(Well, they…)

Yesterday, Edward Kennedy endorsed Obama’s candidacy.  This is, of course, excellent news for Obama, at least in the primaries.  Kennedy may not hold much appeal for independents, but his endorsement simply counts with the super-delegates and grassroots.  This could be a big vote-winner.

However, it does make me wonder about one thing.  Obama’s rhetoric is very much based around transcending the old politics, with the partisanship, corruption and dynasticism represented by the Clintons.  But isn’t this a dip into the dynastic pool for Barack too?  Kennedy is one of the patriarchs of the Democrats.  His family are unquestionably one of the great dynasties of American politics.

And now he’s got the dynastic endorsement.  Trascendence?  You’d be forgiven for a moment’s pause after this.

I don’t think this doubtful reading is correct, though.  It’s not as if Obama looks to have sought this out - or, certainly, as if he’s been angling for the dynastic rubber stamp.  His candidacy clearly stands alone, and his rhetoric looks as genuine as ever.  He can be the candidate to beat the past.  Obama is not a compulsive ring-kisser, and there’s been nothing to suggest he’s been looking for this unduly.

And a dynastic endorsement is still better than a dynastic candidate…

Today, Hari’s keyboard brings us something terrifying. For those short of time, I’ll extract the most relevant bit:

But amidst all these debates, there is a looming, almost unnoticed threat to the future of the internet. The massive corporations that provide broadband access own the physical hightways of the internet: the wires and cables and switches along which web pages travel before they hit your screen. Over the past few years, they have been lobbying in both the US and Europe for permission to turn this into a two-lane motorway, with different speeds according to how much you can pay. Under their proposed system, if you are a big corporation like Nike or Microsoft, you would pay a premium fee and travel on the fastest lane, with your page getting to users at super-speed. If you are just an unknown blogger, you pay the standard fee, and you will be stuck in the piled-up broadband traffic, taking much longer to update or use.

This is called a “tiered” internet – and it has to be resisted. The greatest thing about the web is that the entry costs are so low: we all plug and play on an equal basis. Under the new model, we would no longer compete in a somewhat open market of ideas; instead, arguments would be rigged even more grossly in favour of the rich.

As the internet reshapes our minds and souls in ways we are only beginning to comprehend, we have to fight to keep it equally open to everyone. Otherwise, Tomorrow’s World will become a corporate-controlled world, with inequality built into the cables that connect us all.

I find this prospect utterly depressing.  One of the internet’s greatest strengths - perhaps its greatest - is its sheer egalitarianism.  Beyond paying for the (increasingly cheap) access to it, anyone can use it.  Anyone can publish, anyone can see it, anyone can use it if they’ve got a computer and a connection.  It’s genuinely the closest we’ve come to an international free market of ideas and information, ever.

This would take that away.  The inherently democratic edge of the internet would be lost as the rich decided what the poor (and the middling…) were allowed to see at what speed.  Small websites such as this would be penalised heavily, forced to wait behind queues of other poor, unconsulted, owners who couldn’t afford to pay for more.  Free-content websites such as wikipedia and youtube might be forced to charge to meet increased costs.  Slowly, subtly, corporations and companies would begin to dominate the virtual market in the same way as they do the real one, bringing inequality where there should be none.

The providers must realise that they do not own the internet.  That either belongs to no-one, or at most the users - but certainly not them.  They merely provide the service, and are already paid for that.  Does a government own its people or the country - or is that government there to follow the will of the people (in a democracy, at least)?  No.  And this is no different.  The providers have no moral right to assault the internet for the sake of profit.

This must be resisted.

(He does, as his secretary.  Or, at least, he did when I met him…)

I had probably best be careful what I say here, so I won’t comment on Derek Conway’s fairly flagrant misuse of money.

This I will say: he was reprimanded by the Standards and Privileges Committee and he apologised.  That is remarkably refreshing in this era of denial over dodgy money exchanges.  Credit to him.

I doubt that many of you missed the controversy over James Watson, and at the time I read a firm defence of his views {well, most of them, strangely enough not the one’s where he said anyone who hires black people knows that they make poor employees, but then this wasn’t StormFront…} that at the time I found sadly convincing.

However Malcolm Gladwell, author of The Tipping Point and Blink, writes a strong case against him and all other “IQ fundamentalists” which is worth reading. Above all he made it clear to me exactly how the “Cultural bias” deplored by the IQ tests critics is present and the disastrous impact that its presence can have upon people attempting to use it as the sole source of their information and the folly of perceiving it as the optimum. Apparently it is partially a matter as simple as it getting harder each time it is updated and this not being accounted for.

If that is not your sort of thing, or once your done, read the same author’s piece on ketchup. Really, you should.

As far as oraters go this primary round has left us spoilt. Although if you were unfortunate enough to catch one of Thompson’s before he split you were only likely to appreciate it if you were an insomniac, although Clinton sounds like a poorly programmed android, only less emotional and although Romney’s heavily buttered silk is often nauseating its still been great, if only for Ron Paul and Barack Obama.

The latter gave an astounding victory speech last night, that can be viewed here.

He seems to have set out to convince the world that he really is everything that they want him to be and managed it with ease and flair. The wretched foulness of partisanship was targetted head on and thus, by implication, the Clintons, who’s value-devoid longing to tear their way back into power has left them clutching onto their stranglehold on the party machinery as this increasingly seems to be all that they have left {besides, of course, that immensely healthy dependence upon Latino soft racism towards blacks}.

Instead he proposes an alternative of listening to what even the dreaded right has to say about things and treating them as human beings rather than blood-thirsty demons. That said he states that the “Past seven years” have been “Disastrous” and that the Iraq War “Should never have been authorised and never have been waged.”

This, along with the rest of his talk’s emphasis on big-government solutions to the immense problems that America faces, is likely to raise Conservative heckles, but without resorting to exactly the kind of stale partisanship that Obama wages war against they will find it impossible to attack him for this yet disregard the same tendencies that all three of the Republican candidates have displayed. Where is the difference between Obama wanting to keep a factory open to ensure that Walmart is not the only option left and Romney saying that he will roll up his sleeves and fight for Michigan car-factory jobs?

{Honesty, probably, but on face value it is certainly a struggle to see anything at all dissimilar.}

Obama is taking on perhaps the hardest and most entrenched target of all: not Clinton, not conservatism but cynicism. This corrosive, caustic force has gnawed a hole in the politics on both sides of the Atlantic. It has reached the stage where all are tarred so immediately that somehow the aforementioned Willard Romney has been able to escape with total 180 degree about turn on policy exactly where expedient for his ambitions and having replies to questions radioed into his ear because, after all, politicians are all the same, thus there is no call for outrage.

Nixon lost office, the conservatives gained an attitude which suited them. Their stance was always more of an outlook than philosophy anyway, so that was ample. Watergate was a life-line disguised as a shark for them. A bad experience left the psyche scarred.

It is a curiosity but no surprise that this negative mechanism, a method used by people to protect themselves from being deceived, has now come to aid the actual power-hungry tricksters, shielding the offensiveness of their actions in the grand stereotype that any wishing to use power to help others is simply a liar, who longs for control and nothing else. If this is the assumption made of all in the field of politics then how could the outcome possibly be anything else? They are all liars, after all, all deceivers. There is no difference between Romney and McCain, none between Clinton or Obama. They are all part of the political system, they are all foul.

This is curious in that it connects neo-liberalism and Marxism perfectly: politics its dismissed completely. Any notion of aiding those suffering is dismissed. Anyone suggesting it must be an exploiter who’s will is for power, rather than justice.

Who, besides the true liars, does this aid?

In both nations those that would have the political system damaged as severely as possible, the neo-liberals, the quasi-libertarians, the Guido Fawkeses, the borderline anarcho-capitalists, those that would have the NHS torn down in Britain and in America those who would prevent anything like it ever coming into existence. We can trust no servant of the public {besides the police} to protect us, we can rely upon no promises or pledges from allegedely earnest men to improve the world. No, we must let the plutocrats continue unmolested, let everything remain personal and stamp out any suggestion of collective advancement. Don’t vote {don’t try and reform they system so it would matter if you did}, don’t protest {just complain}, don’t write in {just whinge}, don’t stand {leave that to the liars}, don’t empathise {just get on with your life}, don’t get involved.

Forget politicians, they’re all traitors. Don’t try. Don’t bother.

{Just let the rich get on with it.}

As I have said before, many times, cynicism can ultimately only ever aid the right.

And he’s taking it on head-first. Peddling hope, pushing the positives. Demeaning the curmudgeons, preaching to whoever will listen. Not an inch given to the perpetual nay-sayers, an ear open to the woe but with an eye on its abolition and no heed given to those who argue that it is inevitable. Critiquing the state support given to the causes of suffering, radical moderatism {”Stop giving money to massive corporations overly keen on the down-size?!”}, triangulation tugged from the Clintons like a rug swept from beneath feet and transformed into something fresh and amazing like a lump of deadwood being wittled into a diamond.

No bone thrown to the jaded, no inch given to the dividers, no quarter offered to stereotype enthusiasts, no wailing, no gnashing of teeth, no focus upon the ego {”We…”}, no sight lost of the little people that the Big Picture consists of, no harsh offensives, no scare-mongering, no factional appeals, no theocracy.

Perfection.

Brown’s reshuffle this week was hardly surprising, but I suspect he had hoped to hold it off for a little while longer.  It is fairly clear from the nature of the people shuffled that the plan had been in place for some time, however.  The speed at which Purnell marched into the DWP was staggering, and he appears to have painted himself as a one-man flak jacket for the ongoing donations saga.  Responding to Johnson’s woes, he apparently “told the BBC it had ‘been got a bit out of proportion‘”.  VC for valour, D- for grammar.

Sky News’ Adam Boulton has an interesting post on his blog today.  The talk of a 2008 General Election is a little strange (how great would it be to have another “election that never was”?) but the commentary on Brown’s strategy is interesting.  Purnell and Burnham are both able (minus photoshop incidents and the aforementioned issue with grammar), and both have a strong future in the Labour party.  Cheif crony Ed Balls has been tainted with Brown’s premiership.  The newly promoted gang are untainted - even the spiritual leader of the post-Blairites, David Milliband, has kept his hands clean - so there is all to play for.  Purnell is so squeaky-clean that he defend the soiled old brass in the media and it plays well for him.

Boulton’s final remark is perhaps the most important to bear in mind: this upcoming alliance of next generation leaders are ready to take high office, but will instead find themselves leading in opposition.  This said, the prospect of a hung parliament could play into their hands.

Hillary is now on 23.2% and Obama 57.4%.

If this holds steady it is less a victory and more a massacre.