Saturday, March 15
Can this possibly be true? Mind you, they don't have Reactionary up there.
Libertarian - You believe that the main use for
government is for some people to lord it over
others at their expense. You maintain that the
government should be as small as possible, and
that civil liberties, "victimless
crimes", and gun ownership should be basic
rights. You probably are OK with capitalism.
Your historical role model is Thomas Jefferson.
Which political sterotype are you?
brought to you by Quizilla
|
Libertarian - You believe that the main use for
government is for some people to lord it over
others at their expense. You maintain that the
government should be as small as possible, and
that civil liberties, "victimless
crimes", and gun ownership should be basic
rights. You probably are OK with capitalism.
Your historical role model is Thomas Jefferson.
Which political sterotype are you?
brought to you by Quizilla
|
I've always suspected that writing for the Wanker was a surefire recipe for getting clinically depressed, and this story seems to confirm it. Matthew Engel, remember, started off writing about cricket.
See, I can write about these guys without even reading them. This is easy.
|
See, I can write about these guys without even reading them. This is easy.
|
Friday, March 14
Amusing article by Armando Iannucci on Blair's psychology. After his recent descent into peacenikery of late, Mr. Iannucci is shrewd enough to write something anyone can agree with. In a way it's even more disturbing to the warmongers. Blair's in the right, but for all the wrong reasons. Still with a bit of luck the allies will beat the towelheads, and Blair will be out on his ear, leaving the goal wide open for IDS to stick the ball in the back of the net. Not that I think Blair will go down, alas, but there's no harm in dreaming. Two socialists with one stone, eh? Shame it isn't young William, though.
|
|
Florida Recount Reference Alert!
Yes, it's George Galloway, Labour MP in the Spectator, slamming the leader of his own party, our Tone:
"He is roving ambassador to the right-wing, born-again, Bible-belting fundamentalist crew which first turned Texas into the toxic execution chamber of the Western world, and has now, via a four–three vote in the Supreme Court and a lot of pregnant chads, given birth to a government which is a by-word for treaty-busting protocol, scuppering, agreement-wrecking international thuggery".
|
Yes, it's George Galloway, Labour MP in the Spectator, slamming the leader of his own party, our Tone:
"He is roving ambassador to the right-wing, born-again, Bible-belting fundamentalist crew which first turned Texas into the toxic execution chamber of the Western world, and has now, via a four–three vote in the Supreme Court and a lot of pregnant chads, given birth to a government which is a by-word for treaty-busting protocol, scuppering, agreement-wrecking international thuggery".
|
We want to be in Iraq, but not run by Iraq.
Yes! William writes for the Spectator. He gets quoted by Instapundit, but not namechecked. Do you think the latter hasn't actually heard of him?
|
Yes! William writes for the Spectator. He gets quoted by Instapundit, but not namechecked. Do you think the latter hasn't actually heard of him?
|
Thursday, March 13
With Clare Short leading the charge, I decided to wander over to her local evening rag, the Birmingham Post and Mail, to find out what her constituents think. They make her look almost reasonable.
"More Brits were killed during the last Gulf War by American "friendly fire" than by the Iraqis ! I know who poses a threat to the British Army and it ain't the Iraqi Army !"
Says David Allison. Except he comes from Leeds. Likewise there's a certain Barrie Howell who opines:
"I can only hope that if Bush and Blair attack Iraq without U.N. approval they will be tried as war criminals. I would suggest Baghdad as a suitable venue".
But he comes from British Columbia. So it ain't just the Brummies.
david barkley from south bend got his caps lock button and punctuation all messed up.
"I THINK BUSH IS GOING TO BE WORST THAN H-----R AND MAKE THE COVENTRY RAIDS LOOK LIKE A PRACTICE RUN GOD HELP US I LIVED THRU THOSE RAIDS WE DO NOT WANT THEM AGAIN"
I wonder who H-----R is. Hamster? He's taking paranoia a little too far, though. Although I wouldn't put anything past the slimy cove, I can't believe even Saddam plans to bomb Indiana.The drones just couldn't fly that far. You can go add your own comment if you like. I did. Well, it's no dumber than anyone else's.
|
"More Brits were killed during the last Gulf War by American "friendly fire" than by the Iraqis ! I know who poses a threat to the British Army and it ain't the Iraqi Army !"
Says David Allison. Except he comes from Leeds. Likewise there's a certain Barrie Howell who opines:
"I can only hope that if Bush and Blair attack Iraq without U.N. approval they will be tried as war criminals. I would suggest Baghdad as a suitable venue".
But he comes from British Columbia. So it ain't just the Brummies.
david barkley from south bend got his caps lock button and punctuation all messed up.
"I THINK BUSH IS GOING TO BE WORST THAN H-----R AND MAKE THE COVENTRY RAIDS LOOK LIKE A PRACTICE RUN GOD HELP US I LIVED THRU THOSE RAIDS WE DO NOT WANT THEM AGAIN"
I wonder who H-----R is. Hamster? He's taking paranoia a little too far, though. Although I wouldn't put anything past the slimy cove, I can't believe even Saddam plans to bomb Indiana.The drones just couldn't fly that far. You can go add your own comment if you like. I did. Well, it's no dumber than anyone else's.
|
Wednesday, March 12
A certain Peter Kosmider writes to the Times, viz Clare Shortofafewbraincellsgate:
"Sir, I never thought the day would come when I would agree, simultaneously, with old Labour and the French President.
I must be getting old".
No, not old. Senile. Like I said yesterday, you can't agree with both of them. It ain't humanly possible.
|
"Sir, I never thought the day would come when I would agree, simultaneously, with old Labour and the French President.
I must be getting old".
No, not old. Senile. Like I said yesterday, you can't agree with both of them. It ain't humanly possible.
|
No sooner said:
"Clare Short would undoubtedly favour regime change in Downing Street".
AN Wanker, in the Standard.
|
"Clare Short would undoubtedly favour regime change in Downing Street".
AN Wanker, in the Standard.
|
Remember White Flag Saturday?
"FEBRUARY 15 WAS a day when the world was on the march, when it was turned upside down, when the ‘dissenting minority’ became the majority. The Bush junta, the Blair cabal, the crooked circle of Berlusconi, and the rotten court camarilla of Aznar, cowered in their bunkers".
So writes Peter Taaffe in Socialism Today. It's the usual head-in-the-clouds idealistic, sentimental tripe about people who would never vote for them in a million years, plus wholehearted contempt for people who are vaguely on the same side. A lot of inverted commas too - 'so-called' 'friend' and so on. See if you can finish reading it. I gave up about fifteen paragraphs in.
In a similar frame of mind, here's this piece from the very same organ.
"IN AN ELEMENTAL tide of protest against US preparations to attack Iraq, millions marched against war on 15 February, an estimated 30 million in 600 cities. Big demonstrations took place in the United States, in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle and other cities. In Europe the biggest demonstrations were in countries, like Britain, Spain and Italy, where governments are supporting Bush’s position. These phenomenal demonstrations represent a political earthquake".
Yeah, all right. We've got the picture. Maybe I'd have a better time with the Commies. Maybe I ought to read Pravda:
"Political life is in turmoil. Hundreds of thousands, millions of people are being drawn to street protest and other forms of direct action for the first time in their lives. The air is crackling with real change. Now comrades in and around the CPGB must themselves change to keep pace with these momentous events and - more important - to get ahead of them, to offer credible answers to the questions that this new movement is posing".
Or I could go and put the kettle on.
"In a sluggish period, revolutionary groups acquire habits of work, routines of thinking, that are primarily designed for self-preservation. But when the masses move, communist organisations have to provide real leadership - that or they were not worth preserving in the first place".
Darjeeling all right?
"The two-million-strong demo on the streets of the country’s capital was a wake-up call to the left, our own organisation included. Revolutionary groups - centrally the Socialist Workers Party - did sterling work in spreading the message of the demo, advertising it and encouraging the people attending. But on the day, that left was drowned in the sea of humanity that flooded onto the streets. The challenge to all of us is to provide real leadership to this huge movement, to channel it and equip it with a winning programme".
One lump or two?
"Many are calling for “regime change” in this country - but mean by that just getting rid of Blair. When we in the Communist Party demand regime change, we have something more radical, more far-reaching and dramatic in mind. We want the British constitution torn to shreds and reformulated in the interests of working people. Just imagine what this movement could achieve".
Yes I have. And that's why I vote Tory.
'Kin'ell, mate. How many times have I seen some goon say:
"What we need is regime change".
Pause, take a deep breath. Take a sip from tea. Take a bite from biscuit, and then say:
"And not just in Baghdad".
Cue raucous laughter from the yahoos.
Ho fucking ho.
|
"FEBRUARY 15 WAS a day when the world was on the march, when it was turned upside down, when the ‘dissenting minority’ became the majority. The Bush junta, the Blair cabal, the crooked circle of Berlusconi, and the rotten court camarilla of Aznar, cowered in their bunkers".
So writes Peter Taaffe in Socialism Today. It's the usual head-in-the-clouds idealistic, sentimental tripe about people who would never vote for them in a million years, plus wholehearted contempt for people who are vaguely on the same side. A lot of inverted commas too - 'so-called' 'friend' and so on. See if you can finish reading it. I gave up about fifteen paragraphs in.
In a similar frame of mind, here's this piece from the very same organ.
"IN AN ELEMENTAL tide of protest against US preparations to attack Iraq, millions marched against war on 15 February, an estimated 30 million in 600 cities. Big demonstrations took place in the United States, in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle and other cities. In Europe the biggest demonstrations were in countries, like Britain, Spain and Italy, where governments are supporting Bush’s position. These phenomenal demonstrations represent a political earthquake".
Yeah, all right. We've got the picture. Maybe I'd have a better time with the Commies. Maybe I ought to read Pravda:
"Political life is in turmoil. Hundreds of thousands, millions of people are being drawn to street protest and other forms of direct action for the first time in their lives. The air is crackling with real change. Now comrades in and around the CPGB must themselves change to keep pace with these momentous events and - more important - to get ahead of them, to offer credible answers to the questions that this new movement is posing".
Or I could go and put the kettle on.
"In a sluggish period, revolutionary groups acquire habits of work, routines of thinking, that are primarily designed for self-preservation. But when the masses move, communist organisations have to provide real leadership - that or they were not worth preserving in the first place".
Darjeeling all right?
"The two-million-strong demo on the streets of the country’s capital was a wake-up call to the left, our own organisation included. Revolutionary groups - centrally the Socialist Workers Party - did sterling work in spreading the message of the demo, advertising it and encouraging the people attending. But on the day, that left was drowned in the sea of humanity that flooded onto the streets. The challenge to all of us is to provide real leadership to this huge movement, to channel it and equip it with a winning programme".
One lump or two?
"Many are calling for “regime change” in this country - but mean by that just getting rid of Blair. When we in the Communist Party demand regime change, we have something more radical, more far-reaching and dramatic in mind. We want the British constitution torn to shreds and reformulated in the interests of working people. Just imagine what this movement could achieve".
Yes I have. And that's why I vote Tory.
'Kin'ell, mate. How many times have I seen some goon say:
"What we need is regime change".
Pause, take a deep breath. Take a sip from tea. Take a bite from biscuit, and then say:
"And not just in Baghdad".
Cue raucous laughter from the yahoos.
Ho fucking ho.
|
Tuesday, March 11
YOU SAY YOU WANT A RESOLUTION,
WELL, YOU KNOW,
WE ALL WANT TO CHANGE THE WORLD.
Yes, we all do want to change the world. And one of the quickest ways of improving it for the better is by getting medieval on Saddam's Thomas Aquinass, not by going to the UN for yet another resolution.
Come on, Dubya, you've jumped the shark on this one. If this were a tv series it would have been cancelled mid-season.
Jaw-jaw is always better than war-war, apparently. Indeed, and sometimes War-war is better than jaw-jaw. We've got Clare Short saying she'll support war provided there's a resolution no matter what it says, Chirac says he won't, no matter what it says. I mean, make sense of that, peacenik. Both provisos, if unconditional, are quite ridiculous, and should be laughed out of the International Court. Yes, I do understand that the whole point of the UN is to prevaricate, delay and procrastinate, and allow people to carry on as normal while pretending they all agree with each other. So there's a lot a to be said for hypocrisy. So what's new? And I'm sure this procedure has some obscure, ultimate purpose that, in some ill-defined liberal Disneyworld makes the world a better place, but… well why don't we all grow up now? When important decisions have to be made consensus is all a bit last century.
After all, supposing there is a resolution that the Frogs, Russkies and Pakis can agree with. What's it actually going to say? I give you option 1:
If Iraq doesn't disarm everything by March 20th, then Dubya can bomb the army into nothingness.
Or. Maybe option 2.
If Iraq doesn't try to show some attempt that it has altered its attitude and will at least consider the possibility of not increasing its stockpile of WMDS then the UN, after yet more meetings, will condemn this behaviour in the strongest possible terms.
I mean, like, Hello.
Get with the programme, dudes. So the UN's bluff has been called. My heart bleeds. Why take moral instruction from horse-eaters, baby-killers, wife-burners and liberals?
Of course, the one I feel sorry for in all of this is Saddam Hussain. Well, apart from the torture victims, the murdered and other unfortunates who have had their civil liberties eroded, human rights curtailed and so on. If he'd actually felt that the UN meant any of this and actually intended to carry out any of its numerous threats, he'd have held back from the excesses. He doesn't actually want to die in a war. He just doesn't think it's ever going to happen, and he might yet be right. If on the other hand, the US could act unilaterally, we'd never have got into this mess in the first place. Too many cooks spoil the broth, o internationalist, and too many crooks will bring the whole UN to its knees. Bring it on.
|
WELL, YOU KNOW,
WE ALL WANT TO CHANGE THE WORLD.
Yes, we all do want to change the world. And one of the quickest ways of improving it for the better is by getting medieval on Saddam's Thomas Aquinass, not by going to the UN for yet another resolution.
Come on, Dubya, you've jumped the shark on this one. If this were a tv series it would have been cancelled mid-season.
Jaw-jaw is always better than war-war, apparently. Indeed, and sometimes War-war is better than jaw-jaw. We've got Clare Short saying she'll support war provided there's a resolution no matter what it says, Chirac says he won't, no matter what it says. I mean, make sense of that, peacenik. Both provisos, if unconditional, are quite ridiculous, and should be laughed out of the International Court. Yes, I do understand that the whole point of the UN is to prevaricate, delay and procrastinate, and allow people to carry on as normal while pretending they all agree with each other. So there's a lot a to be said for hypocrisy. So what's new? And I'm sure this procedure has some obscure, ultimate purpose that, in some ill-defined liberal Disneyworld makes the world a better place, but… well why don't we all grow up now? When important decisions have to be made consensus is all a bit last century.
After all, supposing there is a resolution that the Frogs, Russkies and Pakis can agree with. What's it actually going to say? I give you option 1:
If Iraq doesn't disarm everything by March 20th, then Dubya can bomb the army into nothingness.
Or. Maybe option 2.
If Iraq doesn't try to show some attempt that it has altered its attitude and will at least consider the possibility of not increasing its stockpile of WMDS then the UN, after yet more meetings, will condemn this behaviour in the strongest possible terms.
I mean, like, Hello.
Get with the programme, dudes. So the UN's bluff has been called. My heart bleeds. Why take moral instruction from horse-eaters, baby-killers, wife-burners and liberals?
Of course, the one I feel sorry for in all of this is Saddam Hussain. Well, apart from the torture victims, the murdered and other unfortunates who have had their civil liberties eroded, human rights curtailed and so on. If he'd actually felt that the UN meant any of this and actually intended to carry out any of its numerous threats, he'd have held back from the excesses. He doesn't actually want to die in a war. He just doesn't think it's ever going to happen, and he might yet be right. If on the other hand, the US could act unilaterally, we'd never have got into this mess in the first place. Too many cooks spoil the broth, o internationalist, and too many crooks will bring the whole UN to its knees. Bring it on.
|
Monday, March 10
Sorry, I had to go and have a bit of a lie down. All these microposts are mere stalling tactics. However, I have now recovered, recharged my batteries and concluded: This one isn't over. It still has to be ratified after a general election, and the vote was a lot closer than anticipated. And it was boycotted - I really can't explain the thinking behind that - by the opposition, so come the election, we may be surprised and the Socialists may ride in on their handsome chargers to save the day.
The most important things to realise for the ignorant, of which I assume all of you are, about Maltese politics is that it is very partisan, elections are always knife-edge, and less than five percent of people ever vote for a different party during their life time. Being of a very non-proletarian disposition, virtually everyone I know on the island always, irrevocably votes Nationalist ( that's the right-wing lot ) and is de facto pro-EU. The people I barely talk to except when I want to buy groceries, the blue collar, rank and file, common stock types, always vote Labour, and are anti-EU. This article, by eccentric lawyer I.M. Beck is a pretty strong example of the attitude of the pro-EU lobby. Those guys, above anything, seriously hate the Labour Party, and see EU membership as a way of reigning in their worst excesses. I try and explain that the only things the EU is any good at suppressing is free enterprise and freedom of association and they look at me like I'm a right-wing crazoid. Which of course I am. But that's how the argument goes.
Anyway, this ain't over. There are all sorts of legal shenanigans to come yet, and this could make the Florida Recount look as easy as Saddam's recent return to power.
The fat lady hasn't sung, she's still gargling in the bathroom, and there are gonna be more twists to this than in both series of 24. It might be a very long day for Jack Bauer, but for the Maltese, it's gonna be a long year.
Stay tuned.
In the mean time I've got other fish to fry. Like, apparently there's gonna be a war soon.
|
The most important things to realise for the ignorant, of which I assume all of you are, about Maltese politics is that it is very partisan, elections are always knife-edge, and less than five percent of people ever vote for a different party during their life time. Being of a very non-proletarian disposition, virtually everyone I know on the island always, irrevocably votes Nationalist ( that's the right-wing lot ) and is de facto pro-EU. The people I barely talk to except when I want to buy groceries, the blue collar, rank and file, common stock types, always vote Labour, and are anti-EU. This article, by eccentric lawyer I.M. Beck is a pretty strong example of the attitude of the pro-EU lobby. Those guys, above anything, seriously hate the Labour Party, and see EU membership as a way of reigning in their worst excesses. I try and explain that the only things the EU is any good at suppressing is free enterprise and freedom of association and they look at me like I'm a right-wing crazoid. Which of course I am. But that's how the argument goes.
Anyway, this ain't over. There are all sorts of legal shenanigans to come yet, and this could make the Florida Recount look as easy as Saddam's recent return to power.
The fat lady hasn't sung, she's still gargling in the bathroom, and there are gonna be more twists to this than in both series of 24. It might be a very long day for Jack Bauer, but for the Maltese, it's gonna be a long year.
Stay tuned.
In the mean time I've got other fish to fry. Like, apparently there's gonna be a war soon.
|
If Clare Short, the loudest creature to come out of Birmingham since Ozzy Osbourne, isn't toast by lunchtime, then Tony is even more of a wimp that I had thought.
|
|
Voice of the Moron:
"Saddam Hussein hardly poses any terrifying threat to the world or his neighbours while Dr Blix's team are at work. Why should he not have more time?
The way ahead is clearly to keep the tyrant shackled in this way without starting a conflict which risks a huge loss of life and could set the Middle East on fire.
But this is not good enough for the warmongers of the White House.
They want blood, and George W Bush is not too bothered whose".
|
"Saddam Hussein hardly poses any terrifying threat to the world or his neighbours while Dr Blix's team are at work. Why should he not have more time?
The way ahead is clearly to keep the tyrant shackled in this way without starting a conflict which risks a huge loss of life and could set the Middle East on fire.
But this is not good enough for the warmongers of the White House.
They want blood, and George W Bush is not too bothered whose".
|
Saturday, March 8
Friday, March 7
Here is an explanation of the Just War Theory, coming to you direct from the Scottish Socialist Voice.
"The theory of the 'just war' first arose when Spain conquered Latin America after 1492".
They explain with a commendably cavalier attitude to historical accuracy.
"The Spanish conquerors had to decide what to do about the 25 million or so Indian peoples they found living there. For years, they had long theoretical articles about how to proceed. In the end they decided that Indians were not really human beings but 'barbarians'. That meant they could be justly killed and enslaved. Within one generation, 90 per cent of the Indians were murdered. For three centuries, Spain lived on the proceeds of the gold and silver mines they stole from the 'barbarians'. Change 'gold' to 'oil' and 'barbarians' to 'terrorists' and the argument's the same - and so is its purpose".
So much for Thomas Acquinas and his pals. From this, I think it's fair to say, somewhat jauncided viewpoint, I suspect you have already surmised that messrs Mike Gonzalez and Alan McCombes, the two goons who wrote this stuff, take a dim view of the forthcoming Towelocaust. You'd be right.
"Bush and Blair's war is what capitalist wars have always been - campaigns to control society's wealth for the benefit of a tiny, powerful minority... It is a war to deprive the Iraqi people of any control over their own lives, to force them to transfer from one master to another".
Those pesky capitalist conquistadors, eh? Of course, only a curmedgeon might point out that most Iraqis don't have much control over their lives as it is. Honest they don't. It's torture.
"Defying all the evidence, Tony Blair claims that the aim of the US government is to "export democracy" throughout the Middle East.
That is a lie and Blair knows it.
The truth is, the US fears democracy in the Middle East as the devil fears holy water".
Now I think that's a little bit over the top, mate.
"For the rulers of the USA, democracy is strictly for those who can be trusted to vote the right way.
And as the farcical election of George Bush demonstrated, even in the US itself it's not who votes that counts. It's who counts the votes".
The Florida Recount. They just wouldn't let it lie.
|
"The theory of the 'just war' first arose when Spain conquered Latin America after 1492".
They explain with a commendably cavalier attitude to historical accuracy.
"The Spanish conquerors had to decide what to do about the 25 million or so Indian peoples they found living there. For years, they had long theoretical articles about how to proceed. In the end they decided that Indians were not really human beings but 'barbarians'. That meant they could be justly killed and enslaved. Within one generation, 90 per cent of the Indians were murdered. For three centuries, Spain lived on the proceeds of the gold and silver mines they stole from the 'barbarians'. Change 'gold' to 'oil' and 'barbarians' to 'terrorists' and the argument's the same - and so is its purpose".
So much for Thomas Acquinas and his pals. From this, I think it's fair to say, somewhat jauncided viewpoint, I suspect you have already surmised that messrs Mike Gonzalez and Alan McCombes, the two goons who wrote this stuff, take a dim view of the forthcoming Towelocaust. You'd be right.
"Bush and Blair's war is what capitalist wars have always been - campaigns to control society's wealth for the benefit of a tiny, powerful minority... It is a war to deprive the Iraqi people of any control over their own lives, to force them to transfer from one master to another".
Those pesky capitalist conquistadors, eh? Of course, only a curmedgeon might point out that most Iraqis don't have much control over their lives as it is. Honest they don't. It's torture.
"Defying all the evidence, Tony Blair claims that the aim of the US government is to "export democracy" throughout the Middle East.
That is a lie and Blair knows it.
The truth is, the US fears democracy in the Middle East as the devil fears holy water".
Now I think that's a little bit over the top, mate.
"For the rulers of the USA, democracy is strictly for those who can be trusted to vote the right way.
And as the farcical election of George Bush demonstrated, even in the US itself it's not who votes that counts. It's who counts the votes".
The Florida Recount. They just wouldn't let it lie.
|
I've always had a sneaking suspicion that the Black Country was a hotbed of child molestation, and this disturbing news from the Wolverhampton Express and Star would seem to confirm it.
"It would be easy to dismiss it as child-protection gone mad but there is already evidence from around the world that the new generation of picture-transmitting mobiles is being used for sinister purposes.
And the lesson of recent years is that if new technology can be used by perverts, it will be".
That's right. Mobile phones have been banned from public swimming pools in Wolverhampton on the off chance that Garry Glitter, Jonathan King - perhaps even the Wombles - might turn up, armed with the latest advances in modern technology and start beaming photos of little Johnny all around the world, while the little munchkin is sitting there, playing merrily in the paddling pool.
And I dare say that a credit-card wielding Pete Townsend will be watching from the privacy of his home, gleaning yet more evidence for another article about recovered memory sydnrome.
Still, it seems a bit draconian to me.
|
"It would be easy to dismiss it as child-protection gone mad but there is already evidence from around the world that the new generation of picture-transmitting mobiles is being used for sinister purposes.
And the lesson of recent years is that if new technology can be used by perverts, it will be".
That's right. Mobile phones have been banned from public swimming pools in Wolverhampton on the off chance that Garry Glitter, Jonathan King - perhaps even the Wombles - might turn up, armed with the latest advances in modern technology and start beaming photos of little Johnny all around the world, while the little munchkin is sitting there, playing merrily in the paddling pool.
And I dare say that a credit-card wielding Pete Townsend will be watching from the privacy of his home, gleaning yet more evidence for another article about recovered memory sydnrome.
Still, it seems a bit draconian to me.
|
Voice of the Moron has some stern words to say about Our Tone. They also aren't too keen on
"Bush and his band of right-wing loonies.
The US President has already made it clear he is no democrat and has no time for the UN. He fully intends to use America's power to smash Iraq and probably kill its leader, come what may.
But for Blair to follow suit so slavishly is truly shocking".
Indeed. I mean, he's British.
|
"Bush and his band of right-wing loonies.
The US President has already made it clear he is no democrat and has no time for the UN. He fully intends to use America's power to smash Iraq and probably kill its leader, come what may.
But for Blair to follow suit so slavishly is truly shocking".
Indeed. I mean, he's British.
|
Thursday, March 6
Frequent commenter Ellie suggested, as part of my ceaseless worldwide quest for Wankers, to check out Eclipse, the anti-war review. I wasn't disappointed. Take this article by one Julian Saurin of the University of Sussex. I once thought about applying to be educated by these bozos, but I'm rather glad I didn't end up sharing a canteen with this crusty. I don't know if this Mr. Saurin is some bearded lecturer or a pasty-faced 'sociology' student, or maybe he just helps run the photocopier in the Media Studies department, but whatever he does he's a judgmental chap all right.
"Bush and Blair are not only united by a deep neo-liberal authoritarianism and a contempt for international law - after all both sins are characteristic of many leaders; Berlusconi, Aznar, Vajpayee, Fox, for example - but, more significantly, they are blessed by a religious fundamentalism which brooks no dissent and is contemptuous of doubt. It is their religiosity which marks them out from their predecessors and offers them up as clear and present dangers to the world at large".
Saddam and OBL being godless rationalists of a Dawkinsian frame of mind, I suppose.
"The arrogant rage of the UK and US governments against any expression of doubt with respect to their reckless determination to go to war is contemptuous in a uniquely fundamentalist way to human and political difference. Time after time, political movement after political movement, in country after country, there has been a refusal to accept on trust the word of pastor Bush and the reverend Blair".
Yeah, okay, they like to sing Kumbya on occasion. Well, so what? So does the Pope. And so does Catweazle. Peace bunnies both.
"Rather than provide the world with credible evidence and argument which would warrant the launching of a third world war we have witnessed the pathetic spectacle of Blair evangelising the world, insisting that he is ever-so sincere, unimpeachably earnest and unrivalled in his feeling for the poor and oppressed".
Well, all right. Blair's sincerity can be a wind-up. But he's sincere about the war. He's sincere about Hospital Waiting Lists. I've no doubt he's extremely sincere when he turns out the bedside light. Sincerity is his thing. Get over it, Jules, you're missing the big picture.
"The Blair-Bush magisterium is not just the denial of science; it is not even just bad religion; it is simply organised lying and fabrication on a mass scale".
Now, that's a bit more serious. Show me the organised lying, please.
"It is historically unprecedented for the popular voice on a world-wide scale to be at such discord on the question of war with that of national and international ruling classes. It is equally unprecedented for this discord to extend so widely within national ruling classes. But so sure is Blair of the need to attack Iraq, that not only does he recruit every right-wing political crook in Europe to his crusade but he confesses - as if this will dissolve our doubt - that his own political life is on the line. In so doing he asks us to give equal weight to his life as to that of, for example, the ignored 900 million people of the Arab world".
Who are also godless rationalists, I suppose. And being unpopular doesn't automatically make you a liar, does it? Anyway, where is this evidence that the Blair-Bush magisterium is lying, exactly, on a mass scale?
"We need no further evidence than this of Mandela's charge of the Bush-Blair racism".
And that, believe it or not, is it. Leathery ex-con accuses someone of racism. Compelling evidence or what?
"What we have today is a politico-religious programme of barbarism. We need urgently, yet carefully, to build an alternative to barbarism. 'No to war' is not enough. Refusing a blind rush into war must be a beginning, but it is only a beginning. The formation of an alternative historical project, of another world, should not just remain a tantalising possibility. It must be pursued as an imperative".
Actually, I think the Axis of Evil is pretty barbaric. All that hand-chopping and stuff. So if it falls to the Axis of Necessary Evil to take them on then so be it. What I really don't get is why someone who looks forward to "The formation of an alternative historical project" and who regards Bush and Blair as such crazed Bible-bashers would support 900 million Koran-bashers instead.
|
"Bush and Blair are not only united by a deep neo-liberal authoritarianism and a contempt for international law - after all both sins are characteristic of many leaders; Berlusconi, Aznar, Vajpayee, Fox, for example - but, more significantly, they are blessed by a religious fundamentalism which brooks no dissent and is contemptuous of doubt. It is their religiosity which marks them out from their predecessors and offers them up as clear and present dangers to the world at large".
Saddam and OBL being godless rationalists of a Dawkinsian frame of mind, I suppose.
"The arrogant rage of the UK and US governments against any expression of doubt with respect to their reckless determination to go to war is contemptuous in a uniquely fundamentalist way to human and political difference. Time after time, political movement after political movement, in country after country, there has been a refusal to accept on trust the word of pastor Bush and the reverend Blair".
Yeah, okay, they like to sing Kumbya on occasion. Well, so what? So does the Pope. And so does Catweazle. Peace bunnies both.
"Rather than provide the world with credible evidence and argument which would warrant the launching of a third world war we have witnessed the pathetic spectacle of Blair evangelising the world, insisting that he is ever-so sincere, unimpeachably earnest and unrivalled in his feeling for the poor and oppressed".
Well, all right. Blair's sincerity can be a wind-up. But he's sincere about the war. He's sincere about Hospital Waiting Lists. I've no doubt he's extremely sincere when he turns out the bedside light. Sincerity is his thing. Get over it, Jules, you're missing the big picture.
"The Blair-Bush magisterium is not just the denial of science; it is not even just bad religion; it is simply organised lying and fabrication on a mass scale".
Now, that's a bit more serious. Show me the organised lying, please.
"It is historically unprecedented for the popular voice on a world-wide scale to be at such discord on the question of war with that of national and international ruling classes. It is equally unprecedented for this discord to extend so widely within national ruling classes. But so sure is Blair of the need to attack Iraq, that not only does he recruit every right-wing political crook in Europe to his crusade but he confesses - as if this will dissolve our doubt - that his own political life is on the line. In so doing he asks us to give equal weight to his life as to that of, for example, the ignored 900 million people of the Arab world".
Who are also godless rationalists, I suppose. And being unpopular doesn't automatically make you a liar, does it? Anyway, where is this evidence that the Blair-Bush magisterium is lying, exactly, on a mass scale?
"We need no further evidence than this of Mandela's charge of the Bush-Blair racism".
And that, believe it or not, is it. Leathery ex-con accuses someone of racism. Compelling evidence or what?
"What we have today is a politico-religious programme of barbarism. We need urgently, yet carefully, to build an alternative to barbarism. 'No to war' is not enough. Refusing a blind rush into war must be a beginning, but it is only a beginning. The formation of an alternative historical project, of another world, should not just remain a tantalising possibility. It must be pursued as an imperative".
Actually, I think the Axis of Evil is pretty barbaric. All that hand-chopping and stuff. So if it falls to the Axis of Necessary Evil to take them on then so be it. What I really don't get is why someone who looks forward to "The formation of an alternative historical project" and who regards Bush and Blair as such crazed Bible-bashers would support 900 million Koran-bashers instead.
|
Bertram's installed comments. Go there, and say something nice. He's very sensitive like that. One of the few unfulfilled ambitions of my life, aside from world domination, is to convert our Chris to the joys of capitalism and conservatism. Okay, turning him into Paul Johnson might be beyond even my powers of persuasion, but maybe a vote for the Tories after his seventieth birthday might not be completely fanciful. He could say that it isn't he that's changed, just the Labour party, but hey, we all need our self-deceptions. So go on, be incredibly polite and decent. And conservative.
|
|
The Voice of the Moron:
"SO many threats have been made over Iraq that they mainly pass us by.
But yesterday's strange utterance from Foreign Secretary Jack Straw was different.
He issued this dramatic warning: "Take care. We will reap a whirlwind if we push the Americans into a unilateralist position."
What was that supposed to mean? There can be only one conclusion.
Mr Straw was saying that the White House is run by warmongering madmen".
|
"SO many threats have been made over Iraq that they mainly pass us by.
But yesterday's strange utterance from Foreign Secretary Jack Straw was different.
He issued this dramatic warning: "Take care. We will reap a whirlwind if we push the Americans into a unilateralist position."
What was that supposed to mean? There can be only one conclusion.
Mr Straw was saying that the White House is run by warmongering madmen".
|
"Britain is still crippled by class - whole swaths of life are treated as a form of outdoor relief for the privileged and their progeny: toad-like they squat atop politics, Whitehall, the City, law, big business, the media. Even popular entertainment has been assailed by a legion of Davinas and Johnnies. Britain is ruled by winks and nods, the favouritism and leg-ups of a privately educated Mafiosi".
Reading this makes me yearn for the tranquill waters of the Wanker. Do Times readers really want to read this class war bullshit?
|
Reading this makes me yearn for the tranquill waters of the Wanker. Do Times readers really want to read this class war bullshit?
|
And here's another. Clearly, the air over Harlow has this effect over some people. Or maybe it's something in the water.
|
|
Wednesday, March 5
I voted US. Who did you vote for? I'm coming third on this one. Come on guys, let's tip the balance.
|
|
Q: When is an Essex wife not an Essex wife?
A: When she sends her photo in to the Bishop's Stortford Citizen.
UPDATE: Natalie comes from Essex, doesn't she? The two hundred fifty quid is hers for the taking.
|
A: When she sends her photo in to the Bishop's Stortford Citizen.
UPDATE: Natalie comes from Essex, doesn't she? The two hundred fifty quid is hers for the taking.
|
Cat-loving politician and novelist Ann Widdecombe talks to the Barnet and Potters Bar Times.
"My view is that we have to go in," she tells the good people of Barnet.
"I am scarcely going to stand up with a placard and say Trust Tony Blair', but you do have to know that he has got information we do not have, and he is acting as a leader should.
"If we are weak now, our decision could hurt future generations."
Can't argue with that.
|
"My view is that we have to go in," she tells the good people of Barnet.
"I am scarcely going to stand up with a placard and say Trust Tony Blair', but you do have to know that he has got information we do not have, and he is acting as a leader should.
"If we are weak now, our decision could hurt future generations."
Can't argue with that.
|
And here's a trenchant leader on Iraq from the Bucks Free Press by a certain Margaret Smith. No, really. Go argue with that one, peacenik.
|
|
If this opinion column in that well-known journal of left-wing demogoguery the Staines Guardian is anything to go by, this could be trickier than I thought.
|
|
Announcement to my readers: Being good Catholic folk, I expect you all know that Lent started today. Not that I remembered until the wife served up some pancakes for me. So what should I give up for the next forty days and nights? Sex with animals? Reading Proust? Listening to Wagner? No hardships there, I'm afraid. But I know, something that will really make me suffer. So I've decided to stop reading the Wanker and the Independent. Yes, I know I will be depriving myself of some of the most interesting, witty and intelligent commentators on the whole planet, but that's how it goes: if it doesn't hurt it can't be fun has always been my motto. So, for the next month and a bit I'm going to try and write about other stuff. There must be other morons worth investigating. And with a bit of luck the whole Iraq shindig will be over.
So, let's see how this all works out.
|
So, let's see how this all works out.
|
Tuesday, March 4
Why are feminists such wimps?
"I concern myself as a woman that we are so quiet about our stance. We show up at demonstrations; we participate in non-violent actions; we raise the issue with family, friends and colleagues. I suspect that like me many women simply "know" intuitively and in their hearts that war is abhorrent, the cost is too great, and war should only be used as a (very) last resort".
Yup. Well the time to hesitate is through. Clearly Rosemary, from Kinross ain't heard of this gal. Nor this one. Nor this one. Nor half of my blogroll.
And Beryl from the Wirral. You're gonna get awful lonesome out there.
|
"I concern myself as a woman that we are so quiet about our stance. We show up at demonstrations; we participate in non-violent actions; we raise the issue with family, friends and colleagues. I suspect that like me many women simply "know" intuitively and in their hearts that war is abhorrent, the cost is too great, and war should only be used as a (very) last resort".
Yup. Well the time to hesitate is through. Clearly Rosemary, from Kinross ain't heard of this gal. Nor this one. Nor this one. Nor half of my blogroll.
And Beryl from the Wirral. You're gonna get awful lonesome out there.
|
There aren't many rock stars who'd start with a harp solo, but Bryan did. He's that kind of a guy. Chris Spedding wielded a mighty axe, and Paul Thompson banged the skins like a trooper. Good days. But why didn't he play so much Roxy stuff, and so little of his own? No Sign of the Times, or anything off In Your Mind. He must get bored of Love is the Drug and Do the Strand all the time. Still, I had a better time than this elderly gentleman would have done, anyway. Those Libertarians just don't know how to rock!
|
|
Monday, March 3
Weary of the waltz? And mashed potato schmaltz? Yeah, me too, that's why I'm going to see this brylcreamed ageing crooner 2nite. Last time was fifteen years ago. First time was over twenty. Ah, the memories.
Catch you laters.
|
Catch you laters.
|
Robert Fisk, among his many other areas of ignorance, don't know nothing about the theatre. The Theatre of the Absurd was peopled by the likes of Beckett, Ionesco and his old mucker Harold Pinter. Gilbert and Sullivan were light operetta.
Cretin.
|
Cretin.
|
Naomi Klein has some advice for all the pixies out there.
"you could turn off CNN, refuse to be a soft and cuddly peacenik, get out there and stop the war".
Go on. Just do it.
|
"you could turn off CNN, refuse to be a soft and cuddly peacenik, get out there and stop the war".
Go on. Just do it.
|
Saturday, March 1
THE FLORIDA RECOUNT
Lest we ever forget.
Not that we're likely to, with guys like this around. This time it's British animal lover Richard Dawkins, falling at the first. Anyway, here's the gen:
"This is George Bush's war. His motives and his timing have an internal American rationale. Bush is so unswerving in his thirst for war that Saddam has even less incentive to disarm than Blair's paradox would suggest. Cowboy Bush is saying, in effect, "Stick your hands up, drop your weapons, and I'll shoot you anyway."
Hey, Dawk, go read Jonesy, you goon. Yeah, well it's all about oil and stuff.
"If Bush now wins a quick war, with few American casualties and no draft, he will triumph in the 2004 election".
Well not necessarily.
"Victory over Iraq will play well in Peoria".
Cos they're all morons in Peoria, you see.
"Those of us opposed to the war are sometimes accused of anti-Americanism".
I can't imagine why.
"I am vigorously pro-American, which is one reason I am anti-Bush. They didn't elect him, and they deserve better".
Well they did, actually.
"If, in a khaki election, Bush finally wins a term as President, decent Americans, intellectual Americans, American scholars, scientists, philosophers, engineers, writers, artists and, not least, American philanthropists, Americans with a great deal to contribute, are going to be looking for a civilised haven".
That's right. How about Baghdad?
|
Lest we ever forget.
Not that we're likely to, with guys like this around. This time it's British animal lover Richard Dawkins, falling at the first. Anyway, here's the gen:
"This is George Bush's war. His motives and his timing have an internal American rationale. Bush is so unswerving in his thirst for war that Saddam has even less incentive to disarm than Blair's paradox would suggest. Cowboy Bush is saying, in effect, "Stick your hands up, drop your weapons, and I'll shoot you anyway."
Hey, Dawk, go read Jonesy, you goon. Yeah, well it's all about oil and stuff.
"If Bush now wins a quick war, with few American casualties and no draft, he will triumph in the 2004 election".
Well not necessarily.
"Victory over Iraq will play well in Peoria".
Cos they're all morons in Peoria, you see.
"Those of us opposed to the war are sometimes accused of anti-Americanism".
I can't imagine why.
"I am vigorously pro-American, which is one reason I am anti-Bush. They didn't elect him, and they deserve better".
Well they did, actually.
"If, in a khaki election, Bush finally wins a term as President, decent Americans, intellectual Americans, American scholars, scientists, philosophers, engineers, writers, artists and, not least, American philanthropists, Americans with a great deal to contribute, are going to be looking for a civilised haven".
That's right. How about Baghdad?
|
Friday, February 28
Fabled Bristolian socialist and Rousseau fanatic Chris "Genius" Bertram is about to celebrate his first anniversary and is out on the streets, showing his legs, trolling for hits. Curiously, he didn't mention MY bloggiversary when it fell a few weeks' back. And he gets a bigger hit count than me. And he doesn't have a comments section. But hey, pay him a visit.
|
|
There comes a time in every desperate columnist's life when, short of anything else to write about, he starts to fantasise about the forthcoming electoral triumph of the Liberal Democrats. Now it's Simon Jenkins' turn.
|
|
Thursday, February 27
Ever wonder what your average poet, novelist, literary critic, screenwriter, and hairdresser thought the alternatives to war were? Me neither. But anyone interested in writing an ultrafisk ought to check these characters out. There's enough material here for an entire conference.
|
|
Jackie Ashley, quick on the uptake as ever, has noticed that population rates are declining in your western civilisations, and draws a socialistic conclusion:
"If we want balanced demographic growth, we have to help people bring up babies without being excluded from the workplace".
We could, alternatively, make it illegal for women to work. Or criminalise contraception. Or guarantee a swimming pool and a packet of sweeties for every child born. Or we could decide that it doesn't really matter.
"In decently organised societies, population growth and economic growth go hand in hand".
Yes, but who wants to live in a decently organised society?
|
"If we want balanced demographic growth, we have to help people bring up babies without being excluded from the workplace".
We could, alternatively, make it illegal for women to work. Or criminalise contraception. Or guarantee a swimming pool and a packet of sweeties for every child born. Or we could decide that it doesn't really matter.
"In decently organised societies, population growth and economic growth go hand in hand".
Yes, but who wants to live in a decently organised society?
|
"There has always been an unhealthy streak of anti-Americanism in the Labour Party", announces the Indy disapprovingly. I know. Shocking, isn't it?
|
|
Wednesday, February 26
On the other hand there are still goons like this one, knocking around:
"The people who want to attack Iraq are the politicians surrounding George Bush, the Enron orphans. The American people are fully aware of what is going on, and just as they managed to stop the war in Vietnam, they may, when no convincing explanations are forthcoming, manage to persuade Mr Bush's psychoanalyst to prescribe a sedative and put an end to this nightmare".
Marvellous stuff. I suppose the odd 'Some' or 'Many' would undermine the rhetoric, wouldn't it?
|
"The people who want to attack Iraq are the politicians surrounding George Bush, the Enron orphans. The American people are fully aware of what is going on, and just as they managed to stop the war in Vietnam, they may, when no convincing explanations are forthcoming, manage to persuade Mr Bush's psychoanalyst to prescribe a sedative and put an end to this nightmare".
Marvellous stuff. I suppose the odd 'Some' or 'Many' would undermine the rhetoric, wouldn't it?
|
Refreshing article in the Indy from Simon Carr, in which he discusses the forthcoming Desert Carnage:
"Just when I start to believe in the merits of going to war, I listen to Mr Blair and doubts creep in".
I agree. Considering that he's a lawyer he's a useless arguer. Yeah, he's the best of a bad bunch, and at least we haven't got some sleazebag like Chirac running things, but as to this war stuff, well it's all bluff. It's all very well saying that Resolution 1441 must be obeyed. Well it hasn't been. And if they meant it, then they should have invaded already. The Allies are undermining their own case by poncing around worrying about what the Frogs, Gerries and Russkies think. Screw'em. Unfortunately, they seldom say Saddam has actually breached the resolution because if they do, that begs the question: Then why haven't you done anything about it, then? Why are you still arguing?
Come on guys, get a grip.
|
"Just when I start to believe in the merits of going to war, I listen to Mr Blair and doubts creep in".
I agree. Considering that he's a lawyer he's a useless arguer. Yeah, he's the best of a bad bunch, and at least we haven't got some sleazebag like Chirac running things, but as to this war stuff, well it's all bluff. It's all very well saying that Resolution 1441 must be obeyed. Well it hasn't been. And if they meant it, then they should have invaded already. The Allies are undermining their own case by poncing around worrying about what the Frogs, Gerries and Russkies think. Screw'em. Unfortunately, they seldom say Saddam has actually breached the resolution because if they do, that begs the question: Then why haven't you done anything about it, then? Why are you still arguing?
Come on guys, get a grip.
|
Anyway, so there I was, thinking about Deborah Orr. After all, considering she's both a liberal, and a feminist, well she's not completely unattractive, is she? And then it clicked. In the midst of her rant yesterday about the peace pixies, she said:
"I've also become increasingly more disgusted by the divisiveness of left-wing rhetoric: the simple-minded anti-Americanism (how not to win friends and influence people), the wilful damage that is done by the insistence that the war is being fought over oil (even if it was, what use would this stance have in talking the US down?), the playground level of the insults against the intelligence of Bush and Blair (they may not be the most original thinkers, but they're pretty bright); the heartless hard-left insistence that national sovereignty should always be respected (I thought the left was against life being a lottery – if so, then why is being born under a vicious dictatorship hard cheese?); and the hectoring insistence that only Palestinians, and never Israelis, are victims (yes, it's key that this situation should be sorted out, but again, is haranguing with such bias the way to win hearts and minds?)".
I see. So what kind of lily-livered, simple-minded anti-Americans does our Debs hang out with? And then I remembered: Do you recall this column, by the noted columnist, chatshow host, gameshow panelist, reformed heroin abuser, sesquipedelianistical novelist and art installation Will Self, who wrote back in November that:
"the American electorate resembles a crack head at the end of a particularly savage and protracted binge. Rather than face up to the fact that it's the biggest debtor nation in the world, and that it's fast squandering not only its own natural resources, but also all those of the rest of the Earth's inhabitants, crack-head America has decided to embark on another run".
Stern stuff, eh?
"Still, I can't really feel that angry with Dubya, or with any of his corrupt, self-seeking henchmen, or even with the paranoid, deluded American electorate, who are in search of another fleeting rush of imperialism".
I wrote a little thing about it then, as did Steven Personperson.
Well yes, you guessed it. Deborah Orr is married to Will Self. They must have interesting little chats over the cornflakes.
|
"I've also become increasingly more disgusted by the divisiveness of left-wing rhetoric: the simple-minded anti-Americanism (how not to win friends and influence people), the wilful damage that is done by the insistence that the war is being fought over oil (even if it was, what use would this stance have in talking the US down?), the playground level of the insults against the intelligence of Bush and Blair (they may not be the most original thinkers, but they're pretty bright); the heartless hard-left insistence that national sovereignty should always be respected (I thought the left was against life being a lottery – if so, then why is being born under a vicious dictatorship hard cheese?); and the hectoring insistence that only Palestinians, and never Israelis, are victims (yes, it's key that this situation should be sorted out, but again, is haranguing with such bias the way to win hearts and minds?)".
I see. So what kind of lily-livered, simple-minded anti-Americans does our Debs hang out with? And then I remembered: Do you recall this column, by the noted columnist, chatshow host, gameshow panelist, reformed heroin abuser, sesquipedelianistical novelist and art installation Will Self, who wrote back in November that:
"the American electorate resembles a crack head at the end of a particularly savage and protracted binge. Rather than face up to the fact that it's the biggest debtor nation in the world, and that it's fast squandering not only its own natural resources, but also all those of the rest of the Earth's inhabitants, crack-head America has decided to embark on another run".
Stern stuff, eh?
"Still, I can't really feel that angry with Dubya, or with any of his corrupt, self-seeking henchmen, or even with the paranoid, deluded American electorate, who are in search of another fleeting rush of imperialism".
I wrote a little thing about it then, as did Steven Personperson.
Well yes, you guessed it. Deborah Orr is married to Will Self. They must have interesting little chats over the cornflakes.
|
Heard that nice Mr. Hague on the radio. What a star, he bestrode the world like a colossus, and we shall never see his like again. Apparently. Still, he should never have quit. As I understand it, he only did so because he could feel Portillo breathing down his neck, threatening all and sundry. Not a pleasant feeling, whatever your persuasion.
Incidentally, he tells me he can no longer update his blog. Oh, he's tried all right. But if you leave it long enough, they seem to go dead. Oh well. Perhaps he'll have to go back to politics, after all.
|
Incidentally, he tells me he can no longer update his blog. Oh, he's tried all right. But if you leave it long enough, they seem to go dead. Oh well. Perhaps he'll have to go back to politics, after all.
|
Tuesday, February 25
"Q: How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris?
A: No one knows, they've never tried".
Deborah Orr, in the Indy. Yes, that Deborah Orr.
|
A: No one knows, they've never tried".
Deborah Orr, in the Indy. Yes, that Deborah Orr.
|
Monday, February 24
Best analysis of the latest Tory troubles comes from William Rees-Mogg. IDS might be a pillock, but Portillo has got a serious ego problem. He's a man who'd rather be leader of the Tory Opposition than in power, but merely Chancellor of the Exchequer. People like that are a waste of time and he and his acolytes must be culled.
Regarding the current IDS problem, well here's a thing. A week before the last election, and things weren't looking all that rosy for our William. I was chatting about this with a friend of mine who came up with a doomsday scenario to save the great man. Go on TV, and announce a new plan of action. If he wins the next election, he'd have a referendum on the Euro within six months, and then, if the public voted against, he would then have another referendum, again within six months, on whether the UK should stay in the EU. Then, six months later, he would hold a general election.
This might yet have to be applied by IDS. It would smoke out Clarke and the Europhiles, and it would get the Sun onside, and a fair coterie of socialist anti-EU dudes would find themselves, just the once, voting Tory. It's a bit of a Hail Mary, but when you're down by six points and it's fourth and goal at your own goal line and there's only two seconds on the clock, there is no point in punting.
On the whole I tend to disapprove of politicians, especially those in opposition, having policies. Not only are they divisive, but they might actually either have to be put into practice, or they might have to be changed. When Colin Powell was being mooted as a potential President, and likewise Ross Perot, they were much more popular when they affected integrity and competence. As soon as they came off the fence and had an opinion on anything they alienated all those who disagreed with said opinion. The same goes for both Blair,and Thatcher. Just before they were elected, they just shut up and let the governments destroy themselves. And when they did write manifestos, the swing voters just ignored them. Same with Charles Kennedy and his merry band of vegetarian Europhiles. The vast majority of people who vote Liberal Democrat disagree quite violently with their policies. Red Ken? How many people voted for him because of the Congestion Charge? How many knew it was policy?
Obviously you need to say something, have a strategy, but why write all this stuff down? Only if they are very popular, are held by the vast majority of the MPs, and are opposed by the Government then I think there may be a case for them.But these are thin on the ground.
This clearly should have been the Hague strategy, and was to a degree, IDS'. But one of the problems with political people - journalists, activists, bloggers, is that they tend to see things in political terms, whereas the masses basically don't give a damn. It's all about personalities, and a bit of morality thrown in just to make them feel superior every now and again. A bit of snooty disdain, a bit of integrity, and a sorrowful attitude that 'I'm afraid that the present lot basically mean well, but they just aren't up to it'is all that is required from your average leader of the opposition. But now Portillo is forcing the pace, and desperate measures are called for. Go on IDS, throw that football!
|
Regarding the current IDS problem, well here's a thing. A week before the last election, and things weren't looking all that rosy for our William. I was chatting about this with a friend of mine who came up with a doomsday scenario to save the great man. Go on TV, and announce a new plan of action. If he wins the next election, he'd have a referendum on the Euro within six months, and then, if the public voted against, he would then have another referendum, again within six months, on whether the UK should stay in the EU. Then, six months later, he would hold a general election.
This might yet have to be applied by IDS. It would smoke out Clarke and the Europhiles, and it would get the Sun onside, and a fair coterie of socialist anti-EU dudes would find themselves, just the once, voting Tory. It's a bit of a Hail Mary, but when you're down by six points and it's fourth and goal at your own goal line and there's only two seconds on the clock, there is no point in punting.
On the whole I tend to disapprove of politicians, especially those in opposition, having policies. Not only are they divisive, but they might actually either have to be put into practice, or they might have to be changed. When Colin Powell was being mooted as a potential President, and likewise Ross Perot, they were much more popular when they affected integrity and competence. As soon as they came off the fence and had an opinion on anything they alienated all those who disagreed with said opinion. The same goes for both Blair,and Thatcher. Just before they were elected, they just shut up and let the governments destroy themselves. And when they did write manifestos, the swing voters just ignored them. Same with Charles Kennedy and his merry band of vegetarian Europhiles. The vast majority of people who vote Liberal Democrat disagree quite violently with their policies. Red Ken? How many people voted for him because of the Congestion Charge? How many knew it was policy?
Obviously you need to say something, have a strategy, but why write all this stuff down? Only if they are very popular, are held by the vast majority of the MPs, and are opposed by the Government then I think there may be a case for them.But these are thin on the ground.
This clearly should have been the Hague strategy, and was to a degree, IDS'. But one of the problems with political people - journalists, activists, bloggers, is that they tend to see things in political terms, whereas the masses basically don't give a damn. It's all about personalities, and a bit of morality thrown in just to make them feel superior every now and again. A bit of snooty disdain, a bit of integrity, and a sorrowful attitude that 'I'm afraid that the present lot basically mean well, but they just aren't up to it'is all that is required from your average leader of the opposition. But now Portillo is forcing the pace, and desperate measures are called for. Go on IDS, throw that football!
|
Friday, February 21
"The French President is an unscrupulous, conniving, preening, lying, cheating hypocrite".
Can't say fairer than that. Also, in the Sun, Richard Littlejohn discusses spooning and the NHS. You couldn't make it up.
|
Can't say fairer than that. Also, in the Sun, Richard Littlejohn discusses spooning and the NHS. You couldn't make it up.
|
Stephen Pollard had his toes curled, and it didn't do much for mine either. IDS gave a radio performance yesterday that was positively Kinnockian. Clearly, only one man can save the Tories now, the Best Prime Minister We Never Had, who has an article in the Guardian today. He also writes a mighty fine blog.
|
|
Thursday, February 20
"Female baboons' cries during sex are longer and livelier when their partner is a higher-ranking male, researchers have discovered".
Announces the New Scientist. I'm afraid this tallies with my own experience. The number of times I've been out boozing in Baker Street and come eleven o'clock at night I have decided to climb over the railings at London Zoo for a bit of rumpy-pumpy, only to find myself doing the dirty with a baboon and getting absolutely no reaction. I could be pumping away like a piston and the surly primate doesn't even bother to stifle a yawn. However, dress up as a cop, or as a captain of industry, or even as a Church of England vicar, and the critters are squirming like toads.
Orang-utans are different, though: they'll do it with anyone and be grateful for the privilege.
|
Announces the New Scientist. I'm afraid this tallies with my own experience. The number of times I've been out boozing in Baker Street and come eleven o'clock at night I have decided to climb over the railings at London Zoo for a bit of rumpy-pumpy, only to find myself doing the dirty with a baboon and getting absolutely no reaction. I could be pumping away like a piston and the surly primate doesn't even bother to stifle a yawn. However, dress up as a cop, or as a captain of industry, or even as a Church of England vicar, and the critters are squirming like toads.
Orang-utans are different, though: they'll do it with anyone and be grateful for the privilege.
|
Timothy Garton Ash, in the Guardian:
"We have seen the first casualties of this war already. They are: truth, the western alliance and European unity. Today, let's mourn European unity".
And tomorrow? Let's boogie!
|
"We have seen the first casualties of this war already. They are: truth, the western alliance and European unity. Today, let's mourn European unity".
And tomorrow? Let's boogie!
|
Wednesday, February 19
"Little in British life is so unattractive as the spiteful tantrums of the rightwing elite when denied a kill".
announces the Wanker.
"The more they fear their war is slipping away from them, the more these leather-elbowed armchair warriors vent a bilious resentment. Opponents of war have in recent days been called wicked, naive, cowardly, ignorant, malevolent, unpatriotic and (a new one, this) "disrespectful of Arabs". They are accused of anti-semitism and anti-Americanism; of betraying Iraqis; of being "Saddam's useful idiots" and Chamberlain-style appeasers; and of reckless immorality. The sheer desperation of this verbal violence suggests, against all the odds, that British democracy is working and that the case for war may be foundering on its own contradictions. All the same, these frustrated, hate-filled ranters should knock it off. By exacerbating, exaggerating and exploiting Britain's divisions at a moment of great national difficulty, it is they who give comfort to the enemy".
"verbal violence", eh? "leather-elbowed armchair warriors", eh? "frustrated, hate-filled ranters", eh? Whatever... However, let's cut through this. First, he's saying this proves "democracy is working", then he says this gives "comfort to the enemy". QED Democracy gives comfort to the enemy. Or maybe the writer thinks that if us warmongers all just shut up and went on Peace Marches that would really put the wind up old Saddam. Or maybe whoever wrote this didn't really have a clue.
|
announces the Wanker.
"The more they fear their war is slipping away from them, the more these leather-elbowed armchair warriors vent a bilious resentment. Opponents of war have in recent days been called wicked, naive, cowardly, ignorant, malevolent, unpatriotic and (a new one, this) "disrespectful of Arabs". They are accused of anti-semitism and anti-Americanism; of betraying Iraqis; of being "Saddam's useful idiots" and Chamberlain-style appeasers; and of reckless immorality. The sheer desperation of this verbal violence suggests, against all the odds, that British democracy is working and that the case for war may be foundering on its own contradictions. All the same, these frustrated, hate-filled ranters should knock it off. By exacerbating, exaggerating and exploiting Britain's divisions at a moment of great national difficulty, it is they who give comfort to the enemy".
"verbal violence", eh? "leather-elbowed armchair warriors", eh? "frustrated, hate-filled ranters", eh? Whatever... However, let's cut through this. First, he's saying this proves "democracy is working", then he says this gives "comfort to the enemy". QED Democracy gives comfort to the enemy. Or maybe the writer thinks that if us warmongers all just shut up and went on Peace Marches that would really put the wind up old Saddam. Or maybe whoever wrote this didn't really have a clue.
|
Tuesday, February 18
"We are a biological weapon".
Yes, Moonbat's back with his latest conspiracy theory: American distaste for Iraq is driven by the fact that those crazy Yankees have got too much money and are looking for new places to invest it. Well, it's a point of view. I do think, though, that it's time Rusbridger too him to one side and told him that there is a law of diminishing returns regarding this arresting opening sentence mallarkey and he passed it a few years' back. Meanwhile Fisky thinks it's all about mice. Or cheese. Or something. Well I've been complaining about the pesky rodents for ages, but even I don't think they threaten the whole damn world. Crazed paranoiacs both. What the hell Aaronovitch thinks of these guys doesn't bear thinking about.
|
Yes, Moonbat's back with his latest conspiracy theory: American distaste for Iraq is driven by the fact that those crazy Yankees have got too much money and are looking for new places to invest it. Well, it's a point of view. I do think, though, that it's time Rusbridger too him to one side and told him that there is a law of diminishing returns regarding this arresting opening sentence mallarkey and he passed it a few years' back. Meanwhile Fisky thinks it's all about mice. Or cheese. Or something. Well I've been complaining about the pesky rodents for ages, but even I don't think they threaten the whole damn world. Crazed paranoiacs both. What the hell Aaronovitch thinks of these guys doesn't bear thinking about.
|
"But, you know, you only live once. Why not offend as many people as possible?"
Tobacco-loving fox-hunter Roger Scruton explains his recipe for a quiet life, to a rather dashing Kris Kristofferson-lookalike.
|
Tobacco-loving fox-hunter Roger Scruton explains his recipe for a quiet life, to a rather dashing Kris Kristofferson-lookalike.
|
Monday, February 17
By the way, anyone interested in the developing story of AN Wilson's idiocy ought to go and check the links over at Stephen Pollard's site. Things have come to a pretty pass when a comic novelist finds himself to be quoting a Holocaust denier with enthusiasm, but that's how things have got thus far. His whole Evening Standard archive has disappeared as well.
|
|
The conscies are having a high old time of it today. Two weeks ago in the Wanker, Madeleine Bunting was predicting:
"This is the beginning of the end of the American empire: it has failed to focus on its true enemy, terrorism; failed to grasp how asymmetric terror transforms the power relationships of the globe; and is choosing instead to indulge itself in an old-fashioned war between nation states - an irrelevant, costly and dangerous sideshow".
Today it's Tony's turn:
"Blair will never be forgiven. A tragic end to a good prime minister who was swept to power on a promise that "things will only get better".
The Indy likewise links a fatuous question with a similar prediction:
"How can the world be a safer place when the US is perceived to be – and indeed is – a power untrammelled by international law, world opinion or global institutions? So long as Mr Blair is Mr Bush's unconditional ally, the price of leadership and the cost of conviction of which he spoke at the weekend could be high".
The Mirror even claims that plans are afoot to oust the PM at the next Labour Conference.
Well I beg to differ. This is what we cynics call wishful thinking. Much as I would like to see Mr Blair deposed I think this is all a load of baloney. Consider this an alternative scenario: The UN passes another resolution, Iraq doesn't play ball, the bombs fall on Baghdad, a couple of months later Saddam gets a bullet in his head from one of his generals, Iraq is liberated, and it's over. Bush rides high in the polls, while back in Blighty Clare Short and a few of the hard left peaceniks have long since resigned, much to Blair's delight. He never liked them anyway. The Independent and the Guardian print leaders saying that victory is all down to them, and Blair's position in the Labour Party is strengthened. Come the Party Conference in September, Iraqis who haven't been home for twelve years are tearfully paraded on the platform and Blair is feted as the saviour of Iraq. The sentimental left love nothing better than losing battles while having their consciences massaged, and this will be another example thereof.
Game over, Blair the winner.
|
"This is the beginning of the end of the American empire: it has failed to focus on its true enemy, terrorism; failed to grasp how asymmetric terror transforms the power relationships of the globe; and is choosing instead to indulge itself in an old-fashioned war between nation states - an irrelevant, costly and dangerous sideshow".
Today it's Tony's turn:
"Blair will never be forgiven. A tragic end to a good prime minister who was swept to power on a promise that "things will only get better".
The Indy likewise links a fatuous question with a similar prediction:
"How can the world be a safer place when the US is perceived to be – and indeed is – a power untrammelled by international law, world opinion or global institutions? So long as Mr Blair is Mr Bush's unconditional ally, the price of leadership and the cost of conviction of which he spoke at the weekend could be high".
The Mirror even claims that plans are afoot to oust the PM at the next Labour Conference.
Well I beg to differ. This is what we cynics call wishful thinking. Much as I would like to see Mr Blair deposed I think this is all a load of baloney. Consider this an alternative scenario: The UN passes another resolution, Iraq doesn't play ball, the bombs fall on Baghdad, a couple of months later Saddam gets a bullet in his head from one of his generals, Iraq is liberated, and it's over. Bush rides high in the polls, while back in Blighty Clare Short and a few of the hard left peaceniks have long since resigned, much to Blair's delight. He never liked them anyway. The Independent and the Guardian print leaders saying that victory is all down to them, and Blair's position in the Labour Party is strengthened. Come the Party Conference in September, Iraqis who haven't been home for twelve years are tearfully paraded on the platform and Blair is feted as the saviour of Iraq. The sentimental left love nothing better than losing battles while having their consciences massaged, and this will be another example thereof.
Game over, Blair the winner.
|
Sunday, February 16
So how was White Flag Saturday for you? We managed to avoid most of it, spending the early part in Dorset, but, driving back through Kensington there they were: the peaceniks, the towelheads and the Quakers. An hour earlier we had gone past Twickenham too, where the Limeys were beating the crud out of the garlic-eaters from across the Channel. Well, I know who I'd rather be in a foxhole with. For some in Britain, it will always be about oil, the rich will always be getting richer, pensioners will always be starving in their council houses, and schools and hospitals will always be underfunded. Perry has the photos, and David the text, if you can stomach it. However, I find it hard to get too depressed about these weirdoes. It's worth mentioning that earlier in the morning 70 thousand people paid over twenty pound a head to watch Manchester United play Arsenal, in a game covered live on television, and a similar number paid even more to watch England beat the French at rugby. Again, you could watch all this from the comfort of your armchair. So is three quarters of a million people with bellies as yellow as a field full of daffodils enjoying a day out in the smoke such a big deal? Mary Riddell in the Observer tries to make a case that this is some kind of 'defining moment':
"The age of apathy stops here", she announces.
"Some are too young to remember the Cold War. What unites them is anger against Bush and Blair, but mainly Blair.
Everyone I talk to says that he will not have their vote again. It is odd to think that these are the sloths who could not be prised from their armchairs when elections rolled round".
which means they never voted last time, either, and means that their opinions, so long as they refrain from voting, are irrelevant. These goons, according to Riddell, would rather go on a march than bother to vote. So it's all about posturing; making a real, practical difference us is beyond them. And we're supposed to be impressed?
|
"The age of apathy stops here", she announces.
"Some are too young to remember the Cold War. What unites them is anger against Bush and Blair, but mainly Blair.
Everyone I talk to says that he will not have their vote again. It is odd to think that these are the sloths who could not be prised from their armchairs when elections rolled round".
which means they never voted last time, either, and means that their opinions, so long as they refrain from voting, are irrelevant. These goons, according to Riddell, would rather go on a march than bother to vote. So it's all about posturing; making a real, practical difference us is beyond them. And we're supposed to be impressed?
|
- 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