On the throwing of shoes

Abu Tulip writes:

It may be old news by now, but I'm sure everyone's heard of the "shoe-throwing incident." To most Westerners it probably sounds very odd--did this guy suddenly want to throw something at Bush and his shoes were the only thing handy? Indeed, here in the Middle East throwing one's shoes at someone is one of the most insulting things one can do. Apparently, it's become a trend. A large group of protesters threw their shoes at UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown's residence earlier this week.

You might know that there are certain ways you should sit and not sit in the Middle East. One should not sit cross-legged with the bottom of his shoe pointed at the other party (unless of course he wants to offend him). And, take note: it's not the bottoms of the feet that offend, it's the bottoms of the shoes.

I was once involved in a shoe-throwing incident. A few years ago, when we were quite new here, Um Tulip, Oliver and I went by taxi with another foreigner to Mahatta, a poor and densely-packed area of town. As our taxi passed through one of the busiest intersections, our taxi driver apparently cut off another taxi driver. Shortly afterward, we heard the word حمار ! (hmaar -"donkey" only not quite as polite) and heard something hit our car. Realizing it was a shoe, our friend quickly said, "Let's get out of here!" threw some money at our driver and led us away on foot. I'm not sure what sort of brouhaha ensued afterward, but it may have ended in a bloody nose or (if our guy didn't like his chances) a very bruised ego.

Meanwhile, Baylyblog demonstrates how President Bush missed an opportunity to show true humility and grace in this incident.


It probably looked like this, in black; Arab guys love this style.

Election Response, Part III or Chocolate Milk and a Cookie

Abu Tulip writes:

Now, for the Republicans, just a few things I want to bring up.

1. Sarah Palin. I'd really like to know what some of you who live in America think of her, particularly her intellectual ability. She is constantly portrayed as of inferior intelligence, and I'd like to know if you who have followed things more closely agree. I personally am under the impression that she was never given a fair shake by the (mostly liberal) news media. Here's why:

First, most liberals tend to think all conservatives are stupid. Why? Because they disagree with liberals. The liberal view seems to be "my opinions are so obviously correct that anyone who disagrees must be either an ignoramus or have sinister motives." Look at how they view Bush (who got better grades at Yale than John Kerrey in the same classes at almost the same time), Reagan, Dan Quayle, etc.

Second, a strongly conservative woman is intolerable to liberals, especially when it comes to "a woman's right to choose." This was brought to my attention first when I read Dan Quayle's autobiography several years ago. He was often severely criticized and made fun of by the media. He believed it was because of his age; that it was somewhat acceptable for someone of the previous generation (Reagan, George HW Bush, for example). But since he was from their generation (baby-boomers) he should be liberal by default. Since he wasn't, he was a traitor. I think the same applies to conservative women now, and it part of the reason Palin was given such a hard time. This also applies to black conservatives, we just haven't seen many in national office yet (Powell and Rice are generally considered moderate, not conservative).

So, what do you think? Was Palin treated unfairly, or did she bring it upon herself?

2. McCain missed his chance. I really think McCain could have won it all by taking the risky move of opposing the bailout package. If he could have done it convincingly (which may have been difficult knowing his past support of such ventures), he could have been the great hero of the American taxpayer. His previous risky move (the Palin choice) didn't work out that well, so he should have gone for it.
Let me use an illustration. McCain was down by four points at the 20-yard line, 3rd and long with ten seconds on the clock. He threw for the end zone (Palin pick) -incomplete. 4th and long, five seconds on the clock, when the "meltdown" is announced and the bailout package proposed. Instead of throwing for the endzone again he ran up the middle. Three-yard gain and game over, Obama wins.

3. The Republicans don't really seem to get it. They are talking about how to become competitive again, but IMHO it's all just tactical, mobilization arguments. They don't realize that the Republicans have to offer something different, not "Democrat-Lite." They can't offer the American people free chocolate milk (of course it's never free, it's someone else's money) and expect to win when the Democrats offer free chocolate milk and a cookie. Me want cookie!!

The American people showed they want change by voting for Obama (even more wanted change but weren't sure about Obama). The Republicans need to offer more, and better, change than Obama does to win back the trust of Americans and put America back on its feet.

Comments, please!

Nearing the end

Abu tulip writes:
For better or for worse, our country will soon have a new president. It's been interesting following it from afar. It's especially nice to mostly be able to choose how much to follow it. This is quite different from my parents and in-laws who live in "battle-ground states" and are inundated with advertisements and polls. It's also quite different than the mood was here in 2004, when many locals asked me who I supported, and in turn expressed their dislike for Bush. Most now don't seem to have much of an opinion, although many seem surprised that a party nominated a black candidate. I think that says more about the people here than it does about Americans.

A few thoughts:

1. Anything can still happen. The media seems to enjoy portraying this as a "race" as if they are nearing some kind of "finish line" and Obama is currently "ahead." Actually, it's much different than that. For McCain to pull off the win, all it would take is for more people in the right states to prefer him on one day, November 4. The past means nothing except for how it impacts decisions of individuals on that day.

2. "Lesser of two evils" thinking. I voted for the one who to me was the lesser of two less-than-ideal candidates. I think most Americans are like me (although there are many who are very enthusiastic about Obama). As we've discussed this, we've wondered, can anyone live up to the demands of what the presidency has become? Do we set ourselves up for disappointment? We expect someone with grad-school level knowledge of economics, foreign affairs, history, political science, law, etc. who is charismatic and can lead effectively an enormous organization. This person must belong to an acceptable religious organization, have a charming spouse and well-behaved children, have no big blunders in his/her past. And somehow he/she must be able to relate well with "ordinary people." Although the candidates always present themselves as such a person, NOBODY can fill the bill. If we want such a person, we want a Saviour, and we should look somewhere else.
Obama, if he wins, will be in the difficult position of having to meet what I think are very high expectations from a number of his supporters. Not an enviable position.
What I want for president is someone with the will to defend our Constitution, defend our country from enemies and say no to Congress when necessary (which is often). Let's hope we get just that.

3. I predict this election will be the beginning of some major shakeups in one of our two major parties. The only thing to stop that for the Republicans would be a McCain win. Otherwise, I see a lot of shuffling of leadership and soul-searching, perhaps adopting some new core principles. Perhaps even a breakup of the "coalition" of fiscal conservatives, religious conservatives and those supporting a strong and active military.
The Democrats look strong right now, but if McCain manages to pull off a win there will be a lot of upset Democrats wondering why they can't seem to win the presidency. I'm not sure what would happen then, but probably some kind of shake-up. Either way, a shake-up of our parties is a good thing.

It's been interesting so far. I do hope the rest will be fairly dull, as in a clear win for either candidate and no drawn-out counting, court cases, accusations of fraud, etc. as we've seen at other times.