2008 Poll Results and News Round-Up

With a rather slow news week and a year 2009 well under way, here are the poll results for the second half of 2008.

The question was: "What is the next most likely global conflict", and the results were absolutely fascinating. Whether the news reflected tensions between Russia and the European Union, tensions within the Union or tensions in the Middle-East, the votes would dramatically shift towards a different answer.

Only 1% or 1 vote went to a war between South-East Asia and NATO. I find this theory interesting seeing as SE Asia would have a lot more soldiers than NATO and Indonesia IS the biggest Muslim country on the planet (and thus the biggest de facto enemy of America and its allies). Fortunately, relations between the two regions are friendly and stable.

A further 2% or 4 votes went to the option of an all-out African war. This low favour was very surprising considering the civil wars in Sudan, Algeria, Congo, Rwanda, Burundi, Malawi, Equatorial Guinea, Zimbabwe and Western Sahara to name a few. I found it only natural that the thousands of ethnic groups of the dark continent would eventually rise up to redefine their space (Ancient colonial boundaries imposed by European colonialists and based on natural resources rather than tribal and ethnic tradition). It seems as though others don't fear this apocalyptic outcome.

The third option, and my personal favorite, saw 7% or 12 votes go to a renewed war (maybe cold, maybe white hot) between the Russian federation and NATO. I can imagine the renewed struggle for Russian or American influence in ancient Soviet states, in China, in the Third World. I also imagine a renewed race to send a man to Mars by 2020 and to develop new bomb technology that would be reminiscent of James Bond-type deathrays. Oh well, people are not as obsessed with Putin and the good-old cold waras I am (impending nuclear doom makes you think).

More concretely, the prospect of a great European Union civil war seems to have roused my European fans. With 35% or 58 votes, all is not well with the great Euro family. Not everyone has been happy with the inclusion of poor countries in with the rich ones or about the favoritism certain countries seem to enjoy or simply the flat out racism involved with associating the different ethnic groups of Europe. I could imagine a scandinavian bloc negotiating neutrality just after invading the Baltic states. I can see Switzerland invading Luxembourg, Southern France and Northern Italy to creat a Great Switzerland. I can see Germany building a great big titanium wall around themselves sporting banners that say "we are staying out of this one". I can even see old Hapsburg descendants assassinate the parliaments of Austria and Hungary, recreating the legendary empire and subjugating the Balkans. I guess this will be for another time. This result long held the prime position in our poll yet the recent events of Israel and Palestine finally shifted it a different way.

With a whopping 55% or 90 votes, my readers believe that an invasion of the Middle-East is the context and catalyst of the next major global conflict. I thought long and hard how to interpret this and I came to the conclusion that the results could possibly have been very different if the poll was conducted in 2009. With a new Democrat in the White House and a general recession, bordering on depression for some, the potential invasion of a dozen countries is much less desirable for the Western powers. The United States would not dare invade anyone else at the moment due to lack of economic means and motivations. Furthermore, Obama is like Jesus II (the return) and would never do such a vile thing. I prefer another possibility than the classic American imperial war machine creeping up on the ancient biblical lands.

Since this poll result is not very specific, let me propose a differing context. With increasing consumer power and a growing middle class, China will soon need incredible amounts of fossil fuels to power their economy and society. Furthermore, major producers such as Russia, the United States, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Canada may not be so forthcoming to export all their oil to the same nation and thus create the next superpower to be dominated by. As reserves dry up by 2025-27, China may become desperate and will envisage the powering of their economy by any means necessary. They may offer to assist the American President (presumably Chelsea Clinton) to help out their mission in Iraq and anti-terror raids in Afghanistan and as such will slowly extend their communist influence in the region. By 2032, the Communist party of China will have organised elections in each Middle-Eastern country, influencing the election of Pro-China Communist presidents and ministers everywhere from Egypt to Pakistan. As such, the Middles-Eastern countries will vote in bloc to remove the Western military forces and will form a united confederation loyal to China. Around 2040, they will have a combined military force that will pressure the exodus of Israel and thus the ultimate recuperation of the Holy land.

It may seemed a bit far-fetched but if you are willing to fear an invasion of the Middle-East as the next global conflict, I propose that my way is the most probable since it follows a well-established historical pattern. In the 40s and 50s, the Soviet Union slowly began imposing their influence on specific countries. They eventually installed puppet gouvernments, close economic ties and even military unity and loyalty.


Round-up

Here is another intereting story going on this week - I also suggest a few interesting historical links to this story (click).

-Feb. 16th, 2009: 2 nuclear submarines collide
-Apr. 26th, 1986: Chernobyl Nuclear reactor goes critical
-Mar. 1st, 1954: US Bomb makes islands unihabitable forever

(Pictured: 1989, Chinese tanks confront protesting Students in Beijing, a clear sign that the officials of China do not mess around with such things as negotiation - The future overlords of Arabia)

End.

My intolerance is more righteous than yours

February 8th, 2009 – An apocalyptic battle of ideas and influence is being waged worldwide on bus panels. In the blue corner, Ariane Sherine and verious atheist, non-believer and agnostic associations have begun publicity campaigns on public transpoortation in most major cities. Notably in London, 800 double-decker buses are circulating with the slogan ‘There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.’ In the red corner, David Larlham, his biblical society and the Catholic Church in general will soon begin a counter-attack by using the very same buses. Although less comical and certainly not original, the slogans will read : « Psalm 53 : the fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. »

We can certainly question the motivations and projected goals of these two campaigns but there seems to be one clear message in each. Firstly, the Atheists have a tongue-in-cheek attitude towards the Church’s dogma and therefore thought it would be funny to waste a hundred thousand dollars on posters saying so (keep in mind they are not selling anything). Secondly, we have the Church that, once again in its infinite contempt for the little man and his personal opinion, has dubbed ‘idiot’ and ‘damned to the firy depths of hell’ anyone who disagrees with them.

OK, so my objective summation of the two points is actually heavily biased but hey, you cannot study history without holding a grudge for Religions. To me, this concept and it’s self-proclaimed officials have provoked slaughters, hardships and atrocities countless times in the name of higher morality. That being said, my regular readers will know that I cannot possibly be against the Church’s information or disinformation campaign, it is information and leaves personal decision in the hands of individuals. Going too far, The Catholics are now quite mad and have asked officials to step in and remove the atheist « propaganda ». These same officials then said that they will not « act as censors » and that the Atheists have just as much right to buy advertisement. Meanwhile, Atheist organisations are positively giddy that the Catholic clergy is playing their famous « whose religion is more credible » game with them that is usually reserved for more high-profile religions such as scientology.

I will leave you with two things, first a quote by Richard Dawkins (author of « the God Delusion ») on the subject. He said « I don’t object at all to the Christian ads that are going up, especially if they make people think. If more people think for themselves, we’ll have fewer religious people. » Secondly, I leave you with a historical list from my upcoming book. Here is a perfect example of the dire consqeuences that emerge from seemingly banal differences in opinion.

The Crusades
Although the term crusade could, and does, apply to hundreds of religiously-themed conflicts throughout History, the term classically refers to the eight Catholic/Muslim battles for the Holy Land, Jerusalem.

1. The first Crusade (1096-1099) – This conflict opposing “international” Catholics (allied with the Templar Knights) and Muslims (allied with the Jews of Jerusalem) is the only one in which the main objective, Jerusalem, was achieved by the Catholics. Led by a papal legate, the 100,000 crusaders’ main obstacle was to be dissension and quarrelling amongst themselves. Through distractions such as widespread Jewish extermination on their way, several leadership challenges, disease and random conflict, a mere 13,000 crusaders made it to the Holy Land. They were able to occupy the land only because the Muslims were even more divided than they were.

2. The second Crusade (1145-1149) – Following the conquest of Jerusalem, the Muslims had united under a new ruler (Zengi) and had gradually retaken the European territorial possessions. The French and Germans answered the Pope’s call for Crusade; a call which innovatively came with a promise of debt reduction and heavenly benefits from the Vatican. The 30,000 crusaders failed utterly in the Holy Land because their aim was too wide. Along with Jerusalem, they were fighting the Muslims in Spain (successfully) and pagans in North-East Germany (unsuccessfully). The Europeans were shaken to their core due to the failure of their divinely inspired and endorsed campaign.

3. The third Crusade (1187-1192) – 40 years later, a new Muslim Ruler, Saladin, effectively restored the Muslim temples of Jerusalem by destroying all Western presence. 25,000 French, German and English crusaders met an untimely setback when the German Emperor leading the new Crusade drowned in southern Turkey. Few soldiers remained determined to attack Saladin’s army and although they recaptured several cities and outposts around Jerusalem, they never had the strength to regain the Holy City.

4. The fourth Crusade (1198-1204) – With Germany in civil war and France at war with England, the fourth Crusade lacked royal blessing and money. The plan was to attack Egypt by sea and then zip up to Jerusalem by both the Mediterranean and on land through the Sinai. Things went wrong along the way. Firstly, the noblemen that were involved in the ordeal did not have the funds to pay the Venetian boatmakers. Secondly they accepted a bribe from the usurped king of Constantinople in exchange for their help regaining his crown. Finally, when the few remaining crusaders won the Eastern throne for him, the King did not pay and so their last push actually won Constantinople for the West. The warriors of God never made it near the Middle-East.

5. The fifth Crusade (1217-1221) – This time trying to avoid financial obstacles, the Pope set up an impeccable direct funding plan. The crusaders were to retake the above-mentioned Egypt plan yet a lack of Royal involvement and internal dissensions only permitted them to gain a small foothold on the Nile Delta.

6. The sixth Crusade (1228-1229) – German Emperor Frederick II took upon himself to declare his own crusade. With a well-mounted, German expedition, he assailed the Middle-East and negotiated with the Muslim leaders. Although he regained Jerusalem for the Catholic West, the Pope was irked and thus excommunicated Frederick. This is the technicality why we do not consider the sixth crusade a success.

7. The seventh Crusade (1248-1254) – During Frederick and the Pope’s quarrel, Turkish Muslims invaded Jerusalem and thus Louis IX of France organised his own Crusade with preliminary aims towards Egypt. Once again, despite fantastic organisation and strategy, a combination of dysentery, seafaring and underestimating of their enemies brought about very little success for the French Crusaders in Egypt, never-mind the Holy land.

8. The Last Crusade (1270) – A joint operation between Louis IX and Prince Charles of England aimed again for the Eastern Mediterranean coast, but also Tunis. Trying to destroy a maritime Muslim base in Carthage, Louis IX attacked the Tunisian coast and won just before dying of dysentery. At the other end, the English left Sicily by boat and were generally decimated by unfavourable weather. Both fronts were quickly abandoned and the Holy Land was effectively conceded to the Jews and Muslims forever.

(Pictured: A Crusade engraving showing Godly redemption in favour of slicing up Jews and Muslims - One of the London Buses in question)

End.

OMG! A GMO! NO WAY!

January 29th, 2009 – Professor Pamela Ronald from the University of California-Davis has presented to the world a new strain of flood-resistant rice crop. Very few news outlets have even mentionned this revolutionary breakthrough but I certainly will and I hope you will agree it was important enough for your consideration.

Professor Ronald and her team spent the last 13 years genetically modifying rice crops, splicing in a gene that would make them much more resistant to water. After a three-year test in India and Bangladesh, the new crop was found to survive 5-6 times longer than conventional rice plants underwater and thus the farmers ultimately harvested 3-5 times more rice than usual. This highly successful experiment and test will mean that tens of millions of Asian and African and South-American inhabitants will not succumb to famine this year.

Mainstream media have largely ignored this achievement even though professor Ronald’s team has tried to inform the population. A more sensible and politically correct commentator might say that they were busy with the Superbowl, what type of shoes Michelle Obama was wearing and how much more money automobile companies will need before we want to buy their luxury cars again. I for one will be very blunt : the media and the liberal/leftist elites of North America have purposely ignored or sidelined this type of agricultural innovation for decades.

This new rice is not bio, it uses chemicals and pesticides and it is the very definition of a genetically-modified organism (GMO). Health nuts aside, Americans have constantly been told by do-gooders to eat certain product made from certain farms that meet a certain certification and ultimately that all-natural food will be healthier and more tasty. Because they firmy believe the benefits of their bio foods and because it has become a multi-billion dollar industry, the proponents of ‘health food’ or ‘all-natural’ products have spent countless millions in advertisement, popular polls and shifty research that demonize all GMOs. In the case I am citing and in many more in the past, it would sort of be arrogant and stupid of them to protest the feeding of the hungry and the preventing of famine; alhough if you take them to the letter and only grow ‘organic’ food as our ancestors did, our planet could only grow food for about 3 billion people (Who’s gonna tell the other 3.5 that they will now be shot in the head to save the culinary whims of the Western World?). This is why they simply ignored these types of innovation and convinced most media and most of the population to do the same. Case and point, I present to you Mr. Norman Borlaug.

Mr. Borlaug still works today at the age of 94 and although very little people have heard of him, he has probably had more positive impact on the planet and saved more people than Mother Teresa, Ghandi, Superman, Xenu and Jesus combined. Official and academic organisations have roughly calculated Mr. Borlaug’s impact on world society as ‘saving over a billion people from starvation’. How can I possibly not know about this man you might ask. My above explaination is the only theory that fits in my opinion (combined with the sad fact that the Western World rarely cares about the death of millions in Africa and Asia).

Norman Borlaug could have stayed in Minnesota where he received his PhD in 1942 but he went straight to Mexico and in a short decade, began a what researchers call ‘the Green Revolution’ worldwide. Being one of the first specialist of plant genetics, Borlaug developped high-yield and disease-resistant crops for Mexico, Pakistan and India. The result? In 1943 Mexico imported only half of the necessary wheat to feed its people, in 1956 they were self-sufficient and in 1964, Mexico was exporting half a ton of wheat every year. Today, he continues to improve crop genetics for sub-saharan Africa and South-East Asia, as if he hasen’t done enough.

In case you may think I made him up, you can check Mr. Borlaug’s profile by searching for the awards he was discerned including some of America’s greatest honours (the Presidential medal of Freedom, the Congressional Gold Medal), India’s top award for a non-citizen (Padma Vibhushan) and the freakin’ Nobel Peace Prize of 1970.

I like to think I did my part today : I will have spread the information of this great breakthrough to a few more people that would have never heard of it. I also subverted the hypocritical and egotistical designs of liberal/I know what’s best/bio food lobbies and finally I have taught a few people about Norman Borlaug, by many standards the greatest human being to have ever lived.

Here’s hoping that professor Ronald will also be okay with the inevitable shunning and obscurity she will have to toil with for the rest of her career.

(Pictured: Norman Borlaug with a few kids that definitely don't care that the only food they have was genetically engineered - Over half the world depend on rice as a primary source of food and living.)

End.

Pro-Death Vs. Anti-Choice

January 24th, 2009 – Newly elected president Barack Obama has cancelled a law that prevented the financing of Abortion Funds. These funds are actually non-profit organisations that provide money and information about safe abortion clinics to the less-fortunate. They do a certain amount of work directly in the United States where there is no national healthcare and where private insurance rarely covers the services of an abortion clinic. More importantly, they provide funding to maintain information networks and safe abortion clinics internationally in the Third World. Almost instantaneously, the self-designated ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-choice’ interest groups released statements.

Firstly on the pro-choice or ‘the people not against abortion’, we have the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA). They greatly applauded president Obama for loosening the « stranglehold of women’s health accross the globe ». Also, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) was overjoyed to once again receive funding from America. This UN program assists Third-World nations that have crippling overpopulation problems and where many women die from self-abortion related injuries and infections.

In the opposite corner, the pro-life or ‘people against abortions’, we have the National Right to Life Commitee (NRLC). They also rapidly voiced their opinion by affirming that this new White House policy is ‘effectively guaranteeing more abortions by funding groups that promote abortion as a method of population control’. Further still in the depths of exaggeration we have the Vatican. A Spokesperson from St. Peter’s basilica accused Mr. Obama for his arrongance in thinking that he ‘can decide who lives or dies’. They reiterated that, unlike president Obama, the Pope, Catholics and baby Jesus are against the « slaughter of the innocents ».

As for me, I think both of these groups are tremendous wastes of time and space in a world where « black or white » has never truly existed. I personally abhor abortion and really think there are always viable alternatives to the medical procedure. Furthermore, I think that NOTHING should infringe on personal liberties and thus cannot condone the legal repression of groups that diffuse information about safe abortions. When a gouvernment chooses to eliminate public information services, that gouvernment is guilty of treason towards its people. They are telling their electors that the opinion of the elected elite is much more important than those of the masses of lesser people. They are saving the citizens from themselves because they know what is better for them. You may think I am being ironic (you would be right) but this is basically the justification of fascism that Benito Mussolini gave in the 20s when he invented the concept. Gross exaggerations of ‘stranglehold’, ‘population control’ and ‘slaughter aside’, the legal controversy in America really began a few decades ago…

In 1973, the famed ‘Roe Vs. Wade’ trial found that a woman could abort her child for any reason before the pregnancy reached the 28th week. Anti-abortion legislation having become illegal, pro-life groups could only pressure the gouvernment into cutting funding to anyone that provided any services or information concerning abortion. This led to the Mexico City Policy of 1984.

President Ronald Reagan signed this law that, to receive any form of federal funding, organisations had to sign a contract guaranteeing that they would ‘neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations’. It is my contention that, with more information, women who chose to abort could have opted for another solution yet the this regulation possibly left women to the only option they knew : abortion (ironic isn’t it?). With the signing of the policy in Mexico, groups such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation lost 20% of their funding and abortion information programs and clinics ceased to exist in Zambia and Ethiopia where rape is rampant.

Later on with the advent of a procreation friendly president Clinton, the Mexico City Policy was cancelled. Clinton said that it infringed personal freedoms of choice and information and that it ‘undermined efforts to promote safe and efficacious family planning programs in foreign nations’. This stood for eight years until…

…there came a man named Double-U who resumed the dictatorial undertones of the policy in 2001. As always, Mr. Bush truly believed in his convictions, stating that ‘taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion, either here or abroad’. Although I strongly agree with the spirit of this statement, there are three major problems with the phrasing and wording. Firstly, the use of the word ‘should’ implies that he knows and is the ultimate decider (sic) of what is right and wrong. Secondly, these abortion funds were providing information about abortion, they were not handing out 2 for 1 coupons and airing sales clearance commercials on network television. Finally, although former president Bush’s morality tells him clearly that tax dollars should not go to abortion funds, it also has seemingly told him that the tax dollars SHOULD fund druglords in Afghanistan, the indefinite occupation of Iraq, bankrupt car companies, the Saudi royal family, a gigantic wall between the US and Mexico as well as teenage abstinence programs that continue to be complete failures (as shown by every polling firm in North America).

We loop back to President Obama’s renewal of Clinton’s policy. Abortion funds will once again be financed internationally and this fits perfectly into Obama’s announced promises. That being said, I have to apply the ‘I know what’s best’ probem to all four of them because there has never been a national referendum on the question, the president’s simply assume their opinion is in the best national interest. Although, a poll conducted in 2008 by Gallup showed that 54% of Americans think abortion should be allowed under certain circumstances and 28% believe that it should be legal under any circumstances. This has effectively left the aformentioned Vatican, NRLF, former presidents Reagan and Bush to impose the will of 17% of the american population on the other 83%.

In conclusion, I admit that anti-abortion sentiment is philosophical; mine certainly is. I believe in the right for any fetus to his or her potential life because it feels right for me and I truly believe in the concept. As such, I encourage information about the alternatives to abortion for women faced with the unfortunate prospect. On the other hand, the pro-choice sentiment is also philosophical and no more valid than the other concept. I think that a person’s personal rights should be defended at the cost of life and revolution if necessary and I clearly believe it is more important than my personal anti-abortion policy. My convoluted point is that it rarely boils down to philosophy but rather to practicality. Abortion is often seen as a quick solution to a terrible and life-altering problem and thus it will be accomplished no matter how much we legislate against it. We must never lose sight of the political capital aimed by politicians when they bring up abortion; they certainly know, just like the war on drugs and pre-marriage sex, that urge, impulse and practicality wins out over philosophy and religious doctrine every time.

Anti-information programs hurt democracy and If women are going to have an abortion one way or another, shouldn’t it be in a sanitised clinic and carried out by a professional? I definitely think so and for those that disagree, I respect your opinion and suggest you immigrate to Tehran or Vatican city where the gouvernment has made birth control, abortions and women voting illegal.

(Epilogue : It feels really good to write ‘former president Bush’)

(Pictured : In Ancient Cambodia, lack of information led to abortions by method of "mallet to stomach" - Even Soviet Russia had information programs about safe abortions, 1925 - President Obama was "Warholised")

End.

Rubbing Obama's Lamp

January 20th, 2009 – An estimated 2 million people are expected this Tuesday for President-Elect Barack Obama and Vice-President-Elect Joe Biden to be sworn in as the American leaders of the next 4 years. Security will be extrordinarily over the top for this third president from Illinois and surely some organisers are aware that if just a hint of panic strikes the crowd we will have an unimaginable riot on our hands. That being said, Obama couldn’t care less, he is busy. In 24 hours, he will deliver his inaugural address, the most important speech of his life. Lewinskys, cherry trees, black lovechilds, watergates, misunderestimates and assasinations may be remembered for a while but it is the inaugural adress that can potentially traverse the centuries and grant immortality to an administration. In fact, the only four president that didn’t give an adress are Chester A. Arthur, Millard Fillmore, John Tyler and Andrew Johnson (better known as ‘Who?’). Furthermore, as some other columnists have stated, Obama is seen by the mainstream media as ‘ The Magic Negro’. He is supposed to project a royal sense of youthful confidence while he rectifies the recession, as he justifies the last 50 years of the civil rights movement, fulfills Martin Luther King’s ‘dream’, as he pulls all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan yet brings undying democracy to them, as he personally cures AIDS and as he never EVER lets Michelle forget she’s a woman. As for me, I will simply be happy with a memorable inauguration and with 8 years devoid of Bushes.

Here are some memorable inauguration ceremonies from past American presidents :

In 1776, George Washington was still very tainted by the absolute monarchies of the Old World and was accordingly regal. He spoke from an elegant carriage and gave out specific instructions that no one was to touch him and that no one was allowed to sit down in his illustrious presence. The next few presidents were much more careful of their projected appearance.

In 1829, president Andrew Jackson’s carrige from the Capitol to the White House was followed by the cheers of a thousand black and white men. They followed him rigth into the White House and were encouraged to go shake his hand. Witnesses described that day as being the first true expression of democracy in the western world since the rule of ancient Athens.

In 1861, another president from Illinois faced great hardships and hastely tried to solve them without success. Abraham Lincoln stated in his inaugural speech : “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so”. It denotes a great irony of history that the American civil war broke out days later and led to the emacipation of American slaves.

In 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected at the head of a superpower and Adolf Hitler at the head of another. More than a threat from militaristic, Nazi Germany, FDR had to lift spirits and an economy out of the gutters of depression. He effectively did so with the radical economic policies of his ‘New Deal’ yet it all began with his inaugural address during which he reassured : “there is nothing to fear but fear itself”.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy’s 1961 inaugural address is beyond my measly attempts at commentary and I will thus let an excerpt speak for itself, attesting to the timeless quality of his words : “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. ...Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate. ...And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country”. He was specifically referring to the Cold War against Communism yet the words speak true throughout every major conflict that America has had or will ever encounter.

Finally, we will vividly remember George W. Bush’s 2001 and 2005 inaugurations as painful and embarrassing. First in 2001, he was the first president in a very long time who did not walk from the Capitol to the White House. From the thousands upon thousands of protesters booing and screaming at him, he was forced to jump into his limo and dash behing the gates of the White House, evading and actively ignoring critique for the next 8 years. In 2005, he didn’t even try to reconciliate with the people (with the war in Iraq and all, he was even less popular). There were even more protests organised by dozens of interest groups against the bumbling disaster-waiting-tohappen that was President Bush Jr..

On the 20th of January, 2009, it will be a welcome and refreshing change to see the Americans enjoy the leader they have chosen.

(Pictured: President Bush was figuratively beat up by bad approval ratings and literally when he choked on a pretzel and fell - Obama will grant three wishes to everyone who truly believes in him, or maybe not)

End.