Kiwiblog

The Australian reports:

THE codename chosen for a secret policing operation to protect US President Barack Obama during his visit to Australia sounds innocuous enough.

But calling it Operation Blue Gum, after Australia’s iconic native trees, almost caused an international embarrassment.

US consular officials were aghast when briefed by their counterparts in the NSW Police Force about the title, Blue Gum. In America, a “bluegum” is offensive slang for a lazy African-American who refuses to work. …

Australian officials have been at pains to stress that most NSW Police Force operation names are generated by a computer.

Now that would have been really embarrassing if no one had noticed in time.

Real Clear Politics publish polls of polls, averaging all the different polls out there.

They report today, that for the very first time Obama’s negatives are greater than his positives in their average of the polls.

47.3% say they approve of the job he is doing and 47.8% disapprove.

If healthcare passes, I expect he will get a lift from that, even though it is controversial. Being ineffectual is worse than being unpopular, when you hold the most powerful job in the world.

Chris Trotter writes:

Labour has become electorally implausible because it no longer projects itself as either psychologically, or morally, convincing.

Mr Goff, in last week’s “State of the Nation” speech, spoke of a Labour Party dedicated to serving the needs of “the many, not the few”.

He lambasted those who avoided paying their fair share of tax and he vowed to cap the salaries of state sector chief executives at the level of the prime minister’s annual income.

A traditional Labour message, and by all accounts powerfully delivered.

But was it real?

No, not really. It took the redoubtable Right-wing blogger, Cactus Kate, less than a day to uncover the fact that a significant number of Labour MPs belonged to one or more family trusts, the very same tax avoidance device that Mr Goff was railing against.

Rhetoric without substance doesn’t do well in the blogosphere.

And what about all those state sector CEOs on excessive salaries? Well, Mr Goff is to be congratulated for wanting to share the “pain” of economic recession more equitably.

But, in order to restore a measure of equity to the pay scales of the public service, surely Mr Goff would have to renounce his own, and Labour’s, continuing support for the State Sector Act?

After all, Mr Goff was a cabinet minister in the fourth Labour government, which introduced the State Sector Act. Its purpose?

To bring the private sector’s market- driven discipline into the public service: to give the heads of government agencies the same powers and responsibilities as corporate chief executives and pay them accordingly.

If Mr Goff is now acknowledging that the ideology underpinning the State Sector Act is flawed, then I, for one, will cheer him to the echo.

But if he still adheres to the neoliberal ethos which gave it birth, then he should let the market in CEO salaries find its own level, and like the original author of the State Sector Act, Stan Rodger, remain steadfastly on the sidelines and keep his mouth firmly shut.

And if Goff does suddenly declare the State Sector Act is wrong, the question will arise why has it taken 30 years to realise it. Longevity in Parliament is not always helpful for an opposition leader.

To win back the love Labour’s lost, the leader of the Opposition must learn how to channel not only the hopes and aspirations of Labour’s educated middle-class minority, but also the fear and antagonism of its sullen working-class majority.

A genuine political leader will gladly and gloriously reflect the idealistic light of his best followers but, when pressed, he must also be capable of tapping into the darkest impulses of his worst.

True leaders are feared as much as they are loved.

Think of Helen Clark in the midst of the “Corngate” scandal: chilling. Think of Rob Muldoon ordering Tom Scott out of the Beehive theatrette: terrifying.

Watching TVNZ’s Guyon Espiner interviewing Mr Goff on the Q+A programme, I was struck by how keen the leader of the Opposition was to please.

I don’t think it is a bad thing, that Phil Goff does not have a streak of Clark or Muldoon in him. While I disagree with his policies, I think Phil Goff is a pretty decent person, who achieved many good things as a Minister. I don’t think he will become Prime Minister, but if he did I think he would do an okay job (again I probably would disagree with a lot of his policies).

Democracy, it is said, substitutes ballots for bullets. And that’s fine so long as, like the metal projectiles they replace, ballots also have the capacity to inflict real damage.

Labour needs policies that not only help but hurt.

Out there in the electorate, some groups need to understand that they will be paying for Mr Goff’s promises. Sweet reason and bipartisanship, as President Barack

Obama has discovered, make for poor politics. There’s nothing the voter enjoys more than the whiff of fear and panic – especially in high places.

No politician gets elected purely on the strength of being everyone’s friend. At least symbolically, and preferably in reality, a party leader must also be somebody’s enemy.

Actually Obama has not been at all bipartisan. I think problem has been his moving to the left, instead of the centre. And by doing so he seems to have positioned himself as the enemy of fiscal hawks. The trouble is they are winning the war.

Too early to know if he will follow the rhetoric up with substance, but it is pleasing to see this language from Obama:

Mr Obama said he welcomed all suggestions on cutting spending.

“It’s time to hold Washington to the same standards families and businesses hold themselves,” he said.

“It’s time to save what we can, spend what we must, and live within our means once again.”

He added that spending could not continue “as if the hard-earned tax dollars of the American people can be treated like Monopoly money”.

This is in great contrast to NZ Labour which seems to think borrowing $240 million a week is not enough, and constantly calls for more spending.

It would be great to hear Phil Goff or David Cunliffe talk about protecting the hard-earned tax dollars of New Zealanders.

Politico report:

President Obama plans to announce a three-year freeze on discretionary, “non-security” spending in the lead-up Wednesday’s State of the Union address, Hill Democratic sources familiar with the plan tell POLITICO.

The move, intended to blunt the populist backlash against Obama’s $787 billion stimulus and an era of trillion-dollar deficits — and to quell Democratic anxiety over last Tuesday’s Massachusetts Senate election — is projected to save $250 billion, the Democrats said.

This is a massive move to the centre, if true. It would also be a very good thing economically.

So in the UK Labour are talking spending cuts. In the US, Obama is talking a spending freeze. But in NZ, Labour’s only response to every issue is to demand more spending and more borrowing.

I’ve been saying for months and months that NZ Labour do not realise the world has changed. People understand that with huge deficits, there can’t be massive spending increases, big pay increases for public servants etc.

The first quote is:

A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee

The second quote is:

a “light-skinned” black man “with no Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one.”

So was this Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin? Dick Cheney and Bill O’Reilly?

No, according to a new book called Game Change, the first quote was made by Bill Clinton to Ted Kennedy, and the second by Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Clinton’s quote is of course incorrect. If it involved serving himself and Ted Kennedy, there is no way they would have been getting served coffee – whiskey is far more likely.

An article in the Herald:

When the Nobel peace prize committee awarded President Barack Obama the ultimate accolade, its members can never have imagined that his acceptance speech would set out an eloquent defence of war.

His speech in Oslo could have been delivered by George W. Bush, when Obama spoke of “evil” in the world and of reserving “the right to act unilaterally”.

I bet you they still cheered wildly though.

He offered an outstretched hand to Iran and North Korea, instead of the fist of his predecessor, Bush. But now the talk is of “crippling sanctions” as the Iranian authorities continue to ratchet up their nuclear defiance.

Welcome to the real world.

He disappointed human rights advocates by not standing up to China and for hesitating too long before expressing support for the demonstrators in Iran.

Gay rights campaigners point out he has not yet fulfilled his campaign promise to welcome gay men and women into the military.

His pledge to close Guantanamo by the end of the year is proving complicated to implement.

Rhetoric vs reality

Obama’s approval rating in the polls now stands at 47 per cent.

It is the worst poll rating for any American President since Truman at this stage in the presidency.

Is this the case? Let’s check.

1. George W Bush 86%
2. John Kennedy 77%
3. George H W Bush 71%
4. Lyndon Johnson 70%
5. Dwight Eisenhower 69%
6. Richard Nixon 59%
7. Jimmy Carter 57%
8. Bill Clinton 54%
9. Gerald Ford 52%
10. Ronald Reagan 49%
11. Harry Truman 49%

So in fact at 47% it would be below every modern President.

Now again there is a long way to go before the election, and Reagan, Truman and Clinton all won second terms. But this presidency is certainly no JFK and Camelot.

But the 2010 mid-terms are looking to be fascinating. The Republicans now lead on the generic congressional poll by 43% to 41%. However they have large internal rifts and many of their more electable candidates may not win the primaries.

Public Policy Polling blogs:

Perhaps the greatest measure of Obama’s declining support is that just 50% of voters now say they prefer having him as President to George W. Bush, with 44% saying they’d rather have his predecessor.

That is a startling figure, considering how unpopular Bush was on both the left and the right.

Barack Obama has said the US will wim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 17% by 2020, but this is 17% on their 2005 levels, not 1990 levels.

The growth from 1990 to 2005 has been around 17%, so in fact their target is to be around the same as in 1990 – a 0% change.

Now bear in mind the Greens have got hysterical because NZ has *only* pledged a 10% to 20% reduction on 1990 levels. Obama’s target makes NZ’s target seem wildly ambitious, not bottom of the pack.

Vernon Small reports on the conclusion of a free trade agreement with Hong Kong. So it got me thinking what are the countries we have an FTA wth, or are negotiating. The answers are:

1. Australia, since 1983
2. Singapore since 2001
3. Thailand since 2005
4. Trans-Pacific (Brunei/Chile/Singapore) since 2005
5. China since 2008
6. ASEAN (Brunei/Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam)
7. Malaysia
8. Gulf Co-operation Council (Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar)
9. Hong Kong
10. Korea

Now who are our biggest trading partners:

1. Australia $18.7b – in force
2. USA $9.0b – zip
3. China $8.9b – in force
4. Japan $7.6b – some momentum
5. Singapore – $3.1b – in force
6. Germany – $3.0b – zip
7. Malaysia $2.9b – finalised
8. UK $2.8b – zip
9. Korea $2.7b – under negotiation

Also the total value of trade with ASEAN is $12.2b and GCC $4.3b.

So while progress on Doha remains stalled, we’re doing pretty well. The big gaps are USA, Japan and the EU. The EU are hopeless. Japan is showing some signs of life and in a very welcome move, President Obama a few minutes ago said the United States would seek to join the Trans-Pac agreement.

I’m delighted his protectionist election rhetoric, may have been just that – rhetoric. I started writing this blog post unaware of Obama’s announcement – how is that for good timing!

Nine months into his term, I thought I’d take another look at Obama’s ratings compared to other US Presidents. Gallup has polling data back to WWII. At Day 270 the approval ratings were:

1. George W Bush 89% (post 9/11)
2. John Kennedy 77%
3. Lyndon Johnson 74%
4. George H W Bush 68%
5. Dwight Eisenhower 65%
6. Harry Truman 63%
7. Ronald Reagan 56%
8. Richard Nixon 56%
9. Jimmy Carter 54%
10. Barack Obama 50%
11. Bill Clinton 47%
12. Gerald Ford 40%

Clinton of course won a second term, but Carter did not. Clinton abandoned healthcare reform and moved to the centre. Will Obama?

The Weekly Standard reports on the difference one person can make:

Pamela Key does not work for the Republican National Committee. She has no formal training in journalism. An illustrator of children’s books, she never finished college. And yet, her oppositional research, her investigative journalism, and her philosophical convictions have all come together to shape the national mood, receiving even the attention of the White House. On August 4 of this year, Linda Douglass, the communications director for the White House, released a video where she instructed the public, “My job is to keep track of all the disinformation that’s out there about health-insurance reform. And there are a lot of very deceiving headlines out there right now, such as this,” she reads the Drudge Report from her computer screen, “‘Uncovered Video: Obama Explains How His Health Care Plan Will Eliminate PRIVATE Insurance.’”

What most don’t know is that Douglass was targeting a video unearthed by Key, first released on her video news website, Naked Emperor News, and then picked up by the Drudge Report. The video, which pieces together various Obama statements, damningly quotes the president at an SEIU forum in 2007 saying, “I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be, potentially, some transition process: I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out.”

That is a truly damning quote, and this is why so many people wonder just how left wing is Obama.

Looking through the archives of Chicago’s public radio stations, of C-Span, of YouTube, and various other forums, Key uncovered clips of Obama saying cap and trade will bankrupt coal plants, of Van Jones calling for a revolution against “suicidal, gray capitalism,” and of congressional democrats refusing to regulate and audit Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2004. In one of her most viewed videos, which received nearly three million hits, Obama advocates for redistribution of wealth. In that 2001 Chicago public radio interview, Obama tells a radio talk show host, “One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was [the] tendency to lose track of political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.” To this effect, he criticizes the radical Warren court (1953-1969) as not being radical enough: “It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the constitution generally, the constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what states can’t do to you, says what federal government can’t do to you. But it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.”

Again, this is superb research from one person. Who knew Obama thought the Warren court was not radical enough.

Obama To Enter Diplomatic Talks With Raging Wildfire

From The Onion of course. It’s superb.

Hat Tip: Trevor Loudon

The Herald reports:

The United States Senate is expected to confirm an openly gay lawyer – David Huebner – will be its next ambassador to New Zealand.

The appointment has generated some publicity in the United States because it is the Obama administration’s first appointment of an openly gay ambassador.

Mr Huebner is currently a lawyer based in Shanghai for a United States law firm where he specialises in international arbitration and mediation. He also acts as general counsel for the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.

People may be unaware that both Presidents Clinton and Bush appointed gay Ambassadors. Bush appointed Michael Guest as Ambassador to Romania.

As the US has around 150 Ambassadors, I’d expect around half a dozen of them to be gay, all other things equal.

His law firm bio is here. He currently works in Shanghai, and before that worked as an assistant to a Japanese Diet member. His legal career seems pretty distinguished. His law firm represents 56 of the Fortune 100 companies.

Often Ambassadors are major donors, but as far as I can tell he gave only $3,000 in 2008 – $2,000 to Obama and $1,000 to the DNC.

Readers recall my satirical post about the Green Party advocating compulsory abortions, to fight climate change.

Well again sometimes fiction gets close to truth.

John Holdren is President Obama’s Science Czar. In 1977 he co-authored a textbook which has some views which are, well … read for yourself. Now to be fair to him he says today he does not advocate compulsory population control, but it shows that such extremism is not as far away as we like to think.

So what did he say:

Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.

That compulsory abortions could be constitutional to save the planet!

One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.

1977 was not that long ago. Now again to be fair to Hodren he doesn’t quite endorse forcing solo mothers to marry or abort, but he describes the possibility without disapproval.

Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.

Mass sterilisation so long as it doesn’t affect pets ro livestock. Today the Greens might argue it is a bonus if it sterilises the cows also!

Involuntary fertility control
…
A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
…
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.

Maybe he once consulted to China? Who need toasters when you can use a sterilizing capsule.

If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.

This could be a private members bill for ACT – the reproductive responsibility act

In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?

Well if you have too many wives, you are forced to divorce all but one of them. So what do you do if you have too many children?

Toward a Planetary Regime
…
Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.

The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.

Now from my reading of this he wants the UNEP, now probably part of the UNDP, to control planetary population and resources. I’d say Helen Clark is liking her new job more and more.

Thank God this fruitcake doesn’t have any influence, such as being chief science advisor to the President of the United States of America. Oh wait a second ….

Around 125,000 have watched on You Tube the clip of John Key on David Letterman.

That’s a huge amount. As a comparison Barack Obama earlier in the week has had around 335,000 views. And that is for the President of the United States – a country with around 80 times our population.

Bill Clinton got 12,000 views in the same week, and most Top Tens seem to get around 10,000 views.

Around 1,400 people have commented on the video also.

I might be wrong, but I suspect Helen Clark hated that her first meeting with Barack Obama was having John Key introduce her as his predecessor, after Obama goes out of his way to say hi to Key.

We sometimes forget what a great reputation our country has overseas as a place to live:

Mr Obama had a friend living in New Zealand who had raved about the country praising its golf courses, skiing and lifestyle for families.

If Obama does visit at some stage, he’ll be a lot more popular than he is back home. UMR released a poll yesterday on NZers views of world leaders. The net positive ratings were:

1. Barack Obama +82% (88% favourable, 6% unfavourable)
2. Kevin Rudd +45%
3. Angela Merkel +15%
4. Nicolas Sarkozy +2%
5. Gordon Brown -1%
6. Silvio Berlusconi -16%
7. Vladimir Putin -19%

The Herald reports:

NEW YORK – Prime Minister John Key had a surprise meeting with United States President Barack Obama at a lunch at the United Nations here this afternoon (New York time).

The pair were scheduled to meet for the first time at a US Presidential reception this evening but Mr Obama approached the Prime Minister unexpectedly at a lunch hosted by Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon.

The pair chatted for two or three minutes.

Mr Obama asked Mr Key how he was enjoying the UN. The pair exchanged pleasantries before the US president moved on.

Mr Key will have another chance to meet the US leader at tonight’s reception.

What I find amusing is that the PM is meeting the UN Secretary-General, US President, NATO Secretary-General etc etc, yet the average Kiwi is only interested in his appearance on Letterman!

The Letterman episode will screen Friday night NZ time.

I first heard about this widely reported poll on Twitter, from Public Address:

Poll: A third of conservatives believe Obama could be the Antichrist. 18% are certain he is: http://bit.ly/2WY48F

My tweet back was:

lunacy but you forgot to mention in same poll a third of dems think gwb knew of 911 attacks in advance.

And PA:

Yes, that’s in the link. But IMO, believing Obama to be the Antichrist is orders of magnitude more weird.

And my response:

have to agree. In fact thinking anyone is the antichrist is pretty far gone.

Anyway I’ve thought a lot more about the poll. It has been widely reported as proof that a large segment of the US right are deranged. So it got me interested in finding the full poll results.

The first thing I notice, in the poll of 500 New Jersey residents, is that it is an automated telephone poll. This means the respondents push buttons on their phone, they are not speaking to an actual person.

So immediately I am suspicious that many of those responses may be in jest. Hell, if I received a recorded voice saying

“Do you think Murray McCully is the Anti-Christ? If yes, press 1, If no, press 2. If you’re not sure, press 3″

well once I’d stopped laughing I’d be pretty tempted to press 1 or 3

Now is there any proof for my theory many voters may have been taking the piss.  Let us look at the crosstabs. Overall 8% said yes he is, and 13% were not sure. And the shock figure was 18% of conservatives said yes he is, and 17% were not sure

• 5% of those who voted for Obama in 2008 said he is the Anti-Christ and a further 5% said they were not sure
• 6% of moderates said Obama was the Anti-Christ and 13% were unsure
• 6% of Democrats said Obama was the Anti-Christ and 7% were unsure
• 24% of Hispanics said Obama was the Anti-Christ and 18% were unsure
• 11% of African-Americans were unsure if Obama is the Anti-Christ
• 24% of those aged under 30 said Obama was the Anti-Christ and a further 18% were not sure

The last stat especially reinforces my suspicion many were taking the piss. Does anyone really think over 40% of under 30s do not know if Obama is the Anti-Christ?

So more under 30s and more Hispanics said Obama was the Anti-Christ, than conservatives did. But that is not such a sexy headline.

Now don’t get me wrong. I am sure there are some conservatives who think Obama is the Anti-Christ. And they are scary. But is it a very small minority of the conservative movement, or as much as one in three as the poll headline suggested? I say the former.

And some other unusual results:

• 31% of 2008 Obama voters think Bush knew of the 911 attacks in advance
• 4% of 2008 Obama voters want to eliminate the Federal Government, as do 6% of McCain voters
• 21% of Democrats do not think or are not sure if Obama was born in the US
• 11% of Republicans think Bush knew of the 911 attacks in advance
• 6% of Democrats want to eliminate the Federal Government, and only 5% of Republicans
• 50% of African-Americans think Bush knew of the 911 attacks in advance
• More Hispanics and African-Americans said they want to eliminate the Federal Government than Whites

My conclusion would be that one should be wary of using automated phone polling for controversial statements. People are far more willing to push a digit on a phone for something they do not believe, than actually tell an actual human being the same thing.

The Dom Post reports:

United States President Barack Obama has written to Prime Minister John Key before a crucial gathering of world leaders in New York next week.

Mr Key revealed he had the letter, but would say only that it was in response to one he had written to Mr Obama “on a couple of things that we’re doing”.

He said the response was about the relationship in general but would not go into further detail. …

But Mr Key revealed that talks are already under way on a White House visit: “It will happen, all the signs are very positive.”

The last trip to the White House by a New Zealand leader was last year, when former prime minister Helen Clark made her second visit.

Mr Key said New Zealand had not been pushing for an earlier visit, and believed it better to wait till there was something positive to report on the trade front. There were high hopes toward the end of the Bush administration that progress would finally be made on the much-coveted free trade deal, after negotiations toward a trans-Pacific partnership were announced.

Positive news on the trade front would be good.

Sad to read in the HoS:

President Barack Obama slapped punitive tariffs on all car and light truck tyres entering the United States from China in a decision that could anger the strategically important Asian powerhouse but placate union supporters important to his health-care push at home. …

The federal trade panel recommended a 55 per cent tariff in the first year, decreasing 10 per cent in each of the next two years. Obama settled on an extra 35 per cent in the first year, reducing by 5 per cent for two years. Beijing yesterday sharply condemned the US move: “China strongly opposes this serious act of trade protectionism by the US.

“This act not only violates the rules of the World Trade Organisation but also violates the relevant commitments made by the US Government at the G-20 financial summit.”

Protectionism may sometimes deliver short-term gain, but at the expense of long-term pain. NZ is a sterling example of this as we got rid of almost all tariffs and subsidies, yet up until the global recession had the lowest unemployment rate in the OECD. Protectionism doesn’t save jobs in the long-term, it merely keeps capital locked up in relatively inefficient industries.

To be fair to Obama, Bush was also a protectionist despite his rhetoric. He slapped tariffs on regularly, against WTO rules. They know they will lose at the WTO eventually, but do it to get through the election.

It is a pity, in terms of trade policy, that John McCain did not win. He was a very sincere and dedicated free trade supporter – his policy was to remove barriers to trade with every country on Earth, except those they have security issues with.

David Letterman had the top ten reasons Britney Spears should be made US President:

Britney Spears’ 10 presidential pledges:

1. I’d be the first president to wear eye shadow since Nixon.

2. We would only invade fun places, like Cabo.

3. Free pie for everybody!

4. My situation room would be a cabana at the Palms Casino in Las Vegas.

5. I’d lure Osama Bin Laden out of hiding with the irresistible scent of my new fragrance Circus Fantasy.

6. Every presidential news conference would feature costume changes.

7. If I was president America might have a more coherent fiscal strategy.

8. I would challenge US to put a nightclub on the moon by the end of the decade.

9. Three words: Vice President Diddy.

10. Finally the media would pay some attention to me!

Britney Spears would probably have a more coherent fiscal strategy than both Presidents Obama and Bush.

Not a big change to the polls in June. I’ve just put out the June polling newsletter that has details of poll in NZ, Australia, UK, US and Canada. You can subscribe to it at this page.

Over the last six weeks or so Obama has fallen from a net positive rating of +28% to +14%. -14% from last month) with 55% (-6%) approving and 41% (+8%) disapproving. He now has (based on the average of all public polls) an approval rating of 55% and disapproval of 41%.

Gallup have been polling since WWII and allow you to compare Presidents at the same stage of their presidency. At Day 171 this is how the post WWII Presidents ranked:

1. Truman 82%
2. Johnson 74%
3. Eisenhower 73%
4. Kennedy 72%
5. Carter 67%
6. Bush GHW 66%
7. Nixon 65%
8. Reagan 56%
9. Bush GW 56%
10. Obama 55%
11. Clinton 41%
12. Ford 39%

Now to be fair to Obama, the higher ratings tended to be the earlier Presidents, but nevertheless it shows the challenges ahead for him.

By now many people will have followed this case. The Times has a good summary of where it is at:

Crowley had been sent to the house after a neighbour noticed two black men attempting to break through the front door.

Gates had returned from a trip to China to discover the door was jammed, so he broke into his home with the help of his taxi driver.

Crowley is the white police officer and Gates the black Harvard Professor.

One can understand that Crowley had to investigate after being called by a neighbour. He was not just walking past. And Gates was not just loitering around, but actually breaking into a house – his own.

Exactly what transpired after Crowley arrived at the house with another officer and asked Gates to identify himself may never be known. Crowley claims Gates became agitated and abusive and ignored warnings to calm down.

Although tapes exist of Crowley’s radio reports back to his station, it may take a media lawsuit to make them public; one police officer who knew the content of the tapes said Gates could be heard yelling at Crowley but it was not always clear what was being said.

For many African-Americans, Gates’s subsequent arrest for disorderly conduct, a charge that was rapidly dropped, was an all-too-familiar tale.

It is possibly there is fault on both sides. I can understand that Gates could jump to a conclusion that he is being asked for ID beacuse he is black. Let us not pretend it has not happened in the past. However he would have been better to show ID, and calmly explain this is his house – he just lost his key. Crowley could radio in to check ownership and even help him gain entry. Also if Gates had asked why is he being asked for ID, Crowley could have explained the neighbours phoned in a complaint.

Having said that, if Crowley realised that Gates probably was the owner, it may have been wiser to just try and explain that as Gates has no keys, it is not unreasonable to ask for ID, and arresting him should be a last resort.

A lot of it may come down to what exactly Gates said to Crowley.

Then we have Obama foolishly jumping in. He is a friend of Gates, which would have been reason enough to say he won’t comment.

The incident led to a rare breakdown of Obama’s previously impressive political judgment. Having spent much of the past two years steering clear of racial controversy and nurturing an image of so-called “postracial” conciliation, the president plunged unexpectedly into the Gates affair.

He declared on Wednesday, when it was still far from clear what had happened, that the Massachusetts police had “acted stupidly” by arresting Gates, whom Obama described as a personal friend.

Obama has since apologised to Crowley and invited him and Gates to the White House for a beer to settle differences. You see it emerges Crowley is no Mark Fuhrman:

It then emerged that Crowley, 42, knew a great deal about police treatment of black suspects – he had been hand-picked by his African-American chief of police to teach a local academy course on avoiding discrimination.

Obama’s discomfort increased when Sergeant Leon Lashley, a black Cambridge officer who was at the scene, said he supported Crowley’s actions “100%”.

Lashley added: “I was there. He did nothing wrong. There’s nothing rogue about him. He was doing his job.”

So no wonder Obama apologised, especially after police union after police union criticised the President for his comments.

The whole area of racial profiling got me thinking over the last few days. How much do racial stereotypes affect us?

I sort of did a mental test with myself. I am one of those people who gets nervous walking home very late at night (as in after midnight) if I can hear or see the shadow of someone just behind me. Probably comes from being mugged a couple of times when younger. Anyway I try to subtly grab a look at who is behind me.

So I asked myself, if I am walking home at night and the person just behind me is of a darker hue (appears to be Maori/Polynesian) does that make me a bit more nervous?

The honest answer is yes – a bit. And this can be a rational reaction to the violent crime states (2008) that show violent offending rates to be 0.3% for Asians, 0.7% for Caucasians, 2.4% for Pacific people and 3.8% for Maori.

So I think to myself does that make a me a racist. And I then think well what if I know the person behind me and recognise them. Well in that case I become colour blind to their race as I know them as an individual. For example if Pita Sharples or Paula Bennett is walking behind me at night I’m not at all going to think they are going to mug me, as I know them.

But then I still think to myself – is it fair I apply a stereotype (even a true one) to my walking home fears? So I then ask what other stereotypes do I apply? So I ask myself what would make me more nervous – a male or female walking behind me. Definitely a male. Their violent offending rate is 2.2% to 0.5%. Likewise a 90 year old would make me less nervous than a 20 year old.

My subconscious reaction is not just based on demographics. A “darker skinned” person in a suit would cause me no subconscious worries (very few violent criminals wear suits) while scruffily dressed torn jeans caucasion would. So race or skin colour is actually quite a minor factor compared to gender, age, attire etc.

Now I hope no one is offended by what is an honest post on the things that flash through your mind as walking home with someone behind you.

Now I then consider what if police officers react the same way. Is it not possible that relying on stereotypes can become a self-fulfilling prophecy? If you think a certain group is more likely to commit crime, then you are more likely to target them? I fully understand why racial profiling is not a desirable thing.

On the other hand I recall the prominent African-American leader who said after 9/11 that if he is on a plane and sees a Muslim get up and go to the bathroom, he gets nervous. I suspect that reaction has faded with time, but is that religious profiling.

And does anyone have a problem with the fact that one assumes you are safer if it is a woman walking behind you, rather than a man? This story in the Dom Post is a reminder not to assume!

I also then think aloud – if it is sort of ok to worry that the person behind you is more likely to mug you because of his or her ethnicity or gender, then is it okay to discriminate againt that ethnicity or gender with job applications? My answer is no – because when people apply for jobs you get to learn about them as an individual – their work history, there grades, their references etc. It is generally wrong to use “group information” when you have individual information in my books.

So is it wrong for the Police to profile? Again I think it is. I think such profiling can be self-fulling. The Government should treat everyone equally.

However in the case of Gates and Crowley, it is not at all clear that there was any sort of profiling – and Obama jumped in on an assumption.