I'm no Obama supporter, but I do feel the criticism of the US President by various sections of the media for his "anti-British" rhetoric is a bit rich.
After all, when Gordon Brown was telling anyone and everyone that the global financial crisis was the Yanks fault they all just seemed to nod along in agreement as if this was an obvious fact (it wasn't and isn't. The global financial crisis was the fault of every western nation - the sub-prime mortgage scam was just the ultimate symptom of a system out of control - and the system is called "globalisation").
Now that the boot is on the other fault and Obama is blaming a British company for the environmental catastrophe that has struck the Gulf Of Mexico the media are getting all huffy about it. Tough luck, guys - you shouldn't live in glass houses if you're gonna go around chucking bricks.
What is unforgivable, however, is for Obama to equate the Gulf oil spill crisis with 9/11.
What was the man thinking of? The attack on the twin towers was a premeditated and carefully planned act of wilful destruction and murder that cost the lives of almost 3000 people. The BP oil platform explosion was an accident - possibly an avoidable, but an accident all the same. There is no comparison - none whatsoever.
Of course BP should pay for clearing up the mess - and they will - but running about pointing fingers and shouting "it's your fault" isn't going to solve anything.
And just with the financial crisis we should all take a good long hard look at ourselves before we point the finger - as someone once said (Bob Marley?), when you point your finger there are three more pointing back at you. You could just as easily blame the US drive for energy independence (and thus the exploiting of offshore oil reserves) for the disaster - and when you boil that down that comes down to each and every one of us who demand cheap and reliable energy supplies.
Of course, I am one of those and I still support that demand for energy independence and cheap and reliable sources of energy (and, believe me, if wind farms could do it I would support them - but they can't so I don't). However, as far as Britain is concerned I believe we should be doing more than we are to exploit our natural coal reserves - estimated at 200 years of readily accessible supplies and a thousand years of harder to reach supplies.
Accidents and disasters happen in coal mines too and, when they do, it is right and proper that there inquiries to ascertain what went wrong, what could have been done to avoid it, how it can be avoided in the future and who is to blame.
None of this is helped by the leaders of any nation going around blaming other nations - whether it is a global financial crisis or an oil spill. If you really feel you must blame something then blame the thing that is really at the root of this - globalisation.
Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Monday, April 12, 2010
This is not America
Whenever I discuss the impending television debates between the leaders of media approved political parties I frequently come across the argument that "they've been having these debates in America for decades" as if this somehow clinches the argument.
We're not in America so it is totally irrelevant. If all that mattered to an argument is whether America does it or not then one could equally claim this is a clincher for an argument on the death penalty or chain gangs.
I get a similar response on the question of an elected second chamber - "it works for America", they bleat. It's true that the USA has an elected upper house, but whether it works or not is a contentious issue given that the US President is often too powerful when his party controls both houses and then a "lame duck" when his party controls neither. If that's the idea some people have of something that "works" then I'd hate to see something which they think is a complete dogs dinner.
Our democratic process and system is totally different from the USA's - and France's, Sweden's or Germany's. We share some cultural things with the USA - language, institutions, traditions (something we don't do with our European neighbours) but we're still an entirely different nation to the USA - or France, Sweden or Germany. The supposition that because something "works" for some other nation it ought to work for us is tenuous at best and ludicrous at worst.
The idea that this "leaders debate" will somehow improve democracy is ridiculous. First of all, we do not elect our Prime Minister - so Messrs Cameron, Brown and Clegg having a chat on national TV has no impact on who becomes Prime Minister - only on which political party gets to choose him or her.
Secondly, the debate excludes all the other parties which are not Labour, Tory and Lib Dem, therefore circumventing the democratic process and narrowing the choice down to three parties which are all pushing the same fundamental policies. Now some of those parties being excluded are not likely to win seats - but they are likely to win a considerable number of votes which could have a significant effect on the outcome of the election while other parties, though insignificant in England, are considerably important in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.
I don't believe that these debates will do anything to improve our democracy or to mend the "democratic deficit" which results in lower and lower turnouts and more and more disinterest in General Elections - but even if they do then I wonder at what cost that will be to our process of parliamentary democracy.
This is not America, we are not American and we do things very differently here. Just because the media are obsessed with copying everything the Yanks do in their seedy industry doesn't mean that we have to turn our democracy into a personality cult based soap opera.
We're not in America so it is totally irrelevant. If all that mattered to an argument is whether America does it or not then one could equally claim this is a clincher for an argument on the death penalty or chain gangs.
I get a similar response on the question of an elected second chamber - "it works for America", they bleat. It's true that the USA has an elected upper house, but whether it works or not is a contentious issue given that the US President is often too powerful when his party controls both houses and then a "lame duck" when his party controls neither. If that's the idea some people have of something that "works" then I'd hate to see something which they think is a complete dogs dinner.
Our democratic process and system is totally different from the USA's - and France's, Sweden's or Germany's. We share some cultural things with the USA - language, institutions, traditions (something we don't do with our European neighbours) but we're still an entirely different nation to the USA - or France, Sweden or Germany. The supposition that because something "works" for some other nation it ought to work for us is tenuous at best and ludicrous at worst.
The idea that this "leaders debate" will somehow improve democracy is ridiculous. First of all, we do not elect our Prime Minister - so Messrs Cameron, Brown and Clegg having a chat on national TV has no impact on who becomes Prime Minister - only on which political party gets to choose him or her.
Secondly, the debate excludes all the other parties which are not Labour, Tory and Lib Dem, therefore circumventing the democratic process and narrowing the choice down to three parties which are all pushing the same fundamental policies. Now some of those parties being excluded are not likely to win seats - but they are likely to win a considerable number of votes which could have a significant effect on the outcome of the election while other parties, though insignificant in England, are considerably important in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.
I don't believe that these debates will do anything to improve our democracy or to mend the "democratic deficit" which results in lower and lower turnouts and more and more disinterest in General Elections - but even if they do then I wonder at what cost that will be to our process of parliamentary democracy.
This is not America, we are not American and we do things very differently here. Just because the media are obsessed with copying everything the Yanks do in their seedy industry doesn't mean that we have to turn our democracy into a personality cult based soap opera.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
The "special" one
A group of MPs have questioned Britain's "special relationship" with the USA and some parts of the media have suggested that this means the relationship is over.
In truth, all they have actually done is attempt to restate what the "special relationship" is - and they got it more or less right. Over the last twenty years or so - and the last decade in particular - the general assumption has been that the "special relationship" consists of some sort of unwritten reciprocal arrangement to scratch one another's back.
This is mostly a media driven assumption - because the media today is extremely lazy and largely ignorant - but it is fairly easy to understand given the lengths Tony Blair went to ingratiate himself with the US authorities and public. But Blair wasn't doing that for Britain's benefit - because Blair is no fool.
Blair knew that he wasn't going to be PM for ever and he knows that most ex-Prime Ministers end up comparatively scratching an obscure living once they depart office. That was never going to be enough for the vain Blair and his crone wife. They wanted fame and money and they knew where that money was and where the pursuit of fame is rewarded - so Blair manipulated that "special relationship" for his own ends.
Personally speaking, that is enough to condemn Blair as a person and a politician - that he put his personal goals before those of the country he was supposed to be leading - but most people still don't understand that about Blair. I don't blame them - after all, we've become used to our politicians putting personal ambition before national interest ever since we joined the EU and the lines are now so blurred that few people recognise this when it happens.
Blair manipulated the "special relationship" to serve his own ends in the same way that many politicians on both sides of the House of Commons manipulate our relationship with the EU for their own ends. The difference is that the relationship with the EU is an enforced and uncomfortable one which is causing considerable damage to our national status and culture.
The "special relationship" with the US was not a political one. Instead it was about two distinct and separate nations who happened to have a lot in common - shared values, culture and even history. It was never about what we could do for each other except incidentally - it was about what we had in common with each other.
What ruined that relationship was not anything that happened in the last twenty years - it is what happened in 1973 when Heath took us into an alliance with a bunch of countries with whom we had little in common and nothing to learn from.
Our "special relationship" with the USA is the same now as it was in 1940 - and the same as it is with Australia, New Zealand and Canada. It's never had an official name, but generally it is known as the Anglosphere. The Anglosphere consists of other nations who, mainly due to our imperial past, have a lot in common with British values and culture and it is an accident of history that one of those happened to be the most powerful nation of the 20th century.
That's all the "special relationship" ever was and will be. The only way it can be changed is if something happens to change the values and culture of one of those nations. Well, something is happening that is changing the values and culture of one of those nations, but it is not in America, or in Canada or in Australia - it is happening here and it is called the EU.
In truth, all they have actually done is attempt to restate what the "special relationship" is - and they got it more or less right. Over the last twenty years or so - and the last decade in particular - the general assumption has been that the "special relationship" consists of some sort of unwritten reciprocal arrangement to scratch one another's back.
This is mostly a media driven assumption - because the media today is extremely lazy and largely ignorant - but it is fairly easy to understand given the lengths Tony Blair went to ingratiate himself with the US authorities and public. But Blair wasn't doing that for Britain's benefit - because Blair is no fool.
Blair knew that he wasn't going to be PM for ever and he knows that most ex-Prime Ministers end up comparatively scratching an obscure living once they depart office. That was never going to be enough for the vain Blair and his crone wife. They wanted fame and money and they knew where that money was and where the pursuit of fame is rewarded - so Blair manipulated that "special relationship" for his own ends.
Personally speaking, that is enough to condemn Blair as a person and a politician - that he put his personal goals before those of the country he was supposed to be leading - but most people still don't understand that about Blair. I don't blame them - after all, we've become used to our politicians putting personal ambition before national interest ever since we joined the EU and the lines are now so blurred that few people recognise this when it happens.
Blair manipulated the "special relationship" to serve his own ends in the same way that many politicians on both sides of the House of Commons manipulate our relationship with the EU for their own ends. The difference is that the relationship with the EU is an enforced and uncomfortable one which is causing considerable damage to our national status and culture.
The "special relationship" with the US was not a political one. Instead it was about two distinct and separate nations who happened to have a lot in common - shared values, culture and even history. It was never about what we could do for each other except incidentally - it was about what we had in common with each other.
What ruined that relationship was not anything that happened in the last twenty years - it is what happened in 1973 when Heath took us into an alliance with a bunch of countries with whom we had little in common and nothing to learn from.
Our "special relationship" with the USA is the same now as it was in 1940 - and the same as it is with Australia, New Zealand and Canada. It's never had an official name, but generally it is known as the Anglosphere. The Anglosphere consists of other nations who, mainly due to our imperial past, have a lot in common with British values and culture and it is an accident of history that one of those happened to be the most powerful nation of the 20th century.
That's all the "special relationship" ever was and will be. The only way it can be changed is if something happens to change the values and culture of one of those nations. Well, something is happening that is changing the values and culture of one of those nations, but it is not in America, or in Canada or in Australia - it is happening here and it is called the EU.
Saturday, November 07, 2009
Never the twain
If there is one thing that we can learn from the Moslem Major rampaging through a US camp shooting some forty people and killing thirteen, it is that Islam and liberal democracy are totally incompatible.
Here we have a man who had risen to the rank of Major - a doctor and supposedly moderate Moslem - who chooses to massacre his fellow countrymen because he sees them as a threat to his true nation; the nation of Islam. It's nothing new. We've had doctors and primary school teachers in this country do similar things.
Of course, the authorities will try and play down the role that Islam played in this. Just like we've seen in this country when Moslems kill fellow citizens indiscriminately the Islamic "community leaders" crawl out of the woodwork to express their concerns - their concerns that their religion will be blamed - and the national leaders fall over themselves as they rush to explain that this is nothing to do with Islam.
It is everything to do with Islam. There may be moderate Moslems, but there is no moderate Islam. Until there is then we will have to accept that the west and Islam can not get along together. As long as we pretend otherwise they will keep killing us and we will keep killing them.
We should get out of their lands and they should get out of ours.
Here we have a man who had risen to the rank of Major - a doctor and supposedly moderate Moslem - who chooses to massacre his fellow countrymen because he sees them as a threat to his true nation; the nation of Islam. It's nothing new. We've had doctors and primary school teachers in this country do similar things.
Of course, the authorities will try and play down the role that Islam played in this. Just like we've seen in this country when Moslems kill fellow citizens indiscriminately the Islamic "community leaders" crawl out of the woodwork to express their concerns - their concerns that their religion will be blamed - and the national leaders fall over themselves as they rush to explain that this is nothing to do with Islam.
It is everything to do with Islam. There may be moderate Moslems, but there is no moderate Islam. Until there is then we will have to accept that the west and Islam can not get along together. As long as we pretend otherwise they will keep killing us and we will keep killing them.
We should get out of their lands and they should get out of ours.
Monday, September 28, 2009
The art world has no shame
Once again, a policy of the USA has brought uproar to the world. There is widespread news coverage of the demonstrations, protests and condemnations against the US by people upset by its actions and the way their own governments appear to capitulate to US demands.
Only this time it is the art world -and the policy in question involves bringing a predatory paedophile to justice. When he was well into his forties, the film director Roman Polanski admitted having sex with a 13 year old child while in the USA - and then went on the run to escape justice. Now, after travelling to Switzerland to receive an award, the dirty old git has been arrested and faces extradition to the US.
Good!
But the art world is in uproar. How dare the Swiss arrest one of their great and good? How dare they give in to the demands of the US bullies? People appear on TV to denounce the US and the Swiss for their actions in pursuing a celebrated director.
Let's put this into perspective. If Roman Polanski were just a normal every day 76 year old paedophile nobody would give a damn. They'd all be glad that this disgusting creature was finally facing justice for his despicable acts - but because he is something in the art world this somehow makes statutory rape OK?
To be honest, the reaction from the art world doesn't surprise me. Art long ago gave up trying to reflect the culture that created it and started trying to shape the culture it existed in. Art became all about "pushing the boundaries" and being "challenging" - codewords for obscene and ugly. In a world where a pile of shit can be considered worthy art it is not a surprise that a predatory paedophile is so revered.
But to me, the reaction to the arrest of Polanksi is the ultimate shaming of the world of art. At least it would be if the art world had any shame.
Only this time it is the art world -and the policy in question involves bringing a predatory paedophile to justice. When he was well into his forties, the film director Roman Polanski admitted having sex with a 13 year old child while in the USA - and then went on the run to escape justice. Now, after travelling to Switzerland to receive an award, the dirty old git has been arrested and faces extradition to the US.
Good!
But the art world is in uproar. How dare the Swiss arrest one of their great and good? How dare they give in to the demands of the US bullies? People appear on TV to denounce the US and the Swiss for their actions in pursuing a celebrated director.
Let's put this into perspective. If Roman Polanski were just a normal every day 76 year old paedophile nobody would give a damn. They'd all be glad that this disgusting creature was finally facing justice for his despicable acts - but because he is something in the art world this somehow makes statutory rape OK?
To be honest, the reaction from the art world doesn't surprise me. Art long ago gave up trying to reflect the culture that created it and started trying to shape the culture it existed in. Art became all about "pushing the boundaries" and being "challenging" - codewords for obscene and ugly. In a world where a pile of shit can be considered worthy art it is not a surprise that a predatory paedophile is so revered.
But to me, the reaction to the arrest of Polanksi is the ultimate shaming of the world of art. At least it would be if the art world had any shame.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Change you can believe in?
From the American Thinker comes this rather disturbing letter.
On Thursday, May 14, 2009 I was notified that my Dodge franchise, that we purchased, will be taken away from my family on June 9, 2009 without compensation and given to another dealer at no cost to them. My new vehicle inventory consists of 125 vehicles with a financed balance of 3 million dollars. This inventory becomes impossible to sell with no factory incentives beyond June 9, 2009. Without the Dodge franchise we can no longer sell a new Dodge as "new," nor will we be able to do any warranty service work. Additionally, my Dodge parts inventory, (approximately $300,000.) is virtually worthless without the ability to perform warranty service. There is no offer from Chrysler to buy back the vehicles or parts inventory.
I don't know if this is genuine, but it appears to be.
Change you can believe in?
If you're from Zimbabwe, then yes.
On Thursday, May 14, 2009 I was notified that my Dodge franchise, that we purchased, will be taken away from my family on June 9, 2009 without compensation and given to another dealer at no cost to them. My new vehicle inventory consists of 125 vehicles with a financed balance of 3 million dollars. This inventory becomes impossible to sell with no factory incentives beyond June 9, 2009. Without the Dodge franchise we can no longer sell a new Dodge as "new," nor will we be able to do any warranty service work. Additionally, my Dodge parts inventory, (approximately $300,000.) is virtually worthless without the ability to perform warranty service. There is no offer from Chrysler to buy back the vehicles or parts inventory.
I don't know if this is genuine, but it appears to be.
Change you can believe in?
If you're from Zimbabwe, then yes.
Monday, April 06, 2009
Reality cheque
The excellent Janet Daley puts into words what I was thinking this morning regarding North Korea's missile test and various leaders condemning this as "unacceptable".
For that matter, what does he propose doing right now about North Korea? There was lots of heavy talk about how unacceptable that country's belligerent tour de force had been in firing what could have been a nuclear-armed missile over Japan – but talk, as they say, is cheap. What might the "punishment" be for such a "violation" of the coming nuclear-free world order? And who would be responsible for administering it?
Exactly. If you find something unacceptable you do something about it - or you tolerate it. Toleration does not imply acceptance, but if you tolerate something long enough it becomes considered acceptable. The fact is, NK's nuclear ambitions (as well as Iran's) may well be unacceptable to the leaders of the world, but the North Koreans know that there isn't a single thing they can do about it (as does Iran).
Their best buddies, the Chinese, will block any attempts to force through any serious UN Security Council resolution. The best they can hope for is slightly toughened sanctions - but as all these do is hurt the average Jong Public in the NK street I don't think the leaders of North Korea will worry too much. Besides, anything they need they can get through China - no questions asked.
They know that any military action will not get UN support - and without that (for some reason) that means there can be no widepsread public support for military intervention. Furthermore, with the US economy in freefall and their military already overstretched there is little the USA can do militarily. Which brings us to the next, excellent point Daley makes.
Post-war Europe has built its comfortable, deeply cushioned, welfare-state social democracy with the money it had once spent on armaments. Beating their swords into benefit payments has worked very nicely for all those peace-loving Europeans who turned their backs on militarism even as the Cold War raged. But it only worked because America was providing the arms and the defence protection that Europe highmindedly disdained.
Comfortable, deeply-cushioned and still completely unaffordable even with the money we once spent on defending ourselves. As Daley points out, Obama now wants that feather bed for his people and the message to Europe is clear - the US are not going to continue to pick up the tab for protecting Europe much longer.
Europe will have to fund its own defence and that is one big reality cheque.
For that matter, what does he propose doing right now about North Korea? There was lots of heavy talk about how unacceptable that country's belligerent tour de force had been in firing what could have been a nuclear-armed missile over Japan – but talk, as they say, is cheap. What might the "punishment" be for such a "violation" of the coming nuclear-free world order? And who would be responsible for administering it?
Exactly. If you find something unacceptable you do something about it - or you tolerate it. Toleration does not imply acceptance, but if you tolerate something long enough it becomes considered acceptable. The fact is, NK's nuclear ambitions (as well as Iran's) may well be unacceptable to the leaders of the world, but the North Koreans know that there isn't a single thing they can do about it (as does Iran).
Their best buddies, the Chinese, will block any attempts to force through any serious UN Security Council resolution. The best they can hope for is slightly toughened sanctions - but as all these do is hurt the average Jong Public in the NK street I don't think the leaders of North Korea will worry too much. Besides, anything they need they can get through China - no questions asked.
They know that any military action will not get UN support - and without that (for some reason) that means there can be no widepsread public support for military intervention. Furthermore, with the US economy in freefall and their military already overstretched there is little the USA can do militarily. Which brings us to the next, excellent point Daley makes.
Post-war Europe has built its comfortable, deeply cushioned, welfare-state social democracy with the money it had once spent on armaments. Beating their swords into benefit payments has worked very nicely for all those peace-loving Europeans who turned their backs on militarism even as the Cold War raged. But it only worked because America was providing the arms and the defence protection that Europe highmindedly disdained.
Comfortable, deeply-cushioned and still completely unaffordable even with the money we once spent on defending ourselves. As Daley points out, Obama now wants that feather bed for his people and the message to Europe is clear - the US are not going to continue to pick up the tab for protecting Europe much longer.
Europe will have to fund its own defence and that is one big reality cheque.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Play the game
Over on The Times they ponder the fact that Gordon Brown's hopes of saving the world are fading fast.
Gordon Brown’s hopes of leading the world out of recession at next month’s pivotal summit in London were undermined yesterday when European leaders flatly rejected calls for a further massive stimulus package.
I have a certain sympathy with the various EU leaders who are saying that they shouldn't go spending more money until they know whether the last stimulus has worked yet. It won't - but I have a certain sympathy with them. If it's any consolation, any other proposed stimulus from Brown won't work either.
The problem for Brown is that his belief in "interdependency" has left Britain almost wholly dependent on what others do - particularly in the EU. Consequently he knows that if he can't get the other EU nations to spend big to stimulate their economies the outlook for Britain is even more bleak.
You also have to admire the sheer chutzpah of the EU as well - with this.
They will also agree to fight against protectionism. Behind the consensus, though, lie deep fears among smaller countries that larger economies such as France and Germany will prioritise their industries over support for the principles of the EU’s internal market.
They are already agreeing to make up the difference in workers wages who are losing out due to the downturn. If that is not protectionist - what is? The EU is partly designed as a "protectionist" system. This is why we have the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) - to protect French farmers and rural communities. There is no other reason. Germany, meanwhile, still (as far as I'm aware) retain laws prohibiting foreign ownership of their key industries - such as car manufacturing.
This is something which so many commentators forget - or choose to ignore - the fact that most countries still retain substantial forms of protectionism. It's just that rather than being simple, transparent protectionist measures such as trade barriers and tariffs, they use hidden structures which - apart from anything else - cost a fortune to implement.
Britain is one of the few countries which doesn't have protectionism - and that is why we have such a dependency on other nations and why we are predicted to suffer in this "recession" more than any other developed nation. Either we learn to "play the game" the way the French, Germans and US do or we pick up our ball and go home. That's the choice we have - until we make that choice we'll always be the losers.
Gordon Brown’s hopes of leading the world out of recession at next month’s pivotal summit in London were undermined yesterday when European leaders flatly rejected calls for a further massive stimulus package.
I have a certain sympathy with the various EU leaders who are saying that they shouldn't go spending more money until they know whether the last stimulus has worked yet. It won't - but I have a certain sympathy with them. If it's any consolation, any other proposed stimulus from Brown won't work either.
The problem for Brown is that his belief in "interdependency" has left Britain almost wholly dependent on what others do - particularly in the EU. Consequently he knows that if he can't get the other EU nations to spend big to stimulate their economies the outlook for Britain is even more bleak.
You also have to admire the sheer chutzpah of the EU as well - with this.
They will also agree to fight against protectionism. Behind the consensus, though, lie deep fears among smaller countries that larger economies such as France and Germany will prioritise their industries over support for the principles of the EU’s internal market.
They are already agreeing to make up the difference in workers wages who are losing out due to the downturn. If that is not protectionist - what is? The EU is partly designed as a "protectionist" system. This is why we have the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) - to protect French farmers and rural communities. There is no other reason. Germany, meanwhile, still (as far as I'm aware) retain laws prohibiting foreign ownership of their key industries - such as car manufacturing.
This is something which so many commentators forget - or choose to ignore - the fact that most countries still retain substantial forms of protectionism. It's just that rather than being simple, transparent protectionist measures such as trade barriers and tariffs, they use hidden structures which - apart from anything else - cost a fortune to implement.
Britain is one of the few countries which doesn't have protectionism - and that is why we have such a dependency on other nations and why we are predicted to suffer in this "recession" more than any other developed nation. Either we learn to "play the game" the way the French, Germans and US do or we pick up our ball and go home. That's the choice we have - until we make that choice we'll always be the losers.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
The answers lie in our fields and our factories
Two articles on The Telegraph grabbed my attention this morning. First I read the item about President Obama's speech to the US nation regarding the economic crisis and the second was Simon Heffer's comment piece on the failure of the Tories and Labour Party to come up with any answers of their own.
Heffer seems concerned that the middle classes may not remain as stoical as they have done in the past when faced with a serious challenge. Speaking about how our fathers and grandfathers had come through wars, didn't have access to the material things we have now or the opportunities for travel we have now, Heffer says ....
The height from which our people now have to fall is far greater. Their tolerance of hardship, failure and adversity is doubtless generally much lower. The absence of war and poverty have softened us. The Dunkirk spirit is something bought on a booze cruise.
So there may be no "middle class" riots here this year. But who would rule them out when and if the time comes that democracy throws up no solution to the problems we face?
Heffer says that democracy has no solution to the problems we face because, as he says, neither the Tories or Labour seem to have a clue what to do about them. This is actually a little unfair. It's not that they don't know what to do - it's because the answers to our problems now lie in that huge chunk of sovereignty we have handed to the EU. Obama made it very clear in his speech where he thinks the answers lie.
"The answers to our problems don't lie beyond our reach. They exist in our laboratories and universities, in our fields and our factories, in the imaginations of our entrepreneurs and the pride of the hardest-working people on Earth."
That is a barely concealed message to the world that the US is going to be using protectionism to solve its problems in this economic crisis - and they are right to do so because it will work. Brown and Cameron can't do the same thing here because we no longer control the mechanisms that would allow us to do that.
The answers to these problems do lie out of our reach - and as long as we remain in the EU they will stay there.
Heffer seems concerned that the middle classes may not remain as stoical as they have done in the past when faced with a serious challenge. Speaking about how our fathers and grandfathers had come through wars, didn't have access to the material things we have now or the opportunities for travel we have now, Heffer says ....
The height from which our people now have to fall is far greater. Their tolerance of hardship, failure and adversity is doubtless generally much lower. The absence of war and poverty have softened us. The Dunkirk spirit is something bought on a booze cruise.
So there may be no "middle class" riots here this year. But who would rule them out when and if the time comes that democracy throws up no solution to the problems we face?
Heffer says that democracy has no solution to the problems we face because, as he says, neither the Tories or Labour seem to have a clue what to do about them. This is actually a little unfair. It's not that they don't know what to do - it's because the answers to our problems now lie in that huge chunk of sovereignty we have handed to the EU. Obama made it very clear in his speech where he thinks the answers lie.
"The answers to our problems don't lie beyond our reach. They exist in our laboratories and universities, in our fields and our factories, in the imaginations of our entrepreneurs and the pride of the hardest-working people on Earth."
That is a barely concealed message to the world that the US is going to be using protectionism to solve its problems in this economic crisis - and they are right to do so because it will work. Brown and Cameron can't do the same thing here because we no longer control the mechanisms that would allow us to do that.
The answers to these problems do lie out of our reach - and as long as we remain in the EU they will stay there.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Great expectations
After weeks - no, months of buildup we've finally reached the point when America has its first black president and the media plan to give us wall to wall coverage of the event even if we don't give a monkeys either way.
Obama will take office as, quite possibly, the least examined and most un-criticised incoming president ever - certainly of modern times. The media have made no attempt to find out what he actually stands for, what his plans are, how he intends to go about implementing them or anything else that they should be asking. Instead they've just accepted him and his mantra of "change" unquestioningly and at face value.
Unfortunately for Obama, that is not enough now. He can no longer hide behind ambiguity and disingenuous statements - he has to deliver the detail and the media are going to have to start asking awkward questions even if they don't want to.
The media have pinned great expectations on Obama and now he has to either live up to that or fall flat on his face. There is no in between for Obama - it is all or nothing. For that reason I expect him to be even more "radical" than most were expecting.
For that reason ... I fear for the USA.
Obama will take office as, quite possibly, the least examined and most un-criticised incoming president ever - certainly of modern times. The media have made no attempt to find out what he actually stands for, what his plans are, how he intends to go about implementing them or anything else that they should be asking. Instead they've just accepted him and his mantra of "change" unquestioningly and at face value.
Unfortunately for Obama, that is not enough now. He can no longer hide behind ambiguity and disingenuous statements - he has to deliver the detail and the media are going to have to start asking awkward questions even if they don't want to.
The media have pinned great expectations on Obama and now he has to either live up to that or fall flat on his face. There is no in between for Obama - it is all or nothing. For that reason I expect him to be even more "radical" than most were expecting.
For that reason ... I fear for the USA.
Friday, November 07, 2008
W is for well done
Earlier this week I referred to a quote by Ann Coulter about the respect conservatives should give Obama - about the same as they gave to Bush. In other words - absolutely none whatsoever. To be fair, though, over on the Opinion Journal there is a positive article about Bush by a former member of John Kerry's team in 2004, Jeffrey Scott Shapiro.
The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.
Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty -- a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House.
I tend to agree with that. The bare bones of the financial crisis which has engulfed the world were laid down during Clinton's tenure.
Whatever your views on global warming and Kyoto, the criticism of Bush for not signing the treaty should be balanced by the fact that Clinton didn't either - but at least the US rate of CO2 emissions declined under Bush, which is more than can be said for the majority of nations that did sign the treaty. It's one of the hallmarks of the Bush presidency - while everyone else talked the talk, he actually walked the walk.
Same with poverty. Our government and the UN did all the chat, but even Saint Bob Geldof was forced to concede that nobody - ever - has done more for Africa than George W Bush. All this while dealing with the biggest political issues in a generation. Once again, the soft lefties of Europe wrung their hands and delivered earnest platitudes - Bush just delivered.
And what about the foreign policies? Well, Iraq has been a success - even the most hardened left wing self-loathers are having to admit that now. Far from the "quagmire" they were predicting Iraq has been a significant achievement. I know it'll be a shit hole in no time at all once we're out of there, but you can't have everything. Afghanistan was always the "just" war for the lefties - probably the reason we decided to stay there - but now that is the quagmire. It was always going to be a fruitless exercise - you can't civilise people who don't want to be civilised. Afghanistan remains a 12th century feudal outpost and will stay that way until they decide they want to join the rest of the world.
I don't know much about US politics - the economy, standard of living or what have you - but I do know that millions of illegal immigrants can't be wrong. If the USA was really such a crap place under Bush, why did so many people flock there - including hundreds of thousands from the "enlightened" European nations? Germany, Italy and other EU nations have a population in free fall - the USA just keeps getting bigger. The "land of the free" appears to be a bigger draw than the "land of the freebie".
Bush was never as bad a President as the media would have you believe - just as JFK was never as good as they try to make out (hey, no one came closer to bringing nuclear holocaust down on us all). Bush's problem is that he was faced by a malevolent media from the outset. A media who, more often than not, sided with our enemies rather than be seen to support George W Bush.
I've no doubt that, eventually, someone, somewhere will sit down and write a proper unbiased review of the last eight years and find that, far from being the worst President ever, Bush responded to the worst attack on it's soil since Pearl Harbor in a decisive and correct manner and kept his country safe from harm for the next seven years while conducting a successful campaign against the enemy in their own lands.
Well done, Mr Bush.
The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.
Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty -- a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House.
I tend to agree with that. The bare bones of the financial crisis which has engulfed the world were laid down during Clinton's tenure.
Whatever your views on global warming and Kyoto, the criticism of Bush for not signing the treaty should be balanced by the fact that Clinton didn't either - but at least the US rate of CO2 emissions declined under Bush, which is more than can be said for the majority of nations that did sign the treaty. It's one of the hallmarks of the Bush presidency - while everyone else talked the talk, he actually walked the walk.
Same with poverty. Our government and the UN did all the chat, but even Saint Bob Geldof was forced to concede that nobody - ever - has done more for Africa than George W Bush. All this while dealing with the biggest political issues in a generation. Once again, the soft lefties of Europe wrung their hands and delivered earnest platitudes - Bush just delivered.
And what about the foreign policies? Well, Iraq has been a success - even the most hardened left wing self-loathers are having to admit that now. Far from the "quagmire" they were predicting Iraq has been a significant achievement. I know it'll be a shit hole in no time at all once we're out of there, but you can't have everything. Afghanistan was always the "just" war for the lefties - probably the reason we decided to stay there - but now that is the quagmire. It was always going to be a fruitless exercise - you can't civilise people who don't want to be civilised. Afghanistan remains a 12th century feudal outpost and will stay that way until they decide they want to join the rest of the world.
I don't know much about US politics - the economy, standard of living or what have you - but I do know that millions of illegal immigrants can't be wrong. If the USA was really such a crap place under Bush, why did so many people flock there - including hundreds of thousands from the "enlightened" European nations? Germany, Italy and other EU nations have a population in free fall - the USA just keeps getting bigger. The "land of the free" appears to be a bigger draw than the "land of the freebie".
Bush was never as bad a President as the media would have you believe - just as JFK was never as good as they try to make out (hey, no one came closer to bringing nuclear holocaust down on us all). Bush's problem is that he was faced by a malevolent media from the outset. A media who, more often than not, sided with our enemies rather than be seen to support George W Bush.
I've no doubt that, eventually, someone, somewhere will sit down and write a proper unbiased review of the last eight years and find that, far from being the worst President ever, Bush responded to the worst attack on it's soil since Pearl Harbor in a decisive and correct manner and kept his country safe from harm for the next seven years while conducting a successful campaign against the enemy in their own lands.
Well done, Mr Bush.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
An iceberg? Full steam ahead!
When I first saw this post title, I thought for a minute that Iain Dale was going to be critical of David Cameron. Now that would be a first! He wasn't, but these are interesting stats.
Of course we are all looking for the lessons British politicians can draw from what happened on Tuesday. The one thing which struck me from Cooper's presentation was the answer given to this question in exit polls:Do you think the country is heading in the right direction?
15 % said yes and 85% said no.
When you ask the same question in this country the result is almost identical. 17% say yes and 83% no.
So what lessons do you think British politicians can learn from this? Iain is pretty sure.
If I were David Cameron I would take great comfort from that.
Why? Cameron is another liberal progressive and his policies - what we've seen of them - are just the same as we've been following for the last forty or fifty years. Just more of the same liberal progressive crap. He isn't offering or even advocating a change in direction, just a change in who is captain of the good ship Britain.
It's also interesting that the US poll was an exit poll. In other words, even after the yanks had voted and were almost certain to elect Obama, they still believed the country was not heading in the right direction. Hardly surprising when they've just voted in the most left wing President ever - one with connections to terrorist organisations, black power racist movements and a very very dubious past.
The remarkable thing is that Cameron is seen by many conservatives as being something of a Trojan Horse - i.e. once he gets into Number 10, he'll lose his liberal progressive cloak and reveal the true blue Tory beneath. He won't - he isn't. Obama, however, is much more likely to revert to his socialist past now he is President - especially with the Democrats dominating both houses.
The future is bleak for Britain, but it's even worse for America.
Of course we are all looking for the lessons British politicians can draw from what happened on Tuesday. The one thing which struck me from Cooper's presentation was the answer given to this question in exit polls:Do you think the country is heading in the right direction?
15 % said yes and 85% said no.
When you ask the same question in this country the result is almost identical. 17% say yes and 83% no.
So what lessons do you think British politicians can learn from this? Iain is pretty sure.
If I were David Cameron I would take great comfort from that.
Why? Cameron is another liberal progressive and his policies - what we've seen of them - are just the same as we've been following for the last forty or fifty years. Just more of the same liberal progressive crap. He isn't offering or even advocating a change in direction, just a change in who is captain of the good ship Britain.
It's also interesting that the US poll was an exit poll. In other words, even after the yanks had voted and were almost certain to elect Obama, they still believed the country was not heading in the right direction. Hardly surprising when they've just voted in the most left wing President ever - one with connections to terrorist organisations, black power racist movements and a very very dubious past.
The remarkable thing is that Cameron is seen by many conservatives as being something of a Trojan Horse - i.e. once he gets into Number 10, he'll lose his liberal progressive cloak and reveal the true blue Tory beneath. He won't - he isn't. Obama, however, is much more likely to revert to his socialist past now he is President - especially with the Democrats dominating both houses.
The future is bleak for Britain, but it's even worse for America.
Obama's race was never an issue - until he won
Is it me, or has anyone noticed how - prior to the election - the media were oh so keen to play down the question of the Obama's colour, but now he is President Elect they can't go on about it enough?
In the run up to the election the BBC seemed to have an awful lot of interviews with disenchanted white folk who were going to vote for Obama. Now there seem to be endless interviews with black people - not only in America, but here, there and everywhere.
If there is one thing this election has done, it has laid to rest the myth that white people routinely discriminate against blacks. A predominantly white nation has voted for a black president. What are the chances of the opposite happening in Zimbabwe or South Africa?
In the run up to the election the BBC seemed to have an awful lot of interviews with disenchanted white folk who were going to vote for Obama. Now there seem to be endless interviews with black people - not only in America, but here, there and everywhere.
If there is one thing this election has done, it has laid to rest the myth that white people routinely discriminate against blacks. A predominantly white nation has voted for a black president. What are the chances of the opposite happening in Zimbabwe or South Africa?
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
The media have their new messiah - but now what?
So Obama has become America's first black President. Congratulations to him for what is a momentous achievement, but now he has to deliver on the huge expectation he has created during his campaign.
The trouble, despite the huge worldwide coverage given to him and his campaign, nobody actually knows what his policies are. Oh, I know he has promised to withdraw, gradually, from Iraq - but the USA was doing that anyway. I know he has promised to cut taxes for 95% of Americans, but when, how and for how long?
All we've had from Obama - and to a lesser extent, McCain - is rhetoric. The promise of change and hope has been enough to persuade people to vote in their droves for him, but what, exactly, is the change going to be? Nobody knows. What is the hope and expectation based on. Nobody has asked.
Make no mistake. This has been a victory for the worldwide liberal media. From the way they have pilloried Bush to create a starting base from which the Republicans had little hope of recovering - to the way they have accepted the Obama promise of change with virtually no scrutiny of what that change means.
The Democrats hold the Presidency and, by all accounts, will also control both houses. So Obama is now an all powerful President with virtually no checks or balances to hold him to account (which is why I am fervently opposed to an elected Upper House here). It's going to be a bumpy ride for the next four years in the USA - I hope they can come through it OK, but I have my doubts.
The trouble, despite the huge worldwide coverage given to him and his campaign, nobody actually knows what his policies are. Oh, I know he has promised to withdraw, gradually, from Iraq - but the USA was doing that anyway. I know he has promised to cut taxes for 95% of Americans, but when, how and for how long?
All we've had from Obama - and to a lesser extent, McCain - is rhetoric. The promise of change and hope has been enough to persuade people to vote in their droves for him, but what, exactly, is the change going to be? Nobody knows. What is the hope and expectation based on. Nobody has asked.
Make no mistake. This has been a victory for the worldwide liberal media. From the way they have pilloried Bush to create a starting base from which the Republicans had little hope of recovering - to the way they have accepted the Obama promise of change with virtually no scrutiny of what that change means.
The Democrats hold the Presidency and, by all accounts, will also control both houses. So Obama is now an all powerful President with virtually no checks or balances to hold him to account (which is why I am fervently opposed to an elected Upper House here). It's going to be a bumpy ride for the next four years in the USA - I hope they can come through it OK, but I have my doubts.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Obama? McCain? It doesn't really matter to us
At long last it is under way and, soon, we'll know who will be the next President of the USA.
Despite what most political commentators and "experts" would have you believe, I don't really think it makes much difference to us in the UK who is President. Certainly not as much as, say, who is President of France or Germany - or the EU.
Typically the USA is described as "leader of the free world" which I've always felt was inaccurate. The USA has never really been the leader of the free world - more the defender of it if anything. The USA rarely takes the lead in anything unless it is in its own interests to do so - and I personally applaud them for that.
I expect a lot of people believe that whoever wins is important for us because of what Obama or McCain may or may not do with respect to Afghanistan and Iraq but won't really matter a great deal to the vast majority of us.
All I'm really saying is don't believe the hype. The USA isn't as big an influence on either the world or us in particular as many would like to suggest. They are, of course, the major economic and military nation in the world - still - and it is obviously beneficial for us if they remain so, but whether it is McCain or Obama who is President really doesn't make much difference to us.
Despite what most political commentators and "experts" would have you believe, I don't really think it makes much difference to us in the UK who is President. Certainly not as much as, say, who is President of France or Germany - or the EU.
Typically the USA is described as "leader of the free world" which I've always felt was inaccurate. The USA has never really been the leader of the free world - more the defender of it if anything. The USA rarely takes the lead in anything unless it is in its own interests to do so - and I personally applaud them for that.
I expect a lot of people believe that whoever wins is important for us because of what Obama or McCain may or may not do with respect to Afghanistan and Iraq but won't really matter a great deal to the vast majority of us.
All I'm really saying is don't believe the hype. The USA isn't as big an influence on either the world or us in particular as many would like to suggest. They are, of course, the major economic and military nation in the world - still - and it is obviously beneficial for us if they remain so, but whether it is McCain or Obama who is President really doesn't make much difference to us.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Reality bites
The next President of the USA - as elected by the media - is now discovering that rhetoric alone is not enough. Obama is being advised to "kill expectation" should he become elected President - which is odd seeing how the only thing Obama has actually made any commitment to is expectation.
All he has done is promise "change we can believe in" - but has singularly failed to actually set down what that change might actually be. It's been a trademark of the reporting of this election that whenever his supporters are asked what Obama might bring to the Presidency they trumpet "change!!!" - but, on the all too rare occasions when they are asked what sort of change the general response is "I dunno - just change, I guess".
Now his advisers are telling him to play that down - in other words, there will be no change other from a white guy to a black guy. And that makes things better how, exactly? The reason they are telling Obama this is that these advisers now realise that winning isn't enough. You see - once you win, you then actually have to deliver and Obama's supporters actually have no idea what that change will be. In truth I suspect that he has no idea either - but it sounded good at the time.
This is something the Tories need to learn. They have been doing the same as Obama - but longer and with typically British reserve, but essentially they are doing the same thing. No actual policy differences between them and Labour but the Tories still offer "change" as the basic reason for asking us to vote for them.
Like Obama, they will discover that once they actually obtain power, the expectation on them will be enormous. Like Obama, they will last one term before reality bites and they are exposed as the shambolic socialists they actually are.
All he has done is promise "change we can believe in" - but has singularly failed to actually set down what that change might actually be. It's been a trademark of the reporting of this election that whenever his supporters are asked what Obama might bring to the Presidency they trumpet "change!!!" - but, on the all too rare occasions when they are asked what sort of change the general response is "I dunno - just change, I guess".
Now his advisers are telling him to play that down - in other words, there will be no change other from a white guy to a black guy. And that makes things better how, exactly? The reason they are telling Obama this is that these advisers now realise that winning isn't enough. You see - once you win, you then actually have to deliver and Obama's supporters actually have no idea what that change will be. In truth I suspect that he has no idea either - but it sounded good at the time.
This is something the Tories need to learn. They have been doing the same as Obama - but longer and with typically British reserve, but essentially they are doing the same thing. No actual policy differences between them and Labour but the Tories still offer "change" as the basic reason for asking us to vote for them.
Like Obama, they will discover that once they actually obtain power, the expectation on them will be enormous. Like Obama, they will last one term before reality bites and they are exposed as the shambolic socialists they actually are.
Monday, October 27, 2008
The devil you know
Max Hastings is a respected historian. I don't know who respects him because I certainly don't and if you want to know why, read his latest pile of tripe on the Mail online.
Meet the losers. Take a look at the shrinking band of unhappy, even embittered Americans who plan to vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin next week.
I don't know where Hastings learned his trade as an historian from - Mystic Meg, maybe - but normally, historians wait for something to happen before passing judgement on the event. Not Hastings - he's decided the US election has already been won by Obama. Not an entirely surprising viewpoint as Hastings also belongs to the same tribe who have sought to ensure that Obama wins - the media. Personally, I'm still not convinced that there enough people willing to accept a black President just yet - especially one with a background as shady and murky as Obama's - but I'm willing to wait until after the election before claiming I was right or wrong.
Hastings piece is as bigoted and biased a diatribe as you could possibly get in a newspaper. So loaded with value judgements and conservative stereotyping that it wouldn't be out of place on the Independent or Guardian.
These are simple people, most of them decent people, some also angry people.
Most of them decent people? It's amazing that, in his brief time he spent with them, Hastings has got to know them well enough to know that they are simple, decent or angry. Last time I was in a crowd of 5000 strangers I didn't have a clue whether they were decent, simple or not - though there were plenty who were angry. Most of the anger was directed at the chap called "the referee" and, judging by some of the comments, I'd say that there were plenty who were prepared to do murder or worse! But only someone as arrogant as Hastings could assume that in a brief interaction he is thus qualified to pass comment on these people.
His arrogance and bias is exposed when asked why he doesn't like Sarah Palin.
"Are you against her because she owns guns? Is it because she's a woman ? Is it because she's a Christian conservative who says what she thinks?"
No, I said, some of us are just scared that she doesn't have the brains or experience to be President.
That's interesting. Why doesn't he have the same fear about the untried and untested Obama? This is a man who has no real experience, hasn't the brains to realise that associating with known terrorists and vile racists is not a good idea for a politician and is running for a position one notch higher than Sarah Palin - but he's OK?
Hastings piece of garbage is, like most of the media sheep, highly critical of George W Bush's presidency. I know the media have pushed this view of Bush, but his record actually stands up pretty well compared to the likes of Clinton. His main challenge, and pretty much the defining moment of his presidency was the terrorist attack on the twin towers. Since 9/11 there has not been a successful terrorist attack on the USA. Instead the fight has been largely fought, and mostly won, on the terrorists home turf and that is a significant achievement.
McCain has still got the support of the God nuts.
Hmmm - no bias there then?
These include, dismayingly, many senior U.S. Army officers. For years, the U.S. Air Force has been a stronghold of Christian evangelicalism. American soldiers, alas, have caught the same disease.
Oh, so it's only the support of the Christian "God nuts". The Moslem ones - you know the ones who go around blowing up things and beheading people - support Obama, but hey, they're OK as long as they aren't Christian. I don't know why Hastings finds this so dismaying, either. Personally, I'd rather be led by strongly Christian generals than soppy social liberals who run away from the slightest challenge.
To put it bluntly, the Republicans have become the party of America's stupid people. That is not abusive, but a statement of fact.
No, not the least bit abusive, Max. It's the typical belief of progressive liberals who foolishly believe that "nuance" is the answer to every thing. But nuance is a nonsense - because, when it comes down to it, all people really want from a government are the simple things done properly. They don't care if the foreign policy of their leaders is "nuanced" - they just want their nation, their homes and their families kept safe from murdering Moslem "God nuts" with Semtex strapped to their bodies.
Hastings doesn't get this though.
If ....... they choose Obama, they will take a soaring leap into the unknown.
And when push comes to shove, most people will stick with the devil they know rather than the devil they don't. We shall see. One thing is certain, though - if McCain wins it won't be due to the lack of effort by the likes of Hastings to get the vain, shallow and utterly vacuous Obama elected.
Meet the losers. Take a look at the shrinking band of unhappy, even embittered Americans who plan to vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin next week.
I don't know where Hastings learned his trade as an historian from - Mystic Meg, maybe - but normally, historians wait for something to happen before passing judgement on the event. Not Hastings - he's decided the US election has already been won by Obama. Not an entirely surprising viewpoint as Hastings also belongs to the same tribe who have sought to ensure that Obama wins - the media. Personally, I'm still not convinced that there enough people willing to accept a black President just yet - especially one with a background as shady and murky as Obama's - but I'm willing to wait until after the election before claiming I was right or wrong.
Hastings piece is as bigoted and biased a diatribe as you could possibly get in a newspaper. So loaded with value judgements and conservative stereotyping that it wouldn't be out of place on the Independent or Guardian.
These are simple people, most of them decent people, some also angry people.
Most of them decent people? It's amazing that, in his brief time he spent with them, Hastings has got to know them well enough to know that they are simple, decent or angry. Last time I was in a crowd of 5000 strangers I didn't have a clue whether they were decent, simple or not - though there were plenty who were angry. Most of the anger was directed at the chap called "the referee" and, judging by some of the comments, I'd say that there were plenty who were prepared to do murder or worse! But only someone as arrogant as Hastings could assume that in a brief interaction he is thus qualified to pass comment on these people.
His arrogance and bias is exposed when asked why he doesn't like Sarah Palin.
"Are you against her because she owns guns? Is it because she's a woman ? Is it because she's a Christian conservative who says what she thinks?"
No, I said, some of us are just scared that she doesn't have the brains or experience to be President.
That's interesting. Why doesn't he have the same fear about the untried and untested Obama? This is a man who has no real experience, hasn't the brains to realise that associating with known terrorists and vile racists is not a good idea for a politician and is running for a position one notch higher than Sarah Palin - but he's OK?
Hastings piece of garbage is, like most of the media sheep, highly critical of George W Bush's presidency. I know the media have pushed this view of Bush, but his record actually stands up pretty well compared to the likes of Clinton. His main challenge, and pretty much the defining moment of his presidency was the terrorist attack on the twin towers. Since 9/11 there has not been a successful terrorist attack on the USA. Instead the fight has been largely fought, and mostly won, on the terrorists home turf and that is a significant achievement.
McCain has still got the support of the God nuts.
Hmmm - no bias there then?
These include, dismayingly, many senior U.S. Army officers. For years, the U.S. Air Force has been a stronghold of Christian evangelicalism. American soldiers, alas, have caught the same disease.
Oh, so it's only the support of the Christian "God nuts". The Moslem ones - you know the ones who go around blowing up things and beheading people - support Obama, but hey, they're OK as long as they aren't Christian. I don't know why Hastings finds this so dismaying, either. Personally, I'd rather be led by strongly Christian generals than soppy social liberals who run away from the slightest challenge.
To put it bluntly, the Republicans have become the party of America's stupid people. That is not abusive, but a statement of fact.
No, not the least bit abusive, Max. It's the typical belief of progressive liberals who foolishly believe that "nuance" is the answer to every thing. But nuance is a nonsense - because, when it comes down to it, all people really want from a government are the simple things done properly. They don't care if the foreign policy of their leaders is "nuanced" - they just want their nation, their homes and their families kept safe from murdering Moslem "God nuts" with Semtex strapped to their bodies.
Hastings doesn't get this though.
If ....... they choose Obama, they will take a soaring leap into the unknown.
And when push comes to shove, most people will stick with the devil they know rather than the devil they don't. We shall see. One thing is certain, though - if McCain wins it won't be due to the lack of effort by the likes of Hastings to get the vain, shallow and utterly vacuous Obama elected.
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Stuff change!
Change, change, change - that's all you ever hear about in politics these days.
Labour will lose the next election unless they "change" leader - s'funny, but I thought that is why they got rid of Blair in the first place.
Cameron will change the Tory party - from a party that pretends to be conservative into one that no longer bothers to pretend.
Change, of course, is the mantra of the US Presidential election. Obama has been mouthing empty rhetoric about change since he first appeared on the scene and now McCain has joined in - and to prove he means business he has brought a bright young female thing in to the limelight as his running mate (what an unfortunate term).
Don't get me wrong - I like Palin. What's not to like? She is young, attractive, pro-life, pro-guns and very determined - but I still can't get over the simple fact that the Republican Party have chosen her simply to take advantage of disaffected Hillaryites who are peeved that their queen has been deposed before she even got to wear the crown.
In all honesty, if women are prepared to vote for a candidate simply because of the fact that the candidate is a woman then that is a very good reason not to allow women the vote. Is there anything more sexist than voting for a candidate based on the sole reason that she is the same gender as you? Personally, I think that simple premise sums up the femiloon position quite nicely - sexist, intolerant and bigoted to the extreme.
Back to change. The USA is the world's most powerful nation. It is the biggest economy, the most powerful military and the most innovative nation around. As a nation, it is so successful that millions of people flood into it every year in the hope of getting a little piece of the American Dream.
So what, exactly, do they want to change? The liberals seem to look towards Europe with an envious eye - but why? Europe is a busted flush - declining in virtually every measure there is. Why on earth would the USA want to become more like Europe? The EU has a foreign policy track record which makes Neville Chamberlain seem like the epitome of strength and diplomacy. Not only does the EU repeatedly fail to walk the walk - it can't even talk the talk as the recent "strongly worded text" aimed at Russia so recently proved.
The USA, on the other hand, has repeatedly talked the talk - forcing nations such as Libya and North Korea to moderate their plans for creating regional instability - and it has also demonstrated that it is prepared to take action too. Whether you agree or disagree with US action against Iraq and Afghanistan, no one can deny that it demonstrates that the USA is prepared to back up its sabre rattling with a little sword play.
The EU's "soft diplomacy" is seen by all rogue nations for exactly that - soft. What exactly has the EU achieved through all this soft diplomacy. Exactly nothing.
No - that's not true. There have been achievements - but, not the sort of thing it can be proud of. A disaster in the Balkans where the USA was, once more, required to step in to end another European war. Funny, but isn't one of the EU's claims of success is how they have brought an end to war in Europe? I guess the news has filtered through to Kosovo or Georgia.
Perhaps the USA is envious of Europe's social success - but if so then they haven't been paying attention. Where the USA has a history of successfully integrating immigrants - not surprising as the USA is a genuine nation of immigrants (unlike Britain which isn't - no matter what people try and tell you) - in Europe, immigration, thanks to the misguided and utterly absurd notion of multiculturalism, has led to division and conflict.
The rest of Europe's social systems - health, education, pensions - are in such a perilous state that Europe has to have a policy of importing immigrants in ever expanding numbers to be able to have any hope of affording those policies in the next decade or two. Yes, things are that bad. Within a generation the social provisions of the majority of European nations will be such a burden on their societies that they simply will not be able to afford them anymore. A population that refuses to procreate means that Europe is reliant on importing people to fund those social care policies.
So what change are Obama and McCain on about? No one really knows. Does anyone care? Probably not. Sorry - again, that's not true. The vast majority of people do care, but the media don't so the media don't ask. The media are progressives themselves and so buy into the idea of change for change sake - which means they don't bother to ask the questions. They just say that so and so is good because he/she stands for change without ever bothering to think what that change might mean.
We went through all this after the Second World War. Since then, Britain has gone from being one of the great powers on this planet to a satellite state of a European superpower. We are, politically and influentially, right about where Poland was in 1955. A notional democratic nation with little say in its own governance, a single political ideology and no effective opposition to an increasingly authoritarian government.
That's what we got through "change". Why does anyone still think that is good and why does the USA want to go down that path?
Stuff change - the only change I want to see is back to the way we once were. An independent nation with the power to make our own laws and our own decisions for the benefit of our people and our nation.
Labour will lose the next election unless they "change" leader - s'funny, but I thought that is why they got rid of Blair in the first place.
Cameron will change the Tory party - from a party that pretends to be conservative into one that no longer bothers to pretend.
Change, of course, is the mantra of the US Presidential election. Obama has been mouthing empty rhetoric about change since he first appeared on the scene and now McCain has joined in - and to prove he means business he has brought a bright young female thing in to the limelight as his running mate (what an unfortunate term).
Don't get me wrong - I like Palin. What's not to like? She is young, attractive, pro-life, pro-guns and very determined - but I still can't get over the simple fact that the Republican Party have chosen her simply to take advantage of disaffected Hillaryites who are peeved that their queen has been deposed before she even got to wear the crown.
In all honesty, if women are prepared to vote for a candidate simply because of the fact that the candidate is a woman then that is a very good reason not to allow women the vote. Is there anything more sexist than voting for a candidate based on the sole reason that she is the same gender as you? Personally, I think that simple premise sums up the femiloon position quite nicely - sexist, intolerant and bigoted to the extreme.
Back to change. The USA is the world's most powerful nation. It is the biggest economy, the most powerful military and the most innovative nation around. As a nation, it is so successful that millions of people flood into it every year in the hope of getting a little piece of the American Dream.
So what, exactly, do they want to change? The liberals seem to look towards Europe with an envious eye - but why? Europe is a busted flush - declining in virtually every measure there is. Why on earth would the USA want to become more like Europe? The EU has a foreign policy track record which makes Neville Chamberlain seem like the epitome of strength and diplomacy. Not only does the EU repeatedly fail to walk the walk - it can't even talk the talk as the recent "strongly worded text" aimed at Russia so recently proved.
The USA, on the other hand, has repeatedly talked the talk - forcing nations such as Libya and North Korea to moderate their plans for creating regional instability - and it has also demonstrated that it is prepared to take action too. Whether you agree or disagree with US action against Iraq and Afghanistan, no one can deny that it demonstrates that the USA is prepared to back up its sabre rattling with a little sword play.
The EU's "soft diplomacy" is seen by all rogue nations for exactly that - soft. What exactly has the EU achieved through all this soft diplomacy. Exactly nothing.
No - that's not true. There have been achievements - but, not the sort of thing it can be proud of. A disaster in the Balkans where the USA was, once more, required to step in to end another European war. Funny, but isn't one of the EU's claims of success is how they have brought an end to war in Europe? I guess the news has filtered through to Kosovo or Georgia.
Perhaps the USA is envious of Europe's social success - but if so then they haven't been paying attention. Where the USA has a history of successfully integrating immigrants - not surprising as the USA is a genuine nation of immigrants (unlike Britain which isn't - no matter what people try and tell you) - in Europe, immigration, thanks to the misguided and utterly absurd notion of multiculturalism, has led to division and conflict.
The rest of Europe's social systems - health, education, pensions - are in such a perilous state that Europe has to have a policy of importing immigrants in ever expanding numbers to be able to have any hope of affording those policies in the next decade or two. Yes, things are that bad. Within a generation the social provisions of the majority of European nations will be such a burden on their societies that they simply will not be able to afford them anymore. A population that refuses to procreate means that Europe is reliant on importing people to fund those social care policies.
So what change are Obama and McCain on about? No one really knows. Does anyone care? Probably not. Sorry - again, that's not true. The vast majority of people do care, but the media don't so the media don't ask. The media are progressives themselves and so buy into the idea of change for change sake - which means they don't bother to ask the questions. They just say that so and so is good because he/she stands for change without ever bothering to think what that change might mean.
We went through all this after the Second World War. Since then, Britain has gone from being one of the great powers on this planet to a satellite state of a European superpower. We are, politically and influentially, right about where Poland was in 1955. A notional democratic nation with little say in its own governance, a single political ideology and no effective opposition to an increasingly authoritarian government.
That's what we got through "change". Why does anyone still think that is good and why does the USA want to go down that path?
Stuff change - the only change I want to see is back to the way we once were. An independent nation with the power to make our own laws and our own decisions for the benefit of our people and our nation.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Obama may be the new "JFK", but we need a Reagan in the Whitehouse
Personally, I've never quite understood the fuss over JFK.
He died when I was very young (no, I don't know where I was or what I was doing when I heard the news - I probably didn't care much about anything other than rusks) and all I really know about him is that he was young, presentable, had a very attractive wife which didn't prevent him chasing after other men's very attractive wives and brought the world closer to nuclear holocaust than any other man before or since.
So it seems odd to me that the Democrats young, presentable candidate for the presidency, Barack Obama, is being touted as the next JFK. I'm no expert on US politics but do they really want a serial philanderer with a seriously flawed idea of foreign policy in charge of their nation?
Like JFK, Obama is often described as "charismatic" - which is media talk for "we like him", but behind all the gloss I find it hard to know what Obama believes in - I mean really, truly believes in.
Mind you, given the choice between Obama and the dithering, decrepit McCain (the next Jimmy Carter, but no one mentions that) it's hardly surprising that the US are leaning to the left. I'm still not sure the USA is ready for a black (or a woman) President despite all the preparation they've been receiving from Hollywood for just such an event.
Looking at it from a non-US perspective, though, what we really need in the Whitehouse is not a new "JFK", but a new "Reagan". Someone who is prepared to recognise the very real threat of Islamic imperialism and it's increasing confidence and is prepared to publicly state that they intend to deal with it and defeat it.
Reagan's role in bringing down the "evil empire" of Sovietism is often underestimated, but few people deny that his attitude towards the Soviet Union was a departure from the usual western approach of detente.
Like we see now with Islamic Imperialism, the Cold War was long and protracted and consisted of the two main protagonists fighting a series of proxy wars often using non-state actors - the post modern, value free, non-judgemental term for guerrillas - and sometimes being directly involved themselves (US in Vietnam, SU in Afghanistan).
Before Reagan, however, the main aim of the west in the Cold War was not to defeat the enemy but to maintain "stability". Reagan came along and had the vision to see that stability was achieving nothing, the determination to take the fight to a different level and the will to win.
He won.
We need the US to have a President like that. We don't need another young, charismatic, media friendly lightweight with a big smile and a lot of vague talk about "vision" and "change". We need a President with a clear sense of the threat that exists and the determination and will to do something about it.
He died when I was very young (no, I don't know where I was or what I was doing when I heard the news - I probably didn't care much about anything other than rusks) and all I really know about him is that he was young, presentable, had a very attractive wife which didn't prevent him chasing after other men's very attractive wives and brought the world closer to nuclear holocaust than any other man before or since.
So it seems odd to me that the Democrats young, presentable candidate for the presidency, Barack Obama, is being touted as the next JFK. I'm no expert on US politics but do they really want a serial philanderer with a seriously flawed idea of foreign policy in charge of their nation?
Like JFK, Obama is often described as "charismatic" - which is media talk for "we like him", but behind all the gloss I find it hard to know what Obama believes in - I mean really, truly believes in.
Mind you, given the choice between Obama and the dithering, decrepit McCain (the next Jimmy Carter, but no one mentions that) it's hardly surprising that the US are leaning to the left. I'm still not sure the USA is ready for a black (or a woman) President despite all the preparation they've been receiving from Hollywood for just such an event.
Looking at it from a non-US perspective, though, what we really need in the Whitehouse is not a new "JFK", but a new "Reagan". Someone who is prepared to recognise the very real threat of Islamic imperialism and it's increasing confidence and is prepared to publicly state that they intend to deal with it and defeat it.
Reagan's role in bringing down the "evil empire" of Sovietism is often underestimated, but few people deny that his attitude towards the Soviet Union was a departure from the usual western approach of detente.
Like we see now with Islamic Imperialism, the Cold War was long and protracted and consisted of the two main protagonists fighting a series of proxy wars often using non-state actors - the post modern, value free, non-judgemental term for guerrillas - and sometimes being directly involved themselves (US in Vietnam, SU in Afghanistan).
Before Reagan, however, the main aim of the west in the Cold War was not to defeat the enemy but to maintain "stability". Reagan came along and had the vision to see that stability was achieving nothing, the determination to take the fight to a different level and the will to win.
He won.
We need the US to have a President like that. We don't need another young, charismatic, media friendly lightweight with a big smile and a lot of vague talk about "vision" and "change". We need a President with a clear sense of the threat that exists and the determination and will to do something about it.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Thank god that's over
At long last the Democrats have a candidate and I fervently hope this will mean to the endless coverage this sideshow has received. At least it is understandable that the USA goes so overboard on the subject, by why oh why do our own news organisations think this is interesting? Or even important?
Yes - once the actual race for the presidency is underway then it would be fair enough to give it substantial coverage, but this wasn't a race for the most powerful job in the world. It was boring and repetitive. How many times do we have to watch clips of hooting, cheering crowds frantically waving their Hillary or Obama placards around as their chosen anointed one repeats the same old tired rhetoric?
Personally, I think this whole affair has been trumped up simply because the choice was between a black candidate or a female candidate. I doubt whether there would have been quite the smothering coverage if it had been between a couple of white guys.
The irony of all this is that I am dubious whether USA is ready for either a black or a female president and that by tying the Democrat ass to either Obama or Clinton the Democrats have effectively handed the Republicans yet another victory.
Yes - once the actual race for the presidency is underway then it would be fair enough to give it substantial coverage, but this wasn't a race for the most powerful job in the world. It was boring and repetitive. How many times do we have to watch clips of hooting, cheering crowds frantically waving their Hillary or Obama placards around as their chosen anointed one repeats the same old tired rhetoric?
Personally, I think this whole affair has been trumped up simply because the choice was between a black candidate or a female candidate. I doubt whether there would have been quite the smothering coverage if it had been between a couple of white guys.
The irony of all this is that I am dubious whether USA is ready for either a black or a female president and that by tying the Democrat ass to either Obama or Clinton the Democrats have effectively handed the Republicans yet another victory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)