I suspect it's really more political debating on HN that's an issue. It's so close to the election most of us are likely looking at political news in another tab, anyways.
It's very good for getting an easily digestible survey of world news, but the business and economic analysis articles are horrible. It's all so "pop" and way behind the curve if you read better newsletters. It's also annoyingly leftist and pro-war; they pushed hard for the Iraq invasion, for example.
Unless a political story is big enough to affect hackers, or related to things hackers care about. Tim O'Reilly endorsing Obama seems safely in the territory of hacker news. The Economist is closer to the borderline, but arguably ok as the newsmagazine whose articles appear most here.
It's time for Conservative America to clean house. Where did it go wrong? Entrepreneurs and startup enthusiasts should be falling over themselves to vote Republican. Speaking from the outside, it looks to me like the Republicans are on the verge of losing a generation of its strongest natural supporters.
Nice that the Economist is endorsing Obama, but the major problem I see with him is that he wants to make alternative Energy the cornerstone of the American economic revitalisation.
I think that's wrong. Energy independence is a fine issue, but I believe that the new government should pay as much interest to the real advances in science that are coming.
The internet has opened up a new frontier for science. Not the little toys that allow you locate your friends on your mobile phones, but the more fundamental changes - milions of people can work on the same thing at the same time, knowledge can be available to everyone at no cost, communication can happen globally without any problem, and hardware is cheap and fast.
What this means is that humanity is about to make a new intellectual leap forward. It's not there yet because the tools are not yet available that actually allow it work efficiently, but facebook and future generations of such connectivity tools will make it possible.
When these methods are applied to biology or robotics, the combined intellectual avility of human beings made lead to some type of exponential effect that will finally allow us create things that we cannot dream of yet.
We are standing on the chasm of the unknown. We should be forging forward, looking for new things, not focusing on that that we know.
It's an adventure like the adventure of first flight. Governments should recognize this, and they should focus on non-commercial research that will take us to where we could be.
It doesn't seem to me that most people want to be informed or knowledgeable. While the Internet has made information and knowledge much more accessible it has helped in another area much more: rampant, mindless consumerism.
While I don't care to debate Obama's policies in this forum I would like to point out that advances in battery technology will help with both the foreign energy issue and many of the technological issues you mention. There is also the issue of powering the countless servers that are used.
There is no such thing as consumerism. We have come this far as a species because we want new things - new toys, new explosions, new entertainment. The more people want, the more money there is for invention and science.
I'm not saying that energy as a technological focus is wrong. But there are things that are closer to my heart - like robots. It's expensive and time consuming to develop a robot more advanced that what currently exists. The companies do it, but they think of their commercial gain first. Government should also have labs which does research this area, and there should be a reasonable amount of focus there.
Alternative energy gets you votes. Ethanol especially.
And I don't think a marginal few $ billion from Washington will do much good in this area. If it did, we'd all be driving around in the Hydrogen powered cars that Bush and Clinton lavished such unimaginable sums on.
Wikipedia et al. work because they can be divided into a bunch of little orthogonal fiefdoms for a bunch of internet tinpot dictators. It's accretion, not collaboration. You can't crowd-source a rocket to the moon.
You may not be able to crowd-source a rocket, but you sure as hell can crowd-source a moon crawler robot. The size and skill level of the robot building community is amazing, and these people can only find themselves now because of the intenet. And only now is there so much information available for the new ones.
One guy writes the motion detectors, another writes the pan-tilt, everyone reviews everyone elses code and suggests improvements. If this were effective today, we could have giant leaps forward. Soon it willl happen.
You're talking about making a conventional device in an unconventional way. I'm talking about making something completely new.
Historically, groundbreaking scientific work has been done by one or a few extraordinary individuals (Einstein, Watson and Crick), and groundbreaking engineering work has been done by carefully selected groups led by an extraordinary individual (Oppenheimer, von Braun). I don't see how the Internet changes that.
I think we can see additional funding to primary research atop of what's focused on energy.
I also think that the focus for alternative energy as a primary mission will really alleviate the traditional hurdle of infrastructure or critical mass requirements: instead of just dropping the technology as before, people will start considering them seriously.
OTOH, I'm a huge optimist and fan of this candidate, so take everything I say with a huge grain of salt. :-)
Even if you don't agree with The Economist, you have to admire its talent for making an argument. It's one of the few voices of reason in the global media circus; its coverage is always insightful and nearly always balanced; and, having read it, you come away with a much better understanding of the issues.
As usual the Economist says little with a lot of words. This particular piece is a shallow recitation of campaign impressions with zero actual policy analysis. You don't learn anything by reading it.
Quite the contrary: it has a reputation for conciseness and well-expressed, informative views. What would you have us read instead?
To quote its Wikipedia article, 'The publication boasts a tight writing style that seeks to include the maximum amount of information in a limited space. Atlantic Monthly publisher David G. Bradley described the formula as "a consistent world view expressed, consistently, in tight and engaging prose."[12]' -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist
Find me one fact or analysis angle in that piece that the representative reader didn't already know. It's like getting Joe Blow's take down at the bar except with tighter prose.
It's purely an opinion piece, an endorsement. It summarizes the existing arguments for and against and comes to a logical conclusion. I, for one, didn't know that they conducted their own global presidential poll - http://www.economist.com/vote2008/ I also wasn't aware so many conservatives had jumped ship, including 27 newspapers (last week's 'Lexington'): http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displays...
I read The Economist because I don't always have time to read entire articles about every little development on every issue. How many New York Times articles would you have had to read to gain as much information as from this one Economist piece?
A breezy, superficial understanding of complex issues is worse than none at all. You'd be better off knowing that you know nothing rather than having an article like that represent your knowledge.
what would you have us read instead?
Off the top of my head Stratfor covers similar territory as the economist, but much better. It also has its biases. For economic analysis John Maudlin's newsletters aren't a bad place to start. Go read one and see how much more information and analysis dense it is compared to the economist.
"This journal does not have a vote, and does not claim any particular standing from which to instruct those who do. But if it did, it would cast its vote for Barack Obama."
Would any other respected British publications like to chime in?
What, besides free trade and free markets, does The Economist believe in? "It is to the Radicals that The Economist still likes to think of itself as belonging. The extreme centre is the paper's historical position." That is as true today as when Crowther said it in 1955. The Economist considers itself the enemy of privilege, pomposity and predictability. It has backed conservatives such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. It has supported the Americans in Vietnam. But it has also endorsed Harold Wilson and Bill Clinton, and espoused a variety of liberal causes: opposing capital punishment from its earliest days, while favouring penal reform and decolonisation, as well as—more recently—gun control and gay marriage.
Academic economists are overwhelmingly left of center. It's a different story when you talk about industry economists without financial ties to universities.
"Our main doubts about Mr Obama have to do with the damage a muddle-headed Democratic Congress might try to do to the economy. Despite the protectionist rhetoric that still sometimes seeps into his speeches, Mr Obama would not sponsor a China-bashing bill. But what happens if one appears out of Congress? Worryingly, he has a poor record of defying his party’s baronies, especially the unions. His advisers insist that Mr Obama is too clever to usher in a new age of over-regulation, that he will stop such nonsense getting out of Congress, that he is a political chameleon who would move to the centre in Washington. But the risk remains that on economic matters the centre that Mr Obama moves to would be that of his party, not that of the country as a whole."
Here's hoping the Republicans keep 41 seats in the Senate, or else the economy restrains the Democrats from doing too much damage in their likely unopposed 2 years in power.
Here's hoping the Republicans get the message, abandon the illiberal religious BS, and we can have proper debates about what sort of role the government should have in the economy. Yeah, right:-/
It is easy to keep experts around and say things which people want to hear. May be Obama is doing that.
It takes guts to say what you believe in like McCain has done on certain issues.
That shows McCain will do what he is speaking currently once he gets in power, if Obama is just speaking what his experts tell him to there are lot of chances he might not do what he is currently telling, the reason he gets elected.
Look, if you're going to diss Obama, do it with facts. Don't link to bullshit claims that have all been disproven. It's people like you who fuck things up for the rest of us. You're a shitty piece of scum. And yes, I think my saying that on HN is appropriate: you're pushing known lies on the rest of us. (Comparing Obama to Hitler? Honestly? That is, if you did indeed link to the correct comment, which I'll repost and debunk below.)
American turning it self into a third world country,
I'd suggest you look up what exactly a third-world country is.
By Electing a man "Barack Obama" who straight out supporting KNowN Terrorist, this is just a Fact now
No he hasn't.
Los Angeles Times has a video of Barack obama supporting a torrorist and toasting him, on Video
Not quite, no.
To many facts there, THe left wing like Pelosi and many other Or trying to stop this tape from getting out,
No, they haven't. If you mean Bill Ayers, Obama has addressed this matter specifically. He's hiding nothing.
If it was Hillary or JOhn McCain, you can rest assure this tape would already be out, But more facts MSM is suppressing this video,
The video that has been on every news network? MSNBC had a story specifically about this.
Like so many third world Dictators in other country, Who control the Media, CNN, MSnbc , los angeles times, New york times, So many other Medias
Yet... when people write good things about McCain, that's considered free speech? What?
WHo trying to elect a Man who supports Terrorist,
Barack Obama,
Still no.
No one calling Barack a terrorist, but he sure does support them,
No he doesn't.
His Track record is sure proving this, ,, Rev Wright, Ayers, Rezko Barack Obama sure love surrounding his self with Crminals,
Despite the Ayers claims being thoroughly debunked? Or the Rezko incident being entirely minimal? Or do you mean Wright, who Obama not only denounced but whom - in my opinion - actually made a good set of points in his speech?
Hitler started out this way, Going after the simple Young crowd, to elect them,,then after he is elected its to late, the country in turmoil, and lost, History has proven this,
Every politician uses the same tactics. Lincoln did this. Washington did this. Sometimes people elected in times of crisis do good things.
Why do you think Barack Obama created his own Seal,
You mean the seal of Ohio, which looks like an O?
Why do you think he is trying to make this country a Socialist country,
By supporting the same progressive taxes McCain is on the record as supporting?
ALL the signs are there, Bias Media, criminal as friend,
Huh. Sounds a lot like McCain and Fox.
the man has no real agenda
The man with a 200-page documented agenda? Or McCain, whose entire site is becoming an Anti-Obama site with nothing Pro-McCain on record?
and for the simple fact, Barack Obama has his Own News Station, to get the lies out there,, THat News Station is Msnbc, Followed by CNN, the 2 most bias News media stations,
Hmm. I remember an article saying Fox was the "most bias News."
by next year after Obama is elected, American will be in a Depression there will be food line, TO SHARE THE WEALTH, SURE SOUND LIKE RUSSIA TO ME, DONT THIS SOUND VERY FAMILIAR!!!!!
Sounds kind of like FDR, the man who helped push America back in shape. I mean, Bush caused this depression.
But enough argument. You're not looking for argument. You're looking for Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. You are scum. You are below awful. You're the man that makes the world worse. Flagged, and I'll be ashamed if you're still allowed to comment on this site after pulling shit like this.
Hmmm... The Economist is a UK magazine, isn't it? There is a suggestion that another UK publication - The Guardian - helped win the election for GW four years ago when it asked its readers to write to American voters in swing states pleading with them not to re-elect Bush. If I recall correctly, many recipients were angry at this perceived interference in US affairs (from the former Colonial Masters, of all people!) and this may have persuaded them to vote Bush although initially they were wavering.
I thought politics was a no-no here?
I suspect it's really more political debating on HN that's an issue. It's so close to the election most of us are likely looking at political news in another tab, anyways.
You're probably right. It was more meant as a subtle hint instead of the all too common "not hacker news" comments.
Besides, not all of us are from the US...
Neither's The Economist. ;-)
Oh wow, learn something new each day, huh...
I love that magazine. It's hard to get such a global perspective from any other periodical.
It's very good for getting an easily digestible survey of world news, but the business and economic analysis articles are horrible. It's all so "pop" and way behind the curve if you read better newsletters. It's also annoyingly leftist and pro-war; they pushed hard for the Iraq invasion, for example.
"annoyingly leftist and pro war" - that's not a combination you hear every day.
It's not odd if you don't conflate the meaning of left and right with Democrat and Republican. The Bush administration has been solidly left.
There have been many wars by left-wing governments in world history, even in recent world history.
Wasn't Johnson the one that escalated the war in Vietnam?
Besides, I think it's clear that this election will have ramifications far outside the borders of the US...
So post election news, just don't talk about it?
Maybe we should form a spinoff like hackerpoliticalnews.com or itshackernewsandpoliticalnews.com!
I mean seriously guys, I come to YC News to avoid the blasting of politics I get on any other website.
I'd take this blasting for 4 days if people can learn and make informed decision rather than taking 4 years of blasting.
If all readers were in the US, perhaps. But we're not.
"election silly season"
Supposedly, but if pg and company are not willing to enforce it, then I suppose it's ok.
If you can't beat them, join them, I guess:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=349139
Unless a political story is big enough to affect hackers, or related to things hackers care about. Tim O'Reilly endorsing Obama seems safely in the territory of hacker news. The Economist is closer to the borderline, but arguably ok as the newsmagazine whose articles appear most here.
Conservative America also needs to recover its vim
Until I read that I had no idea that "vim" was defined as such: vim -noun lively or energetic spirit; enthusiasm; vitality
I, for one, demand that Conservative America keeps using Emacs!
Commonly used in conjunction with vigor - "with vim and vigor"
The sentence is particularly acute if you adopt this interpretation of the word "vim:"
http://www.unilever.ca/ourbrands/homecare/vim.asp
It's time for Conservative America to clean house. Where did it go wrong? Entrepreneurs and startup enthusiasts should be falling over themselves to vote Republican. Speaking from the outside, it looks to me like the Republicans are on the verge of losing a generation of its strongest natural supporters.
"on the verge of"
Probably already happened.
vim -r filename
Wait a minute, that's like nothing compared to Joe the plumber endorsing McCain. ;P
Nice that the Economist is endorsing Obama, but the major problem I see with him is that he wants to make alternative Energy the cornerstone of the American economic revitalisation.
I think that's wrong. Energy independence is a fine issue, but I believe that the new government should pay as much interest to the real advances in science that are coming.
The internet has opened up a new frontier for science. Not the little toys that allow you locate your friends on your mobile phones, but the more fundamental changes - milions of people can work on the same thing at the same time, knowledge can be available to everyone at no cost, communication can happen globally without any problem, and hardware is cheap and fast.
What this means is that humanity is about to make a new intellectual leap forward. It's not there yet because the tools are not yet available that actually allow it work efficiently, but facebook and future generations of such connectivity tools will make it possible.
When these methods are applied to biology or robotics, the combined intellectual avility of human beings made lead to some type of exponential effect that will finally allow us create things that we cannot dream of yet.
We are standing on the chasm of the unknown. We should be forging forward, looking for new things, not focusing on that that we know.
It's an adventure like the adventure of first flight. Governments should recognize this, and they should focus on non-commercial research that will take us to where we could be.
It doesn't seem to me that most people want to be informed or knowledgeable. While the Internet has made information and knowledge much more accessible it has helped in another area much more: rampant, mindless consumerism.
While I don't care to debate Obama's policies in this forum I would like to point out that advances in battery technology will help with both the foreign energy issue and many of the technological issues you mention. There is also the issue of powering the countless servers that are used.
There is no such thing as consumerism. We have come this far as a species because we want new things - new toys, new explosions, new entertainment. The more people want, the more money there is for invention and science.
I'm not saying that energy as a technological focus is wrong. But there are things that are closer to my heart - like robots. It's expensive and time consuming to develop a robot more advanced that what currently exists. The companies do it, but they think of their commercial gain first. Government should also have labs which does research this area, and there should be a reasonable amount of focus there.
Alternative energy gets you votes. Ethanol especially.
And I don't think a marginal few $ billion from Washington will do much good in this area. If it did, we'd all be driving around in the Hydrogen powered cars that Bush and Clinton lavished such unimaginable sums on.
Wikipedia et al. work because they can be divided into a bunch of little orthogonal fiefdoms for a bunch of internet tinpot dictators. It's accretion, not collaboration. You can't crowd-source a rocket to the moon.
You may not be able to crowd-source a rocket, but you sure as hell can crowd-source a moon crawler robot. The size and skill level of the robot building community is amazing, and these people can only find themselves now because of the intenet. And only now is there so much information available for the new ones.
One guy writes the motion detectors, another writes the pan-tilt, everyone reviews everyone elses code and suggests improvements. If this were effective today, we could have giant leaps forward. Soon it willl happen.
You're talking about making a conventional device in an unconventional way. I'm talking about making something completely new.
Historically, groundbreaking scientific work has been done by one or a few extraordinary individuals (Einstein, Watson and Crick), and groundbreaking engineering work has been done by carefully selected groups led by an extraordinary individual (Oppenheimer, von Braun). I don't see how the Internet changes that.
I think we can see additional funding to primary research atop of what's focused on energy.
I also think that the focus for alternative energy as a primary mission will really alleviate the traditional hurdle of infrastructure or critical mass requirements: instead of just dropping the technology as before, people will start considering them seriously.
OTOH, I'm a huge optimist and fan of this candidate, so take everything I say with a huge grain of salt. :-)
Even if you don't agree with The Economist, you have to admire its talent for making an argument. It's one of the few voices of reason in the global media circus; its coverage is always insightful and nearly always balanced; and, having read it, you come away with a much better understanding of the issues.
For anyone who appreciates good writing, their Style Guide is invaluable: http://www.economist.com/research/styleguide/
As usual the Economist says little with a lot of words. This particular piece is a shallow recitation of campaign impressions with zero actual policy analysis. You don't learn anything by reading it.
Quite the contrary: it has a reputation for conciseness and well-expressed, informative views. What would you have us read instead?
To quote its Wikipedia article, 'The publication boasts a tight writing style that seeks to include the maximum amount of information in a limited space. Atlantic Monthly publisher David G. Bradley described the formula as "a consistent world view expressed, consistently, in tight and engaging prose."[12]' -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist
Find me one fact or analysis angle in that piece that the representative reader didn't already know. It's like getting Joe Blow's take down at the bar except with tighter prose.
It's purely an opinion piece, an endorsement. It summarizes the existing arguments for and against and comes to a logical conclusion. I, for one, didn't know that they conducted their own global presidential poll - http://www.economist.com/vote2008/ I also wasn't aware so many conservatives had jumped ship, including 27 newspapers (last week's 'Lexington'): http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displays...
I read The Economist because I don't always have time to read entire articles about every little development on every issue. How many New York Times articles would you have had to read to gain as much information as from this one Economist piece?
Again, what would you have us read instead?
A breezy, superficial understanding of complex issues is worse than none at all. You'd be better off knowing that you know nothing rather than having an article like that represent your knowledge.
Off the top of my head Stratfor covers similar territory as the economist, but much better. It also has its biases. For economic analysis John Maudlin's newsletters aren't a bad place to start. Go read one and see how much more information and analysis dense it is compared to the economist.
And from Nature,
"This journal does not have a vote, and does not claim any particular standing from which to instruct those who do. But if it did, it would cast its vote for Barack Obama."
Would any other respected British publications like to chime in?
I was actually under the impression the economist leaned towards the right.
http://www.economist.com/help/DisplayHelp.cfm?folder=663377#...
just my impression from there steadfast support of US in Iraq. good to see they go both ways, its a great news mag that I love to read.
20 years ago they used to be considered a conservative publication, but now that the US has shifted rightward they seem liberal.
What they really are is liberal in the original 19th century sense of the word. I.e. Whigs.
Closer to libertarian, like many economists.
Academic economists are overwhelmingly left of center. It's a different story when you talk about industry economists without financial ties to universities.
The left/right scales start getting really wonky... the liberal academic economists also almost unanimously support free free trade.
"Our main doubts about Mr Obama have to do with the damage a muddle-headed Democratic Congress might try to do to the economy. Despite the protectionist rhetoric that still sometimes seeps into his speeches, Mr Obama would not sponsor a China-bashing bill. But what happens if one appears out of Congress? Worryingly, he has a poor record of defying his party’s baronies, especially the unions. His advisers insist that Mr Obama is too clever to usher in a new age of over-regulation, that he will stop such nonsense getting out of Congress, that he is a political chameleon who would move to the centre in Washington. But the risk remains that on economic matters the centre that Mr Obama moves to would be that of his party, not that of the country as a whole."
Here's hoping the Republicans keep 41 seats in the Senate, or else the economy restrains the Democrats from doing too much damage in their likely unopposed 2 years in power.
Here's hoping the Republicans get the message, abandon the illiberal religious BS, and we can have proper debates about what sort of role the government should have in the economy. Yeah, right:-/
It is easy to keep experts around and say things which people want to hear. May be Obama is doing that. It takes guts to say what you believe in like McCain has done on certain issues. That shows McCain will do what he is speaking currently once he gets in power, if Obama is just speaking what his experts tell him to there are lot of chances he might not do what he is currently telling, the reason he gets elected.
That pretty much sums up why I ended up voting for Obama. McCain of 2008 != McCain of 2000, and the Presidential race was the lesser for it.
One thing for sure we are not enough informed. Look at this comment where Tim O'reilly endorse Obama. How many of who support Obama know this?
http://radar.oreilly.com/2008/10/why-i-support-barack-obama....
Look, if you're going to diss Obama, do it with facts. Don't link to bullshit claims that have all been disproven. It's people like you who fuck things up for the rest of us. You're a shitty piece of scum. And yes, I think my saying that on HN is appropriate: you're pushing known lies on the rest of us. (Comparing Obama to Hitler? Honestly? That is, if you did indeed link to the correct comment, which I'll repost and debunk below.)
American turning it self into a third world country, I'd suggest you look up what exactly a third-world country is.
By Electing a man "Barack Obama" who straight out supporting KNowN Terrorist, this is just a Fact now No he hasn't.
Los Angeles Times has a video of Barack obama supporting a torrorist and toasting him, on Video Not quite, no.
To many facts there, THe left wing like Pelosi and many other Or trying to stop this tape from getting out, No, they haven't. If you mean Bill Ayers, Obama has addressed this matter specifically. He's hiding nothing.
If it was Hillary or JOhn McCain, you can rest assure this tape would already be out, But more facts MSM is suppressing this video, The video that has been on every news network? MSNBC had a story specifically about this.
Like so many third world Dictators in other country, Who control the Media, CNN, MSnbc , los angeles times, New york times, So many other Medias Yet... when people write good things about McCain, that's considered free speech? What?
WHo trying to elect a Man who supports Terrorist, Barack Obama, Still no.
No one calling Barack a terrorist, but he sure does support them, No he doesn't.
His Track record is sure proving this, ,, Rev Wright, Ayers, Rezko Barack Obama sure love surrounding his self with Crminals, Despite the Ayers claims being thoroughly debunked? Or the Rezko incident being entirely minimal? Or do you mean Wright, who Obama not only denounced but whom - in my opinion - actually made a good set of points in his speech?
Hitler started out this way, Going after the simple Young crowd, to elect them,,then after he is elected its to late, the country in turmoil, and lost, History has proven this, Every politician uses the same tactics. Lincoln did this. Washington did this. Sometimes people elected in times of crisis do good things.
Why do you think Barack Obama created his own Seal, You mean the seal of Ohio, which looks like an O?
Why do you think he is trying to make this country a Socialist country, By supporting the same progressive taxes McCain is on the record as supporting?
ALL the signs are there, Bias Media, criminal as friend, Huh. Sounds a lot like McCain and Fox.
the man has no real agenda The man with a 200-page documented agenda? Or McCain, whose entire site is becoming an Anti-Obama site with nothing Pro-McCain on record?
and for the simple fact, Barack Obama has his Own News Station, to get the lies out there,, THat News Station is Msnbc, Followed by CNN, the 2 most bias News media stations, Hmm. I remember an article saying Fox was the "most bias News."
by next year after Obama is elected, American will be in a Depression there will be food line, TO SHARE THE WEALTH, SURE SOUND LIKE RUSSIA TO ME, DONT THIS SOUND VERY FAMILIAR!!!!!
Sounds kind of like FDR, the man who helped push America back in shape. I mean, Bush caused this depression.
But enough argument. You're not looking for argument. You're looking for Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. You are scum. You are below awful. You're the man that makes the world worse. Flagged, and I'll be ashamed if you're still allowed to comment on this site after pulling shit like this.
Let's save the political stuff for reddit.
Hmmm... The Economist is a UK magazine, isn't it? There is a suggestion that another UK publication - The Guardian - helped win the election for GW four years ago when it asked its readers to write to American voters in swing states pleading with them not to re-elect Bush. If I recall correctly, many recipients were angry at this perceived interference in US affairs (from the former Colonial Masters, of all people!) and this may have persuaded them to vote Bush although initially they were wavering.