At this point, the best guestimate is that Trump will win about 50% of the delegates to the Republican Convention. Maybe 49%, maybe 51%. Not much difference in the percentage, but, under Republican rules, if he has 51%, they have to make him the nominee, while with a large plurality of 49%, they don't.
Douthat of the New York Times says the Republican leadership MUST change the rules to make it impossible for Trump to win the nomination. Douthat thinks that Secretary Clinton would be rejected if she were running against ANYONE. Except for Trump.
This is, of course, not at all clear. African-Americans love the Clintons. Or at least Bill, and figure Hillary gets them 'two presidents for the price of one.' Of course, a majority of African-Americans preferred Obama to the Clintons (but Secretary Clinton is getting a slightly larger majority of the African-American vote than Obama did).
The great majority of women over 40 think they HAVE to vote for Secretary Clinton. And the great majority of women under 40 won't vote for any Republican (but they'll stay home if Secretary Clinton is the Democratic nominee).
The vast majority of non-Cuban Hispanics won't vote for any Cuban. All Cubans, if they can somehow make it to the US from Cuba, get green cards right off the boat, and a passport in a very few years (even if they haven't learned any English). For Hispanics who are NOT Cuban, it's hard to get a tourist visa to the US, almost impossible to get a green card, and insanely difficult to get a passport (although their children born in the US get passports, and, after the children turn 18, they can try to get their parents a tourist visa, but usually fail). The vast majority of non-Cuban Hispanics vote Democratic.
The demographics mean there's been a change since '04 when Bush, jr won. Today, the Republicans have a lock on most state governments, and the patriotic Gerrymander gives Republicans a near lock on the House, but in the '16 election, odds strongly favour Secretary Clinton and a Democratic Senate (the US Senate is one institution that can still change parties from one election to the next, since they have a unique electorate, one that is less predictable than the presidential or House electorate).
Friday, March 18, 2016
Monday, March 7, 2016
Trump for president?
British newspapers assume the US system works like the British system, where, in each district, the candidate with a plurality wins, and the party that wins the majority of MPs becomes the governing party. But the US system is much more complicated. And so it is not at all clear whether Trump is or is not on track to win the nomination.
In some states, all delegates go to whomever has the plurality. In others, one needs a majority to win all the delegates, with delegates awarded to all those who get a significant percentage of votes.
Trump's support has a floor of at least 30%, and what looks like a ceiling of about 40%. But, with just 35% of the votes in the first four contests, Trump won 64% of all the delegates assigned.
After Super Tuesday, Trump had just 46% of the assigned delegates, and now he has just 44%.
But, on 15 March, two big states will assign all their delegates to whichever candidate has the plurality, so Trump could win both, and, with the votes he's sure to pick up in the rest of the states, he'll have enough delegates to almost guarantee a majority at the convention and the nomination.
Of course, he could lose both, in which case he'll have a very hard time getting that majority. Without a majority of the delegates, he can't win the nomination.
But the most likely result on the 15th is that Trump will win one and lose one, and his nomination will still be very much up in the air, which is, of course, what all the news media are hoping for, since a continuing contest will sell more page views.
Meanwhile, all the US newspapers are terrified that Trump will actually win. Their columnists say that Trump will definitely start a war that the US cannot win, so no one should be dumb enough to vote for Trump.
This in spite of the fact that Trump is one of the least hawkish candidates (Rand Paul was the most anti-war candidate, with Trump and Senator Sanders tied for second-least hawkish). But US newspapers stopped writing the truth after their unpatriotic truth-telling lost the Vietnam War. By writing that the war was unwinnable and stupid (just because it was), the US news media convinced voters to elect Congresscritters who voted to withdraw. Had the US news media continued to write patriotically that victory was very close, and only a little more effort would prevent a Communist take-over of the US, voters would have elected Congresscritters who insisted the president continue to prosecute the Vietnam War, and US troops would still be in Saigon to this day.
Fortunately, the US media all report that Bush, jr did a great job turning Iraq from a terrible tyranny into a peaceful and prosperous Democracy, and Obama did a similarly great job for Libya. And the US news media are all waiting for President Clinton to bring that same peace and prosperity and freedom and Democracy to Syria, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China!
In some states, all delegates go to whomever has the plurality. In others, one needs a majority to win all the delegates, with delegates awarded to all those who get a significant percentage of votes.
Trump's support has a floor of at least 30%, and what looks like a ceiling of about 40%. But, with just 35% of the votes in the first four contests, Trump won 64% of all the delegates assigned.
After Super Tuesday, Trump had just 46% of the assigned delegates, and now he has just 44%.
But, on 15 March, two big states will assign all their delegates to whichever candidate has the plurality, so Trump could win both, and, with the votes he's sure to pick up in the rest of the states, he'll have enough delegates to almost guarantee a majority at the convention and the nomination.
Of course, he could lose both, in which case he'll have a very hard time getting that majority. Without a majority of the delegates, he can't win the nomination.
But the most likely result on the 15th is that Trump will win one and lose one, and his nomination will still be very much up in the air, which is, of course, what all the news media are hoping for, since a continuing contest will sell more page views.
Meanwhile, all the US newspapers are terrified that Trump will actually win. Their columnists say that Trump will definitely start a war that the US cannot win, so no one should be dumb enough to vote for Trump.
This in spite of the fact that Trump is one of the least hawkish candidates (Rand Paul was the most anti-war candidate, with Trump and Senator Sanders tied for second-least hawkish). But US newspapers stopped writing the truth after their unpatriotic truth-telling lost the Vietnam War. By writing that the war was unwinnable and stupid (just because it was), the US news media convinced voters to elect Congresscritters who voted to withdraw. Had the US news media continued to write patriotically that victory was very close, and only a little more effort would prevent a Communist take-over of the US, voters would have elected Congresscritters who insisted the president continue to prosecute the Vietnam War, and US troops would still be in Saigon to this day.
Fortunately, the US media all report that Bush, jr did a great job turning Iraq from a terrible tyranny into a peaceful and prosperous Democracy, and Obama did a similarly great job for Libya. And the US news media are all waiting for President Clinton to bring that same peace and prosperity and freedom and Democracy to Syria, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China!
Monday, February 29, 2016
US Elections: Super Tuesday
Before 1972, thousands of delegates were chosen to go to the party conventions every leap year (plus 1900, which was an election year but not a leap year), but only the state party leaders had a vote, and they cast all the votes for their state for whomever they chose. Once upon a time, they usually voted for a 'favourite son,' on the first vote, i.e., someone from their state who was more-or-less running for president, and after that, they got serious and haggled in smoke-filled rooms. But in '68, the Democrats chose the vice-president (the usual choice when the president was not running for re-election) AFTER the president had resigned since his presidency was NOT going well, and his doctors had diagnosed a fatal illness. The 'usual choice' proved a disaster for the Democrats. So in '72, they actually let the voters choose using the British algorithm, where the person supported by a plurality of the Democratic voters got all of the states' votes. Just 25% of Democrats managed to nominate a candidate who was not supported by many Democrats and almost no Republicans, and he lost almost every state.
This year, the Democrats pick more than 4,000 delegates who get to go to the party called the Democratic Convention, and the Republicans pick more than 2,000 delegates to go to their party's party. As before, the heads of the state party cast all the votes, but (on the first round) they must cast votes for the candidates to which their delegates have been pledged.
And today, 661 Republican delegates will be allocated, and 865 delegates for Democrats. Maybe. Different sites have different numbers. Another site counting delegates at stake today says that 632 Republican delegates … will be awarded…[and] 1,007 … Democratic delegates… are at stake. So it appears that no one is sure how to count the delegates at stake today.
The Democrats are more proportional (to avoid another disaster like '72). After Obama pulled ahead (having counsellors who knew where the smallest amount of money and effort would produce the most delegates), even when Senator Clinton won a state, she only won a few more delegates than Obama, and could not close the gap.
So today, Secretary Clinton will get most of those 865 - 1,007 delegates, and Trump will get at least the plurality of those 632 - 661 delegates, if not the majority. Neither will have enough delegates to win, but Secretary Clinton will be far ahead of Senator Sanders.
Trump is harder to predict. If, after today, all but one anti-Trump Republican drop out, and that sole survivor runs against Trump, he'll probably win. But all four anti-Trump Republicans show no sign of quitting before the bitter end. And a recent poll says Trump's share of Republican voters has risen from a plurality of 30% to a majority.
Of course, that's only one poll, and it's an outlier.
Today's contest is much broader than any we've seen so far, and sometimes actual votes don't tally very well with polls at the state level. The Democratic contest is fairly easy to predict: Secretary Clinton should win almost everything except for Vermont. There will be no surprises.
The Republican contest is much harder to predict. Trump is almost certain to get a plurality of delegates, but is not so certain to get a majority, and he needs a majority to win. So the Republican contest could be very interesting today. If Trump gets more than 60% of the delegates today, he'll be very hard to stop. If he gets only a plurality that's not a majority, it means he will not be the nominee.
This year, the Democrats pick more than 4,000 delegates who get to go to the party called the Democratic Convention, and the Republicans pick more than 2,000 delegates to go to their party's party. As before, the heads of the state party cast all the votes, but (on the first round) they must cast votes for the candidates to which their delegates have been pledged.
And today, 661 Republican delegates will be allocated, and 865 delegates for Democrats. Maybe. Different sites have different numbers. Another site counting delegates at stake today says that 632 Republican delegates … will be awarded…[and] 1,007 … Democratic delegates… are at stake. So it appears that no one is sure how to count the delegates at stake today.
The Democrats are more proportional (to avoid another disaster like '72). After Obama pulled ahead (having counsellors who knew where the smallest amount of money and effort would produce the most delegates), even when Senator Clinton won a state, she only won a few more delegates than Obama, and could not close the gap.
So today, Secretary Clinton will get most of those 865 - 1,007 delegates, and Trump will get at least the plurality of those 632 - 661 delegates, if not the majority. Neither will have enough delegates to win, but Secretary Clinton will be far ahead of Senator Sanders.
Trump is harder to predict. If, after today, all but one anti-Trump Republican drop out, and that sole survivor runs against Trump, he'll probably win. But all four anti-Trump Republicans show no sign of quitting before the bitter end. And a recent poll says Trump's share of Republican voters has risen from a plurality of 30% to a majority.
Of course, that's only one poll, and it's an outlier.
Today's contest is much broader than any we've seen so far, and sometimes actual votes don't tally very well with polls at the state level. The Democratic contest is fairly easy to predict: Secretary Clinton should win almost everything except for Vermont. There will be no surprises.
The Republican contest is much harder to predict. Trump is almost certain to get a plurality of delegates, but is not so certain to get a majority, and he needs a majority to win. So the Republican contest could be very interesting today. If Trump gets more than 60% of the delegates today, he'll be very hard to stop. If he gets only a plurality that's not a majority, it means he will not be the nominee.
Tuesday, February 23, 2016
23 Feb: Half-way though Nevada and South Carolina
There was always a good chance that Senator Sanders would win New Hampshire (national coverage0 and Vermont (mostly ignored), and the press were hoping for a New Hampshire win, since a race where Secretary Clinton is the obvious, foregone conclusion won't sell many newspapers pageviews. And so he did.
Next came Nevada, and Secretary Clinton won.
Bill (and the Secretary) have most of the African-American vote, and most of the non-Cuban Hispanic vote (not many of either one in New Hampshire or Vermont). Also most of the working-class Democratic vote. So Secretary Clinton is sure to win South Carolina. And most of Super Tuesday on 1 March. By the end of March, Secretary Clinton may have enough delegates to guarantee herself the nomination. Or Senator Sanders will see that it's hopeless and drop out.
The Republicans have dropped from 17 to 6 candidates. Normally, in a race without a president running for re-election, or a vice-president hoping to 'continue the good work', most of the candidates have almost zero name recognition as the campaign starts. Reagan had 100% name recognition from his film and TV career, and so was a sui generis. Reagan was also very popular with Republicans and many Democrats and quickly secured the nomination and then the election.
Trump is a very different sui generis. Again, 100% name recognition, but only 1/3 of Republicans like him, the other 2/3rds hate him, but the 2/3 were splitting their vote 16 then 12 and now 4 ways.
Trump has gotten less than 1/3 of the votes, but the weird way the Republicans assign electable delegates, he has 62.5% of them. (Of course, there are a LOT of Super Delegates who are appointed, not elected, and few of them support Trump.)
As of now, Senator Rubio and Governor Kasich are the last two mainstream, establishment Republicans. Senator Cruz, Mr Trump, and Dr Carson are single-player 'teams'. The Bush, jr votes will all accrue to Senator Rubio and Governor Kasich, but that's still not enough to give either of them a plurality. It's not clear how long both Senator Rubio and Governor Kasich will stay in the race, but as long as both are in, neither will come close to a plurality. If one drops, the other will probably acquire a permanent plurality and the plurality of the delegates, if not a majority. But neither has shown an inclination to drop out anytime soon. And if both remain until the bitter end, they could give Trump the election (not likely, but possible). Or they could prevent any candidate from having a majority of the Republican delegates, and the winner will get decided in a smoke-filled room (but vape now instead of cigars).
The other three are all different anti-establishment candidates, and it's not clear where their votes will go if any of them drop out.
So, at this point, the odds are very much against Trump, but it is impossible to say who is the most likely winner of the nomination.
(Not that it matters, barring an unforeseen obstacle, Ma Clinton will be the First* Woman President of the United States, and Bill will, once again, have full access to the White House interns, a privilege the US voters agree he's earned and deserves.)
Next came Nevada, and Secretary Clinton won.
Bill (and the Secretary) have most of the African-American vote, and most of the non-Cuban Hispanic vote (not many of either one in New Hampshire or Vermont). Also most of the working-class Democratic vote. So Secretary Clinton is sure to win South Carolina. And most of Super Tuesday on 1 March. By the end of March, Secretary Clinton may have enough delegates to guarantee herself the nomination. Or Senator Sanders will see that it's hopeless and drop out.
The Republicans have dropped from 17 to 6 candidates. Normally, in a race without a president running for re-election, or a vice-president hoping to 'continue the good work', most of the candidates have almost zero name recognition as the campaign starts. Reagan had 100% name recognition from his film and TV career, and so was a sui generis. Reagan was also very popular with Republicans and many Democrats and quickly secured the nomination and then the election.
Trump is a very different sui generis. Again, 100% name recognition, but only 1/3 of Republicans like him, the other 2/3rds hate him, but the 2/3 were splitting their vote 16 then 12 and now 4 ways.
Trump has gotten less than 1/3 of the votes, but the weird way the Republicans assign electable delegates, he has 62.5% of them. (Of course, there are a LOT of Super Delegates who are appointed, not elected, and few of them support Trump.)
As of now, Senator Rubio and Governor Kasich are the last two mainstream, establishment Republicans. Senator Cruz, Mr Trump, and Dr Carson are single-player 'teams'. The Bush, jr votes will all accrue to Senator Rubio and Governor Kasich, but that's still not enough to give either of them a plurality. It's not clear how long both Senator Rubio and Governor Kasich will stay in the race, but as long as both are in, neither will come close to a plurality. If one drops, the other will probably acquire a permanent plurality and the plurality of the delegates, if not a majority. But neither has shown an inclination to drop out anytime soon. And if both remain until the bitter end, they could give Trump the election (not likely, but possible). Or they could prevent any candidate from having a majority of the Republican delegates, and the winner will get decided in a smoke-filled room (but vape now instead of cigars).
The other three are all different anti-establishment candidates, and it's not clear where their votes will go if any of them drop out.
So, at this point, the odds are very much against Trump, but it is impossible to say who is the most likely winner of the nomination.
(Not that it matters, barring an unforeseen obstacle, Ma Clinton will be the First* Woman President of the United States, and Bill will, once again, have full access to the White House interns, a privilege the US voters agree he's earned and deserves.)
Sunday, February 7, 2016
US Presidential Election 8 Feb 16 (the day before the New Hampshire Primary)
Senator Sanders might win New Hampshire. Every US news agency hopes so. To sell, news agencies need news, and if Secretary Clinton is sure to win, there's nothing worth writing about. So they want a contest. Most want Secretary Clinton to win, but all want a contest that will sell newspapers and ads on broadcast media (and web news sources).
Most African-Americans voted for Bill. If Bill had been able to run in '08, he would probably have lost. African-Americans like Bill. A lot. They liked Obama better. And so Hillary lost.
But there is no Obama in this race. The African-American turnout won't be a big as it was for Obama, who attracted African-American votes even more strongly than Bill, but it will be significant, enough to guarantee Secretary Clinton the nomination.
After which, both Trump and Bloomsberg have said they'll run as Perots to help Hillary win the election.
Senator Sanders is news, but I don't think he's a foil trying to make Hillary look better than she is. He's a pacifist who wants to really end 'enhanced interrogation' and US neo-imperialism.
Bush, jr bragged about what he was doing to the 'proven enemies of the US.' Proved because a) the US offered 100 years median income to anyone who would point out a terrorist; and b) those identified as terrorists all confessed under 'enhanced interrogation.'
Once upon a time, Americans were taught that confessions obtained under 'enhanced interrogation' were unAmerican and unreliable, that they belong to medieval times and the Inquisition. But that was then. Now, Americans are taught that Torquemada knew some of the most advanced forensic techniques, and used them to keep Spain safe from terrorists.
Obama said he ordered that all torture cease, and punished severely anyone who tried to reveal the current interrogation techniques used by the US against suspected terrorists. So we haven't heard much about 'enhanced interrogation' since Obama took office. Of course, most Americans agree that, when the US does it, it's not torture, it's legal 'enhanced interrogation' of heinous villains who would have otherwise set off thermonuclear devices in most American cities.
Secretary Clinton says Obama is a wimp, and she'll be much tougher. So Senator Sanders would be a MUCH better President of the US. Pity he doesn't have a chance.
Most African-Americans voted for Bill. If Bill had been able to run in '08, he would probably have lost. African-Americans like Bill. A lot. They liked Obama better. And so Hillary lost.
But there is no Obama in this race. The African-American turnout won't be a big as it was for Obama, who attracted African-American votes even more strongly than Bill, but it will be significant, enough to guarantee Secretary Clinton the nomination.
After which, both Trump and Bloomsberg have said they'll run as Perots to help Hillary win the election.
Senator Sanders is news, but I don't think he's a foil trying to make Hillary look better than she is. He's a pacifist who wants to really end 'enhanced interrogation' and US neo-imperialism.
Bush, jr bragged about what he was doing to the 'proven enemies of the US.' Proved because a) the US offered 100 years median income to anyone who would point out a terrorist; and b) those identified as terrorists all confessed under 'enhanced interrogation.'
Once upon a time, Americans were taught that confessions obtained under 'enhanced interrogation' were unAmerican and unreliable, that they belong to medieval times and the Inquisition. But that was then. Now, Americans are taught that Torquemada knew some of the most advanced forensic techniques, and used them to keep Spain safe from terrorists.
Obama said he ordered that all torture cease, and punished severely anyone who tried to reveal the current interrogation techniques used by the US against suspected terrorists. So we haven't heard much about 'enhanced interrogation' since Obama took office. Of course, most Americans agree that, when the US does it, it's not torture, it's legal 'enhanced interrogation' of heinous villains who would have otherwise set off thermonuclear devices in most American cities.
Secretary Clinton says Obama is a wimp, and she'll be much tougher. So Senator Sanders would be a MUCH better President of the US. Pity he doesn't have a chance.
Friday, February 5, 2016
US Presidential Election (pt 2)
The US press hates that Senator Sanders was close to Secretary Clinton in Iowa. They mostly want another 8 years of Clintons in the White House.
Actually, African-Americans love the Clintons. They liked Obama more, of course, and gave him the nomination in '08.
The Clintons wanted to avoid the Ma Ferguson effect. The Texas legislature voted that Pa Ferguson could never run again for governor of Texas. That only applied to Pa Ferguson. So Ma, his wife, ran on the platform, 'Two governors for the price of one.' She won, and she became the First* woman governor of Texas.
For the US, the Congress voted '47 not to let anyone serve more than two terms of office, and that was ratified in '51. Had Hillary run in 2000, she would have won, and would have been the First* woman president of the US, but the Clintons wanted her to be the First, not the First*. So she ran for Senator in 2000 and won, becoming the first First Lady to run in an election and win.
Then she ran for president in '08. African-American voters had almost all voted for Bill. But Hillary was running against Obama, and she lost the African-American bloc to Obama, and so she lost the nomination. Obama had a bunch of volunteers who understood the American election process. Hillary had a bunch of highly paid 'experts' who had no idea. So Obama spent his much smaller election fund very wisely, while Hillary squandered her huge election fund. This time, of course, she's paying the people who helped Obama win.
Now, almost all African-Americans will vote for Hillary in the primaries and caucuses and in the election. Iowa and New Hampshire have almost no African-Americans, so Senator Sanders came close in Iowa, and might win in New Hampshire. After which, he'll lose almost every other primary and caucus. The US pundits say Sanders could be another Obama. No, he can't. Hillary is a sure thing.
Bill and Trump spoke just before Trump declared. They figured the Republican leadership would block Trump from running, he'd go third party, and it would be like '92, when Bill won because of Perot. Google the '92 election, and the top 10 results are, 'Experts all wrong. Perot did not help Clinton win election.' The 'experts' do not show up anywhere in the first 10 results. But the people who voted for Perot were almost all white men, who usually vote Republican. And Perot got half as many votes in '96 as in '92, but Clinton didn't get any more votes. So the single exit poll that said voters who'd voted for Perot said their second choice was Clinton does not seem very reliable.
In any case, the Republicans weren't that stupid. They let Trump run, and he has held the plurality in the polls ever since he announced. But he still lost the Iowa caucuses. He might win in New Hampshire, but, as the field of Republican contenders gets winnowed, very few of those votes will accrue to Trump, so, by the end of March, he'll be far behind.
Of course, Trump said he really won in Iowa, and only lost because someone cheated. So he might still run as a third party to guarantee that Hillary wins. And Bloomberg is also threatening to run as a third party (and will get mostly Republican votes) to ensure a victory for Hillary.
So President Hillary looks like a certainty at this point.
Actually, African-Americans love the Clintons. They liked Obama more, of course, and gave him the nomination in '08.
The Clintons wanted to avoid the Ma Ferguson effect. The Texas legislature voted that Pa Ferguson could never run again for governor of Texas. That only applied to Pa Ferguson. So Ma, his wife, ran on the platform, 'Two governors for the price of one.' She won, and she became the First* woman governor of Texas.
For the US, the Congress voted '47 not to let anyone serve more than two terms of office, and that was ratified in '51. Had Hillary run in 2000, she would have won, and would have been the First* woman president of the US, but the Clintons wanted her to be the First, not the First*. So she ran for Senator in 2000 and won, becoming the first First Lady to run in an election and win.
Then she ran for president in '08. African-American voters had almost all voted for Bill. But Hillary was running against Obama, and she lost the African-American bloc to Obama, and so she lost the nomination. Obama had a bunch of volunteers who understood the American election process. Hillary had a bunch of highly paid 'experts' who had no idea. So Obama spent his much smaller election fund very wisely, while Hillary squandered her huge election fund. This time, of course, she's paying the people who helped Obama win.
Now, almost all African-Americans will vote for Hillary in the primaries and caucuses and in the election. Iowa and New Hampshire have almost no African-Americans, so Senator Sanders came close in Iowa, and might win in New Hampshire. After which, he'll lose almost every other primary and caucus. The US pundits say Sanders could be another Obama. No, he can't. Hillary is a sure thing.
Bill and Trump spoke just before Trump declared. They figured the Republican leadership would block Trump from running, he'd go third party, and it would be like '92, when Bill won because of Perot. Google the '92 election, and the top 10 results are, 'Experts all wrong. Perot did not help Clinton win election.' The 'experts' do not show up anywhere in the first 10 results. But the people who voted for Perot were almost all white men, who usually vote Republican. And Perot got half as many votes in '96 as in '92, but Clinton didn't get any more votes. So the single exit poll that said voters who'd voted for Perot said their second choice was Clinton does not seem very reliable.
In any case, the Republicans weren't that stupid. They let Trump run, and he has held the plurality in the polls ever since he announced. But he still lost the Iowa caucuses. He might win in New Hampshire, but, as the field of Republican contenders gets winnowed, very few of those votes will accrue to Trump, so, by the end of March, he'll be far behind.
Of course, Trump said he really won in Iowa, and only lost because someone cheated. So he might still run as a third party to guarantee that Hillary wins. And Bloomberg is also threatening to run as a third party (and will get mostly Republican votes) to ensure a victory for Hillary.
So President Hillary looks like a certainty at this point.
Sunday, January 31, 2016
Foreign Correspondents
Most of us get our information about the world outside the places where we go and can see for ourselves from the news industry. For remote, foreign climes, we get all our information from foreign correspondents.
There are two sources everyone should read about foreign correspondents: Scoop by Waugh, and The Quiet American by Greene (do NOT watch the Audie Murphy movie).
Waugh and Greene were not well paid for their novels, and both worked at day jobs as foreign correspondents and later wrote novels where the main protagonist was, guess what, a foreign correspondent.
Waugh is best known for his depressing WWII novel about Brideshead. But most of his early work was comic novels like Scoop.
Scoop is a farce. It begins when the owner of a major newspaper gets confused and orders the writer of the gardening column sent to cover a war in Ismaelia, a fictional African country. The gardening columnist has no idea how to be a war correspondent, and so observes the pros dashing off after the latest red herring, while he doesn't even know that a major, breaking (but false) story requires everyone to run off to the site of all the action.
The Quiet American is a novel about an old, seasoned pro of a foreign correspondent, covering a war in French Indochina. The protagonist says that he cannot report any of what he sees. First (to get paid) he has to file stories. All stories, before the local telegrapher will send them, must be approved by the French censor, who removes anything that might reveal what is really happening. The wire, when received back in the UK, must be approved by the UK censors. Finally, the editors at the newspaper will only print a version of the story that fits their editorial policy, a policy that refuses to print any of the things that are actually happening.
The old Guardian.uk wrote that no one knew how most of the Syrian victims had died, and no one knew who had used poison gas to kill thousands, and the US and UK should not eliminate the Syrian government until they knew whodunit. The UK constabulary shut down that unpatriotic Guardian.uk. The new and much improved Guardian.com (approved by the governments of the UK and US) note that it has been irrefutably proven that every one of the 300,000 dead, unarmed, peaceful protesters was killed by the evil regime using illegal WMD, and the West has a duty to remove that evil regime and replace it with a good, legitimate Wahhabi government (which will result in well-earned profits for the hardest working and most patriotic members of the US, and EU).
Of course, there are still unpatriotic liars who, instead of telling what the governments of the US and EU have proclaimed is the TRVTH, tell what they've seen with their own eyes. Which is obviously a terrible thing to do, so I hope no one reads the evil reporter who says what terrible things like 'proof' and 'evidence' show are true, that unpatriotic Seymore Hersh:
It's hard to see how anyone can say the US and EU governments are big liars based on nothing but 'proof' and 'evidence' that contradict all their stories. Since the US and EU governments are all Democracies, they CANNOT lie, only dictatorships like Syria, Iran, Russia and China can and do lie about everything. So, if all the facts, proof, and evidence says that the US and EU governments are lying, we must reject every one of those facts, proofs, and evidence.
Fortunately, the next president of the US will almost certainly be Secretary Clinton. She has to show she is much tougher than the wimp Obama (and the Bushes and Bill). Obama did the right thing in Libya, bringing the country peace and prosperity, but then chickened out and allowed the evil regimes in Syria, Iran, Russia and China to continue to destroy democracy (and profits for the biggest donors in those democracies).
Secretary Clinton has promised, as soon as she's elected, to overthrow the evil Syrian regime, then the evil Iranian regime (easier since Obama convinced them to neutralise all their WMD), then Russia and China. After which the world will be VERY peaceful
There are two sources everyone should read about foreign correspondents: Scoop by Waugh, and The Quiet American by Greene (do NOT watch the Audie Murphy movie).
Waugh and Greene were not well paid for their novels, and both worked at day jobs as foreign correspondents and later wrote novels where the main protagonist was, guess what, a foreign correspondent.
Waugh is best known for his depressing WWII novel about Brideshead. But most of his early work was comic novels like Scoop.
Scoop is a farce. It begins when the owner of a major newspaper gets confused and orders the writer of the gardening column sent to cover a war in Ismaelia, a fictional African country. The gardening columnist has no idea how to be a war correspondent, and so observes the pros dashing off after the latest red herring, while he doesn't even know that a major, breaking (but false) story requires everyone to run off to the site of all the action.
The Quiet American is a novel about an old, seasoned pro of a foreign correspondent, covering a war in French Indochina. The protagonist says that he cannot report any of what he sees. First (to get paid) he has to file stories. All stories, before the local telegrapher will send them, must be approved by the French censor, who removes anything that might reveal what is really happening. The wire, when received back in the UK, must be approved by the UK censors. Finally, the editors at the newspaper will only print a version of the story that fits their editorial policy, a policy that refuses to print any of the things that are actually happening.
The old Guardian.uk wrote that no one knew how most of the Syrian victims had died, and no one knew who had used poison gas to kill thousands, and the US and UK should not eliminate the Syrian government until they knew whodunit. The UK constabulary shut down that unpatriotic Guardian.uk. The new and much improved Guardian.com (approved by the governments of the UK and US) note that it has been irrefutably proven that every one of the 300,000 dead, unarmed, peaceful protesters was killed by the evil regime using illegal WMD, and the West has a duty to remove that evil regime and replace it with a good, legitimate Wahhabi government (which will result in well-earned profits for the hardest working and most patriotic members of the US, and EU).
Of course, there are still unpatriotic liars who, instead of telling what the governments of the US and EU have proclaimed is the TRVTH, tell what they've seen with their own eyes. Which is obviously a terrible thing to do, so I hope no one reads the evil reporter who says what terrible things like 'proof' and 'evidence' show are true, that unpatriotic Seymore Hersh:
It's hard to see how anyone can say the US and EU governments are big liars based on nothing but 'proof' and 'evidence' that contradict all their stories. Since the US and EU governments are all Democracies, they CANNOT lie, only dictatorships like Syria, Iran, Russia and China can and do lie about everything. So, if all the facts, proof, and evidence says that the US and EU governments are lying, we must reject every one of those facts, proofs, and evidence.
Fortunately, the next president of the US will almost certainly be Secretary Clinton. She has to show she is much tougher than the wimp Obama (and the Bushes and Bill). Obama did the right thing in Libya, bringing the country peace and prosperity, but then chickened out and allowed the evil regimes in Syria, Iran, Russia and China to continue to destroy democracy (and profits for the biggest donors in those democracies).
Secretary Clinton has promised, as soon as she's elected, to overthrow the evil Syrian regime, then the evil Iranian regime (easier since Obama convinced them to neutralise all their WMD), then Russia and China. After which the world will be VERY peaceful
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)