You can't fool all of the people all of the time.

I guess they can't just blame the rednecks for this one.

My memories from Berlin in 1992:-bullet-holes in buildings, East and West;-extraordinary contrast between the impoverished East and the rich West;-great arrogance of many West Berliners;-no jay-walking, even when there wasn't a car in sight;-Trabis-searched the city for nightlife, ended up in an Irish bar full of Berliners.

I flinched when I read the Carter reference, not because it was unfair to the former President, but because it was unworthy of a Presidential candidate. Romney needs to emphasise his measured persona, not come across as peevish, like the incumbent. Bush was re-elected in part because he is a gentleman. A bit of decency can go a long way.

That Jimmy Kimmel is one brave guy.Doesn't he know about the Administration's policy on crucifixion?

Cinnamon

I remember a leader of a Socialist party in opposition at the time in Ireland citing a famous saying when stating that his Party in Government would "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." They're in power now (with a larger and more centre-right Party, which in Irish terms means something like the Democrats) and they're certainly holding enthusiastically to the second part.However, I don't think anyone feels at all comforted, hence the precipitous drop in support for the Party.

Substitute Alabama/Mississippt for most or all of Texas (which still has a certain cachet, GWB notwithstanding) and call New England Boston, and the map would be closer to the mark, at least as far as my part of Europe is concerned. The satellite version would show those structures visible from the moon, such as the Great Border Wall and moat and all those mega churches.

I'm bothered by the use of "Right" to describe racists, be they KKK, National Front or any other such mutant group. It definitely allows the left (one seldom hears of the "far left" outside America) to lump social, economic and/or political conservatives in with racist extremists. So you have the Tea Party painted and perceived as out and out racists (although Ron Paul is much admired by the Irish left). I called a national radio station to complain when Brevik was being called a "Christian Fundamentalist" but got very short shrift. As with Loughner, the pattern is consistent: seize the opportunity, set the narrative, move along. Meanwhile,in the horror ("tragedy?") in Toulouse and commentary thereon we see in stark relief the unique position of the Jew, uniting Left and so-called Right in shared disdain, sometimes hate.

Surely inclusiveness demands that cities are no longer called after Saints? What would be so wrong with Francisco ("I left my heart in....?), Diego, Monica, Barbara, etc? While you all ponder that I must help get my three youngest ready to march in the local parade tomorrow ( the older ones wouldn't be seen near it!).

Sounds to me like BO might have your number!

I learned a new word last week: "pansexual", of course in the context of an article about "equal rights". So what remaining widely-accepted taboos do we have, that no sane person would stand up or log in and defend? Parent-child I presume (step-child is old hat, I think). After that?

The only thing that is more reliably tedious than the Oscars is the Best Movie winner, the occasional watchables only proving the rule.

So let's keep faces out of it, be they "nasty" or not fully formed?I saw an interesting article in the Telegraph this week about gender selection in the UK. Now that's really nasty.

The Left is an irony-free zone which, by the way, tends to substitute sarcasm for humour.

Take it from me, when it comes to social issues, the native Irish are fighting viciously, on no issue more than abortion. As in America, the mainstream media are overwhelmingly "liberal." And the most common line of attack is to paint all social conservatives as "religious loons" (one of the milder phrases). The Catholic Church is mostly snookered by reason of child-abuse scandals which are appalling but have been leapt upon gleefully by "liberals" as the definitive proof that all principles of the Church are evil. Childish but effective. My concern is that the overwhelming secular case for conservative principles,on life issues, traditional marriage, or as the case may be is being clouded here and over there by association with religion. I don't for a moment suggest our Churches should be thrown under the bus, but it is essential that the secular case be made loudly and clearly, over and over again.