Being nice doesn't hurt
So West Virginia rides to the rescue? I doubt it.
quietlaurieann notes that the folks in Hitler's bunker were all men (what's wrong with being a man?) and adds a familiar but interesting suggestion that the journalists who seem to be ganging up on this gentle daughter of Middle America are doing so simply because they want to see another candidate win.
I doubt that too.
Mrs Clinton would be a very good story. Though truth be told the Clinton people have been quite outstandingly good at alienating reporters. An example: a friend of mine who's the bureau chief of a widely-read foreign newspaper gave his business card to a senior Clinton person who responded, charmingly, "One more journalist whose calls I won't have time to return!"
On the other hand David Axelrod listened patiently when I gave him the 100 reasons Obama should talk to the BBC: I am sure he was hoping I would disappear in a puff of smoke but he was polite and I appreciated it.
The other day I had to reorganise some coverage at short notice - his team could not have been friendlier and more accommodating. Back in the day, Karl Rove was the same - mostly. I don't mean that nice guys win in politics - of course they don't - but you can be nasty and nice at the same time.
This the Clinton team forgot.
As for West Virginia itself I enjoyed this almost wistful piece - so much more effective than all the shouting.
I am taken to task by several people for suggesting that the Democratic party is in a state of upset and this suggests that you are right and I am wrong.
Hello, I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~40~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Justin,
The following quote from 'dawnt', the author of that wistful piece that misrepresents country and small town minimg or hard working folk as blue collar idiots, but dawnt is correct in saying this:
"..and they believe that the flag does not stand for the government, it stands for the common folk who stand up to government and the freedom we have to do just that".
Whether 'dawnt' understood (s)he is exactly right in discribing Americans, we are patriots first, "patriots for freedom". That little flag lapel pin he so idly cast aside has so many patriots lives attached to it, ...color has favoritism here, there is no afirmitive action taking place for the White House, nor is there discrmination because we may not elect a black skined patriot to the white house. There will be Americans voting of every race, and every race will be behind Americas Flag no mattar whom get the white house, because we have the freedom to do so. Personally I believe that Barach Obama is wrong for this country and that is why Hillary must stay in the race.
Complain about this comment
Personally, Justin, I think that you should
use your newfound access to the Obama
campaign to forward them some tough questions
from your blog participants.
Do you want to put your head in the guillotine,
or play it safe?
BTW, I will understand if you want to play
it safe. You get to hobnob with the big
shots, eat expensive hors d'oeuvres at
catered parties, and generally have as
good a time as you can have in DC without
diplomatic license plates.
Complain about this comment
Wouldn't you know it? Justin's "wistful" link itself links directly to the Obama campaign! I can well understand why his bureau chief pal received the response he did - no one cares what foreign newspapers say, widely read or not. In case Justin hasn't noticed, the United States does not have a national newspaper (and don't suggest USA Today) along the lines of The Times, Telegraph or The Guardian, let alone the "red top" rags which pose as news organs. Consequently, the wide-spread American press and news-magazines are of far greater importance than giving time to foreign publications. At the moment, the Australian-born press baron has not established a beach-head here - yet - so his empire has little effect; however, before November the WSJ may yet turn into the print edition voice of Fox News. Even so, neither it nor, for example, the New York Times, are seen by a national readership. Although the latter's views are often newsworthy in themselves, such as endorsing Mrs Clinton, they do not have any clout with readers in West Virginia, California or the other forty-eight states - or fifty-eight as Mr Obama seems to believe, an incident which received far less prominence than Dan Quayle's spelling. I can't think of one good reason for the Clinton campaign to remember anyone from the BBC since they, their reporters and "presenters" appear to be dazzled by the Obama campaign rather than reporting objectively. Perhaps when a government led by David Cameron is ushered in, heads will roll at BBC Television Centre and Broadcasting House to ensure that licence payers (the BBC is funded by a madatory licence fee) receive rather less subjective opinion.
With regard to West Virginia, perhaps Justin's forecast and comment should wait until late tomorrow - after all those are the people the Democrats need to attract and if Mr Obama does poorly, that must surely weigh on the minds of those over two hundred superdelegates who have not yet decided which candidate is best for their party. As Mrs Clinton has repeated "it's not over until the lady in the pantsuit says it is." See this other ABC page: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/clinton-its-not.html
Complain about this comment
lol, i love this line from the abc news article:
>>"Seventy-one percent think it'll either make no difference in November (56 percent) or actually help the party (15 percent)."
Uh huh. Check the pdf at the end of the story, and it seems to be referrring to question 15. The results of that are as follows:
Help: 15
Hurt: 27
No Difference: 56
No opinion: 2
So while 71% think it will make no difference or help, 83% think it will make no difference or hurt. Glad to see the us media is holding up its reputation for impartial reporting. ^^
Complain about this comment
Justin was accused of being pro-Obama when Clinton suffered at the start of the year.
Then pro-Clinton during her fight in March and April.
And now, it's back to pro-Obama again?
Just as with everything, those looking for bias usually tend to reveal their own.
Complain about this comment
Obama is handling many things well, including not ushering Clinton to the exit. The art of diplomacy is a valuable skill. Clinton will likely trumpet a victory in West Virginia as a mandate to ignore the majority of pledged delegates, superdelegates, and the lead in the popular vote that has grown steadily since the Iowa caucuses. Her only hope is to try to move the goal posts again on the number of delegates needed to secure the nomination, and many are weary of her slash and burn politics.
Complain about this comment
Unfortunately, the Clintons have made it personal. It's politics - it's not personal, it's business. And in business, you hide the snarl behind the smile. You keep the trade lines open. You have to question how good a President Hill would make if she's this angry now.
Complain about this comment
Ryushinku has it about right.
How about Obama's speech yesterday in West Virginia?
It's here, and well worth a read.
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed
Complain about this comment
No doubt Obama works the press far better than Senator Clinton does. but he also picks safe venues, she at least goes to challenging interviews
Complain about this comment
I find it funny that people begrudge Obama from doing what it takes to win - so he picks and chooses his interviews? You know why? Because he can, he's in the lead and the demand for interviews from the press is larger than the time he can give. Contrast to Clinton, a fading force who will clamor at any airtime or newsprint she can get - because she's the one demanding it.
Complain about this comment
You are 'spot on', Justin Webb. Also, that piece of Hillary as Hitler was, well, HILLARious, even if tasteless.
I just read an interesting piece [Washington Post] on the racism the Obama street campaigners are encountering when dealing with 'the public'. Sadly, I am not surprised.
I think Obama is exactly what the United States needs, e.g. a diplomat. You don't have to pretend to be Rocky to be an effective leader. Fighting is not a virtue, nor is being a bully. I like the idea that American moves towards affirming that 'the pen is mightier than the sword'.
Thanks for your insights, and humour.
Complain about this comment
Ive been keeping up with this campaign for quite a while and have observed both Clinton and Obama on equal measure and the main thing I have read over and over is the agression from the Clinton supporters. I have never read such nasty comments both from her own site and many other blogs over the net. And to state that they would vote republican instead of Obama if he should be the nominee? Where is the party's sense of unity and postivity? There's such hatred there that has totally put me off Clinton and makes me think that the people making these comments such have voted republican in the first place.
If people actually listened, Obama stopped wearing the pin because he feels enough patriotism in his heart rather than wear it on a bit of metal. For my dual nationality, should we all in England be slagged off for not wearing union jacks? Thanks Clinton supporters- you have made my mind up for me....
Maybe I should get both flags tattooed across my forehead....
Complain about this comment
David Cunard is wrong. As usual. The BBC have been practically slaves to the Clinton spin-machine throughout the primary season. Even a week ago Matt Frei was writing an Obama obituary becuase of the Rev. Wright furore. Katty Kay on the night of the Texas/Ohio primaries was saying before the results even came out that Obama might drop out of the race! The headline after Super Tuesday was that Obama had failed to win Massachusetts despite the endorsement of its two senators. There has actually been very little of Obama broadcast on the BBC main bulletins- and whatever snippets of his speeches are aired are usually the least inspiring. If it weren't for the Internet -and CNN to a lesser degree- I would not have a clue what was going on this year in America.
Complain about this comment
Justin,
I just wanted to say thank you for posting the link to Dawn's piece. A slightly different take on matters liberal/conservative is here.
Obama gave another excellent rally speech yesterday.
I hope folk turn out in West Virginia today.
Salaam, etc.
ed
Complain about this comment
A fab speech from Ed's link.
Yet another example of: policy, a centrist approach, patriotism - the ignorance or doubting of which seem to be the 3 issues most seized upon by Sen. Obama's detractors.
It's interesting what Justin Webb says about the Sen. Clinton's staff "cold shoulder" approach. I am sure the media, certainly here, would love an ongoing Clinton story. As I'm sure they are loving the story of the young contender. So, given the above revelation about the unapproachable stance towards the press - is this yet another campaign mistake that reveals a chink in the "canny, experienced" argument?
Complain about this comment
Thanks for the link to dawnt's article. I disagree with those who say it isn't representative (like Doug Texan). I'm from West Virginia like her and can corroborate the evidence she gives. I also think people should learn to spell Barack Obama's name before taking issue with his potential presidency.
Complain about this comment
With the primary campaign coming to a close, I think it is fair to say that the prolonged battle, the Clinton attack machine and the media revelations have unquestionably been good for Barack Obama. Now, that comment may appear somewhat questionable at first glance, but allow me to explain.
Of course the battle has damaged his candidacy to some extent. Yet imagine how it might have been if Clinton had bowed out sometime shortly after super Tuesday. If the Rev Wright 'scandal' broke, not when Clinton was facing Hilary Clinton, but when he was facing John McCain, it could have been utterly disastrous. Imagine this coming out in the summer, or even worse, as an Octobher surprise. Obama would have lost, no question. But the fierce democratic battle has allowed Obama to put these issues behind him, and although they will be raised again, the impact will not be the same. Obama has been scrutinised to the greatest measure imaginable in the last 4 months, while John McCain has had a fraction of the press coverage. What unpleasant comments, or past might McCain have that could come to light in the coming months?
Secondly, and perhaps even more importantly, the primaries have alllowed the candidates to travel the country, making their case. Everyone has been listening to the democrats, while no one is really thinking about the Republicans. Hundereds of thousands of new democratic votes have been registered, a factor that could be vital come the election.
Finally, for all the talk of voters switching from Hilary to McCain, consider this. The majority of Clinton supporters are life long Democrats. She doesn't bring in the independents like he does. When it comes down to it, and the contest comes down to a pro-war, anti-abortion candidate against the democratic nominee, they will stay loyal. Novemember is a long way away. There are plenty times for wounds to heal.
Complain about this comment
I don't think you are wrong about the Democratic party being "in a state of upset." It's always in a state of upset. If the Democrats win back the presidency this year, it won't be because they have somehow become politically astute, it will be because the Republicans are weak this year and Democrats, by dumb luck, have found themselves with an inspirational candidate.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Ronaine,
"is this yet another campaign mistake that reveals a chink in the "canny, experienced" argument?"
YET ANOTHER, indeed! A friend writes:
Sad, really ;-)
Complain about this comment
Quality and status of US President measured not by racial, religion,skin, male or femal. It is measured principally by his idealism and experience. Obama already decleared that he wants to talk with terrorists, it mean he wants to invite terrorists to the White House that would be beneath super power dignity and he is already out of the American idealism, also there is no constitution for that. In super power history there is no American's surrender list, he the one who thinking about that.
How ever most of the Americans and super delegates vote for him but the White House will automatically reject him and Mc cain will be the next President of US, the Republican will rule out the White House for next 4 years term.
Despite the above instances, if nature deviates and Obama wins he would seldom complete his term, highly vulnerable assassinate or resignation will occur.
Hillary losses will have an impact not only on her but also on the nation, as well as democrats will loss its 4 years term White House.
If Obama will be the President of US then terrorists will become more powerful and they will happier more than Obama's chief supporters.
Here is my short message to America! every American or super delegate feel free and can vote for Obama but near future please Don't Cry for America.
Today most of the Americans are voicing for the Change....Chnage... Change... But change for the good or changing for the worst.? current situation America is heading to the worst.
In this race definitely some thing is wrong CIA and FBI should keep eye on it.
Bella Liberty .
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Doug the texan. I did not know clan mambers were smart enough to operate computers but yuo have proved they can.
I have read many of your posts that all come down to He's black. That makes you a racist. and like peadaphiles racists should be locked up.
Lucky for you the free speach you enjoy is fought for you by soldiers of all colour.
All colours are laying down their lives so you can spout your"i'm not racist but did you know he is black" rubbish..
"color has favouritism here, there is no afirmitive action taking place for the White House, nor is there discrmination because we may not elect a black skined patriot to the white house. "
What are you saying apart from ,yes we're racist and the only way a black man will get to be president is if there is an affirmative action to get him there.
I'm sure the last part was not really saying we may not vote in a black skinned man, as in we are not allowed to,but rather that there is a chance that a Black skinned man will not win the vote.
Because despite you rants YOU MAY VOTE IN A BLACK "SKINED" PATRIOT.
THERES NO RULE AGAINST IT
Unless your a racist from texas.
As for being obiased I have seen no evidence of this and far more that the clintons were favoured. But at least he sees the truth better now.
Doug you should get out of texas and travel(but please not to oregon .we're not to into texans here"
Complain about this comment
It seems likely that a link pointing to an article which in turn quotes a scholarly study containing the "n-word" raises the ire of the moderation system.
Hmmmm.
Anyway, here's West Virginia's voting record, wherein we can note that no Democrat has won the White House without winning West Virginia, or at least not since before the Great Depression.
xx
ed
Complain about this comment
Your second link, to a poll suggesting that a majority of Democrats want Clinton on the ticket as a candidate for Vice President, illustrates a chronic weakness of the Democratic Party: an irrational liking for direct democracy at the expense of winning general elections.
Two experienced Democratic politicians, Edward Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi, have stated publicly that we will not have an Obama-Clinton ticket. Obama, and the delegates, should pay attention to these two rather than the Democratic public, if they want the best chance of winning the general election.
Complain about this comment
Ed Iglehart, it's also true that every Democratic President since FDR has been from the south, except Kennedy whose Vice President, Lyndon Johnson, was from the southwest and strong in the south. A ticket of two northern senators is weak from that historical standpoint.
However, these comparisons to the demographics of past elections are not a strong basis for selecting a Vice Presidential candidate. In four years, a great deal of demographic change takes place. The population shifts to the west and to metroplitan areas. Old voters die off and new ones replace them. Eventually, a Democrat will win without West Virginia. The strongest running mate for Obama, all factors considered, is not necessarily one who is strong in West Virginia.
Complain about this comment
Gary,
I wouldn't worry too much. She's almost 7 to one against in the betting, although that's still 'favourite'. Most reckon she'd be a toxic addition to the ticket. My favourite is Jim Webb
, currently second-favourite.
Salaam, etc.
ed
Complain about this comment
Obama speaking in Charlestown West Virginia. The speech I linked to earlier, here in full colour video.
xx
ed
Complain about this comment
Justin,
it is sometimes NICE to be NICE to everyone....
Complain about this comment
Regarding bias of the BBC, they are better
than most. At the start of the Iraq war, I don't
recall most of the American press giving much
coverage to Senator Robert Byrd, or to the
22 other senators who voted against the
war authorization bill. All we saw on CNN
was a brainwashing machine.
It turns out that powerful organizations
manipulate the press by giving preferential
access to people in the press who they
deem to be "friendly." The Clinton and Obama
campaigns are no different.
Complain about this comment
# 24 Ed Iglehart writes "no Democrat has won the White House without winning West Virginia" - which is precisely what Mrs Clinton has been saying, except that she says it goes back to 1916.
# 13 rupertornelius - "If it weren't for the Internet -and CNN to a lesser degree- I would not have a clue what was going on this year in America." Is that so? Since you contribute to the Telegraph blog/s so frequently I would have thought you might have read the hard copies, likewise all the 'dailies' in the UK which, if you can't afford them, are readily available at every public library. There's been plenty of coverage back home, albeit mostly in the Obama camp. I found your posts and the responses thereto most illuminating, for example: http://my.telegraph.co.uk/john_storm/april_2008/machiavelli_explains_eu_s_race_replacement_program.htm
Although you can spell (see above link), you must learn to punctuate better - unlike a bracket, a dash requires a space on both sides of it. I'm actually quite surprised to see that you haven't taken other posters to task for their lack of spelling ability, but perhaps you're in a more polite mode today. Even so, saying that I am wrong doesn't make it so.
Complain about this comment
Actually, Eva Braun was also in the Fuhrerbunker in April of 1945. She in fact, refused to leave Hitler's side despite his orders to do so and on 4/29 they were finally officially married - just in time for her to committ suicide the next day. I also seem to recall that nearly all the Russian and the Allies soldiers closing in on that doomed bunker that fateful month were men, as well, for whatever that's worth. They were also mostly proles, who mainly serve as the foot soldiers and cannon fodder for these ungodly affairs. So can we please get back to class issues and go beyond this superficial identity politics. After all, this so-called "gentle daughter" of Middle America is as cold and ruthless an imperialist war-monger as any male, Bosnia or no Bosnia. She's been a staunch supporter of America's murderous invasion and occupation of Iraq and before that was in full accord with her horrid hubby's genocidal sanctions on that country. In fact, women can be every bit as pitiless as men, if not more so, when given the chance, as Madeline Albright, Condalezza Rice and Maggie Thatcher, among others, illustrate so distressingly well. So please, let us not give this violent daughter of Middle America the chance. By all means, gang up on Hillary!
Complain about this comment
astroBellaLiberty
"Obama already decleared that he wants to talk with terrorists, it mean he wants to invite terrorists to the White House"
I don't think he meant that at all. I listened to Sam Power, while she was still in post, and (if it matters that much) - it won't mean Ahmadinejad is coming to lunch in the White House.
As we know here in the UK, as they know too in South Africa and one day they'll figure it out in Sri Lanka - at some point you HAVE to talk to these folks. It's the only solution.
The difference you have over there in the US is that it's brave, as a politician, to admit that is what you would do. Brave precisely because of opinions like yours - and the ones the GOP "attack squad" are sure to use come the Presidential election.
Most rational folks around the world want the US to be brave, and vote for the brave candidate.
Complain about this comment
I hope I don't appear to be off-message, and I usually avoid comment upon the opinion of others, but I did wish to respond to Mr Cunard's remarks about the BBC's objectivity (#3).
Mr Cunard, political and financial independence (as ideals, somewhat compromised in practice) are what give me hope in the BBC - not necessarily always to be objective - as if that were possible for any human endeavour! - but to set a standard by which other media outlets are to be measured. So you think that the BBC's objectivity will improve as a result of a politician sacking its managers? How very bizarre! You have a short memory, my friend! Remember what happened just before Britain decided to be a party to genocide in Iraq?
As a person who lives abroad, with little prospect of return any time soon, and even less intention to return if my country ends up being run by a Blair clone, I value the quality of British television, especially if I compare it with much of that in the US, or in Italy, for example.
For all its foibles and faults, I love the BBC. British telly is one of the few things I miss about home. And much as I disagree sometimes with Justin, I doubt neither his intellect nor his heart, both of which are, in my respectful opinion, as sound as the British pound!
This is a great blog, supervised by a good man, on behalf of a wonderful corporation. Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
Complain about this comment
Ronaine, there are many shades of grey here,
regarding Obama's pledge to use diplomacy.
Yasser Arafat and Menachem Begin were both
considered terrorists in their day, but they transformed
themselves into statesmen.
But, the groups that we are confronting today
like Hamas are not secular, and perhaps not
rational by our standards. I am somewhat taken aback by Jimmy Carter's recent announcement that
Hamas "is ready to recognize the right of Israel
to exist." They said nothing of the kind, and
later denied that Carter's statement had any validity.
The world is at too dangerous an intersection
for that kind of naivete.
I hope that Obama would not be another Carter.
Truthfully, I haven't heard a whole lot to convince
me that he would not be.
This is the kind of question that I would like Justin
to slip under the door of a smoke-filled room the
next time that he happens to be in Obama's
territory.
Complain about this comment
jackforge,
You are misreading what I said, sadly, your racism is showing. My point was that even if Barach was a patriot, which I don't think he is, he may not get elected.
My statement that there is no affimitive action means, He doesn't have enough managing governmental experience, there is no on the job training as 'Commander in Chief' He has no service record other than as a highly paid politition., and not a good I gather from the information available about him. Sorry if you don't agree.
As to fighting for freedom, I'm a vet, are you? Currently one of my family is in Afganistan and been in Kuwait and other places, thank god, blood loss is minimal.
As to Oregon, been there, didn't like it, to many vet hatin' people there, though that was in 1974.
I believe in Americans, I believe every American we elect should be the 'Best' for the job. I've never seen an elected official I didn't think was a 100% believer in the greatness of our country, the greatness of the task God put upon us and the knowledge that we can handle it. Obama has not made me think he feels this way, he portays us as fools needing to be led. We the people lead, government works for us, not visa-versa.
Complain about this comment
And it would be a valid question to slip under that door. Hopefully, presumably, one that would be raised in the "Town Hall" debates with Sen. McCain.
This discussion is off topic, I suppose, and only resulted out of an urge I have to respond to the occasional illogical posting - but surely you couldn't call Arafat and Begin secular? Certainly not Paisley or Adams.
I understand the trepidation when someone appears to seek appeasement, but there's a lot of sense, especially in today's world, in approaching problems with dialogue in the armoury too.
Complain about this comment
DougTexan - check out the link from Ed's posting #28. Do you really believe Sen. Obama is as you portray?
Complain about this comment
# 34 Adrian_Evitts, an ex-pat like myself, suggests that I have a short memory; it is he who has the shorter. Recall the Andrew Gilligan/David Kelly affair and the Hutton Report, after which the BBC Chairman Gavyn Davies and its Director General, Greg Dyke resigned. Whether or not he put pressure on them, I would think that Tony Blair was delighted with the outcome! Remember too, that No. 10 can re-write the BBC Charter should it so be inclined; financial independence is not a licence to back one party over another. My point, which appears to have been missed, is that the BBC should be objective and not give more prominence to one American candidate over another. In my view, neither its web site nor the BBC's available newscasts in North America have done so.
As for being sound as the pound, what goes up, must come down! From the £2+ bench mark high, it has now retreated to $1.94; good for those in Blighty, but not for us in "the colonies". (Don't anyone take offence, it's a long-standing joke reference.)
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
So tell me, DougTexan (#36):
As I am sure you know, the US Declaration of Independence begins with these beautiful words:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
If all men are created equal, how come I can know exactly how many Americans, Brits, or other US-allied soldiers were killed in Afghanistan or Iraq, but when it comes to the same question when asked of Afghanis or Iraqis, no one can give me an accurate answer even to the nearest thousand?
Bertrand Russell said that patriots always talk of dying for their country and never of killing for their country. I am happy that you continue to enjoy the right to life, friend. I also hope that your family member engaged in a war-zone continues to do so. And I further hope that no one was denied that right at the other end of your gun, or is denied it at the other end of the gun of your family member.
One of the greatest ever Americans, Johnny Cash, wore black (with reference, I believe, to Vietnam):
"for the thousands who have died,
Believin' that the Lord was on their side."
Amen to that.
Complain about this comment
Ronaine,
Certainly we have to water down the term
"secular" when talking about the middle east,
or the Islamic world in general. They don't
have anything approaching complete separation
of church and state.
But, let's take Arafat as an example. You might
be surprised that there are many Palestinian
Christians that are PLO supporters. He was
really a nationalist, not an Islamic extremist,
although I'm sure that he tried to appeal to that
group.
Arafat, had his lucid moments, although
in the end history may brand him as a terrorist
who could not negotiate effectively. We take
for granted in the West that an adversary
would naturally want to negotiate, because
it is cheaper in blood and treasure, and we
tend to value those things.
Alas, the same cannot be said for Hamas.
There is really no reason to negotiate with
someone whose ultimate aim is our destruction,
except, perhaps, a temporary cease-fire.
What I want to know is if Obama can make that
kind of distinction.
Complain about this comment
Adrian Evitts (#34) writes '"I value the quality of British television, especially if I compare it with much of that in the US, or in Italy, for example."
Might I ask what is so bad about US TV and what suggestions do you have in order for us to improve to be more like the BBC? You already admited, as I've also repeatedly pointed out, that it is nearly impossible for a news organisation/reporter to be 100% objective, so what aside from that, do you find the US media-and which stations/news papers in particular-does so poorly? I personally think CNN does a rellitavely good job-about the same as the BBC (although no one in my opinion compairs to the BBC on international issues!!). What do you think of CNN? How about NBC, ABC and MSNBC? What about NPR? Thank you.
Also Justin, please tell me you were jokeing when you said that you ticked off 100 reasons why Obama should talk to the BBC!! If you really did do that, I think 1 would've sufficed-because the BBC is the most widely recognised, watched, and listened to news program in the world, and anyone who hopes to be known around the world is introduced by the BBC!! End of story!! Either way, yes I agree there is room for, and should be, both niceness and nastyness in political campaigns-in all countries!! Nastyness obviously towards one's political apponents, and niceness toward the media interviewing them and their aponents!!! It just is common curticy!!! I'll never understand those who aren't kind to strangers especially!
Complain about this comment
To the few who have hoped that Obama would not turn out like Carter:
What is wrong with Carter? He is still the only US President to have brokered peace between Israel and an Arab State (Egypt in case your memory is faltering, unless i'm teaching you something new).
Secondly (and I can see the absurd charge of anti-semitism coming from a mile away) : Israel is VERY MUCH an apartheid state. It's policies towards the Palestinians - and please, this is nothing new - are indeed strangely reminiscent of the defunct South African D.F. Malan apartheid government who - ironically enough - called Nelson Mandela a terrorist. Now rain on me with the anti-semite accusation, you would be quite far from the truth given my own semitism, but I understand you have no better argument.
So anyway, all I really wanted to say was: Remember the movie American Beauty ?? Now think of the mother who "Refuses to be a victim!!!", yelling as she loads that gun and listens to the self-help audio tape in her car. Now think of Hillary Clinton and dare tell me you can't see her in that very scene. Even the hair-cut and the pants-suit are spot on.
Complain about this comment
NoRashDecisions (#43):
Don't come to any rash conclusions!
I didn't say "all", I said "much". I would also say that there's much British TV that is poor, but that the BBC sets a standard (in Britain).
Anyway, if #34 got you going, take a look at #41!
Oh, and before any one points it out, I omitted the word Preamble in my reference to the Declaration of Independence in #41. Oops!
Complain about this comment
Shalom Haver, Ambiance!
To those who would understand the Palestine/Israel problem, begin here, for a start....
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed
Complain about this comment
The Democratic party in a state of upset?
Summed up best by the Will Rodgers quote who upon being asked if he was a member of an organised political party replied- "No, I'm a Democrat.
Ed. thanks for all the good links.
Perhaps Clinton after her Rocky horror showing could suggest that Obama has indirectly stolen her theme with the speech. The link being Sly Stallone whose Rambo character expressed much of Obama's words in the film- His and colleagues medical experiences, acceptance by the public after Vietnam etc . But I digress.
Am I as usual reading between the lines or making a mistake to think that there is nothing in Obama's history, with the exception of not voting for the war in Iraq, that he will apply a limp-wristed approach to future threats against America. Like many I am pleased he is ready to hold talks, which I feel could necessitate a secret group of envoys sent to test the waters, { Iran , Palestine } and not to offend Israel, before he, or a Kissinger type negotiator, begin talks on neutral ground. But, there appears no suggestion of his throwing down all guns and saying "here we are for the taking" A satisfactory [ whatever ] end to the Iraq situation still leaves us with Afghanistan, and as the last super power policeman left standing on the field, other conflicts could occur. An answer please.
Staying on this military theme and adding a touch of Darwinism, [ I once read a scientific magazine in a Doctor's waiting room] may I suggest that an adapt and conquer strategy has again been an American success. Origin of the Species homo americanus. [[[[moderator please read dictionary]]] Survival of the fittest! In the dark old days it was the British redcoats fighting and losing to one of the first guerilla [ gorilla!] opponents, the Americans in their green and brown having a field day, using a whole new tactic against the accepted battle line. Today, it is the Obama campaign that has adapted and changed to defeat [ my hope ], the Clinton fighting machine, this time with technological ideas and their tactics again winning the day. Politics is a type of war eh? At last the rabbit / hare beats the tortoise at least in my mental picture of the cartoon..
But the tactics now exposed, could it become a regression to the traditional approach for the next battle v Mccain? To maintain face for his "Change" a direct battle line confrontation rather than hidden sniping? Despite the Tao of Obama, the Art of War book by Sun Tzu will be of no use!
David_C -My feeling too. The BBC often shows a bias. But if you want to experience real bias and slime you must watch Sky. I am surprised that America has not already heard the sucking , scraping and licking sounds during routine political interviews this side of the water.
Complain about this comment
#44, I agree with a lot of what you have said here,
especially about Israel, but the world is not a perfect place. The task of our next president will be to
try to help resolve some of these conflicts in a peaceful
way so that big clouds of radioactive fallout are
not released which might drift our way.
As far as Carter goes, he did some great things
while he was in office, but he also made some
tremendous blunders. Isn't it possible that we
could find someone who could do more of
the former and fewer of the latter?
Complain about this comment
Although way off topic, the differences in national television programming are purely subjective. With regard to news channels, CNN claims to have had the biggest worldwide audience at the start of the Gulf War, with a billion viewers - today, the BBC more modestly claims 150 million for its World Service. The BBC's Charter states that its mission is to inform, educate and entertain - so by its very nature it has more subjects to cover than any American broadcasting company, whose mission/s is/are to make money for the respective shareholders. CBS was for many years considered to be the most objective and principled of the networks, Walter Cronkite being known as 'the most trusted man in America'. Although he tried, Dan Rather was never able to fill his shoes and probably the late Peter Jenkins was the closest anyone else came to duplicating Cronkite's persona and reputation. For older British readers, he was along the lines of Richard Dimbleby. Today, CNN has replaced CBS as the de facto voice of America and that channel is not entirely unbiased. Concerning pure entertainment, there is insufficient space to analyse the very different audiences, sense of humour, appreciation for drama and so forth. Generally speaking I believe that in the USA we see the cream of British productions, both BBC and ITV. There are of course American versions of popular British shows, but that is not quite the same since they are re-written and revised for domestic consumption. I am quite ready to be corrected, but except for game shows and "reality" productions, I am not aware of any British edition of an original American series - Perhaps Magnolia Lane might be recreated in the Home Counties but there could hardly be a Baywatch set in Torquay!
Complain about this comment
Jimmy Carter is simply the best ex-President we've had in my six-and-a-half decades - no competition.
He's also one of the cleverest and the nearest thing to an honest man to get within a mile of the White House, possibly since Abraham Lincoln. The last quality probably has much to do with his perceived 'failures'.
I feed my squirrels on peanuts which may well have come from his farm. I recognise the irony of importing food to give it to rodents.
Goodnight all
Complain about this comment
Ed, I'm not sure of what the point is that you're
trying to make in #46. Could you please
verbalize that?
Complain about this comment
Much earlier I wrote(# 3) that I could not see why the Clinton campaign would warm up to the BBC - a headline this evening illustrates my reasoning: "Clinton 'wins' W Virginia primary".
The New York Times writes "Clinton Wins West Virginia, Networks Say" and CNN "Clinton will win W.Va. primary, CNN projects". If others can do so without the quotation marks (inverted commas) why not the BBC? The impression is that somehow the victory is fake when the headline could have been written, quite acceptably, "Clinton projected to win W Virginia primary". That's my problem - the Beeb just doesn't want to give credit where it's due.
Complain about this comment
Guns'nReligion,
Simply that the attempt to establish an ethno-religious state against the expressed wishes of a two-thirds majority of the local population has to have been one of the most misguided and arrogant ideas of the twentieth century.
This was clearly forseen by over 300 prominent American Jews in 1919.
The Palestinians have suffered (and continue to suffer daily) an unimaginable injustice because of European guilt
for deeds in which they had no part.
Is that verbalised enough?
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed
Complain about this comment
Live coverage and commentary on West Virginia results
Latest:Clinton 58%, Obama 36%
(4% reporting)
xx
ed
Complain about this comment
Ed, before you ascribe too much fairness to
one side, and too little to the other I suggest that you
take a look at:
http://adeeperlookweblog.blogspot.com/2007/02/saudi-bigotry-and-hatred-in-school-in.html
and http://adeeperlookweblog.blogspot.com/2007/03/then-and-now-part-i-video-similarities.html
I was unable to find the video which was
aired on Saudi state TV of a 4 year old Saudi
child being taught that "Americans and Jews
are pigs", but if you want, I will attempt to find it.
You might also look at:
http://eteraz.wordpress.com/2006/07/21/jews-as-apes-and-swine/
Now, I believe that we all have a right to
live, and perhaps even make the world better.
But, whatever you do, please don't
respond by quoting "The Protocols
of the Elders of Zion," or "Mein Kampf",
or some other nonsense about how there is some
secret Jewish conspiracy to conquer the world.
Complain about this comment
Guns'nReligion,
I won't quote the 'protocols' or anything even vaguely anti-semitic. Neither will I deny the existence of antisemitism.
I will, however, reiterate that the Zionist project was and is the most mis-conceived idea to emerge from the twentieth century.
Would you care to tell me where all those American Jews got it wrong in 1919?
Pointing me towards proof of Saudi misdeeds is simply a diversionary attempt, and has no relevance.
Shalom/Salaam
ed
Complain about this comment
I think the Clinton campaign's alleged ill treatement of reporters is reflective of Hillary's feeling as though she deserves to be our next president.
And as I watch her stay in the race despite the math, I keeping wondering what her motiviation is. Did she strike a deal with Bill when the Monica Lewinski scandal blew up? How much self respect did she have to swallow to stay with Bill and what kept her in the marriage? Was it the promise of her own Presidency? A year ago it must of looked like payback would be a cakewalk to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. But things have changed over the last year. And if she doesn't make it this year, she only has one or two more shots (she's 60).
Complain about this comment
I think the Clinton campaign's alleged ill treatment of reporters is reflective of Hillary's feeling as though she deserves to be our next president.
And as I watch her stay in the race despite the math, I keeping wondering what her motiviation is. Did she strike a deal with Bill when the Monica Lewinski scandal blew up? How much self respect did she have to swallow to stay with Bill and what kept her in the marriage? Was it the promise of her own Presidency? A year ago it must of looked like payback would be a cakewalk to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. But things have changed over the last year. And if she doesn't make it this year, she only has one or two more shots (she's 60).
Complain about this comment
Ed,
I agree that Palestine was not the best place
in the world for the Jews to wind up, but
in the 1930's, many had to leave Europe,
and we wouldn't take them. They went to
places which were available to them. It's not like
there was some diabolical plan by the Zionists, or
the British, it's just an accident of history.
The Zionists were the organizers, but it
would not have happened had there not
been a mass exodus of Jews from Europe.
Somehow, we have to find a way to bring
together peacemakers in the region to
put some settlement together before the
nukes start popping off.
BTW, regarding my previous comments about
Carter, I would like to amend them by
stating that he was absolutely stellar compared
to Bush.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Probably referred to moderation because the software doesn't like links to pdf documents - Grrr!
Try and find "Truth Against Truth" at Gush Shalom.
Best I can do.
xx
ed
(I also noted that the true villain of the piece was Perfidious Albion, in making mutually incompatible promises to the Arabs and Jews during WWI.
Complain about this comment
Gush Shalom
Introduction
Surely that doesn't require moderation!
Complain about this comment
Ed Iglehart
"I won't quote the protocols or anything.."
Seems to me just making reference to them was enough to show your hand, your real reasons for posting.
guns and religion #51`
Ed, I'm not sure of what the point is that you're trying to make in #46. "
I think he made it plainly enough.
Mr. Iglehart, you might consider that today, Israel likely has the third largest arsenal of nucelar weapons in the world. And contrary to what BBC's WHYS asks, it does not need to justify its existance or actions to anyone. On its 60th birthday coming in two days, it has all it needs to defend itself against anyone who would attack it. And there to celebrate with them will be (undoubtedly much to your chagrin) President Bush representing the overwhelming sentiments of the people of the United States of America. I frankly don't know where Obama stands on Israel but it will certainly come up during the real campaign, that for office of the President. And much to your dislike I'm sure, unless he comes out foursquare in support of Israel, it will cost him lots of votes across the board. You see, with the USA as its friend, Israel doesn't really need any others. Senator Clinton made her position quite clear again just recently. So will McCain I'm sure.
Complain about this comment
Did you give reasons 101/102? "He won't need to give any detail about serious policies" and "He can spend the first five minutes thanking all the people in the room for being there"?
If any candidate says anything really meaningful about policies (dealing with the recession, global warming, etc. etc.) I must miss it on R5 Live. I tend to switch off after the first five minutes of "I'd like to thank" [90% of the audience I think, sometimes?] and then again after those sentimental stories they all tell.
Why have all of them seemingly been so proud of little old ladies in Dubuque who sent $3/5/10 dollars (there seemed to be a kind of Donations Dutch auction at one time) they could hardly spare to their campaigns? I'd have thought they'd gain more kudos for saying they'd sent it back! It's hardly as though none of them could afford not to.
(But then, I'm one of those European liberals. A socialist, even.)
Complain about this comment
Marcus,
"it does not need to justify its existance or actions to anyone."
Just as well, because it's impossible to justify the existence of an ethno-religious apartheid colony in the twenty-first century, which owes its existence to the violent expulsion of the native population and the scorched-earth removal of all traces of their former lives.
And, if you can be bothered to check, you;ll find my reference to 'the protocols' was entirely proper and in response to my friend Guns'nReligion.
And that's as long an answer as any of your rubbish warrants, in fact too long.
Assalaam 'alaikum wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuhu
Peace, God's mercy and blessings be upon you (You'll need it)
Complain about this comment
Adrian Evitts (#45): Easy there!!! I didn't draw any "rash" conclusions!! I know yu said "much"!! I was in no way whatsoever accusing you of being unfair or unkind to our media in the least, and if you got that from my post I am truely sorry-it was not my intention!!! I was merely asking what suggestions and reccomondations you had for our media so that we may improve-after all, there's always room for improvement, is there not? If you re-read my post, you'll see that I was seeking constructive criticism with regard to US media, not to make unfair and untrue accusations!!! With respect of your post at #41, I must say that has unfortionately been an unfair aspect of warfare since the beginning of time. Although if it makes you feel better, at least in this country, Bush has tryed to stem the exact number of American war dead in Iraq because it is an already unpopular war, and in my guess he didn't want to impact his pole ratings/what little support for the war there is left in this country any further by admiting an incredibly high loss amongs our soldiers in Iraq. I do agree with you, however, that the war dead should be reported on all sides!! If I may take a stab at perhaps why it is not, though, it is what aside from propaganda methods on both sides of a war to claim that it is being won with fewer lives being lost as explained above, it is probably due to the fact that those people who's deaths weren't recorded in previous and current wars, I am willing to bet, is because those people were the enamy's soldiers and therefore the forces fought, and in the minds of the more offten than not western forces/camanders fighting them, the thought process was most likely that they didn't feel it necessary to report their deaths, because they were after all the enamy, and after all, that is who they were trying to be rid of in the first place, right? Its like, well, say, Iraq for instance. Obviously the number of US soldiers's deaths will be unfortionately reported on in more detail than Iraqie insurgances. But again, you are right, there should of course deffinitly be fair reporting on the troop losses from both sides of a conflict, both civilian and millitary, as fairly as possible!!! Something of which neither the US or UK, it seems, are particularly interested in!!
And you need not worry, neither of your posts "got me going"!! They were thought provokeing, but then again, wasn't that your point? They in no way summened an uncalled for reaction from me!! I'm not that immature!!! And also, don't worry-I don't think anyone will (in there right mind) raise the issue of the constitutional refference with you!! Personally I think for someone to pick a fight over whether you actually mentioned that it was from the preamble is the hight of immaturity and irrationality!!! The bigger story is that you made a very thought provokeing refference to it and drew comparisons between it and modern events which I think no one else has done in that way yet in this day in age!
Complain about this comment
brit-ish-ish (#65): Don't worry, I'm a liberal too!!!! But I must say, our candidates don't just '"thank everyone and their mother" so to speek, for listening to their speeches when the BBC is interviewing/moderateing/hosteing, they do it with all news organisations!! I agree with you that they should massively cut back on how many people they thank, and instead get down to the business of why they are running for office in the first place, but at the same time, being kind never hurt anyone-as Justin so rightly said!!! You can catch far more flies with honey than vinnigar!!!
O, and just so you know, I think that the primarey season should be funded by public funds just as the general one is, so there is no more of this insane campaign fund raising any more!!! Actually, I'd rather have a parlamentary system, but since that can't happen...
Complain about this comment
Ronaine and others,
On "appeasement", The Gush Shalom website has a wee banner which says, "Peace is made with enemies - Speak with Hamas"
Click on it for more wisdom.
Salaam, etc.
ed
Complain about this comment
I've received emails from the moderation service which indicate that my posts 19 and 22 above were removed because of "broken links".
This is not true, as I've tested both of the links contained in their email. On the other hand, one of the links does lead to an article in the Daily Kos which contains the 'n-word' (in a quotation used to demonstrate a point).
The article is (in my opinion) a very useful and valid discussion of the nature of mixed-race families in Appalachia, and I posted the link for the interest of anyone who might wish to broaden their own perspective on the recent and upcoming primaries.
Perhaps this will be OK?
dubyadubyadubya.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/8/175419/3065
Salaam, etc.
ed
Complain about this comment
I would just like to thank Ed for articulating perfectly my feelings on the issues of a)terrorism b) The Palestinian situation and c) the notion of "appeasement".
And also to congratulate him on his remarkable patience and persistence... especially in response to our relentless legionairre.
;)
Complain about this comment
Thanks Ronaine, and you're very welcome. As one of the threads says, "Being nice doesn't hurt", and neither does it cost anything.
Salaam, etc.
ed
Complain about this comment
Ed
My usual thanks for all the excellent links on this and the following pages.
A Question over your "broken links" emails.
You mentioned that it might have been the "n " word included in an informative link,and I can understand your feelings that the decisions made by the moderators don't appear to follow the house rule lines. It's odd that using those words in a reference link should be so harshly judged, when Justin can link us to Mccain language that makes everybodys hair stand on end.
Anyway, A few hours after your kind instructions to David_C on how to make his copy look neater by inserting "blank links" instructions, Justin's whole web page system collapsed. At least here in the wilderness it went out for about 12 hours. Coincidence?
Obviously your a very experienced computer blogger but tell me that the problem was a fault Justin's end, a fault with my steam driven service provider here in the sticks, and not David making mistakes.! Haven,t seen any new posts from him either. Is he still asleep, or has he blown his computer up as well.?
Who knows, maybe so many bloggers. including my great friend have been experimenting trying to do the same, and it overloaded the system there.
Have a good day...... wma
Complain about this comment
This doesn't surprise me at all - as well as being a liar, smearer and hypocrite, it was almost obvious that Clinton and co would turn out to be obnoxious as well.
Those people who insist on supporting her - take care to think about what sort of President she might make. She could be one of the least principled leaders the country would have had for a very time.
Complain about this comment
Waterman,
"tell me that the problem was a fault Justin's end, a fault with my steam driven service provider here in the sticks, and not David making mistakes...."
I think it went down at the BBC, but your scenario isn't completely beyond possibility. ;-)
The links tutorial has been improved slightly, and should be quicker now.
If you're using Windoze, and want some useful shortcut hotkeys, I recommend Autohotkeys, which, with a little learning, can streamline things. For example, <Alt>F8 gives me a blank link.
Or you can set <Alt>F11 to output,
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed
As it does for me, or <Alt>F3 to give a datestamp:
Thu May 15 17:15:06 BST 2008
ThAnks for your thanks. Be well and Smile
Salaam, etc.
ed
Complain about this comment
NoRashDecisions (#67):
Thank you for your kind remarks.
Ed Inglehart (#50):
I am inclined to agree with what you say about Jimmy Carter. From what I gather, Mr Carter has been a much maligned man who has possibly done some of his greatest work since leaving office.
Complain about this comment
Adrian Evitts (#76): I sure hope you were being sincere when thanking me for those remarks in my last post-I certainly was in makeing them!!!! I hope you understand a little better the meaning of, and my intention in my remarks on the reasons for the unfortionate and sad reality of the reporting of war casualties being stemmed on both sides of a conflict as well as my comments on your refference of the preamble!
So what recomandations do you have for the betterment of our media?
Complain about this comment
NoRashDecisions (#77):
I certainly was being sincere, friend. It gives any person a warm glow in their heart to have someone say nice things about them!
To try to answer your question:
Historically, the BBC has been funded as a result of requiring every owner of a TV set to have a licence, the money from that licence going to the BBC to pay for its broadcasting services. I believe that the licence system was first introduced in the days when the BBC had a monopoly in providing television.
One of the problems in our current era is that TV can now be accessed via a computer on the Internet, thereby bypassing the obligation to buy a licence. It means that the BBC is having to think about raising income in ways other than via subscription. Another problem is that the BBC has to answer ultimately to politicians, so there's always pressure to avoid upsetting whoever governs the country in the present day. There was a big ding-dong, for example, just after the war in Iraq started - some of those in government got very angry with the BBC, and a very fine man apparently committed suicide as a result of trying to tell the British people truth about that war.
It's sad, really. It's sad that the BBC's Internet site is compromised by advertising, although I understand why. Am I being cynical when I wonder how objective BBC news coverage can be about Turkey, for example, if the Web page opens with an advert for Turkey as a holiday destination?
Things are of course changing. I don't watch TV any more, preferring to live and work abroad to try and gain an objective view of the world, rather than via a medium which is essentially selling me things. I am optimistic about the Internet - governments find it difficult to censor the Web, even if they want to - although there are still far too many people in the world who are too poor to have access to it.
Recommendations for you, my friend? Use your computer more, and watch your TV less! The BBC World Service is also an excellent way of staying in touch with world events on the radio. And travel, the best possible way to educate yourself as to what is really happening in the world. Americans don't travel enough (who does?) - I know it's partly because you live in such a massive, culturally rich country where there is so much to see - but it does mean that many of you lack judgment when it comes to electing a politician whose decisions have global consequences.
Complain about this comment
Adrian,
"Americans don't travel enough (who does?) -"
I must take exception. There is far too much travel - in fact, it's the most destructive practice on the face of the Earth.
"He travels fastest who travels afoot"
-- Henry David Thoreau, 1854
All accelerated travel isolates the traceller from the places and people through which s/he passes, and thus is both vicarious and elitist. When one walks, one experiences place.
This present war is for oil, which underwrites our destructive hypermobility, and cuts us off from home.
The Earth will breathe a great sigh of relief on the day the last airport closes forever.
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed
Complain about this comment
The Houston ants seem to have been eating my links
He travels fastest who travels afoot
Hypermobility
home
xx
ed
Complain about this comment
I couldn't agree more!
I didn't use the verb "fly", I used the verb "travel". I hitchhiked down through Europe last summer.
But what I do say is that sometimes we need to choose between the lesser of evils, and the impact of environmental damage caused by air travel is one thing - the consequences of ignorance caused by a failure to experience the wider world could be a lot worse!
Complain about this comment
It seems we aren't that far apart. I didn't use the verb "fly" either. Hitch-hiking is good - a chance to meet folk at random (a selected lot, though).
The leisure to travel is, however, restricted in general to the one fifth of the world's folk who are responsible for four fifths of the resource consumption - the elite.
Most of the world's folk have never made a phone call
Good night and God Bless,
ed
Complain about this comment
Ed Iglehart
(Marcus)
"it does not need to justify its existance or actions to anyone."
(Iglehart)
"Just as well, because it's impossible to justify the existence of an ethno-religious apartheid colony in the twenty-first century, which owes its existence to the violent expulsion of the native population and the scorched-earth removal of all traces of their former lives."
Are you referring to Israel or America?
The only example of blatant anti-semitism I ever saw in my life was at Le Lac Bordeaux France in 1973 at an industrial trade fair when the group of Americans and Canadians I was with were refused service at a Rathskeller because some of the members of our group were Jewish. I thought at the time, why are we in America spending hundreds of billions every year to defend these people, why not just leave them to go to war with the USSR and maybe be killed or enslaved? It's a question I have not been able to find a satisfactory answer to in 35 year.
I was of the opinion that Europeans will never change. Your postings convince me that I was right.
Complain about this comment
Marcus,
"Are you referring to Israel or America?"
Clearly, I was referring to Israel and al Nakba, but the colonial behaviour of the Europeans in America had its parallels.
We haven't yet wiped out all traces of the aboriginal Americans, though, particularly with regard to place names, as has happened in Palestine/Israel.
The other main difference is that the creation of a colonial state, based upon the ethnicity of a minority immigrant population might have been a common practice in the colonial age, but, after two world wars in defense of "freedom and democracy", it was a throwback, as so presciently expressed here.
Ypour reference to anti-semitism is mis-placed. I harbour none of it - rather the reverse. I am, however, strongly anti-Zionist, and the distinction is far from arbitrary, whatever you may think.
Assalaam 'alaikum wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuhu
Peace, God's mercy and blessings be upon you
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII (#83):
I can't speak for Ed Inglehart - I can only speak for myself.
It seems to me that hatred is no answer to the world's problems. I've tried that - it doesn't work.
Jews? Judaism, like all of the world's religions, gives many - sadly, not all - of its followers a beautiful view of the world. I cannot hate a religion which has given great meaning to some of the finest examples of how to live that our planet has ever seen. But I'd say this, too, for Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Sikhism ... a long list continues, my friend.
All are welcome to eat with me. All I ask is that hatred be left outside my home. It can be picked up again on the way out.
Live and let live. Simple.
Complain about this comment
Ed Iglehart
"Ypour reference to anti-semitism is mis-placed. I harbour none of it - rather the reverse. I am, however, strongly anti-Zionist, and the distinction is far from arbitrary, whatever you may think."
That's the typical rationalization most anti-semites use for hating Jews and the fact that the state of Isreal exists."
I repeat, I still cannot find any answer to the question I asked myself 35 years ago and I still am of the opinion that Europeans will never change. You just keep giving me more reasons to believe it.
Adrian_Evitts
I obviously can't paint all Europeans with the same brush but there are consistancies of culture which can't be ignored. For every observed generalization, there are many exceptions but there is also a common thread among many in a large group with a lot of shared values. In a way, Eastern Europeans have a clearer view of the world than Western Europeans do, having been enslaved themselves in recent memory. But even there, their views are colored by centuries of shared hatreds and xenophobias they find difficult to shake. Just look at the mess in the Balkins.
I do not hate Europeans but I am thoroughly disgusted and repulsed by them. Their high falutin airs, their sense of their superiority, their endless pontification to the rest of the world, especially to America and Americans, it is all disgusting to me and completely unjustifiable. When you get past it all and look at their history and where they are and how they got there it speaks to an entirely different reality. I for one am not willing to stay mute out of politeness nor out of complete ignorance of what Europe is and has been.
Britain may not be exactly like France, Italy, Germany, Spain or the others in its elitist attitudes but each can claim some distincton from the others. The underlying distrust of the individual to make the best decisions for his own life, the readiness of society to dictate wherever possible to the indivual, and the submissiveness of the individual to that arbitrary authority is still pervasive even in Britain. Do you still refer to judges as "my lord?" (I understand they have gotten rid of the horse hair wigs or haven't they? Have they gotten rid of those silly red Santa suits yet?) The upper house of Parliament is still the House of Lords whose members must be selected from an elite. There still isn't even a written constitution. And as BBC reported even to my astonishment, it is possible that the Prime Minister actually has the power to enter into a treaty with the EU which will cede more British Sovereignty without even so much as a vote in Parliament let alone a national referendum.
If the general perception of Europeans as anti-semites had no validity, then why is it that Israel does not trust the EU or any of its memebers to broker a peace deal, it only trusts the US? Therefore, like it or not, the US is a crictical player in any possible settlement in the Middle East and will not accept a settlement damaging to Israel's future security as an expediency to satisfy its own interests at the expense of Israel. Nor could it. Israel made it clear to the Bush Administration some time back that it is not Czechoslovakia and will not be made a sacrifical lamb to assure western access to Arab oil. Among all of the confrontational issues between the US and Europe, the close ties between Israel and the US has been among the most contentious disputes. Former Ambassador to the US Sir Chirstopher Meyer made it clear in his interview with BBC that there is no country nearly as close to the US as Israel. So much for Britain's imagined "special relationship."
As the world changes and big players like China and India emerge in the developing world, Europe's relative importance to the US has waned considerably. Chirac and Schroeder wanted the EU to enlarge under a single political unity to be powerful enough to confront the US and be taken seriously. This was not merely on issues of substance such as trade but on any and every issue where the possibility existed to diminish the US's relative advantage of power. The entire thing has backfired badly. The unity plan was very ill conceived and the confrontation over Iraq has not only revealed Europe as indifferent, even antagonistic to American self interests including its own physical security, whatever lingering expectations there were that there were any real interests except the war on terror of mutual coincidence have been dashed. There is a profound difference between why Europeans were originally opposed to the American led invasion of Iraq and why Americans are disillusioned now with it when they initially supported it overwhelming. The Europeans wanted to see America attacked, the Americans have merely grown tired of it and dissatisfied with the outcome. Were America's news media not so liberal, it would have been quick to point out that one reason why the results have been disappointing is that Europe failed to support the US and things might be very different there today if it had.
So where does that leave Europe? Hoping that Obama is the most Euro friendly of the candidates, that he will win the Presidency. IMO, it's a long shot but even if he does, I think from a European perspective American policy as it affects them will only change marginally on the periphery. Not only does the President not have the power a Prime Minister evidently has, his options and forces influencing his views, decisions, and actions have little to do with Europe, and are the same whomever the president turns out to be. Europe is receding in American eyes, not only in its ability to influence American actions but in whether it is even seriously listened to. And as a force which can veto American actions, I think that notion was put to rest a long time ago, certainly again in 2003 at the UN. Europe will continue to live in its own dangerously self-deluded world, nowhere more so than its relationship with the US.
Complain about this comment
Thanks Adrian, and I agree with all you say, bar the spelling of my name.
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
Marcuws,
so much verbiage to say so little.
Frankly I don't give a toss whether you think I'm an antisemite or not.
Complain about this comment
My own view of the world as a fallible, human being is not a static one. It's constantly changing - I hope, for the better. But I find myself embracing, with increasing conviction, this concept: that violent thoughts, words or deeds ultimately achieve nothing.
There are people of many nationalities who seek to persuade others that killing or dying - and you cannot have the one without the other - in the name of a cause is in some way something which we should seek. Often, such people are not themselves prepared to do the killing or dying personally, or to want their own children to do so. Are you reading this, George and Osama? Such people have failed to understand the wisdom inherent in this wonderful quotation:
"The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of the mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one." (Stekel)
Apologies for any gender bias, and also for misspelling your name, Ed - I wish that were the worst of my failings, believe me!
Gentlemen! Be gentle men!
Complain about this comment
Adrian Evitts;
"...violent thoughts, words, or deeds ultimately achieve nothing."
Oh really. How do you think the United States of America came into existance?
One of the lessons of the American Revolution is that human freedom is bought and paid for in blood. Its history is an object lesson that if free people are to remain free, they must be prepared to fight and possibly die to defend their freedom. New Hampshire's state slogan is "live free or die." The founding fathers knew if they lost the revolution, they would be executed, that is why they not only pledged "our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor" but they swore to "hang together or they would surely hang separately."
It's a lesson Europe never learned, one more major difference between their mentality and Americans'. I'm sorry to say it's also a lesson some Americans forgot or never learned.
We have a word for those who are not prepared to fight for anything, who can be pushed not only with their backs to the wall but through it without defending themselves, who are so unprincipled they can rationalize anything, any compromise to themselves, even refusing to fight to defend those they love most. We call them slaves. They invariably live lives of purposeless ignomy. Those of us who are not that way find them truely despicable, contemptable. Of all the epithets we have for people we no longer accept as socially allowable, coward is not among them.
Stekel was a fool. Dying to defend your own freedom is not a sign of immaturity, it is a recognition that living as a caged animal to be used by others is not a fit life for any human being.
Complain about this comment
Marcus,
"It's a lesson Europe never learned"
Seems to me European history was full of fighting. That's why my Great(n) Uncle George warned us Americans to beware of foreign entanglements...
Maybe Europeans learned that "Jaw jaw is better than War war" -- Churchill
Complain about this comment
(#90) MarcusAureliusII:
So tell me, was Muhammad Ali, one of the greatest boxers of all time, a coward for refusing to fight in Vietnam?
You are right if you seek to know whether I would have fought in WWII. I have thought about this much. It is clear to me that people had a very good idea in 1939 what Hitler had in store for Jews. It is not necessarily virtuous to allow others to put their lives at risk and nevertheless expect to enjoy the dividends of peace that follow a war in which great evil is defeated. For this reason, some conscientious objectors serve as medical personnel in war-zones, to demonstrate that their motive is not one of cowardice. In fact, to serve in a war-zone without personal recourse to arms can sometimes be a very brave - some would say extremely stupid - thing to do.
I also make the observation that a principal cause of WWII was WWI. Most commentators now think that, in WWI, no party to that conflict was more virtuous than any other. That's certainly what I think.
Contemplate Stenkel again, when you are less angry. And try this one:
"Dance like nobody's watching; love like you've never been hurt. Sing like nobody's listening; live like it's heaven on earth." (Mark Twain)
Was Mark Twain an idiot too?
My mind and heart struggle to comprehend the terrible evil inflicted upon the Jewish people. Yad Vashem helped me to begin to try. I recommend that everyone visit it.
I thus feel it my obligation to try to pose no threat to anyone. I understand your position. I hope you understand mine.
Complain about this comment
Adrian_Evitts
"It is clear to me that in 1939 people had a very good idea of what Hitler had in store for the Jews."
Did they have a good Idea in 1938 what he had in store for England? By then it was too late anyway, they were helpless before Germany's massive military machine the wermacht.
Churchill may have said "jaw jaw is better than war war" but he pled with Roosevelt to enter WWII in 1940 and 1941 to fight when it looked like Britain was about to be wiped off the map. I saw a recent program about FDR who was sympathetic to Britain only because he realized that if Britain fell to Germany America would have a far more difficult war against Germany, a war he knew was inevitable. Those in Britain who re-write history should take a long hard look at what the facts are. FDR had to break US law directly thwarting the will of Congress by inventing the ruse of Lend Lease to get material and arms to Britain just so it could survive long enough for America to enter the war to rescue it. And then when the US did, it had to be persuaded by Churchill not to put priority on fighting the Japanese who had attacked America but on fighting the Germans who hadn't. Europe still doesn't get it. I feel in the face of all of the perils Europe faces today, from Islamic terrorism, from Russia cutting off its supplies of oil and gas, from economic domination by China and India, the US should just walk away this time. Europe is no friend to America. Sycophants like Merckel and Sarkozy are ultimately no different from their predecessors Schroeder and Chiric, they are just more aware of the dangers and more frightened by them. The people of Europe haven't changed either, they will always be the same.
Ed Iglehart;
Europeans fought as slaves to tyrants. How many of them can claim an all volunteer military the way the US has today. They did not fight for their own freedom, they fought for the greed for power and money by their masters. Anyone who thinks Europe is even today democratic is deluding themselves. If European militaries had to depend on volunteers to fight their battles today, I don't think most of them would even have a military. They don't have much in the way of rights worth defending. Britain doesn't even have a written down constitution people can point to. The EU constitution was deliberately incomprehensible, 400 pages of mumbo jumbo legal jibberish. The Prime Minister can enter treaties with the EU to cede British sovereignty not only without a referendum but without even the consent of Parliament. This is not what I say about it, it is what BBC reported.
Even with a weak President like Obama, America is still the most dangerous force that ever was. Maybe even more so with 10,000 hydrogen bombs and a trigger happy guy with his finger on the button ready to bomb Pakistan. How nice that all impotent Europe can do is sit back and pray for the best. Just like always.
Complain about this comment
Marcus,
"they were helpless before Germany's massive military machine the wermacht. "
So that's why we lost - I always wondered.
Complain about this comment
Marcus,
"If European militaries had to depend on volunteers to fight their battles today, I don't think most of them would even have a military."
Again, your ignorance astounds! The British Army is all-volunteer. The Swiss have conscription, but I think most other European military services are volunteer. Do a little research.
Complain about this comment
Follow the money ... the United States made a lot of money out of WWII. Britain was rendered virtually bankrupt. It is a sad fact that even in the so-called "civilised" Western world, human life is traded as if a commodity.
Lots of money has been made by big business as a result of conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq, the majority of it American big business, and paid for by John Doe. America has a massive armaments industry which needs feeding, George has friends with golf club subscriptions to pay. Thousands of American lives? Hundreds of British lives? Hundreds of thousands of Afghani and Iraq lives? Which of these lives is more valuable? The latter matter so little to George, he hasn't even bothered to count them. What's the point? He has more than enough bad news than he can cope with.
"There are people who perish when their eyes are opened." (Stekel)
The best the President of the "greatest" nation on Earth could do was give up golf - and he even lied about that.
Friend, there's nothing noble about blowing a terrified child to pieces - even though you may have been aiming for a terrorist.
Say what you like friend. I've finished.
Complain about this comment
McChip appears briefly here - Loads of money!
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed
Complain about this comment
Ed Iglehart;
Yes that is why Britain lost three world wars. As for world war II, the Battle of Britain was a turkey shoot and the Brits were the turkeys. For people who pride themselves on history, you really should learn some. Get it out of a real history book, not a comic book. BTW, your troops got their heads handed to them in Burma and Malaya by the Japanese too. Against an actual armed foe, they were no match. Were it not for America rescuing Britain, the rest of Europe, the USSR, China, the rest of Southeast Asia, the legacy of Western Civilization would have disappeared. Again, you really don't know much history.
Adrian_Evitts;
Aparantly the only way the British Arms industry can compete against the Americans is to pay bribes to customers to buy their junk. Did you see on BBC today where two high officials of BAE were held at an American airport for questioning by American authorities from the Department of Justice for suspicion of using US banks to pay Saudi Princes illegal bribe money for those contracts? Bribes have been estimated at anywhere from 500 million to two billion dollars. It takes a big bribe to sell 44 billion dollars worth of overpriced second best merchandise to a government. Subpoenas have been served to many BAE employees in an ongoing investigation. The British government tried to stop its own investigation because it might damage British relations with Saudia Arabia but according to BBC, the British courts ruled that interfering with the investigation is illegal. Naturally that ruling is being appealed.
Complain about this comment
Go on MarcusAureliusII, own up, you're actually Donald Rumsfeld aren't you - masquerading in the blogosphere...
Complain about this comment
Ed Iglehart - Thank you for what I assume was your support in #97, and also the wonderful link to the global village Web site in#82.
Ronaine (#99) - Your comment made me laugh heartily.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." (Samuel Johnson)
Complain about this comment
ronaine;
If I was Donald Rumsfeld and had run the war in Iraq, Abu Gharib would have been a minor footnote hardly worth mentioning and GITMO would be overfilled to where we'd have had to build a hundred others. You don't win a war by playing to public opinion, you win by finding and destroying the enemy before he destroys you. As a chess player, the first thing you learn is that you don't win until you kill the king even if you have to kill off all of his other men to get to him and that you will have to suffer the loss of some of your own pieces. When you have overwhelming military superiority, you use it if you want to win. The reason Americans have not won a single war since WWII with the possible exception of Kosovo is that they are ruled by politicians and their armies are run by generals who do not have the killer instinct. In chess as in war, those are fatal attributes guarnateed to lose every time.
When freedom is not worth fighting and dying for, it will be lost forever. It happened with North Korea, it's happening right now with Iran and Syria.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII
You are fabulous! Thank you! It's like you are, in fact, Donald Rumsfeld's magnificant, laboratory Rambo creation!
Wonderful.
Complain about this comment
ronaine
You don't win wars by winning hearts and minds. You win wars by killing the enemy. End of story. Apparantly it's something they don't teach anymore in American military colleges. It's even worse when the Commander-in-Chief doen't know it.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS