« Previous | Main | Next »

Election analysis

Justin Webb | 15:50 PM, Wednesday, 5 November 2008

Even in the blogging era you don't really believe it till you see it in the papers...

Spot-on analysis in a venerable newspaper as well.

Bookmark with:
del.icio.us |
Digg |
Newsvine |
NowPublic |
Reddit
- What's this?

CommentsSign in

You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.

1. At 4:14pm on 05 Nov 2008, endorfin wrote:
Can we believe it?

Yes we can!

Complain about this comment
2. At 4:21pm on 05 Nov 2008, Gary_A_Hill wrote:
Finkelstein overlooks one important ingredient: the structural changes in the way the major parties select their nominee. In 1968, the year I first voted in a presidential election, only 13 states held primary elections. It was not then possible for a candidate to come from nowhere in such a short time, because nomination depended on relationships with party regulars. Now nearly all states hold primaries, and candidates appeal directly to the people and thereby win enough delegates to take the nomination.

Complain about this comment
3. At 4:33pm on 05 Nov 2008, TimothyR444 wrote:
It's interesting to look over all those headlines. I am also glad that the Bush administration is coming to an end, but I mist admit that I don't quite trust this dramatic change in sentiment elsewhere in the world.

After 9/11, there was a rush of emotion in favor of Americans. Since then we have had several years of very intense anti-Americanism, much of it bitter and ugly.

Now we are supposed to be believe the positive comments, which will likely end quickly, and switch to the standard anti-Americanism. It is an odd experience being on the receiving end of all this projection.

I have become quite cynical towards international relations. The idea that Americans are to blame for absolutely everything is over-the-top. At this point, I will take all the nice comments about Obama with a grain of salt. It can - and will - turn around very quickly.

Complain about this comment
4. At 4:37pm on 05 Nov 2008, eightypercent wrote:

Danny Finkelstein has been consistenly interesting throughout the presidential campaign but not always consistently right.

He sees America through rose coloured glasses when he writes that "A record number of Americans now complete high school or go to college". He should have a look at the work of the admirable Susan Jacoby, who takes the opposite view and considers that American educational standards have declined to the point where there is a deep level of concern.

Completing high school or going to college are not necessarily great achievements if the standard of education is woefully low.
Obama spoke with passion about in the third, round table debate.

Finkelstein also chooses to ignore our old chestnut on these pages - the myth that if a person is well educated he or she must be an member of the "elite" and "elite" itself is a handy term of abuse.

Why on earth did Republican strategists seize on Joe the Plumber and Joe Six Pack (and even Palin herself) if they thought that they were making their appeal to an educated people ? All right, they lost, but they thought that dumbing down was worth their while, and they did gain over 45 million votes at a time when the Republican record of government had brought a great country to its knees.

Finkelstein writes of a monied and leisured middle class as if the sub prime debacle had never occurred and Wall Street was just embarking on a period of recruitment.

Complain about this comment
5. At 4:38pm on 05 Nov 2008, Xie_Ming wrote:
The comments about Finklestein's article make more sense than does Finklestein.

If one follows the graph of the poll results,
the rise of Obama support coincided with
the announcement of the Financial Crisis (and McCain's stupid pronouncements thereon).

Fifty-one percent popular support is weak.
Thirty-eight percent of the exit polls still approved of Palin.

Obama has inspired the participation of those who dispaired of what was once the "American Dream".

The threatening dark cloud of ignorant, primitive and indoctrinated evangelicals, manipulated by a bought media and an amoral layer of the financially successful, may yet bring America down the path of Bush/Cheney.

Keep your hopes, but organize for a different World leadership.

Complain about this comment
6. At 4:39pm on 05 Nov 2008, WesternLeviathan wrote:
Under the leadership of President-elect Obama, the United States of America and its global neighbors will become a more peaceful and prosperous world. "Yes, we can!"

Complain about this comment
7. At 4:43pm on 05 Nov 2008, AficanKenyan
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
8. At 4:51pm on 05 Nov 2008, sweetsmellofsuccess wrote:
Now that the BBC has confirmed that Obama has won, perhaps one of the several thousand correspondents enjoying their junket to Washington DC to ask a black person if they're pleased a black person is in the White House (well, d'uh) would like to visit Mexico.

A cabinet minister, responsible for much of the recent push against drug cartels, died in a plane crash. Am I alone in thinking this might not have been a total accident? What might the implications be for the fight against drugs? What might the implications be for the 80 million people in Mexico struggling against gang murders and corruption?

Maybe your "North America" correspondent might leave the 48 states and visit the rest of his domain.

Complain about this comment
9. At 4:52pm on 05 Nov 2008, Heather_in_LA wrote:
This morning, I wake up on the west coast with an overwhelming sense of relief. I feel as though I had been battling cancer, and the doctors have just said I'm in remission. I live in a blue county, in a blue state, but I am grateful to the majority of my fellow countrymen who chose hope over fear yesterday.

I found Obama's speech moving, yet somber. Feeling the weight of the loss of his grandmother and the enormity of the work that lies ahead, it was inpiring for the president-elect to demonstrate his respect for the magnitude of the office he is about to take rather than dancing blithely about in victory.

I feel that when we look back decades from now, we will point to this election as a changing of the guard from one generation to the next. It is a turning point in history.

Complain about this comment
10. At 4:52pm on 05 Nov 2008, tenzone86 wrote:
Which 'venerable' news paper are you talking about?

I think most of the coverage has been pretty poor, to be fair, but I've enjoyed coming on her and reading what people have to say. I think half of the people on this blog could work for the bbc.

I'll just point out one last thing, that is: on 'Stretching America' Justin talked about Obama as if he was already preparing for the 'formidable threat of Sarah Palin', and yet on the live coverage Justin said that Republicans will already be looking for their next candidate, but that 'it will not be Sarah Palin'...

How can she be a threat to Obama if the Republicans won't nominate her?

Complain about this comment
11. At 4:54pm on 05 Nov 2008, R-Snail wrote:
Congratulations,

63 million to Barack
56 million to John

I can only hope that BO turns out to be the uniter that GWB was not... only history will tell.

On the downside, Rush Limbaugh has job security for the next 4 years.

And ending on a positive note, Proposition 8 passed.

Complain about this comment
12. At 4:59pm on 05 Nov 2008, duhbuh wrote:
Reports of the death of social conservatism would appear to be greatly exaggerated.

Complain about this comment
13. At 5:18pm on 05 Nov 2008, APbbforum wrote:
Republicans, please ignore the Finkelstein article. It is a load of nonsense. Keep on appealing to the base. Palin 2012!

Complain about this comment
14. At 5:29pm on 05 Nov 2008, jacksforge wrote:
Timmmmaaaayyyy

Now we are supposed to be believe the positive comments, which will likely end quickly, and switch to the standard anti-Americanism. It is an odd experience being on the receiving end of all this projection.
-----------------------------
well this doesn't help
-------------------------

218. At 4:37pm on 05 Nov 2008, TimothyR444 wrote:
jacksforge:

"And america did not let me down"

So glad you're happy. We do aim to please.

"( though numbers were a little less overwhelming than I wished for)."

Awfully sorry about that. We'll try even harder to make you happy next time.

-------------------------------

so you got this in reply
-----------------------------
218. At 4:37pm on 05 Nov 2008, Timmmaaayyy.

oh stuff you.

So when one like me is proud of their country ,for once -deride.
OK

America is full of a bunch of racist Idiots.
A despicable nation of thieves , murderers and crooked cops .

Better

Complain about this comment
15. At 5:30pm on 05 Nov 2008, jacksforge wrote:
8. At 4:51pm on 05 Nov 2008, sweetsmellofsuccess wrote:
Now that the BBC has confirmed that Obama has won, perhaps one of the several thousand correspondents enjoying their junket to Washington DC to ask a black person if they're pleased a black person is in the White House (well, d'uh) would like to visit Mexico.

A cabinet minister, responsible for much of the recent push against drug cartels, died in a plane crash. Am I alone in thinking this might not have been a total accident? What might the implications be for the fight against drugs? What might the implications be for the 80 million people in Mexico struggling against gang murders and corruption?

Maybe your "North America" correspondent might leave the 48 states and visit the rest of his domain.
---------------------------------
Legalise it then.(it being ALL)

Complain about this comment
16. At 5:33pm on 05 Nov 2008, BarryMcCloud wrote:
Today I did something I never thought I would ever do. I contacted the UCSIS and started the citizenship process. I am a journalist who moved to the US in 1992 and this is the first time I have felt impelled to make this move. The only negative thing is that my home state of Tennessee seems to have sunk into a Republican morass and so a move may be on the cards.

Complain about this comment
17. At 5:37pm on 05 Nov 2008, jacksforge wrote:
Timmmaaayyyy

"The idea that Americans are to blame for absolutely everything is over-the-top."

true

but there is still a hell of a lot they are responsible for.

Global warming is one.

War in Iraq another.(popular at first).

Insane war on terror(creating more).

Continual uncritical support of Israel .

George w Bush.

Dick Cheney.

Fortunately Mc Cain and Sara Palin have not been included in there.

Complain about this comment
18. At 5:39pm on 05 Nov 2008, bionicexpat101 wrote:
Whilst I appreciate the historical events surrounding Barack Obama's election, it is frustrating that the focus appears to be purely on his african american roots. We need to ensure that the caucasian voters are represented in the reports - after all he is the president for all the people of the USA, not just the african americans. Perhaps celebrations showing his white supporters would also give a balance to the reporting.

Complain about this comment
19. At 5:39pm on 05 Nov 2008, Old-Man-Mike wrote:
Well the match is over at last, now it is back to the cold hard world outside.

To Xie-Ming 5 above.

Your last sentence is very appropriate. It is my firm belief that Europe, in the form of the European Union with Russia has been 'Getting its ducks in a row' as the saying goes for many months already. Have you noticed how Iran, Iraq and even Israel have been on hold for some time.

Obama made his visit to Europe for other reasons that photo opportunities and wowing crowds in Berlin. We will have to wait and see.

To; TimothyR 3 above: Here in Europe the sympathy for the New Yorkers was and remains quite genuine. What we objected to was its politicization and use for justifying the attack on Iraq. You must remember that our attitude is coloured by the more than 30 million civilians that died in Europe in the wars of the 20th century most of whom had no say in the matter what so ever.

Complain about this comment
20. At 5:40pm on 05 Nov 2008, jacksforge wrote:
So Timmaaayyy
I will say it again

America has done me proud.

america is gone

America is here.

Welcome to America.
taken 8 years to feel that way.

Good on america.

Boy I'm feeling the koolaid patriotism now

Complain about this comment
21. At 5:42pm on 05 Nov 2008, Old-Man-Mike wrote:
To Ed

I am now using Firefox including the spell checker.

Hope you notice an improvement. Thanks very much and best wishes for the New Era.

Mike, Barcelona

Complain about this comment
22. At 5:46pm on 05 Nov 2008, Heather_in_LA wrote:
As I breathe sighs of relief for the presidential election...on the other hand, there is more support in California for the rights of chickens (Proposition 2) than for the rights of our fellow citizens (Proposition 8).

Complain about this comment
23. At 5:51pm on 05 Nov 2008, ukwales wrote:
CONGRATULATIONS USA...

Very best wishes for your future.
Time to spend, time & money on your own infrastructure....

Complain about this comment
24. At 5:58pm on 05 Nov 2008, sirkims wrote:
It means a better world, ready for change... more united and ready to love one another more. hail Barack Obama, our son. God is great; amen!

Complain about this comment
25. At 6:24pm on 05 Nov 2008, seanspa wrote:
Sorry, nothing to do with election analysis, but I've just seen that Michael Crichton has died. He is my youngest son's (I'm writing as harryspa here) favourite author. He's just got through reading the Andromeda Strain. He was overjoyed last night (11 yr olds for Obama!), but will be devastated today when he returns from school.

Complain about this comment
26. At 6:25pm on 05 Nov 2008, Francois17 wrote:
How wonderful America! I finally fell asleep at 3.30am UK (work the next day)! Welcome back into the fold of the world family - I have never come across so many people so energised by this election in the UK - many people here feel we have much to live up to - our politics needs some sparkle! Great news USA!

Complain about this comment
27. At 6:34pm on 05 Nov 2008, Dame_Maggie_Thatcher
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
28. At 6:34pm on 05 Nov 2008, R-Snail wrote:
22. Heather

I didn't read Prop 2.

Do Californians really support the right to marry chickens?

The squirrels will be outraged.

Complain about this comment
29. At 6:41pm on 05 Nov 2008, samariana wrote:
Our long national nightmare is OVER! This is a great day for ALL Americans and for the world. I feel like for the last 8 years, the Bush administration has ignored "the people". He would never hold a press conference, never connected with us or the world. When I saw the gathering in Chicago last night I felt like we took our country back. This is OUR country, not Palin's cute little generalizations of "Joe Six Pack" or "Susie the Waitress". Thank God that America finally woke up and elected a President of the People! Last night I kept thinking of the great Martin Luther King and the "I Have a Dream" speech... I have a dream and it came true last night. Thank you MLK...thank you America!

Complain about this comment
30. At 6:41pm on 05 Nov 2008, Twilighttrail wrote:
To TimothyR444: If the rest of the world has been critical of the U.S. in the last few years it it because the outgoing administration did everything imaginable to squander the good will offered us after the Twin Towers fell. We thumbed our noses at international treaties, said "our way or the highway" once too often, started a war in Irag that was based on lies, set ourselves up for a financial meltdown that has rippled out to many other countries . . . Was the rest supposed to praise us for behaving like ancient Rome on steroids? Sometimes negative comments are deserved. Exactly because we are -- or were, at least -- a super power, our actions have affected many other people around the world. They have a legimated interest in the outcome of our elections. Maybe in January, with the swearing in of President-elect Obama, we can make a start at repairing some of the damage we have done to ourselve or others.

Complain about this comment
31. At 6:52pm on 05 Nov 2008, NSwitzer wrote:
MLK's dream is realized, yes. This is an historic occassion where America has finally seen past the color of a man's skin.

Question is: Now, will our new president finally turn his eyes to the Aboriginal Nations still living in the internment camps of the country such as Pine Ridge and Rosebud, that despair due to conditions worse than those seen in Haiti or other 3rd world countries? When will the dream of this country honoring the treaties they have conveniently broken, the lands that are still being exploited, and the conditions forced that drive these people to extinction?

If Australia and Canada can admit the genocidal conditions they have forced on these Indian Nations, will America finally step up and stand for the Democracy and Decency they preach and do the same?

Complain about this comment
32. At 7:18pm on 05 Nov 2008, joplass wrote:
#27
Learn how to put two sentences together first before posting on a worldwide blog/forum.
Regards,

Complain about this comment
33. At 7:27pm on 05 Nov 2008, Invisiblehand wrote:
Last night I felt a sense of weightlessness. Not because all of Americas problems were miraculously solved, but because the enormous weight on my shoulders from racism was lessened substantially. I now know that when I tell my son you can be anything you want too in this country, I am not lying. Barrack is the realization of a paradigm shift in America. I find it so ironic that my great uncle was hanged in Mississippi for flirting with a white woman and our great nations President is the result of a biracial union. I for one believe the civil rights movement in many ways was Americas second civil war. It has taken 40 years but we have made incredible headway toward healing and reconstruction.

However, this is not simply an African American victory. Barracks election is an American victory because a diverse American society demanded change.. I don?t know where we are headed but it seems to be a much better place than we are leaving behind. We are leaving behind the anti-intellectual imperialist way of governing. Our leadership is lending itself more toward diplomacy and understanding internationally, and inclusion and unification as a country. I mean no disrespect when I say I have not always taken pride in America?s actions and policies. I am so proud that our democracy works and that our society is not afraid to evolve beyond racial division.

The Invisible Hand is not only for markets but Societies and people all strive toward equilibrium.

Complain about this comment
34. At 7:33pm on 05 Nov 2008, lordBeddGelert wrote:
Bloody typical that the Daily Mail STILL chooses to lead with 'House Prices' !!

Some things never change...

Complain about this comment
35. At 7:35pm on 05 Nov 2008, eightypercent wrote:

# 32 Joplass

Whilst I agree that #27 is infuriating, it is enlightening to see the crudity of some of the "antis" - especially when we started off this blog by discussing educational standards !

Complain about this comment
36. At 7:41pm on 05 Nov 2008, british-ish wrote:
8. R-Snail wrote:

22. Heather
I didn't read Prop 2.
Do Californians really support the right to marry chickens?

The squirrels will be outraged.

We are indeed. We're positively wild about it.

Proposition 2 gives "animals" the right "to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely."

We are horrified that it has taken so long to restore these most fundamental natural rights to chickens.

(We are now commenting only on matters of direct interest to squirrels, since we are even more appalled at the fowl language so many humans are now using to criticise each others' views here.

That being so, we will not ask why similar rights should not be extended to prisoners who have been 'renditioned' or who are captive in Guantanamo Bay.)

Complain about this comment
37. At 7:44pm on 05 Nov 2008, David_Cunard wrote:
#11. R-Snail: "And ending on a positive note, Proposition 8 passed."

What is "positive" about it? It has deprived same-gender couples of formalising their commitment. The Los Angeles Times this morning opined that the election of Mr Obama was a step in the march for equality - but this, sadly, only applies to heterosexuals. The outrageous sums of money spent by religious interests has foisted their version of morality on the people of California. When the Catholic Church, Latter Day Saints and assorted Evangelical bodies read the words of Jesus and follow them, that will be the day that there is equality for all men and women. Bigotry has no place in California nor in America itself. R-Snail and others of his/her ilk should be thoroughly ashamed.

Complain about this comment
38. At 7:46pm on 05 Nov 2008, RedWhiteandermblue wrote:
For all you conspiracy theorists, statistical doubters and assorted skeptics, 538 was absolutely right on the money on margin of victory and just about everything else.

Obama swept African Americans, young voters and single women. The most foreboding omen for the Republicans, though, is that he took people of Spanish speaking ancestry 2-1. And here I have to gloat, because making immigrants a political scapegoat absolutely blew up in Republican faces, and will continue to blow up until they volte-face. Their policy is also downright anti-American, when you consider that all of us with the good fortune not to have been brought here in chains are descended, probably, from the same family-oriented, hard working, ambitious immigrants Republicans are now trying to wall off.

A cautionary point is that while America is indeed significantly different, and that these new economy voters went for Obama, to say it's more middle class is wishful thinking. We're a bit poorer than we were 30 years ago, overall, and while our jobs are more likely to depend on us using our brains, we're also less likely to think critically. The ability and tendency of people to surround themselves with the answers they want to hear is growing, and it's frightening. The kind of people who want to engage in a rational, heuristic debate, which some might argue are the life blood of a republic, are dwindling, and, perhaps, we ought to be very, very afraid.

Complain about this comment
39. At 7:52pm on 05 Nov 2008, TimothyR444 wrote:
Francois17:

"How wonderful America! I finally fell asleep at 3.30am UK (work the next day)! Welcome back into the fold of the world family - I have never come across so many people so energised by this election in the UK - many people here feel we have much to live up to - our politics needs some sparkle! Great news USA!"

Are you kidding?

Back into the world family?

We were never outside the "world family".

No thanks. You can keep your patronizing "welcome".

Ugh

Complain about this comment
40. At 7:58pm on 05 Nov 2008, vcm1967a wrote:
#13 had this to say...

"Republicans, please ignore the Finkelstein article. It is a load of nonsense. Keep on appealing to the base. Palin 2012!"

I don't think I'd say McCain and Palin appealed to the base...

It's more like they appealed to the lowest common denominator. I've seen some nasty elections in my life, and some pretty vicious campaigns, but this by far was the worst.

The Republicans made up for their lack of real answers to our issues by outright smear tactics, and it is deplorable.

One of my favorites... "Would you trust an untested man to run this nation?"

Gee, I thought that is why presidents had a cabinet and advisors... silly me, there I go thinking independently again!

And to the wunderkind who posted on #27...

Guess what? The people spoke, and the Republicans lost. Embrace the suck and get over it.

You can watch Fox News and listen to Rush Limbaugh and have them make up you mind for you... but then it seems like they already have. So go ahead and call in to that talk-radio show.

"Ditto, Rush! Long time listener... first time caller!"

Complain about this comment
41. At 8:01pm on 05 Nov 2008, SamTyler1969 wrote:
#12

Dubuh,

Congratulations! The single Republican victory of the night was to try to oppress some folks and reduce their rights.

Really! Nice job.

Sad Sam

Complain about this comment
42. At 8:06pm on 05 Nov 2008, SamTyler1969 wrote:
#15

Jack,

And tax it. Hmmm, Amsterdam is a short train ride away.

High Sam

Complain about this comment
43. At 8:07pm on 05 Nov 2008, eightypercent wrote:

# 37

America never ceases to amaze. She can elect Barack Obama as President (joy) and at the very same time California of all places is back to square one on same sex marriage.

You would have thought that after the scandals of the recent past the Catholic Church especially would have learned a little discretion when it comes to meddling in other peoples' private lives. The irony is that they manipulate the democratic process to impose absolutism.

Complain about this comment
44. At 8:07pm on 05 Nov 2008, SamTyler1969 wrote:
#28

Snail,

As South park pointed out, we call them Chicken Lovers.

Deviant Sam

Complain about this comment
45. At 8:14pm on 05 Nov 2008, tigermilkboy wrote:
The Republican GOP will recover! It is just the nature of politics that you lose elections. In four years time there will be the chance for the GOP to fight for the Presidency.
All the GOP needs to do is find the center of American politics. This is by no means easy, the center changes at the will of the public. I think it will take the GOP a few years to find that ground and maybe lurch too far left or right.
The mistakes made in this campaign by the GOP were many. Personally, the biggest mistake was the Sarah Palin interview with Katie Couric. If someone is under-prepared for an interview with Katie Couric then they give the impression they are not prepared for the office of Vice-President. The questions were not unpredictable, they were not tough, they were entirely expected ie. foreign policy experience. If Sarah Palin was not ready for the interview the GOP/McCain team should have pulled the interview or demanded the list of questions to be asked.
The second was alienating the Hispanic voting bloc that has locked up Florida in the last two elections. The Hispanic voting block is growing faster than any other. They need more Hispanic politicians.
The third mistake was not allowing John McCain to be John McCain. I was moved by his genuine concession speech, where he silenced those who were bad losers in the crowd.
Having met John McCain he is a genuine politician, he talks very quietly to you. Of course he has his faults and I disagree with him on many things. But the 'real' John McCain is a much better man than his campaign allowed him to be portrayed as. I always felt he should have been portrayed as the strong, reliable, safe pair of hands, the grandfather, the veteran, the builder of bridges, the straight talk express. For some reason they decided to go with maverick, militaristic, Vietnam POW, grumpy old man.
But still John McCain came close to pulling this off. I just hope the GOP does not lurch off to the right because they tried a centerist candidate and it did not work.

Complain about this comment
46. At 8:18pm on 05 Nov 2008, RedWhiteandermblue wrote:
One thing I'm really looking forward to is a president who will treat our friends as friends. And I believe our friends feel the exact same way.

Complain about this comment
47. At 8:18pm on 05 Nov 2008, DominickVila wrote:
Ref 27

Dame, I had the opportunity to read your increadible post about the President-elect of the United States and the only thing I can say is suggest you seek professional help to help you face reality and rid yourself of the intense hatred and intolerance that are apparent in your posts.

If there is one thing we can surmise from this long and hard fought presidential campaign it is that Obama is a pragmatist focused on achieving his goals, and that he is very much a Centrist both on domestic and foreign policy matters.

As opposed to those that have chosen policies of division and fear, Obama is likely to adopt domestic policies similar to Bill Clinton's, although considering our current economic circumstances those policies are bound to be less ambitious, Obama will also surround himself with a team of qualified intellectuals that will likely include Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, men and women, whites, African-Americans, Hispanics, religious and not so-religious political pragmatists.

The days of doom and gloom are not ahead, but behind us, as are the days of fearmongering and division. Rejoice while you walk the streets of NYC; better days are ahead. Our Constitutional and Civil rights will not longer be eroded, all segments of our population will enjoy the same freedoms and opportunities afforded to the elite, fiscal sanity may eventually make a comeback, respect for other nations and cultures will replace dictums worthy of ruthless emperors, and fear will be replaced by hope.

Complain about this comment
48. At 8:18pm on 05 Nov 2008, SamTyler1969 wrote:
Justin,

I realize a post in the 40's is a bit late to be addressing you, but here goes.

Justin,

I think Daniel has his head in a warm dark place, and if he puts it any further in we'll be reaching for the tongs to grab his ears and pull him out.

America has changed, but it always changes. To be sure BO's win (can we call him BO or is that disrespectful? President BO?) is seismic, but no more so than JFK's. The glory of America is our primary system which allows a complete no hoper to come from nowhere and win the presidency. More to the point it allows us to elect transformational leaders. More times than not we don't, we go for the old fat white guy (not that there is anything wrong with that) and something that represents stability. But once in a while, when we need one, we pick someone completely different who helps us turn our nation around. This is our strength.

The last 8 years have been an aberration. A bunch of guys used fear to convince large sections of the population to vote against their personal and national interest. This morning we clicked our heels together 3 times and said 'There's no place like home'.

Daniel seems to think that there is some seismic shift going on. There isn't. This is America, we do this all the time. It's what this the greatest place on earth.

Colin Powell choked up today, quite touching. I choked a little myself. But that was probably down to the Bollinger and croissant breakfast. Not recommended, it makes it a long day.

Hung Over Sam

Complain about this comment
49. At 8:20pm on 05 Nov 2008, RedWhiteandermblue wrote:
30. Twilightrail, I agree, though I might accentuate the positive a bit more. Who said something along the lines of: "Americans often get it wrong, but have the saving grace of being willing and able to reinvent ourselves."?

Complain about this comment
50. At 8:21pm on 05 Nov 2008, SamTyler1969 wrote:
#39

Timmy,

No, but they did treat us like Mrs Rochester for a while.

Literary Sam.

Complain about this comment
51. At 8:22pm on 05 Nov 2008, J_O_E_L_-_C wrote:
#37 Here, here. There must have been a proportion of Californians who must view this result as bittersweet - one door opens and another slams shut.

The thing that bothers me is that presumably there must have been a proportion of voters in CA making the right choice with the presidential vote but also the wrong one with their prop-8 vote - can't they see the irony of that?

One question - in the UK we rarely have referendums on single issues and its used as an absolute last resort, yet it seems be prevalent in California.

1. Why do they have so many and

2. Isn't it a bit destabilizing to the proper conduct of the state legislature if people just call for a plebicide on a whim whenever a special interests' nose is put out of joint?

Complain about this comment
52. At 8:26pm on 05 Nov 2008, mdalerwill wrote:
#11

If you are refering to California's Prop 8, that's not a positive note to everyone.

Complain about this comment
53. At 8:29pm on 05 Nov 2008, SamTyler1969 wrote:
#45

Tiger,

Perhaps Johnny can be persuaded to become Secretary for VA so that he can properly rebuild his legacy and sail off into a respected and rosy retirement.

Helpful Sam

Complain about this comment
54. At 8:32pm on 05 Nov 2008, SamTyler1969 wrote:
All,

Who won the First lady cookie competition? Did they miss that out this year?

Inquisitive Sam

Complain about this comment
55. At 8:33pm on 05 Nov 2008, oldnat wrote:
My grandson is a Scot and an American.

His great-great-great-grandfather was a slave-owner.

His grandparents supported the Civil Rights Movement in the '60's

His mother voted enthusiastically for Obama, not because he was black, but for his policies - his colour didn't matter.

Yes, his mother is apprehensive if there some black guys behind her on the street - but she's also apprehensive if there some white guys behind her on the street.

The change in the US during my lifetime has been impressive.

Complain about this comment
56. At 8:34pm on 05 Nov 2008, KingKultur wrote:
Fascinating, colourful, uplifting pages - great time for headline writers and nepotistic British politicians. I share the optimism of many but would ask one key question that has yet to be answered - what makes Obama any more likely to change the world than McCain or any other similar politician? Sure, he has charisma - sure, he has huge inspirational, oratorical ability and has claimed to be a man of change - a history man - but he remains somewhat of an enigma with little if any manifesto. The world will watch with interest. Congratulations are deserved to all those Americans who have given him the chance - well done!

Complain about this comment
57. At 8:40pm on 05 Nov 2008, british-ish wrote:
37. David_Cunard:

Well, it's the 'democracy of money', isn't it? It forms strange alliances.

We of the Red Squirrel Party, of course would not go so far as to agitate for 'grey marriage'. Much as we respect our American cousins, we feel the views of some are so repugnant we could not encourage indiscriminate inter-breeding at this time. Perhaps in four years things will have changed.

However we have no objection to 'Civil Partnerships' and, of course, absolutely reject any idea that they should be chased.

(I know Americans spell 'grey' 'gray', but why did nobody correct the misprint and put the 'r' back in? Surely that accounts for the mistake many voters must have made?)

Complain about this comment
58. At 8:41pm on 05 Nov 2008, eightypercent wrote:

Colin Powell teared up - and Condi looked as pleased as punch when she talked about the result.

George Bush gave nice comments - but did anyone else think it strange that he mentioned nothing whatsoever about the campaign and not a word about McCain.

Sometimes one would love to be a fly on the wall.

Complain about this comment
59. At 8:48pm on 05 Nov 2008, neil_a2 wrote:
I sincerely hope my skepticism of Obama is unwarranted.

The international praise is welcome as we are more accustomed to universal condemnation. The world's memory is very short.

If Obama does, in fact, work for the better, I am more than happy to admit that my withholding support was in error.

Still, to me, his promises lacked substance. Experience will come quick.

As he is now the President elect, I wish him well in realizing the ambitions he has for America (and the world).

Do not worry yourself with Rush. He is entertainment for those of limited comprehension.

Complain about this comment
60. At 8:50pm on 05 Nov 2008, U12831485 wrote:
3, TimothyR444 wrote:

After 9/11, there was a rush of emotion in favor of Americans. Since then we have had several years of very intense anti-Americanism, much of it bitter and ugly.

_______

Makes one wonder, no ?

It could be argued that Bin Laden has done more for the US' global reputation than the Bush administration .

Never mind, don't think it through, I don't want you to hurt yourself.

Complain about this comment
61. At 8:50pm on 05 Nov 2008, mdalerwill wrote:
#39 (and many other posts) TimothyR444,

Not to criticize, but you seem very sensitive about this issue. Many of the posts you have seen as patronizing did not seem that way to me.

Complain about this comment
62. At 8:58pm on 05 Nov 2008, David_Cunard wrote:
#44. SamTyler1969: "Snail, As South park pointed out, we call them Chicken Lovers."

Amusing as it may intended to be, that comment is just one of the many that that the proponents of Proposition 8 (and others similar elsewhere) use to deny gay men and women equal rights under the law. Paedophiles are overwhelmingly heterosexual, as high as 90% it is claimed. During my lifetime - and even Sam's I think - the marriage of interracial couples was considered to be a criminal act, and in 1967 it took the Supreme Court of the United States to overturn the existing anti-miscegenation laws. Now that we have a more understanding President-elect, we can but hope that his Supreme Court appointments will have more enlightened views of same-gender marriage, just as did the Bench about interracial couples in 1967. It may take the Supreme Court to act, but make no mistake about it, one day, as Gavin Newsom said,"it's going to happen whether you like it or not."

Complain about this comment
63. At 8:59pm on 05 Nov 2008, Twilighttrail wrote:
re #49. To RedWhiteandermBlue, thanks for your comment! You are right, and I can afford to lighten up a little now. I have been afraid for a while that this time the U.S. was too far down the cliff to recover, but today a least I have new hope, in spite of the rough road ahead.

Complain about this comment
64. At 9:00pm on 05 Nov 2008, mdalerwill wrote:
#51

Yes, it is destabilizing. Great way to put it. I credit ballot box mandates for the programs that have drained the state coffers. We have nickeled and dimed ourselves to death.

Complain about this comment
65. At 9:17pm on 05 Nov 2008, SamTyler1969 wrote:
#62

David,

I think you have to have the episode in question front of mind.

I despise that balloit initiative. As I have observed before, Jesus was silent on the issue.

Gob bless you and God bless America.

Patriot Sam

Complain about this comment
66. At 9:20pm on 05 Nov 2008, SamTyler1969 wrote:
#51, 64

Gentlemen,

We can change that.

Si se purde.

Hispanic Sam

Complain about this comment
67. At 10:00pm on 05 Nov 2008, past-blast wrote:
now that reality sets in, can ob get the job done? We shall see. I remember the last 'change' president, jimmy carter and we all know what happened to him. I wish him luck and I hope that he doesn't hurt too many people.

Complain about this comment
68. At 10:15pm on 05 Nov 2008, MICKBURKE wrote:
Congratulations to Obama he ran a great campaign and I wish him luck. Also as an Irish Catholic I am pleased for Joe Biden and I hope he is not sidelined as Lyndon Johnson was by Kennedy. I say this because I think Biden has the kind of contacts and knowledge of Congress that Obama may lack.

Also John McCain showed real class in his concession speech and Obama was right to pay tribute to McCains sacrifices for his country.

Complain about this comment
69. At 10:35pm on 05 Nov 2008, p_in_ed wrote:
Please please keep him safe.

Complain about this comment
70. At 11:13pm on 05 Nov 2008, David_Cunard wrote:
#65. SamTyler1969: "I think you have to have the episode in question front of mind.

I despise that balloit initiative. As I have observed before, Jesus was silent on the issue.

Gob bless you and God bless America."

Taking the last remark first, that's very kind and I thank you.

As you say, Jesus was silent on the matter, but the churches mentioned never consider that. I was taught that the New Testament superseded the Old and that it was the words of the Gospels on which Christianity was founded. Nowadays, almost anything is considered as being "the revealed truth" even, when it suits them, the books of the Apocrypha, accepted by the Church of Rome. Likewise the Book of Mormon, if one can believe that they were found on the golden plates of Nephi. Both these churches poured millions of dollars into the "Yes on 8" campaign and, to my mind, are not deserving of the charitable tax status accorded them nor the description as a "Christian" body.

Lastly (or firstly) the problem is that many people will take the 'chicken' aspect as being true, regardless of from what show or episode it came. Words are so easily twisted to mean something quite different to the original intent. Nevertheless, thanks for the clarification and apologies if I appeared to have overreacted.

Complain about this comment
71. At 11:25pm on 05 Nov 2008, SamTyler1969 wrote:
#69

Si se puerde.

Steward Sam

Complain about this comment
72. At 11:29pm on 05 Nov 2008, allmymarbles wrote:
I felt America was better than our critics saw us. I was sure that Obama would not be rejected because he was black, and predicted he would win 367 electoral votes. Many said I was optimistic, that the race would be close because of silent racism They were wrong.

Our family had a bet going on whose prediction would come closest to the final electoral count, and we all anted up. If North Carolina is called for Obama, which is likely, foolish, optimistic me is the winner, and the pot is mine.

Complain about this comment
73. At 11:48pm on 05 Nov 2008, SamTyler1969 wrote:
#70

David,

No offense taken. I am trying to see the Pope on Sunday and I promise to express our shared irritation.

Perhaps the Bollinger breakfast will be in order that day as well.

Jet Lagged Sam

Complain about this comment
74. At 00:03am on 06 Nov 2008, SamTyler1969 wrote:
The moderators are nailing me. must have been thatcomment on the Pope. Can't be nice to anyone these days.

Good night, and God Bless America.

Sad Sam

Complain about this comment
75. At 00:06am on 06 Nov 2008, DominickVila wrote:
Ref 53

"Perhaps Johnny can be persuaded to become Secretary for VA"

All kidding aside, I would not be surprised if he is offered the opportunity to lead immigration reform.

Complain about this comment
76. At 00:09am on 06 Nov 2008, allmymarbles wrote:
37, David.

I am against gay marriage because it is rediculous. What gays are searching for is respectibility and acceptance and are using this means to promote it. We accept gays without any problem, but they do not a family make. For that you need a man and a woman.

This is not a politically correct stance, but so what?

Complain about this comment
77. At 00:19am on 06 Nov 2008, allmymarbles wrote:
23, ukwales.

And congratulations to you too. The election of Obama may go a long way towards improving relations with our friends across the Atlantic. Bye bye war-crazed president. Maybe now we can turns our minds to something constructive.

Complain about this comment
78. At 00:54am on 06 Nov 2008, SamTyler1969 wrote:
#76

Marby,

Yes.

But if we cannot hold the hand of our loved one and life long partner as they pass to the other side, and we would seek to deny others that right, then what have we become?

Sad Sam

Pax.

Complain about this comment
79. At 01:07am on 06 Nov 2008, jzelouise wrote:
I'm still stunned. Happy dance was performed, repeatedly.

#18 bionicexpat.
Bless you, I don?t think you have to worry about us white folks not being included.

27,000 of us were at his speech in Cincinnati Ohio on Sunday. 3 to 4 hour wait in a line that snaked clear around the campus where it was held. I walked that line. Yep, a 57 year old white woman with a cane.

Nice young campaign worker told me I could go in the side gate, not have to walk so far.

I walked all that line for those who couldn?t be there, for those who never had the chance to see a major party candidate who was not a white male.

America walked that line. America walked it as families with small children, walked it with college kids, with old people. Black, white, brown, red and yellow America walked that line. We were Christians Jews, Muslim, Hindu and Neo-Pagan. We were gay and straight. America walked that line.

Check out the various breakdowns on who voted for President Obama.

Mainly black American faces on TV? Think about how these Americans had to have felt. How could you not show those faces the most, it was the realization of a Dream?

Louise and my feet still hurt.

Complain about this comment
80. At 01:20am on 06 Nov 2008, David_Cunard wrote:
#73. SamTyler1969: "I am trying to see the Pope on Sunday and I promise to express our shared irritation."

Good luck with that one! I can't but wonder if all those monks and clerics are all as celibate as they claim. :)

#76. allmymarbles: "I am against gay marriage because it is rediculous."

How exactly is it ridiculous? You say "[gays] do not a family make." How do you figure that? If you're referring to the adoption of children, a loving household is better than no household. I can't see that two individuals of the same gender do not make a family. Do childless heterosexual couples make a family? By your logic the answer would be no.

The family of yesteryear, in which one party went to work and the other stayed home to bear children, bake and clean has gone the way of the Edison's cylinder - however, we still have recording, and it has progressed over the years. I realise that those of an older generation do not see contemporary advancements in family life in the same way as those who are younger, but many of those same people would never have thought that interracial marriage was acceptable. If nothing else, what harm does it cause for two people of either sex to enter into a contract to live together for life? I can't see your reasoning - the divorce rate amongst breeding couples is 50% for their first marriage and continues up to 80% for a third. That's not a very good advertisement for heterosexual unions, so why deny gay men and women the right to do likewise? Not only is your comment politically incorrect, it's illogical.

Complain about this comment
81. At 01:50am on 06 Nov 2008, allmymarbles wrote:
78, Sam.

We are talking about two different things. Surely visitation rights can be established without creating a marriage that is not a marriage.

Complain about this comment
82. At 01:53am on 06 Nov 2008, StephenDerry wrote:
Isn't the argument about gay marriage an argument about semantics?

Marriage is the name given originally by the Church and subsequently by the state to a formal contract of pair bonding. But human beings were pair bonding tens of thousands of years before there was ever a church.

The argument should be (and hopefully is) that gay couples should have the same rights and benefits in respect of the state as married couples and common-law couples receive.

Marriage itself is becoming an outdated notion, it's just a divorce waiting to happen. Marriage is expensive, divorce is even more expensive, I think everyone is better off avoiding it and just, ya know, trusting their partners.

Complain about this comment
83. At 02:17am on 06 Nov 2008, allmymarbles wrote:
80, David.

If I feel that gay marriage is ridiculous, I don't have to defend it. My feelings are honest and you can't argue with honesty. I also feel we should put a clamp on pornography. You might give me an argument about free speech and the first amendment, except that was not the intent or spirit of the first amendment.

Lots of people say things they don't mean because they don't want to be criticized. Political correctness is often a form of lying. If there were a nationwide referendeum permitting gay marriage, you and I know what the result would be. If there were a nationwide referencum restricting pornagraphy, you know what the result would be. In the voting booth you do not have to be politically correct.

Complain about this comment
84. At 02:27am on 06 Nov 2008, allmymarbles wrote:
82, Stephen.

Just as heterosexual couples are less and less apt to marry, homosexual couples are increasingly demanding the right. This supports my view that gay marriage is sought for respectibility and is not about marriage at all.

Complain about this comment
85. At 02:53am on 06 Nov 2008, geomapgirl wrote:
#76 - I am against gay marriage because it is rediculous. What gays are searching for is respectibility and acceptance and are using this means to promote it. We accept gays without any problem, but they do not a family make. For that you need a man and a woman.

As someone else has pointed out, by this logic, a heterosexual couple should be denied marriage if they do not intend to have children.

Those who wish to deny gay couples their right to marry seem inordinately hung up on the word "marriage," as if permitting a wedding would sully their religion. There is a solution to that, you know: If your religion objects, your minister should not be forced to marry gay couples. But your religious views should not be permitted to influence those religions that DO permit it, or to disallow gay couples to enter into a civil union. Many heterosexual couples are only married in a civil union and it is accepted without question as a legitimate marriage.

This kind of morality legislation is even more difficult to justify or understand than the one about abortion rights - there is no "victim" other than the hapless couple denied the right to legalize their relationship. Unless, of course, you elevate your "sensibilities" to victim status.

Or, are you so naive so as to believe that forbidding marriage to gays will prevent their cohabitation?

Complain about this comment
86. At 02:59am on 06 Nov 2008, David_Cunard wrote:
#83. allmymarbles: "If I feel that gay marriage is ridiculous, I don't have to defend it. My feelings are honest and you can't argue with honesty."

But you might explain why you think it ridiculous. I expect that it was once thought that it was ridiculous for couples of different ethnic backgrounds to marry, or first cousins. But no harm has come from either. It was once thought that believing that the world revol

#84. allmymarbles: "Just as heterosexual couples are less and less apt to marry, homosexual couples are increasingly demanding the right. This supports my view that gay marriage is sought for respectibility."

And what's so wrong with that? I assume you have always considered yourself "respectable" and that others have agreed. All gay couples want is parity.

Michael Guest was appointed US ambassador to Romania, that seems fairly respectable, so why should others like him be refused it? When he resigned, he said "Unlike heterosexual spouses, gay partners are not entitled to State Department-provided security training, free medical care at overseas posts, guaranteed evacuation in case of a medical emergency, transportation to overseas posts, or special living allowances when foreign service officers are assigned to places like Iraq, where diplomatic families are not permitted."

He went on to say that "this is not about gay rights. It?s about equal treatment of all employees, all of whom have the same service requirements, the same contractual requirements."

It is those rights which officially sanctioned marriage would bring about. I concede that it is an emotional issue, but that is no basis for inequality.

Complain about this comment
87. At 03:21am on 06 Nov 2008, geomapgirl wrote:
It occurs to me that amendments such as the one created by Proposition 8 in California could be overturned on the basis of failing to separate church and state, since all the objections to such "marriages" rely on the argument that "marriage" is inherently religious in nature.

Complain about this comment
88. At 03:22am on 06 Nov 2008, british-ish wrote:
85.

I rather agree; I think the 'gay lobby' made a bad mistake in the US by stressing 'marriage'.

Here in the UK there was a certain amount of discussion (and raving) about that, and the legal form became simply "Civil Partnership'. But since many heterosexual marriages are not 'religious marriages' but purely civil ones anyway, it didn't seem to arouse so much ire.

It became law here in quite a relaxed way (as I think it did in Spain earlier). I think it is necessary: two people who live together (whatever gender) should have the same legal and societal rights as a heterosexual couple.

(For non-married heterosexual couples, it was never so much of a problem; those rights had been long recognised in Common Law and Equity -- hence the term 'common-law wife'.)

I know some large British companies effectively recognised 'civil partnerships' long before the law was changed. I know one whose (male) partner died, and who was given the right to a 'widow's' pension by BP without any fuss, simply as a matter of fairness and justice.

It comes back to Fukuyama: yes, Europeans rely more perhaps on 'government' to implement some things for us. To subsume the universal good to the individual. It's a kind of tacit contract that's developed, really over more than three centuries, since Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, St Simon, through Marx, Gramsci (ow! those black helicopters are deafening!) et al.

(Don't think Fukuyama will be joining the list of influential philosophers of government or society in the next couple of centuries though.)

Complain about this comment
89. At 03:32am on 06 Nov 2008, british-ish wrote:
David_C, Sam, Allmy . . .

I wonder why we're being allowed this digression (er, mods. I mean 'extension') of Fukuyama without it being declared 'off topic'?

Perhaps they're just relieved not to be reading the usual rants and slanders from the usual suspects. . . .Or they've fallen asleep. Mention of Fukuyama tends to have that effect I find.

Complain about this comment
90. At 03:36am on 06 Nov 2008, Andrew_J2008 wrote:
Do the Math?

Estimated US population is 305 million
Only 121 million voted based on the reported popular vote (never mind electoral system for now)

The following voter figures are in millions:
Obama 63,893 or 52%
McCain 56,404 or 46%
Nader 658 or 1%
Barr 489 or 1%
Keyes 35 negligible %

Conclusion is Obama is elected by 21% or 1/5th the US population

Amazing!

Complain about this comment
91. At 04:11am on 06 Nov 2008, geomapgirl wrote:
#89 - (Don't think Fukuyama will be joining the list of influential philosophers of government or society in the next couple of centuries though.)

Wouldn't it be impossible for him to join them, since history has come to an end?

;P

Complain about this comment
92. At 04:14am on 06 Nov 2008, allmymarbles wrote:
89, ishish.

It does not surprise me is that after stating my opinions clearly, I am met with spurious logic and the usual political correctness. Perhaps because I am an Obama supporter my fellow bloggers assume that I am so left-wing that I fall over the edge.

I am an independent, fellas, politically and intellectually, and I really don't care what is popular these days.

Complain about this comment
93. At 04:16am on 06 Nov 2008, geomapgirl wrote:
Sorry, my last comment should have gone to #88, not 89.

Conclusion is Obama is elected by 21% or 1/5th the US population

But 52% of those who voted. The others were either

a) ineligible to vote (i.e. children)
or
b) did not care who won

In the case of B, then, they gave their de facto approval to the winner, who in this case is Obama.

Complain about this comment
94. At 04:50am on 06 Nov 2008, british-ish wrote:
91. At 04:11am on 06 Nov 2008, geomapgirl wrote:

#89 - (Don't think Fukuyama will be joining the list of influential philosophers of government or society in the next couple of centuries though.)

Wouldn't it be impossible for him to join them, since history has come to an end?
;P

That's obviously why he changed his mind and decided it hadn't ended after all. (Last year I think it was.)

Complain about this comment
95. At 05:14am on 06 Nov 2008, David_Cunard wrote:
#89. british-ish: "I wonder why we're being allowed this digression (er, mods. I mean 'extension') of Fukuyama without it being declared 'off topic'?"

I'll try this response again since the first three letters of Fukuyama's name appear to be unacceptable to the Mods or their filters. My reply didn't even get as far as being "referred", it simply noted that "there has been a problem." I had written that perhaps Fukuyama's very name gave rise to the digression, since separating each syllable gave a different meaning, and which I illustrated by putting hyphens between them, thus: first three letters, then 'u' then 'yama' - and I observed that I didn't know who 'yama' is. (Yes, I know that's two syllables, but you get my point.) It's odd that the "F" word can be heard on British television and read in some newspapers, but I didn't even write it! Picky, picky, picky!

Complain about this comment
96. At 05:46am on 06 Nov 2008, David_Cunard wrote:
#88. british-ish:"I think the 'gay lobby' made a bad mistake in the US by stressing 'marriage'."

Au contraire mon ami! It was the proponents of Proposition 8 who harped on the word 'marriage', not the 'No on 8' campaign. They bombarded the airwaves with commercials telling gullible viewers that YES restores traditional marriage and that it would affect churches and what was taught in schools.

Domestic partnerships are legal in California and are recognised under UK law as being the same as British Civil Partnerships, but there is no ceremony involved, simply an application which then results in a rather handsome certificate. But not everyone recognises the validity of the partnership, so hospitals and care homes are at liberty to deny information or access to someone who is not lawfully married or otherwise related to the patient. Happily there are those who do, including the County of Los Angeles (the largest in the USA) and the Kaiser Permanente Healthcare system.

#92. allmymarbles: "It does not surprise me is that after stating my opinions clearly, I am met with spurious logic and the usual political correctness."

The point is that there is/was no logic (let alone clarity) in the statement that "I am against gay marriage because it is rediculous." Apart from saying that it's a ploy for respectability, you provided no argument to support what must be an emotional response. But no matter, the votes are still being counted, even at this late time, and if the "yes" vote is sustained, an appeal is to be lodged with California's Supreme Court. Failing that, when the United States' Supreme Court becomes more liberal, as it surely must, then it will be subject for the Justices to consider.

Complain about this comment
97. At 05:58am on 06 Nov 2008, british-ish wrote:
95. David_Cunard

Several of us Brits have pointed that out before.

There's a great story by John Simpson about when he was writing the news scripts and the Americans had just attacked a Vietnamese village (plus ca change . . .) with a somewhat similarly problematic name.

The newsreader refused to read it, and with only minutes to go, in exasperation Simpson said OK, pick another one then, he stabbed his finger on the map (twice, the first wasn't much of an improvement!) and the location of the incident was forever after shifted by about 40 miles . . .

There's also a (possibly apocryphal) tale that's circulated around sub-editors' desks for donkey's years that the Americans landed themselves with one of their nastiest Vietnamese allies by accident because the name of the general they really wanted to install was similar to the same first three letters followed by something like the second person singular, until someone pointed out that no English-language newspaper could ever print it, or broadcaster ever say it . . .

But really . . .taste . . .even at this hour of the morning.

(Actually I had something similar in mind, but knew I'd never get it past them. Not in such a way it stayed funny, anyway.)

Complain about this comment
98. At 07:19am on 06 Nov 2008, R-Snail wrote:
From a Darwinist perspective, I would argue that this is not a religious issue. Any survival of the fittest criteria applied to a group that cannot reproduce has obvious conclusions and zero religious implications.

Ahh I can almost hear the screams of "intolerant" now... from those who cannot tolerate that I actually have an opinion that disagrees with their self righteousness.

Complain about this comment
99. At 08:00am on 06 Nov 2008, british-ish wrote:
98. R-Snail wrote:

From a Darwinist perspective, I would argue that this is not a religious issue. Any survival of the fittest criteria applied to a group that cannot reproduce . . .

It always amuses me when I see an argument based on this proposition. Isn't human biology taught any more?

Leaving aside any argument about whether being gay is genetic, inherited, or acquired, I somehow doubt that the proportion of sterile homosexuals is any different to that of heterosexuals. . .

Complain about this comment
100. At 08:07am on 06 Nov 2008, dickie56 wrote:
Just read the piece on why McCain lost maybe its time for three party politics in the USofA
the two they have and a new third party the American White Christian Taliban Party. The decent Republican Party of Lincoln would then walk it or stand a chance.

McCain is a good man but what right minded person could vote for him with the hangers on of his party.

GET religion OUT of politics

Complain about this comment
101. At 08:39am on 06 Nov 2008, David_Cunard wrote:
#98. R-Snail "Ahh I can almost hear the screams of "intolerant" now... from those who cannot tolerate that I actually have an opinion that disagrees with their self righteousness."

Seems to me that's pot and kettle.

You still haven't told us what is so "positive" about the passing of Proposition 8. Religious persuasion perhaps, but surely not based on the ability to breed? There are plenty of (non-adoptive) gay parents - you may even know the names of celebrities who have given birth to babies; as far as I am aware, there's only been one immaculate conception in history.

Complain about this comment
102. At 08:50am on 06 Nov 2008, David_Cunard wrote:
#88. british-ish: "I know one whose (male) partner died, and who was given the right to a 'widow's' pension by BP without any fuss, simply as a matter of fairness and justice."

I forgot to ask - was that in Lord Brown's time? If so, little wonder!

Complain about this comment
103. At 09:49am on 06 Nov 2008, SamTyler1969 wrote:
Hi Marby,

Yes, agreed. But proposition 8 is pretty nasty and would deny that, plus healthcare coverage and various other things.

Personally I'm all for the state defining legal unions and marriage being down to the individual church / temple / religion you choose to follow.

But that's just me.

Ambivilent Sam

Complain about this comment
104. At 09:50am on 06 Nov 2008, british-ish wrote:
102. At 08:50am on 06 Nov 2008, David_Cunard

Dunno when it started. I think Royal Dutch Shell and BT had the same sort of thing at the same time too, but BP happens to be the one I actually knew about.

Complain about this comment
105. At 10:10am on 06 Nov 2008, SamTyler1969 wrote:
#104, 102

Gentlemen,

Employers are often more generous than government for SSDP's. It's in their interest to have as talented and diverse a workforce as they can and these types of benefits help.

It's just a shame that as a society we are not there yet. Ironic that Capitalism is ahead of government on a social issue.

HR Benefits Sam

Complain about this comment
106. At 10:15am on 06 Nov 2008, SamTyler1969 wrote:
#98

R-snail,

Actually, and deeply ironically, it has been shown in a number of studies that Darwinian Fitness is actually higher for homosexual males than straight ones (in a 'fire and forget' scenario) as they tend to be attractive to females for liaisons dangereous. In fact gay males can, if they desire it, act as cuckoos.

As for gay females being unable to reproduce, if you honestly don't think that a couple of lesbians could not secure the necessary genetic material and a delivery mechanism, you don't know guys. Or how to use a syringe.

Evolutionist Sam

Complain about this comment
107. At 10:39am on 06 Nov 2008, SamTyler1969 wrote:
That should be 'honestly think'

Editor Sam

Complain about this comment
108. At 12:44pm on 06 Nov 2008, R-Snail wrote:
101 David

How is the status quo intolerant?
There is huge philosophical chasm between indifference and legislative endorsement.

Does the fact that I am not an advocate means I am intolerant? Kettle meet pot.

Tell me, why is my right to choose less valid than yours?

There are always problems when society tries to legislate morality, and in this instance the voters have made a choice "in the highly liberal state of CA I might add" not to endorse this behaviour, and because it doesn't agree with your values, it's the "wrong" choice... yet when the same voters elect your candidate, it becomes a mandate.

David you usually espouse good logic with your disparate ideas. In this case you're merely being emotionally hypocritical.

Complain about this comment
109. At 1:00pm on 06 Nov 2008, R-Snail wrote:
106 Sam

You've evolved the topic from homosexuality to heterosexual liaisons. Hardly a committed relationship there.

There are a myriad of slippery slope arguments that open up at this point, but I'm not ready to be lambasted for my mere opinions of how quickly society slides down the hedonist flagpole.

But for your own awareness, be careful of "studies" as the hidden agenda of the researcher usually finds exactly what they were looking for.

Complain about this comment
110. At 1:13pm on 06 Nov 2008, jacksforge wrote:
103
Sam
Personally I'm all for the state defining legal unions and marriage being down to the individual church / temple / religion you choose to follow.

But that's just me.

---------
Not just you smart sam.

"down at the dentist one day and the hygienist asks "If you want health care why do you not just marry your lady(who she treated) then you would get health care.

(real good christian value behind that marriage)

I had to explain that I would get a
civil union, as and when they make them available to both gay and heterosexual couples .

She (rabid christian btw) told me I was stupid.(like many here) why not just get married.

So told her I wanted a CIVIL union not to let the world know I plan to head home drunk every friday night , abuse her and act like many married people.

Then had to lecture her that the rights of a spouse cannot legally be any different for a homosexual person as a heterosexual person.

Keep you marriage to your church.

I don't care. Marriage is not a legal arrangement as far as I understand. It is a commitment of love.

So why should there be any rights associated with marriage. gay or straight?

As for the lesbian baby, possibilities.

Turkey baster .

Complain about this comment
111. At 1:21pm on 06 Nov 2008, jacksforge wrote:
98. At 07:19am on 06 Nov 2008, R-Snail wrote:
From a Darwinist perspective, I would argue that this is not a religious issue. Any survival of the fittest criteria applied to a group that cannot reproduce has obvious conclusions and zero religious implications.

Ahh I can almost hear the screams of "intolerant" now... from those who cannot tolerate that I actually have an opinion that disagrees with their self righteousness.
----------------------

Time not to be so nice.

R snail. let me say straight away that you should get screamed at.

American should be stopped from having babies in your world.

Chances are they will be brought up in an Obese household, to be obese. To get asthma.
In some places to be abused by "straight" daddy or uncle.

Even with out abuse just the health implications of being born american are appalling.
it could be argued.

A health gay couple could bring a kid up safer than a fat opinionated ignorant american straight family.

in the old america because

TTTHingss cann onllyyy get better

Complain about this comment
112. At 1:23pm on 06 Nov 2008, bubblegumNewsreader wrote:
Bush administration is coming to an end, and i am sure people must be relieved to have a change.

Rush of emotion in Americans was visible be of any color. Several years of very intense anti-Americanism, is going to end very soon most probably after the 20th of January.

Now rest of the world is supposed to believe the positive comments, which will likely end quickly, as people have short memory, or something unusual is going to happen. Let's wait and watch.

Complain about this comment
113. At 1:24pm on 06 Nov 2008, jacksforge wrote:
92 marbles,
never thought you left.

Complain about this comment
114. At 1:28pm on 06 Nov 2008, jacksforge wrote:
So how about leaving marriage out of the law.
make the declaration of marriage just than.
an event with absolutely No implications on tax, health --anything.

Legal right go with the civil union.

or statement of partnership.

now I wish I had not mentioned this earlier.

Complain about this comment
115. At 2:26pm on 06 Nov 2008, freeclench wrote:
The headline:

Four reasons why America went for Obama:
The old politics has been swept away because the voters themselves have changed: they are richer, smarter and less white.

America went for Obama because he wasn't Bush. It's really that simple.

I don't know where this idea that Americans are "richer" than they were four or eight years ago comes from. There's more revenue in the country, but the bottom 99.5% of us haven't seen it.

There has been a long-term demographic change, but again not one that would tip the balance in the past four years.

Are Americans smarter? Well...

Smart enough that the financial crisis lent credence to Obama's claim that the neocon econnomic policy had failed. And Obama was simply better at the electoral game.

-FreeClench
http://freeclench.blogspot.com

Complain about this comment
116. At 2:32pm on 06 Nov 2008, freeclench wrote:
(Certainly Obama was richer, smarter and less white.)

-Fc

Complain about this comment
117. At 3:07pm on 06 Nov 2008, jacksforge wrote:
34. At 7:33pm on 05 Nov 2008, lordBeddGelert wrote:
Bloody typical that the Daily Mail STILL chooses to lead with 'House Prices' !!

Some things never change...

do they still have a picture and article on Diana every day?

or have they left the title "daily diana " behind

Complain about this comment
118. At 3:16pm on 06 Nov 2008, jacksforge wrote:
70
DC
Both these churches poured millions of dollars into the "Yes on 8" campaign and, to my mind, are not deserving of the charitable tax status accorded them nor the description as a "Christian" body.

too true

Complain about this comment
119. At 3:25pm on 06 Nov 2008, PaulPieniezny wrote:
"Only 121 million voted based on the reported popular vote"

Er... the figure is increasing and will be increasing for some time still:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/popular-vote.html

Millions of yet uncounted votes: provisional, absentee and even early votes (which some administrations are checking against the November 4th voters, to trace double voters). There are unconfirmed rumours in the bloggosphere that the calls on Georgia and Indiana were too early. Georgia was apparently called for McCain when he was 250,000 up but 600,000 early and provisional votes were still to be counted. Does not look like Obama will get back, however. It may help the Democratic contender for the Senate, as Georgia has a re-run for Senator if no contender takes the majority of votes (a bit like the electoral system in ... France).

According to Intrade, for some reason Missouri is starting to look certain for McCain (though there was no change in the voting totals) and North Carolina for Obama (recent lead increase by 2,000). The second district of Nebraska could still turn out to be THE surprise of 2008: although both Nebraska and Maine give one electoral vote to whomever gets first in their congressional districts (and two electors corresponding to the 2 senators to who wins the state a s a whole), there never was any split until now.

Complain about this comment
120. At 3:25pm on 06 Nov 2008, jacksforge wrote:
39 timmmaaayyy
We were never outside the "world family".

well MATE you must not get around much.

go visit the world. go to London, shout your belief out.
I give you 30 seconds before someone smacks you in the gob.

Complain about this comment
121. At 3:28pm on 06 Nov 2008, jacksforge wrote:
39
and again timmmaaaayyyy
you wonder why people have a problem with america.

could you be a prime example of why they have that feeling.
Hell you, you timmmaayyy make Americans hate america.

Complain about this comment
122. At 3:30pm on 06 Nov 2008, jacksforge wrote:
42 Sam not for eugene it's not. :(

Complain about this comment
123. At 4:12pm on 06 Nov 2008, vcm1967a wrote:
RE: #120

"go visit the world. go to London, shout your belief out.
I give you 30 seconds before someone smacks you in the gob."

Actually, knowing some of the people that I know in London, they would not even give him the luxury of 30 seconds.

And not even the luxury of a "gob-smack"...

just a swift, merciless kick to the junk.

Complain about this comment
124. At 4:50pm on 06 Nov 2008, blogitoergosum wrote:
If anyone at the BBC reads this, please display in a prominent place, i.e. not here, why Missouri and North Carolina have not yet declared.

Their are 538 votes in total. Candidate A has 349, Candidate B has 1962, Missouri has 11 and North Carolina 15. That's 537. Who has the other vote?

Did Paris Hilton stand or was she just kidding?

Yours in anticipation.

Complain about this comment
125. At 5:20pm on 06 Nov 2008, jacksforge wrote:
123 vcm

yea that s true.

I suspect he would do quite well after the initial hit as people clammer to get a pop in.

Complain about this comment
126. At 5:30pm on 06 Nov 2008, PaulPieniezny wrote:
#124. blogitoergosum wrote:
"If anyone at the BBC reads this, please display in a prominent place, i.e. not here, why Missouri and North Carolina have not yet declared."

I am not the BBC, but I explained above already: they are still counting provisional votes (not only there, of course, but these two states have very small leads), absentee ballots, dubious early votes, ... Some networks have called Missouri for McCain and North Carolina for Obama. Intrade thinks both calls are 98% certain. If you have different info, go there and win a fortune.

"Their are 538 votes in total. Candidate A has 349, Candidate B has 1962, Missouri has 11 and North Carolina 15. That's 537. Who has the other vote?"

That is the cliffhanger of the election: Nebraska congressional district two. With the provisional votes it is going back and forth. The BBC actually explained about that one deficiency, but I do not remember where. They do things differently in Nebraska and Maine, but until this election it made no difference. Lots of young people in Omaha made the most progressive part of a very conservative state winnable for Obama.

Complain about this comment
127. At 6:23pm on 06 Nov 2008, Nick-Gotts wrote:
R-Snail@98,

So presumably you think sterile people, including women past the menopause, should not be allowed to marry.

Complain about this comment
128. At 6:35pm on 06 Nov 2008, Nick-Gotts wrote:
"Maybe now we can turns our minds to something constructive." - allmymarbles

Oh, like denying gay people equality you mean?

Complain about this comment
129. At 7:58pm on 06 Nov 2008, David_Cunard wrote:
#108. R-Snail: "How is the status quo intolerant? There is huge philosophical chasm between indifference and legislative endorsement.

Does the fact that I am not an advocate means I am intolerant? Kettle meet pot."

You forget that you had written that the passage of Proposition 8 was a "positive" ending. If you were neutral about it, then there would have been no reason for you to use the word, but by so doing it appeared that you were a supporter of the Amendment. Thus far you have not explained what precisely is "positive".

"Tell me, why is my right to choose less valid than yours?"

You can choose to marry or not - this does not extend to same-gender couples. It is parity that is being sought, no more.

The preamble to the California Consitution reads:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

To deny same-gender couples the right to "happiness and privacy" appears to me to be an abrogation of the Constitution. Why should it apply only to heterosexuals? As the Declaration of Independence states, "All men are created equal", but as George Orwell later observed, "some are more equal than others."

"There are always problems when society tries to legislate morality, and in this instance the voters have made a choice "in the highly liberal state of CA I might add" not to endorse this behaviour, and because it doesn't agree with your values, it's the "wrong" choice... yet when the same voters elect your candidate, it becomes a mandate."

You give yourself away by writing of "this behaviour" - an aside, you use the British spelling; I wonder why? It would appear that you do not approve of or condone what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes, so logically your opposition to same-gender marriage follows on from that. In fact, the "behaviour" aspect was not a concern of the "Yes on 8" campaign but rather, in British terms, was the equivalent of Clause/Section 28, now repealed.

Proposition 8 was not legislating morality as such, it did/does not presume to say that "this behaviour" is right or wrong. It simply denied the right of loving and committed couples to formalise their commitment, much as interracial couples were denied that same right. Ironically, according to The Los Angeles Times,70% of all Black voters, who overwhelmingly voted for Mr Obama, also voted for affirmatively for Proposition 8. No doubt many of those who are on "the low down" felt guilty about their experiences and, in order to assuage their conscience, denied others what they themselves have gained.

Complain about this comment
130. At 8:12pm on 06 Nov 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:
Wow! Obama Outperforms Kerry Among Virtually All Demographics
"Comparing exit polls from 2004 and 2008 makes the breadth of Barack Obama's victory clear. Obama received a larger share of the vote than John Kerry among voters of all genders, races, education levels, and income classes, and virtually all religions. The only groups with whom he underperformed Kerry were older (65+) voters, and gay and lesbian voters."
Peace and the Future
ed

Complain about this comment
131. At 04:20am on 07 Nov 2008, cheroke1270 wrote:
I do enjoy listening to the late night (here) BBC broadcasts for their accurate and probing reports of world events. However, on the night of the election I was surprised when the interviewer of John Bolton let slide his comment about 5 % points being a slim margin in Barack Obama's victory. There was a 100 year record turnout of voters. As we all too painfully learned in 2000, one can have the most popular votes and still lose, as it is the electoral college that really matters. Considering that Barack Obama attained over twice as many electoral college votes, that is hardly a slim margin. I was most dissapointed that the reporter did not press him on this fact.

Julie Wisconsin USA

Complain about this comment
132. At 3:04pm on 07 Nov 2008, susanbird1 wrote:
Something to consider and perhaps naive?

My sister said that perhaps the TV Series "24" may have played a role in electing Obama President of the USA.

She said that the show featured African-American Presidents (Palmer brothers). It gave people the comfort level.

In recent Hollywood films (Independant Day, Mars Attack and Armaggeadon, etc) and TV shows like the The West Wing, the President was always portrayed by a white one.

Just a thought.

Obama is a fine man and certainly very able. The man for all seasons!

Complain about this comment
133. At 3:32pm on 07 Nov 2008, SamTyler1969 wrote:
#109, 108

Snail,

That's the problem with not reading, you convince yourself. I did make a mistake though, the studies I referred to are Scientific papers, which have gone through peer review.

You made a statement regarding Darwinian Fitness, I merely refute it with the scientific evidence.

As for the value of your choice being equal to others it is. But your choice for others is not. It is the equivalent of me imposing my view that being Gay is OK by making you engage in homosexual activities. It would be wrong.

Which is the problem the US Religious Conservatives often have. The conversation goes something like this:

'Let me follow my beliefs'
'Fine guys, go do what you want to do'
'My beliefs say I have to force you to live your life the way I want you to'
'Go pound sand'
'Intolerant libero-fascist. You don't respect my views'

Kind of whiny, don't you think?

Ethicist Sam

Complain about this comment
134. At 5:00pm on 07 Nov 2008, musins wrote:
I?m quietly dismayed by the sensational events we have seen unfold across the pond. I?m not dismayed by the result of the US Presidential election, the massive turnout, the enthusiasm for democratic process nor what appears to be the resurgence of liberal, democratic USA. I?m dismayed because, if Great Britain had a voice that could sing, it would now be wailing the Aretha Franklin refrain, ?It should?ve been me!?

In a time where we have all witnessed the rise of elitist big government on both sides of the Atlantic, building (and continuing to do so in our case) its authority on fear; fear of terrorism, fear of organised crime and fear of the international uncertainties in the financial markets, the American people have delivered their verdict: No More!

As Gerard Baker in the Times on Wednesday, the day following the US election, wrote, ??the real significance of the huge show of electoral force goes way beyond the energy generated by the [Obama]?? It reflects ?a fierce urgency? to chart a new course for a nation that most feel has lost its way.

As he went on in his piece, I started to feel a knot of anxiety creeping into my being; it seems much of his comment was directly applicable to Britain and our situation right now. Baker wrote that there was, ??a desire for change beyond the immediacy of dissatisfaction over wars and a failing economy?? and that US voters were feeling, ?...a broad loss of confidence in the institutions of American leadership?? in a ?period of mounting anger with what is seen as corporate greed?? and that an angry ?rebellion? had been unleashed against the media and academia.

In sounded horribly familiar, the outline of institutional failure on all levels, public, private and educational; Baker could be describing the UK right now.

But unlike the US, there is no opportunity for change here: there is no force in this country for true change; that which would change forever the relationship between people and government. And it?s no good looking for allies. The balancing forces of the media and free academic discourse, and commentary have been curtailed and corrupted through political and commercial agendas, and patronage. The media particularly has been looking the wrong way for too long.

Politicians vie with one another to scare us silly; they require only our quiescence. Royal prerogative is used not as a last resort that we entrust to thoughtful men and women to defend our very freedoms, our right to pursue our own destinies, rather it has become a tool of government to be used and abused as government sees fit.

Public bodies are given powers and access to personal data for which in truth they have no actual use or should have any right to wield, but have them and wield them they do.

A generation of the people have been criminalised, as our once local police forces have become nationalised through the pursuit of national crime detection and clean-up targets. We are turned into a de facto police state when an officer of the law can stop, search and arrest a citizen without showing any due cause. And subsequently finger-print, photograph and DNA test that citizen without charging him or her with any crime at all.
Our courts are no help either: the loss of a right to silence by permitting the court to draw inference from that silence does not make the system fairer, as any inference drawn from a defendant?s silence (because human beings are human beings) is likely to be one of suspicion (no smoke without fire). Politicians knew this when they changed the right to silence. If the courts exist for one purpose, they serve to save us from ourselves ? but no more.

And the creeping authoritarianism is not confined to government. Banks, credit card companies, utilities, mortgage lenders and council authorities are harassing their customers for missing one payment, threatening legal action; using the courts system as blunt instrument ? and our judges are complicit.

We are required to swallow the argument as the British Government dismantles our constitution and any structures of liberty: if you?ve done nothing wrong, you?ve nothing to fear. But what happens when a government agency gets it wrong?

A seismic shift has taken place in Britain over the past ten years. The benefit of the doubt mo longer lies with citizen, it lies with the apparatus of state and governmental control. The true measure of democracy is not choice, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, the right to vote; the true measure is that it is the state that must prove its citizen is in the wrong, not the other way around; when a decision is in the balance, it is for the state to concede, not the citizen.

So I look across the pond with envious eyes ? the machinery of freedom is still in tact: the people have spoken ? no more! Change! And change they?ll have, but only where it concerns the problems of today ? the fundamentals of their democracy were put in place a long time ago.

Our opportunity for change may be some time away, but even then it will not be enough. The tweaking at the edges that the Conservatives or any other political party might promise will not rebuild the trust lost through the cynical antics of our current government and the despotic arrogance with which it has treated us.

The change we need is not even ?root and branch? reform ? it is more fundamental than this. Our constitution, the very bedrock of our society, law and governance is irreparably damaged ? to even try to back track out of this past ten years is to build on the shakiest of foundations. The change required if this nation stands an Earthly?s chance of surviving another 1000 years is to wholly reform the structure of government and governance, which can only be achieved through our own declaration of independence and a written constitution to match.

This means many things: separating the monarchy and the Church of England from the state and any constitutional role, the clear segregation of the Legislature and the Executive; the members of being chosen by the people and the people alone; the supremacy of the upper house, whatever that may be; a complete re-organisation of local powers; a retraction from the EU, re-establishing of our sole authority over our own sovereignty; an overhaul and re-focusing of our judicial system and the rights of individuals caught within it of their own doing or not. And a re-organisation of the powers of authority over our police force.

But most importantly, for the first time since the Magna Carte a true setting down of a bill of rights, one that binds our politicians to its absolute defence and that cannot be cast aside on a whim of royal prerogative or ?derogation?, simply because the real answer, the true response to attacks on our democracy lie within the box marked ?too difficult?.

But I know that our politicians lack the moral courage, democratic belief; the intellect to accept that our systems is now so broken that sticking plaster will no longer suffice. It has stood for near 1000 years, it will not stand for much longer.

So, we look on at the irony that is the United States of America, a fully functioning democracy developed from a few words set down 230 some years ago. The irony is for us. The words were not set down by men who suddenly dreamt it up out of thin air nor had some sort of ?original epiphany?. No, they understood, and borrowed direct from, the work and the words of British 17th and 18th century reformers; they looked to the UK as the land of the free. So, where did it go so wrong for us?

Look west and cry, ?It should?ve been me!?

Complain about this comment
135. At 6:01pm on 07 Nov 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:
Musins (134),

Well mused. Mostly seconded. America's system remains far from perfect, though. I do endorse The Constitution, and its philosophical roots

Peace and democracy
ed

Complain about this comment
136. At 8:17pm on 07 Nov 2008, vcm1967a wrote:
RE: #134

"But I know that our politicians lack the moral courage, democratic belief; the intellect to accept that our systems is now so broken that sticking plaster will no longer suffice. It has stood for near 1000 years, it will not stand for much longer."

I now feel a little guilty inside. In the last 72 hours, I've been infused with a sense of hope that I have rarely felt in the course of my life... and to see someone who feels as I felt not too long ago is a bit disturbing.

I don't know your country's laws. I know some of your customs, but am in no way, shape, or form qualified to tell you what you as a people need to do to fix things.

All I can say is that you need to try. You have a voice when you vote. I know, it sounds puerile and condescending to say that... but it's true. Until just recently, I did not think it mattered. I sincerely wish I could tell you what to do, but I can't. All I can do is wish you luck.

Complain about this comment
137. At 10:12am on 08 Nov 2008, R-Snail wrote:
129. David

The preamble to the California Consitution (sic) reads:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

To deny same-gender couples the right to "happiness and privacy" appears to me to be an abrogation of the Constitution. Why should it apply only to heterosexuals? As the Declaration of Independence states, "All men are created equal", but as George Orwell later observed, "some are more equal than others."

David, to begin we must come to an agreement on definitions.
1. What do you mean by happiness? If it makes me happy to walk around naked?(which I do in my house) should the government endorse my desire to walk around the streets naked? How about if something illegal make me happy?? Do you believe hedonism is synonymous with the pure pursuit of happiness?
2. What do you mean by privacy? Is marriage a private or a public action? I think that marriage is a very public action. Now I?m trying to keep religion out of this, but I think most weddings open with a phrase like, ?We stand here before God and man to wed these two??

So, by my definition of "happiness and privacy?, I do not espouse government endorsement of homosexual relationships in the public arena.
What you can read into this is, I do not want to legislate homosexuals? morality, nor do I want homosexuals legislating my morality.

"There are always problems when society tries to legislate morality, and in this instance the voters have made a choice "in the highly liberal state of CA I might add" not to endorse this behaviour, and because it doesn't agree with your values, it's the "wrong" choice... yet when the same voters elect your candidate, it becomes a mandate."
You give yourself away by writing of "this behaviour" - an aside, you use the British spelling; I wonder why? It would appear that you do not approve of or condone what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes, so logically your opposition to same-gender marriage follows on from that. In fact, the "behaviour" aspect was not a concern of the "Yes on 8" campaign but rather, in British terms, was the equivalent of Clause/Section 28, now repealed.

I use the ?u? in my writings in deference to the fact that this blog is on a BritishBC website. I?m simply trying to be polite. I hope to disagree without being disagreeable. Now you conclude (correctly) that I do not approve of homosexual behaviour, but you carry it too far with your comment ?in the privacy of their own homes?, it is in the public arena that I do not condone it. I believe the wording of Section 28 was very close to the intentions of Proposition 8. I certainly do not believe that kindergarten is the place for any sexual education heterosexual or homosexual.

Thus my statement that Prop 8?s passing was positive is because it stops legislating morality. It does not presume a right or wrong. It simply allows a definition, in this case , a definition of the word marriage. No homosexual rights have changed. It is positive because after 61% of the Californian people had already passed Prop 22 in 2000, four judges declared the will of the people invalid. Democracy works both ways. The 70% of black voters, who overwhelmingly voted for Mr Obama, and voted affirmatively for Proposition 8 did so because they know there are differences between a skin color and a behaviour.

For all I know, you could be a homosexual? it doesn?t matter to me. It shouldn?t matter to you that I disapprove of one aspect of your behaviour. You probably would disapprove of some of my behaviour after I?ve overindulged in too much Guinness. Nevertheless we are thoughtful and thought provoking people. I like you. Do you hate me for my views. If so? say so, and I?ll stop trying to put lipstick on a pig.

Complain about this comment
138. At 5:40pm on 08 Nov 2008, jacksforge wrote:
Thus my statement that Prop 8?s passing was positive is because it stops legislating morality.

A law preventing gays from getting married,not all couples just gays,is helping to stop people legislating morality.

Doug you out there, can you explain this logic.?
No.

Hmm. but I think getting married should be a crime, so can we expand it to all marriages. This ban.

Complain about this comment
139. At 6:34pm on 08 Nov 2008, David_Cunard wrote:
#137. R-Snail: "Now you conclude (correctly) that I do not approve of homosexual behaviour . . . it is in the public arena that I do not condone it."

And presumably you would not wish to see heterosexual behaviour - i.e., sexual - in public either. How is marriage between any couple 'public'? Unless a man wears a wedding ring you couldn't tell by looking whether he was married or not. It is the behaviour aspect which bothers you.

"I do not want to legislate homosexuals' morality, nor do I want homosexuals legislating my morality."

Ah, but you do! You don't approve of their behaviour and you would deprive them of the protections of the law that marriage affords.

"It simply allows a definition, in this case , a definition of the word marriage. No homosexual rights have changed. " The corollary is that by the rejection of Proposition 8, no heterosexual rights would have been changed. Why should one group of loving people have a monopoly on a word? There is no logic to the argument that only heterosexuals may use it; it is based on the disapproval of behaviour and the emotional response thereto.

I don't hate you but do think you are woefully ignorant.

Complain about this comment
140. At 11:11am on 09 Nov 2008, swdeva wrote:

A great day in America and around the World.
He truly is "The One". Please keep this one save to do his work to the end this time, so the change will be complete.

Complain about this comment