I had written a piece but then it got deleted before I could publish so this will be a little rehashing of it.
"Kerry was the wrong man. About as charismatic as a rheumatoidal filing clerk."
I never supported Kerry, I just didn't support Bush. Kerry fucked up this election like no one else could. The Democrats fucked it up.
This was always an election for Kerry to lose rather than for Bush to win. Bush has his 48 million Christian evangelical idiots to vote for him but Kerry made so many mistakes it's hard to know where to begin.
"Bush was elected not on issues...Simply on gut fear."
Firstly, Kerry was the wrong man. About as charismatic as a rheumatoidal filing clerk.
Then you have all these targets he barely touched upon: The millions in lost jobs, the millions living on food handouts, the millions without healthcare, the deficit etc. He allowed Bush to hype his "war president" message. He allowed Bush to get away with consistent distortions of pretty much every issue.
"They accepted Bush (as did Kerry) declaring that the "American people know I have a plan" without stating what the damn plan IS."
Bush was elected not on issues, not on whether he's any good or not. Simply on gut fear. Fear of change, fear of terrorism and fear of the unknown. They accepted Bush (as did Kerry) declaring that the "American people know I have a plan" without stating what the damn plan is. Kerry failed to tell the voters who he was. He was insincere (pretending to be pro-gun, for instance) and just not a good match for the electorate.
Bush was perfect at speaking in general, simplistic, convicted terms. It didn't matter if he was right or wrong he knew what he thought. That was basically the only attraction to Americans.
He underused Edwards and they just weren't ruthless enough against the most ruthless election machine in history that Rove has constructed.
"He is free to select Supreme Court judges the average Brit would scarcely believe."
Kerry also massively fucked up in concentrating almost entirely on the swing states and leaving those that subsequently switched from Gore to Bush in this election to themselves. Bush, through his media friends and spinners, has bombarded the entire country with propaganda about terrorism and the like so much so that Kerry strongly underestimated how this had affected people's judgments across even formerly Democrat states. In a country so ignorant that 40% of people still think Iraq was behind 9/11, where virtually no one knows where Iraq is, where over a third of of under 25s think Italy, Japan and Germany were allies in WWII this propaganda sinks a lot deeper than it would in Britain.
Time and again, you speak to an average American and they'll spout the now stock oneliners Bush has dripped into their minds "with us or against us", "war on terror", "we are a beacon of freedom" and other complete myths.
So now Bush is free to run the country into the ground to bed the US into a virtually permanent and pointless state of war. He is free to select Supreme Court judges the average Brit would scarcely believe, and he is free to set up the nation for either a Jeb vs Clinton or Rice vs Clinton 2008 race. Or maybe we'll see some other race. But I see death, destruction, waste and further poverty for millions of Americans and the world.
If Bush is assassinated I wouldn't be surprised. After all, pretty much the only people on earth who do not wish him gone from the Whitehouse are the 60 million Americans who voted for him. Other than them basically the 6bn other people on the planet feel differently. Probably more enemies than any assassinated president ever had. Hope it doesn't happen, but then it's not up to me. I think it would be the worst outcome imaginable but, sadly, a far from impossible one. Given the unprecendented depth of hatred in certain parts of the world.
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
CBS News | Even Republicans Fear Bush | October 31, 2004�14:23:31
CBS News | Even Republicans Fear Bush | October 31, 2004�14:23:31
Every American should read this article. It may then have an effect on the election in my opinion.
Every American should read this article. It may then have an effect on the election in my opinion.
Monday, November 01, 2004
FAIR MEDIA ADVISORY: If Only They Had Invented the Internet
FAIR MEDIA ADVISORY: If Only They Had Invented the Internet
This is the sort of weakness many members of the media on both sides of the Atlantic. Both parties play the game, of course. That is, Kerry and Bush. Now journalists expect to be spinned to but why do they seem so naive as to barely question if they are being outright lied to?
Answers on a postcard please...
This is the sort of weakness many members of the media on both sides of the Atlantic. Both parties play the game, of course. That is, Kerry and Bush. Now journalists expect to be spinned to but why do they seem so naive as to barely question if they are being outright lied to?
Answers on a postcard please...
Sunday, October 31, 2004
What's going on?
I intend to embark on a bit of question asking and look back over recent history to figure out why the hell has world politics (with the notable exception of some European countries) swung so far to the right?
It would be a relatively simple matter to analyse if this was purely a US phenomenon in isolation but this is not the case. If you look at where Eastern Europe is going, where France is leaning and Italy plus Australia, New Zealand, Southern America and, one might even say, China you see a definite patter of right-wing governments claiming and keeping power.
I've got say here and now that I do not consider myself left-wing - as a non-party member of any group and a non-politician I have real problems with labels like this - I certainly can put my hand on my refried heart and say I am not right-wing. To me, the right-wing world view is profoundly illogical. It struggles consistently to balance the mutually exclusive notions of liberty and conformity. They wish for near perfect social conformity but also wish for individual freedom (small government) which is an impossible mix. And those "libertarian" right-wingers have an even more illogical world view which relies largely on some phantom innate trustworthiness on behalf of profit-making companies. The simple fact is that neither of these approaches is workable in the long-term or makes much sense.
I, on the other hand, don't subscribe to a philosophy as such. I merely start from an atheist standing start and work from there. The next step is to say individuals and any institutions should treat others in the same manner they would wish to be treated themselves. Any transgression of this should be disapproved of at best and outright prevented and criminalised at worst. This social framework is what, I believe, government is designed to form and maintain on behalf of the electorate. Is this such an unworkable platform to form a world view? I don't think so.
As government is an instrument of the people's will, this fact will inevitably affect a government's policies but, frankly, I would have thought that if there was a consensus on the above stated purpose of government in society then the policies favoured would only serve to further that aim. Let's apply what I am thinking to specific instances. In terms of sexuality, in my opinion government and everyone else should continue to treat every straight, gay, bi person as they would wish to be treated themselves. Being gay does not forfeit your right to this. So, government's role in this area is to ensure that every citizen respects this right. As transgressions of this right can affect employment and profoundly affect someone's quality of life there must be legislation that ensures that no one will be treated badly simply on the basis of their sexuality. This would be the same for all forms of discrimination on the grounds of an unchosen aspect of an individual's identity.
The right-wing mentality has it that we should dictate as little as possible to companies what they can and can't do yet individuals should be brow-beaten into living a 2.4 children nuclear family lifestyle as closely as possible. Individuals should be prevented from having sex at 16 if they're gay but not if they're straight. Huh? This is not the actions or policy of a government treating people like they would wish to be treated.
So onto this phenomenon which has crept up on us across the world. Now, of course, a large part of the blame has to be laid at the Socialists' doors. They have failed in many countries to run the nation properly. And this fact cannot be ducked. As I am not a socialist I think socialism, too, is lacking in logic in swathes of their thinking. Nationalising everything is not the panacea they claim, for one.
But in large part, the Right has risen of its own accord. It has, almost simultaneously, found a way of shaping the public's minds to their world view by, in many cases, hijacking truth and beating into such a pulp you only see small traces of it beneath the damage inflicted on it by spin and lies. For evidence of this, witness the credit for election wins by right-wing or right-leaning politicians being heaped upon their spin-masters. Karl Rove, Alastair Campbell, Lynton Crosby (Oz prime minister John Howard's Karl Rove) and the like are the real forces behind the rise of the right and the shaping of people's increasing tendency to spray right-wing deodorant over the stench of societies' problems.
As these people, by definition, have tentacles deep within the media machinery they can plant stories, influence vocabulary and the agenda of the press in such a way that the people simply don't realise their opinions are being changed. A fantastic example of this is the staggering number of US citizens (over a third) that still think Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for 9/11. That fact really says it all, as far as I'm concerned.
Another example of this is the increasing use of the phrase "tax relief" - a phrase the right always uses - which even anti-tax cut people find themselves being suckered into using. Now you don't need to tell me that that phrase has very significant connotations. You also have this interesting notion that rights are held to ransom with the prices being "responsibility". This is the phenomenon where politicians say "we aren't going to let you fully realise a basic right until you start taking some responsibility". If it is a right then "taking responsibility" in a related area should not be a pre-requisite for receiving this right. It is a right, not something earned from lawmakers if we're "good" people. What they are referring to is a privilege not a right.
Then again, the whole "war on terror" thing is completely and entirely a concoction of spin. It is an utter fantasy. When they could have approached 9/11 with an air that these are sad and desperate religious fanatics who are not a formal organisation nor a threat that can ever even dint western society, they decided to actually legitimise these idiots by giving them the "war" they so wanted. They are an fully fledged "enemy", rather than simply some nasty mosquitos to be swatted by the twin tools of the FBI and CIA. This is utter madness and far exceeds the real life situation. Thousands of per cent the number of those who have and will die from terrorism this decade die every year from violent crime and drunk driving in America alone. Are tens of billions spent on combating this? No.
And this is why so many people think there has to be another reason for this "war on terror". When you look, you see the neo-cons with their Straussian myth-making history (witness the non-existent threat from the Soviets hyped by them in the 70s to being an "evil empire") and you see the vested interests blanketing the pentagon and White House. Look at Dick Cheney's wife -a board member of Lockheed Martin from 1997 until 2001. Look at George Bush's dad, an employee of the Carlyle Group - a company heavily involved in the arms industry - until only about 6 months ago. This has never happened before, where so many conflicts of interest have been allowed without an outcry and barely any reporting. I haven't even mentioned Cheney's Halliburton connections - Halliburton apparently traded with Iraq during the sanctions period - http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/02.23D.Cheney.Circumvented.htm .
So what's going on? Of course, it's not like these countries have never been right-wing before. They have had conservative/Conservative governments and so on. But these have previously been of a notably different flavour. They have been somewhat less coated in a snooker-ball hard veneer of ideology that countenances no moderation. Even Thatcher had Hesletine, Clarke and Hurd in her cabinet. In Labour in the UK, the noted left-wingers have slowly left of their own accord as the government has gone on. Short, Meacher, Field, Robin Cook all left for numerous reasons. This cabinet is now full of Blairites with a sprinkling of Brownites.
Of course, I'm no expert in world politics but I know when I see a trend. In Italy, you have a very different political system and culture - and, of course, history - which has seen dictatorship and wild swings from virtual communism through to virtual fascism within a few years. Now we have a person who practically owns the nation's media and is the richest Italian in the country now also prime minister of the country. Despite this, due to the old footbrake of proportional representation, he has to share power with a ragbag of right-wing parties, each with some frightening and some moderate views. But Berlusconi's initial offering of a gay-hating, woman suppressing man as EU Justice Commissioner - where he must oversee human rights implementation - kinda shows where he's coming from. Yet he has been the most long-serving premier the country has seen since Mussolini. Italy went through a long neutered period of constantly changing prime ministers and deadlocked government which allowed the Mafia to thrive. Then years of ridding the country of such corruption (at least as far as Italy's concerned, it certainly wouldn't meet British standards of a corruption free system) has finally resulted in relatively stable government, though a far from blistering economy. Still, as the selling of the defence part of an Italian government-owned engineering company to Carlyle shows, there are real ties to the US administration which suggests why Berlusconi went into Iraq with them.
I'm afraid that I can't really go much further than to say that it does appear to be a mixture of interconnected interests, tactics and aims that have brought nations round to a right-wing angle but I must say I have not forgotten that Bush lost the popular vote and that there are still many millions of people in each country who have not been seduced. I can only hope that more people see through the right-wing folly and begin to throw them out. A good place to start, of course, would be Bush.
It would be a relatively simple matter to analyse if this was purely a US phenomenon in isolation but this is not the case. If you look at where Eastern Europe is going, where France is leaning and Italy plus Australia, New Zealand, Southern America and, one might even say, China you see a definite patter of right-wing governments claiming and keeping power.
I've got say here and now that I do not consider myself left-wing - as a non-party member of any group and a non-politician I have real problems with labels like this - I certainly can put my hand on my refried heart and say I am not right-wing. To me, the right-wing world view is profoundly illogical. It struggles consistently to balance the mutually exclusive notions of liberty and conformity. They wish for near perfect social conformity but also wish for individual freedom (small government) which is an impossible mix. And those "libertarian" right-wingers have an even more illogical world view which relies largely on some phantom innate trustworthiness on behalf of profit-making companies. The simple fact is that neither of these approaches is workable in the long-term or makes much sense.
I, on the other hand, don't subscribe to a philosophy as such. I merely start from an atheist standing start and work from there. The next step is to say individuals and any institutions should treat others in the same manner they would wish to be treated themselves. Any transgression of this should be disapproved of at best and outright prevented and criminalised at worst. This social framework is what, I believe, government is designed to form and maintain on behalf of the electorate. Is this such an unworkable platform to form a world view? I don't think so.
As government is an instrument of the people's will, this fact will inevitably affect a government's policies but, frankly, I would have thought that if there was a consensus on the above stated purpose of government in society then the policies favoured would only serve to further that aim. Let's apply what I am thinking to specific instances. In terms of sexuality, in my opinion government and everyone else should continue to treat every straight, gay, bi person as they would wish to be treated themselves. Being gay does not forfeit your right to this. So, government's role in this area is to ensure that every citizen respects this right. As transgressions of this right can affect employment and profoundly affect someone's quality of life there must be legislation that ensures that no one will be treated badly simply on the basis of their sexuality. This would be the same for all forms of discrimination on the grounds of an unchosen aspect of an individual's identity.
The right-wing mentality has it that we should dictate as little as possible to companies what they can and can't do yet individuals should be brow-beaten into living a 2.4 children nuclear family lifestyle as closely as possible. Individuals should be prevented from having sex at 16 if they're gay but not if they're straight. Huh? This is not the actions or policy of a government treating people like they would wish to be treated.
So onto this phenomenon which has crept up on us across the world. Now, of course, a large part of the blame has to be laid at the Socialists' doors. They have failed in many countries to run the nation properly. And this fact cannot be ducked. As I am not a socialist I think socialism, too, is lacking in logic in swathes of their thinking. Nationalising everything is not the panacea they claim, for one.
But in large part, the Right has risen of its own accord. It has, almost simultaneously, found a way of shaping the public's minds to their world view by, in many cases, hijacking truth and beating into such a pulp you only see small traces of it beneath the damage inflicted on it by spin and lies. For evidence of this, witness the credit for election wins by right-wing or right-leaning politicians being heaped upon their spin-masters. Karl Rove, Alastair Campbell, Lynton Crosby (Oz prime minister John Howard's Karl Rove) and the like are the real forces behind the rise of the right and the shaping of people's increasing tendency to spray right-wing deodorant over the stench of societies' problems.
As these people, by definition, have tentacles deep within the media machinery they can plant stories, influence vocabulary and the agenda of the press in such a way that the people simply don't realise their opinions are being changed. A fantastic example of this is the staggering number of US citizens (over a third) that still think Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for 9/11. That fact really says it all, as far as I'm concerned.
Another example of this is the increasing use of the phrase "tax relief" - a phrase the right always uses - which even anti-tax cut people find themselves being suckered into using. Now you don't need to tell me that that phrase has very significant connotations. You also have this interesting notion that rights are held to ransom with the prices being "responsibility". This is the phenomenon where politicians say "we aren't going to let you fully realise a basic right until you start taking some responsibility". If it is a right then "taking responsibility" in a related area should not be a pre-requisite for receiving this right. It is a right, not something earned from lawmakers if we're "good" people. What they are referring to is a privilege not a right.
Then again, the whole "war on terror" thing is completely and entirely a concoction of spin. It is an utter fantasy. When they could have approached 9/11 with an air that these are sad and desperate religious fanatics who are not a formal organisation nor a threat that can ever even dint western society, they decided to actually legitimise these idiots by giving them the "war" they so wanted. They are an fully fledged "enemy", rather than simply some nasty mosquitos to be swatted by the twin tools of the FBI and CIA. This is utter madness and far exceeds the real life situation. Thousands of per cent the number of those who have and will die from terrorism this decade die every year from violent crime and drunk driving in America alone. Are tens of billions spent on combating this? No.
And this is why so many people think there has to be another reason for this "war on terror". When you look, you see the neo-cons with their Straussian myth-making history (witness the non-existent threat from the Soviets hyped by them in the 70s to being an "evil empire") and you see the vested interests blanketing the pentagon and White House. Look at Dick Cheney's wife -a board member of Lockheed Martin from 1997 until 2001. Look at George Bush's dad, an employee of the Carlyle Group - a company heavily involved in the arms industry - until only about 6 months ago. This has never happened before, where so many conflicts of interest have been allowed without an outcry and barely any reporting. I haven't even mentioned Cheney's Halliburton connections - Halliburton apparently traded with Iraq during the sanctions period - http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/02.23D.Cheney.Circumvented.htm .
So what's going on? Of course, it's not like these countries have never been right-wing before. They have had conservative/Conservative governments and so on. But these have previously been of a notably different flavour. They have been somewhat less coated in a snooker-ball hard veneer of ideology that countenances no moderation. Even Thatcher had Hesletine, Clarke and Hurd in her cabinet. In Labour in the UK, the noted left-wingers have slowly left of their own accord as the government has gone on. Short, Meacher, Field, Robin Cook all left for numerous reasons. This cabinet is now full of Blairites with a sprinkling of Brownites.
Of course, I'm no expert in world politics but I know when I see a trend. In Italy, you have a very different political system and culture - and, of course, history - which has seen dictatorship and wild swings from virtual communism through to virtual fascism within a few years. Now we have a person who practically owns the nation's media and is the richest Italian in the country now also prime minister of the country. Despite this, due to the old footbrake of proportional representation, he has to share power with a ragbag of right-wing parties, each with some frightening and some moderate views. But Berlusconi's initial offering of a gay-hating, woman suppressing man as EU Justice Commissioner - where he must oversee human rights implementation - kinda shows where he's coming from. Yet he has been the most long-serving premier the country has seen since Mussolini. Italy went through a long neutered period of constantly changing prime ministers and deadlocked government which allowed the Mafia to thrive. Then years of ridding the country of such corruption (at least as far as Italy's concerned, it certainly wouldn't meet British standards of a corruption free system) has finally resulted in relatively stable government, though a far from blistering economy. Still, as the selling of the defence part of an Italian government-owned engineering company to Carlyle shows, there are real ties to the US administration which suggests why Berlusconi went into Iraq with them.
I'm afraid that I can't really go much further than to say that it does appear to be a mixture of interconnected interests, tactics and aims that have brought nations round to a right-wing angle but I must say I have not forgotten that Bush lost the popular vote and that there are still many millions of people in each country who have not been seduced. I can only hope that more people see through the right-wing folly and begin to throw them out. A good place to start, of course, would be Bush.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)