See how deftly it’s done? Stupid religious Americans, clever “heathen” Europeans. Unfortunately, in the context, this doesn’t make a heck of a lot of sense. Americans are opposed to stem cell research because we’re ignorant religious bigots. Okay, sure. But we’re opposed to nanotechnology for the same reasons? And GM foods?
GM foods? Now wait a second…a lot of Europeans are opposed to GM foods. I bet they would even say it’s on moral grounds! Yet somehow, they manage to pull that off without being either 1) religious or — more importantly — 2) stupid. Personally, I think being morally opposed to GM foods is kind of stupid, and being “morally” opposed to nanotechnology is idiotic. However, I don’t see how American stupidity is dumber than European stupidity; one may be informed by religious belief, the other by a paranoid superstitious dread of scientific progress. Advantage: Europe? If you say so.
I just hope that Americans aren’t stupid enough to fall for Obama, as the Democrats currently seem to be.
As for the NRA logo, it’s a reminder of the happy days of FDR’s attempts to revive the economy by pouring a bowl of alphabet soup over its face. The NRA, among other things, was intended to prevent the depredations of competition, and “allowed industry heads to collectively set minimum prices,” as this rather scant wikipedia entry notes. (The same page relates the story of the tailor who was arrested for charging 35 cents to press a suit; the NRA rules specified the price at 40 cents. So he was arrested. Consider that the next time someone complains that liberty and civil rights have been eliminated in the last 7 years.)
I don’t know whether he does or not, but his wife’s attitude is very troubling, and I don’t think that he’s going to be the next president. I think that the first (true) black (and woman) president is much more likely to be a Republican.
[Update a few minutes later]
Isn’t it interesting that the American press doesn’t seem interested in stories like this one? I guess that it’s just another example of foreigners doing the jobs that Americans won’t do.
This would be a gift to the Clinton campaign, if they were in a position to criticize people over land deals. You can bet that the McCain campaign will use it in the general, if Obama gets the nod.
Michael Kinsley has the best take so far on McCain and the New York Times:
I have come under some criticism for my criticism of the New York Times for its criticism of Sen. John McCain. Many readers of last week’s New York Times article about McCain, including me, read that article as suggesting that McCain may have had an affair with a lobbyist eight years ago. The Times, however, has made clear that its story was not about an affair with a lobbyist. Its story was about the possibility that eight years ago, aides to McCain had held meetings with McCain to warn him about the appearance that he might be having an affair with the lobbyist. This is obviously a much more important question. To be absolutely clear: The Times itself was not suggesting that there had been an affair or even that there had been the appearance of an affair. The Times was reporting that there was a time eight years ago when some people felt there might be the appearance of an affair, although others, apparently including McCain himself, apparently felt that there was no such appearance.
Driving, or walking? John Tierney stirs up a hornet’s nest of vegans and other morally overrighteous high-horse riders (see comments). I mean, to question Ed Begley, Jr. Isn’t that just the height of apostacy?
This reminds me of a piece that I’ve been thinking of writing about overall energy and fuel costs, including human fuel. With the ethanol boondoggle, we’ve gone back to the point at which we’re using crops for transportation (something we largely left behind at the end of the nineteenth century) and we now have increasing prices in both food and fuel as they compete with each other for the same farmland. This isn’t a good trend for the Third World (consider that one of the effects of the ethanol subsidies has been a dramatic increase in corn and tortilla costs in Mexico, making a poor country even more so).
The Clintons turned the Democratic party into a star vehicle and designated everyone else as extras. But their star quality was strictly comparative. They had industrial-strength audacity and a lot of luck: Bill jumped into the 1992 race when A-listers like Mario Cuomo were too cowed by expert advice that Bush Snr. was unbeatable. Clinton gambled, won the nomination and beat a weak opponent in a three-way race, with Ross Perot siphoning votes from the right. He got even luckier four years later. So did Hillary when she embarked on something patently absurd — a First Lady running for a Senate seat in a state she’s never lived in — only to find Rudy Giuliani going into instant public meltdown. The SAS, Britain’s special forces, have a motto: Who dares wins. The Clintons dared, and they won — even as almost everyone else in their party lost: senators, congressmen, governors, state legislators. Even when they ran into a spot of intern trouble, sheer nerve saw them through. Almost anyone else would have slunk off in shame, but the Clintons understood that the checks and balances don’t add up to much if you’re determined not to go: As at that 2000 convention speech, they dared the Democrats not to cheer.
With hindsight, the oral sex was a master stroke. Bill Clinton likes to tell anyone who’ll listen that he governed as an “Eisenhower Republican,” which is kind of true — NAFTA, welfare reform, etc. If you have to have a Democrat in the Oval Office, he was as good as it gets for Republicans — if you don’t mind the fact that he’s a draft-dodging non-inhaling sex fiend. Republicans did mind, of course, which is why Dems rallied round out of boomer culture-war solidarity. But, if he hadn’t been dropping his pants and appealing to so many of their social pathologies, his party wouldn’t have been half so enthusiastic for another chorus of “I Like Ike.”
I have to say that I’m not sure that it’s fair to judge her by this (though attempting to hide it somewhat increased the justification for why we might want to). Her recent words are bad enough in themselves, in my opinion.
Again, what she thought and wrote as a college student is much less important (and perhaps not important at all) compared to what she says, writes and (to the limited degree we can ascertain it) thinks now.
I have to say that I’m not sure that it’s fair to judge her by this (though attempting to hide it somewhat increased the justification for why we might want to). Her recent words are bad enough in themselves, in my opinion.
Again, what she thought and wrote as a college student is much less important (and perhaps not important at all) compared to what she says, writes and (to the limited degree we can ascertain it) thinks now.