon (I can think of no more accurate description) parents of a son in 2004.  A son who is, of course, an American citizen, but with an Anglo-Chinese heritage (or, if you speak to my wife or her parents, Chinese-Anglo), and who already proudly (on our part) holds in addition to an American passport, a British one - thus entitling him, as me, also to European Union citizenship.  We hope to get him a Taiwanese passport, too, for we believe that he is, above all and as we all are, a citizen of the world.


    A powerful factor for me in becoming a US citizen - and there are, I am sure, Americans who will not approve of this particular point, although they may be far less in number than they think - was the consideration that I did not have to surrender my British citizenship or passport.  I did, of course, have to swear an oath of allegiance to the Constitution and laws of the United States and "entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen," and I must confess that the renunciation of my allegiance to Britain was not something that came easily to me.

    But - and this may be splitting legal hairs here, and at times it almost feels like splitting my own - I did not have to stand (or kneel) before a British Ambassador, Consul, the Queen, or some other high official, and renounce my British citizenship to them.  I am fortunate in that both the United States Government and the British Government recognize the concept of dual nationality (the US Internal Revenue Service is less forgiving in its opinion, but that is another matter).  US law does not specifically mention dual nationality, but it also does not require a person to choose one citizenship or another.  In order to lose US citizenship, for instance, the law requires that a person must apply for foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with "the intention to give up US citizenship."

    So anyway, I am a citizen of both countries to a greater or lesser extent, but these days - having lived in the US since 1990 and, as I say, being the husband and father of Americans - I
    feel American: I still speak with a largely British accent (although some here in the US may mistake it for Australian or South African), but I spell American (a big deal for a professional writer), I behave in most respects like many other Americans (for good or bad), and to a large extent, I think American, in that these days I think first about my place in the world as an American, and not as a former inhabitant of that great island nation, Britain.


    All of this is by way of being a rather long preamble to the opinions I intend presenting in future columns about the state of America now, and how my feelings about it, while certainly colored by having lived here for eighteen years, are also colored by my experience of having been born and raised in Britain, and having traveled a good deal across all parts of the globe - from the wonders of the Australian Outback to the rugged beauty of the Iranian desert around Isfahan and Persepolis, while also enjoying (for there is nowhere that I have not enjoyed) the sub-tropical humidity and unforgettable people, food and colors of Hanoi and Havana, and the sub-freezing temperatures but equally unforgettable and warmly welcoming people of Barrow, Alaska, the northernmost point on continental North America.


    There is a reason that I have called this column A Wolf At The Door, and it is because I sense, with no claim to startling hyper-perception, that America is at a significant turning point in its history, and because, aside from outside threats such as terrorism, which have been vastly overplayed for political reasons over the past seven years of George W Bush's presidency (and I do not mean to dismiss those threats as illusory or minor), many fellow citizens that I talk to, or read, or listen to (primarily on National Public Radio, America's closest equivalent of BBC's Radio 4), express a sense of doubt - verging at times on fear - about the economy and the future direction of this country that I have not previously encountered in my time here.

    The economy, clearly, is in a mess, and while it may not prove to make the crash of 1929 look like a "walk in the park," as the Sunday Telegraph recently opined, the historically high level of house foreclosures, top-heavy mortgages, the price of gasoline (although perversely that has dropped in recent weeks) and unemployment all usher in scary echoes of the 1930s and the Great Depression: an era whose own mood was captured in a populist fashion by Walt Disney's stunningly successful and Oscar-winning 1933 short cartoon,
    The Three Little Pigs, which of course focused on the threat provided by the far more compelling character of the Big Bad Wolf, a figure who came to express, in cartoon form, the horrors of the Depression itself.


    I do not believe that we are headed for a depression or even recession on anything like the scale of the 1930s: the world is a different place now, the global economy is far more complex and interdependent, and while the Asian and European market plunge of two weeks' back was a sobering event, I feel confident that the lessons of the 1930s, and economic crises since, are precisely what will prevent us from slipping back into a period of such relentless hard times.

    We also have the undeniable excitement, here in the US, of one of the most unpredictable presidential electoral races in living history, with a mixed and open field on the Republican side (not, I confess, the side I favor), and an extraordinary choice between an electrifying African-American candidate, in Barack Obama, and a supremely intelligent and well-equipped woman, in Hillary Clinton, on the Democratic.

    But America, and Americans, are not nearly as confident as they were eight years ago (I still cannot comprehend the refusal of Republicans to admit that Bill Clinton's presidency was as close to a golden age as we are likely to come for a very long time), and the Wolf At The Door that I intend writing about is as much a dawning recognition that America's primacy is waning, as the specific economic woes that we may be facing.

    A friend - who is a solid representation of middle-class America, born in Washington state and now living, like me, in one of the farther reaches of Los Angeles' canyons - recently told me, as our children ice-skated at an outdoor rink set up in Santa Monica for the holidays (as the Christmas period is referred to here), that he was "so ready for America not to be number one anymore, and to have to endure all the hard knocks and responsibilities that come with that."

    Europeans, I know, will argue that America has never fully shouldered its responsibilities as a world leader, and has always acted first in its own best interests - but, truly, which country hasn't? And what I found fascinating was that I had never heard this sentiment uttered before: Americans have always been so proud of their position in the world that to admit for a moment that America's time may be passing (and that is presumptuous: I believe that the US will be a, if not the, major international power for the foreseeable future) would be to seem unpatriotic.


    So the Wolf may be at the Door, but equally we may be about to embark on four or eight years of "transformational" politics (to use the word Obama recently used, with some controversy, of Reagan's appeal as a leader), whether in the hands of, I pray, either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

    One of the greatest things about living here - and absolutely one of the reasons I moved here, after experiencing the devastating loss of a child to cancer - is America's enduring optimism.   And even if times are tough, and get tougher, that is not something that will go away.

    America may not always be Number One, but its spirit and energy - as evidenced by Obama's extraordinarily dynamic and inclusive campaign, and his appeal across racial and generational lines - will not die.

    Ask Not What JFK Can Do For Obama

    (My response in today's online edition of the New York Times, to Frank Rich's Op-Ed column about Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and JFK, titled Ask Not What JFK Can Do For Obama.)

    Frank Rich's Op-Ed on Obama's parallels with JFK is one of the most considered and compelling analyses of Obama's strengths that I have read. I am an Obama supporter for precisely the reasons that Rich cites: his integrity, his inclusiveness and his desire for a genuinely fresh approach to government, however naive that may be portrayed as sounding.

    After the Democratic Debate last week, I felt far more positively toward Hillary Clinton than I have so far in the campaign, partly because of the more congenial relationship on stage between the two candidates (however genuine or not that may have been), and partly, I confess, because my wife was watching with me, and she and most women I know feel that this is Hillary's last best chance, whereas Obama is young and can fight again.

    I don't mean that as the put-down of Hillary that it may at first seem: my wife and other friends who support her also point to her specificity on policy, her undeniably impressive intelligence, and the fact that she has experience on her side, not to mention her husband's experience, which again is not a put-down, because there are few spouses who could offer such valuable advice and experience themselves as Bill Clinton (I confess to having been a huge fan of his presidency, though less of his campaigning for his wife).

    But Obama offers something different, aside from what I believe to be his outstanding leadership qualities: the chance to put a truly fresh face on America, and that, I believe, is what is electrifying many of his supporters as much as anything else.

    Aside from what he may be able to achieve in Washington with a less adversarial style (although he is not afraid to pull punches: he drove home McCain's "100 years in Iraq" during the debate), the truly astonishing possibility that he may become America's ambassador to the world is one of the most thrilling aspects of his candidacy for President, and one of the most powerful echoes of JFK.

    After what will have been eight years of George W Bush, a president who will surely find a place in history as the nadir of American policy-making, certainly in the past hundred years (and I pray that the first four or eight of the next hundred are not shaped by McCain), Obama offers the chance of presenting a rejuvenated America to the world: an America that can perhaps, as did JFK's in the 1960s (the Cuban Missile Crisis notwithstanding), bring a sense of poetry and inspiration to people's lives, along with the policies to match it.

    No one knows the challenges the next President faces, just as no one could have fully anticipated that George W Bush would have to deal with 9/11. For that reason, I put my trust in my sense that Obama has the strength of character to rise to any challenge, to forge the policies and alliances necessary to move both the US and the world in a new direction.

    I will not regret a win by Hillary Clinton, if that should be the result, because she is a fine candidate, and in any other year I am certain that I would be fired up with enthusiasm for her, and for the chance to have a woman president. But a decisive victory by Barack Obama on Tuesday will be proof of a dynamic new energy in America - and one that I hope and pray will carry him on to the Presidency.

    Friday, February 1, 2008

    The Directors Guild Agreement Would Never Have Been Achieved Without The Writers Strike

    (First part of a thread started by me on the Internet Movie Database Message Boards, on Friday, January 18, 2008, arguing that the Directors Guild agreement with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers would never have been reached without the leverage of the Writers Strike)

    First, this agreement was not reached in 6 days. The DGA had been having informal talks with the producers' body, the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, long before the formal negotiations began, as they always do.

    Second, and most importantly, there is absolutely no way that the DGA would have achieved this deal without the leverage provided to them by the Writers Guild strike - and the incredible support of the Screen Actors Guild to the writers.

    Whether the WGA and SAG accept this deal - or something like it - is up to their leaders' and memberships' analysis of the terms of the deal, but it was the sacrifices of the writers - and all those who have lost their jobs, or suffered economically - that achieved this agreement.

    I am sorry for all the fans who missed the Golden Globes or their favorite TV shows, but every critical protection for writers, actors, directors and other creative personnel in television and movies - and by this, I mean healthcare, pensions and even the concept of residuals or royalties - was won by the guilds striking in the past. The studios and networks would never have given us any of those basic rights (and we are the ones who provide them with the product they sell) without the courageous writers and actors who struck in the past. (The directors struck once, but only for five minutes.)

    As a writer, I thank the WGA for my family's healthcare and pension. I thank the studios for work, but I believe strongly that a fair society includes protection for its workers, not just payment.

    Writers Strike - Los Angeles Times Comment, November 26, 2007

    (Part of a thread of comments in the Los Angeles Times about the Writers Strike)

    Dear Pragmatic Realist:

    Writers actually do more than stare at their navels, and we all greatly value teachers, nurses, doctors, truck drivers and everyone else who delivers essential services to our lives.  But writing has value, too.  Hopefully at our best we entertain and illuminate human behavior.

    We just want a tiny portion of the huge sums that all the big media moguls are confident they are going to make from the web and other future outlets.  We should all endeavor to claim our full worth - while never diminishing anyone else's.

    Submitted by: Alexander Chow-Stuart, November 26, 2007

    The Writers Strike - Mediabistro.com











    (From mediabistro.com, Thursday, November 8, 2007)

    Alexander Chow-Stuart has a nifty idea for all those thrown out of work by the WGA strike:

    Put on a show!

    Commenting at the indispensable
    Nikki Finke's site, he suggests that the WGA website become the new home of online entertainment:

    I'm not suggesting that we try to create an alternative to network programming (although I wish we could), but why not at the very least take some of our best people OFF the picket lines and have them do what they do best: write and create hugely enjoyable entertainment?

    I could see the SNL crew creating smart, funny, sharp sketches - or another rap video like Chris Parnell and Andy Samberg's Lazy Sunday - about the strike, about the behind-the-scenes negotiations, such as they were - and about how this strike impacts ordinary people.

    Is this genius or what?

    Barack Obama: A Real Opportunity For Change

    (Various comments from me responding to a piece by Gideon Rachman in January 28's Financial Times FT.com site, about Barack Obama's landslide win in South Carolina's Democratic Primary.)

    Gideon Rachman's International Affairs Blog - FT.com

    January 28, 2008


    Why victory in South Carolina is bad news for Obama

    I realise that is hard to argue that a big victory in the South Carolina primary was bad news for Barack Obama. But once you examine the details of the vote, that's the way it looks to me.


    From the very beginning, the Obama campaign has been at pains not to play the race card. The idea is that he is a candidate who is black, not a black candidate. But in South Carolina, the Democratic electorate split clearly on racial lines. As Ed Luce points out in today's Financial Times - "Only one in four whites who voted opted for Mr Obama, against eight out of 10 blacks." A racially polarised electorate can sweep Obama to victory in South Carolina. It would mean certain defeat on national level.

    It is open to debate whether the Clinton campaign has deliberately injected race into the campaign, as some Obama supporters allege. But Bill Clinton's comparison of Obama to Jesse Jackson in the wake of the South Carolina primary was certainly none too subtle. The irony is that Obama has actually striven to be very different from Jackson, who won several primaries in 1988. He has even been rebuked by Jackson for neglecting black and civil-rights issues.

    A friend of mine met Jackson in Chicago recently and asked him if he had been surprised by the turn the campaign had taken. His reply was - "Not at all. This is the Clintons you are dealing with."

    Comments

    I am writing from California, as a US citizen who also holds a British passport (because I was born and spent much of my life in the UK), and I find this article sad, in that it disparages the huge victory Barack Obama achieved on Saturday, without resorting to the depressingly familiar negative campaigning of the Clintons (and I believe that Bill Clinton's presidency was one of the most positive and successful in recent American history).

    Obama offers, as both Ted and Caroline Kennedy have said in the past 24 hours, a chance for a fresh start in America, a new optimism and a break with the divisive policies of the past - not to mention the disastrous, war-mongering presidency of Bush, Cheney et al.

    Obama has shown great intelligence, dignity, compassion, courage and inclusiveness, and I believe that he has the strength of character required to face whatever challenges a new presidency may bring: a more critical consideration than specific policies, in my opinion.

    Besides that, on a factual note, I believe that the most optimistic polls predicted an 18% white vote for Obama in South Carolina, so 25% is a considerable victory. And his numbers among young white voters are high and growing every day. But hopefully this election will be decided on character, intelligence and ability, and not whether Obama is black, white or any combination of the two.

    Posted by: Alexander Chow-Stuart | January 28, 2008 at 10:23 PM | Report this comment


    Enrique--No offence intended. I suspect you must be Latin American, and my point is tied to the US' exceptional and regretable history with colour. Politically, I can still not see the names Chavez and Morales on the same line as Obama. Obama is not a populist and it is the novelty of his skin colour that enables his opponents to cast him as such.

    The past two weeks' noise from the US had led me to write the US political process off as history, but then the Kennedy rally for Mr Obama reintroduced many of the country's best attributes. The American University speeches by both the candidate and his still powerful supporters will likely raise the quality of the debate and perhaps inspire a new generation to take their place in the nation's destiny.

    Permit me to add that Obama shares little in common with our Sarkozy, whose campaign book evolved from conference rooms where the Clintons' notes were being cut and pasted.

    Posted by: WCM | January 28, 2008 at 10:23 PM | Report this comment


    Alexander Chow-Stuart's post captures the reasoning and sentiment of a large part of the US' educated and 21st-century voters. One doesn't need to be reciting the lyrics to Arcade Fire's Neon Bible ("Windowsill" caught my ear, though) to find something genuinely refreshing and positive behind the Obama campaign. Yes. There are issues to be addressed and many more awaiting thoughtful responses. But this is one helluva start.

    A warning can be discerned from two sets of liberal American friends: women and Jews. The first have found a gender champion in Hillary (whom for me fails to merit a doorstop in the Pantheon of great and noble women--and I sort of like her). The second group--absent any true Bush supporters or Neocons--fear that Obama will go soft on Israel's agenda. It trust they are right and that Obama will strike a more balanced approach for the region. For both of these groups, Obama's middle name is not a source of comfort. Women are the support base for the massively overreaching security agenda.

    Posted by: WCM | January 28, 2008 at 10:40 PM | Report this comment


    I greatly appreciate WCM's response to my comment, and can only hope that women across America not only embrace Obama, but also realize that the threats that face us (the economy, education, healthcare, the environment, to name a few) are so much more than terrorism - although the Bush Administration has rattled that saber relentlessly since 9/11.

    I would not for a moment diminish the reality of the problems we face with violent extremism of all kinds, but regarding Israel, for instance, while I would not wish us to abandon our support for the country at such a critical time, a far more balanced approach to the region as a whole could only help our security position in the world.

    This is one of the reasons that I think Obama would be a truly great American president: he will present a face of America to the world that will, I believe (and I speak as a former European), pretty much astonish them, and thus he is capable of undoing so many of the wrongs that we have committed in the past seven years.

    No one would be happier than I to see a woman president, either (although I suffered through Margaret Thatcher's horrific dismantling of much of what was good about Britain; tempered, I must confess, by a certain energy she brought to a country that in the 1970s was deeply depressing), but I believe that Barack Obama would - and hopefully will - usher in a whole new era in American and world politics.

    And on a lesser note, if Hillary wins, just imagine how the Republicans are going to revisit their hatred of the Clintons that so beleaguered Bill's tenure. That's part of the break with the past that I believe Obama offers.

    Posted by: Alexander Chow-Stuart | January 28, 2008 at 11:05 PM | Report this comment


    I hope the young voters are prepared for the ultimate cost of electing an inexperienced 1-term Senator to POTUS; this cost will be inflicted as The Obamasiah attempts to put his lovely words in action against the enemies that exist in the real world. Somehow, I can't see "Change" stopping a nuke going off in a major US City. I'm sure any of the (D) candidates will meet with Al-Quaeda's approval, as well as that of Hugo Chavez and Ahmadinutjobbi.

    Posted by: DMO | January 28, 2008 at 11:08 PM | Report this comment


    Alexander--My comments on Israel target the current wave of Israeli exceptionalism that drives policy there and amongst her allies. Israel's place in this world is well-defined and established in international law. All can do better in resolving the lamentable situation that dominates political discourse around the world. Israel, particularly, needs to assume its role as a regional citizen and evolve from its State of Victims mindset. The US needs to rethink the co-dependency that its failed policies have fostered with Israel and the Gulf oil states. Mindsets must change, and Obama may be offering that.

    The comments by the poster above are exactly as I had expected would arrive.

    Posted by: WCM | January 28, 2008 at 11:39 PM | Report this comment


    WCM, I fully agree with your sentiments regarding Israel, its State of Victims mindset (I was thinking of that on Martin Luther King Day when I heard an account of an African-American slave's sale and purchase - and thought that buying and selling human life during slavery was just as horrific a crime as the Holocaust), and our codependent relationship.

    As for the comments of the poster sandwiched between us, those who fear a nuke going off in one of our cities should reflect upon the fact that each of us is far likelier to die crossing the street, or from our generally appalling diet, than such an eventuality. I don't mean to suggest that we don't have enemies, but some of them we have earned (and Obama may do something to reverse that), and we need to address the threat they pose without making it the guiding light - or shadow - of our lives.

    I lived in London through the IRA bombing campaign of the 1970s and 1980s, and saw a bridge blown up by ETA in San Sebastian, Spain, but none of that created in me the sense of hysteria and fear that Bush has tried to engender - and that, thank god, seems to be abating somewhat now.

    Posted by: Alexander Chow-Stuart | January 29, 2008 at 12:19 AM | Report this comment


    Wake up Democrats you’re playing into exactly what the Republicans want. They are hoping for a Barack Obama win so they don’t have to go up against Hillary. The media, including CNN, MSNBC and FOXNews are all helping them get what they want. The media has created this huge controversy over race – not Barack, Hillary, Bill or their campaigns! The male dominated media seems to also be afraid of a Hillary win. The thought of a women in power is bringing out the worse in the media – they are making up the news instead of reporting what is really going on. Women and Men who truly want a change, get out and vote for Hillary – don’t let the media and the republicans control this one!

    Hillary for President
    Indicted political fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko leaves Chicago's federal building in this Oct. 19, 2006, file photo. Rezko, who has poured thousands of dollars into Barack Obama's political campaigns, was arrested by federal agents Monday, Jan. 28, 2008, after his $2 million bail was revoked. Rezko has pleaded not guilty to charges of fraud, attempted extortion and money laundering, and is scheduled to stand trial Feb. 25.

    Posted by: Joe Texas | January 29, 2008 at 03:02 AM | Report this comment


    I have enormously enjoyed following the discussion on this comments page. Posters "WCM and Alexander Chow-Stuart" are quite astute and neatly sum up the situation.

    Posted by: MMK | January 29, 2008 at 03:15 AM | Report this comment


    Is the Media ready to take an objective look at Mr Obama?

    We recall that a year ago, Mr Jacob Weisberg, Slate's editor, wrote categorically in this paper that a Mormon should be virtually disqualified, as Mormonism was not a historically or critically tested faith. I am not a supporter of Mr Romney, but I have observed from this distance that the Media has held him suspect.

    Likewise, the Media seems to have embraced the Obama phenomenon so far as it has been amusing (sells papers), but now appears caught off their guard. He represents more free thinkers than the financially "enfranchised" lot of talking heads trained by the media's own agency network (Burston Marstellar, Sawyer Miller, et al).

    Fear is not unfounded, and Obama needs to answer tough questions about the Reznick (sp?) case in Chicago. Yet, let us not forget Hillary's dubious professionalism when she was a Little Rock lawyer, and since for some questionable corporate interests.

    In this thread, tough questions are due of Obama on his father's native Kenya and how he what he sees in its future. Tough questions are due of him on contradictions in his comments on the Middle East. Tough questions are due of him on his view/knowledge of Europe, China, Russia and Latin America.

    Begin with Cuba, where John McCain is striding alongside the same Miami right-wing CAF bandits that Bill Clinton embraced in the Florida primaries of 2002. The latter reversed a policy plank (which he had long supported) of the Democratic party in order to win a decisive poll. Where does Hillary stand on Cuba?

    Az many have observed, Mr Rachman seems to have written a piece here that was "on message". Between his clever phrases, one can sense bewilderment and a determination to bring his readers back on page. Obama and Kennedy went back to an old page and made it relevant again. So, we may just have a pivotal debate in this world if Mssrs Rachman, Weisberg, Joan Walsh and others whom I respect are seen scratching their heads over the next few weeks.

    Posted by: WCM | January 29, 2008 at 08:23 AM | Report this comment


    Good points, but don't forget that when you look at only white males, Obama finished only 1 or 2 percentage points behind Hillary. That's a fairly good showing in a state like SC.

    Posted by: Jonathan | January 29, 2008 at 02:14 PM | Report this comment


    As a veteran of the current Writers Strike in Hollywood, let me just say that posts such as the one beginning, "Wake up Democrats you’re playing into exactly what the Republicans want," have the precise tone - and deliberately clumsy grammar - of the work of Chris Lehane of Fabiani and Lehane, the high-profile PR firm working for Hillary's campaign, which was briefly and unsuccessfully hired by the Association of Motion Picture and Television Producers, the Bad Guys (as far as we are concerned) in the writers dispute (ie the studios, networks and conglomerates).

    Fabiani and Lehane would post on the various blogs relating to the strike, posing as disgruntled writers or below-the-line workers (film crew, carpenters, etc), and this posting here, arguing that the Republicans want "a Barack Obama win so they don’t have to go up against Hillary," has the same kind of counterintuitive logic that F&L love to use.

    I think the Republicans would be more scared by a nation fired up with enthusiasm for a truly fresh, transformative (to use the word Barack himself used of Reagan) candidate, than by Hillary Clinton, for whom I'm sure they would be happy to resurrect the ghosts of Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky and so much more.

    Posted by: Alexander Chow-Stuart | January 29, 2008 at 03:30 PM | Report this comment


    A quick glance today at a few of the chattering-class sites and little has been found on the Kennedy's American University rally for Obama. Cuban-American Federation support for a near-peer of Castro (McCain) is well covered, if NOT well discussed.

    Perhaps Christopher Hitchens' targeting of the Clintons is one of the strategies that the PR firm you mention. If he is against them, then surely self-respecting, educated Democrats must be on the other side. When I found a column by hil today, I paused, as it is rare our viewpoints have much in common.

    Posted by: WCM | January 29, 2008 at 04:15 PM | Report this comment


    A few moments ago, the Clinton couple announced their much ballyhooed "endorsement": Congresswoman Maxine Waters. Sorry, but I've tracked US political affairs for awhile and will need to Wikipedia this woman's name to refresh my memory. I know she is black and I recall that she was a fierce defender of Bill Clinton during his Monica crisis.

    So, how can one not read this as less than a move to cheapen Obama? It plays again on race, and their hype through press emails today insults one of the Senate's grandees.

    This same online journal, which is not short on articles during the past 24 hours, saw fit to advise readers of the Clinton pre-announcement hype during the afternoon and then quickly provide details 30 minutes ahead of schedule. They did not see fit to report yesterday's rally, apart from a weekend article anticipating it.

    My taxi driver in this foreign city where I am visiting and speak the local language just asked me if I had heard about Kennedy's support for Obama. It is big news here; I doubt Hillary's friend will be. But people here do not vote; we only live with the consequences of the media-fed, label-bound voters there do (certainly they think too little).

    My sense is that the US politic will grow sadly uglier in the weeks and months ahead. Who is backing this game? Why?

    Posted by: WCM | January 29, 2008 at 07:11 PM | Report this comment


    I'm intrigued as to which foreign city WCM is in. But more to the point, it is interesting that in today's admittedly fairly meaningless Florida Democratic Primary (meaningless because the Democratic Party stripped Florida of its delegates as punishment for moving the primary up without permission from the party), Obama won almost 30% of the vote, at the time of writing, compared to Hillary's 48% and Edwards' 14%.

    This in a state where the Democratic candidates didn't campaign.

    Now maybe Hillary could have won more votes if she and Bill had campaigned in Florida - but equally, especially after Saturday's South Carolina triumph, Obama might have significantly closed the gap, had he traveled through the state. I have not seen him live, but every friend I have who has says that he is totally on point, charismatic and compelling, that he talks without notes and is a truly commanding presence.

    Let's see what next week's Super Tuesday brings.

    Posted by: Alexander Chow-Stuart | January 30, 2008 at 07:22 AM | Report this comment


    Alexander CS,

    Thanks for pointing out the plant, although anyone who has had experience with the Clintons can generally spot them. "Iron My Shirt" was one, and so blatent! But, frankly, to find them closer to home all I have to do is take a look at one of the Murdoch papers. I can see Clinton-plants a plenty.

    For example: here is the link to the Times UK edition (they wouldn't try such rot with US readers)

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/

    The (smallish headline) is of McCain's Fla win. Next to it the page is dominated by a picture of--you guessed it!--(soon-to-be)Queen Hillary herself with the unbelievable footer:

    "Hillary hails Florida primary landslide as Barack Obama cries spin"

    Now you know and I know and Am voters know there *was* no Dem primary and no Dem campaigning in FLA, but this did not deter the Clintons--they created a virtual primary, with a virtual win, and Queen Hill (I hope not)actually declared victory!

    Bizarre,eh? Cynical.

    Typical, I'm afraid. The Clintons are such fantasists. (But we knew that.)

    Posted by: MaryCunningham | January 30, 2008 at 09:20 AM | Report this comment

    Six Is Too Young To Make A Child Read

    (Letter to British Sunday newspaper, The Observer, Sunday November 25, 2007, concerning the proposed Conservative Party policy to mandate reading for children by the age of six.)

    As an expatriate living in Los Angeles, and the father of a three-year-old boy, I am horrified by the Tory proposal to force-feed the ability to read to children by six.


    We have chosen for our son the Waldorf (Steiner in Europe) philosophy of education, which places a high emphasis on extending childhood as long as possible.

    Our son has loved books since he was a tiny baby. All it takes is for parents to read aloud to a child. At a month old, he was choosing to listen to the rhythms of the poems in Robert Louis Stevenson's, A Child's Garden of Verse, over other, more simplistic fare. Learning is natural.

    If you excite a child's interest in the world around them, they will ask a million questions and want to learn. But standardised testing at six is a terrible, terrible idea, and speaks more of the paucity of our culture than a real desire to stimulate a child's excitement about the world.