It may be because I’m listening to the BBC World Service’s extremely thorough coverage of it, but there’s an awful lot of a furore about President Obama’s visit to Ghana isn’t there? It’s astonishing how a foreign leader—especially one of such a controversial state—can be so universally popular in so many countries. I can’t help but fear though, that he will be unable to do anything other than disappoint. He is the President of the USA after all, and that is where his final allegiance lies, not in the rest of the world. I’m liking the content of his speech to the Ghanaian parliament though, a refreshing change from what has come before.

Photo credit: worthbak on Flickr.

The Economist this week carries an article on the Green New Deal (UN version, not ours) under the title “Green, easy and wrong”. Its argument is thus: the green new deal sounds wonderful in principle, a way of solving the two most pressing problems we now face, in an attractive, and easy to explain package; but in reality, the new deal is flawed in its reliance on decision-makers (politicians) to be able to make decisions. This isn’t a scepticism over whether the policy would be adopted by anyone, rather a scepticism over the judgement of politicians over what clean technologies to provide subsidies for the development of. The article goes on to cite the unfortunate mistake that was made over bio-ethanol in the US, and apparently photo-voltaic solar technology in Germany.

My problem with the article is twofold. First, it doesn’t offer any form of solution to the problem it raises. It is all very well to say that subsidies don’t work, but to then go on to say that “a demonstration of leadership would help burnish ‘Brand America’”. Where is that leadership to come from if there is a rejection of promoting clean technologies that are often initially unable to compete with established (and subsidised) ‘dirty technology’? Second, while I agree that we collectively made a huge mistake over biofuels (a mistake which hasn’t been realised by many of the public yet), that doesn’t mean that we should never entrust decisions over which technologies to support to decision-makers again. Instead of shutting down our promotion of environmentally sustainable tech., we should learn from our mistakes, and ensure that we make better decisions in future. The world is packed with scientists and policy experts who can help with this process.

So, sorry Economist, but your article seems to be contradictory and, from my view, wrong. I suppose that, at the very least, you accept that climate change is happening now, and something needs to be done.

So Sarah Palin sat at the “news-desk” on Saturday Night Live and nodded her head along in good humour to Amy Poehler rapping through her campaign. Why doesn’t this happen in British politics? There is a lot to dislike in Palin’s politics, but just as with McCain and Obama’s recent after-dinner speeches, she’s shown that she can see the light side of the campaign and politics.

I wouldn’t suggest that all the ‘popular’ bits of American politics should be adopted, but seeing the debates, campaigning where the candidates meet ordinary activists (and sometimes even real people), and television participation, it seems that the candidates have a higher profile. Probably the voter turnout will be less that it could be, but — so long as it is backed by actual policy positions — the degree to which the campaigns communicate with the electorate seems really positive. And yes, I know that the positions they’re running for are just a tiny bit more significant than a seat in the Commons, but there’s still scope for scaled down self-deprecation and popular communication.

According to The Takeaway, John McCain is calling for a suspension of presidential election campaigning, so he can go to Washington D.C. to sort out the economy. Is it just me being cynical, or does this sound like McCain positioning himself to call out Obama for not caring about things when he inevitably wants the debate to go on?

By the way, can this really be McCain?

The United States are often said to be the leading entertainment exporters in the world. Entertainment is, of course, one of the main industries of the country. So it is reassuring to see that the Democrat and Republican parties acknowledge this in the way they’re running their presidential contests.

I don’t know about the RNC, which will be radically different from their original plan, what with some unsettled weather in the Gulf of Mexico and all, but the DNC seems like the most amazing piece of political theatre seen since the turn of the century.

Listening to radio coverage from WNYC’s The Takeaway, looking at blogs and watching video of the convention, I couldn’t help but notice the flawlessness of it all. The same production values seem to be applied to the myriad of unofficial supporters sites and campaigns which surround the candidates. I particularly like Hotties for Obama.