Kiwiblog

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.

A Paulus Telfer has applied to the Electoral Commission, to register the logo below as the official logo for a 51st state party:

Yes that is 51 stars on there. Six rows, with half having nine stars and half having eight stars. The current US flag has nine rows, with five rows of six, and four rows of five.

Mr Telfer incidentally stood for Mayor of Christchurch and got 289 votes. Bob Parker won with 46,104.

Anyway I thought I would see if I could come up with ten reasons why we should become the 51st state of the United States.

1. We would now get to bully Australia
2. No more royal tours
3. Cheaper gas
4. The SAS would get the much cooler name of Delta Force
5. We would now be the possessors of the Olympic Gold Medal for Rugby Union
6. We instantly have an effective free trade agreement with the US
7. The ANZUS Treaty would then become the A’n'US treaty.
8. Just as one has African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Arab-Americans, we would be Kiwi-Americans
9. No longer would need to fund MFAT
10. Someone earning NZ$100,000 (US$70,000) would pay 19.5% federal income tax instead of the average 29.5% currently imposed.

The Herald reports:

Facing a sceptical public and an implacable opposition, United States President Barack Obama insisted the US$787 billion ($1.1 trillion) financial stimulus plan signed into US law a year ago had been worth the money.

Marking the anniversary with a renewed effort to show the everyday benefits of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the President predicted it would save or create 1.5 million US jobs this year on top of 2 million last year.

But what happened?

A nascent economic recovery is threatened by continuing high unemployment, which stands above 10 per cent, and the unpopularity of the first stimulus package is complicating efforts to pass a second “jobs bill” that is currently under negotiation in Congress.

Unemployment is around 2% higher than what Obama said it would be if the stimulus package was not passed. And they are surprised that a second borrow and spend package is not popular.

A recent poll found that only 6 per cent of Americans believe it has created jobs.

And they are insisting on a second package!

Up until her speech to the Tea Party Convention, I was certain Sarah Palin would not run for President. Almost without exception, the senior Republicans I talk to dismiss her chances. She has little support from the Republican hierarchy.

But a friend viewed live (via TV) her speech to the convention, and their conclusion half way through was that she will probably run for President. Her speech dominated the headlines that day.

Palin in 2008 was not ready to be President. Her lack of both domestic and foreign policy knowledge showed. If she had become VP, and McCain had died, it would have ratehr interesting. Of course if Obama died, and Biden became President that same arguably applies – Biden may have experience, but my God he far exceeds Quayle for gaffes. Even Obama has joked about it.

The story that Palin had some notes written on her hand will not harm her. People prefer notes on a hand to a teleprompter.

I still can’t see Palin as the Republican nominee. She does deliver some good speeches, and is talented at mocking the left. But I’ve yet to see any independent policy agenda of her own.She also have no experienced political staff.

However even if she does not stand for President, she may become the kingmaker. Her endorsement will be highly sought.

These two photos from the Drudge Report show the extent of the blizzard that hit Washington DC.

I love this ad, especially the demon sheep that appears at 2:20 through. A classic attack ad. This one is not aimed at a Democrat, but at a Republican from another Republican as they are both seeking the GOP nomination for a California seat in the Senate.

Public Policy Polling has surveyed Americans on their most trusted television news source. They were asked for each source whether they trusted it or not. Below are the net (yes minus no) responses:

1. Fox News +12%
2. CNN -2%
3. NBC News -9%
4. CBS News -14%
5. ABC News -15%

So Fox News is the only TV broadcaster that more Americans trust than distrust.

Now some may say this is only because Republicans men don’t trust the other media sources. But look at the ratings for firstly women

1. Fox News +11%
2. CNN +9%
3. NBC News -1%
4. CBS News -3%
5. ABC News -7%

So women only trust Fox and CNN.

But most damning is the ratings of Independents

1. Fox News -3%
2. CNN -8%
3. CBS News -29%
4. NBC News -30%
5. ABC News -32%

Fox News is close to even, CNN a bit behind, and the three main networks are absolutely distrusted by Independents.

White Americans are also clear in their views:

1. Fox News +14%
2. CNN -14%
3. NBC News -22%
4. CBS News -25%
5. ABC News -25%

And in case people wonder Hispanics give Fox +13% and African-Americans are balanced with 38% trusting and untrusting equally.

The age group most alienated from the other broadcasters are aged 46 to 65. They say:

1. Fox News +19%
2. CNN -13%
3. NBC News -17%
4. CBS News -22%
5. ABC News -24%

This shows what a blunder it was for the Obama Administration to declare war on Fox and try to freeze them out. Not only do more Americans trust Fox than any other network, many Americans only trust Fox, and what do you think they think of a Government that tries to freeze out the only new source they trust?

Some on the left will no doubt insult Americans and say they are all dumb. I think it shows that people prefer it when a network is honest about whether it has a conservative or liberal bent.

It is very rare for politicians to win battles with the media.

It is no surprise that it took a Kansas jury just 37 minutes to find Scott Roeder guilty of the murder of George Tiller. Dr Tiller was a provider of legal abortion services, and Roeder is a religious fanatic who thought it was okay to kill him because he disapproved of what Dr Tiller did.

Troy Newman, president of Wichita-based Operation Rescue, which organised protests against Tiller’s clinic, said “pro-life was not on trial. An insane man doing an insane thing was on trial”.

All religions have their fanatics. The good thing with Christianity is the religious leaders always condemn people who murder people in the name of God. In Islam, you often get shall we say a mixed message at best.

Roeder could be considered for parole after 25 years. But prosecutor Nola Foulston said she would seek to ensure that he serve at least 50 years before being eligible for parole. Sentencing was set for March 9.

I don’t think he can ever be let out, as someone convinced they have a right to kill people is always going to be dangerous.

Roeder, the sole defence witness, testified on Thursday that he considered elaborate schemes to stop the doctor, including chopping off his hands, crashing a car into him or sneaking into his home to kill him.

But in the end, Roeder told jurors, the easiest way was to walk into Tiller’s church, put a gun to the doctor’s forehead and pull the trigger.

Tiller was wearing body armour, due to the threats against him – that in itself is a sad reality.

A reader highlighted the post at the Volokh Conspiracy:

In a decision issued today (here is an alternate link to the decision), the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a Wisconsin prison’s rule forbidding inmates to play Dungeons & Dragons or possess D&D publications and materials [HT: Josh Blackman].

The prison’s rationale for the ban is that playing D&D might stimulate “gang activity” by inmates. But the government conceded that there is no evidence that Dungeons and Dragons actually had stimulated gang activity in the past, either in this prison or elsewhere. The only evidence for the supposedly harmful effects of Dungeons and Dragons were a few cases from other states where playing the game supposedly led inmates to indulge in “escapism” and become divorced from reality

Hell now I know one can be banned from playing D&D in prison, I’m going to start obeying the law. No more bank robberies for me if it means I can’t visit the Prime Material Plane!

Mind you I am surprised the prison authorities needed to ban D&D playing in prison. I would have thought the high risk of being beaten to a pulp by the other prisoners would be a suitable deterrent!

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 Daily Telegraph reports:

A new assessment by the non-partisan Rothenberg Political Report has moved a dozen more Democratic seats in the House into the vulnerable column. Now, 58 Democratic-held seats are “in play” compared to just 14 Republican-held seats.

And in the latest blow to President Barack Obama’s Democrats, Beau Biden, attorney general of Delaware, abandoned plans to run for the Senate seat that his father Vice-President Joe Biden occupied for 36 years until 2008.

The younger Mr Biden, 40, who recently served in Iraq as a US army lawyer, was until recently thought to be certain to run. But with the Obama-Biden administration’s popularity plummeting, his name could have been a liability rather than an asset in November.

His decision makes Representative Mike Castle, a Republican, the overwhelming favourite to take the seat. …

Republicans need to win 10 Democratic-held seats out of the 16 up for grabs in November to win a majority of 51 to 49 votes in the Senate. For the first time, Republican strategists are beginning to believe it might be possible.

Until the primaries are done, it is too difficult to predict House seats. But could they retake the Senate? They now have 41 seats. What does Five Thirty Eight say are the chances of GOP pickups for various seats:

1. North Dakota 99%
2. Nevada 76%
3. Delaware 75%
4. Arkansas 73%
5. Pennsylvania 72%
6. Colorado 70%
7. Illinois 51%
8. Indiana 48%
9. California 21%
10. Wisconsin 16%
11. New York 13%

So there is a pretty decent chance the Republicans could gain eight seats and get to 49 seats (assuming they lose none, and it is probably they won’t). But gaining a 50th and 51st seat looks hard on the surface. If Joe Lieberman decided to give his support to the GOP instead of the Democrats, then they only need 50 seats. So can they do it?

Well yes, depending on the primaries. The averages quoted above are based on an average of how polls show various candidates doing in match ups. If the GOP go with the most popular candidates, their chances are better in the last three seats.

California is hard to win, regardless of GOP candidates – Carly Fiorina is assessed with a 19% chance and Tom Campbell with 28%.

But in Wisconsion, former Governor Tommy Thompson is given a 45% chance of winning against the Democrat’s Feingold.

And in New York, former Governor George Pataki is given odds ranging from 50% to 74% depending on who the Democratic candidate is.

So if Thompson and Pataki win the primaries, then a GOP majority in the Senate is possible. However there is a long way to go, and possible does not mean probable.

Former US Democratic Presidential hopeful John Edwards has finally admitted he is the father of Rielle Hunter’s child. This is not surpise as it has been obvious he was for a while, but what is interesting is how long he kept lying and lying and lying about it.

This was no one off “I did not have sexual relations” comment. He did not just lie to his staff, family and the public over first the affair, and then the child. He actually got one of his friends to claim he was in fact the father, and also tried to fake a paternity test.

The only reason Edwards has finally admitted it, is the friend is about to have his book published detailing the cover-up. Edwards has flown to Haiti to show how much he cares about poor people, and avoid questions.

I’ve always detested Edwards as a phony – he seemed so fake, and was.

The US Supreme Court has struck down part of the law which restricts private organisations from spending their money on election campaigns.

Cnet explains why:

The U.S. Supreme Court’s sweeping ruling on Thursday that invalidated large chunks of campaign finance law arose in part from an unlikely source: the emergence of Facebook, YouTube, and blogs, and the decline of traditional media outlets.

A 5-4 majority concluded that technological changes have chipped away at the justification for a law that allows individuals to create a blog with opinions about a political candidate–but threatens the ACLU, the National Rifle Association, a labor union, or a corporation with felony charges if they do the same.

The now-invalidated law “would seem to ban a blog post expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate if that blog were created with corporate funds,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion (PDF). “The First Amendment does not permit Congress to make these categorical distinctions based on the corporate identity of the speaker and the content of the political speech.”

In NZ we don’t have a court that can strike down laws that breach the Bill of Rights. To get rid of the Electoral Finance Act, we had to sack the Government.

The court pointed out that the now-invalidated laws are more sweeping than the term “campaign finance” might imply–and amount to simple censorship. It listed these acts of political speech that previously would have been criminalized: the Sierra Club running an ad (close to the time of an election) disapproving of a congressman who favors logging in national forests; the NRA publishing a book urging a vote against an incumbent U.S. senator who supports a handgun ban; and the American Civil Liberties Union creating a Web site telling the public to vote for a presidential candidate because of that candidate’s defense of free speech.

This law was even worse than the EFA!

Joel Gora, a professor at Brooklyn Law School and ACLU lawyer who argued a landmark 1976 Supreme Court case, wrote at The New York Times’ Web site today that the justices “dismantled the First Amendment ‘caste system’ in election speech. Before today, the right to speak depended on who was doing the speaking: business corporations, no, unless they were media corporations; nonprofit corporations, maybe, depending on where they got their funding; labor unions, no.”

What happened of course was these groups formed PACs instead, and just donated to the PACs.

The left in the US are calling this an awful decision. This is ironic as the Obama campaign was the highest spending of all time – the first oen to turn down federal funding and an associated cap. They are not against big money in politics – just against other people’s big money!

Losing Massachusetts the day before his first anniversary as President makes it somewhat bitter for President Obama. But how has his first year gone?

Personally I don’t think Obama has done an awful job. I think his biggest mistake was the size of the fiscal stimulus, leading to a a truly horrible fiscal deficit. In his defence, Bush left him a huge deficit as it was – but he has made it worse.

On foreign issues, I don’t have huge gripes. He is not bolting out of Iraq, but decreasing troop numbers at much the same rate Bush would have. His surge in Afghanistan was the right thing to do. Like most of his predecessors he has made little progress on the Palestinian issue, but he has not become an Israel basher (I suspect his Chief of Staff moderates him here. Emanuel actually did volunteer service with the IDF duing the first gulf war).

He is showing some rationality with trade issues, as opposed to his pre-election rhetoric. And again Bush often went protectionist also.

His healthcare legislation has been a disaster. Even with massive compromises and watering down, it may not pass, and if it does pass it won’t solve the real problems.

I think Obama’s problems come down to three major things:

1. Expectations. On TV yesterday that had a live focus group of 40 Massachusetts voters. They asked them to raise their hands if Obama has met or exceeded their expectations, and not a single one did. And this is in a blue state.
2. Priorities. Obama’s fiscal stimulus did little bar increase the deficit massively, and turn the country into deficit hawks. Unemployment went well beyond his worst forecasts, and Obama was seen as too focused on other issues such as healthcare, cap and trade, foreign policy etc.
3. Experience. I said before the election that Obama was inexperienced as he basically had just two years of experience as a legislator, and no executive experience at all, and it is showing. Bush left him a mess, and the credit crisis occurred, but regardless the presidency of the US is always going to be pretty much the toughest job in the world, and Obama is coping about as well as any first time Senator would – not that well.

Now there is some good news for him. His poll ratings are averaging 50% approval to 44% disapproval, which is up from a month ago. They are still historically very low – the only ones lower were Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan on their one year anniversaries.

He is still personally liked, if not respected, as AP reports:

But while nearly nine in 10 people like President Barack Obama personally, he earns decidedly mixed reviews in a new Associated Press-GfK poll judging his first year in office, a verdict darkened by a stunning repudiation of his party in the Massachusetts Senate race yesterday. …

Even three-quarters of Republicans say they personally like Obama.

The AP poll gives us net approval ratings for Obama on various issues:

• The economy -1%
• Iraq +10%
• Healthcare 0%
• Terrorism +15%
• Environment +22%
• Federal Deficit -16%
• Energy +23%
• Taxes -4%
• Immigration -6%
• Afghanistan +7%
• Foreign Relationships +26%
• Unemployment -1%
• Gas prices -4%

The mid terms are looking to be focused on the economy, the deficit and jobs. It is quite possible now that the GOP could retake the House. The Senate is most unlikely though.

Too early to speculate much on 2012. Obama may be a one term President, but these are in his favour:

• The economy should pick up
• He has three years
• The Republicans have to find an electable candidate
• Now they no longer have 60 votes in the Senate, they can blame Republican blocking tactics for lack of progress on some issues
• He may do a Clinton and head towards the centre more

What are the chances of the GOP taking the House in 2010? In August Nate Silver said it was a one in four chance, so probably more than that now. The Republicans lead in the generic ballot by 1%. However history has taught us that the party not in the majority normally does significantly better than its poll ratings a year out – so I’d say the chance of GOP taking the House is at least 50% now.

It looks like the polls were right. With 63% of precincts counted, Scott Brown is leading 53% to 46%.

This is going to make it very hard for Obama to pass his healthcare legislation. His options are:

1. Try and get it passed before Brown is sworn in. That may be seen as somewhat undemocratic.
2. Renegotiate the package to get a liberal Republican in the Senate to support it, while not losing any Democrat votes.
3. Use a Senate process called reconciliation to pass it with 51 votes – however this means parts of it will be dropped.
4. Have the House pass the Senate version without amendment (avoiding the need for a new Senate vote)
5. Accept failure

The Democrats started the fnger pointing before the polls closed. As with most situations, the blame is both local and national. Coakley ran a bad campaign and was a bad candidate. But the healthcare legislation was also an issue, and Obama no longer had the clout to rescue the campaign.

UPDATE: Coakley has conceded. All over.

The Herald reports:

Former Labour Prime Minister Mike Moore will be named today as NZ’s next US Ambassador.

Moore – who is also a former Director-General of the World Trade Organisation – was nominated by Foreign Minister Murray McCully for the top job.

He will be the second former Prime Minister to hold the role. Former PM Jim Bolger was seconded to Washington by Jenny Shipley after she ousted him as National’s leader.

This is a smart move. As a former WTO Director-General Moore has significant status, which counts in DC.

And with the slow progress towards a possible FTA, his skills and experience will be useful.

I wonder if Helen will congratulate him on his new job!

Tomorrow Massachusetts votes for a new Senator, and it may be a Republican – a scenario almost unthinkable three months ago.

The last four polls have a lead for Scott Brown of 0% (a tie), 5%, 7% and 10%. They were all taken between 15 and 17 January so are recent.

What do the two main polling sites say. Here’s Nate Silver from FiveThirtyEight:

Under its original assumptions, the model now projects a very slight Brown edge, 49.3-48.7, which maps to a 55 percent chance of winning. Earlier today, it had given Coakley a 57 percent chance of winning. However, because the odds are under 60 percent, we still call this race a “toss-up” per our nomenclature, as we did before.

So Brown marginally more likely to win, but too close to call. Further Silver calculates that if you remove a controversial poll that had Brown 15% ahead, then he calculates Coakley has a 68% chance of victory.

At Pollster, Charles Franklin calculates:

But no matter how you slice the data, the only reasonable conclusion is that Scott Brown has moved from well behind to a lead somewhere between 4 and 11 points.

The Daily Telegraph has had its US staff prepare a list of the 100 most influential people on the right and left of US politics. Their top ten for each are:

Liberals

1. Barack Obama, President
2. Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State
3. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House
4. Bill Clinton, former President
5. Rahm Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff
6. Al Gore, former VP
7. Oprah Winfrey, TV Talk Show Host
8. Tim Geithner, Treasury Secretary
9. David Axelrod, White House Senior Advisor
10. Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader

Five current politicians, two retired politicians, two staffers and one media person.

Conservatives

1. Dick Cheney, former VP
2. Rush Limbaugh, Talk Radio Host
3. Matt Drudge, Drudge Report
4. Sarah Palin, former Governor
5. Robert Gates, Secretary of Defence
6. Glenn Beck, For News presenter
7. Roger Ailes, Fox News President
8. David Petraeus, Head US Central Command
9. Paul Ryan, Wisconsin Congressman
10. Tim Pawlenty, Governor of Minnesota

A much more varied list, perhaps reflecting not being in office. Four of the ten from the media, and almost no one at all from the mainstream Republican hierarchy – Pawlenty is probably the only one in that mould.

In four days the voters will go to the polls in Massachusetts to elect a new US Senator. This is to effectively replace Ted Kennedy.

Massachusetts is one of the most liberal Democrat-voting states in the US. Recent Senate results for Democratic candidates have been:

1. 2008 65.8%
2. 2006 69.3%
3. 2002 80.0%
4. 2000 72.6%
5. 1996 52.2%
6. 1994 58.1%
7. 1990 57.1%
8. 1988 65.0%
9. 1984 55.0%
10. 1982 60.8%
11. 1978 55.1%
12. 1976 69.3%

Not exactly marginal results.

And for Presidential elections

1. 2008 61.8%
2. 2004 61.9%
3. 2000 59.9%
4. 1996 68.0%

I believe no Republican has won even a single county or congressional district in a presidential election since 1988.

So what is happening in the current election for the US Senate in Massachusetts in this safest of safe seats? And bear in mind the loss of this seat would remove the ability of the Democrats to prevent a filibuster.

So what have the polls said. Here are the seven latest:

1. 8 Nov Dem +31%
2. 4 Jan Dem +9%
3. 6 Jan Dem +15%
4. 9 Jan Rep +1%
5. 11 Jan Dem +2%
6. 13 Jan Rep +4%
7. 14 Jan Rep +15%

This could be one of the major upsets in US politics. I wouldn’t put too much weight on the last poll, but nevertheless it shows how much the tide has turned in recent weeks. Obama is now going to go in himself and campaign to try and rescue the candidate.

Audrey Young writes:

The United States is poised to drop its ban on military exercises with New Zealand.

The move will be a significant step in a thaw in the NZ-US relationship that has accelerated since Barack Obama became President a little over a year ago.

The Weekend Herald understands it is likely to be announced next week when Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and the Pacific, Kurt Campbell, visit New Zealand.

That is basically the end of the “hostilities” which has existed since 1985. It took 25 years, but common sense has prevailed. It has been silly to ban exercises between our military forces, yet have them fighting together in places like Afghanistan.

Presumably this means we are allies again, and not just very very very good friends

Mrs Clinton announced last year that intelligence-sharing co-operation between the two countries had also resumed.

In a further sign of the fast-track thaw, it is understood that President Obama has twice informally invited Prime Minister John Key to Washington.

The visit is likely to take place within six months.

Add on the progress on the free trade front, and you have to say very successful diplomacy from New Zealand.

This is an election year for the US. Well technically every year is an election year, but 2010 sees all 436 House seats and 37 Senate seats up for election. Today is an early look at the Senate.

The Senate currently has 58 Democrats, 40 Republicans and 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats. One is hard left and one is moderate.60 votes allows you to end filibusters and pass laws and confirm nominees.

19 of the 37 seats are held by Democrats. Of those 19, five are retiring and 14 seeking re-election. Incumbency is very powerful in the US so a seat where the incumbent retires is often more likely to fall to the other party. The exception to this is when the incumbent has made themselves so unpopular they are a liability – as was the case with Senator Dodd from Connecticut.

The five states where a Democrat is retiring are Illinois, Connecticut, North Dakota, Delaware and Massachusetts. Massachusetts is considered safe. Illinois leans Democrat, Connecticut is likely Democrat hold. Delaware and North Dakota are leaning Republican though.

Of the 14 Democrat incumbents, the marginal states are Colorado, Nevada, Arkansas and Pennsylvania.

So likely Democrat losses are from two to six seats. No chance of losing the majority (at this stage) but may lose their 60 votes. But how about Republican held seats:

The other 18 seats are held by Republicans, and they have six retirements in the states of Missouri, Kansas, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Florida and Ohio.

Kansas is safe, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio and Kentucky are marginal. Florida is likely Republican hold.

Of the other 12 Republican seats, none are marginal – at this stage.

So Republicans could lose four seats. This means at this stage the likely Democrat majority in the Senate post 2010 ranges from 54 to 62 (including Independents).

This will change no doubt as candidates are chosen in primaries.

The Herald reports:

The United States yesterday lifted a 22-year ban on HIV-positive foreigners travelling to its shores, a restriction described by President Barack Obama as “rooted in fear rather than fact”.

It has been clear for many years that the Aids virus is not spread easily by casual contact – the original rationale for the travel ban, introduced in 1987.

The lifting of the ban now means that even asylum-seekers and people applying to become residents in the US no longer have to take a mandatory HIV test.

The lift of the ban for travelers is sensible and long overdue. HIV is not spread through casual contact.

However I am not so sure about not requiring it for those applying to be residents – purely on economic grounds. The purpose of immigration (apart from refugees) is to bring people in who will contribute more to the economy than they will cost. This tends to rule out many people with serious costly illnesses.

Maybe what they mean is they will not physically test for it, but still require a health declaration.

The New Yorker politics quiz. Is very tough – you have o follow US politics very closely.

Hat Tip: Adam Smith

The Press editorial;

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s comment that the system had worked defied belief. Clearly President Barack Obama, for whom the botched attack has become a political liability, did not agree with her.

I think he needs a new Homeland Security Secretary. The only part of the system that worked was the courage of passengers in tackling the terrorist.

He declared that there had been a systemic failure in the US intelligence community. Given the ample warning signs about Abdulmutallab this was self-evident.

Abdulmutallab had previously lived in Yemen, a country known to have al Qaeda cells. He had paid cash for his ticket and boarded the aircraft carrying only hand luggage, which should have aroused suspicion. US intelligence authorities had intercepted messages referring to a possible attack by a Nigerian and received warnings of a terrorist attack on Christmas Day.

But most astonishing of all was that the terrorist’s father had visited the US embassy in Nigeria and spoken to a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer to express concerns about his son.

This would be comical, if it was not true. I mean seriously – the guy’s dad actually pops into the US Embassy to tell the CIA that his son has joined Al Qaeda, and he is still allowed to fly. Millions of legitimate passengers are screened, delayed or refused, but the terrorist is given the all clear even after his father had dobbed him onto the CIA.

Maybe you could understand the CIA fuckup if the father had communicated by e-mail, for the father was Chairman of the Bank of Nigeria. So an e-mail starting “I cam the Chairman of the Bank of Nigeria and my son has a lot of money …” might hit the spam folder.

The incompetence of Government has no limits it seems. This is why it is so laughable that some loonies think the US Government secretly pulled off 9/11. Hell they can’t even do a no fly order for someone dobbed in by their dad, let alone pull of a giant global conspiracy.