[polls close] first report from france

Seconds ago, from le Figaro:

75,11% de participation à 17h

La participation au second tour de la présidentielle atteint un niveau record à cette heure, depuis 1965.

From le Monde [right]

So sorry for her but it could never have been. I hope they don't take bad photos of her - it wouldn't be right.

Just one moment to reflect on the French people. That's twice they've got it right now - both in the referendum and in this poll. Clearly no fools.

[debates] republican and democrat

Trying here to get a line on the Republican and Democrat debates - not just from an MSM point of view - but it's so hard finding an impartial commentator. These bloggers helped out.

Chris Cillizza, of the WP, saw the Democrat Debate this way:

Clinton entered the debate with high expectations and managed to meet them -- not an easy task. While Clinton didn't determine the format of the debate, she definitely benefited from it.

Sen. Joe Biden (Del.): Regularly one of the more quotable candidates on stage, an important trait in the TV age. Gov. Bill Richardson (N.M.): more like a stand-up comic than a candidate, uncomfortable at times.

Former Sen. Mike Gravel (Alaska): People don't like angry in their presidential candidates. And, "angry" typified Gravel's performance last night.

Comments by Cillizza's commenters:

HRC-I don't think you can say she was a winner. Her BIGGEST problem is that there are alot of us out here who do not like her. Period. She was poised and answered the questions in well scripted ways, which is one of the reasons why alot of us don't like her.

The loser I will give you. Richardson. Biden did well and I think will now move up to the 4th spot on the line. Edwards and Obama (and I think HRC too) held their own. No major problems but no real home runs either.

Obama will start to roll out policy specifics real soon. Hillary I think is going to see her poll numbers level from the slight drop they have been taking. Edwards is going to continue to do what he has been, working Iowa, NH, Nevada, and SC hard, and trying to raise money to stay viable. I think of all the big three Edwards will benefit most from Richardson's fall. Most of us know that Biden and Dodd are non-starters. [Andy R]

Survey U.S.A. had it:

Obama, then Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Richardson, Kucinich, Dodd, and Gravel. Hilary's too slick, and that creates a mistrust factor among many of us. Does she have the woman's vote? Not this woman's! [Razorback]

Dave Winer saw the Republican Debate this way:

Remember this name: Ron Paul. Renegade Republican candidate for President. McCain is trying to sound like a president. Mitt Romney plays a dad on TV. If Giuliani doesn't win he could take over the Hanibal Lecter character.

They mention Schwarzenegger, and I realize none of these guys could even remotely win against Arnold. Of course they don't want to change the Constitution, he'd kick their ass.

Giuliani got Roe v Wade more right than the rest of them.

Trapper John [Daily Kos] ran a poll on Who Won/Lost-Least-Miserably?

Zombie Reagan 38%, Paul 28%, Romney 10%, Huck 4%,McCain 3%, Newt/Fred Thompson 3%, Rudy 3%, (Tommy) Thompson 2%,Tancredo 1%, Gilmore 1%, Brownback 1%, Hunter 0%.

So, what's Ron Paul's story?

Paul advocates the limited role of government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency. He has earned the nickname "Dr. No" for voting against any bill he believes violates the Constitution.

Ron Paul finished first in the MSNBC poll following the GOP primary debate with 43 percent -- beating second place Mitt Romney by 5 percentage points.

Problem? Born 20 August, 1935. It's not looking so good for the old U.S.of A. Perhaps it's time for the SPPNA.

[britain when the rot set in

Just been re-reading the 2005 BBC News article by Brian Walden on the point where Britain "lost it" as a society and have to agree with his take. The article itself is here [pre-blogging days]. In a nutshell, Walden said:

An important point about Chamberlain is that Britain went to war in 1939 without enthusiasm, but utterly united. The united society soon became the fully mobilized society. I don't think the British people realised this at the time.

How did the freedom-loving British manage to direct so many people to go where they were needed so quickly? The Britain of those days was a socially disciplined and deferential society. Most people did what they were told and tried not to cause any trouble. Authority was respected.

The monarchy, Parliament, the law courts and the police all enjoyed great prestige. The British didn't have to be coerced into doing their patriotic duty. Once it was pointed out to them by the authorities, they were only too eager to do the right thing.

Yet it was in the war years that the pillars supporting this social deference began to crumble rapidly. All at once it seemed that nearly everybody rejected the norms of pre-war society. After Churchill became prime minister, nobody of any prominence wanted to hold out against state control to regulate social and economic life.

The great upheaval in British society didn't come with the Labour landslide in the House of Commons in 1945. It came years earlier during the Churchill coalition government.

Never before or since have I experienced a mood of egalitarianism and classlessness like it. Rationing and the blitz produced an intense sense of unity and a belief in fair shares.

After the war, financial security had gone, the Empire was disappearing, there were massive social changes and Britain was no longer a world power, though most of us - including our leaders - didn't realise it at the time.

An American Secretary of State, Dean Atchinson, put his finger on our new problem. In 1962 he said: "Great Britain has lost an empire and not yet found a new role." Perhaps we still haven't.

[who] we'll know in nine hours

Nice summation in Reuters this morning:

Her calls for boot camps for young offenders and measured criticism of some hallowed party policies proved popular but a gaffe-strewn debut to her campaign underscored doubts about her competence to lead a major economy and nuclear power.

[He] has worried moderates with his outspoken comments on crime and tough response to 2005 suburban riots, but has won new converts with his focus on traditional values, his reform plans and demand that he be judged by results.

It's hard to wait.

[jerseys] the great dairy cow debate

Absolutely nothing against the Guernsey or the Friesian Holstein but I never had much to do with the former and never quite warmed to the latter.

The Jersey is a lovely cow - good natured and it looks like a cow should. Plus, its 4.5% milk fat content is more than satisfying for table and cooking purposes. Low yield? Who cares.

Besides, its morals are suspect:

A heifer starts breeding at the early age of 15 months, known as "a heifer-in-calf" and will carry the calf for 9 months before birth.

The two breeds I used to milk were the Friesian and Jersey but I hasten to add it was using the machine. Unfortunately, I failed to score a milk-maid but one can't have everything.

[family] staying together, going it alone

"There are individual men and women and then there are families." [Margaret Thatcher, October 31st, 1987]

I'm still dwelling on the feeling expressed by so many last week that it is better to live alone, depending, as Ruthie commented, on the alternative.

In Russia, there are no support services for the families. My Russian friend was amazed, when he was in America, how families just shunted their old folk off into homes.

He couldn't get over how they, in his eyes, abrogated their responsibilities and assuaged their consciences by occasional, even daily visits but more than that, vehemently felt they were more than fulfilling their part of the social bargain.

I remained silent.

There were countless western explanations he quoted to me: "Look, we kept her at home until she could no longer cope. Where she is now - she has care, friendship, a pleasant environment and it's not as if it comes cheaply either."

This business is very much on my mind.

With my own parents departed, I thought that was the end on't but it's not. My best mate had to rush off ten minutes ago to take care of an emergency and it's not good. Not in the least. The whole system is not good.

Extended family is an absolute necessity in the former Soviet republics for support and comfort. No one else is going to help - they have their own problems to cope with. You go it alone and that means the grown son or daughter and even those younger must step in and do their part.

The only positive effect is to provide social cement which keeps the extended family together. I don't mean husbands and wives, the notoriously weak link in the chain and the most unreasonable but inter-generational and sibling cohesion.

The Russians have the same root word for sister and cousin - family is family, however widely spread. The second question I'm always asked is about my family [the first is where I'm from}. They're not prying, they just want to establish the links and clans, as it were, so they know with whom they're dealing.

You can call it primitive. I call it cohesive.

The elderly are never put in "homes". When they finally go to hospital, it's usually shortlived and then comes that terrible moment when they "come home", i.e. the medical staff claim they can do no more.

I don't need to spell out that even in its horror, this has a profound effect on family cohesion and on the sense of responsibility. I've seen and heard appalling arguments. They storm out but don't go off by themselves for long.

I have an essay by a girl about this right now. I set her a topic about "it's OK to lie if the truth would hurt" and she almost immediately deviated from it and wrote personally about social conditions. This is a 22 year old single mother I'm referring to here. That's what she is.

Next Friday I'm going to ask her if she'd let me post it here.

I'm criticizing myself, not any of you out there, when I say it's too easy now in the west. The Christian ethic has died and it's very much a "take the course of least resistance".

If you have the money, if there are good social support services, you can put ultimatums to the object of your ire, the weight around your neck, more confidently and you can be independent, depending on the housing shortages in that city. You can pay for your responsibilities to be taken care of.

Again and again, I'm not criticizing you. I don't know your own personal situation out there. I'm critizing me and quite harshly, as I feel it's deserved. I utilized the western system without realizing I was doing that.

It was all far too easy and my conscience is playing up something awful. Ellee left a comment at a lady blogger's site that she hoped they could get one of my blogfriends and myself to "loosen up" a bit.

Hope springs eternal.