|
|
|
Actually, Dermot, I've liked the way Obamugabe is so careless (or unaware?) of the "special relationship." I was tickled by Mrs Obamugabe's "familiarity" with Lizzie Two. I may criticize the Obamugabes' politics but they are thoroughly modern Americans. The "special relationship" with Air Strip One has been a noose around our necks for far too long.
|
|
|
|
I don't disagree with you Pat, in most ways. Part of my calling for Britain to ( as Freedland puts it) " Bring home the revolution" would inevitably involve having a stronger backbone, a greater confidence and independence. Most definitely from Europe but also from the notion of a " special relationship". There's no need at all for any fawning nor any ( even if only perceived) subservience...whether to Europe or America. Europe, though, is a completely different as it's so anti-democratic. For all its many faults and the, perhaps inevitable, distance from its ideal, the root of the American system can pretty much be summed up in the phrase " We the people". The root of the EU can be accurately summed up in " We the Euro elite and bureaucracy". Cohn Bendit sums up the basic anti-democratic instinct ( though he's not a lone example by any means) when in 2003 he proposed the suggestion that if a nation State voted NO to whatever shite the elite had already on its agenda then it it should be forced to vote again. Then if it voted NO again it should be thrown out of the EU. Others skip the " thrown out" bit but just prefer a " keep re-voting till you scumbag " citizens" vote the required YES." It's just that I think Britain has a far closer link to America ( philosophically, politically etc) than it does to Europe and most damn definitely than it does to any in the Islamic world. The only objection I have to Obama’s snubs ( and they do seem to be conscious and calculated) ….the Churchill pic, this Bermuda thing etc ….is how much alternative “ respect” he’s directing to the Islamic world. Without such fawning by him to lesser reliable and less loyal allies it’d be a different matter but, as it is, thus far at least, I think it stinks. He’s trying to be too clever by half. In the personal dimensions, though, yep, I’d go along with the thoroughly modern American thing. That’s fine. Michelle Obama seems to have hit it off with both the Queen and the PM’s wife Sarah. It’s obviously reciprocal too, with the Queen seemingly loosening and lightening up in her old age. She was reported to have said to Michelle, after the their first get-to-together, “ Now that we’ve met, please do keep in touch” and apparently they seem to be corresponding on a fairly regular basis at the moment by letter, along with showing the kids round the Palace and palace gardens etc the other day. As for Sarah Brown ---well everyone seems to like her …and she does seem to be an all round down to earth and decent sort. So she’s a big success on twitter, top celebs like her and she and Michelle are big buddies. I sometimes think it weird that she’s also married to Gordo, haha, but obviously that’s really none of my business. If they’re a good match, so be it. Also, I did feel sorry for the Brown’s when they lost their first born child Jennifer. Also, I think one of their little sons --Fraser, I think …was diagnosed with Cystic Fibrosis. Plus it was good to see that the Obama kids seem to get on with Brown’s younger sons and were complimentary of the boys little veg garden in Downing Street haha. So, yeah, …there’s the personal and political…usually two different things altogether. http://tinyurl.com/m85x3c
Modified by Dermot at Mon, Jun 15, 2009, 08:19:25
|
|
|
|
Dermot, I was being more polemical than serious.
I haven't been to Britain in decades but, from here, it sometimes seems that "We the Euro elite and bureaucracy" now also applies to Britain.
|
|
|
|
it sometimes seems that "We the Euro elite and bureaucracy" now also applies to Britain.
Probably right, Pat. That's why Britain needs an urgent and radical shake-up. Some reckon that around 75% of the legislation applying to the UK is now cooked up in Brussels. Madness.
|
|
|
|
It's also somewhat emblematic, I suppose, that they chose the most thoroughly invaded and trampled nation on the continent for their capital city. (It's also the most ethnically and religiously bigoted European nation by a pretty big margin.)
About Obama and the media lovefest, there's a kind of feedback loop that's currently amplifying the "grovel factor" but it could go south quickly. If Obama's popularity ever takes a really serious dip then the media will be in the position of having fastened their futures to the Titanic, and may abandon ship pretty quickly. I'm not sure exactly where this theshold lies, but the bigger the bubble the more fragile the surface skin holding it intact. Gingrich seems totally convinced that Republicans could end up with something close to a 2/3rds voting majority, winning not only all the red states, but nearly all the blue ones as well.
|
|
|
|
It's also somewhat emblematic, I suppose, that they chose the most thoroughly invaded and trampled nation on the continent for their capital city. (It's also the most ethnically and religiously bigoted European nation by a pretty big margin.) You really have a soft spot for Belgium, don't ya.  On the bright side there's ......hmmm, let's think ....chocolate! Also, " French" fries are Belgian not French, haha. Gingrich seems totally convinced that Republicans could end up with something close to a 2/3rds voting majority, winning not only all the red states, but nearly all the blue ones as well. Well, you can’t criticise him for lacking confidence at this early stage but it's more likely too early to call. I think it all depends. As I see it, there are two main determinants. The individual (s) and events. An individual has a massive influence in steering the course of history….whether Chamberlainesque or Churchillian to use one of the most obvious but by no means only example. That’s one thing. The other is what actually happens above and beyond any individual's control ---and I know I keep mentioning Macmillan’s “ Events, dear boy, events” but it’s not as simplistic as it actually sounds. A powerful individual can help mould events just as a weak individual can be tossed and turned by events but neither the powerful or weak individual can totally control them. They are both at the mercy of events and to the mercy of good and bad luck. I think this will apply to Obama especially so. The current situation in Iran is a case in point. Now many will say that it’s wise for him and his admin to stay out of the current electoral crisis over there, 100%, which is what he intends to do most likely. The argument being that if he asserts American values or is seen to back a particular candidate then it can only backfire because , ultimately, they have to deal with Iran, plain and simple, regardless of how things turns out. Now I’m not saying there’s nothing in that because there is. It has a certain pragmatism about it. On the other hand, Obama and his admin are laying out the path they intend to follow. No longer are they prepared ( or hardly even dare) to speak up for legitimate forces of change or to defend obvious victims of injustice within Iran or anywhere else. It’s “ neutral” all the way now it seems. So tonight some expert close to the Obama admin today was on Newsnight earlier. He’d spoken to John Kerry earlier today and also said that though he couldn’t actually speak for Obama he’s pretty sure that’s how he/ they intend to approach it. So when being interviewed he daren’t say anything. He was a waste of space. Obviously, it’s not a black/white matter. Maybe at this stage it is WISE to never actually stick up for any fundamental values for fear of being portrayed as George Bush or maybe it isn’t. Whatever it is or isn’t, it’s clearly a policy of abandoning to fate the forces of positive change ( even if only slight change) in Iran and elsewhere. To the Arab and Muslim world, though, he even went in a completely other, and I’d say hideous, direction in terms of standing up for any victims of Islamic nations. Whether those victims are in Saudi Arabia, Egypt or wherever. His one exception is Afghanistan because that’s what he finds himself lumbered with. So instead of speaking the truth about much of Islam as it actually manifests itself in today’s world, he’s actually lied in order to buddy up to the loathsome status quo. So all those looking for strength and encouragement within the Muslim world ….from apostates, non-Muslim minorities, gays, women etc, etc, are pretty much thrown to the wolves and on their own. Still, though, I think “ events” will be the great decider re Obama. So far I see him on par with, or worse than, Carter in smooching up to fundamentally anti-Western forces. We’ll have to see how it turns out. I saw a quote from Kennedy in some article somewhere or other. The famous quote : “ We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans - born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage - and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
This much we pledge - and more. “ IMO, at the moment, Obama is incapable of saying anything like that and to me, that’s shameful. He IS willing, as far as I can see, to witness and permit the slow undoing of those human rights. It wouldn’t surprise me if he starts working with the Organisation Of Islamic countries ( OIC) , via the UN, so that the lies about the Islamic Ummah can be perpetuated and free ( and honest) speech even criminalized. Maybe he’ll change and rise to the level of those words spoken by Kennedy. More likely he'll stay at the level of Kerry and Carter, though. Time will tell.
Modified by Dermot at Mon, Jun 15, 2009, 19:13:02
|
|
|
|
The Belgian trappist monks make some excellent dark beer.
They had some bozo on Charlie Rose tonight from the New America Foundation (the name may look neocon, but it's not) named Flynt Leverett. He spouted some sort of nonsense about a poll conducted in May that showed Ahmedinnerjacket ahead, so allowed as how the final vote was closer than this poll would have predicted. Well the first objection to that claptrap was the observation that about 80% of the public wants a positive relationship with the US, western reforms, etc.. Pretty hard to square those sentiments with a 2/3rds majority for Ahmedidn'tjackoff. Then another observer showed that the May poll was way before the election season, so no one even knew who the opposition was at that time. No name recognition, and the only media he got was bad. There had been a massive shift toward the opposition candidate in the last couple of weeks, which is why millions of people are in the streets.
And this time it's not just the naive do-gooders, but the coalition includes some pretty cagey old politicians, like Rafsanjani. The consensus on the Rose show was that this wasn't just going to blow over like demonstrations in the past. This one is going to produce results, because if it doesn't there'll be a bloodbath.
I don't think Obama counted on any of this. He likes to be regarded in the same breath as Lincoln, as long as he doesn't have to carry a comparable load.
|
|
|
|
Hi Dermot,
Obama did make a statement on Iran yesterday and he parsed his words quite well, I thought. He didn't say too much or to little. Juan: Gingrich seems totally
convinced that Republicans could end up with something close to a
2/3rds voting majority, winning not only all the red states, but nearly
all the blue ones as well. You: Well, you can’t criticise him for lacking confidence at this early stage but it's more likely too early to call. I think it all depends. As I see it, there are two main determinants. The individual (s) and events. Newt is a very educated and smart man but he's his own worst enemy. He doesn't have a rat's chance in hell of ever getting elected again. Not now, not ever. He had his chance as a the Speaker of the House in Congress and he really blew it with his "Republican revolution" and "Contract With America." Well, it wasn't a contract with me. Newt has a rocky past and the biggest issues would be 1) his very strange Contract with America; 2) He treats his women like shit and he's been married three times. His first wife was sick in the hospital after cancer surgery when he went into her room with a yellow pad listing how their divorce settlement was going to go. She had to get donations from her church to help her survive because he would only give her $400.00 a month in alimony. So he's a prick that way. People don't like men who are pricks to their wives; and 3) Newt has a very bad temperment and can't keep his big mouth shut. He really blundered when he shut down the government over a budget dispute with Bill Clinton. Why? Because he was pissed off at Bill Clinton for making him and Bob Dole sit in the back of Air Force One when they returned from Yitzhak Rabin's funeral. He doesn't have the right stuff to be president or even vice president, even for a Republican. Plus, the Republicans don't know which end is up or down right now. They have no real leader and Newt is trying to fill that temporary gap right now.
Did I mention I was very happy when he finally resigned from his post as Speaker of the House? That was a good day for America.
Modified by Cynthia at Tue, Jun 16, 2009, 11:13:24
|
|
|
|
Hi Cynthia...yeah, I listened to Obama's statement very carefully. I mean, anyone of us could have said the very same thing and knocked it up for broadcast in a couple of minutes---that's the easy part. Underlying things, though, is still the big shift he's making. Like he said in his election campaign, he's prepared to talk without pre-conditions whereas others aren't. There are obviously two ways of looking at it, I grant that, that's why I said there's a certain pragmatism attached to it. The test comes later on down the line....can he be as clear as Kennedy is my point or will he willingly sacrifice those that the West should naturally back, for the sake of a peaceful life and good ratings /image with forces that are fundamentally anti-Western ? Not that's it's easy for the man, I grant that too. I think, though, he could find himself at the end of a cul-de-sac one day if lady luck isn't favourable and events spiral. Not just in terms of the Iranian situation but across the foreign policy board. Hard to call with complete certainty. The British Foreign Secretary pretty much echoed what Obama said, as per usual. Funnily enough, I'm not sure if you're aware of it but within the Iranian establishment ---and at levels deep in Iranian society ....there's a feeling that Britain and the British are (still ....years after Empire) at the root of all the evil and bad luck that ever befalls Iran, haha. In many respects more so than America and Americans. It's absurd but deep rooted. So I'm not blind to the logic ( and pragmatism) behind an American ( and British) reluctance to say too much at this stage. It would be leapt on by the Iranians ( but especially Ahmadinejad's wing) and be used for diabolical propaganda purposes. But as it says in Britain’s online newspaper, the Daily Mash ( haha ...actually the mash is a spoof ....a satire ....so I'm joking here ) but anyway it says : >>>>>>>>> Which of these Iranian chaps wants to kill me? Asks Britain. " Iranian politics is incredibly complicated, but the short answer is, they both do," says expert " >>>>>>>>
As for Gingrich ...yep, I'm aware of the history. I don't think he was specifically talking of himself, though, but the Republicans generally. A two thirds majority for them does seem a big shift, mind. Things will have to turn dramatically resulting from some almost cataclysmic failure of Obama, perhaps, for that to happen. Not that that isn’t inconceivable. I'd think, though, that it'd be easier to gauge and judge Obama definitively in a couple of years or so but more likely his third or final year.
Modified by Dermot at Tue, Jun 16, 2009, 11:59:38
|
|
|
|
Newt is a very educated and smart man but he's his own worst enemy. He doesn't have a rat's chance in hell of ever getting elected again. Not now, not ever. Even when Newt was in congress his main interest was as a power broker and polemicist, and I don't think that's changed. He's not necessarily even interested in being elected. Might not be part of his business model. There are people whose primary interest is influence rather than direct power. Being in direct power can be a nuisance. I got a kick out of you list of Newt grievances, though. For instance the assumption that his "contract with America" was a bad political move, when in fact it's what enabled him to control the early '90s elections. The problem is that the Republican congress didn't keep the contract, not so much that it was "strange." In fact, it was only strange to those who think Lockeanism is strange, and they're not a majority of Americans, and never were. (Not even during the 1930s.)
|
|
|
|
The problem is that the Republican congress didn't keep the contract,
not so much that it was "strange." In fact, it was only strange to
those who think Lockeanism is strange, and they're not a majority of
Americans, and never were. (Not even during the 1930s.)
Well yes, of course. But I wasn't saying that Newt wasn't successful enough to use Contract with America to gain more power. He was successful and he also failed enough to have to resign. I just can't stand the guy. I know people have raved about his brains, but he's never come off to me as having superior intelligence.
Modified by Cynthia at Tue, Jun 16, 2009, 14:24:40
|
|
|
|
I haven't been to Britain in decades ... I picked up a book today in the library to read at leisure: A field guide to the British by Sarah Lyall. She's an American NYT correspondent who's been here the last 13 years ( married to an English guy so her two daughters have been brought up here). Flicking through it, it looks quite humorous but seems a bit limited. I may be choc-a-bloc full of Irish blood and family but I was born and bred here and there's no question that I'm English too...unavoidably, ho hum. Though, really, I'm happy to have both Irish blood flowing through my veins along with English something or other. However, I'd like to read the book I link to ie Watching the English by Oxford social anthropologist, Kate Fox. She's English. Here are two reviews of Fox's book ... one from an American and one from an Israeli : ................................................................... As an American social scientist who has an English partner and has visited the UK multiple times, I found this book engrossing for many reasons. Kate Fox does the miraculous: she makes fascinating reading out of chapters on tea, queue-jumping, arrangements of knick-knacks, incessant talking about the weather, and myriad other English characteristics that so charm, frustrate, and baffle we non-English of the world. Moreover, her writing is hilarious - she has a droll, tongue-in-cheek, utterly English sense of humor that had me laughing through every chapter.
The book is incredibly useful, too. I read it after my English partner recommended it to me, saying he had never read anything that captured the English so well. The insights in the book clarified several things to me and greatly reduced the quantity of cultural faux pas on my part. It also gave my partner a great deal of insight into his own personality as well as his interactions with Americans. Plus, it led to many, many fascinating discussions between us about (among other things) the markers of class and attitudes about it, the nature (and point) of politeness, and how it is that societies can make us who we are.
The only shortcoming of the book is that I still don't understand Vegemite, but I think that may just be beyond comprehension. ....................................... Kate Fox observes and analyzes the English. She comes up with a list of characteristics which describe their behavior. The first and primary one is social dis-ease. By this she means 'all our chronic inhibitions and handicaps." It is discomfort and awkwardness in the whole realm of social interaction. "Embarassment, insularity, awkwardness, perverse obliqueness, emotional constipation, fear of intimacy and general inability to engage in a normal and straightforward fashion with other human beings."
She sees the famous English ' reserve' and its opposite 'English hooliganism' as signs of the same basic disorder.
To this dis- ease she says the English reflexively respond. The first response is with Humor. English understated and ironic often self- deprecatory humor is the great reflexive action to awkwardness. The English play it and themselves down.
Another reflexive action is ' moderation' or ' the avoidance of extremes of any kind'." Our moderate industriousness and moderate hedonism" and "our ambivelence,apathy, woolliness, middlingness, fenc- sitting etc."She says the English do everything in moderation except being moderate.
A third reflex is 'hypocrisy'But she sees this not as a negative but as expression of the English desire to be fair, and not insulting. And she shows how English speech is filled with phrases 'sorrys ' of various kinds which aim at not intruding and hurting.
Other basic English characteristics are what she calls ' empiricism' that is a preference for the concrete, the sensually realistic , rather than for wooly theorizing. And along with this there is the English 'eeyorness' by which she means ineffectual complaining, 'moaning' non- stop in a not - very serious way. This relates too to a typical English pessimism, or skepticism. She also speaks about how strongly class- conscious the English are in their speech and manner. And how for them the values of fair play, courtesy and modesty are central.
I must admit that her analysis taught me quite a bit about the English. I recently had to spend a month in England in not very pleasant circumstances in a hospital. I found the great share of the people there extremely polite and considerate. I was however a bit puzzled by their capacity at preserving a distance, and their clear avoidance of any kinds of strong emotional expression. For instance I wanted to thank one nurse who had been especially kind to my wife and myself. But I saw that any 'emotional thanks' was out of place, and that she took the manner in a much lighter way.
Again I learned by this book , but it is not seem to me the whole story.
One of the things which most strikes me about the English does not necessarily have to do with their way of acting in everyday life situations now. Shakespeare is English and so is Wordsworth, and so is Newton and Faraday and Darwin. And the list of very great English is very long indeed. And in my own field of Literature certainly the English have created one of the great literatures of mankind.
So my question is not simply how the English manage in everyday life, and how their character is expressed there. As I see it the English are of Mankind 's ' great peoples' ' great creator peoples'.
Now in England I had the feeling that the society as a whole has a very high level of competence, and technical skill. That's one thing, and England's tremendous place in the Scientific and Technological Revolutions of the past five centuries is clear. But how does this relate to the soul of a Wordsworth or a Milton or so many others, the English genius.
But perhaps I am unfairly asking that the author have written a book different from the excellent and informative one that she did write. ................................ http://tinyurl.com/mkl8du
Modified by Dermot at Mon, Jun 15, 2009, 19:26:25
|
|
|
|
"The only shortcoming of the book is that I still don't understand Vegemite."
I thought Vegemite is Australian. I almost prefer it to Marmite (less salty) but we can't get it here anymore because it doesn't pass the FDA tests. I love my Marmite on toast for breakfast with a strong cup of tea but have not yet succeeded in getting any Americans to like it - except for Chuck but he's been exposed to it by me for 27 years and he won't eat it without cottage cheese.
|
|
|
|
I thought Vegemite is Australian. I almost prefer it to Marmite (less salty) but we can't get it here anymore because it doesn't pass the FDA tests. I love my Marmite on toast for breakfast with a strong cup of tea but have not yet succeeded in getting any Americans to like it - except for Chuck but he's been exposed to it by me for 27 years and he won't eat it without cottage cheese. Haha...Yeah, Marmite ( British) was the original and Vegemite is OZ. Apparently Kiwi's make a slightly different version of Marmite these days. Both M and V are widely available here ---Indeed I get both depending on whim--- though Vegemite used to be owned by Kraft ( American) and probably still is. On the other hand, I wouldn't rule out both M and V being under Chinese ownership now. Funny you mention a strong cup of tea. On the back of the first book I mentioned...by the American, Sarah Lydall...is a little quote: " No matter what happens, the correct course of action is to make a cup of tea" haha. Having said all of that, I must put it all in the right perpsective by quoting another little quote on the back of the book: " Each statement must be accompanied by circumlocutions, disclaimers, apologies and unneccessarily qualified verbs"
Modified by Dermot at Tue, Jun 16, 2009, 04:13:34
|
|
|
|
It's also hard to get Americans to drink real tea: strong with milk and sugar. They drink it without milk either hot or iced. Ugh! And never ask for tea in a restaurant. You'll get a cup with a tea bag steeped in tepid water.
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I know. How can you possibly have tea without milk? However, for quite a while now I've given up buying sugar and though I know you'll find it barely comprehensible tea without sugar is a very quickly acquired taste. Very satisfying actually. On the other hand, if I'm out about and some one offers me sugar in my tea I'll quite naturally say " Yeah, go on then ...just a little bit" A " little bit" obviously meaning more than a little bit. So I enjoy it with or without. Actually, I love my cuppa. In fact I'm probably an addict. I like coffee but very rarely drink it. Though people associate tea a lot with England. A good cup of "tae" is just as much as Irish as it's English. Probably the same applies to Scotland and Wales, too, ---I'm pretty sure it does ....so really it's a very British thing. And beyond I guess.
|
|
|
|
When I was in Australia we got something called "Promite" as provisions for a drive up the coast highway, which is, I think, just another brand of Vegemite. (Vegemite is a Kraft Foods product, like Cheez Whiz, though not sold in the US.) I made some sandwiches with the stuff that were close to inedible. I just slathered it on like peanut butter and then stuck in some sliced onions. Took a couple of hours for my eyes to uncross.
|
|
|
|
The son of a mate of mine used to have a thing about marmite just on its own when he was a kid ( and marmite is saltier and tangier than vegemite) and he used to have teaspoonfuls of it. Unbelievable. Probably not healthy, I'm sure, but you couldn't keep him away from the stuff. As I say, I like both but find I can spread on more V than I can M. Not too much, not too little, is the way to do it.
|
|
|
