Tuesday, September 24
And talking of those horrible, have-a-nice-day totalitarians, here's Matthew Engel. Guess which country he's talking about. ( Hint: it isn't San Marino. )
"The land of the free is a bossy country, where myriad federal, state and local authorities spend a great deal of time passing interfering little laws for people's supposed good, and then putting up didactic notices to enforce them".
And it isn't England. Where you will soon be allowed to be kidnapped by foreign policmen for the crime of 'xenophobia'.
"Deep within the American psyche is a belief in the perfectibility of humankind. Europeans tend not to share this certainty. Indeed, they are inclined to think that those who do may be, to coin a phrase, assholes".
Karl Marx: European.
Stalin: European.
Hitler: European.
Matthew Engel: European.
And you're not coining a phrase, Matthew, you're using one. I'm sorry to have to break it to you, but the phrase was coined long ago. Asshole.
|
"The land of the free is a bossy country, where myriad federal, state and local authorities spend a great deal of time passing interfering little laws for people's supposed good, and then putting up didactic notices to enforce them".
And it isn't England. Where you will soon be allowed to be kidnapped by foreign policmen for the crime of 'xenophobia'.
"Deep within the American psyche is a belief in the perfectibility of humankind. Europeans tend not to share this certainty. Indeed, they are inclined to think that those who do may be, to coin a phrase, assholes".
Karl Marx: European.
Stalin: European.
Hitler: European.
Matthew Engel: European.
And you're not coining a phrase, Matthew, you're using one. I'm sorry to have to break it to you, but the phrase was coined long ago. Asshole.
|
Dubya has just published a new mission statement, called "US National Security Strategy", apparently, and the Guardian isn't pleased:
"This Bush doctrine is by turns arrogant, patronising, complacent, amazingly presumptuous - but above all, aggressive. It brooks no opposition. It will tolerate no perceived threat. In the world according to George Bush, an irresistible America, convinced of its rightness and its altruism, always decides. Fatally, but in the true, naive American tradition, this doctrine is deaf to history, oblivious to consequences, and wondrously lacking in self-knowledge. But those who ask what, in the shorter term, is in store (and not just in Iraq) should read this document. It marks the moment when the US, shifting up from superpower to hyperpower, unveiled the new age of the have-a-nice-day totalitarians".
I can't wait, myself. Consider the alternatives.
|
"This Bush doctrine is by turns arrogant, patronising, complacent, amazingly presumptuous - but above all, aggressive. It brooks no opposition. It will tolerate no perceived threat. In the world according to George Bush, an irresistible America, convinced of its rightness and its altruism, always decides. Fatally, but in the true, naive American tradition, this doctrine is deaf to history, oblivious to consequences, and wondrously lacking in self-knowledge. But those who ask what, in the shorter term, is in store (and not just in Iraq) should read this document. It marks the moment when the US, shifting up from superpower to hyperpower, unveiled the new age of the have-a-nice-day totalitarians".
I can't wait, myself. Consider the alternatives.
|
One of the curiosities of current British politics is that, to all intents and purposes, the government we have with its massive majority is far closer to the Liberal Democrat vision of things than it is to either the Tories, nor even Labour. Fiercely pro-EU, and very keen to blather on about Liberty and Freedom while enchaining us in rules, I'm suprised Roy Hattersley hasn't signed up yet. But then he refused to join the SDP. Clearly, he knew where his bread was buttered. One man who did was Danny Finkelstein. Former David Owen adviser, and now a Tory underling, who tears into them in today's Times. Simon Carr, in the Indy, also joins in:
"Freedom is the Lib Dem watchword. Liberty! Or, because this is politics, the opposite! Massive, intrusive, pervasive state power matched with administrative incompetence and unintended consequences that disable good intentions!"
Hattersley, take note.
|
"Freedom is the Lib Dem watchword. Liberty! Or, because this is politics, the opposite! Massive, intrusive, pervasive state power matched with administrative incompetence and unintended consequences that disable good intentions!"
Hattersley, take note.
|
Monday, September 23
Every now and again Roy Hattersley uses his column in the Guardian to take a shot at explaining this 'philosophy'. Today is that day. Apparently,
"practical equality - real equality, equality of outcome - is a libertarian philosophy. It gives the once-disadvantaged the opportunity to fulfil themselves".
So, equality of outcome means libertarianism. I'm not sure Perry and the Boys would recognise this, and neither would I, as it is fundamentally dishonest. If you're going to make the case for 'equality of outcome' then do so. But to pretend that by achieving it you also achieve something else is both dishonest and cowardly. It's like saying by increasing the consumption of vegetables will make us more carnivorous. Taking money from a rich man and giving it to a poor man is not libertarian. It might be justified, but it is not libertarian. Why pretend otherwise? Dressing it up as 'real equality', 'true equality' or 'genuine equality' is just double talk.
This man was once deputy leader of the Labour Party.
|
"practical equality - real equality, equality of outcome - is a libertarian philosophy. It gives the once-disadvantaged the opportunity to fulfil themselves".
So, equality of outcome means libertarianism. I'm not sure Perry and the Boys would recognise this, and neither would I, as it is fundamentally dishonest. If you're going to make the case for 'equality of outcome' then do so. But to pretend that by achieving it you also achieve something else is both dishonest and cowardly. It's like saying by increasing the consumption of vegetables will make us more carnivorous. Taking money from a rich man and giving it to a poor man is not libertarian. It might be justified, but it is not libertarian. Why pretend otherwise? Dressing it up as 'real equality', 'true equality' or 'genuine equality' is just double talk.
This man was once deputy leader of the Labour Party.
|
The plight of those accused of sexual offences has been a cause close to my heart ever since, well, puberty, so naturally I take the news that so-called 'rapists' and 'child abusers' may be granted anonymity up until conviction with delight. Of course, the law could be further improved by abandoning anonymity altogether, either for the accused or the accuser, but this is a step in the right direction. I can't see the sisters going for it, though. It'll be interesting to see what the Blair Babes make of this.However, as one door opens another closes. Charles Kennedy, leader of the Liberal Democrats, wants to cull his party of its male candidates. How very liberal. How very democratic.
|
|
Contrasting views of yesterday's Countryside March. First up, William Rees-Mogg in the Times:
"I am overlooking Pall Mall as I write this article. For the past five hours the street has been full of the countryside marchers, who stretch from St James’s Palace at one end, past the Athenaeum Club and the statue of the Grand Old Duke of York, down to Trafalgar Square. Beyond that the march has turned into Whitehall where more than 200,000 — the original target figure — had been counted by lunchtime".
And it must have been close to double that all told.
"There has been much noise of bagpipes, hunting horns and cheering; the countryside is always full of sounds as well as sights. All day I have been watching the marchers file past, a few with flags, more with placards, all in a holiday mood. I have seen some people I know, including Boris Johnson signing autographs, under a Spectator placard. I wish more members of the Government had been in town. This march is a phenomenon in itself, something the Government needs to understand, even if it is too much to hope that it will sympathise.
When one reads the most interesting placards, which turn out to be home-made and handwritten, they show the variety of motives which have brought people on this march. The good humour is reflected in most of the slogans — my favourite has been “no taxation without morris dancing” — but there is an inescapable tone of anger in some of them. “Ignore us if you dare Tony Blair” is a fairly typical example. Many of the posters express the view that the Government is refusing to listen to the complaints of the countryside. Tony Blair is blamed personally. It might have done him good to see the march in person, but I’m afraid he would have certainly been booed".
Fair-minded and generous, though slightly superior. Typical Rees-Mogg, really. Then, turn to the Indy, and the hysterical ravings of Yasmin Alibhai-Brown:
"Hundreds of thousands of true sons and daughters of this great nation stormed into London to sound off about how deprived they are and how they feel victims of prejudice so bad that, according to the Prince of Wales, they are even worse off than blacks and gays. How intolerable! My heart breaks at the thought of those poor, flushed apple cheeks of country Brits as they watch us blacks and those queers overtaking them in the gallop to privilege".
Actually, this is all second-hand reporting of what Charlie boy allegedly said. But this does't worry our Yazza. It's all guns blazing.
"Has he given the slightest thought to why it is that the countryside remains such a no-go area for most people of colour? Hundreds of thousands of black and Asian Britons have farming in their blood, and are the descendants of tillers, but have you ever seen a black or Asian farmer or farm worker?"
She's right. She has got a point. You only see them in Bongo-bongoland, cutting the sugar beat.
"may we not speculate that the march is in truth making a stand for the kind of country this was before all us darkies arrived? Could it be that the number of Countryside Alliance supporters has swollen because the Tory Party seems in danger of abandoning this agenda, what with all this talk of learning to embrace gays and blacks and Asians into the party?"
Well possibly. But then again. Maybe there aren't that many black people living in the countryside.
"Down with you I say, and stay out of our mixed cities".
To each his own, eh?
|
"I am overlooking Pall Mall as I write this article. For the past five hours the street has been full of the countryside marchers, who stretch from St James’s Palace at one end, past the Athenaeum Club and the statue of the Grand Old Duke of York, down to Trafalgar Square. Beyond that the march has turned into Whitehall where more than 200,000 — the original target figure — had been counted by lunchtime".
And it must have been close to double that all told.
"There has been much noise of bagpipes, hunting horns and cheering; the countryside is always full of sounds as well as sights. All day I have been watching the marchers file past, a few with flags, more with placards, all in a holiday mood. I have seen some people I know, including Boris Johnson signing autographs, under a Spectator placard. I wish more members of the Government had been in town. This march is a phenomenon in itself, something the Government needs to understand, even if it is too much to hope that it will sympathise.
When one reads the most interesting placards, which turn out to be home-made and handwritten, they show the variety of motives which have brought people on this march. The good humour is reflected in most of the slogans — my favourite has been “no taxation without morris dancing” — but there is an inescapable tone of anger in some of them. “Ignore us if you dare Tony Blair” is a fairly typical example. Many of the posters express the view that the Government is refusing to listen to the complaints of the countryside. Tony Blair is blamed personally. It might have done him good to see the march in person, but I’m afraid he would have certainly been booed".
Fair-minded and generous, though slightly superior. Typical Rees-Mogg, really. Then, turn to the Indy, and the hysterical ravings of Yasmin Alibhai-Brown:
"Hundreds of thousands of true sons and daughters of this great nation stormed into London to sound off about how deprived they are and how they feel victims of prejudice so bad that, according to the Prince of Wales, they are even worse off than blacks and gays. How intolerable! My heart breaks at the thought of those poor, flushed apple cheeks of country Brits as they watch us blacks and those queers overtaking them in the gallop to privilege".
Actually, this is all second-hand reporting of what Charlie boy allegedly said. But this does't worry our Yazza. It's all guns blazing.
"Has he given the slightest thought to why it is that the countryside remains such a no-go area for most people of colour? Hundreds of thousands of black and Asian Britons have farming in their blood, and are the descendants of tillers, but have you ever seen a black or Asian farmer or farm worker?"
She's right. She has got a point. You only see them in Bongo-bongoland, cutting the sugar beat.
"may we not speculate that the march is in truth making a stand for the kind of country this was before all us darkies arrived? Could it be that the number of Countryside Alliance supporters has swollen because the Tory Party seems in danger of abandoning this agenda, what with all this talk of learning to embrace gays and blacks and Asians into the party?"
Well possibly. But then again. Maybe there aren't that many black people living in the countryside.
"Down with you I say, and stay out of our mixed cities".
To each his own, eh?
|
I have decided to let Sleeping Blog Lie. That is to say, Blogs of War, Iain Dale, and Croziervision have all been excised from the Permalinks. The latter has died a premature death, while the first two have just failed to be updated. Get with the programme, guys. It takes a lot, folks, to get on my permalinks page ( though an obsequious email commending my commentary usually does the trick ).But it doesn't tkae much to get consigned to the ashheap of history. There is no time for losers. However, if the owners decide ever to update them, perhaps they may return, humbled, tails wagging.
|
|
Friday, September 20
In a powerful argument over at the Guardian, the dreaded Pollster condemns Sunday's March for Liberty and Livelihood:
"Rural poverty is less pro rata than in cities. There is rural crime, but far less of it. Country dwellers are statistically richer, happier, better educated and the envy of city dwellers, most of whom dream of retiring there but will never afford to. Meanwhile more new money is flowing into rural areas for buses and keeping post offices and schools open".
Well I'm convinced anyway. Consequently, instead of joining the marchers as planned, I have decided to set up a counter-offensive: The Urban Alliance. We intend to set off at six in the morning from the Trafalgar Square, planning to meet at Wadhurst Village Green in East Sussex at 12. Terence Blacker will be there, and Hugo Young has promised to appear, and will be giving a talk on Bush's War on Terror. George Monbiot will be marching with the Concerned Citizens Against GM Food, and Toynbee herself is planning to lecture farmers on the minimum wage. Deborah Orr hopes to speak to disenfranchised fox-hunters on the link between Islam and feminism. Her husband Will Self will give a short speech on how to get crack cocaine at 3 o'clock in the morning in Central London on a week day. Yasmin Alibhai-Brown has hired a tent where she will be having an abortion, which for those who can't make it, will also feature live on the internet. Steve Richards will also be explaining the benefit of the Euro to any vets present. Drug-dealers, muggers, and liberals of all persuasion are most welcome. Please join us! The dress code is stiletto heals for women, and top hat and tails for men. Unless you're part of the oppressed urban poor in which case you can come as you are.
Caution: it sometimes rains in the country, and the fields can get pretty muddy. Coaches back to London will be leaving on the hour every hour.
|
"Rural poverty is less pro rata than in cities. There is rural crime, but far less of it. Country dwellers are statistically richer, happier, better educated and the envy of city dwellers, most of whom dream of retiring there but will never afford to. Meanwhile more new money is flowing into rural areas for buses and keeping post offices and schools open".
Well I'm convinced anyway. Consequently, instead of joining the marchers as planned, I have decided to set up a counter-offensive: The Urban Alliance. We intend to set off at six in the morning from the Trafalgar Square, planning to meet at Wadhurst Village Green in East Sussex at 12. Terence Blacker will be there, and Hugo Young has promised to appear, and will be giving a talk on Bush's War on Terror. George Monbiot will be marching with the Concerned Citizens Against GM Food, and Toynbee herself is planning to lecture farmers on the minimum wage. Deborah Orr hopes to speak to disenfranchised fox-hunters on the link between Islam and feminism. Her husband Will Self will give a short speech on how to get crack cocaine at 3 o'clock in the morning in Central London on a week day. Yasmin Alibhai-Brown has hired a tent where she will be having an abortion, which for those who can't make it, will also feature live on the internet. Steve Richards will also be explaining the benefit of the Euro to any vets present. Drug-dealers, muggers, and liberals of all persuasion are most welcome. Please join us! The dress code is stiletto heals for women, and top hat and tails for men. Unless you're part of the oppressed urban poor in which case you can come as you are.
Caution: it sometimes rains in the country, and the fields can get pretty muddy. Coaches back to London will be leaving on the hour every hour.
|
Thursday, September 19
"These are testing times for the liberal conscience".
Magnus Linklater announces in today's Times. In contrast to us conservatives who've never had it so good. Maybe he should go kill himself.
"For those of us who view with horror the notion of a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, its dubious morality and potentially disastrous consequences, the phrase “not without United Nations approval” has been the umbrella under which we have generally taken shelter".
That's because you're a coward. UN approval has got damn all to do with the morality of the thing.
"America’s brusque rejection confirms our view that, behind the rhetoric, it simply wanted war all along".
That's because you're a bigoted idiot.
"Except that at this point the liberal conscience begins to prick. Not for it the easy certainties of the Right, the black-and-white distinction between the good guys and the bad. What liberals have to confront is something more complex. Iraq’s apparent climb-down came about, not because of the UN’s resolute action (a phrase which is in any event an oxymoron), but because Washington laid claim to the moral high ground and pursued the clearest and most consistent line".
No, what liberals - or the ones who are as obtuse as Mr. Linklater - have to confront is the searing power of their naivety. It's just as black-and-white to be opposed to a war as to be in favour. Get off your self-congratulatory high horse, goon.
"It may be that there is a moral case for ousting Saddam by invading Iraq, but there is equally a reasonable case for challenging it. The notion that innocent civilian life should be sacrificed and all the uncertainty of a Middle East backlash set in train, in order to pre-empt a threat whose nature is so imprecise, is one that deserves, at the very least, the most rigorous interrogation".
And it's not going to come from someone as slow on the uptake as Linklater.
|
Magnus Linklater announces in today's Times. In contrast to us conservatives who've never had it so good. Maybe he should go kill himself.
"For those of us who view with horror the notion of a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, its dubious morality and potentially disastrous consequences, the phrase “not without United Nations approval” has been the umbrella under which we have generally taken shelter".
That's because you're a coward. UN approval has got damn all to do with the morality of the thing.
"America’s brusque rejection confirms our view that, behind the rhetoric, it simply wanted war all along".
That's because you're a bigoted idiot.
"Except that at this point the liberal conscience begins to prick. Not for it the easy certainties of the Right, the black-and-white distinction between the good guys and the bad. What liberals have to confront is something more complex. Iraq’s apparent climb-down came about, not because of the UN’s resolute action (a phrase which is in any event an oxymoron), but because Washington laid claim to the moral high ground and pursued the clearest and most consistent line".
No, what liberals - or the ones who are as obtuse as Mr. Linklater - have to confront is the searing power of their naivety. It's just as black-and-white to be opposed to a war as to be in favour. Get off your self-congratulatory high horse, goon.
"It may be that there is a moral case for ousting Saddam by invading Iraq, but there is equally a reasonable case for challenging it. The notion that innocent civilian life should be sacrificed and all the uncertainty of a Middle East backlash set in train, in order to pre-empt a threat whose nature is so imprecise, is one that deserves, at the very least, the most rigorous interrogation".
And it's not going to come from someone as slow on the uptake as Linklater.
|
Sarah Boseley has some startling news in today's Guardian:
"Suicide rates have tended to rise in the UK when a Conservative government has been in power during the last 100 years, with the big exception of Edward Heath's 1970-74 administration, according to a scientific paper published today".
Or to put it more baldly, "During the 45 Tory years of the century, there were 238,431 suicides".
The writers of this paper draw this conclusion:
"roughly 35,000 of these people would not have died had Conservative governments not been in government. This is one suicide for every day of the century, or more appropriately, two for every day that the Conservatives ruled."
Okay, let's assume there had never been any Conservative governments over the last, say, fifty years. Also, that there had been a smooth transition from Clem Atlee to Harold Wilson, a few years for Roy Jenkins, followed by a golden period in which we were sensibly led by Michael Foot, or even Denis Healey. And then Neil Kinnock, who might only now be thinking of handing over power to some youth - Tony Blair, say, or Mo Mowlem. Perhaps we would indeed be living in peace: no suicide, no unemployment, no aids, no homophobia, and no racism - no rising tide of everything. Perhaps the whol eof Europe, East and West, would have a single currency, and we'd all be holding hands in a multicultural, caring community, with foxes and lesbians gambolling playfully in Chiswick High Street. Alternatively, perhaps we'd all be speaking Russian, living in dire poverty, sixty foot statues of Stalin in every town square, and praying for a US-inspired regime change. Certainly, I could well imagine that suicide rates would be low. After all, few people kill themselves in time of war. Even in the gulag, it brought out a resilience in people. But at what a price. On the whole I think I'd take the suicides.
UPDATE: Peter Cuthbertson has his own take - "Miserable, suicidal people looked around and saw everyone else enjoying the Conservative government and couldn't take it any longer".
Well, maybe.
|
"Suicide rates have tended to rise in the UK when a Conservative government has been in power during the last 100 years, with the big exception of Edward Heath's 1970-74 administration, according to a scientific paper published today".
Or to put it more baldly, "During the 45 Tory years of the century, there were 238,431 suicides".
The writers of this paper draw this conclusion:
"roughly 35,000 of these people would not have died had Conservative governments not been in government. This is one suicide for every day of the century, or more appropriately, two for every day that the Conservatives ruled."
Okay, let's assume there had never been any Conservative governments over the last, say, fifty years. Also, that there had been a smooth transition from Clem Atlee to Harold Wilson, a few years for Roy Jenkins, followed by a golden period in which we were sensibly led by Michael Foot, or even Denis Healey. And then Neil Kinnock, who might only now be thinking of handing over power to some youth - Tony Blair, say, or Mo Mowlem. Perhaps we would indeed be living in peace: no suicide, no unemployment, no aids, no homophobia, and no racism - no rising tide of everything. Perhaps the whol eof Europe, East and West, would have a single currency, and we'd all be holding hands in a multicultural, caring community, with foxes and lesbians gambolling playfully in Chiswick High Street. Alternatively, perhaps we'd all be speaking Russian, living in dire poverty, sixty foot statues of Stalin in every town square, and praying for a US-inspired regime change. Certainly, I could well imagine that suicide rates would be low. After all, few people kill themselves in time of war. Even in the gulag, it brought out a resilience in people. But at what a price. On the whole I think I'd take the suicides.
UPDATE: Peter Cuthbertson has his own take - "Miserable, suicidal people looked around and saw everyone else enjoying the Conservative government and couldn't take it any longer".
Well, maybe.
|
Chris Bertram says that Mo Mowlem's piece today on drugs and war 'borders on the unhinged.' He's far too generous. I'm afraid the old girl is completely off her rocker. The hinges went thattaway.
"It is clear that the present approach to drugs is not working, and if the war against drugs fails then we can be sure that the war against terrorism will also be unsuccessful".
She tells us, in one of the many non-sequiturs and pieces of gobbledygook that litter the page.
"Drugs and terrorism are linked and are set to become more so. Legalisation of drugs would stop this connection: it would begin to solve problems caused by drugs today and would isolate the terrorists".
She might as well have said:
"Legalisation of terrorism would stop this connection: it would begin to solve problems caused by terrorists today and would isolate the drug-dealers".
To think she was in charge of the government's drugs policy from 1999-2001. What was Tony thinking?
|
"It is clear that the present approach to drugs is not working, and if the war against drugs fails then we can be sure that the war against terrorism will also be unsuccessful".
She tells us, in one of the many non-sequiturs and pieces of gobbledygook that litter the page.
"Drugs and terrorism are linked and are set to become more so. Legalisation of drugs would stop this connection: it would begin to solve problems caused by drugs today and would isolate the terrorists".
She might as well have said:
"Legalisation of terrorism would stop this connection: it would begin to solve problems caused by terrorists today and would isolate the drug-dealers".
To think she was in charge of the government's drugs policy from 1999-2001. What was Tony thinking?
|
Wednesday, September 18
My latest BBC-Biased column is up. Okay, it ain't Tech Central Station, but we've all got to start somewhere.
|
|
Interview with Ricky Gervais, the man behind tv's finest comedy show. It's almost worth being forced to pay the licence for it.
|
|
Robert Fisk, eh? What do you reckon? I don't think I've ever fisked the great man before, seeing as so many others do it, but today's column is irresistible:
"You've got to hand it to Saddam. In one brisk, neat letter to Kofi Annan, he pulled the rug from right under George Bush's feet".
Saddam - foreign policy genius.
"Saddam would do everything he could to avoid war. President Bush was doing everything he could to avoid peace".
Saddam - peacenik.
"And now the Iraqi regime has put the Americans into a corner. The arms inspectors are welcome back in Iraq. No conditions. Just as the Americans asked".
Robert Fisk. Short sentence. No verb. No brain.
"No wonder the United States was whingeing on about "false hopes" yesterday. No wonder the Americans were searching desperately for another casus belli – be sure that they will find one – in an attempt to make sure that their next war keeps to its timetable. Be sure, too, that Saddam, that master of the post-agreement conditional clause, will have a few surprises for the UN inspectors when they do turn up in Baghdad".
So much for Saddam - the reincarnation of Gandhi, the man with no conditions, the man who would do everything to avoid war.
"But for now, the Americans have been sandbagged. It will take at least 25 days to put the UN inspection team together, another 60 for their preliminary assessment – always assuming they are given "unfettered" access to all Iraqi government facilities -- then another 60 days for further inspections. In other words, George Bush's latest war has been delayed by more than five months".
Assuming that Dubya didn't see this one coming, of course.
"Saddam, of course, must have his own worries".
Really?
"Saddam's letter to Mr Annan was a smart move, as contemptuous as it was inevitable".
In which case I really do think Dubya would have anticipated it.
"Stand by, then, for an equally contemptible response from President Bush".
Okay. I suppose - just - that Fisky doesn't think that "contemptuous" and "contemptible" are synonyms. But it's a very close call.
|
"You've got to hand it to Saddam. In one brisk, neat letter to Kofi Annan, he pulled the rug from right under George Bush's feet".
Saddam - foreign policy genius.
"Saddam would do everything he could to avoid war. President Bush was doing everything he could to avoid peace".
Saddam - peacenik.
"And now the Iraqi regime has put the Americans into a corner. The arms inspectors are welcome back in Iraq. No conditions. Just as the Americans asked".
Robert Fisk. Short sentence. No verb. No brain.
"No wonder the United States was whingeing on about "false hopes" yesterday. No wonder the Americans were searching desperately for another casus belli – be sure that they will find one – in an attempt to make sure that their next war keeps to its timetable. Be sure, too, that Saddam, that master of the post-agreement conditional clause, will have a few surprises for the UN inspectors when they do turn up in Baghdad".
So much for Saddam - the reincarnation of Gandhi, the man with no conditions, the man who would do everything to avoid war.
"But for now, the Americans have been sandbagged. It will take at least 25 days to put the UN inspection team together, another 60 for their preliminary assessment – always assuming they are given "unfettered" access to all Iraqi government facilities -- then another 60 days for further inspections. In other words, George Bush's latest war has been delayed by more than five months".
Assuming that Dubya didn't see this one coming, of course.
"Saddam, of course, must have his own worries".
Really?
"Saddam's letter to Mr Annan was a smart move, as contemptuous as it was inevitable".
In which case I really do think Dubya would have anticipated it.
"Stand by, then, for an equally contemptible response from President Bush".
Okay. I suppose - just - that Fisky doesn't think that "contemptuous" and "contemptible" are synonyms. But it's a very close call.
|
Hywel Williams, eh? What do you reckon? He's the Guardian's token Tory turd-burglar. And he's angry:
"George Carey and David Davis make the perfect couple: both are the representatives of decaying institutions with pretensions to preach at modern Britain. How appropriate, therefore, that they should be united in a symmetry of bigotry".
Define bigotry, please.
"to those high themes of grace and repentance, of works and faith, of equality and liberty, of freedom and conscience, this ghastly duo is indifferent".
Give us some evidence, please.
"They define their institutions in terms of an archaic right to pry and preach, to create misery and foster intolerance. There's a mental squalor at work here, for the fears they exploit reflect the hollowness of their own organisations".
Okay, we get the picture. It's one of those evidence-less Guardian rants again.
"behind all the fatuity of clause 28" -
At last - this is the thing Williams is getting all het up about. An obscure clause of local government act that has never been applied and that should never have been introduced and that Mr. Davis is apparently in favour of - though no evidence at all is cited in this article.
- "lies the idea that gayness is so universally enticing a condition that, given a faint whiff of its delights, most people would rush to embrace it".
And why not? It strikes me that gay rights has a long way to go in Britain if the gays can't even persuade people like our Hywel that being gay is a-okay. And why does he care so much what others think of him?
|
"George Carey and David Davis make the perfect couple: both are the representatives of decaying institutions with pretensions to preach at modern Britain. How appropriate, therefore, that they should be united in a symmetry of bigotry".
Define bigotry, please.
"to those high themes of grace and repentance, of works and faith, of equality and liberty, of freedom and conscience, this ghastly duo is indifferent".
Give us some evidence, please.
"They define their institutions in terms of an archaic right to pry and preach, to create misery and foster intolerance. There's a mental squalor at work here, for the fears they exploit reflect the hollowness of their own organisations".
Okay, we get the picture. It's one of those evidence-less Guardian rants again.
"behind all the fatuity of clause 28" -
At last - this is the thing Williams is getting all het up about. An obscure clause of local government act that has never been applied and that should never have been introduced and that Mr. Davis is apparently in favour of - though no evidence at all is cited in this article.
- "lies the idea that gayness is so universally enticing a condition that, given a faint whiff of its delights, most people would rush to embrace it".
And why not? It strikes me that gay rights has a long way to go in Britain if the gays can't even persuade people like our Hywel that being gay is a-okay. And why does he care so much what others think of him?
|
Brian Sewell, eh? What do you reckon? I used to quite enjoy him when he was an art critic. He seemed to have a playful air about him, even if he did have a ridiculous accent. However, like Matthew Engel, who could be quite amusing when writing about Gloucestershire's bowling attack on a turning wicket at Eastbourne, but who knows damn all about America, Sewell has been over-promoted. Clearly, he knows damn all about, well anything:
"America is, as we all know, a synecdochism for all the virtues of Western civilisation. But - and dare one express a but in such a hysterical context? - some might see the events of that day in New York as an assault on the twin monuments of Mammon by an ascetic religious force emanating, yet again, from the deserts of the East to scourge the daily manipulators of greed, rapaciousness and avarice, the disciples of profit and cupidity, the instruments of personal and private wealth for its own sake. Have we forgotten the moral exemplar set by Christ when he scourged the traders in the temple of Jerusalem? When he overturned the tables of the moneychangers, did he pause to ask why any of them should be excluded from his wrath?"
Osama bin Laden = Jesus.
Jesus H. Christ.
|
"America is, as we all know, a synecdochism for all the virtues of Western civilisation. But - and dare one express a but in such a hysterical context? - some might see the events of that day in New York as an assault on the twin monuments of Mammon by an ascetic religious force emanating, yet again, from the deserts of the East to scourge the daily manipulators of greed, rapaciousness and avarice, the disciples of profit and cupidity, the instruments of personal and private wealth for its own sake. Have we forgotten the moral exemplar set by Christ when he scourged the traders in the temple of Jerusalem? When he overturned the tables of the moneychangers, did he pause to ask why any of them should be excluded from his wrath?"
Osama bin Laden = Jesus.
Jesus H. Christ.
|
French people, eh? What do you reckon? I'm not sure I can speak with much authority, since I only spoke to one of them yesterday, but he was reasonably helpful, even though his English was even worse than my French ( though not as bad as Natalie's translation of same - who could make sense of that? ). So perhaps there's hope for them after all, and they're not all a bunch of garlic-eating antisemites. It was an enjoyable enough day, made palatable by being able to pick up Steve Wright's interview with Tony Blackburn on the car radio, though for the life of me I could not understand why so much of our foreign policy in the past has been dictated by the urge to keep Calais British. In my opinion, they're welcome to it. Yes, I dare say it had some kind of strategic value, in the days when we ruled the waves, but was it worth the price? Still, at least we didn't see any synagogues burning, though perhaps that's because there aren't any left. In a spirit of enterprise we ventured as far as Sangatte, the notorious concentration camp for funny foreigners. Many of them seemed to have escaped, as there were a lot of swarthy-looking gentlemen in their twenties and thirties, aimlessly roaming the streets. But it's not so different from England, really. And the booze really is cheap. I also got to spend my first Euro. My hand didn't fall off when I touched the thing, but I can't say it was altogether an enchanting experience. Anyway... back to the blogging.
|
|
Tuesday, September 17
Bonjours, mes enfants! Je ne blogge pas aujourd'hui parce que je et ma belle femme Madame Briffa ons allez le booze cruise a Calais. Nous esperons acheter beaucoup de vins et biere, et peut-etre beaucoup de cigarette pour le pere de ma femme. Aussi, nous esperons avoir un dejeuner a Boulogne. Si vous voulez lire les blogges, avez un look aux homes et femmes a la sinister. Aussi, il est un nouveau bloggeur, M. Cinderella Bloggerfeller, qui est tres interessant. Il contribute beaucoup a ma sections de comment, et a un blogge qui est tres intellectual es humoureux. Aussi il connais beaucoup de phenomenes francaises.
Au revoir, mes petit pois!
A demain!
|
Au revoir, mes petit pois!
A demain!
|
Monday, September 16
The dreamers are giving it large down at the Guardian:
Sarah Boseley first:
"Every now and then, something happens to make the most cynical of us think that maybe this could one day, after all, become a better, even if not the best, of all possible worlds. That it's not naïve to believe there could be justice, fair play and equal life chances for rich and poor".
Then there is Gary Younge:
"Progressive politics demands a mixture of optimism and realism. Without the optimism you would never believe a better world could ever be built. Without the realism you would never be able to engage with the world as it actually is, in order to build it. Allow too much imbalance between the two and you either undervalue your potential to imagine what might be or undermine your ability to improve what already exists".
Finally, George Galloway MP - Saddam's mate:
"Imagine is the socialist anthem. I believe in every word of it".
Every word? Cast your mind back to:
"Imagine no possessions,
I wonder if you can,
no need for greed or hunger,
a brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people,
sharing all the world.
You may say I'm a dreamer,
but I'm not the only one,
I hope someday you'll join us,
and the world will live as one."
Yes, in a world with no possessions we would all live as one. And there'd be a lot of greed and hunger, with the inevitable consequence that we'd die as one as well, and pretty quickly too. Come on, kids, join the real world. It ain't pretty, but it's the only one we've got.
|
Sarah Boseley first:
"Every now and then, something happens to make the most cynical of us think that maybe this could one day, after all, become a better, even if not the best, of all possible worlds. That it's not naïve to believe there could be justice, fair play and equal life chances for rich and poor".
Then there is Gary Younge:
"Progressive politics demands a mixture of optimism and realism. Without the optimism you would never believe a better world could ever be built. Without the realism you would never be able to engage with the world as it actually is, in order to build it. Allow too much imbalance between the two and you either undervalue your potential to imagine what might be or undermine your ability to improve what already exists".
Finally, George Galloway MP - Saddam's mate:
"Imagine is the socialist anthem. I believe in every word of it".
Every word? Cast your mind back to:
"Imagine no possessions,
I wonder if you can,
no need for greed or hunger,
a brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people,
sharing all the world.
You may say I'm a dreamer,
but I'm not the only one,
I hope someday you'll join us,
and the world will live as one."
Yes, in a world with no possessions we would all live as one. And there'd be a lot of greed and hunger, with the inevitable consequence that we'd die as one as well, and pretty quickly too. Come on, kids, join the real world. It ain't pretty, but it's the only one we've got.
|
I wonder if both of today's leaders in the Indy were written by the same person. If so, they give ample proof to the idea that there is none more romantic than the cynic. First, the romantic ( It's about immigration ):
"Mr Blunkett should consider the radical option of declaring an amnesty. He should give all asylum-seekers currently here the right to remain, and start again. That would provide this country with much-needed workers, many of whom are skilled, entrepreneurial or willing to take low-paid jobs shunned by locals; it would get rid of the backlog at a stroke; and it would allow a well-resourced and fair system of receiving and assessing future claims to start with a clean slate".
I don't know why he bothers. It isn't going to happen. Forgeting the rights and wrongs of doing so, he wouldn't do it, anyway. Look at his track record. And even if so, even if he mentioned at cabinet, he'd be laughed out. Blair wouldn't countenance it, the papers wouldn't. The man would be a laughing stock. Forget it.
And then the cynic:
"The arrest of a group of al-Qa'ida suspects in Pakistan and the charging of five more in the United States was conveniently timed, just after the anniversary of the date that made Osama bin Laden famous.
But we should not be too cynical".
Or maybe cynical is the wrong word. How about naive? It wasn't on the anniversary, and if it were, so what? It's the arrest that is important, whatever the date.
"Although they are all, of course, innocent until proven guilty, against the five in the US and at least one in Pakistan there seems a well-founded case to answer on terrorism-related charges".
Well if the case was well-founded that makes the timeliness even more of an irrelevance. Really.
"This is, after all, the kind of response to 11 September last year on which the world should be expending its energies".
In which case....
"Despite the suggestion in the right-wing press yesterday that Tony Blair's dossier of casus belli will contain evidence that Saddam trained al-Qa'ida fighters, no such evidence has been forthcoming yet. Nor do we expect it on 24 September, when the dossier is due to be published".
Why not? Because it was suggest by the right-wing press? Is that it?
"The case for military action against Saddam is separate from the policy towards al-Qa'ida. Indeed, given that a war in Iraq would make acts of extremist Muslim terrorism more likely, the aims of regime change in Iraq and of minimising the risk of a repeat of 11 September are in conflict".
Just like the war in Afghanistan made them more likely. But fighting wars will always bring out your enemies, that's always a risk. And believe it or not, not all Muslims would be horrified by an attack on Iraq. Think Kuwait, Iran, etc.
Those Muslims, they're all the same, aren't they?
|
"Mr Blunkett should consider the radical option of declaring an amnesty. He should give all asylum-seekers currently here the right to remain, and start again. That would provide this country with much-needed workers, many of whom are skilled, entrepreneurial or willing to take low-paid jobs shunned by locals; it would get rid of the backlog at a stroke; and it would allow a well-resourced and fair system of receiving and assessing future claims to start with a clean slate".
I don't know why he bothers. It isn't going to happen. Forgeting the rights and wrongs of doing so, he wouldn't do it, anyway. Look at his track record. And even if so, even if he mentioned at cabinet, he'd be laughed out. Blair wouldn't countenance it, the papers wouldn't. The man would be a laughing stock. Forget it.
And then the cynic:
"The arrest of a group of al-Qa'ida suspects in Pakistan and the charging of five more in the United States was conveniently timed, just after the anniversary of the date that made Osama bin Laden famous.
But we should not be too cynical".
Or maybe cynical is the wrong word. How about naive? It wasn't on the anniversary, and if it were, so what? It's the arrest that is important, whatever the date.
"Although they are all, of course, innocent until proven guilty, against the five in the US and at least one in Pakistan there seems a well-founded case to answer on terrorism-related charges".
Well if the case was well-founded that makes the timeliness even more of an irrelevance. Really.
"This is, after all, the kind of response to 11 September last year on which the world should be expending its energies".
In which case....
"Despite the suggestion in the right-wing press yesterday that Tony Blair's dossier of casus belli will contain evidence that Saddam trained al-Qa'ida fighters, no such evidence has been forthcoming yet. Nor do we expect it on 24 September, when the dossier is due to be published".
Why not? Because it was suggest by the right-wing press? Is that it?
"The case for military action against Saddam is separate from the policy towards al-Qa'ida. Indeed, given that a war in Iraq would make acts of extremist Muslim terrorism more likely, the aims of regime change in Iraq and of minimising the risk of a repeat of 11 September are in conflict".
Just like the war in Afghanistan made them more likely. But fighting wars will always bring out your enemies, that's always a risk. And believe it or not, not all Muslims would be horrified by an attack on Iraq. Think Kuwait, Iran, etc.
Those Muslims, they're all the same, aren't they?
|
Peter Preston reminisces on September 11th:
"It was a horrible attack, an evil act. It needs avenging and rooting out. But when the president's scriptwriters, seeking to shame the UN, dig out Rwanda and Burundi, the deaths of thousands stretching into millions, they haplessly remind us of other failures and other grotesque evils. Sometimes we need to forget to remember; and sometimes we forget what we should remember".
Now, being a former editor of - guess which paper? - clearly the man can write. But could someone please enlighten me as to what that last sentence actually means?
|
"It was a horrible attack, an evil act. It needs avenging and rooting out. But when the president's scriptwriters, seeking to shame the UN, dig out Rwanda and Burundi, the deaths of thousands stretching into millions, they haplessly remind us of other failures and other grotesque evils. Sometimes we need to forget to remember; and sometimes we forget what we should remember".
Now, being a former editor of - guess which paper? - clearly the man can write. But could someone please enlighten me as to what that last sentence actually means?
|
Consider the use of the word 'Yet' in this paragraph, and then guess which paper it comes from:
"When I moved to the Cotswolds eight years ago, I was anti-hunt. I had never been to a meet, talked to any of the characters involved, or visited the kennels. I knew nothing about horses. Yet I was wary of imposing my views on people I had only just met, so I decided to test my instincts against the reality of the situation. I agreed to let the hunt continue to ride over my land for a season. In the meantime, I learned to ride and I spent a lot of time listening and watching".
|
"When I moved to the Cotswolds eight years ago, I was anti-hunt. I had never been to a meet, talked to any of the characters involved, or visited the kennels. I knew nothing about horses. Yet I was wary of imposing my views on people I had only just met, so I decided to test my instincts against the reality of the situation. I agreed to let the hunt continue to ride over my land for a season. In the meantime, I learned to ride and I spent a lot of time listening and watching".
|
Friday, September 13
According to liberal lardbutt David Aaronovitch:
"it is quite possible that 75 per cent of Britons could be overweight by 2017, and that half of those will be properly obese".
Oh no! What to do?
"This is about more than schools banning fizzy drinks and crisps, and encouraging fruit-eating. It involves radical changes to the way we look at exercise. We must devise regimes that kids like (and not keep moaning on about competitive sports, which many of them don't). We have to get more people walking and cycling to work, which means paying for them to travel on un-carred routes. How about tax breaks for gym use?
Or, instead, we could die – it's our choice, really".
Actually, it's an individual's choice. 'We' aren't all going to die of obesity together, you know. And let's keep the state out of it. The last thing we want is John Prescott explaining to the rest of us why burgers are bad for you. Go on the cabbage soup diet, mate, it worked for me.
The Guardian also blubbers onto the bandwagon:
"the world is losing the fight against flab. An astonishing 60% of all American adults are either overweight or obese".
Oh no! What to do?
"There is growing support for a global treaty on fast food".
Yeah, well there would be, wouldn't there? Get Kofi Annan to sort it out. Then the UN peacekeepers can lock'em up and throw away the key. What these people need is a diet of bread and water. And that goes for you too, Aaro.
|
"it is quite possible that 75 per cent of Britons could be overweight by 2017, and that half of those will be properly obese".
Oh no! What to do?
"This is about more than schools banning fizzy drinks and crisps, and encouraging fruit-eating. It involves radical changes to the way we look at exercise. We must devise regimes that kids like (and not keep moaning on about competitive sports, which many of them don't). We have to get more people walking and cycling to work, which means paying for them to travel on un-carred routes. How about tax breaks for gym use?
Or, instead, we could die – it's our choice, really".
Actually, it's an individual's choice. 'We' aren't all going to die of obesity together, you know. And let's keep the state out of it. The last thing we want is John Prescott explaining to the rest of us why burgers are bad for you. Go on the cabbage soup diet, mate, it worked for me.
The Guardian also blubbers onto the bandwagon:
"the world is losing the fight against flab. An astonishing 60% of all American adults are either overweight or obese".
Oh no! What to do?
"There is growing support for a global treaty on fast food".
Yeah, well there would be, wouldn't there? Get Kofi Annan to sort it out. Then the UN peacekeepers can lock'em up and throw away the key. What these people need is a diet of bread and water. And that goes for you too, Aaro.
|
Apparently Dubya gave a speech yesterday. Charlotte O'Sullivan was far from impressed. The poor bloke, clearly the most unpopular human being in the history of everything, poll ratings plummetting etc. etc. suddenly took a look at his calendar, and breathed a sigh of relief. September 11th. Didn't something happen that day?
"How convenient, then, that the anniversary of September 11 came along. The 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust are nice, handy victims to invoke. But the 3,000 killed in the Twin Towers have just as much pull. Neatly conflated, these deaths make a wonderful distraction from awkward domestic troubles and provide an excuse to invade a whole other country".
What a fantastically original insight. It took her a whole year to come up with it.
|
"How convenient, then, that the anniversary of September 11 came along. The 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust are nice, handy victims to invoke. But the 3,000 killed in the Twin Towers have just as much pull. Neatly conflated, these deaths make a wonderful distraction from awkward domestic troubles and provide an excuse to invade a whole other country".
What a fantastically original insight. It took her a whole year to come up with it.
|
After mentioning Will Self yesterday, I find this a great excuse to relay this conversation he once had on Radio Five with Richard Littlejohn, chaired by Nicky Campbell. I actually caught the end of it. This, much-edited, transcript barely scratches the surface. Both of the main protagonists actually came out of it quite well, I thought. It was very funny.
|
|
The wife wanted to watch a cookery programme last night, which at least meant I couldn't see all of Question Time. Not that I've watched an entire episode for years. Ever since they went to five not four panellists, and one of them was an actor or a comedian. The vision of being lectured by cross-dressing humourist Eddie Izzard on the benefits of the Euro still chills the blood. Yesterday's token comic, Michale Moore, was even more ridiculous. He hand't bothered to shave, and couldn't have made a bigger fool of himself if he'd had his mascara on. Yet the audience laughed along whenever he accused Bush of lying, which just goes to show that American morons are no better than British ones. What rocks do these creatures crawl out from? And he's not what I'd call a persuasive arguer. Saying Bush had decided to go to war on Afghanistan as a subtle means of distracting public attention from Florida 2000 was one of his more penetrating insights.Our Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, even though he was sitting right next to him, just ignored his every 'point', and Ed Koch glared at him with more astonishment than annoyance. "I thought this was the BBC, not some lame-brained cable show" appeared to be his thinking. I dare say the BBC were perfectly pleased with themselves. Consequently I flicked over. Channel Five has been running a long and comparatively intellectual series of documentaries about lap-dancing. I find them far more edifying.
UPDATE: Steven Chapman has a different, more generous take on the whole sorry business.
|
UPDATE: Steven Chapman has a different, more generous take on the whole sorry business.
|
Thursday, September 12
Oh my God! Michael Moore is going to be on Question Time 2nite, live from New York. To the barricades!
|
|
Mr. Deborah Orr ( or Will Self as he is known to his friends ) writes in the Evening Standard:
"When - rather than if - George Bush and his hawks swoop on Iraq, Londoners should stand by to receive yet another wave of refugees. We had them in the 1950s, fleeing Senator Joe McCarthy's House Un-American Activities Committee; we had them in the 1960s and 1970s, on the run from fighting a savage and unjustified war in Vietnam, and I hope we'll see them again: Americans like Joseph L Mankiewicz, who find the policies of their own government impossible to stomach, and seek a more tolerant society".
I think he's being satirical. If he means it, if the UK really is more tolerant than the US, then we can look forward to Noam Chomsky, Barbara Kingsolver, and co all swirling around Trafalgar Square, jabbering to the pigeons about the crushing of dissent and imperialism. Well, if any of them get anywhere near Bethnal Green, I shall seriously think of getting medieval on their asses.
Yankees, go home!
|
"When - rather than if - George Bush and his hawks swoop on Iraq, Londoners should stand by to receive yet another wave of refugees. We had them in the 1950s, fleeing Senator Joe McCarthy's House Un-American Activities Committee; we had them in the 1960s and 1970s, on the run from fighting a savage and unjustified war in Vietnam, and I hope we'll see them again: Americans like Joseph L Mankiewicz, who find the policies of their own government impossible to stomach, and seek a more tolerant society".
I think he's being satirical. If he means it, if the UK really is more tolerant than the US, then we can look forward to Noam Chomsky, Barbara Kingsolver, and co all swirling around Trafalgar Square, jabbering to the pigeons about the crushing of dissent and imperialism. Well, if any of them get anywhere near Bethnal Green, I shall seriously think of getting medieval on their asses.
Yankees, go home!
|
Wednesday, September 11
Mice, eh? The mouseman came yesterday. The poison is still being eaten, and the mice still exist. The plan to infest the flat with cats has hit some rocks, so I think it's time to sneak in some breakback traps. After all a quick instant death is probably preferable to the ten-day prolonged agony induced by the poison. Trouble is, the wife might get a little upset if I try that one. No doubt a camera will catch the moment of impact as well. Doh!
|
|
Marvellous. You go to a party in the middle of a week in which you are taking part in the fabled cabbage soup diet, and the one time you break it, by having a chocolate mousse, it's captured on camera. And who took this incriminating photo? The EU? David Blunkett? No, Perry de Havilland! BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU.
|
|
It's September 11th, and the Indy is in a reflective mood.
"We are not a better, more thoughtful people. Indeed, our collective life over the past year has in many respects seemed even more trivial".
Unfortunately no example is given to back this up. However, I think I can guess who he means by 'we' in this instant. It's those 'lobotomised leftie dicktasters' again.
"The US has become more outward-looking, but with eyes that do not see".
I disagree. I think they see, and they don't like.
"The attempt by George Bush and Tony Blair to use the events of 11 September to stoke up the war fever against Iraq is deeply disingenuous".
But I don't think they've been doing that. This Iraq talk has been going on for months, and unless they fly in today, then they've missed their chance. The Indy's lumping of the two is far more disingenous.
"While there certainly were links between the attack on the US and the regime in Afghanistan, they were not as clear cut as Mr Bush and Mr Blair like to make out".
Well, how clear cut has it got to be? CCTV and fingerprints?
"All that we have learnt about al-Qa'ida in the past year tells us that Osama bin Laden may have been the high priest of the ideology behind the attack, but that its planners either died in the attack or have yet to be identified".
May have been? So there it is. The Independent has a World Exclusive, buried away in their leader column. It wasn't bin Laden who masterminded the Twin Towers Attacks, it was Dr. Evil.
And at the Guardian? Their leader-writer tells us that:
"Like Bin Laden's al-Qaida, George Bush has much (privately) to celebrate this day".
Well at least they think Ossie did it. Mind you, I don't think he celebrating overmuchly. Even if he's still alive, it must be pretty miserable sitting in his cave, choking of emphysema. Still, nothing beats a good old-fashioned gratuitous Florida recount reference, eh?
"A weak, second-rate president with no mandate and less nous has since September 11 gained unprecedented levels of voter support".
No mandate? What, not even a little one?
|
"We are not a better, more thoughtful people. Indeed, our collective life over the past year has in many respects seemed even more trivial".
Unfortunately no example is given to back this up. However, I think I can guess who he means by 'we' in this instant. It's those 'lobotomised leftie dicktasters' again.
"The US has become more outward-looking, but with eyes that do not see".
I disagree. I think they see, and they don't like.
"The attempt by George Bush and Tony Blair to use the events of 11 September to stoke up the war fever against Iraq is deeply disingenuous".
But I don't think they've been doing that. This Iraq talk has been going on for months, and unless they fly in today, then they've missed their chance. The Indy's lumping of the two is far more disingenous.
"While there certainly were links between the attack on the US and the regime in Afghanistan, they were not as clear cut as Mr Bush and Mr Blair like to make out".
Well, how clear cut has it got to be? CCTV and fingerprints?
"All that we have learnt about al-Qa'ida in the past year tells us that Osama bin Laden may have been the high priest of the ideology behind the attack, but that its planners either died in the attack or have yet to be identified".
May have been? So there it is. The Independent has a World Exclusive, buried away in their leader column. It wasn't bin Laden who masterminded the Twin Towers Attacks, it was Dr. Evil.
And at the Guardian? Their leader-writer tells us that:
"Like Bin Laden's al-Qaida, George Bush has much (privately) to celebrate this day".
Well at least they think Ossie did it. Mind you, I don't think he celebrating overmuchly. Even if he's still alive, it must be pretty miserable sitting in his cave, choking of emphysema. Still, nothing beats a good old-fashioned gratuitous Florida recount reference, eh?
"A weak, second-rate president with no mandate and less nous has since September 11 gained unprecedented levels of voter support".
No mandate? What, not even a little one?
|
Tuesday, September 10
At the Brit Blogger Bash I had the good fortune to meet the great Steven Chapman, a man as tall as he is wise. I complimented him on one of his postings, this one, in which he tried to penetrate the weird mind of the Liberal. His thesis was, in a nutshell, that the poor saps have a pathological craving to side with the underdog, which colours all their thinking. Thus, although the Americans seemed to suffer most on Sept 11 last year, somehow, because the Americans are usually the oppressor, basically, this cannot happen. Oppressor cannot oppress; it's a logical impossibility. Hence all the baloney about 'root causes'. Somehow, multimillionaire Bin Laden was the underdog. He had to be. There's a bit too much of a 'frog in your pocket' ( all that 'we' stuff, in Steven's post. ) But otherwise I think he was onto something. And it's a lot more arresting than the crap George Monbiot and Hugo Young come up with. Last week, Moonbat revealed that he was in urgent need of the funny farm. This week, it's Hugo's turn to take some Prozac.
Moonbat: "it is surely fair to say that most of us suffer from subclinical neuroses, anxiety or a profound discomfort with ourselves".
Hugo: "the anniversary finds the world, instead of buoyed by reassurance from the great defenders of order and legitimacy, uniquely depressed".
Well like I said last time: Speak for yourself.
Both, interestingly, couch their personal revelations in the blanket 'we', or 'us'. But that's par for the course for your average, and I mean very average, Guardian-writer. For these guys morality is a communal act. And once you're on that road, well, it's a highway to hell. It isn't. It never is. By definition. Still, if you try and believe this kind of voodoo, no wonder you need to speak to your analyst. Well away with all this misery. I know I run the risk of undermining my carefully-crafted "completely disgusted with the modern world" image, but I think we've never had it so good. Sure, there are millions starving, and lots of towelheads are in imminent prospect of being turned into toast, but at least the millions are alive, and many of those towelheads hate the rest of us, and would be perfectly happy to see us die. So it really is kill or be killed. Also, once they start embracing capitalism and the global economy, things will soon start to sort themselves out. Look at Afghanistan now. Westerners are going on holiday there. And If a newspaper as erudite and sophisticated as the Sun can still find time to tell us this story, things really can't be all bad.
|
Moonbat: "it is surely fair to say that most of us suffer from subclinical neuroses, anxiety or a profound discomfort with ourselves".
Hugo: "the anniversary finds the world, instead of buoyed by reassurance from the great defenders of order and legitimacy, uniquely depressed".
Well like I said last time: Speak for yourself.
Both, interestingly, couch their personal revelations in the blanket 'we', or 'us'. But that's par for the course for your average, and I mean very average, Guardian-writer. For these guys morality is a communal act. And once you're on that road, well, it's a highway to hell. It isn't. It never is. By definition. Still, if you try and believe this kind of voodoo, no wonder you need to speak to your analyst. Well away with all this misery. I know I run the risk of undermining my carefully-crafted "completely disgusted with the modern world" image, but I think we've never had it so good. Sure, there are millions starving, and lots of towelheads are in imminent prospect of being turned into toast, but at least the millions are alive, and many of those towelheads hate the rest of us, and would be perfectly happy to see us die. So it really is kill or be killed. Also, once they start embracing capitalism and the global economy, things will soon start to sort themselves out. Look at Afghanistan now. Westerners are going on holiday there. And If a newspaper as erudite and sophisticated as the Sun can still find time to tell us this story, things really can't be all bad.
|
Sex wars breaks out in Bloggerland. Well Meryl, you're on a slippery slope here. Once you start saying that women ought to be permalinked to, next it'll be gays, then blacks, then dwarfs, and then what? I link to 9 women, out of 25, a pretty good ratio, compared to others, apparently. But so what? That doesn't prove I have a PC attitude to women, it doesn't prove I hate them. It doesn't prove anything.
So some think that Diana Moon is a better writer than Steven Den Beste. Well so do I. But others don't. Obviously, otherwise he wouldn't get the hits he gets. But this is the blogosphere, and freedom rules. I think there are plenty of male bloggers too, who are better than him. Again, so what? This is all a bit like saying Mozart ought to sell more records than Eminem. Why?
Freedom of association means the right to discriminate. And capitalism means the right to make the wrong choices. Otherwise we might as well introduce state subsidies, quotas, affirmative action and the like.
And then the liberals will have won.
|
So some think that Diana Moon is a better writer than Steven Den Beste. Well so do I. But others don't. Obviously, otherwise he wouldn't get the hits he gets. But this is the blogosphere, and freedom rules. I think there are plenty of male bloggers too, who are better than him. Again, so what? This is all a bit like saying Mozart ought to sell more records than Eminem. Why?
Freedom of association means the right to discriminate. And capitalism means the right to make the wrong choices. Otherwise we might as well introduce state subsidies, quotas, affirmative action and the like.
And then the liberals will have won.
|
Monday, September 9
Sorry. A late start today, still recovering as I am from the traumatic experience that was the Brit Blogger Bash. Not just the alcohol, nor the excellent wit, bonhomie ,and intellectual provocation, but the extraordinary series of allegations about me and my site. Without naming names, not one, not two, not even three ( the third was recounting a conversation he had had with another of his scribes ) which by my calculations means that FOUR people said:
"You know, you're not at all like I imagined".
It's not like I even asked. No, these were entirely unscripted, unprompted, and for that matter, uncalled for assessments.
What had they expected? A twenty-five year old pre-op transsexual? A 65 year old former coal miner from Durham? A lesbian separatist single mother? No, they thought I'd be old ( even older, than I already am ), and somebody 'completely disgusted with the modern world'.
I think Perry redeemed himself. His parting words were: 'Actually, you're just another boozy blogger'.
In the circumstances I think that's what I call a compliment.
Thanks, Perry. It was terrific fun. No, really.
|
"You know, you're not at all like I imagined".
It's not like I even asked. No, these were entirely unscripted, unprompted, and for that matter, uncalled for assessments.
What had they expected? A twenty-five year old pre-op transsexual? A 65 year old former coal miner from Durham? A lesbian separatist single mother? No, they thought I'd be old ( even older, than I already am ), and somebody 'completely disgusted with the modern world'.
I think Perry redeemed himself. His parting words were: 'Actually, you're just another boozy blogger'.
In the circumstances I think that's what I call a compliment.
Thanks, Perry. It was terrific fun. No, really.
|
Friday, September 6
Polly Toynbee waxes lyrical today about God, and the Faithful
"at a time when it threatens global Armageddon. It is there in the born-again Christian fundamentalism demanded of every US politician, turning them all into "crusaders". It drives on the murderous Islamic jihadists. It makes mad the biblical land-grabbing Israeli settlers. It threatens nuclear nemesis between the Hindus and Muslims along the India-Pakistan border. It still hurls pipebombs on the Ulster streets. The Falun Gong are killed for it, extremist Sikhs die for it too. The Pope kills millions through his reckless spreading of Aids".
The horny devil.
"True, Stalin and Hitler's secular dogmas mimicked religious fervour horribly, but that only adds to the warning against any absolutist belief".
Ah, religion = absolutism? Not quite, love.
"But religion is not nice, it kills: it is toxic in the places where people really believe it. It only becomes civilised when it loses all temporal power in a multicultural, secular society".
So religion is only civilised when confronted with other religions? Oh, and a few godless souls like Toynbee, just to help calm things down, no doubt.
"Everywhere reason is under threat as a sponginess of thought blurs the line between the real and the fantastical".
That's right. They're are a lot of weirdoes writing for the Guardian.
|
"at a time when it threatens global Armageddon. It is there in the born-again Christian fundamentalism demanded of every US politician, turning them all into "crusaders". It drives on the murderous Islamic jihadists. It makes mad the biblical land-grabbing Israeli settlers. It threatens nuclear nemesis between the Hindus and Muslims along the India-Pakistan border. It still hurls pipebombs on the Ulster streets. The Falun Gong are killed for it, extremist Sikhs die for it too. The Pope kills millions through his reckless spreading of Aids".
The horny devil.
"True, Stalin and Hitler's secular dogmas mimicked religious fervour horribly, but that only adds to the warning against any absolutist belief".
Ah, religion = absolutism? Not quite, love.
"But religion is not nice, it kills: it is toxic in the places where people really believe it. It only becomes civilised when it loses all temporal power in a multicultural, secular society".
So religion is only civilised when confronted with other religions? Oh, and a few godless souls like Toynbee, just to help calm things down, no doubt.
"Everywhere reason is under threat as a sponginess of thought blurs the line between the real and the fantastical".
That's right. They're are a lot of weirdoes writing for the Guardian.
|
Another crazed sex story from the Sun. I like the 'allegedly', and the 'health activists' bit. Still, it would be nice to think it were true.
|
|
Thursday, September 5
Some cretin's being putting the frighteners on Emily, the Hawkgirl. There's a place in hell for you and your friends, whoever you are, you scumsucking satanist.
Come back, Emily, in your own sweet time. Or the terrorists will have won.
|
Come back, Emily, in your own sweet time. Or the terrorists will have won.
|
An interesting review of the autobiography of Khaled al-Berry, ex-radical towelhead, over at the Times of Malta. The book isn't available in English, but the review is. Not much stuff about poverty either. There's also a good and perceptive leader about Iraq, far better than anything you'd ever get in the Wanker or Indy. Those fundamentalist Catholics can sure write.
|
|
The links don't seem to be working but there's a fine old rant against the dreaded Di, over at the Spinsters.com, by Lee Ann MorawskiLee Ann Morawski, so good they named her twice.
|
|
Anatole Kaletsky is in cracking form today.
"Forget Iraq. Forget Afghanistan. Forget the US. The nation that will really change history this year will be Canada, or maybe Russia".
Or maybe Timbuktu.
"By indicating in Johannesburg that they plan to ratify the Kyoto Protocol before the end of the year, these nations have provided the critical mass of signatories required to bring into effect a new system of international law on climate change, despite the vehement opposition of the American Government".
I reckon that's a little naive, Anatole.
"If that statement sounds naive, let me reassure you. I do not believe, any more than George W. Bush does, that the Kyoto Protocol will prevent climate change".
In which case, why sign?
"And I have no more idea than the US President whether the world is really getting hotter or colder — and if so, why this is happening and whether it is a real threat to mankind’s survival or “just one of those things”".
In which case, why sign?
"Why, then, am I so happy about the prospect that Russia and Canada will soon join the list of 55 industrial countries whose instruments of ratification must be lodged with the United Nations to give the Kyoto controls on greenhouse emissions the force of international law? One unexpected reason occurred to me yesterday morning, as I watched the embarrassment of Colin Powell, facing the hecklers in Johannesburg. How would American TV viewers react to the jeering of their Secretary of State by supposedly respectable diplomats from around the world? On balance, the effect might be quite salutary. For the world to thumb its nose at America — whether by childish booing of US leaders or, more constructively, by simply ignoring American policies on energy and global warming — is a healthy reaction to the arrogance and unilateralism of President Bush".
Ah. so it's the symbolism. Let's all show how shallow and dishonest we all are, let's sign that paper now! That'll show those crazy Yanks.
"In contrast to the monstrous atrocities of Osama bin Laden, this is a legitimate form of protest against the excesses of American hegemony and Washington’s disdain for international law".
What law? It isn't law if you don't sign. It's the Eurogoons, the Russians and the Canadians who ought to be worried about the law. They're the ones who want to obey it.
"But surely this is all gesture politics?"
Indeed.
"But Kyoto is not about solving the global warming problem in one fell swoop, any more than the summit in Johannesburg was about eliminating all global poverty and environmental degradation. These protocols, treaties and summits are steps in a long journey whose ultimate destination cannot even be defined".
Terrific. Sign away, guys.
|
"Forget Iraq. Forget Afghanistan. Forget the US. The nation that will really change history this year will be Canada, or maybe Russia".
Or maybe Timbuktu.
"By indicating in Johannesburg that they plan to ratify the Kyoto Protocol before the end of the year, these nations have provided the critical mass of signatories required to bring into effect a new system of international law on climate change, despite the vehement opposition of the American Government".
I reckon that's a little naive, Anatole.
"If that statement sounds naive, let me reassure you. I do not believe, any more than George W. Bush does, that the Kyoto Protocol will prevent climate change".
In which case, why sign?
"And I have no more idea than the US President whether the world is really getting hotter or colder — and if so, why this is happening and whether it is a real threat to mankind’s survival or “just one of those things”".
In which case, why sign?
"Why, then, am I so happy about the prospect that Russia and Canada will soon join the list of 55 industrial countries whose instruments of ratification must be lodged with the United Nations to give the Kyoto controls on greenhouse emissions the force of international law? One unexpected reason occurred to me yesterday morning, as I watched the embarrassment of Colin Powell, facing the hecklers in Johannesburg. How would American TV viewers react to the jeering of their Secretary of State by supposedly respectable diplomats from around the world? On balance, the effect might be quite salutary. For the world to thumb its nose at America — whether by childish booing of US leaders or, more constructively, by simply ignoring American policies on energy and global warming — is a healthy reaction to the arrogance and unilateralism of President Bush".
Ah. so it's the symbolism. Let's all show how shallow and dishonest we all are, let's sign that paper now! That'll show those crazy Yanks.
"In contrast to the monstrous atrocities of Osama bin Laden, this is a legitimate form of protest against the excesses of American hegemony and Washington’s disdain for international law".
What law? It isn't law if you don't sign. It's the Eurogoons, the Russians and the Canadians who ought to be worried about the law. They're the ones who want to obey it.
"But surely this is all gesture politics?"
Indeed.
"But Kyoto is not about solving the global warming problem in one fell swoop, any more than the summit in Johannesburg was about eliminating all global poverty and environmental degradation. These protocols, treaties and summits are steps in a long journey whose ultimate destination cannot even be defined".
Terrific. Sign away, guys.
|
Wednesday, September 4
The nameless one at British Politics writes an obsequious post about Tony Blair. The sad fact is I agree with him. Well, mostly, although he does get it terribly wrong about William Hague. It makes you realise how Labourites used to like Thatcher. Foreign policy is so important. And you've always got to remember the socialist retards and class warriors who make up most of the parliamentary Labour Party. Considering that he wanders around with that millstone round his neck, it's a wonder he achieves anything.
|
|
In normal circumstances, this story would delight me. But because Blair is so fixated on public opinion, it doesn't. There is, however, a light at the end of that tunnel of unpopularity. Suppose Iraq gets invaded, against the will of the British, and it succeeds. Surely then his stranglehold on public opinion, and the opinion of the Labour party, would be greater than ever? Bad news for me, but good news for him. I dare say Campbell's told him this, though.
|
|
AN Wilson joins in the great debate regarding Joan Collins' exit from these shores. His solution also refers to the Great British Buttock. There aren't many people out there more right-wing than me, but he must be one of them.
|
|
LABOUR MP IN RACISM SHOCKER. I hope Mr. Gurbux Singh is on the case. Oh, sorry, he resigned, didn't he?
|
|
While the Earth Summit collapses and Tony Blair promises to show the world his dossier, the Guardian turns its attention to the latest reality game-show, "I'm A Celebrity, Get Me out of Here", in which, for my foreign readers, 8 quasi-famous beings are stuck in the jungle for a fortnight. I'm still reeling from Uri Geller's shock eviction, though justice was marginally restored when Nigel Benn got counted out last night. But you don't want to know my opinion, you want Mark Lawson's. And on the whole, he approves. It's about celebrities, you see:
"liberals can watch them without qualms as there's less sensitivity about the exploitation and humiliation of the famous than of innocent civilians such as Jade Goody".
This is fascinating. Does Mark Lawson, let alone do liberals - really go around dividing the world into the exploited and the exploiters? In what sense was the self-centred and duplicitous Jade Goody - if not a millionairess then very close to becoming one - any more of an innocent than, say, Tony Blackburn? And what does 'there's less sensitivity' mean? Does he mean he feels less sensitive about famous people? Or others feel less sensitive and therefore it behoves him to fall in line with the masses? And does he mean that this is a just state of affairs? The famous people somehow deserve to be brought down a peg or two? How does he work that one out? Even then, I am unconvinced: that Tara Palmer-Tompkinson, and that Darren Day strike me as pretty vulnerable souls, myself. No, the sad fact is that Mark Lawson is a bit of a pillock. You'd have thought he'd be a grateful man, seeing as he almost expired in a hail of popcorn and Semtex not so long ago. But clearly, his brush with death hasn't knocked any sense into him. More's the pity.
|
"liberals can watch them without qualms as there's less sensitivity about the exploitation and humiliation of the famous than of innocent civilians such as Jade Goody".
This is fascinating. Does Mark Lawson, let alone do liberals - really go around dividing the world into the exploited and the exploiters? In what sense was the self-centred and duplicitous Jade Goody - if not a millionairess then very close to becoming one - any more of an innocent than, say, Tony Blackburn? And what does 'there's less sensitivity' mean? Does he mean he feels less sensitive about famous people? Or others feel less sensitive and therefore it behoves him to fall in line with the masses? And does he mean that this is a just state of affairs? The famous people somehow deserve to be brought down a peg or two? How does he work that one out? Even then, I am unconvinced: that Tara Palmer-Tompkinson, and that Darren Day strike me as pretty vulnerable souls, myself. No, the sad fact is that Mark Lawson is a bit of a pillock. You'd have thought he'd be a grateful man, seeing as he almost expired in a hail of popcorn and Semtex not so long ago. But clearly, his brush with death hasn't knocked any sense into him. More's the pity.
|
Tuesday, September 3
It's getting close to the anniversary of the Megadeath, and Matthew Engel gets all nostalgic:
"A year ago, sympathy for the United States was close to unanimous across the planet".
Indeed. The sight of Palestinians sobbing their eyes out lives with me still. It didn't last, though, as:
"the Bush administration dissipated it all on a spending spree of ideological indulgences and hubris".
Oh dear.
"Leave aside the question of whether its Iraq policy - whatever it actually is this morning - might possibly be right".
Yes, why not? That makes the 'Bush is a moron' case a lot stronger, doesn't it?
"What is indisputable is that the US government has wrecked, possibly beyond repair, its hopes of persuading any other country to that effect by simple, arrogant incompetence. It is terrifying to watch. It could be the next bestseller: How to Lose Friends and Influence No One, by George W Bush".
Actually, this is disputable. A lot of people loved the US, a lot hated it. Who exactly are these people who changed their minds since September 11? Name one.
"Someone needs to tell the American people the truth: that whether or not the Iraq policy is right, the government's methods of making its case have been staggeringly inept".
History is calling, Matthew.
So you read this stuff, and then you understand what makes Richard Littlejohn tick.
|
"A year ago, sympathy for the United States was close to unanimous across the planet".
Indeed. The sight of Palestinians sobbing their eyes out lives with me still. It didn't last, though, as:
"the Bush administration dissipated it all on a spending spree of ideological indulgences and hubris".
Oh dear.
"Leave aside the question of whether its Iraq policy - whatever it actually is this morning - might possibly be right".
Yes, why not? That makes the 'Bush is a moron' case a lot stronger, doesn't it?
"What is indisputable is that the US government has wrecked, possibly beyond repair, its hopes of persuading any other country to that effect by simple, arrogant incompetence. It is terrifying to watch. It could be the next bestseller: How to Lose Friends and Influence No One, by George W Bush".
Actually, this is disputable. A lot of people loved the US, a lot hated it. Who exactly are these people who changed their minds since September 11? Name one.
"Someone needs to tell the American people the truth: that whether or not the Iraq policy is right, the government's methods of making its case have been staggeringly inept".
History is calling, Matthew.
So you read this stuff, and then you understand what makes Richard Littlejohn tick.
|
What kind of person is it, who thinks that human beings that don't actually exist are more valuable than ones that do? A pretty rum one. The type of guy, of course, who writes for the Guardian. Take James Meek, its science correspondent:
"Anti-abortion activists, the Roman Catholic church and some non-religious ethicists like to present the petri dish in PGD as a kind of sacrificial arena, where defective human beings are cast aside. In truth, the embryos are microscopic clutches of cells, no more sentient than the egg and sperm cell before the moment of fertilisation".
That is hardly in dispute. It's the morality, stupid. Turn then to today's leader. This time, he's moaning about climate change:
"For politicians to speak up for and take action on behalf of an electorate not yet born merits congratulation".
Why? Who gives a damn about things/creatures/humans who haven't even made it to the petri dish? But that's the Guardian for you. It's always tomorrow, for those guys.
|
"Anti-abortion activists, the Roman Catholic church and some non-religious ethicists like to present the petri dish in PGD as a kind of sacrificial arena, where defective human beings are cast aside. In truth, the embryos are microscopic clutches of cells, no more sentient than the egg and sperm cell before the moment of fertilisation".
That is hardly in dispute. It's the morality, stupid. Turn then to today's leader. This time, he's moaning about climate change:
"For politicians to speak up for and take action on behalf of an electorate not yet born merits congratulation".
Why? Who gives a damn about things/creatures/humans who haven't even made it to the petri dish? But that's the Guardian for you. It's always tomorrow, for those guys.
|
Gerald Kaufman, Labour MP, discusses Bush in the Indy:
"Today there is a complete power vacuum in Washington over the Middle East, with fundamental disagreement at the highest level. President Bush and his National Security Adviser, the ineffable Ms Rice, are too dim to understand the issues".
Or maybe they do. They just disagree with you on them. Ever thought of that, bright boy?
|
"Today there is a complete power vacuum in Washington over the Middle East, with fundamental disagreement at the highest level. President Bush and his National Security Adviser, the ineffable Ms Rice, are too dim to understand the issues".
Or maybe they do. They just disagree with you on them. Ever thought of that, bright boy?
|
Monday, September 2
Lousily-paid novelist and journalist Terence Blacker today takes a shot at highly-paid novelist and actress Joan Collins in today's Indy. The old girl is leaving for New York. One of the reasons given is that the people are "more polite, more respectful".
He finds this surprising. I don't.
"It is not exactly heartbreaking news, but all the same it is rather sad. One has become used to seeing fading stars like Rod Stewart, Sean Connery or Salman Rushdie dragging their ageing bones to a foreign land, moaning as they go, but, even at 69, Joan Collins clearly had so much still to offer her country".
Yes, but she wants to feel safe, and she likes the politeness. Also, she's got a job there. Also, these are bad examples. Connery's lived abroad for decades, and Rod went back in the mid-Seventies.
"Something odd seems to happen to the emigré English. They leave the country believing that escaping from the undeniable grimness of some aspects of national life will somehow give them more space to fulfil their potential. Away from the tension and squalor, their talent will bloom and they will generally become more themselves".
Actually, she didn't say anything about becoming a better actress. You go where the work is, Tel.
"Yet, for reasons no one quite understands, the very opposite happens. They become crashing bores, gleefully reading the latest bad news from Britain and congratulating themselves on their "quality of life", becoming tanned, dried-up parodies of what they once were, cranking up their accents a notch in a doomed attempt to make themselves interesting to the locals".
This is nonsense. Joan has spent years in the States. She wasn't commuting when she was in Dynasty.
"This process of decline seems to be peculiar to the British".
Oh no, here we go.
"Perhaps the awkward truth is that the impulse to move away from Britain is a sign, not of weariness with these islands, but of some inner malaise – boredom, a loss of curiosity, originality, libido, or a general sense of life slipping away from within. It seems that Joan Collins is part of a general trend".
Perhaps it is. For in yesterday's Indy, another badly paid novelist and journalist Joan Smith was also worrying about the Brits abroad.
"it would be nice to think that they might display a fleeting interest in Greek culture, instead of viewing it solely as a place to get drunk and have sex in a hot climate".
Well New York gets pretty warm in the summer. Perhaps that's why Joan has gone there. Indeed
"Boorish conduct by British tourists in Greece is now so common that the Foreign Office has issued official advice that "indecent behaviour, including mooning", will not be tolerated by the local police".
She doesn't tell us what guidelines the NYPD have issued to Ms Collins but I fear the worst. None of this surprises me. Although her appearances in The Bitch and The Stud are over twenty years old, they live with me still, and although it was her breasts that she showed off then, it would not surprise me in the least that her buttocks are also way over par. And not just for sitting on. Compare and contrast those with the nether cheeks of Ms Smith. I don't know them well, so can't really speak on the matter with any great authority, but I can't believe they are remotely in La Collins' class. After all, It is less than five weeks since Smith was affecting not even to know what mooning was. Still, not all the British are as ignorant as she. Rod Stewart himself has been pretty proud of his butt in the past, and no doubt is now. Maybe neither of them are in the J-Lo league, but then few of us are. Also, she isn't a Brit. Nonetheless, maybe this is why they go abroad. Let's face it, we don't lead the world at many things, but the Great British Buttock is among the finest in the hemisphere.
|
He finds this surprising. I don't.
"It is not exactly heartbreaking news, but all the same it is rather sad. One has become used to seeing fading stars like Rod Stewart, Sean Connery or Salman Rushdie dragging their ageing bones to a foreign land, moaning as they go, but, even at 69, Joan Collins clearly had so much still to offer her country".
Yes, but she wants to feel safe, and she likes the politeness. Also, she's got a job there. Also, these are bad examples. Connery's lived abroad for decades, and Rod went back in the mid-Seventies.
"Something odd seems to happen to the emigré English. They leave the country believing that escaping from the undeniable grimness of some aspects of national life will somehow give them more space to fulfil their potential. Away from the tension and squalor, their talent will bloom and they will generally become more themselves".
Actually, she didn't say anything about becoming a better actress. You go where the work is, Tel.
"Yet, for reasons no one quite understands, the very opposite happens. They become crashing bores, gleefully reading the latest bad news from Britain and congratulating themselves on their "quality of life", becoming tanned, dried-up parodies of what they once were, cranking up their accents a notch in a doomed attempt to make themselves interesting to the locals".
This is nonsense. Joan has spent years in the States. She wasn't commuting when she was in Dynasty.
"This process of decline seems to be peculiar to the British".
Oh no, here we go.
"Perhaps the awkward truth is that the impulse to move away from Britain is a sign, not of weariness with these islands, but of some inner malaise – boredom, a loss of curiosity, originality, libido, or a general sense of life slipping away from within. It seems that Joan Collins is part of a general trend".
Perhaps it is. For in yesterday's Indy, another badly paid novelist and journalist Joan Smith was also worrying about the Brits abroad.
"it would be nice to think that they might display a fleeting interest in Greek culture, instead of viewing it solely as a place to get drunk and have sex in a hot climate".
Well New York gets pretty warm in the summer. Perhaps that's why Joan has gone there. Indeed
"Boorish conduct by British tourists in Greece is now so common that the Foreign Office has issued official advice that "indecent behaviour, including mooning", will not be tolerated by the local police".
She doesn't tell us what guidelines the NYPD have issued to Ms Collins but I fear the worst. None of this surprises me. Although her appearances in The Bitch and The Stud are over twenty years old, they live with me still, and although it was her breasts that she showed off then, it would not surprise me in the least that her buttocks are also way over par. And not just for sitting on. Compare and contrast those with the nether cheeks of Ms Smith. I don't know them well, so can't really speak on the matter with any great authority, but I can't believe they are remotely in La Collins' class. After all, It is less than five weeks since Smith was affecting not even to know what mooning was. Still, not all the British are as ignorant as she. Rod Stewart himself has been pretty proud of his butt in the past, and no doubt is now. Maybe neither of them are in the J-Lo league, but then few of us are. Also, she isn't a Brit. Nonetheless, maybe this is why they go abroad. Let's face it, we don't lead the world at many things, but the Great British Buttock is among the finest in the hemisphere.
|
"If international diplomacy is a game of poker, President George Bush has played a strong hand incredibly badly",
announces today's leader in the Indy. Of course, if international diplomacy were a game of poker, we wouldn't know Bush's hand. And if we did, it wouldn't be a strong one. His opponents would all pass. BAD ANALOGY.
"Indeed, Mr Bush has played his cards so badly that Saddam Hussein has not had to bluff his weak hand at all".
Yes, but if his hand is weak... like I said: BAD ANALOGY.
"The Iraqi dictator has ended up with the US and Europe just where he wants them".
Come on out Mr. Bush, we've got you surrounded. Actually, I'm not really sure about this. Bush and Blair aren't exactly waving the white flag. Still, at least he's stopped the poker stuff.
"This is quite an achievement, even for a man as poorly qualified for the presidency as George Bush".
You thicko Texan.
"It is plausible that President Saddam's regime sponsors international terrorism, but the evidence is limited".
Pluausible? Limited? Tell that to the Israelis.
"What is more, that charge risks confusing action against Iraq with the post-11 September "war on terror". In the Arab world, it lights up unhelpful notions of a war on Islam".
Yeah, that's right. Them towelheads are an unsophisticated bunch. It's the same here, if Bush were to invade France, then that would be an invasion of Europe, wouldn't it? And then we'd all be annoyed. Not.
"Equally, Iraq poses a theoretical threat to US territory with long-range missiles, but no evidence is available for this".
No evidence available? Then how can the threat even be theoretical?
"The obvious first step is to try to get UN inspectors back into Iraq to monitor the situation. A deal seemed close earlier this year, but President Saddam avoided responsibility for its failure".
No, he didn't. He was responsible for its failure.
"Now the Bush administration has made his task easier, by saying UN inspection is pointless because he would conceal things. Of course he would, but the inspectors are needed as a manifest of good faith".
Good faith? On whose behalf?
"If the UN has done all it can to verify President Saddam's compliance with its resolutions and still finds itself thwarted, a consensus for further action is preserved".
Ah. And we must always have a consensus, now, mustn't we? Europe, where compromise is king.
|
announces today's leader in the Indy. Of course, if international diplomacy were a game of poker, we wouldn't know Bush's hand. And if we did, it wouldn't be a strong one. His opponents would all pass. BAD ANALOGY.
"Indeed, Mr Bush has played his cards so badly that Saddam Hussein has not had to bluff his weak hand at all".
Yes, but if his hand is weak... like I said: BAD ANALOGY.
"The Iraqi dictator has ended up with the US and Europe just where he wants them".
Come on out Mr. Bush, we've got you surrounded. Actually, I'm not really sure about this. Bush and Blair aren't exactly waving the white flag. Still, at least he's stopped the poker stuff.
"This is quite an achievement, even for a man as poorly qualified for the presidency as George Bush".
You thicko Texan.
"It is plausible that President Saddam's regime sponsors international terrorism, but the evidence is limited".
Pluausible? Limited? Tell that to the Israelis.
"What is more, that charge risks confusing action against Iraq with the post-11 September "war on terror". In the Arab world, it lights up unhelpful notions of a war on Islam".
Yeah, that's right. Them towelheads are an unsophisticated bunch. It's the same here, if Bush were to invade France, then that would be an invasion of Europe, wouldn't it? And then we'd all be annoyed. Not.
"Equally, Iraq poses a theoretical threat to US territory with long-range missiles, but no evidence is available for this".
No evidence available? Then how can the threat even be theoretical?
"The obvious first step is to try to get UN inspectors back into Iraq to monitor the situation. A deal seemed close earlier this year, but President Saddam avoided responsibility for its failure".
No, he didn't. He was responsible for its failure.
"Now the Bush administration has made his task easier, by saying UN inspection is pointless because he would conceal things. Of course he would, but the inspectors are needed as a manifest of good faith".
Good faith? On whose behalf?
"If the UN has done all it can to verify President Saddam's compliance with its resolutions and still finds itself thwarted, a consensus for further action is preserved".
Ah. And we must always have a consensus, now, mustn't we? Europe, where compromise is king.
|
Friday, August 30
The trouble with Adrian Hamilton's opening paragraph today is that you know what's coming next.
"Before the tidal wave of 11 September anniversary articles engulfs us all, can one at least voice the thought that the appalling attack that day will not prove nearly as important as it is being made out at the moment?"
Here it comes:
"Of course the death of 3,000 civilians is a terrible thing".
But of course. Now let's check out his end paragraph:
"The worst fear of the weeks after 11 September, that this would develop into a battle between Islam and the West which would break the western alliance and bring the Third World in on the side of Muslim radicalism, is now in danger of being realised – just as Osama bin Laden had intended".
But that's not nearly as important as it is being made out at the moment, now is it? On the other hand some people never give up. Take Martin Woollacott, he of the Wanker, who says:
"The world's unfair economic arrangements, and the way in which they are buttressed politically, were proposed as a cause, among others, by many trying to explain the attacks. The argument was pretty quickly overturned, in the minds of many people, by what was earned about the religious motivation of the hijackers and their social background".
Yes, but why not in the minds of everyone?
"On the American right, in particular, some seemed to relish the fact that the hijackers mainly came from well-off or even rich families".
Yes but only because they hoped, evidently naively, that diehards like Woollacott would shut the fuck up. Small chance.
"That seemed to them to dispose of the idea that urgent action on global inequality was a necessary part of any programme to prevent or reduce the chance of more attacks. Poverty was not the problem".
Well I can't speak for the American right, nor even the British right, but I can speak for me, and I am happy to say that poverty is indeed a problem, and steps taken to alleviate it are a good thing. But poverty is bad itself, not because of what it causes, and the argument that "poverty causes terrorism" is the worst argument of all. After all, supposing it didn't, would that really allow the better-off to ignore it?
|
"Before the tidal wave of 11 September anniversary articles engulfs us all, can one at least voice the thought that the appalling attack that day will not prove nearly as important as it is being made out at the moment?"
Here it comes:
"Of course the death of 3,000 civilians is a terrible thing".
But of course. Now let's check out his end paragraph:
"The worst fear of the weeks after 11 September, that this would develop into a battle between Islam and the West which would break the western alliance and bring the Third World in on the side of Muslim radicalism, is now in danger of being realised – just as Osama bin Laden had intended".
But that's not nearly as important as it is being made out at the moment, now is it? On the other hand some people never give up. Take Martin Woollacott, he of the Wanker, who says:
"The world's unfair economic arrangements, and the way in which they are buttressed politically, were proposed as a cause, among others, by many trying to explain the attacks. The argument was pretty quickly overturned, in the minds of many people, by what was earned about the religious motivation of the hijackers and their social background".
Yes, but why not in the minds of everyone?
"On the American right, in particular, some seemed to relish the fact that the hijackers mainly came from well-off or even rich families".
Yes but only because they hoped, evidently naively, that diehards like Woollacott would shut the fuck up. Small chance.
"That seemed to them to dispose of the idea that urgent action on global inequality was a necessary part of any programme to prevent or reduce the chance of more attacks. Poverty was not the problem".
Well I can't speak for the American right, nor even the British right, but I can speak for me, and I am happy to say that poverty is indeed a problem, and steps taken to alleviate it are a good thing. But poverty is bad itself, not because of what it causes, and the argument that "poverty causes terrorism" is the worst argument of all. After all, supposing it didn't, would that really allow the better-off to ignore it?
|
I know in certain parts of the world dwarf-throwing is a popular pastime. Apparently it's reached British shores. Only here, it's the Labour party you get thrown out of.
|
|
Noted German dignitary Gerhard Schröder takes time off from screwing up his nation's economy to pen an article for the Wanker:
"We only have one planet and our survival will depend on how we treat its resources",
he announces, uncontroversially.
"We need rules which will help us to ensure that the greatest possible number of people share in the advantages of globalisation. The markets cannot achieve this on their own".
Oh yes, they can, schweinhund.
"Humanity has the knowledge, wealth, technological know-how and joint sense of responsibility to solve our planet's problems. We must now assume that responsibility. Our children will thank us for it".
No they won't. They'd rather have a Playstation.
|
"We only have one planet and our survival will depend on how we treat its resources",
he announces, uncontroversially.
"We need rules which will help us to ensure that the greatest possible number of people share in the advantages of globalisation. The markets cannot achieve this on their own".
Oh yes, they can, schweinhund.
"Humanity has the knowledge, wealth, technological know-how and joint sense of responsibility to solve our planet's problems. We must now assume that responsibility. Our children will thank us for it".
No they won't. They'd rather have a Playstation.
|
Thursday, August 29
Hugo Young, August 1st, discusses Blair and the forthcoming Iraqi invasion:
"I think he forgets the uniqueness of what is being prepared: its gratuitous aggression, its idle optimism, its moral frailty, its indifference to regional opinion, the extraordinary readiness of those proposing it to court more anti-American terrorism as a result. Is Britain really destined to tag along uncomplaining, behind an extended act of war that few people outside America and Israel consider necessary, prudent or justified?"
Hugo Young, August 29th, discusses Blair and the forthcoming Iraqi invasion:
"Saddam has seriously menacing biological weaponry, even if one rules out the nuclear. He may use it. He may already be doing business with al-Qaida, and now's the chance to wipe this linkage out. America, the case goes, has a duty to do this, and now, with September 11 still a hideous memory in many minds, is the moment when it can be done. To do it would be a glorious not an infamous assertion of the new world order: a virtuous match between the new global terrorism and the newly unencumbered power that has the means to vanquish it".
|
"I think he forgets the uniqueness of what is being prepared: its gratuitous aggression, its idle optimism, its moral frailty, its indifference to regional opinion, the extraordinary readiness of those proposing it to court more anti-American terrorism as a result. Is Britain really destined to tag along uncomplaining, behind an extended act of war that few people outside America and Israel consider necessary, prudent or justified?"
Hugo Young, August 29th, discusses Blair and the forthcoming Iraqi invasion:
"Saddam has seriously menacing biological weaponry, even if one rules out the nuclear. He may use it. He may already be doing business with al-Qaida, and now's the chance to wipe this linkage out. America, the case goes, has a duty to do this, and now, with September 11 still a hideous memory in many minds, is the moment when it can be done. To do it would be a glorious not an infamous assertion of the new world order: a virtuous match between the new global terrorism and the newly unencumbered power that has the means to vanquish it".
|
"Environmentalism is now wearing a serious political face".
Natasha Walter announces breathlessly in today's Indy.
"Now, if you listen to the spokespeople from many diverse environmental groups, or tap into the websites or books of all sorts of activists from Vandana Shiva to George Monbiot, what you hear is not so much personal exhortation as concrete political analysis".
Okay. Taking her at her word. I did so. Here's Vandana Shiva:
"Sixteen years ago I founded the Research Foundation as a small independent initiative to do research in a participatory mode with people, not on them - and to do research with an interdisciplinary approach, - reflecting the interconnections in the web of life, not teaching them apart with reductionist violence.
These 16 years of participatory action oriented ecological research have bought deep fulfillment - and triggered some changes in paradigms.
Diversity is fast moving into the defining metaphor in place of monocultures of the mind. Ecofeminism has emerged as a serious challenge to Cartesian reductionism and the Baconian "rape of nature" as the "masculine mode" of knowing. Globalisation is however threatening to the ecological gains of the past few decades. It is therefore the defining context of our new engagements".
Hmmm. Then I turn to George "Take me to the funny farm" Monbiot. Here's an insight from his website:
"John Paul II, the Holy Father and Angelic Shepherd, God's representative on earth and the only living person who is officially and constitutionally infallible is a mass murderer".
And if that doesn't do it for you, then there's this:
"In a world of diminishing assets, being gay is arguably more moral than being straight".
Nurse, get me the straitjacket.
|
Natasha Walter announces breathlessly in today's Indy.
"Now, if you listen to the spokespeople from many diverse environmental groups, or tap into the websites or books of all sorts of activists from Vandana Shiva to George Monbiot, what you hear is not so much personal exhortation as concrete political analysis".
Okay. Taking her at her word. I did so. Here's Vandana Shiva:
"Sixteen years ago I founded the Research Foundation as a small independent initiative to do research in a participatory mode with people, not on them - and to do research with an interdisciplinary approach, - reflecting the interconnections in the web of life, not teaching them apart with reductionist violence.
These 16 years of participatory action oriented ecological research have bought deep fulfillment - and triggered some changes in paradigms.
Diversity is fast moving into the defining metaphor in place of monocultures of the mind. Ecofeminism has emerged as a serious challenge to Cartesian reductionism and the Baconian "rape of nature" as the "masculine mode" of knowing. Globalisation is however threatening to the ecological gains of the past few decades. It is therefore the defining context of our new engagements".
Hmmm. Then I turn to George "Take me to the funny farm" Monbiot. Here's an insight from his website:
"John Paul II, the Holy Father and Angelic Shepherd, God's representative on earth and the only living person who is officially and constitutionally infallible is a mass murderer".
And if that doesn't do it for you, then there's this:
"In a world of diminishing assets, being gay is arguably more moral than being straight".
Nurse, get me the straitjacket.
|
"In the dark recesses of Mr Straw's past is the heartbeat of a once-proud anti-marketeer".
muses Michael Brown in the Indy today. Well those days are long gone. Now he's a devious opportunist. As Brown points out, the craving for an EU constitution is entirely futile. Apparently, there's been a new directive passed which
"will make it illegal to sit on a tractor for more than a certain number of hours a day. Because it is EU law, it cannot be amended or defied by the House of Commons".
Subsidiarity is finished. And Straw knows this. But he's a politician, so that's his excuse. What really puzzles is the role of the Indy's editor in all this. He ain't stupid either, yet yesterday there he was jabbering away about the need for both a Euro constitution, and a British one. Presumably he is just as cynical, and realises this sort of stuff, however unrealisable, is meat and drink for his readers, so he's just got to give them their fix. And maybe one of his readers is Jackie Ashley, political writer for the Guardian.
"Straw is a thinking politician with his own strongly held views on Europe".
She gushes.
"The truth is that if there was a constitution, then because of the powerful national views of Britain, France and Germany, it would end up being less centralist and more pro-nation than the Europe being created on the hoof by the commission. It would set limits to integration. The way things are at present, it would be a rulebook which would entrench the powers of the national leaders in the European Council, and perhaps the MEPs. A constitution, which the Tories see as an accelerator towards an undemocratic union, would actually be a brake".
How?
|
muses Michael Brown in the Indy today. Well those days are long gone. Now he's a devious opportunist. As Brown points out, the craving for an EU constitution is entirely futile. Apparently, there's been a new directive passed which
"will make it illegal to sit on a tractor for more than a certain number of hours a day. Because it is EU law, it cannot be amended or defied by the House of Commons".
Subsidiarity is finished. And Straw knows this. But he's a politician, so that's his excuse. What really puzzles is the role of the Indy's editor in all this. He ain't stupid either, yet yesterday there he was jabbering away about the need for both a Euro constitution, and a British one. Presumably he is just as cynical, and realises this sort of stuff, however unrealisable, is meat and drink for his readers, so he's just got to give them their fix. And maybe one of his readers is Jackie Ashley, political writer for the Guardian.
"Straw is a thinking politician with his own strongly held views on Europe".
She gushes.
"The truth is that if there was a constitution, then because of the powerful national views of Britain, France and Germany, it would end up being less centralist and more pro-nation than the Europe being created on the hoof by the commission. It would set limits to integration. The way things are at present, it would be a rulebook which would entrench the powers of the national leaders in the European Council, and perhaps the MEPs. A constitution, which the Tories see as an accelerator towards an undemocratic union, would actually be a brake".
How?
|
Now here's something you wouldn't expect from the Telegraph - an article advocating cutting the school leaving age to 14. Marvellous how British politics gets ever more polarised - the neo-Socialists and Lib Dems appear to want us to spend virtually all our time up to the age of 24 in some kind of education, the Tories and the Libertarians want to see us out in the University of Life from 14. Something has got to give.
|
|
For those of you worried about the mental state of the man accused of having an enormous penis, here is a picture. Of him, not his penis. He looks all right to me. At least he's risen from his sick bed.
|
|
Wednesday, August 28
Never let it be said that Jack Straw, the UK's incredibly hopeless Foreign Secretary, does not have the eye for the main chance. The EU, he claimed yesterday, faces "something of a crisis of legitimacy". One way of preventing this, he suggests is by giving us a constitution. The Indy, unsurprisingly, gets hysterical. One constitution isn't enough. They want two. The first one, the Euro one,
"should spell out the much-quoted and variously interpreted principle of "subsidiarity".
Although it won't. We've got the Human Rights Act now, the whole purpose of which is to undermine National sovereignty. An act the Indy was fully behind. Why on earth have they changed their mind on this?
"The application of this principle – that decisions should be taken at the lowest level at which they can be effective, and that Europe's writ should run only where decisions need to be enacted Europe-wide – is at present uncertain and applied inconsistently".
Yes, and so it will remain. How can it not?
"The key to an EU constitution is that it should be simply formulated and restricted to basic principles. It should, as Mr Straw said, "set out in plain language what the EU is for and how it can add value". As he says, too, it should also "reassure the public that national governments remain the primary source of political legitimacy".
Yes, but it won't.
"A European constitution is no simple matter. It is worth having only if it functions as a guardian of Europe's democracy".
And if it doesn't? What then?
"It must be drafted in a way that allays fears that it could bring forth, or sanction, a super-state. And procedures for challenging decisions as "anti-constitutional" must be structured to discourage long-running and complex lawsuits".
Why?
"If the Government is to advocate a constitution for Europe, it needs a good reason why British citizens should not have one, too".
Why? They may as well advocate a consitution for the citizens of Bethnal Green for all the good it would do them. As soon as it is established, and someone doesn't like something in it, he takes it to court, the constitution gets ruled incompatible with the Human Rights Act, and the whole thing is blown out of the water. That's the whole point. Still, it will happen. As the Times says today, and I shall quote the whole of the first paragraph for all you foreign tightwads who refuse to cough up the forty dollars per annum to read them:
"There is a depressing pattern which applies, regardless of the party in power, to Britain’s position on any major political initiative in the European Union. It is at first denied that any radical new plan exists; it is then conceded that it exists but ministers swear blind that it is not even on the political agenda; it is then noted that it might well be on the agenda but is not a serious proposition; it is later conceded that it is a serious proposition, but that it will never be implemented; after that it is acknowledged that it will be implemented but in such a diluted form that it could make no difference to the lives of ordinary people; and at some point it is finally recognised that it has made such a difference, but it was always known that it would and voters were told so from the outset".
Precisely.
|
"should spell out the much-quoted and variously interpreted principle of "subsidiarity".
Although it won't. We've got the Human Rights Act now, the whole purpose of which is to undermine National sovereignty. An act the Indy was fully behind. Why on earth have they changed their mind on this?
"The application of this principle – that decisions should be taken at the lowest level at which they can be effective, and that Europe's writ should run only where decisions need to be enacted Europe-wide – is at present uncertain and applied inconsistently".
Yes, and so it will remain. How can it not?
"The key to an EU constitution is that it should be simply formulated and restricted to basic principles. It should, as Mr Straw said, "set out in plain language what the EU is for and how it can add value". As he says, too, it should also "reassure the public that national governments remain the primary source of political legitimacy".
Yes, but it won't.
"A European constitution is no simple matter. It is worth having only if it functions as a guardian of Europe's democracy".
And if it doesn't? What then?
"It must be drafted in a way that allays fears that it could bring forth, or sanction, a super-state. And procedures for challenging decisions as "anti-constitutional" must be structured to discourage long-running and complex lawsuits".
Why?
"If the Government is to advocate a constitution for Europe, it needs a good reason why British citizens should not have one, too".
Why? They may as well advocate a consitution for the citizens of Bethnal Green for all the good it would do them. As soon as it is established, and someone doesn't like something in it, he takes it to court, the constitution gets ruled incompatible with the Human Rights Act, and the whole thing is blown out of the water. That's the whole point. Still, it will happen. As the Times says today, and I shall quote the whole of the first paragraph for all you foreign tightwads who refuse to cough up the forty dollars per annum to read them:
"There is a depressing pattern which applies, regardless of the party in power, to Britain’s position on any major political initiative in the European Union. It is at first denied that any radical new plan exists; it is then conceded that it exists but ministers swear blind that it is not even on the political agenda; it is then noted that it might well be on the agenda but is not a serious proposition; it is later conceded that it is a serious proposition, but that it will never be implemented; after that it is acknowledged that it will be implemented but in such a diluted form that it could make no difference to the lives of ordinary people; and at some point it is finally recognised that it has made such a difference, but it was always known that it would and voters were told so from the outset".
Precisely.
|
And they keep on coming! Yes, it's another gratuitous Florida recount reference, this time, courtesy of the Indy leader column.
|
|
After yesterday's somewhat morose rant from George Monbiot about how things are getting better yet are also getting worse, the Dreaded Pollster joins in:
"we have just lived through a decade of the greatest growth and prosperity in living memory. The country is 35% richer and likely to grow by roughly the same over the next decade - barring disaster. There is more money in most pockets, more work, more home ownership, more holidays, more shopping. Most schools and hospitals have improved. Crime is lower than for a long time. Never have so many people been so educated. Life expectancy grows. Arts and leisure consumption is rising fast. Everything - except inequality - has got better for the majority".
That last sentence does it for me every time.
|
"we have just lived through a decade of the greatest growth and prosperity in living memory. The country is 35% richer and likely to grow by roughly the same over the next decade - barring disaster. There is more money in most pockets, more work, more home ownership, more holidays, more shopping. Most schools and hospitals have improved. Crime is lower than for a long time. Never have so many people been so educated. Life expectancy grows. Arts and leisure consumption is rising fast. Everything - except inequality - has got better for the majority".
That last sentence does it for me every time.
|
Tuesday, August 27
And welcome to the blogosphere, Dr. Ribbity Frog, expert in the Middle East. I'm honoured to be the only permalinked blogger, though not for long I imagine. Another pseudonymous blogger, I reckon. And thanks for the heads-up from Bill Quick. One day that error 503 message will stop appearing, and then I can sort out my own permalinks. In the mean time, I hope you carry on enjoying the good stuff. And, for that matter, the bad stuff.
|
|
Otherwise it's Bash America Day at the Wanker. First up Steve Crawshaw:
"By any measure, it should be a historic moment. For the first time, crimes against humanity can be punished and prosecuted in a single world court. Next Tuesday sees the launch session at the UN of the new international criminal court".
Yes. And guess who's decided to rain on their parade?
"But there are worrying signs that this early resolve is becoming increasingly shaky in the face of American intransigence. Washington says it fears US citizens will be unfairly targeted. In reality - as Cherie Blair has pointed out, more explicitly than her husband dares to - the Americans are wrong to fear malicious prosecutions of their soldiers or other US citizens. Checks and balances will ensure that frivolous cases never get to court".
Yes, but one man's frivolity is another man's 20 grand. Like this guy, for example.
"The US wants its citizens to be granted impunity for all time".
Erm. I think that's immunity, actually. Meanwhile Hugo Young is all steamed. And I mean really steamed.
"For all his scripted dumbness, George Bush is the voice of America".
Not a good start.
"He manages to be loud and anxious at the same time. When he speaks his own words they often sound evasive and uncomprehending. But his is the only voice there seems to be. He is, after all, the president".
I said he was steamed.
"The dominance of this tone is surprising. Had it not been for the 9/11 crime against America last year, Bush would surely not get away with it".
Indeed. Time for ANOTHER gratuitous Florida recount reference.
"That remembered horror shelters him from the truth that an election he did not win fair and square should have induced a subtler humility. What is even more striking than the president's strident emptiness, however, is the absence of competing voices with a different philosophy".
Strident emptiness? Pot meet kettle! So who can take on the evil Dubya?
"Al Gore jockeys for position. Amazingly, he is the frontrunner"
So what's amazing? By Hugo's reckoning, the guy should be President.
"To find a fiercer rigour, one needs to travel north. Vermont is a small state, and its governor, Howard Dean, not yet a national figure".
Though here in the UK we talk of little else.
"He sounds like a Clinton third wayer without the torment. Could this be the voice that, if heard often enough, will at least remind Americans that Bush's incoherent nationalism and vested interest economics are not the only message they need put up with?"
One word, Hugo? No. So why does Mr. Young like him? The NRA like him, and he's keen on the death penalty. However,
"Against the evidence of polls, Dean signed the first American state law allowing gay civil unions".
Now that's vote-winner.
|
"By any measure, it should be a historic moment. For the first time, crimes against humanity can be punished and prosecuted in a single world court. Next Tuesday sees the launch session at the UN of the new international criminal court".
Yes. And guess who's decided to rain on their parade?
"But there are worrying signs that this early resolve is becoming increasingly shaky in the face of American intransigence. Washington says it fears US citizens will be unfairly targeted. In reality - as Cherie Blair has pointed out, more explicitly than her husband dares to - the Americans are wrong to fear malicious prosecutions of their soldiers or other US citizens. Checks and balances will ensure that frivolous cases never get to court".
Yes, but one man's frivolity is another man's 20 grand. Like this guy, for example.
"The US wants its citizens to be granted impunity for all time".
Erm. I think that's immunity, actually. Meanwhile Hugo Young is all steamed. And I mean really steamed.
"For all his scripted dumbness, George Bush is the voice of America".
Not a good start.
"He manages to be loud and anxious at the same time. When he speaks his own words they often sound evasive and uncomprehending. But his is the only voice there seems to be. He is, after all, the president".
I said he was steamed.
"The dominance of this tone is surprising. Had it not been for the 9/11 crime against America last year, Bush would surely not get away with it".
Indeed. Time for ANOTHER gratuitous Florida recount reference.
"That remembered horror shelters him from the truth that an election he did not win fair and square should have induced a subtler humility. What is even more striking than the president's strident emptiness, however, is the absence of competing voices with a different philosophy".
Strident emptiness? Pot meet kettle! So who can take on the evil Dubya?
"Al Gore jockeys for position. Amazingly, he is the frontrunner"
So what's amazing? By Hugo's reckoning, the guy should be President.
"To find a fiercer rigour, one needs to travel north. Vermont is a small state, and its governor, Howard Dean, not yet a national figure".
Though here in the UK we talk of little else.
"He sounds like a Clinton third wayer without the torment. Could this be the voice that, if heard often enough, will at least remind Americans that Bush's incoherent nationalism and vested interest economics are not the only message they need put up with?"
One word, Hugo? No. So why does Mr. Young like him? The NRA like him, and he's keen on the death penalty. However,
"Against the evidence of polls, Dean signed the first American state law allowing gay civil unions".
Now that's vote-winner.
|
George Monbiot has discovered there's a gap in his life. He's got his beautiful house, and his beautiful wife, but I mean, what's the point?
"it is impossible not to notice that, in some of the poorest parts of the world, most people, most of the time, appear to be happier than we are. In southern Ethiopia, for example, the poorest half of the poorest nation on earth, the streets and fields crackle with laughter. In homes constructed from packing cases and palm leaves, people engage more freely, smile more often, express more affection than we do behind our double glazing, surrounded by remote controls".
That's because in southern Ethiopia they don't read the Guardian.
"This is not to suggest that poverty causes happiness. In southern Ethiopia people desperately want better healthcare, better education, better housing and sanitation, not to mention smart clothes, motorbikes, refrigerators and radios".
Why? If they're all grinning like monkeys, won't this go and ruin things?
"But while poverty does not cause happiness, there appears to be some evidence that wealth causes misery".
OK. I get the point.
"it is surely fair to say that most of us suffer from subclinical neuroses, anxiety or a profound discomfort with ourselves".
Speak for yourself, George.
|
"it is impossible not to notice that, in some of the poorest parts of the world, most people, most of the time, appear to be happier than we are. In southern Ethiopia, for example, the poorest half of the poorest nation on earth, the streets and fields crackle with laughter. In homes constructed from packing cases and palm leaves, people engage more freely, smile more often, express more affection than we do behind our double glazing, surrounded by remote controls".
That's because in southern Ethiopia they don't read the Guardian.
"This is not to suggest that poverty causes happiness. In southern Ethiopia people desperately want better healthcare, better education, better housing and sanitation, not to mention smart clothes, motorbikes, refrigerators and radios".
Why? If they're all grinning like monkeys, won't this go and ruin things?
"But while poverty does not cause happiness, there appears to be some evidence that wealth causes misery".
OK. I get the point.
"it is surely fair to say that most of us suffer from subclinical neuroses, anxiety or a profound discomfort with ourselves".
Speak for yourself, George.
|
Ian Buruma is the latest Guardian writer to muse about the murder of two ten year olds. As usual, it's not the killing that irks him, it's the rest of us:
"It has been suggested that we should have a referendum on the death penalty - a terrible idea at the best of times. I have another suggestion. Is it not time to take sentencing out of the hands of politicians who court our votes by "sharing our pain"?
In fact, why not go the whole hog, and take all decisions out of the hands of the people? Who needs the people, anyway?
|
"It has been suggested that we should have a referendum on the death penalty - a terrible idea at the best of times. I have another suggestion. Is it not time to take sentencing out of the hands of politicians who court our votes by "sharing our pain"?
In fact, why not go the whole hog, and take all decisions out of the hands of the people? Who needs the people, anyway?
|
Monday, August 26
Being a guy who worries ceaselessly about haircuts, clothes, and if Puffy Daddy is better than Doctor Dre, I'm delighted to learn from the Indy leader writer that:
"As the Earth Summit opens in Johannesburg today, too much fashionable opinion in the rich world has already decided that it is a waste of time and money".
I'm in with the In-Crowd.
"Simply because 60,000 people are attending, the argument seems to run, and simply because no binding treaty will emerge from the deliberations, it is all pointless".
Wrong. It doesn't matter how many people attend, and the fact that no treaty will be signed at the end of it is the only saving grace.
"In the absence of a world government capable of decreeing and enforcing, like the Chinese regime, a one-child policy across the globe, today's summit is the only way the people of the world can make progress towards a sustainable way of life".
Now hang on a bit. Is this nameless writer actually looking at the Chinks with envy? Is he advocating a one-child policy? Don't even go there. And as for 'only way'. Talk to the hand, Dweeb! If this crazoid thinks the rest of us are going to start playing ping-pong, eating dogs, and killing our daughters in order to save the planet he's got another thing coming.
"George Bush Jnr's repudiation of Kyoto was a terrible betrayal of the rights of future generations to inherit the planet in better condition than this generation found it".
Hello? What rights?
"The older, wiser environmental movement understands too that the planet cannot be saved by a voluntary change of lifestyle on the part of individuals, but only through collective action – changing laws and economic rules to change people's perception of their short-term self-interest".
I am not a number.
"Once, it was fashionable,"
Hey! Wake up!
"especially on the left,"
Oh. Forget it.
"to say that the problem was not one of population growth but of the unequal distribution of resources. It is no longer possible to deny that the sheer weight of human numbers is the main threat to sustainability. But inequality remains at the heart of the issue because the most effective forms of contraception are education, especially of girls, and higher living standards".
Yup. Too many humans, folks.
"The bloated, resource-hungry American voter is the greatest obstacle to global sustainability".
Die, Yankee, die.
"Given that the main value of this summit is as a platform for grand symbolic gestures, it should not be wasted on negative insults aimed at George Bush, big business or Robert Mugabe. The more leaders can use it as an opportunity to persuade their peoples of the urgency of the need for common action to preserve the ecosystem on which human life ultimately depends, the better".
Oh balls. We can take it. We're a resilient lot us humans. I know there are a few unfashionable goons out there writing for the Indy who can't hack it, but if this cretin really thinks the rest of us are going to sacrifice our happiness now on behalf of humans of the future who haven't even been born yet, then, forget it. It ain't going to happen. Who gives a damn about the ecosystem anyway?
Get a life.
|
"As the Earth Summit opens in Johannesburg today, too much fashionable opinion in the rich world has already decided that it is a waste of time and money".
I'm in with the In-Crowd.
"Simply because 60,000 people are attending, the argument seems to run, and simply because no binding treaty will emerge from the deliberations, it is all pointless".
Wrong. It doesn't matter how many people attend, and the fact that no treaty will be signed at the end of it is the only saving grace.
"In the absence of a world government capable of decreeing and enforcing, like the Chinese regime, a one-child policy across the globe, today's summit is the only way the people of the world can make progress towards a sustainable way of life".
Now hang on a bit. Is this nameless writer actually looking at the Chinks with envy? Is he advocating a one-child policy? Don't even go there. And as for 'only way'. Talk to the hand, Dweeb! If this crazoid thinks the rest of us are going to start playing ping-pong, eating dogs, and killing our daughters in order to save the planet he's got another thing coming.
"George Bush Jnr's repudiation of Kyoto was a terrible betrayal of the rights of future generations to inherit the planet in better condition than this generation found it".
Hello? What rights?
"The older, wiser environmental movement understands too that the planet cannot be saved by a voluntary change of lifestyle on the part of individuals, but only through collective action – changing laws and economic rules to change people's perception of their short-term self-interest".
I am not a number.
"Once, it was fashionable,"
Hey! Wake up!
"especially on the left,"
Oh. Forget it.
"to say that the problem was not one of population growth but of the unequal distribution of resources. It is no longer possible to deny that the sheer weight of human numbers is the main threat to sustainability. But inequality remains at the heart of the issue because the most effective forms of contraception are education, especially of girls, and higher living standards".
Yup. Too many humans, folks.
"The bloated, resource-hungry American voter is the greatest obstacle to global sustainability".
Die, Yankee, die.
"Given that the main value of this summit is as a platform for grand symbolic gestures, it should not be wasted on negative insults aimed at George Bush, big business or Robert Mugabe. The more leaders can use it as an opportunity to persuade their peoples of the urgency of the need for common action to preserve the ecosystem on which human life ultimately depends, the better".
Oh balls. We can take it. We're a resilient lot us humans. I know there are a few unfashionable goons out there writing for the Indy who can't hack it, but if this cretin really thinks the rest of us are going to sacrifice our happiness now on behalf of humans of the future who haven't even been born yet, then, forget it. It ain't going to happen. Who gives a damn about the ecosystem anyway?
Get a life.
|
David Clark, in the Wanker, is all worked up about the Towelheads:
"Tony Blair would be well advised to think long and hard before putting British troops under the command of civilian ideologues whose understanding of military affairs appears to be gleaned from reading a few Tom Clancy novels".
As opposed to a former Foreign Office special adviser who appears to get his military advice from Barbara Cartland.
|
"Tony Blair would be well advised to think long and hard before putting British troops under the command of civilian ideologues whose understanding of military affairs appears to be gleaned from reading a few Tom Clancy novels".
As opposed to a former Foreign Office special adviser who appears to get his military advice from Barbara Cartland.
|
Yazza's been thinking about the internet:
"Every single day I get e-mails from Americans of all backgrounds saying something that I have not heard until this year: that the British media is more open, inclusive, radical and free than the self-censored, inward-looking journalism in the US today. They say that someone with my views would never have such a column in an influential newspaper".
That's because they don't have any papers quite as bad as the Indy, thicko.
|
"Every single day I get e-mails from Americans of all backgrounds saying something that I have not heard until this year: that the British media is more open, inclusive, radical and free than the self-censored, inward-looking journalism in the US today. They say that someone with my views would never have such a column in an influential newspaper".
That's because they don't have any papers quite as bad as the Indy, thicko.
|
Ian Bradley, in the Wanker:
"There is a strong Christian argument for the United Kingdom as an embodiment of the principle of unity through diversity, and a model of the Trinitarian doctrine of perichoresis, the inter-penetration of the constituent parts of a body so that they retain their identity but also contribute to a bigger whole".
No doubt there is, if I had any idea what he was talking about.
|
"There is a strong Christian argument for the United Kingdom as an embodiment of the principle of unity through diversity, and a model of the Trinitarian doctrine of perichoresis, the inter-penetration of the constituent parts of a body so that they retain their identity but also contribute to a bigger whole".
No doubt there is, if I had any idea what he was talking about.
|
- Comment Central
- Stephen Pollard
- Natalie Solent
- Two Blowhards
- Tim Blair
- Daimnation!
- Machinery of Night
- The Bewilderness
- Freedom and Whisky
- Jackie Danicki
- Biased BBC
- Civitas
- Samizdata
- Normblog
- Jim Miller
- White Sun of the Desert
- Progressive Reaction
- Dodgeblog
- Laban Tall
- Atlantic Blog
- House of Dumb
- Blognor Regis
- Burning Our Money
- The England Project
- Mick Hartley
- Iain Dale
- Tim Worstall
- An Englishman's Castle
- Unenlightened Commentary
- Squander Two
- Patrick Crozier
- Stumbling and Mumbling
- Guido Fawkes
- Brian Micklethwait
- Nothing British
- Battenburg.co.uk
- The Devil's Kitchen
-
- February 2002
- March 2002
- April 2002
- May 2002
- June 2002
- July 2002
- August 2002
- September 2002
- October 2002
- November 2002
- December 2002
- January 2003
- February 2003
- March 2003
- April 2003
- May 2003
- June 2003
- July 2003
- August 2003
- September 2003
- October 2003
- November 2003
- December 2003
- January 2004
- February 2004
- March 2004
- April 2004
- May 2004
- June 2004
- July 2004
- August 2004
- September 2004
- October 2004
- November 2004
- December 2004
- January 2005
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- December 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- May 2008
- June 2008
- July 2008
- August 2008
- September 2008
- October 2008
- November 2008
- December 2008
- January 2009
- February 2009
- April 2009
- May 2009
- June 2009
- September 2009
- October 2009
- November 2009