From a European point of view, America has clearly done the right thing by electing, not just the best of a bad bunch, but a man who seems to have in spades all the necessary qualities for the job. Thank you America. (Especially when you think what could have happened: McCain/Palin - argh!)

Now he's just got one or two little things to fix - the economy, Iraq, global warming, etc. And he's up against the inertia of Congress, the industrial/military complex, a hostile media (in large part), a weight of expectation that cannot possibly be fulfilled, not to mention the Republicans and their many friends biting his legs every step of the way.

I wish him the very best of luck - he'll need it.

Brennan says:

"Also I think it's rather arrogant to think we're the only country that respects human rights. I think that we have a lot of assurances from these countries that we hand over terrorists to that they will, in fact, respect human rights."

This is so incredibly disingenuous. The only reason they hand these people over to the likes of Egypt, Syria, Jordan or Pakistan is that they KNOW they will be tortured, even more that the 'enhanced inerrogation techniques' they might receive at the hands of the CIA.

It also makes me sick that Brennan, while - maybe - repudiating American torture techniques like waterboarding nevertheless approves of extraordinary rendition.

Let alone the moral repugnance of this, does he know - or care - about the shock and fury this provokes abroad? And I don't just mean in Islamic countries but in countries like Germany and Italy - supposed allies - that have had their citizens (INNOCENT citizens it turns out) abducted and transported to countries where they have been imprisoned and tortured for years before being released, now broken both physically and mentally, without charge (or any apology or recompense for their ordeal).

Just imagine the outrage this would - rightly - cause in America if an American citizen were kidnapped on American soil by, say, Germany and spirited away for imprisonment and torture in a third country.

America's good name will never be restored until it publicly rejects and apologizes for the abomination that is extraordinary rendition. Obama must realize this but I am not hopeful given his choice of staff so far.

It seems to me he agrees with Dawkins but is trying to put a different slant on it.

Dawkins has said many times that he thinks the universe is a thing of awe and wonder and is to be marvelled at. Kauffman thinks this too but calls it 'sacred', or wants to give it the label 'God'.

So I don't really see, in practical terms, much difference in what he believes and what Dawkins believes. But there is a difference of approach: Dawkins is an aggressive atheist, believing that we'd all be far better off if religion were expunged from our societies, whereas Kauffman is looking for some common ground where religious and non-religious can share in the wonder of existence.

You takes your pick.

I agree. I'll take Dawkins too.

Is that like Taliesin the 6th century Welsh poet?

And not because of some self-imposed self-censorship but because there must be a thousand interesting and relevant things you could say about Michelle Obama and an essay on her butt is not one of them.

And while you're in soul-searching mode, ask yourselves why on earth you are still publishing that gas-bag Camille Paglia - she generates huge numbers of letters, most of them negative.

From a European point of view, that is.

I know individual Americans hold all sorts of view, but most institutions - government, the media, the business world - look pretty right wing from over here, so you can only assume that a majority of Americans want it that way.

The idea that the American media is 'liberal' is a joke; not much iconoclasm there, if you please. The media dutifully reflects establishment, i.e. Beltway, wisdom - witness the amazing abdication of journalistic responsibility of the 'liberal' Washington Post and New York Times in the run up to the Iraq war.

And Obama is a breath of fresh air after Bush - intelligent, dynamic and purposeful - but he too looks to be predominantly centre right; centre or even centre left in social issues maybe, but most of his appointments so far - with Hillary Clinton the latest - and the foreign policy noises coming from him signal a man of the moderate right.

When Blair first got elected in the UK it was a time of rejoicing for us centre left types. Here was an intelligent, charismatic and pragmatic man who promised an end to years of dreary Tory orthodxoy, but was no left wing ideologue who would alienate Middle England.

He jettisoned a few cherished Labour Party policies along the way, and embraced a few of the reviled Margaret Thatcher's policies because 'they worked'. Not to worry, we thought, we know he's got to say some of these things just to get elected, but once in power we'll see the real Tony Blair.

Well, we did.

Don't get me wrong - his government did some good things but, ultimately, he failed. His pragmatism gradually revealed itself to be an utter lack of ideology to the extent that we no longer knew what he believed, oe even if he believed in anything at all beyond just being in power.

And then there was the total betrayal of the Iraq war where, despite huge opposition throughout the country he followed George Bush - willingly and slavishly - into a disastrous war. That was the beginning of the end for Blair.

Please don't let Obama go this way. It's not just about 'what works'. There must be a moral and ethical (but NOT faith-based) dimension to policy. Otherwise it will all turn to dust.