Cascajun

Dutch politician Geert Wilders has released his long-awaited film critical of the Koran on LiveLeak. The 15-minute film — titled “Fitna,” Arabic for civil strife — features graphic news images of terrorist attacks in New York and Madrid, beheadings, violence against women in the Islamic world, anti-Semitic tirades by imams, and death threats against Jews by Muslim extremists along with verses of the Muslim holy book.

U.S. Supreme Court Media: District of Columbia v. Heller - Oral Argument

I both listened to, and read, Obama’s speech on race. It was well crafted, but less than persuasive. I found myself pondering the meaning of some phrases, like “this nation’s original sin of slavery”. I can only conclude he believes the world was an Eden where slavery was unknown until Amerikkka invented it. Now that’s a message that will unify the country!

Later Obama related the story of his white grandmother; “a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.” And exactly how did that experience shape the man? I can only conclude, based on his subsequent actions, that Obama chose his church and spiritual mentor on the basis of how much it made him cringe. How else can one explain his 20 year relationship with Reverend Wright?

Central to Obama’s campaign has been an assertion that he represents a new kind of politics built around a post-racial, post-partisan unity and harmony. Obama and his supporters assert that experience is less important than judgment - a claim they back up by referring to his 2002 speech against Iraq.

In his speech on race today Obama said:

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle – as we did in the OJ trial – or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, ‘Not this time.’ This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can’t learn; that those kids who don’t look like us are somebody else’s problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

Those are fine words, but Mr. Obama’s judgement and actions are a stark contradiction. When it comes to matters of race and unity, we do have a choice in this country. Obama had a choice and he chose to be a member of Reverend Wright’s church. He chose Reverand Wright as his spiritual mentor. He later chose Reverend Wright when he sought a pastor for his wedding ceremony and the baptism of his daughters. Each time Obama chose to affiliate himself with a person who is divisive and whose language is full of hate. He could have said “Not this time” many years ago and on many occasions. He did not.

I can only assume that Obama’s inadequate explanations and efforts to distance himself from Reverend Wright only came about when it became clear they were a liability to his campaign. How’s that for change?

The quote below is from a colleague at a recent SPIE event in San Diego, CA. The event, SPIE Smart Structures/NDE, features an annual EAP-in-Action session with demonstrations of electro-active polymer applications & devices.

Monday continued into the evening’s EAP session, where 8 different groups from New Zealand, Italy, China, Australia, Switzerland, and the US each demonstrate their applications of EAP technology – everything from a flower that opens and closes in response to temperature, to an EAP-propelled and steered ‘fish’, which even had a ‘fish cam’ transmitting wireless to a monitor to give everyone a fish-eye’s view of its aquarium environment.

Electro-active polymers are plastics that can change shape and motion. I can imagine many applications of EAP devices, including micro & nano size medical & surveillance devices.

Are all politicians, regardless of party, crooks and liars? Has it always been that way?

Wretchard writes about the British Labor party’s reversal of position on a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon (emphasis mine):

“In other words the Independent thinks it unfortunate that the former French President called the public’s attention to the fact that a political superstructure was being constructed over the nations of Europe and thinks Tony Blair was ‘cowardly’ to promise he would consult the voters on it when the whole thing could have been handled so much more quietly in backrooms.”

“But recent events in Britain underscore just how powerful the backroom has become and how little words to the public mean. Despite Tony Blair’s promises not to give up British sovereignty without asking Britons, the “fix” was in. Recently Barack Obama himself was accused of privately telling the Canadian government one thing about NAFTA while the public yet another. Although Obama denies talking out of both sides of his mouth, saying his staffers were misunderstood, the shadow of the backroom looms large over every public pronouncement. Maybe politicians don’t represent the “people” any more. Just themselves.”

Are the following examples of change?

As his supporters will point out, Obama hasn’t been indicted with Rezko. However, what does his longterm relationship with Rezko say about Obama’s character? Are the boarded up slums his reward to the constituents of his congressional district?

I find it incredible that Hillary claims she didn’t know one of her biggest fund raisers was a felon and fugitive. Even if I were to give her the benefit of doubt, it is even more incredible that her entire staff were duped along with her. And, if they were aware of Hsu’s history, they were ignoring direct instructions from Hillary to be certain all donations to the campaign were legitimate. Is this the kind of leadership & ethics we can expect from Clinton and her White House staff?

Senators Obama and Clinton continue to race to the left as they attempt to gain the Democratic Party nomination. The Financial Times reports:

Until a few weeks ago Barack Obama’s economic platform was the most centrist of the three Democratic contenders remaining after John Edwards, the flag-bearer of the left, dropped out in late January.

Since Super Tuesday on February 5, that has changed. Scenting, perhaps, the chance of settling the nomination next week (when Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont go to the polls), Mr Obama has indulged in a bidding war with Hillary Clinton to see who can rail most strongly against globalisation.

Campaign veterans say much of the rhetoric can be discounted as classic primary season politicking that will be diluted when it comes to the general election. But sympathetic economists have expressed concern about proposals Mr Obama has unveiled in the past two weeks since campaigning began in earnest to woo the workers of Ohio.

Last week Mr Obama came out against “open trucking” with Mexico in which freight lorries would drive across the border instead of unloading on to American trucks. His new stance coincided with the endorsement of the Teamsters union, which is opposed to competition in road freight.

In addition to attacking the North American Free Trade Agreement, which Mr Obama says has cost the US ‘millions of jobs’, both candidates have alarmed America’s neighbours by threatening to opt out of Nafta.

How far will Obama or Clinton get repairing the United States’ reputation abroad if one of his/her first foreign policy moves is to threaten Mexico and Canada: Either agree to revisions in NAFTA, or the United States will pull out?

That sounds like ‘cowboy diplomacy’ to me…and others.