Friday, March 21
Richard Littlejohn disses Robin Cook, The Florida Recount fanatics, the BBC - twice!, and sings the praises of the Greatest Prime Minister We Never Had, young William himself. He also takes exception to Clare Shortofafewbraincells:
"There are plenty of madwomen in politics, but Cabbage Patch Clare is the most preposterous. Just as I said last week, she’s never let her principles get in the way of her career. We are talking about a woman who gave her baby away so it wouldn’t interfere with her ascent of the greasy pole".
That's my kind of column.
|
"There are plenty of madwomen in politics, but Cabbage Patch Clare is the most preposterous. Just as I said last week, she’s never let her principles get in the way of her career. We are talking about a woman who gave her baby away so it wouldn’t interfere with her ascent of the greasy pole".
That's my kind of column.
|
Bloated former soccer player - or should that be basketball player? - Diego Maradona has come out against the war, reveals Pravda. The lardbutted ex-midfielder disclosed his feeling to an Argie tv station, direct from Havana.
"Bush is criminal", explained the greasy wop. "People is outraged because this bully (George W. Bush) wakes up and says 'War, war, war' and nobody can stops him".
And Maradona are fat.
"They went now for Iraq, tomorrow they will strike on Colombia, then Argentina and Uruguay. They do whatever they want", he continued.
Today Iraq, tomorrow the world.
|
"Bush is criminal", explained the greasy wop. "People is outraged because this bully (George W. Bush) wakes up and says 'War, war, war' and nobody can stops him".
And Maradona are fat.
"They went now for Iraq, tomorrow they will strike on Colombia, then Argentina and Uruguay. They do whatever they want", he continued.
Today Iraq, tomorrow the world.
|
As I am sure you only too well aware, today has been designated World Poetry Day and International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. And the boys over at Poets for Peace are going at it with guns blazing ( so to speak ). I've clicked over there twice today and a whole new slate have appeared since the first time. Creative or what? I think my favourite is this one:
"What times are these
When war has become a euphemism?"
But that's because it's shorter than the rest. This one by Lemuria is longer, and starts with this arresting image:
"Listless in despondency,
tear ducts sealed by the
desolate desert inside.
The sands of time slip through my fingers
while sanity is drained from my pores
like perspiration from a dry well
or blood from a stone".
Nothing beats a mixed metaphor. Or eight. Anyway, go over, read, contemplate, memorise. And thereby eliminate racism. You know it makes sense.
|
"What times are these
When war has become a euphemism?"
But that's because it's shorter than the rest. This one by Lemuria is longer, and starts with this arresting image:
"Listless in despondency,
tear ducts sealed by the
desolate desert inside.
The sands of time slip through my fingers
while sanity is drained from my pores
like perspiration from a dry well
or blood from a stone".
Nothing beats a mixed metaphor. Or eight. Anyway, go over, read, contemplate, memorise. And thereby eliminate racism. You know it makes sense.
|
I don't think our Paul would take too kindly to being deified like this. Especially by me. After all, I take a slightly different approach to Auntie Beeb. For example, in my humble estimation far too much airtime in this Clash of Civilisations is being given over to the peaceniks. I mean, once you've seen one teenage crusty in a khaki jacket and unwashed hair you've seen them all. And they are so inarticulate.
"War's terrible. How many more children must die?" and so on. All that sincerity and righteous pleading. Boring. Still, it can be a rich source of humour. Last night, some bloke with a very worried expression was being interviewed. Evidently his brother is still out there in Baghdad, acting as a human shield. No wonder he had a furrowed brow. When asked how he felt about this he responded that the government - and he meant the British government, not the Iraqis - "ought to be doing more to protect him".
Strangely, the interviewer didn't laugh.
Now that's professionalism.
|
"War's terrible. How many more children must die?" and so on. All that sincerity and righteous pleading. Boring. Still, it can be a rich source of humour. Last night, some bloke with a very worried expression was being interviewed. Evidently his brother is still out there in Baghdad, acting as a human shield. No wonder he had a furrowed brow. When asked how he felt about this he responded that the government - and he meant the British government, not the Iraqis - "ought to be doing more to protect him".
Strangely, the interviewer didn't laugh.
Now that's professionalism.
|
Well I'd never heard of him until this week, but this site is rapidly becoming a fan site for Paul Treanor. I'm grateful to reader John Farren for the link. Here our Paul intones about racism, journalism and the BBC. What rational person could disagree with the following sentiments?
"BBC journalists are racists. BBC journalists think that the lives of foreigners are of less value. It's that simple. This kind of racism pervades newspaper and broadcast journalism in EU countries.
It is time to punish journalists, for creating a climate of racism and hostility toward migration. A journalist is not some sort of sacred being, deserving special protection. There is no 'freedom of racism', and there is no journalistic freedom to be racist. The criteria for punishment can be simple: migration of poor people to rich countries is not wrong, and any journalist who campaigns against it should be punished. The penalties should be at least sufficient to reverse the effects. Any newspaper, for instance, which refers to immigrants as 'human sewage' should be closed - completely, permanently, and without compensation. Of course suppression of media hostility to migration is not, in itself, a solution to the problem of global inequality. However, it does seem to be one of the necessary first steps to a solution".
The guy's a genius. He should write for this lot.
|
"BBC journalists are racists. BBC journalists think that the lives of foreigners are of less value. It's that simple. This kind of racism pervades newspaper and broadcast journalism in EU countries.
It is time to punish journalists, for creating a climate of racism and hostility toward migration. A journalist is not some sort of sacred being, deserving special protection. There is no 'freedom of racism', and there is no journalistic freedom to be racist. The criteria for punishment can be simple: migration of poor people to rich countries is not wrong, and any journalist who campaigns against it should be punished. The penalties should be at least sufficient to reverse the effects. Any newspaper, for instance, which refers to immigrants as 'human sewage' should be closed - completely, permanently, and without compensation. Of course suppression of media hostility to migration is not, in itself, a solution to the problem of global inequality. However, it does seem to be one of the necessary first steps to a solution".
The guy's a genius. He should write for this lot.
|
Thursday, March 20
Fame at last! Noted Samizdata contributor Tom Burroughes gets a letter published in the Spectator, denouncing Gorgeous George.
|
|
I was keeping this one for tomorrow, but then I go and check out Mr. Cinders, and hey ho, what do you know. He's gone and done him too, so I thought I'd better post it now for fear of accusations of plagiarism. Great minds thinkalike, or something. Anyway, whose is better? You decide:
David Lawson left a comment over my post below on Paul Treanor, saying that he made George Moonbat look like a moderate. He noted in particular, an arresting article about the role of art in the modern world. This struck me as a comment of almost Moonbatian hyperbole. Nobody could make Moonbat look like a moderate. And then, of course, I read the article.
"The poor, the weak and the oppressed do not speak in defence of art. The voice of art is the voice of privilege, and the privileged are the defenders of art".
He begins.
"Art is wrong because it is the past, because it perpetuates itself, because it is transgenerational, because it is culture, and because it requires the suppression of anti-art to exist".
Now, what makes Paul different from your average fruitcake is the way he is prepared to take an idea and run wherever it takes him. Logic makes its own demands. Moonbat, for example, would just rabbit away about how terrible it is that you could feed a small village in Africa for the price of a Titian, so what we need is some sort of Art Ombudsman to be appointed by the World Parliament. He'd type out the article, email it to Alan Rusbridger, then carry on chewing his muesli and forget about it. For Paul, this would be capitulation to the bourgeoisie. It's not enough for Paul to that people like art. What about the people who don't like art?
"Compare the lives of two twins, born in identical circumstances. However, one is pro-art, the other is anti-art. The pro-art twin can go to art school, or study art history. There is no equivalent for the anti-art twin: there is no school of art incineration. Great social pressure to accept art is applied to one twin. No similar pressure to accept art-destruction is applied to the other twin. Because art is a core value in all existing societies, the social and employment opportunities of the anti-art twin will be limited. It is also the pro-art twin who is more likely to be elected or appointed to political office".
St. Martin's College, clearly, should be offering PHDs in Picasso-burning. It would make the degree shows at the end of the summer rather interesting. Bit different from all those faux Tracey Emins, anyway. Amazing no one ever thought of this before, really. After all
"Being transferred into a cannibal society would be extremely unpleasant for most people. They would be forced to accept that something they abhor is a normal part of society - and that there is apparently no possibility of reform, since everyone accepts it as normal. Such is life for opponents of art, in most existing societies: they are surrounded by people who honour the abhorrent".
In fact, it's worse than that. Because for people like Paul,
"destruction of art is considered a crime, and a sign of mental illness".
I wonder why. Anyway, and so he goes on, for hundreds and hundreds of words, until his eye-popping, and some would say, remarkably conservative, if ultraviolent, conclusion.
"I propose that the United States of America should become a zone of art. The existing cultural preference in the USA for collecting art, (especially from Europe) should be expanded into a prime function of state. Art should be transferred from Europe to the USA, beginning with the art listed in national heritage lists, and with recognised European heritage. I propose as an initial step, the transfer of the Mona Lisa, the best known European artwork, to the USA. The Mona Lisa is old, and heritage. It is better, that the past should burden the USA, than burden Europe. All artists, and those who wish to continue employment in the art sector, should be transferred to the USA.
Any attempt at such a transfer might result in civil war, or even military intervention in support of art. However, given the fundamental opposition between art and iconoclasm, some form of violent conflict seems inevitable anyway".
It's historically inevitable, you see.
Come back, Moonbat, all is forgiven.
|
David Lawson left a comment over my post below on Paul Treanor, saying that he made George Moonbat look like a moderate. He noted in particular, an arresting article about the role of art in the modern world. This struck me as a comment of almost Moonbatian hyperbole. Nobody could make Moonbat look like a moderate. And then, of course, I read the article.
"The poor, the weak and the oppressed do not speak in defence of art. The voice of art is the voice of privilege, and the privileged are the defenders of art".
He begins.
"Art is wrong because it is the past, because it perpetuates itself, because it is transgenerational, because it is culture, and because it requires the suppression of anti-art to exist".
Now, what makes Paul different from your average fruitcake is the way he is prepared to take an idea and run wherever it takes him. Logic makes its own demands. Moonbat, for example, would just rabbit away about how terrible it is that you could feed a small village in Africa for the price of a Titian, so what we need is some sort of Art Ombudsman to be appointed by the World Parliament. He'd type out the article, email it to Alan Rusbridger, then carry on chewing his muesli and forget about it. For Paul, this would be capitulation to the bourgeoisie. It's not enough for Paul to that people like art. What about the people who don't like art?
"Compare the lives of two twins, born in identical circumstances. However, one is pro-art, the other is anti-art. The pro-art twin can go to art school, or study art history. There is no equivalent for the anti-art twin: there is no school of art incineration. Great social pressure to accept art is applied to one twin. No similar pressure to accept art-destruction is applied to the other twin. Because art is a core value in all existing societies, the social and employment opportunities of the anti-art twin will be limited. It is also the pro-art twin who is more likely to be elected or appointed to political office".
St. Martin's College, clearly, should be offering PHDs in Picasso-burning. It would make the degree shows at the end of the summer rather interesting. Bit different from all those faux Tracey Emins, anyway. Amazing no one ever thought of this before, really. After all
"Being transferred into a cannibal society would be extremely unpleasant for most people. They would be forced to accept that something they abhor is a normal part of society - and that there is apparently no possibility of reform, since everyone accepts it as normal. Such is life for opponents of art, in most existing societies: they are surrounded by people who honour the abhorrent".
In fact, it's worse than that. Because for people like Paul,
"destruction of art is considered a crime, and a sign of mental illness".
I wonder why. Anyway, and so he goes on, for hundreds and hundreds of words, until his eye-popping, and some would say, remarkably conservative, if ultraviolent, conclusion.
"I propose that the United States of America should become a zone of art. The existing cultural preference in the USA for collecting art, (especially from Europe) should be expanded into a prime function of state. Art should be transferred from Europe to the USA, beginning with the art listed in national heritage lists, and with recognised European heritage. I propose as an initial step, the transfer of the Mona Lisa, the best known European artwork, to the USA. The Mona Lisa is old, and heritage. It is better, that the past should burden the USA, than burden Europe. All artists, and those who wish to continue employment in the art sector, should be transferred to the USA.
Any attempt at such a transfer might result in civil war, or even military intervention in support of art. However, given the fundamental opposition between art and iconoclasm, some form of violent conflict seems inevitable anyway".
It's historically inevitable, you see.
Come back, Moonbat, all is forgiven.
|
And so, at last, it's the Big One. The Clash of the Titans. The Battle of the Giants, the one we've all been waiting for is finally about to get under way. Yes, it's India v Kenya in the Cricket World Cup Semi-final! Except it looks like it's going to get rained off and may never happen.
Yeah, all right it's not a great joke. But as some of you may know, I have given up reading both the Independent and the Guardian for Lent, and the right-wing press are being a lot cagier in their peacemongering now that it's started, so jokes might be a bit thin on the ground around here. There's going to be a lot of "By the time you read this" stuff from the thinkerazzis, and you really don't want that sort of thing from me too, as I know even less about military matters than I do about string theory. Suffice to say, for what it's worth, from my layman's knowledge of Just War Theory, I think this war is entirely justified.
Jonesy wrote a piece last night which pretty much sums up my position. Except, generally, when push comes to shove, I do believe in God. And I was never an eighteen year old Marxist. But I think you probably guessed that.
|
Yeah, all right it's not a great joke. But as some of you may know, I have given up reading both the Independent and the Guardian for Lent, and the right-wing press are being a lot cagier in their peacemongering now that it's started, so jokes might be a bit thin on the ground around here. There's going to be a lot of "By the time you read this" stuff from the thinkerazzis, and you really don't want that sort of thing from me too, as I know even less about military matters than I do about string theory. Suffice to say, for what it's worth, from my layman's knowledge of Just War Theory, I think this war is entirely justified.
Jonesy wrote a piece last night which pretty much sums up my position. Except, generally, when push comes to shove, I do believe in God. And I was never an eighteen year old Marxist. But I think you probably guessed that.
|
Florida Recount/Vietnam Reference alert! All in the same sentence too, from a letter-writer to the Times, Professor Stephen O'Harrow:
"Brought to office by a minority of those who voted, an even smaller minority of those who could have voted, and less than a quarter of the total US population, the American Government is now about to take all of us into a war that bears the two major hallmarks of Vietnam: hubris and solipsism".
|
"Brought to office by a minority of those who voted, an even smaller minority of those who could have voted, and less than a quarter of the total US population, the American Government is now about to take all of us into a war that bears the two major hallmarks of Vietnam: hubris and solipsism".
|
Wednesday, March 19
My devoted reader, the delightful Ellie, advises me to go check out Paul Treanor for more idiotarianism. He's got some sort of connection with Indymedia, a bunch of weirdoids Damian Penny is always having a go at. Now, having read him, I can see why.
Our Paul is of the Moonbat school of writing. i.e. Crazed eye-catching opening sentences and headlines followed by deranged hyperbolic nonsense. Thus, in an article which I find myself worryingly sympathetic to he claims:
"I renounce my human rights, as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations".
Basically, he's saying if rights can be given by the state, then they can be taken away. And then where would we be? Yeah. Okay. I'm with you on that one, Paul. But, of course, you can't actually renounce your human rights. It's not like carrying a kidney donor card. The government isn't going to take any notice. I suppose you could take the case to the European Court of Human Rights and argue that the decision to give people human rights is in fact an infringement of said rights, and lawyers could have a lot of fun trying to work their way of that paradox, but between you and me, Paul, it isn't going to fly.
Another article entitled "Why Democracy is Wrong", argues that it just isn't fair that racists and other people Paul didn't vote for sometimes get elected. There is also the equally moving "How Many people did Thatcher Kill?" which includes this passage:
"No investigatory tribunal has ever been established for the Thatcher period. No criminal procedure has ever been started against Thatcher, her ministers, or anyone responsible for implementing her policies. The British media ignore Thatcher's guilt, and treat her as a respected member of the House of Lords. That is a society which has closed its eyes: at least in Chile, everyone knows that Pinochet killed people.
It is a European problem, not a British one. It is not a crime in any EU state, to expose people to market forces, even if it kills them. Even if it kills millions of them. In a continent full of monuments, there is no monument to the victims of the market. If there was any widespread discussion of that crime, then probably a new category of historical denial will be created, in the style of Holocaust denial. And unlike Auschwitz, the free market is still in operation".
This raises a few practical problems that I really don't think Paul has got to grips with. I mean, once you start with Thatcher, who's going to be next? Milton Friedman? That bloke in Bethnal Green market from whom you bought half a pound of tomatoes? Do you know how full the prisons are, Paul?
And then there's a piece attacking the invasion of Iraq on the ground that:
"Colonialism was wrong first time round, and it is still wrong.
It is morally wrong for western powers to recolonise territory in this way, and their soldiers should refuse to engage in a war of recolonisation. British troops should refuse orders to invade Iraq, or to facilitate or support that invasion. A mutiny is the correct response to an order which is morally wrong, and which the political leadership refuses to withdraw".
But it's not going to happen, Treanor! Forget about it!
Our Paul doesn't like democracy, he doesn't like capitalism, and he doesn't like colonialism. And he doesn't like human rights. But he does like intrinsic moral rights. Well, as Meatloaf almost sang, one out of five ain't bad.
|
Our Paul is of the Moonbat school of writing. i.e. Crazed eye-catching opening sentences and headlines followed by deranged hyperbolic nonsense. Thus, in an article which I find myself worryingly sympathetic to he claims:
"I renounce my human rights, as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations".
Basically, he's saying if rights can be given by the state, then they can be taken away. And then where would we be? Yeah. Okay. I'm with you on that one, Paul. But, of course, you can't actually renounce your human rights. It's not like carrying a kidney donor card. The government isn't going to take any notice. I suppose you could take the case to the European Court of Human Rights and argue that the decision to give people human rights is in fact an infringement of said rights, and lawyers could have a lot of fun trying to work their way of that paradox, but between you and me, Paul, it isn't going to fly.
Another article entitled "Why Democracy is Wrong", argues that it just isn't fair that racists and other people Paul didn't vote for sometimes get elected. There is also the equally moving "How Many people did Thatcher Kill?" which includes this passage:
"No investigatory tribunal has ever been established for the Thatcher period. No criminal procedure has ever been started against Thatcher, her ministers, or anyone responsible for implementing her policies. The British media ignore Thatcher's guilt, and treat her as a respected member of the House of Lords. That is a society which has closed its eyes: at least in Chile, everyone knows that Pinochet killed people.
It is a European problem, not a British one. It is not a crime in any EU state, to expose people to market forces, even if it kills them. Even if it kills millions of them. In a continent full of monuments, there is no monument to the victims of the market. If there was any widespread discussion of that crime, then probably a new category of historical denial will be created, in the style of Holocaust denial. And unlike Auschwitz, the free market is still in operation".
This raises a few practical problems that I really don't think Paul has got to grips with. I mean, once you start with Thatcher, who's going to be next? Milton Friedman? That bloke in Bethnal Green market from whom you bought half a pound of tomatoes? Do you know how full the prisons are, Paul?
And then there's a piece attacking the invasion of Iraq on the ground that:
"Colonialism was wrong first time round, and it is still wrong.
It is morally wrong for western powers to recolonise territory in this way, and their soldiers should refuse to engage in a war of recolonisation. British troops should refuse orders to invade Iraq, or to facilitate or support that invasion. A mutiny is the correct response to an order which is morally wrong, and which the political leadership refuses to withdraw".
But it's not going to happen, Treanor! Forget about it!
Our Paul doesn't like democracy, he doesn't like capitalism, and he doesn't like colonialism. And he doesn't like human rights. But he does like intrinsic moral rights. Well, as Meatloaf almost sang, one out of five ain't bad.
|
Channel-hopping last night, after witnessing yet another stupefyingly inarticulate backbencher boring us to death with his fatuous views on the Iraq phenomenon, I came across a bizarre show on BBC4 called Dinner With Portillo. The format appears to be that the former Defence Secretary invites some wankers over for tea and biscuits and they all have a go at him. There was an American bloke - who I don't think was a wanker - who flipped his lid towards the end and told George Galloway that he didn't know what he was talking about. Jackie Ashley, the usually garrulous Guardian journalist, didn't utter a single word in all the time I was watching. No doubt shocked at the moronisms Mr. Galloway was enunciating. Benazir Bhutto was also there, looking rather beautiful I must say, and talking some sense. Rana Kabbani, also, who I hadn't come across since the last Gulf War. She's aged quite a bit, and is still bellyaching about Palestine. And of course, Galloway himself. He's not just a wanker, he's an ultrawanker. He's also quite mad. I thought all the crap he comes out was something the crowd brought out in him. A bit like Hitler, he loves an audience. But even over food in front of a mere handful of humans he came across as quite a fruitcake. 'I can't be anti-American, I am the world's expert on Bob Dylan' was his clinching argument. Very persuasive.
I suppose the serious point of the programme is to prove how sane Michael Portillo is, and how broadminded he is to tolerate such a lunatic. In this respect it worked like a dream. If only he got a hold of his ego he could still have a political career. It's there for the taking, if he just shut up a bit.
|
I suppose the serious point of the programme is to prove how sane Michael Portillo is, and how broadminded he is to tolerate such a lunatic. In this respect it worked like a dream. If only he got a hold of his ego he could still have a political career. It's there for the taking, if he just shut up a bit.
|
Tuesday, March 18
"What has come to trouble me most over past weeks is the suspicion that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had been elected, we would not now be about to commit British troops".
It's the Cookie Monster, in another Florida Recount Reference Alert.
|
It's the Cookie Monster, in another Florida Recount Reference Alert.
|
Well, giving up stuff for Lent is supposed to be hard. I was in a library yesterday, noticed they had copies of both the Wanker and the Indy, and ignored them with the iron self will you have no doubt come to expect. I then came home and came across the good Dr. Frank, who reports that big beautiful bouncing Bunting had a madcap piece on Tony Blair yesterday. I can link to him. I can even link to the piece so that you can read it, but I'm not allowed to myself. Looks like you don't have to be stuck out in the desert to be suffering today. On the other hand, if I started reading it again, I don't think I'd do anything else. And there is a real world out there where people aren't going to start slaughtering one another. So all I can say is: Good luck to the lads. May the best man win. And a prediction: It'll all be over by Christmas. But then again there is a third hand: The third hand of the imagination. There is nothing after all, to stop me from imagining what is being said.
Gary Younge:
I sit here tonight in my New York apartment on 33rd street. Instead of the hip-hop junglist acid garage trance music that usually sounds from outside my window, all I can hear is the drumbeat of war. George W. Bush, not content with stealing the election of 2000, has set his sights on an even bigger prize: Iraqi oil. As a black man, I know this. For I am in touch with feelings that do not exist in your average honkie.
Madeleine Bunting:
So, Tony Blair has decided to trample all over democracy. Like a million men before him, he has decided to ignore the feelings of the throng of ordinary people who bitterly oppose this imperialist war of naked aggression. And it wasn't just the usual suspects. For on Saturday I marched, not just with socialists, liberals, feminists, and Europeans, but Jews and Arabs, blacks and gays, women and children, the disabled and the sexually liberated. Yes, middle England and the Outer Hebrides was there, united as one, in a scene not witnessed since last time I was at Glastonbury, sitting in a tent, listening to Primal Scream giving it large. And what does Tony say? Nothing, not even a sausage. This is New Labour in action. Arrogant, male, and hypocritical.
Paul Foot:
Today I can reveal who killed Hanratty. No, it wasn’t the Yorkshire Ripper, nor even the bosses of the Enron. It was, in fact, the oil-guzzling prisoner-executing Texan George W. Bush, together with his grinning sidekick and fellow Bible-thumping zealot Tony Blair.
Matthew Engel:
As the world stands on the brink of war, I find my mind turning somewhat trivially to the cricket World Cup semi-finals. Here I am, in the USA, the so-called sports capital of the world, and you can't even catch the games on any of the thousand channels available on satellite television. You can buy as much cheap jewellery as you like off the dozens of shopping channels, and listen to a thousand would-be Jimmy Swaggarts on the Christian stations, but cricket? Never. What is wrong with this country of fat, burger-eating, Starbucks drinking racists and rednecks, that they prefer baseball to the game of champions? Fuck, I want to go home.
Jackie Ashley:
This has been a bad week for women. We have been let down. And we have been let down by a woman. No, not just the dithering, pusillanimous moral grandstanding of Clare Short, but by another, even more significant viviparous personage. I refer of course to Cherie Yolande Tarquinetta Booth-Blair QC.
Hugo Young:
Robin Cook is a colossus. Short of physical stature, indeed some said he looks uncannily like a cross between the Archbishop of Canterbury and a garden gnome, yet today he towers over his former cabinet colleagues, pygmies all, like a zeus among men. This man, this giant, this forensically-intelligent genius - who can forget his clinical dissection of the Major government, caught in a satrap of sleaze, political compromise, and adultery?
George Moonbat:
This war is already over, and make no mistake, Iraq has won. Saddam Hussein has got George Bush exactly where he wants him. Over a barrel, and not just any barrel. No, this is a barrel of oil, with his butt in the air, ready for action.
Polly Toynbee:
As the rabidly xenophobic right-wing press condemn a million asylum seekers to a life of misery and poor pay the first thing to remember about Tony Blair is that, more important than anything else, before his fundamentalist if sincerely-held Christianity, his naive belief in equality of opportunity, and his passionate commitment to our European partners, he is, first and foremost, a man.
Fidel Castro:
Die, Gringos! Yanquis, go home!
Germaine Greer:
This is not a war about oil. This is not a war about blood. Forget all that male, patriarchal propaganda. No, this is a war, above all, about the penis. The penis of war versus the vagina of compassion. Not since I was sitting on the dunny on Bondi Beach, and a whole team of beer-swilling Collingwood footballers came in and gang-raped my great grandmother have I witnessed such bloodlust.
David Aaronovitch:
Her name was Daisy. I can remember it as if it were yesterday. Conway Twitty was playing on my dad's phonograph, and she was dancing the limbo. I was sitting fresh-faced in my starched shirt and tweed jacket, and had what I now recognize, with the benefit of science and of our more relaxed social mores, was an erection.
|
Gary Younge:
I sit here tonight in my New York apartment on 33rd street. Instead of the hip-hop junglist acid garage trance music that usually sounds from outside my window, all I can hear is the drumbeat of war. George W. Bush, not content with stealing the election of 2000, has set his sights on an even bigger prize: Iraqi oil. As a black man, I know this. For I am in touch with feelings that do not exist in your average honkie.
Madeleine Bunting:
So, Tony Blair has decided to trample all over democracy. Like a million men before him, he has decided to ignore the feelings of the throng of ordinary people who bitterly oppose this imperialist war of naked aggression. And it wasn't just the usual suspects. For on Saturday I marched, not just with socialists, liberals, feminists, and Europeans, but Jews and Arabs, blacks and gays, women and children, the disabled and the sexually liberated. Yes, middle England and the Outer Hebrides was there, united as one, in a scene not witnessed since last time I was at Glastonbury, sitting in a tent, listening to Primal Scream giving it large. And what does Tony say? Nothing, not even a sausage. This is New Labour in action. Arrogant, male, and hypocritical.
Paul Foot:
Today I can reveal who killed Hanratty. No, it wasn’t the Yorkshire Ripper, nor even the bosses of the Enron. It was, in fact, the oil-guzzling prisoner-executing Texan George W. Bush, together with his grinning sidekick and fellow Bible-thumping zealot Tony Blair.
Matthew Engel:
As the world stands on the brink of war, I find my mind turning somewhat trivially to the cricket World Cup semi-finals. Here I am, in the USA, the so-called sports capital of the world, and you can't even catch the games on any of the thousand channels available on satellite television. You can buy as much cheap jewellery as you like off the dozens of shopping channels, and listen to a thousand would-be Jimmy Swaggarts on the Christian stations, but cricket? Never. What is wrong with this country of fat, burger-eating, Starbucks drinking racists and rednecks, that they prefer baseball to the game of champions? Fuck, I want to go home.
Jackie Ashley:
This has been a bad week for women. We have been let down. And we have been let down by a woman. No, not just the dithering, pusillanimous moral grandstanding of Clare Short, but by another, even more significant viviparous personage. I refer of course to Cherie Yolande Tarquinetta Booth-Blair QC.
Hugo Young:
Robin Cook is a colossus. Short of physical stature, indeed some said he looks uncannily like a cross between the Archbishop of Canterbury and a garden gnome, yet today he towers over his former cabinet colleagues, pygmies all, like a zeus among men. This man, this giant, this forensically-intelligent genius - who can forget his clinical dissection of the Major government, caught in a satrap of sleaze, political compromise, and adultery?
George Moonbat:
This war is already over, and make no mistake, Iraq has won. Saddam Hussein has got George Bush exactly where he wants him. Over a barrel, and not just any barrel. No, this is a barrel of oil, with his butt in the air, ready for action.
Polly Toynbee:
As the rabidly xenophobic right-wing press condemn a million asylum seekers to a life of misery and poor pay the first thing to remember about Tony Blair is that, more important than anything else, before his fundamentalist if sincerely-held Christianity, his naive belief in equality of opportunity, and his passionate commitment to our European partners, he is, first and foremost, a man.
Fidel Castro:
Die, Gringos! Yanquis, go home!
Germaine Greer:
This is not a war about oil. This is not a war about blood. Forget all that male, patriarchal propaganda. No, this is a war, above all, about the penis. The penis of war versus the vagina of compassion. Not since I was sitting on the dunny on Bondi Beach, and a whole team of beer-swilling Collingwood footballers came in and gang-raped my great grandmother have I witnessed such bloodlust.
David Aaronovitch:
Her name was Daisy. I can remember it as if it were yesterday. Conway Twitty was playing on my dad's phonograph, and she was dancing the limbo. I was sitting fresh-faced in my starched shirt and tweed jacket, and had what I now recognize, with the benefit of science and of our more relaxed social mores, was an erection.
|
IT'S THE FINAL COUNTDOWN!
Durra-da-dah
Durra-da-da-da
Durra-da-da
Durra-da-da-da-da-dah
Durra-da
Durra-da-da-da-da-da dah-da
Duddi-da-da-dah!
We're heading for Iraq ( Iraq )
The planes and the Yanks
Not even Jacques Chirac ( Chirac )
Can stop all the Yanks!
Unless he throws in the towel ( to Colin Powell )
Saddam is toast.
Will things ever be the same again?
It's the final countdown!
|
Durra-da-dah
Durra-da-da-da
Durra-da-da
Durra-da-da-da-da-dah
Durra-da
Durra-da-da-da-da-da dah-da
Duddi-da-da-dah!
We're heading for Iraq ( Iraq )
The planes and the Yanks
Not even Jacques Chirac ( Chirac )
Can stop all the Yanks!
Unless he throws in the towel ( to Colin Powell )
Saddam is toast.
Will things ever be the same again?
It's the final countdown!
|
Oh no! It's the Voice of the Moron, in another Florida Recount Reference Alert!
"We expected this from George Bush. Before he was even, fraudulently, elected the Daily Mirror produced an edition detailing how he had executed more people in five years as Governor of Texas than any governor in American history.
The guy likes blood".
|
"We expected this from George Bush. Before he was even, fraudulently, elected the Daily Mirror produced an edition detailing how he had executed more people in five years as Governor of Texas than any governor in American history.
The guy likes blood".
|
The good people of Birmingham are really getting into this one. Lot of Americans have found the site too. I like to think I had something to do with it.
|
|
Those cunning Maltese socialists, eh? If they win the April election, they propose another referendum. I told you, it ain't over.
|
|
Monday, March 17
I don't know what the peacemongers are getting all het up about, really. I mean, if war doesn't qualify as "serious consequences" then what the hell does?
|
|
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!
|
- 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
- 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