I continue to be fascinated by the progress and exploits of Kirsty Coventry, the double gold, quadruple silver and bronze medal winning swimmer from Zimbabwe. Yesterday, she returned home to what The Zimbabwe Times called a “hero’s welcome”:

Hundreds of fans gathered at the Harare International Airport on Wednesday to welcome Zimbabwe’s gold and triple-Olympic silver medal winner Kirsty Coventry and her colleagues in the team which represented Zimbabwe.

It appears also that the “give her a farm” movement has not disappeared since her medal winning outing in 2004:

It was an outpouring of passion for the 25-year-old as hundreds hailed the swimming sensation with one placard reading: “Kirsty, we will give you a farm.”

This was a considerably brave thing to say, given that Mugabe was due to greet her and the rest of Team Zimbabwe. However, others were even more courageous:

A sea of red cards appeared directly in front of Mugabe and roars of “Chinja” – the MDC slogan for change – drowned the efforts of the military band. His supporters responded with cries of support, but were easily outnumbered by joyful MDC activists.

As for Ms. Coventry herself, her diplomatic skills and graciousness were abundantly in evidence:

“I was just trying to show the rest of the world that there are also good things in Zimbabwe,” Coventry said. “I can never be anything else but Zimbabwean. I am glad I am home to share my success with all of you.”

Mugabe’s response showed his discomfort, as well as the contrasting joy of the people of Zimbabwe in her success:

“I am sure you all join me in congratulating them, especially Kirsty Coventry, most heartily on that heroic performance,” Mugabe added, amid shouts of “She is white, why are you kicking out whites?”

A legitimate question, as Blessing-Miles Tendi of the Guardian reported Mugabe saying:

The only white man you can trust is a dead white man.

Our party must continue to strike fear in the heart of the white man, our real enemy.

However, because Coventry is popular:

…she attended a banquet hosted by Mugabe at his official state house residence.

And Tendi gave perhaps the best summary of the situation:

Anti-white politics has not aroused black Zimbabweans against white people. Even during the explosive land seizures phase, to a greater extent attacks on white Zimbabweans remained linked to state-sponsored farm invasions and official pronouncements.

…

The Mugabe government’s “hatred” of whites has not filtered down to the average black Zimbabwean. Most black Zimbabweans are aware that the root cause of Zimbabwe’s problems is, ultimately, the Mugabe government. Blaming white Zimbabweans and white Britain will never wash this charge away. Black Zimbabweans see through it – just as they see the irony in the Mugabe government’s taking of Coventry to its bosom.

Which should give hope to those who want Zimbabwe to succeed as an example of a multiracial, peaceful society. Again, well done to the able Kirsty Coventry, and well done to the people of Zimbabwe.

Finally, Bill did the right thing. He gave a speech which was unequivocally supportive of Barack: I breathed a sigh of relief. It was also gratifying that Bill managed to surpass his wife: while she said all the right words in her address on Tuesday, it was done in such a way that one couldn’t help but think her intent was opposite to the text. For example, when she stated pride in supporting Obama, my face automatically contorted into a cynical smile. It’s a skepticism that has deep roots: the first thing that sprang to mind when I heard a gaggle of meth-heads were arrested for threatening to kill Barack was “Hillary!”. After all, she had cited the assassination of Robert Kennedy as a precedent and a reason for keeping her campaign going long after it was reasonable to do so.

I am admittedly approaching this situation from a bias: I’m one of those who has been left completely cold by the Clinton “phenomenon”. I simply do not understand the wild passion that her supporters have for her. She strikes me as emotionless, overly ambitious and crushingly condescending. Hearing her speak is akin to enduring fingernails being clawed down a blackboard: I obviously lack the gene to be able to warm to someone who believes that insulting the intelligence of the American people is something that should be rewarded. I was born without the capacity to find such behaviour worthy of any enthusiasm whatsoever.

The same applies to Bill. I never warmed to him either, because I constantly felt like he was lying to everyone around him. I only had marginal difficulty with him carrying on with extramarital affairs; that issue properly lay in within the bounds of private life. However, I did have a problem with him carrying on with a government employee, during government hours in a government office. The disparity of power relationships alone should have made feminists scream; it certainly did on this side of the Atlantic. I also had difficulty with the fact that when caught, he should have simply told the truth and had done with it. Had he done so, Kenneth Starr, Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky would all be minor footnotes by now, rather than names written into Presidential legend. I believe Bill was bright enough to realise this, which made the situation doubly perplexing: why lie if you know it won’t make anything easier or better? The only answer suggests a pathology at work.

Worse, when it comes right down to it, it’s difficult to name too much either of them did that didn’t adhere to a purely “pragmatic” agenda. Clinton balanced the budget, some will say: whoopee, this was probably helped by the tension between what a Republican Congress wanted to spend money on, and what a Democrat President deemed worthy of largesse. Revisions to health care provision did not get anywhere; this was due in part to the complexity of Ira Magaziner’s proposal, otherwise Hillary’s lack of political salesmanship was to blame. The environment did not noticeably improve; if anything, rampant consumption galloped away. Even radical, interesting appointments to high office like Lani Guinier fell at the first hurdle. In the Clintons efforts to remain politically “viable”, improvements were limited to tinkerings at the micro-level; as such, any nostalgia for this era seems misplaced. Eric Lott, a professor at the University of Virginia, summed up Clinton Era trends with his work, “The Disappearing Liberal Intellectual”; he stated that there was an overwhelming movement for those on the Left to shun more radical ideas and groups in order to make themselves more “palatable” to a public that had accepted the conservative paradigm. Furthermore, I believe, a new thesis was adopted that emphasised “managerial competence” over a gripping contest of visions. One would have thought that the credit crunch and the rapidly degrading state of the environment would have burst this particular bubble of whimsy. Things as they are, or things only changed a little, is definitely not the answer: a continual test of ideas is much more likely to create innovation.

Yet, the Democratic Party, for better or for worse, is still tied to the Clintons, even though they have conclusively proven that they only have a one note song to sing: “me me me me me me me me me”. This lingering, malignant affection possibly extends from the heat of battle: had impeachment not been such a partisan affair, abandoning the Clintons for some would probably seem less like a betrayal. Or it may simply extend from gratitude associated with victory: after such a long interregnum, Democrats were glad to get anything they wanted, even if it was only getting someone with a “D” next to their name elected to the White House.

As a result, I don’t envy the balancing act that Barack has had to maintain: he has had to assert control yet at the same time mollify the Clintons. If he does too much of the former, he switches off a portion of the electorate that he needs. If he does too much of the latter, he appears weak, and provides an opening for Republican attack. There is no clear and obvious way, at least to me, that he can wash away the curse that the Clintons bring to any election. Worse, he cannot fully abandon the Clintons’ centrist agenda; while I think he has the inclination to be more radical (one would have to be made of stone to not be affected by working as a community organiser in the poorest part of Chicago), his street smarts probably tell him to keep these aspirations under the radar.

But Barack has to overcome, and to triumph; it’s the only way that the Clinton legacy can be dispatched. If Barack wins, then Hillary is out of the game; that said, the increasing prominence of Chelsea Clinton indicates that Bill and Hillary are getting ready to pass the torch to the next generation. If Barack loses, then the misery of 2012 will be tragic to behold: the economy will probably not have recovered, the environment will not be in any better shape, and Hillary will likely be running again. The worst aspects of the Clinton political machine could be enshrined as the only method by which victory can be ensured, and the Democrats will have completed the transformation from the party of the people into the party of opportunism and power.

It may be a forlorn hope, but with luck, Bill’s swan song last night signifies the end. As I watched him, he reminded me of a faded, once-popular crooner, who found himself twenty years past his prime singing to retirees in old-fashioned Catskills resorts. He should know that there comes a time in the life of any performer to hang up the microphone, pack the tatty leather showman’s trunk for the last time, and to bid the stage a final adieu. A graceful departure of this kind would be welcome; it is time to move on, and perhaps by being generous to the Clintons, Barack is easing their exit.

The end of the Beijing Olympics has created an atmosphere, particularly in Britain, in which the focus has narrowed to the point of fixation on the London Games of 2012. I’m slightly irritated by this; after all, there are the 2010 Winter Games in Vancouver to enjoy. Here is a promotional video to remind everyone:

I prefer the Winter Games to the Summer ones; generally speaking, the Winter Games has not featured athletes who appear to be on the point of death due to heat exhaustion. In terms of environmental impact, the Winter Games are generally less extensive and thus require less emissions to build the facilities and to host the events. “Slushy” Winter Games can also serve as a poignant reminder of the perils of climate change: I recall that Turin’s 2006 Winter Games had weather issues.

Yes, Britain is far less successful in the Winter Games: the fact that this is not really a ski-resort country probably has much to do with it. Torvill and Dean, the golden pair from 1984, may have put people off ice dancing. Building a long-track speed skating rink in say, Slough (although it is an intruiging idea), would be rather preposterous. Still, it looks like an altogether more comfortable, more intimate affair. Plus, there’s ice hockey.

The Vancouver games should be particularly successful as Canada has a knack for hosting the Winter Olympics; the Winter Games of 1988 were held in Calgary, and I recollect them fondly. It’s a good advertisement for Canada as well; at the present time, I’m thinking about moving there, and have found out that I’m eligible under Canada’s points system to immigrate. It’s entirely possible the Vancouver games will “complete the sale”. Even if it doesn’t, it still looks like it will be fun, and certainly won’t be just a “speed bump” on the way to London.

The Democratic National Convention has kicked off in Denver, and apparently it’s gotten off to a brisk start. The reviews of the speeches by Michelle Obama, Senator Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi suggest all have gone off without a hitch. No doubt, Michelle, Ted and Nancy breathed more easily once they got off the stage and out of the glare of the television cameras. They deserve to feel a cool, satisfied sense of relief. The convention so far has been carefully scripted, strictly managed, and well presented; the Democrats are doing their utmost to put their best foot forward, and so far have achieved almost Beijing Olympics levels of efficiency.

I suppose this masterful orchestration should cheer Barack’s supporters up. I can’t help but feel a bit of disquiet, however; something that tightly wound and absent of any genuine surprise cannot help but be somewhat dry, no matter how well crafted the rhetoric may be. It has all the hallmarks of one, long extended commercial, and is nearly as boring. I think in this regard America has much to learn from Britain, and from the debates that occur within British political parties.

It may sound somewhat perverse in a twenty-four hour, cable television news driven culture to say that arguments are worthwhile. After all, the American press would seize upon any open disagreements as symptomatic of a “split”. However to speak in pure platitudes and paper over the cracks is far less “genuine”: normal, intelligent people, if gathered in enough numbers, are bound to have big debates. This is not Stalinist Russia, after all; there is no obligation to keep applauding the party platform lest one thought to be disloyal. Even Karl Marx said that without the dynamic of criticism, no society can progress; the same holds true for political parties.

In Britain, arguments at party conferences are a fact of life. The Liberal Democrats, for example, argue every year about decriminalisation of marijuana. Within the Labour Party, there are annual debates about the role of the private sector in the provision of public services: how much should they provide, or if they should provide any at all. The Conservatives fight over Britain’s membership of the European Union and how quickly taxes ought to be cut. These discussions are not interpreted as a genuine “split” unless there is an actual rebellion: i.e., Members of Parliament refuse to vote in accordance with the eventuallly agreed party platform.

American conventions are not anything like this. In fact, these events have been little more than a rubber stamp for decades; the only opportunity there is for such discussion is when the party nominee is unclear. Perhaps the best convention in American history was the Democratic convention in 1948; the party was hopelessly divided when it came in, and it fought and argued. Harry Truman prior to the convention had little natural constituency; he had been an afterthought when selected to run as Roosevelt’s vice president in 1944. Indeed, there were some Democrats who wanted to draft in Eisenhower. Few wanted to stick with Truman; however the process of argument established his natural ability and force, and displayed the charismatic and moral qualities which enabled him to win an election pre-ordained to be hopeless.

Can argument be a negative? Certainly, if free speech is seen as a right to promote anarchy: the Democrats had quite enough of that in 1968. A combination of a party establishment that was frightened of the radicals, a group of radicals that was not willing to compromise, and the assasination of the bridge between the two groups, Robert Kennedy, meant that disagreement became destructive. By and large, however, disagreement is normal, cathartic, and allows both radicals and moderates to believe their voice has been heard, even if neither side gets all of their positions adopted.

The counterpoint is that a gathering that focuses on unity (which has a similar feel to the Beijing Olympics sense of “harmony”) should give Barack a substantial bounce in the polls. I disagree; predictable television like the convention is bound to switch off undecided or uncommitted viewers. This is not the fifties, after all, when there was a limited number of channels and programmes; no doubt some viewers are flipping back to women’s beach volleyball matches they recorded on their Tivos. Indeed, any “bounce” is likely to be attributable to the event’s coverage, rather than the convention itself. In contrast, because the Republican ship is rotting from within, and there is a fundamental split between the Evangelical and Libertarian wings of the party, this is likely to be much more interesting; I personally look forward to seeing some of their party faithful speaking in tongues and praying that Jesus casts out the demons within McCain. More worryingly and much less amusing is the thought that the Republicans’ lack of organisation may accrue the advantage of their getting all the arguments out of the way, rather than having them fester beneath the surface.

There is the possibility that the Democratic convention could still become a series of debates; for example, there is still some obvious disquiet among a segment of Hillary Clinton’s supporters. I suggest that the attempts to silence them are likely to be counterproductive; let them say why they are so convinced that Hillary ought to be nominated, even though Hillary herself has backed Obama. It may seem akin to primal scream therapy, but if the party gives them space for venting their anguish, they may finally be able to move on and do something useful. If not, they’ll simply look insane and lose all remaining credibility. Forcing them underground only gives added cause for grievance and creates an atmosphere of subversion rather than principled disagreement and a process of healing. Additionally, I believe Barack is more than strong enough to face down any doubters; he’s come this far, this seems like a small gulf to bridge.

However, I doubt this will occur, and I doubt that the “bounce” will amount to much: I sincerely hope I am incorrect, but I can proclaim expertise in what constitutes “boring”, having been exposed to endless tedium by working in the technology industry. This experience has imbued me with a desire to call a halt to it whenever possible: if I were in Denver, I’d likely be approaching the nearest convention official and saying, like a Monty Python character, “I’d like to have an argument, please”. It might be helpful.

The Beijing Olympics have ended just as flamboyantly as they began. I watched the Closing Ceremonies with interest and a tinge of sadness: after all, the Games have provided the bulk of my entertainment for the past two weeks, and the success of the British athletes has provided me with a timely set of “pick me ups” just when office life was stagnating.

The BBC has done a fine job, but I thought that the broadcasters were a bit too obvious in their admiration for the Chinese. The announcers were more than effusive in their praise of the new “Bird’s Nest” stadium, the transport facilities and the overall organisation of the Games. Yet, there were disturbing items as well; for example, there was an undercurrent of militarism in the use of the People’s Liberation Army in the flag raising and lowering ceremonies. As the BBC noted, without a hint of sarcasm, the synchronisation of vast numbers of people was a Chinese skill that had been so well developed, the only nation that did it better was North Korea. The theme of “harmony”, which the government was so keen to stress, was also worrying: who gets to determine what “harmony” means, who decides the basis of “harmony”? Inevitably, this was probably decided by the uniform apparatchiks who sat in the balconies of the Birds’ Nest. Their dark suits, starched shirts, and bland ties made the presence of the rumpled and scruffy London Mayor Boris Johnson oddly reassuring.

The Games had their wonderful aspects, however; the outstanding British medal tally is one thing, the performances of Michael Phelps and Usain Bolt are another. Unlike superstars in the past, both Phelps and Bolt appear to have a true sense of humility. Phelps does not present himself in a manner that suggests he believes he is the “greatest Olympian”. Bolt said his contribution to sprinting had been marginal. Heroes with so little ego are generally difficult to find; to see two at once is hugely refreshing.

Bolt’s predecessor in spriting dominance, Michael Johnson, was a BBC commentator. During the Closing Ceremony, he said perhaps the most true statement about the Beijing Games: “Prior to this the world didn’t know China, now we do.”

Yes, we do. I think the most important bit of information the Beijing Games has provided is precisely what kind of regime China is, and what it wants.

Sinology is a subject which attracts a great many scholars; I know people who have gone to Beijing and Harvard to pursue advanced degrees to learn more. But at the heart of what the Chinese regime wants and what it is, is a very simple idea: the ruling elite wants to build a strong country, and they will be both absolutely ruthless and pragmatic and achieving it.

I know that it is fashionable to get wrapped up either in the Communist symbols and rhetoric, or to hint that China is essentially fascist. Both of these interpretations miss the point entirely. This is not a regime that has a particular, world-embracing ideology at its core. China is not particularly communist, nor is it active in spreading Marxism abroad. Nor is it fascist; it is not engaged in the lives of its citizens at anywhere near the same level of Fascist Italy or Nazi Germany. In a fascist state, there is a requirement for the citizens to be active participants in the party and community; in China, so long as one does not get involved in politics, one can expect to be left alone.

If anything, China has copied post-war South Korea, as it was ruled by General Park Chung-Hee. For those who are not familiar with this era or the man, General Park was the head of a ruling junta, who pushed through the rapid economic modernisation of the country. He demanded that the Koreans work extremely hard for little wages; the central idea, however, was to build up South Korea, make it so strong that the North could not take advantage, and make it so rich that stability would be ensured. General Park was eventually assassinated and a democratic system put in place; however, there is more than an echo of this approach in the Chinese approach to national power.

As previously stated, they simply do not care about anything else. Communist ideology can go hang if it means China is not a great industrial power. The Little Red Book may be revered, but it is like a children’s story at bedtime if it doesn’t allow China to become the world’s creditor, and translate that financial power into a larger military. The environment, human rights, national self-determination can all go to blazes in this scenario because their benefits to a direct increase in the strength of the Chinese nation are unclear at best.

Building up this power is an end in and of itself; there is no quantification of how much power is enough power, just China must continue to develop it, and nothing must get in the way, lest domination by foreigners, as was prevalent in China in the early twentieth century and nineteenth century, will return.

The regime’s fundamental ruthlessness is obvious in how the Tibetians are treated; the suspension of investment in the countryside in the name of the Olympic games is just as blatant. As reported by the Washington Post, the regime was content to let farmers crops go unirrigated to ensure the setting of the Games was idyllic. The Olympics was a power exercise, an attempt to dazzle the world with Chinese prowess; the plight of a small farmer didn’t have such a direct cost to benefit ratio.

That said, the regime does allow personal prosperity, largely because this too increases the power of the nation. The wealthy are soldiers in China’s cause, able to spend cash abroad in the purchase of the trappings of the West. This opportunity does give a form of legitimacy to the regime; but the regime only cares about formal legitimacy insofar as it gives them freedom of action to pursue their goals.

This singlemindedness should concern us all. While there is no coherent ideology behind it, no striving towards a “good” society, it is a very practical philosophy which has attractions. We are seeing this take hold in Russia whereby Putin is aggressively using his control of energy supplies; on a lesser scale, Cuba is starting to liberalise its market in order to emulate the Chinese model. Perhaps, the propoents of this model state, personal liberty is not all, particularly when it means others can get one over on you.

We are not at a point yet where this thesis has been proven. However the Olympics have shown how late in the day we are. China has all the trappings and technology of a modern nation; it is working day and night, pushing itself, straining itself, to get the raw materials to build itself up into a superpower. Unlike the Soviet Union, it is not encumbered by a ridiculous edifice of central planning which will bring it down; in China, the animal spirits run free. This implies it will be more resilient, and as they concern themselves less with the environment, they have less of an incentive to do what’s right for the planet than we will. They may indeed take advantage of our steps to curb economic growth in order to preserve the planet; our sole hope is that the ecological issues thrown up by the Beijing games make them think again. Power is not all. National strength is all well and good, but if the world in which a nation is pre-eminent is nothing but a wasteland, then it is an exercise in pointlessness. Perhaps these thoughts reside in the minds of the apparatchiks; it’s difficult to tell. We know China, but we’re still in need of education, because it’s obvious we don’t know enough.

One of the lesser reported stories of 2008 has been the continuing political turmoil in Belgium. In June 2007, an election was held: for nine consecutive months afterwards, the politicians found it impossible to assemble a working coalition to govern the country. Finally, a deal was struck putting the controversial Christian Democrat leader, Yves Leterme, into the hot seat as Prime Minister.

Because no devolution agreement was possible between Belgium’s French speaking Walloon and Dutch speaking Flemish communities, Leterne tried to tender his resignation in July. Had King Albert II accepted it, it is likely that the country would have been paralysed by a constitutional crisis. The situation remains precarious; Erik Jones, a columnist for the Guardian, wrote on August 20th:

…there is a real sense that something fundamental to the continuation of Belgium as a country is at stake. The constitutional matters are only the beginning. Questions about how much power should be devolved from federal to regional level, or about whether voters in communities around Brussels should cast ballots in Flemish or in French are difficult, but not impossible, to resolve.

I lived in Belgium for a time and understand both French and Dutch; the diversity of the country was part of its appeal to me. Belgium has not only Dutch speakers and French speakers, it also has a small German speaking enclave, and immigrant communities in Brussels (a particularly large one comes from Morocco). The idea that such a culturally rich country that has existed for nearly 180 years would suddenly crack apart is a blow to the notion that identity can be something larger than a particular linguistic or ethnic group. If Belgium, largely peaceful and relatively prosperous, cannot hold – what then for the European Union? Or nations like the United States, which have large segments of the population that are culturally dissimilar?

As such, I am a supporter of organisations such as Pro Belgica, which strives to keep the country together. Indeed, they have to pull themselves together for their own sake. As Erik Jones noted:

The stalemate cannot go on forever. While Belgian politicians have wrestled with their constitutional and political demons, the world economy has taken a turn for the worse, pulling Belgium down with it. As a result, growth has slowed, the country’s balance of trade is negative for the first time in over a decade, and inflation is among the highest in Europe (and running faster than any time in the 25 years). Indeed the situation has deteriorated so rapidly that Belgian policymakers have been unable to keep up. When Leterme announced his government’s planned economic programme in mid-July, the press immediately pointed out that his assumptions were outdated and his calculations flawed. The fact that the Belgian planning bureau produced those calculations only last May was no excuse.

Finding a symbol around which the Belgians could unify might help the situation. Although the King has been heroic in his efforts to keep the nation together, there needs to be a “feel good” figure, who could show the Belgians that they’re one nation after all.

Today, that figure may have emerged: Ms. Tia Hellebaut, a former pentathlete turned high jumper. She produced a jump of 2.05m which was sufficient to win her the gold medal, the first gold medal in athletics for the country since 1964. This was an added bonus on top of the silver won by the Belgian team (Olivia Borlée, Kim Gevaert, Hanna Mariën and Elodie Ouedraogo) in the women’s 4 x 100m relay. If the politicians of Belgium have any sense at all, they will seize upon this success, and public accolades for Ms. Hellebaut and the 4 x 100m team will be forthcoming.

There are discussions in Britain as well as other countries about the value of elite sport. Belgium could be a test case; with a bit of luck, it may provide enough of a patriotic kick to save a nation.

While I and many others are trying to grasp Obama’s reasoning behind his choice of Joe Biden as a running mate, it is worth mentioning that there is a certain logic to this for fans of “The West Wing”.

It’s already been said that Barack Obama has similarities to the “West Wing” character of Matthew Santos, which is not entirely surprising given that one of Obama’s advisors was a consultant to the show’s writers. Both Obama and Santos are relatively fresh and are from a minority community. Both are charismatic. Both are excellent public speakers. Both needed someone with more experience to balance the ticket.

Santos’ vice presidential pick was Leo McGarry, the former White House Chief of Staff. This was not an obvious choice given that he was both a recovering alcoholic and valium addict: however, he was experienced, came from a Catholic working class background, and had extensive foreign policy expertise. Among his personal quirks was a love of expensive suits; as Charlie, President Barlet’s aide noted, he always bought them from Saville Row.

Biden is also an older statesman who came from a Catholic working class background. He developed extensive foreign policy experience as the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee. The quality of his wardrobe has been noted by Newsweek’s Howard Fineman:

He is a fancy dresser–given to stick pin collars and French cuffs…

Both, however, have baggage. In McGarry’s case, his baggage included not only his past substance abuse, he also had a physical ailment: he had suffered a massive heart attack prior to being chosen. Because John Spencer, the actor playing McGarry, died of a heart attack, it was decided to have McGarry pass away on the fictional Election Night.

In Biden’s case, his infirmity is less serious in terms of his overall health, but much more damaging in terms of the campaign: as Fineman also stated, “he likes to talk”. Too much. But then again, Leo McGarry was not portrayed as the greatest campaigner either.

There are, of course, differences: McGarry had military service and experience as Secretary of Labor, which makes him theoretically superior to Biden. Biden on the other hand has an excellent family life (McGarry is divorced) and no financial or sexual scandals to haunt him.

However, the logic in operation behind the fictional Santos’ pick and the actual Obama pick remains quite similar. Add in the element of the conflict in Georgia, which echoes the problems faced by President Bartlet in Kazakhstan, and the similarities between fact and fiction become even more compelling. This could definitely be the “West Wing Election”.

One final note: for those who don’t recall the result, Santos won. Take it as an encouraging omen.

In 1919, the Chicago White Sox, one of the greatest baseball teams in American history, conspired with a series of gamblers to throw the World Series to the Cincinnati Reds. They did it for money: the owner of the Sox, Charles Comiskey, was notoriously stingy towards his players and incredibly self-righteous, and this combination proved lethal. After the fraud was uncovered and the players put on trial, according to legend, the famous White Sox outfielder “Shoeless Joe” Jackson was confronted by a child outside court. The young lad plaintively cried, “Say it ain’t so, Joe!”

“Well kid,” Shoeless replied, “I’m afraid it is.”

Jump to ninety years later; now, I’m sure I’m not alone in wanting to invoke a similar phrase in a very different Chicago story. Say it ain’t Joe, Barack, say it ain’t Joe!

To merely write that I’m disappointed by this pick is an understatement of similar magnitude to saying that Usain Bolt has got a bit of acceleration. Or it’s like saying that Mozart could rattle off a tune now and then. Or it’s akin to saying that Paris Hilton is partial to boys…every once in a while.

This is a hideously bad pick; I do not expect Barack to reverse it, because to do so would entail more damage than the choice does in the first place. However, in order to move on from this decision, there needs to be honesty about Biden’s weak points and strong points.

To be absolutely fair to Biden, he has been around for quite some time; tenure does breed experience, and he probably has a deeper insight into how Washington runs than Barack does. Secondly, Biden has, as head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, valuable experience in foreign policy. It is also clear that Biden can be tenacious in attack when it is required.

These obvious strengths, however, do not counterbalance Biden’s just as obvious weaknesses; what is more, some of his “virtues” may actually create problems for Obama.

If there is one overriding theme to which Barack has clung, it is “change”. He is on record stating that “too often, Washington is a place where good ideas go to die”. Given this, he was the “anti-establishment” candidate; now he has just brought one of Washington’s longest serving veterans into the fold. It remains to be seen if this is a contradiction; however if Biden now embraces the message of “change”, it has the potential to look odd, given his long years in Washington. He will be asked, and perhaps rightly, as to why didn’t achieve more “change” while serving the people of Delaware.

Furthermore, like every politician, Biden has had to tack with the prevailing wind. The longer a politician serves, the more times he has had to make alterations in his positions in order to remain viable. It is a mystery as to why this has not yet turned into a liability for McCain; there is little doubt that this will become a problem for Biden.

For example, while Biden has rightly renounced his vote on the Iraq War, he did vote in favour of it in the first place, unlike Obama, who opposed it from the start; furthermore, most news sources state he is more “hawkish” than his new boss on the issue. This impression is based on a cumulative assessment of his votes and statements; this will be extremely difficult for him to throw overboard.

Beyond this, Biden has genuine negatives. We are living in an era of sound bites, and as any good politician knows, one has to exercise supreme discipline in what one says, because any statement has the potential to be interpreted by the press in a negative way. Obama could say, “I love puppies” and the press could interpret this as an attack on cat owners.

Senator Biden lacks the fundamental self-control and awareness to operate in this era. This handicap was on display back in 1988, when he campaigned for President: for one of his speeches, he borrowed a few phrases from British Labour leader Neil Kinnock. In fairness to Biden, he did credit Kinnock in most of the instances in which he used the Welshman’s words. However, he either forgot or had a slip of the tongue, and did not state the appropriate verbal footnote at one of his engagements, and this was seized upon by the press. His Presidential hopes went up in smoke shortly thereafter.

He has also apparently learned nothing since then; during his short-lived 2008 Presidential bid, Biden refered to Obama as “clean” in a manner that could have been construed as racist. While no one genuinely thinks Biden is a bigot, it did sound patronising, and it fatally damaged him once more.

Biden creates these “target rich” opportunities and cannot stop creating them; scanning the news sources this morning, whether from Britain, the United States or elsewhere, show a startling uniformity in this one aspect: Biden likes to talk. He will continue to speak, apparently, long after it is prudent. This is highly dangerous.

I can imagine the retorts from Obama’s advisors: there is talk that Biden’s Catholicism will attract Catholic voters; however, this is difficult to see, given that this is (rightly) not something he wears on his sleeve. It has been stated that he will attract blue collar voters, given his modest background and Scranton, PA origins; it is difficult to square this idea with his present lifestyle and penchant for sharp suits. All in all, the first rule of picking a Vice Presidential candidate, “do no harm” has apparently been thrown overboard for “do nothing particularly useful”.

It may be that my distance from the internal machinations associated with this decision means that I am entirely wrong: I certainly hope so. It could very well be that the relationship between Obama and Biden is so strong as to render any negatives worth bearing, and the air of solid partnership will wipe away any doubts. However, it could also be that this is one test that Barack has flunked: he could have picked a Vice Presidential candidate to appeal to the nation, or to the editorial board of the Washington Post. Picking someone like Governor Schweitzer of Montana would have been an example of the former, picking Biden smacks of the latter. Again, I hope I’m wrong. For the moment, however, I’m digesting this uneasily. That said, tomorrow, I’ll want to get a bumper sticker which reads “Obama / Biden ’08”.

If there is one Olympic athelete who embodies the spirit of absolute refusal to accept mediocrity or second-best, it is the British BMX racer, Shanaze Reade. Here is a video introduction to this great sportsperson:

Shanaze unfortunately did not win the women’s BMX racing final, nor did she receive a medal. She was second place up until the last race; she risked everything to try and win gold. Unfortunately, this did not work out: she not only crashed, according to the BBC, she broke her hand in the process.

However, she is only 19, so it is entirely possible she will return for the London Olympic Games; I certainly hope she does. Her pursuit of excellence will surely be rewarded one day; her daring and courage should be saluted today.

I am fairly glad that the end of the week is nigh, and that the following Monday is a holiday in the United Kingdom. It has been a depressing five days, and the in-built languor of summer’s end was heightened by a conversation I had with my boss on Wednesday.

Company confidences forbid me from revealing too much detail about what was said, but I believe I can relate the conversation’s overall flavour. As we talked, there was a Swedish word that kept springing to mind: lagom. Lagom means “adequate” or “sufficient”; it is a unique Swedish virtue insofar as it relates to personal ambitions and acquiring wealth. The idea is that a country ought to be rich, but that wealth should be spread sufficiently around to discourage envy and forbid injustice.

However, I got the sense that my boss had somehow flunked a Swedish class and come away with a twisted meaning of the term. It was as if he took it to mean “meritorious mediocrity”. It’s all right to be average, to be just adequate, to simply make do. Worse, it’s all right just to copy others; being original, in the bossland variant of lagom, is dangerous, because no one else is doing it.

My perspective is rather different: if everyone else is doing it, then what makes you better? What is there to encourage people to remain loyal to you? What is there to protect you when an innovator does come along? Not much, in my view.

I’ve been through this before; in a previous job, I worked for a travel firm. The managing director wanted nothing better than to copy the market leader as closely as possible. I had to put a stop to several redesigns of our website intended to achieve this, as the recasting was likely to violate copyright. The innovations that I wanted to achieve, for example, developing technology so that one could book “non-linear” holidays (i.e., arriving and departing from a different destination), were put on hold. We had to be lagom, be like the others, nothing more.

It would be comforting if this condition was merely confined to technology; however as I can see in my daily struggles as a budding author, it appears lagom is creeping into other sectors. Doing something that does not adhere to an existing template of success, makes trying to land either an agent or a publisher particularly difficult. A note for those who starting out their careers in writing: if you want to make life easier for yourselves, find a successful author, and write a piece that is an extrapolation, continuation or lies in parallel. We have seen a lot of fiction promoted as being “the next Harry Potter” or the “next Dan Brown”: I’ve seen an example of the latter that was so carefully orchestrated that even the book cover looks like it is yet another in Dan Brown’s series. I’ve also seen stands in Waterstones bookstores that were designed to promote new books by mentioning their “relationship” to the Potter books.

So what’s wrong with being lagom? It is no recipe for survival; the reason why speaking to my boss was depressing was precisely because I had seen the consequences. The travel company I worked for was sold off, and has been bumping along the bottom ever since: as I feared at the time, there was no reason for people to go to a copy when they can get the original. There is nothing to bind visitors to my present company’s offering, if we don’t do something which makes us special in their eyes. Publishers are finding, I believe, that pushing something as a copy of Harry Potter only goes so far; it rarely achieves the geyser-like rush of something fresh. Grasping for certainty in mediocrity is pushing the law of diminishing returns to its utmost.

The continuing struggle of becoming and remaining original requires a different discipline: it means that there has to be a tolerance for failure, the development of patience, and the maintenance of a constant flow of new ideas. Western societies are having a problem with this, in general: perhaps we have been conditioned to the uniform flows of mass produced goods, and thus conformity is susceptible to being confused with quality. However, the diversity that an anti-lagom strategy provides means that companies, publishers and writers have a chance to develop particular niches, upon which their long-term survival can be based.

For example, a lot of firms are tackling the problem of green energy. Each appears to hope that their solution will be the “big answer”; however, their products appear to be a series of little answers, and each will have their own niche and use in producing carbon-free energy. For example, it was reported in the Economist that one firm has found a way of using solar energy, in combination with cobalt and phosphorous, to create hydrogen. Will this work in cars? No; however it shows promise in providing energy for buildings. Another firm has developed a bacteria which can turn waste into a form of crude oil; will this provide the answer for producing petrol in the future? No, because the bacteria work too slowly; furthermore, carbon emissions from continuing to burn oil are undesirable. However, this may provide a substitute for petrolchemicals that will be required in the future. General Motors has been trying different types of batteries for vehicles; will this answer all transportation problems? No, but it may take care of certain types of driver, for example, people who live in cities or suburbs, and thus drive short distances. Each has a role to play, a piece in the puzzle, and each company providing a solution can profit by playing a specialised role.

Diversity, originality and excellence creates a world of solutions, rather than a planet full of copycats. Yes, there is the possibility of failure: not all of the energy solutions, for example, will be either economically or environmentally viable. But copying others creates the potential, if not the certainty, for being an even larger debacle. In the 1990’s Sun Microsystems decided that their strategy insofar as its Solaris operating system was concerned, was to maintain its proprietary nature; this strategy copied Microsoft Windows, which the CEO Scott McNealy felt was a recipe for success. This allowed Sun to charge ridiculous amounts of money for software and hardware at the start of the internet revolution; however, the Linux and FreeBSD projects pushed forward by being different. The fact that they were Open Source meant they could benefit from being mutated into specialised distributions. Solaris was left in the dust; it was only made Open Source very late in the day, too late, in fact, to be useful to Sun, which is now only a shadow of what it once was.

Trying to be original instead of lagom can be frustrating and soul-destroying; it is definitely swimming against the tide. But at least it has logic in its favour: it was not being lagom that created the solutions that so many are willing to copy. Rather, it was courage, originality and fortitude, and acceptance a certain element of risk.

Those who continue to dwell in the lands of mediocrity are courting disaster. Becoming irrelevant is a dreadful fate; I cannot help but think of the end of the film “Amadeus”, in which the aged, insane and terribly average composer Salieri proclaims himself the “patron saint of mediocrities”, and thereafter is wheeled around an insane asylum, blessing the dissolution and madness around him. Thank God for this forthcoming weekend, because at least there is an opportunity in one’s own time to avoid staring this fate in the face and time to gather myself up to fight it again when I get back to work.