Hegemon

[singa-traz]

Finish your Warm up with this:

http://www.guerrillanews.com/redux/

Better with Broadband ...

"Either you are with us ... or you are with the Terrorist" ...

... or with the WMD !

[rabkk]

the rest of the world needs the u.s. now.

No, the US needs the world now because a foolish and incompetent government is completely stuck in Iraq. That adventure made the world even more insecure!

Different news: http://smirkingchimp.com/

[pantarei]

American foreign policy is a mixed bag of blunders and correct decisions (in RETROSPECT).

US involvement in former Yugoslavia was a horrible blunder.  There was no reason to endanger the lives of GIs and waste billions of $$ on a conflict that was a purely European problem.

   

Other recent American foreign policy decisions were influenced by the lessons learnt from the Munich Agreement and the Cuban missile crisis.

World War II was the consequence of the Munich agreement, i.e., some European countries not willing not willing to “interfere” in the affairs of Nazi Germany.  Here are some basic facts – Source: http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/british_history/25446

[rabkk]

Other recent American foreign policy decisions were influenced by the lessons learnt from the Munich Agreement and the Cuban missile crisis.

Iraq = oil...

Well, it's what they thought!

[pantarei]

Sorry for the previous post.  I inadvertently clicked on "add reply".

American foreign policy is a mixed bag of blunders and correct decisions (in RETROSPECT).

US involvement in former Yugoslavia was a horrible blunder.  There was no reason to endanger the lives of GIs and waste billions of $$ on a conflict that was a purely European problem.

   

Other recent American foreign policy decisions were influenced by the lessons learnt from the Munich Agreement and the Cuban missile crisis.

World War II was the consequence of the Munich agreement, i.e., some European countries not willing not willing to “interfere” in the affairs of Nazi Germany. Some basic facts - Source: http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/british_history/25446

'Two days after he went to Bertchesgaden, Chamberlain agreed to meet a delegation of Labour leaders consisting of Walter Citrine, Herbert Morrison and Hugh Dalton. At the meeting, Citrine asked Chamberlain whether he believed that Hitler wanted a peaceful settlement. After a pause, Chamberlain replied: "If we accept the challenge now it means war. If we delay a decision something might happen. Hitler may die".'

Well, what is wrong with lunatics? Why do they refuse to die prematurely?    

The Cuban missile crisis

<

Khrushchev: "As for me and my colleagues...we think that the adversary proved to be less staunch than we had estimated...We expected there would be more blustering and so far the worst spurt of  intimidation was in Kennedy's speech (of July 25, 1961)... Kennedy spoke to frighten us, and then got scared himself!" -- Source:

http://homepages.uni-tuebingen.de/student/...ning/jfk_vienna

<

The first person with whom Kennedy discussed this bleak, frightening encounter was not his secretary of state nor any member of his administration. Astonishingly, it was a journalist, James Barrett Reston, Washington bureau chief and columnist for the New York Times……

"How was it?" Reston asked casually.

"Worst thing in my life. He savaged me," Kennedy responded. The president seemed to Reston to be almost in shock, repeating himself and speaking with astonishing candor to the journalist. "Not the usual bullshit," Reston wrote in his notepad. "There is a look a man has when he has to tell the truth." Kennedy went on to say that to counter the battering by Khrushchev, which he attributed to the Soviet leader's underestimation of Kennedy's resolve, the United States would have to stand more firmly against the Soviets' demands in Berlin and against the mounting Communist insurgency in South Vietnam. Reston wrote later that he was "speechless" when Kennedy mentioned Vietnam, since that troubled country was at that point nowhere near the heart of the Cold War conflict and, in Reston's estimation, did not carry much weight in the superpower tug-of-war. Ever afterward, Kennedy's remark to Reston was seen by historians and by Reston himself as the moment marking the beginning of America's long slide into the tragedy of Vietnam.>>

Source:

http://www.twbookmark.com/books....65.html

Moral of the story: Krushchev’s perception of Kennedy as a wimpy, “pretty boy” led to the Cuban missile crisis and the war in Vietnam.

Perhaps some posters on this board got their primary and secondary educations in exclusive, private schools and did not have to deal with bullies.  Based on my experience in public schools in a coal-mining town it appears that the only way to deal with bullies is to kick them where it hurts the most and follow the kick with a solid punch to the nose.  Intelligentsia-type pontification and persuasion does not seem to work with bullies.   There are quite a few giga-bullies out there: the N. Korean dwarf, the Iranian mullahs, the terrorists, Saddam, etc.  The mega-bullies not only refuse to die prematurely but also appear to be unaware that “the meek shall inherit the Earth”.  The terrorists are not anti-American; they are anti-anybody who is not a total lunatic.  Didn’t they plan to blow up the Eiffel tower?

 

The perception of America would be more positive if in the 2000 primaries the Republicans chose to nominate Senator McCain, rather than George W. Bush.  To begin with, there would be no questions about the legitimacy of President McCain as he would have easily defeated Gore.  BTW, Sen. McCain supports Bush’s foreign policy.  The “messenger” is quite often as important as the message, and Sen. McCain would have been a much more articulate, eloquent and effective “messenger” (and leader).  

The “wimpy” image projected by JFK to Commissar Khrushchev almost led to nuclear holocaust.  Likewise, the “macho” image projected by GWB combined with less-than-perfect eloquence has caused a number of problems that likely could have been avoided by a more diplomatic president.  However, electing Wimpy Bore, rather than Dubya, would have been a catastrophe.  Wimpy, dressed in Muslim garb, would still be apologizing to the terrorists and assuring them that he feels their pain.

[rabkk]

Too bad Arnold can't be president!  :laugh:  :laugh:  :laugh:

[SeaVisionBurma]

Nice post pantarei, well written.  _Hell of a good read, and made my morning coffee that much better.  Thanks.

[pantarei]

No, the US needs the world now because a foolish and incompetent government is completely stuck in Iraq. That adventure made the world even more insecure!

Would you care to elaborate on why the world became even less secure.  Your sources cannot be accused of not having their usual agenda.

Michael Moore, S.F. Chronicle, the L.A. Times??

Here is a very recent example of the unbiased reporting of the L.A. Times. http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/goto....p%2Ehtm

The article was not written by Drudge, he just posted a article by Jill Stewart. "Award-winning journalist Jill Stewart is a print, radio and TV political commentator. She launched “Capitol Punishment,” in January following a successful six-year stint with New Times Los Angeles where her talked-about weekly columns examined the power elite of California."

PS I am NOT a republican.  I am a skeptic.  The anti-Gray Davis allegation may not be true, but there is no proof for the anti-Arnold allegations.  The LA Times:

(1) did not bother to check the Davis story and (2) made sure that there was no time to investigate their anti-Arnold allegations which they chose to publish 5 days before the election.  I would not be surprised if it backfires.

PS It is likely that Arnold's political skills will match his acting skills, but he will do a better job than Davis, so would Mickey Mouse.

PS2.  If I am not mistaken, the same crowd accused President Reagan of being "reckless" and a "simpleton" when he took on the "evil empire".  Same same the Old Europe intellectuals.  Who brought down the Berlin Wall and freed the Gulag slaves?  The LA Times and Michael Moore?

[Axel]

Too bad Arnold can't be president!  :laugh:  :laugh:  :laugh:

Hey, whos says?

I hear some mumbling to change the laws allowing anybody bein a US-citizen for at lest 20 years to go for the presidency.

Would call it lex Arnie.*

And listen to the news, Ronald Reagan cleaned up California, than moved on to Washington.

*I think he left Austria in th e70th and became US-citizen 1983?

[rabkk]

No, the US needs the world now because a foolish and incompetent government is completely stuck in Iraq. That adventure made the world even more insecure!

Would you care to elaborate on why the world became even less secure.  Your sources cannot be accused of not having their usual agenda.

Michael Moore, S.F. Chronicle, the L.A. Times??

No, I get better news; I read in three languages every day... As I already mentioned, try http://smirkingchimp.com/ , the site offers a collection of articles from around the world. You'll also find some good articles on Muslim or Arab culture there: http://www.arabnews.com/. It might open yours eyes and stop you for having some racist comments (about Al Gore dressed in Muslim garb...).

Regarding the guy you voted for, Governator Arnold, as long as you have money in the US and/or a famous name you can even sell a mental case to the American public!

[plachon]

plachon,i can understand what you say,but if the arab/pakistani/indonesian/syrian/iranian etc. governments can't or wont stop the subversive islamic terrorists that reside within their borders from exporting their terror and propaganda then the u.s.must do it.nobody else has got the stomach for the job.

the u.s. has in the past been guilty of selfish foriegn intervention,including this years adventure in iraq,but this time(against terrorism) they are doing the right thing.

the last time they did the right thing was to save europe from the nazis.

if it were not for the u.s.right now then planes would be dropping out of the skies like flies.

those islamic radicals are crazy beyond belief and there is only one way to deal with them,and it does not involve sitting around a table in discussion with them.

it involves the use of a big stick,the bigger the better.

that is only one way to deal with terrorists.

if the palestinians had been better served by their muslim brothers over the past 50 years instead of being left to rot as pawns in a wider political game then there would be peace in the middle east now,the terrorists have been encouraged to operate there by their arab neighbours,the results being death and destruction of innocents on both sides.and a nation living as refugees in their own land. blame egypt,syria,iran,hamas and arafat more than the u.s.

those governments are duplicitous in the extreme,even with their own people.

once you rid the world of the madmen then common sense will take over.

you cant look to american history and say that because they killed millions in the 60's they are wrong to fight now.

they were wrong then,but that was then.

given half a chance and 100 years,radical islam will take us all back to the stone age.

they need to be stopped in their tracks.

as a fully paid up brit i find myself with the u.s. on this one.

(but only this one)

I think you're arguing against yourself Tax, by saying that the US has been a bad lad in the past, but now they're a reformed delinquent, who are just doing a distasteful job cleaning up the "terrorists" (a more selective and discrimnatory word does not exist in the hegemon's lexicon) for the benefit of all across the world. Just carefully read your post and you'll see it's a pile of &lt;deleted&gt;. And as for "saving Europe from Nazism", don't forget they had to be goaded into that war by the Japs attack on Pearl Harbour rather than going to their so-called "friends" assisTANCE AT THE first call for help. Hitler was crawling all over Europe before the Yanks finally decided that their interests too was threatened by the spread of facism. Similarly, "terrorism" is just a thinly veiled excuse to spread US economic interests to every corner of the globe, starting with the oil rich nations and keep it's No. 1 industry churning out the WMD.

But going back to SoCal's original hypothetical question. I would choose a nice hegemonical combination of New Zealand (for it's anti-nuclear stance), Sweden (for it's enlightened policies on human rights and defence) and Eire (for a combination of the above, good humour in abundance and for giving the world Guiness). This winning team's motto could be "Guiness not bombs!" and the US would be the first target for reform. Bud-lite and Zumwalt says it all aboutthe pressing need for my hegemon.

[Axel]

It comes always back to the same point, "the u.s.must do it.nobody else has got the stomach for the job."

I still would put my money on the U.N. Agreed it takes longer, it involves endless discussions b4 a resolution is reached and it needs UN-members using a common sense. Perhaps a veto-right by one country should be changed to a majority-vote.

Make sure that everybody pays the "member-ship-fee" and give the U.N. the power. Rotate the generals, if you want but put any force under the U.N., only. Neutrality is important and the Secretary General must be accepted as last instance, within the rules. He will not be accused of attacking a state for oil or economic interests. Whoever sends troops (in blue caps) will be re-imbursed by the UN who in turn is financed by the members acc. to an approved budget. Make the UN the hegemony and let not a single country stand above the others.

US has the stomach for the job, but sorry, politely said, not the feeling for others. This brings up automatically the US-bashing. Now here would be a point for US. Pull out from whatever military position on foreign soil but put the places under the UN and let them pay for the costs.

Europe does not care so aggressively and does not put enough money in their armies. Let's change this, every EU-member can have its own defense-force, but attaches the defense against terrorism and attacks from outside under UN as well. Make terrorism an automatic case for UN-forces overruling any local force. (Like the FBI for certain cases is above the local police)

GWB was not very clever in handling Europe, (OK, not only there) dividing into new and old and further dividing the old into for and against. No wonder they are not very forthcoming to help him now.

"Guinness not bombs!"? Maybe, I prefer lager...

How about "make love not war"? I still like JFK and Clinton, seems they followed this rule and had political success.

[taxexile]

Just carefully read your post and you'll see it's a pile of &lt;deleted&gt;.

cant let that pass unanswered !!

the u.s. has always put its own interests first,including ww2,and bugger the consequences for the rest of us, but in this case,as with ww2, the interests of the u.s. are the same as those of most of the rest of the "western" nations and therefore i feel that pragmatism has to rule and i will support them.

when they start siphoning off the oil from iraq to fill their awful cars with, i will be the first to complain,but for as long as they are working towards preventing radical islam from taking over the world bit  by bit, i will support them.

and yes,it would be nice to have a hegemony of nz,sweden and eire, but if those countries were powerful enough to become a hegemon, their policies would not be the idealistic policies that make them so attractive.

power does unfortunately have to be backed up with force.

[plachon]

More naive bull, Tax. I could go through your posting which I highlighted in my last and pick it apart point by point, but frankly, I haven't got the time, as I have a train to catch. I'll let you off the hook this time, but I can't let that last sentence go about "Power having to be backed up with force". Two lunatic nations vying for No. 1 spot in the Hegemon charts, spent the best part of 40 years building up their armies and stockpiling their WMDs, while battling out in the far corners of the world (SE ASia being a particularly hotspot for their games), killing, raping, dropping chemical weapons and generally terrorising the local populations until they were either kicked out or had got their way by installing puppet regimes and creating genocidal warlords (Pol Pot, Saddam and Bin Laden to name but 3 Pentagon creations).

Then one side goes bankrupt on the board and loses the ideological battle, so theoretically the world was a safer place as Uncle Sam becomes the hegemon. Whoppee! we can all go out and celebrate with a round of Cokes and Big Pukes (or whatever those things are called). But instead of becoming a gentle Big Brother, Loong Sam, has taste for black stuff (& I'm not talking about Guinness) and will go to any length to satiate his greed for it. He carries on installing and supporting US-friendly dictatorships, while destroying any voices of  dissent and democracy (the examples are plentiful if you would care to look), playing to an ignorant and pliant home audience glued to their MTV and cable thingies. He carries on producing WMDs and refuses to sign lots of international treaties designed entirely to try and make the world a slightly safer and more livable environment (again the examples are plentiful if you care to look, but start with the ban on landmines production and sale). Finally, an oil barron gets installed in the White House with a bunch of crazy hawks fluttering around him, who want to proliferate every nasty weapon you can ever think of, even into outer-space (Rumsfeld's your man!), until now they have 9 times more of these toys than No. 2. If you still insist on thinking the US govt. is not too bad, read a few tomes of Chomsky or John Pilger, to name but two voices of sanity in a CNN/Fox controlled visual media arena. If naivity was a commodity 'Exile, you'd be a wealthy man indeed.

Gotta dash there's a train to catch!

[taxexile]

i fear we will never agree or convince each other of the validity of our arguments.

you are coming from the far left whilst i tend towards the right.

you are churning out history and won't see that i am talking about the present situation.

i have never said the u.s.gov.was good.

far from it.

i just said it is right to be doing what it is doing at this moment.

you confuse naivety with pragmatism.

and as for pilger,...another blinkered soul who will not look at both sides of a situation and who knows the solution before he has even been told what the problem is.

enjoy your train journey,

2nd class non-air is it? solidarity with the proletariat.(unless the company is paying) :laugh:  

[SoCal]

Plachon, what country are you from? I think we have an open slot on our axis of evil.

   

[pantarei]

rabkk Posted on Oct. 09 2003,10:22

No, I get better news; I read in three languages every day...  

What is "better news"?  Is it better because YOU read it?  I read news in four languages. So what? I do not read every day because I have a life.  

Your argument is silly anyway.  It is akin to the reasoning of a grade-school pupil who is upset after getting a bunch of “F”s, and argues that he deserves “A”s because he had studied very hard every day (in three languages).  Reading is important but being able to logically analyze the news is much more important.  I have read a lot of Moore’s stuff and his interpretation of the “facts” is questionable.  His “thought” process begins with the desired conclusion followed by selecting “observations” that fit his preconceived notions.  This is a common trait on both extremes of the US (and non-US) political spectrum.  One of the functions of the human brain is to filter out trash regardless of its origin and language.  Reading stuff in 33 languages does not make one an expert on anything.  Multilinguists are not necessarily to most logical or rational people in the world.  

It might open yours eyes and stop you for having some racist comments (about Al Gore dressed in Muslim garb...).

The “racist” label is standard garbage used by politically-correct bozos that have to resort to slander because they are incapable of holding their ground in a rational discussion.  

My point was NOT “Muslim garb”.  My point was that Gore is a chameleon who will wear whatever garb is “appropriate” to please others.  If he dealt with Muslim terrorists, he would wear Arab garb; if the terrorists happened to be Bavarians, he would wear lederhosen.  In 2000, prior to the election, he had a highly-paid consultant who advised him what to wear to make the biggest impact on the voters.  That is a FACT.  Got it?

Regarding the guy you voted for, Governator Arnold, as long as you have money in the US and/or a famous name you can even sell a mental case to the American public!

I LOVE IT!  Classic PC “thought” process.  Make some inane and inaccurate assumptions and then come up with asinine conclusions.

(1) I do not live in California.

(2) If I lived in California, I would not have voted for Arnie.  The problem with Arnie is not stupidity (he is a highly intelligent mega-opportunist); the problem with Arnie is his megalomania.

Actually, I have quite a bit in common with Arnie (not megalomania).  I am a European who became a naturalized American.  I have spent a fair amount of time in gyms, etc. etc.  I was not a body-builder but a power-lifter.  My main motivation for taking up serious weight lifting was very practical – I found out in my early teens that breaking someone else’s nose was a lot more fun than having my nose and chin fractured.  Also, chix dig hard bodies.  Got it, mr PC?  Ooops, chix = sexist?  Well, racism and sexism go hand in hand.  

BTW, why did Arnie leave Europe?

"We were mad at Europe," said Mr. Columbu, who was born in Sardinia. "We were coming here because we thought America was better than Europe. We liked Nixon because he told Europe it had to pull its weight. Basically, Europe was old and you couldn't get anywhere there. America was the place."

Franco Columbu (also a world-class body builder) was Arnie’s workout partner and close friend.  We=Arnie+Franco

Source:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003....sition=

(3) It so happens that I share the “liberal” point of view of Arnie.   Below is a quote taken from a website of a “liberal” woman who wants to initiate an Arnold recall.  I agree, to some extent, with her views. However, I believe that recalling Arnie at this point would be ridiculous, disruptive, and a failure.  Besides, Arnie undoubtedly will do a better job than the PC drone now in office.  

I do hope that Arnie gets replaced in 2 years by someone who genuinely wants to help California/America, rather that feed his/her boundless ego.

 

http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/c...ov_recall_2003/

“In August, a study surfaced by James Houran, a psychology professor at the Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, about Celebrity Worship Syndrome, an affliction that affects as much as one third of the population. People with CWS are overly susceptible to real-life influence by their fantasy idol. At one extreme, those with CWS will go so far as to commit a crime if asked by an idol to do so; Hitler’s followers, for example. At the milder end of the scale, a CWS sufferer will do less harmful things, like believe every word their idol says. Or, if their idol is a murderer, even though most CWS sufferers would never kill anyone, they might cheer while a white Bronco carries their idol-murderer down the highway. Or, if their idol is a pro-athlete accused of rape, they might stand and cheer him on when he enters a courtroom. Will CWS sufferers vote for their idol, the happy narcissist? That’s a slam-dunk.

Idolatry. Hero worship. Isn’t this what Arnold is all about? He keeps weaving his old movie lines into his campaign slogans as if he is aware that he needs the CWS vote. During a recent political debate, he even told Arriana he had a role for her in Terminator 4. He doesn’t seem to want to leave his movie star roots behind. He needs votes from his CWS-suffering followers, the one third who will vote for him because he is a movie star -- part of their fantasy – who don’t really care if he is a rake, much less if he has the political skills to run the state with the sixth largest economy in the world. Arnold needs the CWS vote because he doesn’t have a political base. But even more than politics, he really needs the CWS vote to fulfill his more than ample self-love and admiration, to feed his grandiose and narcissistic schemes, and to convert his fantasy-world heroism to real-life heroism.”

you can even sell a mental case to the American public!

I love your exclamation mark!!  FYI, if your statement were factual, it would read – “you can sell a mental case to 33% of the American public, according to a study by James Houran, a psychology professor at the Southern Illinois University School of Medicine”.  

Frankly, I am disappointed.  I would expect a progressive, politically-correct intellectual who claims: “I get better news; I read in three languages every day” to have higher standards than a racist redneck like myself.  I was told in one of my courses (just before I dropped out of high school) that rational people do not make sweeping generalizations.  Actually, isn’t it bigots and racists who tend to generalize?  Hmmm, I am confused.  I have no time to think about it now; I have to go to my high-school diploma equivalency course.  Perhaps one of the courses will cover the principles of climbing onto a high horse.  This will enable me to communicate with the PC intelligentsia (in three languages).

[pantarei]

SoCal Posted: Oct. 10 2003,03:03  

Plachon, what country are you from? I think we have an open slot on our axis of evil.  

Socal, I may be wrong but "axis of weasels" may be more accurate than "axis of evil" ??

cheers

[rabkk]

You're so cool dude! Pass the joint.

[SoCal]

Pantarei, if you are going to the trouble to right so much, I guess the least I can do is read it. I won't say that I agree 100%, but I do respect the fact that your posting is well thought out, logical, and an all around good argument.

If you weren't a leftist, sure we could be friends.

[plachon]

i fear we will never agree or convince each other of the validity of our arguments.

you are coming from the far left whilst i tend towards the right.

you are churning out history and won't see that i am talking about the present situation.

i have never said the u.s.gov.was good.

far from it.

i just said it is right to be doing what it is doing at this moment.

you confuse naivety with pragmatism.

and as for pilger,...another blinkered soul who will not look at both sides of a situation and who knows the solution before he has even been told what the problem is.

enjoy your train journey,

2nd class non-air is it? solidarity with the proletariat.(unless the company is paying) :laugh:  

Back from my visa travels by second class conveyances (not only a financial consideration, but the great unwashed masses make so much more convivial company than first class capitalists, I always find) and as expected you haven't ignored my last posting. Quite right too about the likelihood of our ever agreeing on our own seperate perspectives on current US govt. intentions and foreign policy. I would distance myself though from your notion of attributing it to rightist or leftist stances, as it is far more complex than just mere political ideology.

What I am intrigued by is your insistence that US govt. intentions in their "war on terror" are somehow more noble and beneficial to humanity, than their past wars? What exactly is it that has convinced you as a non-American (I take it?), that GWB and his cohorts are doing the right thing on this one and are not only motivated by selfish ideals, whether it is power, profits or good ol' blind nationalism? Please elaborate on how the present death-hawks are more enlightened or altruistic than say Clinton's team? And I would also strongly disagree with your other notion that the majority of "Western" nations (located predominantly in Europe, note) automatically feel their interests and ideals are being articulated by the hegemon, Loong Sam. You would call it "pragmatism", I would call it naivete or misplaced loyalty based on historical alliances, no longer valid in today's world. The war in Iraq, I think, has clearly highlighted these new paradigm shifts in "Western" alliances, with only Poland, Spain and UK being appeasers, while the US looks more and more isolated and reviled than ever. And if you think I'm only referring to US militarism, you're wrong, as I'm also thinking about the US's trashing of the Kyoto Treaty and utter selfishness in international trade agreements. May I refer you to Walden Bello's article in today's Post (Corporate America out to Kill G-21) for some deeper analysis. So, no I'm not just referring to the past, as you state, but am very much referring to the present.  

Very sorry to hear you do not like John Pilger's writings and films. But partly thanks to him and a few others who dared to present the truth at great personal risk, two countries in SE Asia are today free of genocidal regimes supported by past US govts. This world desperately needs more John Pilger's to present alternative perspectives to the asinine CNN version of events.

And to SoCal, I come from the country of the biggest spin-weasel of the lot - B.liar    

[pantarei]

rabkk Posted on Oct. 10 2003,08:00

You're so cool dude! Pass the joint.

Wrong again!  Should be "Pass the protein bar".

rabkk 2003  Posted: Oct. 09 2003,10:22  

Regarding the guy you voted for, Governator Arnold, as long as you have money in the US and/or a famous name you can even sell a mental case to the American public!  

Dead wrong again!

REUTERS

Germans Criticize Leaders, Admire 'Arnold Effect'

Fri October 10, 2003 10:56 AM ET

By Erik Kirschbaum

BERLIN (Reuters) - Call it the "Arnold Effect."

The straight-talking Hollywood action star's election win in California has had an electrifying impact on Germany, leading to calls Friday for top politicians to voice clear ideas in simple language or be swept away at the polls.

http://www.reuters.com/printer....3594012