Skeuomorphism: Apple's weak spot?

At home I use Mac laptops, Windows desktops and a combination of Linux and Windows in the workshops. So I am pretty used to the strengths and weaknesses of each.

When I first started using Windows 8 I was blown away by the cleanness of the graphical design. It is elegant and clutter free. Such a shame therefore that they have possibly ruined it by making it practically unusable. I don't care how pretty a system is, if I can't work out how to use it then it has failed.

Microsoft's mistake is making a radical change in the way the system works without giving the user any clue as to how to adapt to their new environment. Back when I was at the MIT AI lab folk used to joke that the LISP machine was an intelligence test for the user. Microsoft seem to have fallen foul of that mode of thinking for a mass market product.

So what mistake is Apple making right now? Austin Carr thinks it might be skeuomorphism and after reading his fascinating article, I think he might be right.

Skeuomorphism is a fancy name for the Apple fetish of making the UI look like real objects. The bookcase in the library has a wood grain texture, the notebook is leather-bound and so on. Reportedly, Steve Jobs loved that approach. I have always thought it looks tacky. However good a bitmap of a wood veneer is, it is a fake finish. It looks just as cheap and nasty viewed on my MacBook Pro Retina as it did on the Air that preceded it.

Real wood is a three dimensional texture, it has grain and depth and it changes with the light. Viewed on a glossy MacBooks display, Apple's faux wood textures only remind me of Formica, a cheap plastic laminate that is used to hide chipboard.

I don't want my expensive laptop covered in tacky faux finishes. According to the article, many Apple insiders agree. But as you might expect, only the non-Apple designers can say so in public:

In addition to being unhelpfully ostentatious, the visual metaphors are also outmoded in the eyes of many. Designer Gadi Amit, whose firm, NewDealDesign, designed the Lytro camera and Fitbit, points to the common use of the digital Rolodex to denote where contacts are stored. "I’m old enough, sure, but some of the guys in my office have never seen a Rolodex in real life," Amit says. "So these metaphors that were, in the early days of the computing revolution, relevant to assisting people in bridging the gap between the physical and digital worlds, are no longer necessary. Our culture has changed. We don’t need translation of the digital medium in mechanical real-life terms. It’s an old-fashioned paradigm."

This problem was brought home to me trying to explain the computer to my children. They have never seen a floppy disk in their life, so how are they meant to understand that the floppy disk icon means 'save'?

As for Linux, it really hasn't changed in the 20 years since I was on the AI lab UNIX-haters list, excerpts from which made their way into Simpson Garfinkel's excellent book, The Unix Hater's Handbook which is available online for free. Read the rest of this post...

AP: Romney lied, as advisers saw Libya/Egypt violence as "opportunity"

AP paints a devastating portrait of a man, Mitt Romney, who jumped the gun, didn't care that he was wrong, and whose staff was giddy that Americans were under attack abroad - while Americans saw death, Team Romney smelled "opportunity."

In Washington, Republican foreign policy veterans called Romney's initial statement premature and rushed, with limited facts and an incomplete understanding of what was happening in Egypt and Libya. Romney's team also was unclear about the timeline of when the Obama administration weighed in.

One Republican official advising Romney's campaign on foreign policy and national security issues painted a picture of a Romney campaign more focused on ensuring Romney's evening statement made it into morning news stories than on waiting for details about what had happened.

This official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid angering Romney's campaign, said that as word of violence spread, campaign aides late Tuesday watched tweets coming out of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo that were criticizing the filmmaker rather than condemning the attackers, and saw an opportunity to criticize Obama.

I've actually never seen this strong a criticism from AP in one of their fact checks. This is one of those times where even the media - which sometimes tries so hard to be objective that they're afraid to call a lie a lie - calls a lie a lie.

For example, AP points out that Romney lied when he claimed that the US embassy issued their statement after the attacks - it was hours before, that's why the statement didn't condemn the violence.  There hadn't been any violence yet.

A damning fact check from AP:

The gunfire at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, had barely ceased when Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney seriously mischaracterized what had happened in a statement accusing President Barack Obama of "disgraceful" handling of violence there and at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.

"The Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks," Romney said in a statement first emailed to reporters at 10:09 p.m. Eastern time, under the condition it not be published until midnight.

In fact, neither a statement by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo earlier in the day nor a later statement from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton offered sympathy for attackers. The statement from the Cairo Embassy had condemned anti-Muslim religious incitement before the embassy walls were breached. In her statement, issued minutes before Romney's, Clinton had offered the administration's first response to the violence in Libya, explicitly condemning the attack there and confirming the death of a State Department official.

Oh my God. AP walks you through what happened in a timeline, moment by moment - and it's devastating. Romney got everything wrong, but boy was he willing to jump and be the first one heard on the issue, even as the crisis was unfolding and no one knew what was happening.  Read this entire piece by AP.  It's long, detailed and devastating. Read the rest of this post...

Runner who called out Ryan's marathon time: It's a "verifiable lie"

As he says himself, it speaks to his character. Paul Ryan has looked bad since being chosen as Romney's running mate. He has not been able to provide policy details, he's talking a different story than Romney on many issues and he consistently has problems with telling the truth about his personal life and in his speeches.

LetsRun.com:

LRC: Are you surprised with how much attention the matter has received? One little post on a message board has generated a lot of attention. Do many people know that you are the guy who kicked this whole thing off?

Bill Walker: No. A Vice-Presidential nominee telling a verifiable lie about himself should attract a lot of attention. It speaks to his character, and that's relevant to the issue of whether someone should vote for Romney/Ryan in November.

It was one little post, but every story has a starting point. The credit goes to the letsrun.com posters who jumped on the question and pointed out repeatedly that they could not find any proof of Ryan's claim -- which attracted the attention of Scott Douglas at Runner's World, who called the Congressman's campaign office and got the truth.

My family, my running friends, and some of my law partners know about my starting the thread. My five minutes of fame.

LRC: So what's your take on Paul Ryan's explanation on the discrepancy?

Bill Walker: I don't believe him. I think he knew the truth about his one marathon when he gave the interview, and he just didn't care if he stretched the truth if it made him look better to potential voters.

Read the rest of this post...

Everything Romney touches about foreign policy goes wrong

Once again, Mitt Romney wades into foreign policy, and once again Mitt Romney screws up.

The UK Olympics

First there was his visit to the UK for the Olympics, where he offended our top ally again, and again, and again. Romney's staff also used the occasion of the foreign trip to take a potshot at the President, something that has traditionally been frowned upon by politicians when traveling abroad.

Poland

Then he went to Poland, and his aide was caught on tape making a vulgar comment at a location holy to the Polish people.

Israel

And finally he went to Israel, where he insulted the Palestinians while suggesting that Jews have some innate talent for making money (in much of the world that's considered an anti-Semitic slur). And then he came back to the US and only days after visiting Israel, Sista Souljah'd the US' top ally in the Middle East by suggesting that the Jewish state was built by socialists, and socialist are very bad un-American people.

Libya/Egypt Violence

And now Mitt Romney wades into something serious. A foreign policy, national security crisis. American lives are on the line. Four Americans are dead. So what does Mitt Romney do? He jumps the gun, and before he has all the facts, he politicizes the crisis, only a few hours old, by taking a partisan potshot at the President. Then, in the face of growing criticism, he holds a press conference in which he smirks the entire time, while speaking of the murder of four Americans, including a US ambassador, and then Romney gets the capital of Libya wrong.

The Scandal Over His Own Foreign Policy Spokesman

The man is a walking time-bomb of foreign policy inexperience, insult, injury and inappropriateness.  Heck, Romney couldn't even hire a foreign policy spokesman with causing an unnecessary controversy.  To suggest that Mitt Romney is in over his head is putting it kindly.  If he has to run for president, he should turn in his passport, keep his mouth shut, and leave our national security to the experts. Read the rest of this post...

Wash Post editorial blasts Romney for "crude political attacks" over Libya/Egypt violence

Washington Post editorial board:

Mr. Romney did not then know the extent of the Benghazi incident — his statement referred only to “the death of an American consulate worker.” So it was stunning to see the GOP nominee renew his verbal offensive Wednesday morning, when the country was still absorbing the news of the first death in service of a U.S. ambassador since 1988, as well as the loss of three other Americans. Though reports were still sketchy, it appeared that a militant jihadist group, Ansar al-Sharia, took advantage of the Benghazi protest to stage an armed assault that overwhelmed the Libyan security force at the consulate.

At a news conference, Mr. Romney claimed that the administration had delivered “an apology for America’s values.” In fact, it had done no such thing: Religious tolerance, as much as freedom of speech, is a core American value. The movie that provoked the protests, which mocks the prophet Mohammed and portrays Muslims as immoral and violent, is a despicable piece of bigotry; it was striking that Mr. Romney had nothing to say about such hatred directed at a major religious faith.

Read the rest of this post...

Romney gets capital of Libya wrong in press conf criticizing Obama on foreign policy

Mitt Romney got the capital of Libya wrong in his opportunistic statement this morning criticizing the President about his handling of the attacks against the US embassy in Cairo and the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Romney referred in his statement to the "embassies" and particularly to "our embassy at Benghazi, Libya."  He made the mistake three times, so it wasn't just a slip of the lip.

Any first year international relations student knows that our diplomatic offices in the capital are "embassies," and our offices in cities that are not the capital are "consulates."

This means that Romney either had no idea what the capital of Libya was when he said it was Benghazi (it's Tripoli, obviously), or he had no idea what the difference was between "embassies" and "consulates," which is so basic Diplomacy 101 that it's frightening that Mitt Romney wants to be commander in chief in four months and had no idea about the difference.

I did my graduate studies international public policy at Georgetown.  This is no small matter.  Or rather, it's such a small matter, such an obvious point, that it's frightening Romney had no idea that he was making the error.

It's a rookie mistake to confuse embassies and consulates, and it's the kind of thing that anyone with any training in diplomacy and international relaOtions would immediately look out for, and notice.  Romney should have seen this speech and immediately said "Libya's capital is Tripoli, and our embassy isn't in Benghazi."  But he didn't.  Because Mitt Romney simply has no background in foreign policy.  But that didn't stop him from weighing in immediately on a major national security crisis, with the presidential backdrop and all.

Let's hope a future "President Romney," God forbid, does a fact-check before he starts bombing the wrong city.

Here is the video, and below is the transcript (note Romney get it wrong at 0:17, 0:55, 1:22).



Here is Mitt Romney's statement, the transcript is from his campaign itself, I got it by email:

From: Romney Press Shop mailto:Press@mittromney.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 10:25 AM
Subject: ROMNEY: AMERICAN LEADERSHIP IS STILL SORELY NEEDED

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Romney Press Office
September 12, 2012
857-288-3610

ROMNEY: AMERICAN LEADERSHIP IS STILL SORELY NEEDED

Boston, MA – Mitt Romney delivered the following remarks on yesterday’s attacks on American diplomatic missions in Egypt and Libya:

“Americans woke up this morning with tragic news and felt heavy hearts as they considered that individuals who have served in our diplomatic corps were brutally murdered across the world. This attack on American individuals and embassies is outrageous, it's disgusting. It breaks the hearts of all of us who think of these people who have served, during their lives, the cause of freedom, and justice and honor. We mourn their loss and join together in prayer that the spirit of the Almighty might comfort the families of those who have been so brutally slain.

“Four diplomats lost their life, including the U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, in the attack on our embassy at Benghazi, Libya. And, of course, with these words, I extend my condolences to the grieving loved ones, who have left behind, as a result of these who have lost their lives in the service of our nation, and I know that the people across America are grateful for their service and we mourn their sacrifice.

“America will not tolerate attacks against our citizens and against our embassies. We will defend also our constitutional rights of speech and assembly and religion. We have confidence in our cause in America. We respect our Constitution. We stand for the principles our Constitution protects. We encourage other nations to understand and respect the principles of our Constitution because we recognize that these principles are the ultimate source of freedom for individuals around the world.

“I also believe the Administration was wrong to stand by a statement sympathizing with those who had breached our embassy in Egypt instead of condemning their actions. It's never too early for the United States Government to condemn attacks on Americans, and to defend our values. The White House distanced itself last night from the statement, saying it wasn't ‘cleared by Washington.’ That reflects the mixed signals they’re sending to the world.

“The attacks in Libya and Egypt underscore that the world remains a dangerous place and that American leadership is still sorely needed. In the face of this violence, America cannot shrink from the responsibility to lead. American leadership is necessary to ensure that events in the region don’t spin out of control. We cannot hesitate to use our influence in the region to support those who share our values and our interests. Over the last several years, we have stood witness to an Arab Spring that presents an opportunity for a more peaceful and prosperous region, but also poses the potential for peril, if the forces of extremism and violence are allowed to control the course of events.

“We must strive to ensure that the Arab Spring does not become an Arab Winter.”

Read the rest of this post...

Romney blasted by GOPers for jumping gun, politicizing death of US ambassador to Libya

I just went through the video of Romney's presser, and just going through a portion of the 11 minutes, I found 15 more smirks throughout the video.  It's starting around four minutes that the smirks begin and don't end.  Every time he's done talking, he smirks.  Here are 15 or so, there are many more.

Is this the expression of a head of state publicly honoring the deaths of American citizens?

These last two show Romney after he's done with the press conference, and is walking away.  This is where AP, below, caught him smirking.  Note how the smirk doesn't stop - it stays.  This wasn't just one errant photo.

UPDATE: Sarah Palin joined Mitt Romney and RNC Chair Priebus in jumping the gun and politicizing the attack on the US embassy and consulate in Egypt and Libya. Note Palin's statement. Not a word about the US ambassador murdered. Zero. No mention of his name, no mention that even an ambassador was killed. No, Palin's statement, as usual, is her typical self-aggrandizing partisanship. But when Palin found out, with the rest of us, that it wasn't just "an American official," but a US ambassador and three other Americans, who were murdered - she doesn't say boo.

THIS JUST IN: Romney caught smirking, twice, while doing press conference about murdered US ambassador to Libya. There are two photos, not one - this wasn't just an odd moment where the camera caught an odd expression. The man was smirking during and while leaving a press conference about the murder of a US ambassador in the middle of a growing and major foreign policy crisis.

Check out this first photo of Romney leaving the press conference, thinking no one can see his face. Smug, happy with himself, as though he pulled an "I gotcha" on President Obama rather than somber about the fact that Americans lay dead and our country is now embroiled in a major foreign policy crisis. Romney is, instead, pleased. With himself. Romney's reaction: He smirked.

Jed at DailyKos caught a second instance of Romney smirking, self-assuredly, while discussing the murder of Americans in a major foreign policy crisis.

To suggest that the man is not ready for prime-time would be putting it lightly. He's smiling, happy, content at a moment of national crisis when American lie dead?

Now let's play devil's advocate. Maybe Romney was just incredibly uncomfortable assuming the role of a leader on foreign policy, so he couldn't control his emotions. Is that really any better? That the man is so inexperienced that he uncontrollably smirks during foreign policy crises? Imagine the message that sends.
_____

From Ben Smith at Buzzfeed:

"Foreign Policy Hands Voice Disbelief At Romney Cairo Statement": “Bungle… utter disaster…not ready for prime time… not presidential… Lehman moment.” And that's just the Republicans.

"They were just trying to score a cheap news cycle hit based on the embassy statement and now it’s just completely blown up," said a very senior Republican foreign policy hand, who called the statement an "utter disaster" and a "Lehman moment" — a parallel to the moment when John McCain, amid the 2008 financial crisis, failed to come across as a steady leader.

He and other members of both parties cited the Romney campaign's recent dismissals of foreign policy's relevance. One adviser dismissed the subject to BuzzFeed as a "shiny object," while another told Politico that the subject was the "president's turf," drawing a rebuke from Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol.

"I guess we see now that it is because they’re incompetent at talking effectively about foreign policy," said the Republican. "This is just unbelievable — when they decide to play on it they completely bungle it."

"Its bad," said a former aide to Senator John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign. "Just on a factual level that the statement was not a response but preceding, or one could make the case precipitating. And just calling it a 'disgrace' doesnt really cut it. Not ready for prime time."

A third former Republican, a former Bush State Department official, told BuzzFeed, "It wasn't presidential of Romney to go political immediately -- a tragedy of this magnitude should be something the nation collectively grieves before politics enters the conversation."

Even Mitt Romney's own campaign surrogate, attack-dog John Sununu, said he made a mistake by jumping the gun and politicizing the death of a US ambassador in Libya. From a National Journal article titled "Romney Campaign Denies Acting Rashly on Libyan Situation":

Yet, even Romney surrogates questioned the timing of Romney’s statement, which referred to the death of an American official, and originally carried a midnight eastern standard time embargo to avoid political criticism on 9/11.

“They probably should have waited,” said former Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H. “You look at the way things unfolded, you look at the timing of it, they probably should have waited.”

Yesterday in Egypt and Libya, mobs attacked the US embassy and consulate after a video attacking the prophet Muhammad as a pedophile was promoted by that infamous Florida preacher who previous had threatened to burn the Koran. Crowds in both countries went wild, the US ambassador to Libya and three other American staff ended up dead.

Americans had no idea what was going on. Even the State Department and White House were saying that one American was dead, not four. We didn't even know that a US ambassador had been killed.

And what did Mitt Romney do? He saw the death of Americans as a partisan political opportunity. He issued a statement blasting some tweets - yes, some tweets - from the US embassy in Cairo. Mind you, these were the folks who were still under attack, so it's understandable how they might issue a statement to try to calm the mobs, a statement that might not have been well thought out.

It's less understandable why Mitt Romney thinks that leader are supposed to immediately issue partisan statements during international crises, even when they don't have the full information about what is going on, even when American lives are still in danger.

Not only does Mitt Romney have less experience than Sarah Palin in foreign policy (at least she could see Russia), but he doesn't have the temperament to be commander in chief.

Christian Heinze
‏@CPHeinze
[Reagan speechwriter] Peggy Noonan: "I don't feel that Mr. Romney has been doing himself any favors in the past few hours."

[Bush-Cheney 04 campaign chairman] Matthew Dowd
‏@matthewjdowd
Romney react feels a lot like ready, fire, aim.

@BuzzFeedBen: If you think the eye-rolling at Romney is just coming from the MSM, call up some Republican foreign policy hands.

@jonathanalter Romney's timing on politicizing the killing of US ambassador is not just dumb but a sign of desperation.

Garance Franke-Ruta ‏@thegarance
Romney is using the occasion of the death of a US ambassador in Libya to condemn Obama for some social media dip at the Cairo embassy.

Anthony De Rosa ‏@AntDeRosa
This statement makes Romney seem small, not presidential

Read the rest of this post...

Obama FTC appointee Joshua Wright has ties to Google; Google has had business before FTC

There are lots of stories lurking behind Google, many not good. They are a behemoth, a billionaire predator, but most of "us" think of them as "our" billionaire predator because (a) they're Silicon Valley–based, and (b) they opposed SOPA & PIPA.

But don't be fooled. At some point I'll have time to peel that onion, and there's rot inside it.

For now though, just a taste. This story reveals the nexus intersect of NeoLiberal Barack Obama; the faux–consumer-centric Federal Trade Commission (their supposed job is to police the anti-trust borders); the billionaires behind growing dinosaur Google, and ... the fabulous Koch Bros.

■ Let's start with the news, from Chris O'Brien, a tech columnist for the San Jose Mercury News (my emphases everywhere and some paragraph violence):

Obama FTC Nominee Joshua Wright Has Ties To Google

President Obama announced Monday that he had nominated George Mason University professor Joshua Wright for the U.S. Federal and Trade Commission. Wright has been selected to replace a Republican on the committee, and as such, it will come as no surprise that Wright has a long track record of advocating against anti-trust enforcement and the heavy hand of government.

But what seems to be overlooked in much of the coverage of his selection is that Wright has a history of receiving funding for his work from groups supported by Google. And of course, as we know, Google has had some ongoing tussles with the FTC, and will likely have more down the road.

I first came across Wright’s name earlier this year as part of research for a column I wrote examining the various ways Google and Microsoft sought to engage third parties such as lawyers, pundits, academics, and communications firms, to influence public opinion and policy. There is little requirement to disclose the money that goes toward wielding this soft influence.

I get it. Wright hates the "heavy hand of government" unless he can wield it to benefit his paymasters.

So first take-away — Wright is Google's man on the FTC. Great place to have a "man" (paid retainer) if you have once and future business with this supposed anti-trust minder.

Remember, Obama put him there. Unless this is just heavy senatorial horsetrading — and remember, Obama's pretty much on board with this big-donor stuff already — can you guess the payout? (Think campaign; then think Legacy Library donor. Then ask — is Obama a retainer as well? Sorry, just being a literalist. Look up retainer; it does have a meaning.)

■ Now for the George Mason "University" side — it's a Koch Bros Joint. Desmogblog (a nice site to keep in rotation, by the way) has the goods:

Koch and George Mason University

Funding and Connections

Since 1985, George Mason University (GMU), and its associated institutes and centers, has received more funding from the Koch Family Charitable Foundations than any other organization--a total of $29,604,354. The George Mason University Foundation has received the most funding, $20,297,143, while the Institute for Humane Studies has been directly given $3,111,457, the Mercatus Center $1,442,000, and George Mason University itself has received $4,753,754.

In addition to financial ties, Koch also has personnel involved with the university. Richard Fink, the vice president of Koch Industries, Inc., and the former president of the Charles G. Koch Foundation and the Claude R. Lambe Foundation, serves on the board of directors of the George Mason University Foundation and the Mercatus Center.

Fink's connection to George Mason University is strong. Besides teaching at the university from 1980-1986, Fink has also served on a number of boards at the university including the Institute for Humane Studies and the Center for the Study of Public Choice, the Board of Visitors, and the Student Affairs Committee.

There's much more where that came from; do click. And the Mercatus Center is particularly infamous (and useful).

(If you're DC-based, did you notice that the Koch Bros are touted on the Mall as funding Smithsonian stuff? Add in Nova and it's a great sludge PR campaign: "Chas & David Koch: you know, the science guys.")

So GMU and Joshua Wright are Koch-connected. If approved (foregone, he's a Republican), Wright is Obama's Google's man on the FTC.

But is Obama also Koch-connected? He is if he approves the Keystone Pipeline. And as I read Obama, he wants Keystone bad, but will delay until after the election.

Interesting club they have (that you're not a part of).

Barack Obama – Federal Trade Commission – Joshua Wright – Google Inc. – George Mason "University" – Koch Brothers – Keystone Pipeline – (Barack Obama Legacy Library).

Our Betters; they run the world for them and pretend it's for us. How thoughtful of them (us, to keep them in power).

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
  Read the rest of this post...

Romney warns of defense cuts his vice presidential candidate voted for

So, two weeks late, Mitt Romney finally got around to thanking the troops yesterday. And then he took a swipe at the automatic budget cuts that will go into effect if Congress can't reach a new budget deal.

Facing criticism for failing to mention American troops or the Afghan war effort in his convention speech, Mitt Romney spoke before National Guard members on Tuesday and called for robust support of the nation’s armed forces, saying that “the return of our troops cannot and must not be used as an excuse to hollow out our military through devastating defense budget cuts.”

Mr. Romney highlighted the threat of automatic Pentagon cuts after a failure to reach a budget deal in Congress — a theme he has used recently to hammer the Obama administration.

Only problem? Romney's VP candidate, Paul Ryan voted for that budget deal.

You see, Romney and the Republicans have been trying to blame President Obama for the automatica budget cuts, including defense, that congress voted for a ways back. The Republicans were on board, or the thing wouldn't have passed. But now, the Republicans - as many of us predicted - have no intention of keeping their part of the bargain, and surprise, they want defense exempt from the automatic cuts.

So, in an effort to stop the defense cuts, and to score partisan gain, the Republicans have somehow come up with the notion that President Obama is responsible for the impending cuts. When in fact, it's Paul Ryan who's responsible because he's the guy who voted for the trigger.

But never underestimate Mitt Romney's, and especially Paul Ryan's, ability to lie. If Romney and Ryan are responsible for it, you can be sure that they'll be blaming you for it any day now. Read the rest of this post...

Romney victory would destroy US relations with Europe

While meaning to bash Obama, the Romney team has repeatedly slammed Europe as if it's a tainted region. Though Romney lived in a mansion in a posh neighborhood of Paris while sitting out the Vietnam war, that was yesterday and today it's bash Europe day.

What's especially interesting about this new poll is that even with our strongest traditional friend, Brits are turned off by Romney. His clumsy European vacation was a classic example of the ugly American, offending everyone at every opportunity. Even Bush had more common sense than the deep-pocketed Romney.

Does the US really need another round of bad relations with our allies?

But the most striking finding was the level of antipathy towards the Republican in Europe. Although he is still largely an unknown quantity outside the US, he alienated many during an ill-fated overseas trip in the summer, particularly in Britain, where he appeared to publicly criticise Olympic planning and the level of enthusiasm for the London games.

Forty-seven percent of UK respondents said a Romney victory would make them feel less favourable towards the US, and only 3% would make them feel more favourable.

That sentiment was mirrored in Germany and France, where only 4% and 5% respectively said that he would make them feel more favourable towards the US. In Germany, 48% said it would make them feel less favourable and in France 38%.

Anyone else remember the silly story that the Romney campaign floated during his trip to the UK about the Churchill bust? Besides being an odd point to make - what other country puts the bust of a foreign leader in the office of their president? - it also shows how little he understands about the world around him. He's keen to provide the symbolism of an old friend yet his actions show something else. Romney is viewed as a blundering, offensive fool, even in the UK. Read the rest of this post...