The New Yorker drew fire from readers - as well as from both sides of the presidential campaign - for a recent cover cartoon depicting Barack Obama and wife Michelle as terrorist sympathisers.

In a tongue-in-cheek show of "solidarity", Vanity Fair has evened up the political score by sending up Republican candidate John McCain and wife Cindy in its August issue.

The Vanity Fair cartoon portrays a doddery McCain clutching a zimmer frame while his wife holds bottles of pills.

The Constitution burns in the fireplace below a clownish portrait of US President George Bush.

The magazine, which looked on "with a mixture of empathy and better-you-than-us relief" at the commotion caused by the New Yorker cover, said it published its riposte as "a selfless act of solidarity"...

"Solidarity"? That must definitely be tongue-in-cheek. After all, they aren't taking the risk exactly of reprinting Muslim prophet Muhammad cartoons. And one other small problem with it exists, too:

It isn't satire. Why?

As we know, major media on the whole --- including Vanity Fair --- definitely does NOT see the Obamas in the way the New Yorker cartoon portrayed them. The New Yorker got into hot water with Sen Obama because it was purportedly trying to satirize the views of totally moronic imbeciles with no reasons whatsoever to be concerned about the religio-cultural outlook of the Senator and the politics of his wife. But the magazine did so haughtily, for its "knowing," small audience, without realizing that the Obamas' public persona generally, beyond his worshippers among its readership, remains still very new, and very fluid.

In short, there are those in the public who do see Sen Obama and his wife in exactly the manner "satirized," which is why Sen Obama himself wasn't pleased. Similarly, some in the public undoubtedly also DO see the McCains precisely like that cover. However, that cover substantively parts company from the New Yorker's because it is clearly not meant to be satirizing how ignorantly or stupidly those people view the McCains.

For unlike their take on the Obamas (halos at the ready), much major media actually DO see the McCains pretty much that way: a geriatric, with a pill popping wife, who hates the Constitution and worships at the altar of "Bushism." Of course, given that many of their own staffers do seem to be drug-addled, the prescription drugs, though, media can probably live with. But because the above merely reflects how most MSM actually views the McCains, it doesn't therefore qualify as satire: rather, it is, essentially, an editorial cartoon.

_____________________________

Similarly, even if the Independent terms this "satire" --- which the Indy clearly does --- it is not:

Because what exactly is it "satirizing?" Sen Obama's big ears? His chin? Of course not. It is simply an outright expression, in cartoon form, of the Independent's editorial wishes to sit back and watch how "McCain's gonna be hamburger."

But the paper appears to have gone overboard. That cartoon is just as easily likely to disgust quite a few Indy readers. After all, who would have thought the thoughtful paper would have ever stooped to the appalling level of having a political hero make light of animal butchery and the wasteful production of planet-destroying, non-vegan foodstuffs?

_____________________________

You want satire? Gerard Baker, in The Times:

...On the Seventh Day he walked across the Channel of the Angles to the ancient land of the hooligans. There he was welcomed with open arms by the once great prophet Blair and his successor, Gordon the Leper, and his successor, David the Golden One.

And suddenly, with the men appeared the archangel Gabriel and the whole host of the heavenly choir, ranks of cherubim and seraphim, all praising God and singing: “Yes, We Can.”

Now, that is satire. (If you read only one full piece on the net today, go unto it, and make it "the one".)

Keaves? That isn't some old Yiddish expression, or NY-ese, for departing the Holy Land? Assuming not, it seems the Illinois (half-term, thus far) Senator is even leaving new words behind, wherever he trods. It's magical, really.

...if it’s immodesty, vanity, and narcissism you’re looking for, how about Krauthammer himself? What does he do but pontificate without expertise in newspaper columns and on the Sunday talk shows, dishing out partisan hackery and vicious smears without ever being held to account?...

Does one wonder? If one actually does, objectively speaking a case arguably could be made that Mr Krauthammer has more intellectual expertise than Sen Obama himself. (Is that even possible, you ask?) Time Magazine:

...For two decades, his influential writings have helped frame the very shape of American foreign policy. He coined and developed "The Reagan Doctrine" (TIME, April 1985), defined the structure of the post-Cold War world in "The Unipolar Moment" (Foreign Affairs, 1990/1991), and outlined the principles of post-9/11 American foreign policy in his much-debated Irving Kristol Lecture, "Democratic Realism" (AEI Press, March 2004).

Born in New York City and raised in Montreal, Krauthammer was educated at McGill University (B.A. 1970), Oxford University (Commonwealth Scholar in Politics) and Harvard (M.D. 1975). While serving as a resident and then chief resident in psychiatry at the Massachusetts General Hospital, he published scientific papers, including his co-discovery of a form of bipolar disease, that continue to be cited in the psychiatric literature...

Just trifles, those, clearly. In wondering, though, another question may then pop to mind suddenly: What has one Michael Stickings ever done to enable himself to feel he can question Mr Krauthammer's "expertise"? Well, Mr Stickings's web site tells us he is . . .

...a senior policy adviser, Democratic Institutions, Cabinet Office, of the Government of Ontario, Canada. He did his B.A. at Tufts University before heading to Toronto to pursue graduate studies in political science and medieval studies. He is on leave from the University of Toronto, where he is a Ph.D. candidate in political science. His academic focus is the history of political philosophy, and his dissertation research examines the political thought of Matthew Arnold within the context of modern liberalism. He occasionally describes himself as a liberal Straussian.

Michael is the founder and editor of The Reaction, a liberal group blog on politics, philosophy, science, and culture. He was a featured blogger at John Edwards One America Committee Blog and has been a guest blogger at The Carpetbagger Report. Aside from politics and blogging, his interests include writing and reading fiction, history, film, art history, Japanese culture, Pink Floyd, and fantasy sports. He loves the Montreal Canadiens and the Pittsburgh Steelers. He lives and works in Toronto and spends as much time as possible in England and Prince Edward Island.

Impressive, all that, undoubtedly. (Especially his knowledge of England, certainly unshared by about 50 million others.) It is a shame also that, for that blog post, Mr Stickings didn't do some google research. No "immodesty, vanity, and narcissism" in him, though, presumably.

Serbia said its security forces had captured Radovan Karadzic, the mastermind of the genocidal Srebrenica massacre who had been on the run for nearly 13 years....

..."A major thug has been removed from the scene," former US envoy to the Balkans Richard Holbrooke said, describing Karadzic as the "Osama Bin Laden of Europe."

But for some Serbs he remains a hero of the 1992-1995 war which followed Bosnia's independence from the Yugoslav federation, a man who stood up to age-old enemies and great powers and carved out a separate Serb homeland...

The Telegraph:

...Karadzic was reportedly arrested just after 11pm, after police swarmed the exclusive central Belgrade neighbourhood of Vracar, one of the city’s oldest areas...

...For years, allegedly shielded by contacts and allies in power in Belgrade, he remained one step ahead of Nato-led raids launched to capture him.

Now, however, the balance of power in Serbia appears to have shifted decisively against him, and he has been taken into custody...

Which goes to show just how long sometimes this sort of thing takes. Governments may have to change. More importantly, also, attitudes may need to change. (Remember, in a major shift from where it was in 1996, Serbia wants to join the European Union.) And, interestingly, Reuters notes:

..."Karadzic was located and arrested," President Boris Tadic said in a terse statement on Monday night that Bosnian Muslims had begun to despair of ever hearing...

Backing up a bit, considering the NATO and the EU's view of the man, the "Osama bin Laden of Europe" is, well, Osama bin Laden. But we understand what Mr Holbrooke perhaps means --- Karadzic was similarly in hiding for years and wanted for heinous crimes in Europe. In fact, albeit with changes of place and supporters and the despairing, you could almost see all the exact same written someday about bin Laden.

The BBC reports:

...Serbian government sources told Reuters news agency he had been under surveillance for several weeks, following a tip-off from a foreign intelligence service...

And in much the same way, bin Laden (if still living) could well find himself caught in 2014. Not that that would mean much. Or would even be desirable. Why?

Perhaps better that bin Laden lives out his life hiding and worrying about being captured. Because if he actually is, and knowing us (and the way we are headed, in legal terms), just imagine the nightmare having him alive and in custody would become? It would make the OJ trial look like child's play. He'd probably end up free, granted asylum, handed lifetime medical care, and living in a federally-funded 6 bedroom house in northern New Jersey.

What's intriguing is it is at hosted at Blogger, on a template that any ol' Kathryn uses.

There is something refreshing about that. Some media blogs have become so cluttered. But you don't always need bells and whistles.

So the wife has to restrain herself from laughing out loud every time stateside she sees items marketed on U.S. store shelves as "European." In fact, the descriptive term "European," for many Americans, somehow makes said items "better," when quite often they are nothing of the kind. Case in point: the silliest example we've seen recently, during a visit to NY earlier this summer, was a kitchen major appliance.

There it was, the Home Depot display sign telling potential customers it is "Europe's" biggest seller.

Yes, it may be the biggest seller, but that doesn't mean it is any good. Here, in Europe, it is low-mid market at best, and of barely passable quality, which is why the wife's eyebrow went up: "My parents would never be caught dead with that in their house," she said, "and I'd never buy it. It's average at best. Huh, but in the States, slap 'European' on something, and it becomes an excuse to try to print money."

Bear in mind such when it comes to the following. They are not unrelated. Newsbusters, relating an exchange on TV between persons called Katie Couric and Jeff Greenfield:

...When Greenfield advised that Obama “doesn't have to equal McCain” in foreign policy expertise, “he just has to make voters seem like he's okay, he knows what he's talking about,” Couric chirped in: “Especially if he draws big crowds, right? That might help him as well.” Greenfield insisted: “I think the sight of an American politician being cheered in Europe at this stage would probably be welcomed by most Americans.”...

As with being easily impressed by a "European" kitchen appliance, some Americans undoubtedly will similarly be easily impressed by the sight of Europeans "cheering" Sen Obama. However, Mr Greenfield should also consider this: as being "European" doesn't automatically make a kitchen appliance "quality," neither does being European make one default another Tocqueville.

Although that's just yours truly's personal observation. For The Sunday Independent reveals --- likely albeit inadvertently --- unassailable proof once again that the number of sophisticates on this side of the pond is far higher than the number on the other side:

...like the prophets, he is even more exceptional outside his own land. Opinion polls in the US have him only four percentage points ahead of John McCain. Over here, on the other hand, a poll last week among people who can't vote for either man found Obama trouncing McCain by a five-to-one margin...

How about this? Based on those polling figures, that those closest to the actual contest and with the most by far invested in its outcome might have a fundamentally different view for perfectly legitimate reasons? That the "lopsided" backing here for the Illinois (half-term, thus far) senator could mean that there are five times the number of blockheads on this side of the water?

Certainly not, for if Sen Obama's a "prophet," the U.S. presidency is way too small an office for him, and we know we've crossed a real threshold now. And Sen Obama is probably thrilled with that characterization. It apparently never crossed the sophisticated mind of Indy writer John Rentoul that, given Sen Obama's ongoing serious troubles separating himself in the large parts of the American public mind from another "prophet" and that latter's followers, the help Mr Rentoul just granted the Senator in likening him to a "prophet."

Then again the otherwise hyper-secular (except in the case of when the paper tells us which films Christians should fork out money to bankroll) Independent of course isn't alone in seeing the supernatural in Sen Obama. Who can hope to control the supernatural, after all? For instance, um, bless 'em, our friends at Reuters have also noticed something of an aura around the Illinois Senator:

St Barack of Reuters? Maybe he can, in fact, walk on water? Has anyone told the Pope that he's now in competition with not just the one prophet?

In any case, remember also that many of those same people lauding this newest prophet in Europe will, in their next breath, call for policies many Americans would not endorse. In short, take nothing at "face value," but instead listen closely at what else they also "cheer." That done, a more relevant question may well arise: if they are cheering Sen Obama, should we be pleased that they are?

I know. I know. They have much to teach us . . . being far "better" and more "sophisticated," and, lest we forget, much less narrowly "nationalist" and "jingoist" than we are.

...there's a way in which the next US president will affect you even more directly than foreign policy. By his economic decisions, the next president will help swing the price of the food you eat and the wages you earn – wherever you live on earth.

So it's a little worrying that John McCain – who still has a reasonable chance of winning – says: "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should... To be honest, I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated."...

...Yessir: if you liked the credit crunch, you'll love McCainomics.

It refreshing to see how Mr Hari has raised his editorial game, in reaching the level of managing almost to compose a column that omits both four-letter words and condemnation of the state of Israel. True, it might be observed that the conferrers appear also to had pretty much run out of high-profile leftist journalists to which to grant one. Nonetheless, his 2008 Orwell Prize, which is awarded to those who "make political writing into an art," seems undoubtedly well-earned.

Or, put another way, "art for art's sake?" However, most of us might consider good political writing not best judged on, shall we say, that canvas. Doing so is not unlike bestowing a "Meal of the Year" award based mostly on the table setting.

Regardless, Mr Hari continues to impress. He has a marked ability not to come over so much as a major columnist, but as more a student possessing the all-encompassing, breezy wisdom of youth. Specifically, in this case one who may have read about, but has never actually lived through, an economic slowdown and any democratic government's real response options.

Unrelatedly, but relatedly, in the words of yours truly's Orwell Prize-lacking mother, "So help me, but if another 18 year old TV twinkie lectures me!" But first: "McCainomics" as the big summation? Does Mr Hari actually feel that, as a piece of journalistic-ese, "McCainomics" flows off the tongue in the manner of, for example, "Reaganomics?"

Or, closer to home, "Thatcherism?" Remember, it wasn't "Thatcheromics." One might have thought the artful Mr Hari, given his detailed grasp of Sen McCain's determination to implement economic policies sure to impoverish the planet, could have come to the conclusion on his own that "McCainism" might serve better as a hard-hitting, derogatory, journalistic term. Although, Mr Hari himself, remember, is too young to recall Mrs Thatcher's coming to power. But, then again, presumably, he has read about it.

In any event, about the knock-on global impact the U.S. economy has, he has accidentally stumbled on a sensible observation, though. However, his continuing bout of "fear and loathing" of President Eisenhower Sen McCain likely overcame his space availability. Thus his obviously inadvertent failure similarly to critique "The Economic Education of Barack Obama."

_____________________________

A shame that. Or perhaps Mr Hari was angling (artfully) for a seat on Sen Obama's "Plane of Change." If so, it didn't work, because according to the Times:

...Should any of his hosts be under the illusion that the trip is not primarily a White House campaign event, Mr Obama, 46, is taking no foreign journalists. Instead, he has filled his campaign plane with US reporters, including three television news anchors, who are in discussions to hold prime-time interviews with him on consecutive nights...

Hmmm, in not allowing foreign reporters to join his triumphant entourage, that wouldn't be a question of Sen Obama's going over the heads of foreign journos like Mr Hari, treating foreign lands as mere curiosities and fiefdoms upon which to try to plant his, urrr, campaign seal?

To be fair, Mr Hari may not yet know he's missed his plane. But once he finds out, we can suppose he will not be too keen to have Sen Obama's considering his country a "raj-ed" destination: an exotic locale where, intermingling with the natives only cursorily, the all-powerful visit and, for the delight of people back home, get some great souvenir photographs taken over tiger corpses with the local allied chiefs.

And there we were, thinking Sen McCain would be more comfortable on safari, what with his being the Theodore Roosevelt "imperialist" and all. And about Sen Obama's believing Jerusalem should be the "undivided" Israeli capital? One would have thought Mr Hari might not be too pleased to hear such either.

On the likes of those Sen Obama stances --- at least as they still seem in place, until more "Change We Can Believe In" kicks in --- clearly the less said the better. But, if elected, it would appear a President Obama's reign over the cash-strapped U.S. electorate is going to be très expensive, only adding to their burdens. For is there anything he hasn't promised?

To deliver, he will have to raise taxes into the stratosphere, which the left has already done here. And that left now admits that even patient and accepting Britons have had enough. The Times:

Taxpayers are at the limit of what they are willing to pay to fund public services, the Chancellor has said in an interview with The Times...

...He revealed that he told Cabinet ministers this week that there would be no more money for schools, hospitals, defence, transport or policing...

Americans are much less accepting of ever-higher taxes, too: they are far more apt the "throw the bums out" at the polls. So will a President Obama borrow, borrow, borrow to the hilt to pay for all that he is promising?

Which path seems the more likely?: "President Oborrow" anyone? And U.S. interest rates will then increase, and the global economy will react accordingly.

Also, in case Mr Hari has missed another left-wing precedent: Prime Minister "Borrow":

The Government may relax Gordon Brown's fiscal rules to allow it to increase borrowing during the economic downturn, it emerged last night...

And upon hearing of that latter yesterday, the wife said, "What a shame we all can't 'rewrite' our 'borrowing rules'? Hello, Mr Bank Manager, I've decided to rewrite my borrowing rules..."

_____________________________

Also on that coming "royal tour," The Times notes --- in exactly the same sentence --- both yesterday and today:

...It is a sobering contrast for John McCain, his Republican opponent, whose European and Middle East trip in May garnered scant coverage...

Apparently, the coverage was so "scant" that, unlike The Times, this blog recalls Sen McCain's visit having been in March, and not in May. However, compared to Sen Obama's upcoming "World 2008" summer tour, Sen McCain's trip was not a campaign swing that took him so far eastwards that he ventured to another continent . . . or two. (Although, this blog, frankly, admits it does see the benefits in a Sen Obama Martian campaign swing.) Rather, Sen McCain's was a "fact-finding" visit with two other senators --- a visit of the sort that would have received even less coverage had he not just recently become the Republican presidential likely nominee.

Back in March, the Clinton-Obama primary race was also coming down to the wire in the U.S., and most media were glued to the latter. However, the McCain campaign didn't seem really to mind: it appeared pleased at his being able to visit Europe and the Middle East quietly, while staying well-clear of the Clinton-Obama mudslinging. In fact, so glued were they to Clinton-Obama, The Times apparently didn't even know Sen McCain ventured among us, here.

The Times also tells us:

...Mr Obama’s aides know that their candidate will be greeted in Europe by an adoring public...

That such may "backfire" at home in the States, The Times admits is readily possible. At issue as well is one worth pointing out again: if MSM in the States shows you nothing but smiling crowds of Europeans, seemingly adoring the Senator (one almost can't wait for the wire service crowd reaction photos, when in the presence), remember that most of those same Europeans would never --- ever! --- seriously consider supporting a candidate of his minority background, for leadership in any of their own countries. Worth bearing in mind also when being lectured as to how "racist" and "backwards" is the U.S.

By the way, is the Senator planning a stop in Poland? Or is that in Germany? And speaking of Germany (and presumably, Sen Obama is sure it is Germany), Observing Hermann tells us that as of the 16th, trying to find that poignant election victory acceptance speech (why wait 'till November, after all) to the world location was becoming . . . trying:

Brandenburg Gate is out, of course. Tempelhof Airport was still in the running yesterday, but now that’s out, too. And now it looks like a Berlin university might just be the next venue to turn him down. Slowly but surely, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama may have to bite the bullet and consider holding next week’s Berlin speech on the roof of that big honking parking lot thingy at the Ikea in Spandau...

It seems unlikely Sen Obama will deign to speak to the sure to be admiring throngs during his very brief stop here in Britain. But, if he were to reconsider, economics would surely be a major issue bound to enrapture the likes of global economists such as Mr Hari. As a venue to cover, say, the topic of "supply and demand," the Edmonton Ikea probably similarly has possibilities.

_____________________________

UPDATE: The Times of London not remembering when Sen McCain was in Europe is about par for the course. Also flustered is the New York Times. Probably because it is writing about Sen Obama, it doesn't know precisely what day today is.

For notice the filing date for this NYT piece on his July 19 arrival in Afghanistan. Saturday --- today --- is July 19; and (as of about 11 AM UK time) it is still July 19 in Afghanistan. However, according to the New York Times, though, it is tomorrow, July 20 . . .

. . . and, as we know, if it's in the NYT it must be true.

Obama is humorless, and full of himself. That would make him a great target for satire, except that his followers take the position that any mockery or criticism is racist. The prospect of four years of that sort of thing is the best reason I can think of not to vote for him.

Yet any president must by definition be prepared to serve as a target for cynicism, satire and perhaps the most scurrilous of personal attacks. However, Sen Obama, as we are seeing, has been deemed to be above such in any way, shape or form. Although University of East Anglia literature lecturer American Sarah Churchwell, pontificating in the Obama-besotted Independent --- in which Rupert Cornwell wrote also, uh, ironically, in July 2004 of how Sen Obama had "...been glowingly profiled in New Yorker magazine..." --- doesn't much think that's really it:

Everyone knows that Americans don't understand irony. Soon after moving to England from the US I discovered that my country was universally assumed to be an irony-free zone. I was at a dinner party when irony came up, and another guest launched into a diatribe against Alanis Morisette's song "Isn't it Ironic?" as an example of my compatriots' presumptive misunderstanding: "Rain on your wedding day is not ironic!" he railed. "Serving utensils are not ironic! What's ironic is that she doesn't understand what irony means!" "No," I replied. "What's ironic is that she's Canadian."...

But some Americans, we are informed, do "get it":

...Apparently, my fellow-Americans are under the impression that only people from New York are ironic. Everyone else will think that the cover means what it says, because they are too stupid, crass and literal to understand context, nuance, or implication. A pundit on a CBS news programme differentiated herself emphatically from the rest of the literal-minded, simplistic nation, explaining: "I get that [it is satire] – I get that. But I think that there may be people who just look at the cover and see it for what it is."...

One has to wonder, though, how do other Americans realize New Yorkers are ironic, when those other Americans don't understand irony? (I write that without a touch of irony, mind you.)

...let's be clear: anyone who thinks that the Obamas are secret terrorists is stupid enough to misunderstand the New Yorker cartoon...

Presumably, that appraisal applies to Sen Obama himself, who found that New Yorker cartoon not groundbreakingly ironical nor a useful satire of his opponents' views of himself. Even this New Yorker himself can understand Sen Obama's discomfort: he interpreted it not unreasonably, as possibly damaging politically.

How unsophisticated of him. But then again of all the places he's from, none are New York. Also ironically, Ms Churchwell seems to forget that irony and satire fall flat without a diffuse and solid appreciation of the target realities being scrutinized.

Perhaps in Ms Churchwell's dinner party circles, the facts more than speak for themselves. But being very new on the national (and international) scene, Sen Obama himself knows the issues of his own religion and his wife's perceived "Afro" militancy --- the latter unhelped by the reality that she, a worldly woman we are told, chose to major in Sociology (which is a left-wing discipline, let's be clear) and minored in African-American Studies, despite all of the undergrad areas (what about Classics or East Asian Studies?) Princeton offers --- remain fluid in the public mind, and therefore unpredictable and even dangerous to try to play off ironically, or to satirize, as of yet. As they say, with friends like the New Yorker editorial staff . . .

Separately, to argue Sen Obama more generally "is not a comical figure" is itself laughable. Every politician is funny in some ways, even if only in personal demeanor or quirkiness. For example, Nelson Mandela has a sense of humor, as the Christian Science Monitor explained, back in 1999:

...Mandela has a childlike sense of humor. Asked by a foreign corresondent (sic) last year why the ANC was so bent on achieving a two-thirds majority when it already had a clear governing majority, he responded with a polite tirade against his political opposition, which he dismissed as "Mickey Mouse" parties.

Tony Leon, the outspoken leader of the liberal opposition Democratic Party, retorted the next day by saying that Mandela headed a "Goofy" government...

...Shortly after the exchange, Mr. Leon suffered health problems and found himself in the same Johannesburg clinic as Helen Suzman, the veteran civil rights campaigner who was receiving treatment.

Mandela went to the clinic to visit Ms. Suzman, who told him that Leon was there, too. Mandela spontaneously went to Leon's ward and from behind a curtain announced himself: "Mickey Mouse, this is Goofy."...

Mr Mandela would likely be the first to admit also that he himself is a reasonable target for humor. In his day, even George Washington was. And he is still, as The Onion demonstrates (and the mock TV interview screen grab is itself worth the click over):

Breaking a 211-year media silence, retired Army Gen. George Washington appeared on NBC's Meet the Press Sunday to speak out against many aspects of the way the Iraq war has been waged...

Consider this also. We know that "Father of our Country," who served in the Seven Years' War in North America in the 1750s, played an important role in pre-revolutionary Virginia politics afterwards, was commander of the American revolutionary forces for eight years, chaired the Constitutional Convention and was elected president at age 57, going on to serve two terms, somehow never found the time to compose an autobiography. In contrast, Sen Obama, who "will definitely change the course of humanity" (which we are told with an absolutely straight face), is already well-approaching age 50, has been a "community organizer," state senator (briefly) and, thus far, a half-term national senator from Illinois.

And Sen Obama has already composed how many? Two autobiographical looks back on his own life? Not satirical or comedic fodder that? Unlike his religion, that is definitely, because most anyone can see what is being satirized. Even likely beyond extra-savvy University of East Anglia lecturers and New Yorkers.

Thus it seems pretty clear the underlying reason for the lack of an Obama laugh track cannot be because he has not provided vast amounts of material already. As Sister Toldjah also reminds us:

...the 57 states gaffe, his penchant for flip-flopping (hey, what comedian couldn’t make a few good jokes out of that?), his visit to Mt. Rushmore (an ego joke or two wouldn’t be impossible to write), his 37 bowling score, his statement that his time spent overseas as a child qualifies as “foreign relations” experience? And so much more.

The bottom line, in my opinion, is that in addition to the fact that he’s black, and the fact that comedians are worried they’ll be branded as racists, Leno and co. probably aren’t big on making jokes about The Chosen One primarily because it’s a strong possibility that in addition to their respective audiences, they, too, support BO...

The fundamental reason Sen Obama is not a target for humor seems plain: not only is there concern about appearing "racist," but most comedians (like most reporters) are Democrats, or left-leaning.

Regardless, what are they going to do to earn their livings during an Obama presidency? Poke fun at Sen McCain's age for the next eight years (because President Obama will absolutely, of course, serve two terms), or (probably more likely) keep rehashing those cutting-edge low IQ, inarticulate Bush jokes, which were pretty old hat even sometime back in late-2000?

This blog was inaccurate in its appraisal some months ago. Sadly, it readily admits it. As it turns out, the U.S. does NOT yet appear quite ready, after all, for this Democratic president who happens also to be black.

But if the country wants him, of course that's the country's prerogative. In that event, one thing seems likely: there will be no humor allowed to be directed at this president for the next eight years. Ah, but it will also be a good thing to be permitted to speak freely again at long last. Ironic, that combination, no?

A video of a 16-year-old detainee being questioned at the US's Guantanamo Bay prison camp has been released for the first time.

The video, released by Omar Khadr's lawyers, reportedly shows him being asked by Canadian officials in 2003 about events leading to his capture by US forces...

Reuters also tells us:

...His lawyers said he suffered "torture and abuse" including sleep deprivation and threats of rape...

Apparently, none of that took place during this interrogation interview, which his lawyers released. But, in viewing it, one supposes we are meant to be moved in some manner. And yes, this blog is.

It is moving to see how softly-softly they are treating him, speaking to him as if he were merely another kid taken to the headmaster's office. Which would seem, of course, definitive evidence of, in the words of a Rolling Stone magazine piece in 2006, the "unspeakable abuse sanctioned" by the current president. According to Reuters, presumably this is also:

Osama bin Laden's former driver took the stand on Tuesday at the U.S. military war court where he faces trial next week and described isolation, sleep deprivation and sexual impropriety during nearly seven years of captivity.

It was the first time prisoner Salim Hamdan, who challenged President George W. Bush and won, testified before the war court at the remote U.S. Navy base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba...

...His lawyer, Charles Swift, walked his client through his captivity from his capture in Afghanistan in November 2001, where he said he was beaten, to his years at Guantanamo where he reluctantly described how a female interrogator had touched him while soldiers stood nearby.

"She came very close with her whole body towards me," Hamdan said through an interpreter, his eyes downcast at times.

Pressed by Swift for details, he said: "She touched me above the knee." "Where?" Swift asked. "Did she touch your thigh?" "Yes," he said, adding that he began answering her questions after she implied she was going to touch his groin...

"Isolation?" "Sleep deprivation? "Sexual impropriety?" "Threats of rape?" Curious, but after hearing for years from every direction on the truly endless, appalling and simply indescribable abuse all there have somehow endured, day and night, most readers would likely have had rather something more in mind.

Still, given the circumstances surrounding how young Khadr and Mr Hamdan ended up in U.S. clutches in the first place, they are surely egregiously unlucky in having to cope in that chamber of horrors. Indeed, as we learn increasingly about their inept and pointless confinement, have we also perhaps stumbled upon a separate indictment as to the handling of the conflict there? After all, we are told also (and can readily see for ourselves, in the above) that the, one might say, "touchy-feely" junta of President George ("Soft Afghan War") Bush has always pursued the Afghan campaign dimheadedly, without vigor and killing determination.

Ah, but given his oft-stated desire to annihilate the enemy there with extreme prejudice, if one Senator ("Two Brigades More") Obama had been president back in 2001-2002. . .

..."I continue to believe that we're under-resourced in Afghanistan," he said. "That is the real centre for terrorist activity that we have to deal with and deal with aggressively."...

. . . as commander-in-chief he would have certainly seen to it that U.S. forces had "cut out their living guts, and used them to grease the treads of our tanks." Doing so would likely have resulted in the remaining body parts of both by now long being happily forgotten and silently decomposing on some Afghan hillside. Instead, alas, they are abusively caged by the inept Bush: how sad for them.

...It is welcome that the Pope has said sorry for the sexual abuse perpetuated by some Catholic priests and brothers. But it is appropriate for others to say a warm thank you for what the Catholic religious have done in educating the young, looking after the sick and caring for the dying here and overseas. You will not hear such praise from the sneering secularists. Nor will you find a school or hospice in a foreign land that is run by the Green Left Weekly or the New Left Review.

In the words of the wife: the piece is "well said" from start to finish, "especially the last sentence."

Indeed, the appraisal of "sneering secularism" is very consistent with what one sees and hears from the left generally of late. Conservatives, when arguing with you, are apt to try to bury you under a barrage of carefully chosen facts, stats and historical analogies. Liberals, on the other hand, are more likely simply to roll their eyes back in their heads and exhale deeply, at your obvious duped fatuousness.

_____________________________

UPDATE: Actually, as matters have turned out, the defenders of freedom don't have to wait a week. The Times:

Australian anti-pope activists have won the right to “annoy” Catholic pilgrims at the week-long World Youth Day celebrations in Sydney after a court struck down a new law and backed their right to hand out condoms and coat-hangers...

Our brave new legal world of selected protection of free "speech" for me vs. nothing but "hate speech" from thee . . . continues.

...Exceeding the speed limit is customary on American highways. Three quarters of drivers surveyed by researchers for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said they'd exceeded the speed limits on all types of roads within the past month. A quarter said they'd been speeding the day of their interview with the researchers. I'd wager the other 75% were lying.

During the "Drive 55" years, American cars got by with an average of 118 horsepower, and 0-60 times that averaged a stately 13.1 seconds. By 2007, with highway speed limits typically 70 mph and real speeds much higher, Americans were buying vehicles that had an average of 223 horsepower and a 0-60 time of 9.6 seconds. Many buyers may now wish they had a fuel-efficient, underpowered 1980s car (albeit better looking than most of the drab models of that era.)

Speeding has a social cost. The NHTSA estimates that speed-related crashes cost $40.4 billion annually. The agency puts the number of speeding-related fatalities at around 13,000 a year. During the years that the national speed limit was in effect, speeding-related fatalities declined, according to the NHTSA, although it's not clear whether that was directly related to speed limits, or other factors such as improved vehicle design...

A return to "55 MPH" for "conservation" and "safety?" Oh, God, what is wrong with us? Although still waiting for Sigmund, it is really starting to look all 1970s, again.

Highway speed limits are "typically 70 MPH?" Where? In 30 states, in predominantly "rural" areas, yes. Does that make it "typical" then? No highway in New York State is more than 65 MPH (the Thruway). 55 MPH is still very routine. And you see 60 MPH in some places in the country, too.

All of those varying 55-65 MPH limits on too many major U.S. highways likely are a main contributor to accidents. For we are saddled with a roadway situation in which many naturally do try to "abide by the law" and maintain, say, 55 MPH. In turn, scattered among them are many drivers intent on going faster, and usually in cars that are perfectly capable of safely doing so.

Obviously, there is then loads of room for "conflict." To do more, "speeders" are usually weaving in and out, passing slower moving vehicles any which way possible, with everyone then tapping brakes only to then speed up again. Talk about dangerous, fuel wasting and unnecessarily polluting.

Indeed, passing on the right on U.S. highways is now so common, one can only assume Americans think it is both legal and normal. But it is near insanity. To compare, "highways/"freeways" in the U.S. usually denote limited access roads of at least two lanes moving in each direction. They are known here in the U.K. as either "dual carriageways" or "motorways," with the essential difference being the former have intersections, whereas the latter don't.

On both, unless otherwise posted (and usually only for short stretches), the speed limit for private cars is (that's right) 70 MPH. Police will pull you over and hand you a ticket for undertaking -- meaning passing on the (blind) left side. (The roads being "reversed," the right lane in Britain is the passing lane.) So owing to law enforcement and "driver education," lane discipline is far better here than in the States. Is lane discipline still even enforced in the U.S.?

_____________________________

"Speed" is therefore not in itself the primary reason driving on U.S. 55-65 MPH highways is some of the scariest driving you'll encounter anywhere in the developed world. Because everyone knows "the rules," British motorways and dual carriageways, where most are doing legally 70 MPH --- and yes, maybe more: people do speed here certainly, but they also usually pass legally, and slower vehicles tend to stay in the "slow lane" --- makes them less dangerous to drive than, for instance, the ostensibly 55 MPH Long Island Expressway. (That would be a 70 MPH road in Britain.) Real safety and fuel economy is about getting everyone to learn sensible, real-world rules and (mostly) understand and then abide by them. Setting an artificially low speed limit merely invites law-breaking, and encourages ridiculously dangerous driving habits.

In fact, local traffic "stop/start" driving is a less-considered fuel waster. If anything, in the U.S. there ought to be a massive program of roundabout (meaning traffic circles/ rotaries) and mini-roundabout construction on local roads. Not only do they keep traffic "flowing" and thus cut down on idling, but they also "slow" up traffic, as cars have to slow down somewhat on approach and if necessary yield completely. That is far more rational for "traffic calming" than forests of "Stop" signs.

Ah, "Stop" signs. Of course, most roll through them (which is also illegal). Why? Because there is often really no need for them: they are often put in place merely to "slow" local traffic. Here, if you see a "Stop" sign, you reflexively know that you had probably actually better "stop."

The "start/stop" attitude of American local road planners is absurd in the extreme. On local streets, there are not just infuriating "Stop" signs erected seemingly every 20 ft, at every dinky corner (and often where there isn't even a corner), but there are also all of those traffic lights (and, incidentally, how much electric do they consume?) positioned at even the quietest of intersections. The list could go on: traffic laws seem designed to keep drivers stationary whenever possible, all while their cars are burning (ever pricier) fuel.

Evidently, while waiting for green, drivers are supposed to strike up inter-vehicular chats, to pass the time. (No wonder they use cell phones illegally behind the wheel, read and even eat at red lights; they spend so long standing still, they could starve to death.) Surely that is still another reason some people drive like maniacs on highways? On those, they finally feel they have an opportunity to move forwards, and have to take advantage of that window, however briefly.

In Britain, congestion is usually owing to actual "congestion": meaning too many cars on the road at any given time (including accidents). It is not usually a consequence of government having made it impossible to keep one's foot on the pedal for more than 60 seconds before encountering the next "Stop" sign or red light. Case in point: we can drive from the in-laws' front door to our house --- about 130 miles --- pre and post-motorway through numerous intersections (almost all roundabouts), and encounter exactly 1 traffic light controlled intersection, and not a single blessed "Stop" sign.

_____________________________

Attacking the likes of idiocies such as those would go a long way towards both improving safety and miles per gallon. The thought in very high fuel cost Britain of lowering the national limit from 70 MPH to (a ridiculous) 55 MPH to enforce "conservation" or "enhance safety?" While Government here is willing even to urge everyone to switch to electric/hybrid cars, yours truly has as of yet seen no mention of trying to get British drivers to "drive 55."

That even despite Britain's far greater number of smaller horsepower cars having always been on 70 MPH roads. (And not just way back yonder, in the "underpowered" halcyon years of the 1980s, as in the U.S.) This U.K. Government will seemingly float every possible "reform" idea at least once. Apparently, though, we've found one even they won't risk "floating."

Still, near the end Mr White favors us with the required WSJ ode to American freedom reverie:

...The speed limit issue isn't really about any of that. It's a powerful, easily grasped symbol of the freedom, mobility and affluence Americans enjoyed when energy was cheap. Letting go of that sense of freedom won't be easy, even if it is the sensible thing to do...

Okay, we'll all recite the Pledge now. But regarding driving, let's not be silly. Why do we view other matters hard-headed sensibly, but not driving?

Driving isn't about fulfilling some "American dream." Rather, it's about getting somewhere in a reasonable period of time, in a vehicle built to do so, on a road that was built to facilitiate "travel." America's huge driving distances are well-known and, presumably, the WSJ would extol them as being the stuff of legend, the iron maker of our national character.

Well, what is it also about we Americans? We have built often magnificent roads, only to be determined to find excuses to guilt ourselves into setting speed limits so low that it makes getting to our destinations extra-dangerous, and, in having to start/stop navigate the maze of all of those unnecessary traffic lights and "Stop" signs, unnecessarily polluting? It is not unlike our weird view that 18 year olds are adults in every way accept one: heaven forbid legal alcohol should pass their lips until they turn age 21.

WSJ writer Mr White is sure that most people interviewed by the NHTSA lie about speeding. However, try reducing the limit to, say, 45 MPH, and one suspects "lying" will be far worse. And U.S. highways will then be even more dangerous, as some few desperately try to follow the law and do 45 MPH, while others are passing them from every side, doing 70 MPH, to say nothing of the non-verbal "communication" likely briefly to be exchanged from driver to driver in that situation.

As a former UK police officer living in NY noted in 2003:

...Britain, with a population of 59 million, lost 3,431 people in 2002 compared with 42,815 people killed on America’s roads. The population of the USA at that time was 285 million, only 4.83 times greater than Britain’s...

...from an American perspective the most saddening fact is that the countries that have a lower (i.e. more acceptable) death rate than the USA are often ones with additional dangerous factors, such as higher overall speed limits, much smaller cars (which are less protective in crash situations), and a much lower proportion of divided highways...

...It is fashionable, these days, for those with an engineering bias to claim that driver education plays little part in highway safety and that vehicle and road design are the most important factors, but in another recent article the American automotive journalist Eric Peters accurately identified a key problem when he wrote: "Lack of skill—not speeding—is the fountainhead of America's traffic problems...

In its stance on "free markets" and "free trade," government, the WSJ is always lecturing us, should "get out of the way." Yet rather than demand better driver training and better local road layouts, Mr White champions government's forever shackling Americans to laughably low highway speed limits, thus turning American drivers de facto into criminals. Funny, but we had thought only "socialist" governments were so cynical and manipulative. However, in at least this case, it seems European governments (speed limit laws are much the same throughout the EU) which the WSJ otherwise has near total contempt for economically, are far better able (literally) "to get out of the way."

Jonah Goldberg-Boy Doofus

Obviously, a "new kind of politics" indeed awaits.

Western officials in Kabul say heavy fighting in the mountains of northeastern Afghanistan has killed nine American soldiers and a large number of Taliban militants...

In addition, according to The New York Times today:

...A NATO news release issued in Kabul said the insurgents attacked the Kunar base with rocket-propelled grenades and mortars, using houses, shops and a mosque in the nearby village of Wanat for cover...

Shifting continents, separately, the Press Association:

Three men accused of plotting a series of suicide attacks on transatlantic jets have pleaded guilty to conspiring to cause explosions.

Abdulla Ahmed Ali, 27, Assad Sarwar, 28, and Tanvir Hussain, 27, admitted the offence at Woolwich Crown Court, in south east London...

Regardless, both stories are simply too much to believe. Disgraceful. All of this endless Sun-like, reckless reporting of "pure fabrication," simply has got to stop.

_____________________________

UPDATE, 3:35 PM: The NYT piece quoted above, which I read unobstructed about 7:30 this morning UK time, has since "disappeared" behind a "members wall." If the NYT is gonna yo-yo back to the registration nonsense, throwing up barriers again --- and there we were, thinking the NYT was against border control? --- I'm going to stop visiting now and then. There's lots better out there.

UK newspapers manage mostly without the "registration" silliness. Hmmm, where's another top paper? Where's . . . the Independent?:

...Ronnie Wood shows no signs of ditching the rock'n'roll lifestyle. The 61-year-old Rolling Stone has reportedly spent a fortnight on a vodka binge in Ireland holed up with a Russian cocktail waitress less than a third his age.

The ruse for the trip to his Ireland home was said to be to work on his painting, but the presence of 19-year-old blonde Ekaterina Ivanova at his retreat in County Kildare has thrown the thought of such innocent pursuits into question...

As one can see, quality investigative and socially vital journalism exists in this world, well beyond the NYT.

...admitted 'regret' that viewers had found the scene 'inappropriate', but defended its decision to show it...

This is the same BBC, bear in mind, that agonized to try to find the proper "context" to show for brief seconds certain sketch caricatures of the Muslim prophet Muhammed, which we had heard had vaguely caused some small discomfort among a few Muslims.

But as to a live actor portraying a Christian fictional fanatic suddenly slicing off the head of a live actor portraying a fictional Muslim, while said Muslim is in mid-sentence, pleading for interfaith understanding, and the decapitation is shown on screen as it happens and the murdered Muslim's beheaded body is seen again in a follow-up shot? Some BBC viewers inexplicably remained "under-entertained":

...One viewer wrote on the corporation's website: 'If it had been another religion portrayed in that manner, the PC police would have been up in arms about the nastiness and their rights not to have their religion ridiculed - as it was Christians, it was apparently OK.'

Yes, an easy call that one, of course.

Bear in mind, though, as this blog has pointed out . . . it was "fantasy."

...Currently, British citizens travelling to the US are asked to provide details about themselves on a green form handed out during their flight. If accepted on arrival, this allows them to enter the country without a visa for up to 90 days. But from 12 January next year, visitors will be required to submit the same information online at least three days before they travel...

...new rules make it compulsory for short-term visitors to the US to register via the website of the Electronic System for Travel Authorization before boarding an aircraft. The site officially opens on 1 August, with potential travellers being encouraged to sign up as soon as possible. The revamped system will affect nations participating in the visa waiver program, which gives citizens from 27 countries the right to remain in the US for short periods of time without a visa. In the past financial year, more than 15 million people from these countries travelled to America under this banner...

However:

...an approved application remains valid for up to two years, or until the traveller's passport expires. It also entitles the holder to multiple entries into the US during this period...

Why?:

..."Getting this information in advance enables our frontline personnel to determine whether a visa-free traveller presents a threat before boarding an aircraft or arriving on our shores," said Michael Chertoff, the US Secretary of Homeland Security...

Hmmm, call it whatever the Secretary will, but a horse is a horse, of course. There is no getting away from what this means. Essentially, since it can be used repeatedly for two years and/or for the duration of the foreign passport, this Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) will function much like the "e-visa" Australia has demanded for years.

Thus "visa waiver" appears, in practical terms, to be no more. In another sense this may be encouraging, though. Next, we can assume to expect to hear that those who aim to cross into the U.S. between border posts, illicitly, via the southern land frontier, will also have to go online and file their intentions and await approval, three days before they make their first crossing attempt?

_____________________________

Or more likely not, for as Sen Obama has recently chided us:

I don’t understand when people are going worrying about “We need to have English only.” They want to pass a law — “we just — we want English only”. Now I agree that immigrants should learn English. I agree with that. But — but understand this. Instead of worrying about whether, uh, immigrants can learn English — they’ll learn English — you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish! You should be thinking about how your child can become bilingual. We should have every child speaking more than one language.

You know, it’s embarrassing when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe and all we can say is merci beaucoup. Right?

Sen Obama is laboring under a misconception (hard to imagine, being a "genius"), but he isn't alone. It is all too common for Americans who don't live here and pick up their knowledge of European linguistic dexterity primarily from films, TV, and many European tourists they may meet inside the U.S., to believe that every continental speaks English near-perfectly, albeit with an intriguing accent. It also afflicts Americans who visit continental Europe briefly as tourists, for in that realm they interact mostly with English-speaking "natives" whose livelihoods, naturally, depend on their maintaining reasonable English skills.

Mundane daily reality is rather different. Sen Obama may think so, but continentals don't ALL speak English. Unless work or chosen lifestyle demands it, European continentals' adulthood second language ability, including in English, is often little substantively better than most Americans' main, school-learned second tongue.

True, English proficiency varies from country to country. But while most Dutch or Danes do speak passable to fluent conversational English, in comparison most French, most Spanish and most Italians --- although they likely have retained or picked up a few words or simple English phrases --- do not.

And there are, unsurprisingly, also varying levels of English linguistic competence even within countries. In France, an Anglophone with little French beyond "merci beaucoup" will find the "natives'" English skills in and around, say, Calais, generally better than in Auvergne. In Italy, English is far more commonly understood in Rome or Venice than in rural Sicily. (Unless, in the latter, the Sicilian has cousins in Brooklyn, of course.)

If we think about why that might be, we already understand, personally, the main reason, for it has probably touched all of us individually at some point: one usually learns, and most importantly retains in adult life, a fluency in a second or even third language because one absolutely must. Hence why English --- a European language, too, in case Sen Obama is unaware --- is common among non-Anglophone Europeans. In employment terms, English is often vital, or at least very useful.

While we're on the subject, English has also become commonly spoken in parts of Spain:

Although, one doesn't normally see Spanish politicians demanding Spanish children learn English because of the presence of many "Spanish poor" elderly, lonely, or unemployable U.K. expats, but let's not digress.

We tend easily to forget that Americans already are well-imbued with Spanish "feeling." Indeed, many Anglophone Americans already do speak Spanish to varying degrees of fluency, out of work necessity or life choice/requirement: Anglophone Americans having been raised in El Paso, unsurprisingly, are apt to be more familiar with Spanish than those who've lived their lives in Maine. Just as many non-Anglophone Europeans are familiar with, and speak some, English. (Because of Americans' familiarity with hearing Spanish, many French, for instance, assert Americans try to speak French in too similar a way to "Spanish" --- meaning "Mexican," not Spanish as spoken in Spain --- thus creating the odd sound of French being spoken with a "Spanish" inflexion. Years ago, yours truly was told that directly.)

However, because of mass Mexican, Central and South American (far too often illegal) migration to the U.S., Sen Obama believes Anglophones should have to learn Spanish. Presumably, one doesn't detect in that an undercurrent of Sen Obama's perhaps believing Anglophone children need to speak Spanish in order to converse better with "the help" someday. However, regardless, that also presumes it will still be possible to pay "the help." To do that, if Anglophone children really do "need" to learn any second language, given worldwide economic trends it would seem that, rather than any other European language, Mandarin Chinese would likely be far more long-term monetarily worthwhile.

Wife-beating? That's fine – unless you're a Muslim

This is the state of "liberal argument" nowadays. The Indy's "commentator and stand-up comedian" (although it is hard to tell where one role stops and the other starts) Mark Steel attacks The Sun --- do Indy writers actually descend to reading that fount of knowledge? --- for "pure fabrication" regarding several stories about Islam. Doing that is not unreasonable: newspapers are, we hope, purportedly about reporting facts.

Which makes one therefore wonder about the Independent. For Mr Steel somehow weirdly drifts from that, to here:

...The most common justification for ridiculing Islam is that the religion is "backward", particularly towards women, as a fundamental part of its beliefs. The Sun's old political editor suggests this as a defence of his newspaper's stance, saying that under Islam, "women are treated as chattels". And it's true that religious scriptures can command this, such as the insistence that, "a man may sell his daughter as a slave, but she will not be freed at the end of six years as men are." Except that comes from the Bible – Exodus, Chapter 21, verse 7.

The Bible is packed with justifications for slavery, including killing your slaves. So presumably the Sun, along with others who regard Islam as a threat to our civilisation, will soon be campaigning against "Sunday Schools of Hate" where children as young as seven are taught to read this grisly book.

In his defence of making stuff up, the Sun's ex-political editor spoke about the amount of domestic violence suffered by Muslim women. But there's just as much chance of suffering domestic violence if you're not a Muslim, as one of the 10 million such incidents a year that take place in Britain. Presumably the anti-Islam lobby would say, "Ah yes, but those other ones involve secular wife-beating, which is not founded on archaic religious customs, but rational reasoning such as not letting him watch the snooker."...

What is intriguing is how, to attack "anti-Islam fabrications," Mr Steel ends up on "wife beating." Given the above stance, it follows then that non-Muslim "wife beaters" are supposedly routinely handed a moral pass because the Bible endorses daughter-selling and slavery? (And, as to those, it's certainly high time someone finally had the nerve to have pointed that out.) Therefore, are we to assume also then that cells from one end of the country to the other are full of Muslim "wife beaters," sullenly doing long prison stretches . . . just because they are Muslims?

Mr Steel doesn't go that far in so many words, but curiously, through inferring there is somehow a "two-tiered" attitude, that is, of course, in itself presumably in no way "distorting" or a fabrication. But, then again, perhaps it is appropriate Mr Steel's relied on The Sun for the underpining of his argument. After all, why risk looking silly by highlighting all of the innumerable false accounts on Islam from reputable sources, when, to try to make your point, a rag will do.

As courageous as that is intellectually, he goes one further in demonstrating a fearless ability to point an accusing finger at Christianity, which is perhaps a degree of proof as well that Mr Steel doesn't grasp an essential, current day distinction. But quite a few others of us can: whereas Muslims are apt to cite the Koran as their guidance for day-to-day living, Christians today do not tend to do the same, much less justify "wife beating" by pulling passages from Exodus. However, once upon a time slavery, to note just one example, was attacked by those also citing passages from the Bible. Or does Mr Steel not quite recall?

In any case, it is reassuring to see how downright blasé Mr Steel and his "liberal" Independent claim to be regarding the place in "our civilisation" of a faith the name of which in English translates as "submission" to God. That is understandable, though, given a Bible which produces "Christian" --- meaning the religion based on the life and teachings of Christ --- forms so utterly inflexible that Anglicanism is currently tearing itself to pieces over women bishops and gay bishops, and Roman Catholicism has produced a Mother Teresa, in comparison to a Koran which is "the Word of God, perfect and inimitable," and therefore seems decidedly unlikely to allow much space for Islam anytime soon to move generally towards, for instance, even a debate about women and openly gay imams.

Didn't think "liberals" were into such "submission?" But perhaps Mr Steel feels rather differently than most. If not, it's surprising: didn't think "liberals" or "comedians" were into the notion of a "final word" either.

Most interesting of all, though, notice Mr Steel has just flippantly made what might be construed as a nasty and derogatory statement about the Bible: it is "this grisly book." Not only does that mean Mr Steel has just revealed (no pun intended) a typical "liberal" laziness and/or ignorance about what actually constitutes the basis of Christianity: the New Testament. This blog, for one, looks forward eagerly to devouring Mr Steel's doubtlessly illuminating comparative critique of certain passages in the Koran (e.g., 9.5": ...slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush,...).

However, if chary about doing so, Mr Steel would seem to have just totally undermined his own entire argument. On the other hand, were he to rise to the theological challenge, one also suspects that Mr Steel might well be able to sit back and perhaps witness another modern fundamental difference between the two faiths. Indeed, being a "commentator and stand up comedian," he may find the reaction, one might say, "riotously" funny? . . .

"2.256": There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing.

. . . for, even in offering up a 700 year old quotation alongside that sentence, and as Mr Steel undoubtedly remembers, our Roman Catholic pope sure did.

The White House offered embarrassed apologies to Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi Tuesday after it handed out an unflattering portrait of the premier and his country's politics.

Briefing notes given to reporters accompanying President George W. Bush to the G8 summit in Japan described Berlusconi as one of the "most controversial leaders in the history of a country known for government corruption and vice."

When the spokesman for the Italian embassy in Washington, Luca Ferrari, learnt about the howler from the Italian press, he rushed to get an explanation...

That was hardly the worst of it, as Reuters adds:

...The four-page biography, pulled from the Encyclopedia of World Biography Supplement, refers to Berlusconi as "hated by many but respected by all at least for his bella figura (personal style) and the sheer force of his will".

Berlusconi was said to be "regarded by many as a political dilettante who gained his high office only through use of his considerable influence on the national media..."

As they say, not good. Back to AFP:

[White House Spokesman Tony] Fratto told AFP that "there was obviously a mistake, and sloppy work," describing the incident as "unfortunate."...

...Fratto insisted Bush "has great admiration and respect for Prime Minister Berlusconi, he has great affection for the Italian people. Italy is a very close friend and ally of America."...

...Fratto, who is of Italian descent, said he "took special offense" at the biography because he had many friends and family in Italy...

Having once described himself as "The best political leader in Europe and in the world," Mr Berlusconi seems well-beyond personal insult. And perhaps predictably, Mr Berlusconi took aim at (presumably anti-Berlusconi) Italian media, for stirring it all up. The Guardian:

...Berlusconi said that he wasn't the one who had sought an apology, suggesting the Italian media had generated the controversy. Italy "is a country that loves to flagellate itself and make itself look bad", he said.

Regardless, "truth" and diplomacy don't usually mix well, of course. Maybe the source wasn't "reliable." Yet one also has to wonder, though: has Mr Fratto apparently read even the BBC's profile of Mr Berlusconi?:

Silvio Berlusconi is among Italy's richest men, estimated to be worth $9.4bn (5.9bn euros) by US business publication Forbes.

If controversy and flamboyance could be measured in the same way, he would probably come near the top of those tables too...

He has won a third term as prime minister - defeating his centre-left rival, Walter Veltroni - two years after he was voted out narrowly in April 2006.

Mr Berlusconi also runs a business empire that spans media, advertising, insurance, food and construction. He also owns Italy's most successful football club, AC Milan, admits he has had cosmetic surgery and has fought off repeated corruption allegations...

Obviously, all that's "sloppy" research, too. But that's the Beeb, not a White House briefing. And regardless of what Mr Berlusconi might say of himself as well, one certainly doesn't --- even accidentally --- possibly "officially" insult an ally, or hand a friend's opponents material. So in allowing the slipping through of briefing literature which characterized Mr Berlusconi and Italian governance in ways that are arguably accurate but hardly "diplomatic," one can see the White House's immediate PR problem.

After all, imagine the reverse: an ally's official material "accidently" describing the likes of President Bush owing his job to being his father's son, questioning the legitimacy of the presidential election result of 2000, alluding to New York and New Jersey gubernatorial troubles and corruption, and warning of the continued "influence" of the Klan in parts of the country? True, some Americans would probably applaud the "accuracy." But would it be "diplomatic"?

We don't have to be nearly as "diplomatic" here, thank goodness. This writer is also of (about 3/4) Italian ancestry and loves Italy as a place to visit. However, it hardly seems unreasonable to note that Mr Berlusconi is one of the "most controversial" leaders the country has had since WWII, and that the country does still unfortunately have a problem with "government corruption and vice," most of it nothing to do with him.

Italians would probably be among the first to point such out, too. For instance, does the White House's Mr Fratto perchance happen to know anyone trying to get