There was a Republican debate in Iowa last week. I was following the stock market, and it was moving up earlier. The Dow Jones Index had stabilized around 80 points plus when the debate started. It was interesting to see how the debate influenced the market indices.

The candidates were not exactly Churchillian, even with the country engaged in two wars and possibly facing a third one. But then nobody has sounded Churchillian, not even on 9/11 and the days after- remember the great Decider oratory about defeating the terrorists by going shopping? How more ordinary can leaders get?. But they were excited, drooling, about cutting taxes furiously (or is it slashing, which evokes those teen films) in order to achieve the following lofty goals, not all of them Lafferian:

Clean up the environment (one or two actually conceded that global warming existed, and to hell with Rush Limbaugh and that angry chubby guy on CNN Headline News).

Stop illegal immigration (Rep. Tomas Tancredo was salivating at this point, who knows: perhaps he was even undergoing more although he doesn't seem like the type, because he looked almost joyous, a very uncharacteristic state for him. Or maybe he was just grimacing, thinking of all those child rapists and other criminals waiting to cross the border)
Defeat terrorism, especially Islamic terrorism whether Sunni, Shi'a, Salafi, or Unitarian. (plausible over time).

Improve the quality of education (Rep. Hunter seemed ready to appoint Jaime A. Escalante, the teacher from Stand and Deliver, as secretary of education. Or maybe he just meant Edward James Olmos)
Improve the economy and employment (plausible)
Reduce dependence on foreign oil. (In your dreams, gentlemen. Besides, this may conflict with the goal of cleaning up the environment (see above)).

Encourage celibacy (definitely a quixotic quest, just ask Rudy).

Reduce abortion.

Raise overall moral standards (possible, but depends on what the definiton of it is).

The market indices gradually declined as they debated, and by the end of it the Dow had made a 150 point turnaround to the negative, with the Nasdaq and S&P following closely. The market buttomed at the end of the debate, and once the gentlemen had departed, the indices started to improve. They closed modestly up, and it was a good thing they ended the debate almost an hour before the markets closed- gave the markets time to recover.

I have no idea at this point what people in the Middle East think of all this. Perhaps we can have debates among the eligible sons of potentates to see who will get to the throne without having to off the others. But then all these will be of the male denomination, and where would that put Hillary?

Since there are no taxes in the Western sense in most Arab countries, things work backwards. The rulers and potentates get the income, from oil or sheep or whatever, and they get the first dibs, then it goes to the budget, where it is spent, and they get a second dibs through the various 'services' they provide. So, it is hard to see whose taxes can be slashed and cut here.

I also wonder what our leaders and potentates would think of Mike Huckabee's surprising discourse on the division of labor in the brain: right side for arts and creativity, left side for logic and analysis (I assume it is this way all over the world, not just in Arkansas). I wonder which side, if any, they use the most.
Cheers
Mohammed