CNN and just about every other American news source reported that, although Palin exceeded expectations, Biden won the debate. In an opinion piece for The New York Times, Mark J. Penn stated that, “Thursday night, Senator Joe Biden did something we have not seen enough of in presidential debates in the last decade — he gave knowledgeable, fact-based answers that were based on understanding the issues facing this country.” To the mainstream U.S. media, it was clear that Joe Biden had won the debate.

But what about the rest of the world? A report from Israel's Haaretz indicates agreement with U.S. media. Pakistan's Daily Times applauded Biden's consideration of Pakistani issues. And bloggers?

Mexican blogger Brainiac Conspiracy concurs with the media:

Sarah Palin? Well, she performed about as well—and as poorly—as I expected. The overall impression I took away from her was of a precocious high-schooler mimicking an adult politician in a debating class, with a flirtatious smile and a self-conscious wink thrown in to remind the voters that she's really not like Joe Biden or Barack Obama or the rest of these career Washington pointyheads, but just a regular gal from small-town America who still has a firm grasp on those simple small-town values that have made her a walking success story. And if this election was occurring in, say, 1980, or even 1988, the unspoken message behind the suggestive body language (”I'm just like you. He isn't”) might resonate more broadly beyond the conservative GOP base.

The Lusosphere is in agreement. Portuguese socialist Nuno Gouveia, who has been keeping an special blog for the American elections and following it close says the following:

Pensava-se que Joe Biden esmagaria Palin. Mas isso não aconteceu. Venceu o debate, puxou dos galões de 36 anos na política nacional, mas não foi brilhante. Foi regular. Mas isso chegou-lhe para sair vencedor, e isso era o mais importante. Se olharmos para a história, verificamos que é mesmo isso que se espera de um candidato a Vice-presidente. Biden não irá acrescentar muitos votos a Obama. Mas tenho dúvidas que retire um só voto. E isso já é positivo, porque a força do ticket reside em Obama. O debate entre Veeps manteve o rumo desta corrida. E era isso que os democratas necessitavam, pois estão a ganhar.

Brazilian journalist Pedro Doria uses metaphors to explain why Biden won:

Metaforicamente, Joe Biden ganhou o debate quando engasgou falando de sua experiência na mesa da cozinha tentando fechar as contas, com dois filhos, sua mulher e filha mortas. Palin perdeu-o quando foi incapaz de fazer um comentário gentil imediatamente após. Metáforas à parte: Biden falava de classe média o tempo todo. Palin falou um quê. Devia ter sido o tempo todo.

Latin American blogger VivirLatino was annoyed with Palin's performance:

So far we've only had two presidential debates, and already tired of them. Sarah Palin's performance yesterday wasn't as bad as many expected/hoped. Pero her attempts to be cute just annoy me in the same way the other mothers at my daughter's school annoy me with their fake ass ways.

While the consensus on Biden's win was certain, some bloggers went even further, discussing aspects of Palin's debating skills. Just as The New York Times and The Huffington Post criticized Palin, so did plenty of bloggers.

Puerto Rican-American Liza of Culture Kitchen was outraged at reports that Palin read off notecards during the debate:

What's outrageous is that I actually questioned my judgment and bias when I mentioned last night that it looked like she was reading off cards. I couldn't fathom her reading off cue cards she'd have hidden in her jacket.

Wow.

Veritas Nihilum Vincet, from Israel a Canadian living in Taiwan, posted a mock interview mocking Palin's performance:

Well, Stan, what’s your read on the debate?
Thanks, Bill. Sarah Palin did not faceplant into the lecturn, and avoided vomiting on the moderator. You have to call this one a big win for the GOP.
I think you’re right, Stan! Neither did she stab any small children or spontaneously self-combust. The Republicans have to be happy with this performance.
From where I’m sitting, Bill, it was a home run. She seemed to be hopped up on benzedrine, but managed to run the base paths even while yammering nonsensically from poorly memorized talking points. There’s joy in Mudville tonight!
What about Biden, Stan? Any read there?
Who?
Biden. Joe Biden…her opponent.
She had an opponent?

In French blog West Wing 2008, Maria Pisaro criticized Palin's inability to express her own views during the debate:

De là à dire que la colistière de John McCain a excellé, il y a un pas que je ne franchirai pas. Sarah Palin a esquivé toutes les questions difficiles, en particulier celles ayant trait à l'économie, qui est le sujet sur lequel le ticket républicain a de sérieuses difficultés à convaincre alors qu'il sagit de la préoccupation majeure Américains.

En répétant à plusieurs reprises les mêmes phrases, souvent hors propos, notamment sur la politique énergétique et l'imposition fiscale, Sarah Palin a montré qu'elle avait bien appris les leçons serinées par ses coaches. Mais elle semble incapable de présenter une position personnelle sur les dossiers les plus importants, à l'exception des forages pétroliers (drill, baby drill). Comme le dit Bill Schneider de CNN, “elle ne manque certainement pas de confiance en elle, elle manque de cohérence”.[..] Ma déception ce soir aura été pour l'animatrice du débat, Gwen Ifill de PBS, dont je respecte par ailleurs le travail. Elle aurait à mon sens dû intervenir pour forcer Sarah Palin à répondre aux questions posées…

Despite the majority consensus of bloggers, there were a few who felt that Palin scored a win in the debate. Mexican resident The Exile took an objective view and said:

Closing my eyes for a period and the debate seemed to be going Biden's way. However, actually watching the debate and things seemed far more neck and neck. Sarah really knows how to almost chat an audience up, and make them feel that she is in the room with them, speaking pretty much directly to them - and in the idiom that they use themselves.

So who won? Well, both teams wanted to shore up their support, which both speakers almost certainly did. As far as the undecideds go, it looks as if Sarah crept ahead, especially in that all-important American heartland that sits between the two coasts.

AmiraalHussaini, from Bahrain, balked at Sarah Palin's use of the familiar:

She then questioned how Palin managed to bone up on her public speaking skills so quickly:

She also wondered about Palin's promises regarding Wall Street:

Much of the Twitter commentary was in reference to Palin's gaffes and mispronunciations. Israeli gilgul remarked upon her pronunciation of “nuclear”:

He also remarked upon Palin's “O'Biden” gaffe:

lrakoto, from Madagascar, enjoyed Palin's “O'Biden” remark:

He also eschewed Palin's use of “doggone”:

AmiraalHussaini chose to comment on Palin's repeated mispronunciation of Iraq and Iran:

Many viewers were also appalled at Palin's response to the question on oil and energy. Danish-Puerto Rican Solanasaurus didn't quite agree with Palin:

By the end of the debate, it was clear that this segment of the Twittersphere favored Biden. lrakoto made his preference clear:

On the humorous side of things, eunice007 (Philippines) remarks upon the bipartisan US:

Australian rachelhills is a bit torn on the winner of the debate:

1. Sarah Palin wins debate using knowledge from Snapple Cap Facts.

2. Bill Clinton endorses Obama.

3. In an effort to appear younger and more hip, John McCain releases a sex ”talkie.”

4. Oak leaves suspend color-turning campaign until financial crisis is resolved. Urge maple leaves to do the same.

5. Sarah Palin turns out to have an embarrassing Ivy League-educated, immensely qualified sibling.

6. Lindsay Lohan goes back to dudes.

7. Osama bin Laden walks into Wasilla, Alaska police station to turn self in. Says, ”I would have been here sooner if you had a decent bridge.”

8. October admits it’s actually January. Election starts all over again.

When asked by Katie Couric why she only applied for a passport within the last year, Sarah Palin replied in her snarky, homecoming-queen way that well, she didn’t have parents who sent her to prep school or paid for her passport to send her to Europe with a backpack. She had to work two jobs her whole life!

Hey Sarah, I’ve been working since I was 15, *if* you don’t count babysitting or working on the farm. I’ve had up to three jobs throughout college, and guess what, I found time to get a passport AND figure out how to study abroad and how to apply for scholarships and grant money to be able to live abroad. Why did I do this? Because I’m curious about the world. I liked to challenge myself and test my boundaries. I want to meet people who are not like me, who do not think like me, because maybe, just maybe I’ll learn something. I’ll learn that sunshine does not consistently shine out of the ass of the United States of America. I’ll learn something about myself. I’ll learn that regardless of language or gender or race or nationality or religion, generally people want to live a fulfilling, peaceful life and care for their families and their kids. “They” don’t want to blow us up. “They” like to have a good meal as much as I do.

*(&#@(*$&#@(*&#$@

Someone who assumes that you have to be rich to be intellectually curious could potentially be the vice-president of the United States of America. Someone who speaks in disdain of community organizers or travelers or people who care about education could potentially be the vice-president of the United States of America. Someone who thinks BANNING BOOKS is a good idea could potentially be the vice-president of the United States of America. Think about it. Americans, I beg you, just think.

Your daily dose of comedy that is Sarah Palin.

The current question is:

Does it worry you that Sarah Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee talks about issues like gun rights and abortion and teaching “creationism” in school, but has no experience in foreign policy? What does her selection say to people in other countries about how U.S. politics works?

Thus far, the responses have been telling. Outspoken Beirut-based journalist Rami Khouri (who is Palestinian-Jordanian and a U.S. citizen) opens his blog post by saying:

Sarah Palin's nomination for the U.S. vice presidency reflects the best and worst in American politics and culture.

She represents the bottom of the barrel in her provincialism in global affairs, and her willingness to be used as an attack dog whose main job is to savage the Democrats with sarcasm, selectivity and exaggeration. She bases her candidacy on a series of emotional appeals more suited to television soap opera and wrestling arenas than to serious politics — busy mom, moose hunter, rebel, hockey fan, etc. Appealing to emotions rather than to rationality is a common political feat around the world, not only in the U.S. But Americans take this to a higher level of idiocy, treating the citizens as nincompoops rather than serious thinking men and women, offering good vibes rather than sensible, viable policies.

This is the junk politics of television entertainment that Americans have perfected so well in recent decades. Her total lack of knowledge of the world and how it works is a major shortcoming for a vice president, but the U.S. does not take world affairs seriously these days so her nomination is an apt reflection of where global issues stand in the Republican worldview. She has her moose-hunting rifle and hockey sticks in the back of her pickup truck and that seems fine to her for dealing with the world.

Iranian journalist and businessman Ali Ettefagh also cites the shallowness of this election, and compares McCain to Middle Eastern leaders:

The selection of a thinly-educated, inexperienced running mate makes a distant observer muse whether Mr. McCain wants to have an imperial, selfish and typically Middle Eastern approach as president for life (Hosni Mubarak, Yasser Arafat, Hafiz Assad, Saddam or Franco come to mind), or perhaps he has confused the party convention with a coronation of a man that can realistically serve as a single-term president but as an interim door opener for the radical right of his party.

One reader, “Kate”, is simply appalled by the use of religion in American politics:

After reading the many comments and the articles by the writers, I find it so hard to believe what is going on in this country anymore. People are so busy waving the flag so much, they don't even know what it stands for anymore. They don't care that the United States Constitution is the piece of paper that has held this country together, not a party or a person, but what I am seeing and hearing is that many people don't even care about the Constitution anymore. I am just amazed anymore, the dumbing down of America, people only have a 10 second interest span. Now, the ranting and raving from our religion fanatics, right-wing religious fanatics are no better than the Islamic religious fanatics, the religious zealots here spew hatred, bigotry, prejudice if people don't follow their ways, where are they any different then the Islamic religious zealots, there is none. The religious nutcakes here want war although when they reference Jesus (the Bible I have read he called for peace), so not sure what bible they use, but they certainly don't follow Christ's words, the do as I say not as I do syndrome. They use Christianity when it fits their purpose. I call what the religious nuts here is the cleansing of those who are different, no different then the Nazi's.

Another, who goes by the simple moniker “Mom”, shares this simple statement:

Nationalism is dangerous, whoever practices it. It makes might more important than virtue, and identity supercedes moral positions.

Our politics are becoming as tribal as those of the countries we invade.

Brazilian Miriam Leitao is less concerned with the external issues and instead focuses on Sarah Palin's theocratic beliefs. After explaining that she believes in Palin's right to worship how she chooses, Leitao :

The problem with Sarah Palin lies in two other areas. First, she seems to believe that she is often following God's plan as a public official — for example, by supporting construction of a new pipeline in Alaska and the teaching of creationism in public schools. This theocratic way of thinking was already outdated five centuries ago. From the Middle Ages on, the West has been working hard to develop modern democratic, lay institutions. In our time, the idea of teaching creationism in schools is weird; it doesn't fit, to say the least. Religion is a private matter, until the ruler starts to think about his/her beliefs as a reason of state.

The second problem with her ideas is that she supports inactivity on climate change and environmental protection, ending hope that the Republican ticket might include candidates with contemporary ideas on issues that threaten the whole planet. Palin's moose hunting, although repulsive, only illustrates primitive behavior. The real danger is less to the Alaskan moose herd than to our common planetary destiny, which needs a modicum of precaution, not four more years of White House neglect. Elections are a national matter, but in this case more than in any other U.S. citizens' choices might affect us all.

Finally, commenter Dave Hammond, who is Irish but has lived in the States, concludes by reminding us just how crazy American politics can be:

The catapulting of Sarach Palin into national politics with just weeks to go shows how crazy american politics really is….I have nothing against Sarah Palin but her track record is just not good enough to be a heartbeat away from leader of the free world not matter how much spinning the republicans do about it…it should worry any citizens of the planet that potentially this is the direction the US is going. I hope they see sense and vote Barack Obama for change but if they don't and they support Mc Cain and Sarah Palin then once again they will get the outcome they deserve ( again) just as they did with George W Bush..which they all complain about now but voted him in for 8 years!..its time for the US to decide what direction they want.Supporters of The US ( like me in Europe ) can only look on and hope they make the right decision for the country and the free world….it should be a concern that in such a short time they have restricted the exposure of Sarch Palin on the issues and left the people with very little chance to really get to know where she stands on issues- which if what I researched so far is anything to go on - well its Geroge W Bush again- with Lipstick :-)

I know it has been a crazy time. You know with the Vogue cover and the speeches and all. I really hope you enjoyed your Oscar Convention speech the other day. It was perspiring. I don’t think I have ever felt so disconnected from anyone before. I am so sad that you had your chance to tell us a bit about yourself. You uttered so many words, and of course you didn’t say much. But I can understand why. You are the inspiration behind the “No Child Left” plan. Just a shame it obviously didn’t work. For you or the actual policy. But your speech was something else. Really something else. A bit like Rush Limbaugh on steroids. Now there is a picture… All hatred and lies included in the words you spewed. But you will have to grow up fast if you want to become a serious politician instead of a PTA joke. And just to show how much I care… Here are 10 practical tips for you to consider as you move from being a small fish in a small pond to a small fish in a big pond. Or in beauty pageant terms… from a body to a nobody.

1. If your old enough to fall pregnant then you are old enough to be spoken about in public.

I am so terribly sorry that your daughter fell pregnant. Really I am. It might not have happened if she had sex education at school. Like many Americans where both parents have to work, you can obviously not do the task of raising your children at home 24/7 yourself. You just can’t give them the attention they so desperately need. Not with both parents having to work in the modern American economy. And nothing wrong with that. Thank God we are over the “woman in the kitchen age”. So you need a good support system to help you in this role that either parent would have played in the “good old days” that you so admire. Oops. Sorry. You don’t support sex education at school. And guess what happened? Your own warped view on “family values” came to bite you in the ass. So sorry if I don’t keep my mouth shut on your pregnant daughter. You asked for it when you made stupid policy decisions. Live with it or get out of the kitchen. You are partly to blame for Bristol falling pregnant and for that you should be held accountable. Especially if your approach could lead to so many other teenagers falling pregnant. That is unacceptable and you should take ownership of that especially if you don’t want to give them any other government support. Sorry Sarah, we just can’t give you a free pass on this one. Not with so many lives and futures depending on you being stopped or not. No free pass. Bristol is pregnant. Live with it and all the consequences that comes with that.

2. You don’t get a free ride if you are a woman.

So I see that you are a woman. I am really happy for you. And it is about time that we have a woman running for VP again. It’s been a while. But here is the thing. You get no special treatment just because you are a woman. Don’t expect me or anyone to back down because you are a woman. And don’t ask that old man to stand up for “the little woman” either. I expect you to be a leader. And I’ll give you as much hell as possible to test whether you have it in you. Just ask Hillary. She passed that test. She didn’t hide behind anyone. She didn’t shy away from answering tough media questions. She took them on and gave them a good spanking. I am doing you a favor here. You think I am tough? Wait until you have to deal with Osama bin Laden or Putin. Now those guys have real women issues. It’s a tough world out there and you either sink or swim. How long can you tread water?

3. Running a $22 million debt as mayor doesn’t make you an executive with experience.

So I hear you have so much executive experience. Even more than old man McCane. Good on you. I mean really, the last guy we had with executive experience similar to yours was… hum… G.W. Bush. He was a Governor for the United States of Texas and ran the Texas Ranger. Into the ground. Both of them. And the US of A. Okay, let’s try that again. You claim you have executive experience. You ran a town of 9,000 people. Wow. Impressive. So what did you do while you were there? Take a small town with no debt to $22 million in debt. That’s about $2,500 for each person (kids and moms included). Excellent. Very American. Hell, you brought the average debt in line with the average credit card debt per household in the US. I guess your views on debt is the same as that other great executive G.W. Bush - you both like getting a budget that balances and turning it around into a debt no one can pay. Maybe he should introduce you to his “hero” Ken Lay? I can’t wait to see how much you can screw this economy up. But I won’t put that past you. You did a proper job of stuffing up little Wasilla into Who-The-Hell-Is-Her. Let’s see how much further you can drag the US economy down. Just make sure you switch off the lights when you are done and the US is done.

4. Having a gun doesn’t make you strong.

So you like guns. I saw the pictures. I heard you talk. You think it makes you strong hey? Macho even. Butch maybe. It doesn’t. Cowards hide behind guns. Just ask that guy who shot his family. Or the kid who shot the school. Or the criminal who sells his drugs from the barrel of his gun. Guns don’t make you strong. Saying “no” makes you strong. Life isn’t a movie where the good guy shoots up the whole of New York and no one notices. You know that John McClane is a fictional character in Die Hard right? Well, John McCain’s policies on gun control is just as violent and just as littered with fictional characters and lies as John McClane. So take that gun of yours and stick it where the sun don’t shine. Having a gun doesn’t make the terrorist go away. And it doesn’t solve the problems in Iraq or Afghanistan. Looking tough doesn’t make you tough. Rather give the troops what they need over there. Don’t point it in my direction because you are a coward for hiding behind a gun and pandering to the extremists.

5. Less Hollywood, more substance please.

Heard you made an awesome speech at the convention the other day. They told me that it was even better than Vanessa Redgrave’s Oscar speech in 1978. And filled with as much hatred. But it reminded me more of James Cameron in 1997. “Top of the world!” You really wanted to shout that didn’t you? Or cry like Gwenyth Paltrow in 1998? Come on, be honest. But you really do fit in nicely with the bunch of Hollywood actors. No, I don’t mean your looks. I honestly don’t think you are hot. Maybe if you look past the hatred and ugliness inside. I can’t. But I mean that you are just like the Hollywood actors. You like to stand on the stage and make a big speech and tell lies because you are just “in character”. And then you don’t want to talk to the media about the real substance of your convictions. Sorry. You are a politician and will have to answer their questions (and those of the American public) at some stage. It’s called leadership. I know you don’t have any. But you can act if you want. I mean really. Reagan had no leadership qualities and was actually a horrid man with his wars, but he managed to convince loads of people that he was a leader. He knew that all he had to do was act. Smile and wave baby. I am sure you can pull that one off. See it as being interviewed by the judges. Or didn’t they teach you that at the beauty pageants? Don’t worry. The press here will lob you the same weak questions that the judges did. Grow up and answer. Or shut up and leave.

6. You don’t have a personal Patriot Act.

No matter what McLame told you, this isn’t your personal Patriot Act baby. You can’t just pull a plug on freedom of speech and think you can get away with it. You can’t control everything. You might be able to do that in Alaska by firing people for not dancing to your personal song of vendetta. You remember trying to influence Commissioner Monegan to fire your ex brother-in-law and when he refused you fired him? That might be okay in Alaska. But not here on the mainland of the US of A. Over here they actually have rules to limit power abuse. I know, Bush and cronies have gotten away with lies and clamped down on the freedoms the Founding Fathers fought for. But people are starting to wake up to that now. They know that things like the Patriot Act and Guantanamo Bay is bullsh*t. And anti-American. So when you force poor old Levi Johnson to pull off his MySpace page with the video of him saying he doesn’t want to get married… We find out baby. We find out. You can force your minions to do as you say. You can even “whisper” in the ear of Google and WordPress to put ban or put pressure on those writing about you. But you can’t shut the truth out forever. Just ask Bush. Weapons of Mass Destruction. He didn’t have any. We do. It’s called freedom of speech and a blog. This isn’t your personal playground. This is America and you will play by the rules or suffer the consequences. You attack with weapons. We have the edge. Information and knowledge. And we always win. Always.

7. Just because you believe in Jesus doesn’t mean He believes in you.

I see you are playing the “Jesus” card. Let’s play. I heard you are very religious. Apparently. New born and reborn are we? I am truly happy for you. Not. Because you missed a fundamental principle of your religion. “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself”. And a few basics. Don’t lie. Don’t spread false rumors. Don’t kill or murder. Don’t want. Many don’t that you don’t do. Especially the “love” bits. You suck big time on that. So much hatred and lies coming from you. So un-Christian. So here is the little snag. Your version of Christianity is wrong. It is a sect and not a religion. True Christians will follow the Bible and its intentions. You don’t. You might believe in your version of Jesus. But sorry, He doesn’t believe in your version of yourself. Don’t worry, He loves you like He loves everyone (no matter what you think). He just doesn’t believe in you. Or in your version of Him.

8. A pantsuit doesn’t make you a woman.

Look, Hillary knew how to pull off the pantsuit. But you don’t. Her “Sisterhood of the Travelling Pantsuit” stood for something. Women taking on politics in such a way to make them proud and make them strong. Defining politics. No. Redefining politics. That’s our Hillary. She’ll outsmart you into the middle of next week baby. Or, in your case, into the present to let you catch up. Women. You shouldn’t believe everything your conservative right-wing nutcase Republican male “friends” tell you. Women are strong. Just look at Hillary. And women aren’t stupid. They vote for their future. Our future. They don’t vote for a woman for the sake of voting for a woman. Don’t treat them as if they are stupid. Don’t think that you can replace Hillary in their eyes. You aren’t good enough to clean her shoes, lady. And they know it. They see through you quicker than you can say “drill for oil”. ‘Snap’. Uh-uh sista! You’re so outa here!

9. From Palin to Pale-One

I just love your surname. Palin. So apt. So easy. You really should pronounce it Pale-One. Why? Because you are just a guy in the body and clothes of a woman. We call it cross-dressing. You call it cute. I say cute like in Larry Craig. But really. You want to come across as a strong woman in politics? Get a set of political positions, principles and policies (the 3 P’s of politics) that reflects substance. Not the airhead crap you come up with. Hate and lies don’t not make a policy baby. Hell, you even make blond jokes sound like hard hitting facts. And don’t surround yourself with pale males if you want to come across as a woman and different. Really, I haven’t seen that many pale males in a room since the last Nascar rally. But at least Nascar had something to look at. Cool cars and loads of beer. All you had was drool tsars and loads of fear. Really. Drop the pale males. They make you look bland. And they are using you. Haven’t you noticed? But then, I guess you’ll do anything to get to the top right? Just don’t expect us to wait for you.

10. A bit foreign to foreign policy are we?

Alaska is a closer to Russia than any other state. Wow. You really should have told Cindy to shut up on that one. I take your silence as an agreement with Cindy “Let-Them-Eat-Cake” McCain. I guess you know all about Georgia then. I know you have been to Atlanta. I mean really. You are so well travelled. Why, you got your first passport in 2006… Sorry Governor Pale-One, you don’t know jacksh*t about foreign policy. Nada. Nothing. Zero. Zilch. As I mentioned before, Putin is going to have you for breakfast. I hear that he loves having barracuda sandwiches first thing in the morning. Bears eat fish you know. Alaska closest to Russia. I called it grasping at straws. I guess you are also an expert in the Space Race and Star Wars? Mount McKinley is in highest mountain peak in North America… making you the closest US point to space. NASA should get worried by right now. Sorry Sarah Pale-One, you are more spaced-out than anything else. Foreign policy experience? Hell, you don’t even have domestic policy experience. It’s Alaska. It has less people than Moose. And less people than Boston. Hell, you don’t even play baseball. And no, throwing a snowball is not the same. Sorry Pale-One. You are foreign to foreign policy. I can see the world leaders licking their lips and wringing their hands right now. And having a chuckle on the side. You make Robert Mugabe look all worldly and travelled.

I hope you found these tips helpful. Not. You never know, you might actually become a bit-part player in politics one day when you grow up. But only if you work really hard. Hey, you have nowhere to go but up baby! I know it is a steep hill to climb but hang in there. Let’s make it interesting. Let’s see who will win a race against time between you and England. Let’s see if you can amount to something real and meaningful before they can colonize the world again. No wait. I’ll make it easier for you. Let’s see if you can make sense before they win the Superbowl. Yeah, I know, they don’t play in the Superbowl. But then, you don’t make political sense either. The race is on…

Unkind regards, never yours and no love,

Angry African (on the Loose)

The issue of nepotism and discrimination on the basis of family relations and other non-merit criteria is not only common in the Arab World or developing countries. It is found in the most unexpected place: in the top-ranked universities in the United States

Although American leaders and academics throughout history worked hard to put an end to nepotism and other discriminatory behaviors towards human beings, such behaviors and policies still exist. One of the most common places where such policies exist are the top-ranked universities in the United States, which continue to follow the admission policy of preferring legacies and students of an alumni family over ordinary, non-alumni related students who may be more academically qualified. Such a policy is degrading to the academic standards and qualifications of well-achieved students that deserve a fair and equal opportunity to continue their education in the university which they choose, just like everyone else at their level, regardless of alumni relations, since they are not a choice which the student makes.

A student spends most of the years of his or her life studying hard, achieving high scores, reaching honor lists and receiving awards for academic achievements, hoping that when he or she reaches the doorsteps of a reputable university, the admission process would be fair enough to judge the academic achievements which this student maintained over the years. However, this is not the case in many American universities. According to Cameron Howell from the University of Virginia, legacies, who are students from an alumni family, have twice more advantage than ordinary students in getting accepted in some universities, although their SAT scores might be lower. Another example is the world-class Harvard University, which also favors children of alumni over ordinary non-alumni children that apply to its admission officers. According to an article published in The Economist magazine in 2004, there are between 10% and 15% children of alumni in every freshman class, and up to 23% in the University Of Notre Dame in the U.S. Moreover, reports from the department of education in the 1990s concluded that legacy students, in addition to being favored, they are less qualified than the average student who applies. Such a preference is not only unfair, but also damages the academic quality of the university’s students, since they would all have a common ground of coming from alumni families, but not the common ground of being academically qualified or equal enough to compete in their courses. Is this how top-ranked universities in the United States maintain the quality standards of their academic program? The university’s main priority should be academic quality, competition among students for excellence and supporting the students during and after their university years. For this to happen, academic competence should be considered as the most important criteria during admission process, because the academic achievements and scores of a student are made by his or her choice, efforts and hard work. Whereas a student being a child of an alumni is a fact not made by the student’s choice, and therefore should not be favored over academic achievements.

In spite of this discriminatory policy and the opposition against it, some universities, doctors and professors provide justifications and support for favoring legacies over ordinary students. According to the article “The Curse of Nepotism” published in the Economist magazine, fundraising is the main reason for favoring legacies. The universities are concerned for their financial continuity and since the alumni body provides great financial support for the university over the years, its children should logically have better chances of being accepted. Other reasons outlined by other authors include favoring applicants with talent, racial and physical diversity and minorities. This is because, according to the director of Communications at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, Miriam Schulman, universities care about having a diverse student body from various backgrounds, races and talents that would portray a positive image of the university and improve its reputation. Being in such a position in a center for ethics, Schulman should also be aware that universities are not business companies, soccer teams or stages for beauty contests. Instead, they are a place for academic competitiveness and quality education that should remain a top priority above all other criteria.

Imagine exerting countless efforts on achieving high grades, fundraising for your tuition, depriving yourself from deserved breaks and fun activities for the sake of studying, to end up being rejected by the university that you thought would appreciate the achievements you have made. It is a depressing feeling indeed, and even more depressing to know that it has happened to many students in a country like the United States and reputable universities like Harvard, Yale and many others. Even those who have worked hard are not getting what they deserve the most, simply because they do not belong to a family that used to be in the university they chose to apply for. After all, before becoming alums, these students were at first ordinary students with competent academic achievements. This is the doorway for a fair and competitive academic student body.

I'm positive this tells something about my professor's political affiliation, keeping in mind that my friends who had other class sessions at the very same time with Democrat professors were let off way before we were!

Luckily, i was able to view a recording of the speech (even if not complete) on CNN website– Link embedded for those of you who have also missed it. He certainly is one hell of an eloquent politician! :)

Obama's Nomination Acceptance Speech (video)

Text of the speech

A majority of Hispanic students — about 75 percent — live in what the study calls "established" Hispanic states: Texas, Colorado, California, Arizona, New Mexico, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

In Texas, more than 40 percent of enrollments from 1990 to 2006 were Latino students.

Almost 20 percent of the nation's Hispanic students — nearly 2 million — live in Texas.

Via / Chron.com

Haitham Sabbah, a Palestinian blogger based in Bahrain, posts a letter written by Fidaa Abed, a student who had been accepted at the University of California San Diego on a Fulbright scholarship – only to be turned back on arrival in the US:

Last week, I landed in Washington, D.C., brimming with optimism. Upon arrival, I was whisked into a separate room. An American official informed me that he had just received information about me that he could not reveal. However, it required him to put me on the next plane home. I was shocked. And I was taken aback at the cruelty of snatching away my educational dreams at the last possible moment. My mistreatment was particularly unexpected because in late May, when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice learned that I and six other Fulbright students were being stripped of our Fulbright scholarships, she leapt to our assistance. One by one, Israel let other Palestinian Fulbright scholars out of Gaza, and they made their way to American universities. Then I was mysteriously singled out for last-minute denial based on “secret evidence.” Two others had their visas canceled on account of secret evidence before they could even leave Gaza. (Originally published in The San Diego Union-Tribune)

Haitham asks:

“Secret evidence”… hah? Maybe his “beard”?!

Robin, a commenter on Haitham’s post, thinks she knows what the ‘secret evidence’ that led to the revoking of Fidaa Abed’s visa:

It’s really pretty easy to trace the source of the “secret evidence” which caused the US to revoke Fidaa’s visa. That would be to one Congressman Mark Kirk, Republican Christian Zionist, Illinois, who champions himself as Israel’s best friend in Congress, who himself is a member of the Fulbright Association. Some might remember Mark Kirk from this incident:
“On November 5, 2005, while speaking at Northwestern University, Kirk was asked how he felt about stricter visa policies applied to Arab foreign nationals seeking entry to the United States. Kirk answered: “I’m OK with discrimination against young Arab males from terrorist-producing states. I’m OK with that. I think that when we look at the threat that’s out there, young men between, say, the ages of 18 and 25 from a couple of countries, I believe a certain amount of intense scrutiny should be placed on them.” So, now that your memory has been jogged about who he is, it should be no surprise that he went on the rampage to do what he could to stop these Fulbright scholars. The New York Sun reported that he wrote a letter to the Inspector General of the State Department, Harold Geisel, with “evidence”. This evidence was that (I don’t know about the other two, but this applies for sure to Fidaa) Fidaa had attended Gaza’s Islamic University.

Jerry Haber, an Israeli-American blogger writing at the The Magnes Zionist, has more information about one of the other students who was not allowed to travel – a high school student on a special programme:

The boy in the picture above, proudly displaying his diploma for learning English, had his visa revoked last week by the United States, while waiting in Amman for his plane to America.
Ahmed al-Mughari (in my post a few days ago I spelled it Ma'ari, following English press accounts) studied English in Gaza for two years as part of a program administered by AmidEast, “a private, nonprofit organization with a mission of strengthening mutual understanding and cooperation between Americans and the peoples of the Middle East and North Africa.” Talented students from Gaza, the West Bank, and Jerusalem, as well as Yemen, Kuwait, and Egypt, etc., are nominated when they are about 13 or 14 years old to participate. The students study about 150 hours of general English language, 40 hours academic writing, 30 hours, conversation, and 20 hours public speaking. Classes are on Fridays [the weekend] or during vacations, and are in addition to the students' regular schooling. … It is a year long program, but Ahmed was lucky and was allowed to spend a second year in the program. When Ahmed finished his second year, he applied to AmidEast to study in America and to live with an American family.

Jerry Haber adds:

The world pictures Gaza as a dysfunctional, overpopulated, hellhole, run by fanatical Muslim fundamentalists, with armed thugs and terrorists roaming the streets. Maybe this is too detailed a picture; most Israelis, if they think of Gaza at all, see it as a miserable place where terrorists who are trying to destroy Israel live. That somebody like Ahmed could grow up in a place like Gaza seems incomprehensible to many Israelis. That Gaza could be home to doctors, lawyers, and university professors, seems as incomprehensible. Such is the power of prejudice and stereotypes.

Then he presents a letter he received from the young student:

Dear sir
I'm very appreciated for you and your huge efforts in seeking to give me a last chance in order to come back to my program. My name is AHMED AL MAGHARI. I'm 16 and I'm Palestinian as you know. At first, I'm going to provide you some details about my program (YES program), YES it is abbreviation for (Youth and Exchange Study). It's a global program for exchange students all over the world for bridging cultures and building understanding among the people in the world. I succeed in this program believing in my self and believing a better education and a better place to live in, but unfortunately, they destroyed my only hope for a better future, however I still insist to travel in any way. In addition, this problem effected me in a very negative way, I felt that I disappointed all my friends and my family's hopes. Moreover, a lot of hard decisions that I took based on studying in America simply destroyed. Any way, thanks a million for you and all the honest people like you and I hope that the problem will be solved in a quick way
AHMED AL MAGHARI

Jerry Haber finishes with a request to his readers:

So what can I say to Ahmed? How can I explain to him what the Shin Bet will not explain to him – why they told the US that he is a security threat. And why did he became a security threat only after the US had granted him a visa. And what is a security threat? Does he have a relative that is suspected of being Hamas? Is there fear that he will want to revenge a martyr? Is it difficult for the Shin Bet to trump up charges – even convincingly — against anybody they want to? If you an American citizen, I ask you to contact your representative in Congress, or senator, and bring Ahmed's case to their attention. You may think that this is a lousy time to do something – Congress is or will be soon in recess; the world is paying attention to Russia's invasion of Georgia and the Olympics. If one young man can't travel to America, is this such a big deal? For me, it is an enormous deal. To save this young man's belief in himself, and in the importance of education, is to save an entire world. Keeping Ahmed in Gaza is a vindictive, spiteful act that says more about Israel's desire to save face with the US than with anybody's security. How ashamed we all should feel.

The story started at the end of May when seven Fulbright winners from the Gaza Strip had their grants withdrawn, as the US State Department was concerned that it would not be able to get them out of the Gaza Strip to the American Consulate in Jerusalem for visa interviews. Condoleezza Rice made sure the scholarships were reinstated, and because Israel would not allow three of the seven, Zuhair Abu Shaban, Fida Abed and Osama Daoud, to leave Gaza because they were 'security risks', American officials made exceptional efforts and interviewed the three on the Gaza border. All three were subsequently granted visas, on 30 July. Two days later, however, their visas were revoked. Fida Abed had already flown to Washington, but was turned away at the airport and sent straight back to Amman, Jordan. State Department officials will only say that ‘new information' was received about the three, along with a fourth, Ahmed Ma'arri, a 14-year-old high-school student who was the recipient of a separate scholarship.

Emily, writing at the Arab-American blog KABOBfest, is not really surprised:

Three of the seven Fulbright grantees from Gaza have had their visas canceled finally by the US: one, after flying to Washington only to be told by border security that his visa was no longer valid. The saga of the journey to Jordan strikes me as a remarkably hallmark Palestinian travel experience. If Israel finally had information in the end to send over to the US authorities to cause them to cancel the three visas, it strikes me as publicly admitting that the seven were originally denied based on no information whatsoever. (Whether that information is accurate or not… I mean, clearly, the kid just out of high school is a terrorist planning to use his education to bomb and kill.) I'd like to see the security information forwarded by Israel. Who wants to place a bet that it says “Palestinian, male, born in Gaza= DENIED.”

Israeli-American blogger Jerry Haber, writing at The Magnes Zionist, believes Israel wanted to save face:

Meet Fidaa Abed and Ahmed Ma'ari. Abed was headed to the University of California at San Diego for a graduate degree in computer science. Ahmed is a high school student. Both won Fulbrights to study in the US. Both had their Fulbrights cancelled, then reinstated, then US visas issued, then revoked. Now, let me get this straight. At first they weren't a security threat; they were just kept in Gaza because of Israel's stranglehold on that territory. It's called “collective punishment” – if we hurt the Gazans enough, they will rise up and throw out Hamas. Gee, that's a smart strategy. Certainly has worked. […] What's a better explanation for the reversal of fortune? That Mr. Abed and Mr. Ma'ari are the victims of a face-saving ploy that Israel was desparate to pull off, and that America has agreed to, for the moment. You know the drill – the US decides to let some of the Fulbright students in (to make Condi happy), and decide to keep some of that out (to make Israel happy). That resolves the diplomatic mini-crisis. On the backs of the Palestinians.

Ms. Missive, an American living in Israel, writing at Patriot Missive, thinks the US handled the situation badly:

It wouldn’t be first time we’ve looked so clumsy. I’m still waiting on details of the security concerns though.

In a follow-up post, she points out that some Arab students currently studying in the US have just paid a trip to the Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C.

DesertPeace, an American living in Jerusalem, is concerned that just opposing Israeli policies would be enough to prevent travel:

‘Are you now? Were you ever?' Obviously two questions that weren’t asked of the Gaza recipients of Fulbright grants when they applied for travel permits. In the ‘good-ole’ McCarthy era those questions were in reference to membership in the Communist Party, today it refers to any organisation you may belong to that is opposed to the genocidal policies of Israel. Condoleeza Rice, herself, took a position that helped these young students get their travel permits in order…. but it seems that the powers of AIPAC are even stronger than the office of the Secretary of State.

However Carl, an American-born Israeli writing at Israel Matzav, thinks the decision was right:

And the [denied] three apparently have closer connections to Hamas and terrorism than Condi was willing to admit two months ago. Don't hold your breaths waiting for Condi or anyone else at State to apologize.

A number of bloggers look at the long-term implications of such a decision. Arab-American blogger Edmund, writing at The Philistine, asks:

What “new” information could there be? By denying education to the masses and even the few all you do is give extremist more recruits. Now you understand why white slave owners denied education to their “workers.” The less you know the easier you are to control and the US and Israel fear the prospect of an educated Arab (Palestinian) society.

Teach the Masses in Kuwait echoes the sentiment:

Yes, no doubt the ‘new information' was fabricated as a cover for the plain fact that the Israelis want as few well-educated Palestinians around as possible – makes containment easier.

US blogger Richard Silverstein, writing at Tikun Olam, despairs at the short-sightedness of the decision:

At this rate, the U.S. is lucky that any Gaza students have an interest in studying in this country. Certainly, the Israeli “evidence” is designed to promote obstacles for Palestinians to study abroad. It is not in Israel’s interests for Gazans to do so. God only knows what academic knowledge and expertise they might bring back with them to improve the lot of their fellow Gazans when they return. Who knows what new theories they might advance, new businesses they might create, new political ideas they might implant? It’s all certainly too much for Israel, which prefers an impoverished, poorly educated society as one that is supposedly easier to dominate. […] These Palestinian young people are learning a lesson from this – that the U.S. is not to be trusted, that it is little better than Israel in fabricating reasons to suspect Palestinians. Such lessons last a lifetime, and not just in those of the specific victims, but in the lifetimes of young Palestinian children who would be the Fulbright applicants of the future. At this rate, we’ll be lucky next year if ANY Palestinian wants to apply. And we wonder why Arabs hate us.

We end with some comments by Hassan, the teacher of the high-school student Ahmed Ma'arri who was prevented from going to the US. Hassan was commenting on an article in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz:

I want to add that Ahmed is only 14 years old , one of the best students at a program called ACCESS sponsored by AMIDEAST, he went through so many exams and interviews to gain this scholarship, he is a mere boy. He has nothing to do with politics or Hamas. He just dreamed to be a good, distinguished student. He has been taught in a course for two years how to love the world and how to be an open minded student. He did so many presentations about the American culture and the cultures around the world. You are just frustrating our kids and want them all to be as you call it “terrorist or martyrs “. PLZ. What threat does this 14 -year-old student have for the security of the USA or Israel?

And in response to another commenter who asked if Ahmed had celebrated when the World Trade Center was destroyed, Hassan said:

Thanks indeed you all who support Ahmed and I really sympathize with those who are still misled by the media. Firstly, at 9 /11 Ahmed was only six years old. Secondly, Ahmed belongs to an educated family… You should know that most people decline the idea to let their sons travel for one year especially at this critical age. Thirdly, we have lots of political diversity. […] Plz, Let Our Kids Lead a Healthy life.

According to Asoom:

Many adults take the handful of guys in my small tiny community as representative of Arab Americans all over the US and have decided that there are just no eligible guys for their daughters. They’ll say it's unfortunate their daughters are going to marry someone who grew up in different country and doesn't speak fluent English but there's just no other option because Arab American males are losers. It's hard to find someone who’s a practicing Muslim, educated, good career, and raised in the US. The cultural barrier will be a small compromise she’ll quickly get over.

Such a situation, says the blogger, is unfortunate as it reflects how out of touch with reality such mothers are.

It's like “lady have you been to the Middle East lately???” It's not exactly a land of young prince charmings piling degrees, accumulating assets, and observing the 5 pillars of Islam all while waiting for your daughter to make her appearance and complete his life.

She reasons that the problem for the lack of eligible suitors for Muslim American-Arab women is because girls are more ambitious and qualified than men - arguing that the trend is not restricted to the US only but includes the Arab world.

Guys are generally less ambitious than they were a generation ago, and girls are more. If anything, I would say this is more pronounced in the Middle East than it is in the US. In Jordan, I used to joke around with my cousin whose in her last year studying engineering that she better pull together and secure a classmate before she graduates, or else she’ll end up with someone in the military who chain smokes and curses a lot.

Asoom also narrates an experience with an Arab mother, she has come across, who has actually sent her daughter packing back to the Middle East to land an appropriate suitor.

I was frustratingly trying to explain this to an acquaintance of my mom's at a ladies lunch who kept going on and on about how she's been trying to convince her daughter (whose not even 20) to look in the Middle East because in the whole US of A there's “no one”. She’s even admitted to sending her daughter to spend this summer in Jordan and Dubai with relatives with the main purpose of introducing her to some “qualified” guys.

The blogger stands up for the defence of Arab-American men. She goes on to describe Arab-American men as follows:

There are a lot of great things about American culture and society that's not as much of a common denominator in the Middle East and other Eastern countries. Guys that grew up in the US, as a result of being exposed to a diversity of lifestyles and norms, tend to be more calm, patient, and balanced. The struggles involved in growing up as a minority breed men that are open-minded and sensitive. Those that choose to practice Islam will even have a deeper level of faith and understanding than those that grew up in a largely Muslim environment.

Arab-American girls too get a share in Asoom's post, when she writes about why an Arab man raised in the Middle East would find it difficult to deal with them.

A common denominator amongst girls that grew up in the US compared to girls that grew up in the East is they’re more sensitive, spoiled, and curious. We like to ask “why?” a lot and sometimes rebel just for the sake of rebelling. Girls with such qualities can encounter much difficulty with a guy that grew up in the East who was exposed to a narrower set of experiences and lifestyles growing up. Western raised guys are NOT BETTER than Eastern raised girls, but they are generally better for Western raised girls.