World Politics

Yessss, as a Canadian, perhaps we got more of the "commonwealth" view, but I don't recall his PM days as being that stellar, in terms of the populace opinion. Especially, like you say, after he joined the US in their siege of Iraq after the rest of us pretty much told Bush to beat it. Had always meant to watch "The Queen" to see that particular take on him (plus I like Michael Sheen! :lol: )

i <3 michael sheen, he's fabulous. and welsh which is always a good thing :)

yep, we were one of very few countries to basically just follow blindly into the war. in a way i always felt more in tune with bush on this one - don't get me wrong, i'm no bush fan, but at least he genuinely seemed to believe in his reasons for going, whereas blair not only lied but knew damn well he was lying. although i think blind conviction in a cause is pretty stupid, i also think i'd rather be led by someone who has conviction than someone who strategises, schemes and lies for it. although, of course, it could easily be said that bush's people (especially cheney, who i'm reading about now and who is a scary figure!) were just as scheming and manipulative as blair, in fact probably worse.

WOW:wtf: lisa I didn't realize all of that. I really don't think we as Americans know the whole story about him.

tbh i'm not sure you as americans get the whole story about many things on a political level. that's NOT a criticism of americans, btw, not at all, you're a great nation - what it is a criticism of is your media. by comparison to european media it is heavily biased, easily influenced and very selective with its reporting. obviously over here we have news outlets that are just as bad (for instance the daily mail & daily express which are almost as hate fuelled as fox), but we have balances to it. we have the BBC which has a legal remit to be impartial (and most of the time it is, even though the likes of the mail/express reckon it's run by communists!), and that means we generally get both sides of any political coin. an example: the BBC is legally bound to give equal air time to all parties with a mandate - over here if you want your party to be legitimate come election time (ie if you want to be on the ballot), you have to be mandated by... someone (i'm not entirely sure who but some independent body) - part of it is about numbers of votes but they also have to deem that your manifesto is legal etc. so come election time we lucky viewers get treated to endless political promo broadcasts, which are very tedious and no one really likes them: but we can switch them off if we want, and i'd rather they were on, and with equal exposure, than subject to partiality.

this is why there was such a big fuss recently when the vile nick griffin (who is leader of the BNP who are ostensibly a nice fluffy right wing group but in reality racist NF thugs) was on question time (a big weekly show where politicians/media types are grilled by a random audience - it's a great great show and i think it is one of the most democratic things around, and i've been on it :D ) - a lot of people hate the BNP (and with good reason), so were saying it was totally wrong he should be given his 15 minutes and how dare the BBC allow him the platform to spout his vileness etc etc etc - but i thought it was good that they let him do it. after all, whether you agree with the decision to give the BNP a legitimate mandate (i don't!), they were given it, and thus they have as much right as any other party to the media, and as a legitimate party they fall under the BBC's partiality clause. the BBC had no choice at all. but you know what - THAT is what freedom of speech is about. letting any party, no matter how vile you find their views, get their moment so they can be questioned thoroughly - in the end the audience (verbally) ripped him to shreds, the other politicians, of all colours/stripes, united against him, and the whole nation got to see just how odious he and his views are, and ultimately it damaged his reputation far more than it helped it. the funniest thing was that he pushed really hard to be allowed on the show, then said it had conspired against him to damage his repuation - not true, he just talked such utter crap that people saw through him, and that's what freedom of speech is about: giving people whose views are badly thought through the rope to hang themselves through reasoned debate. if you really disagree with someone, argue with them properly, don't just shut them out, it just fuels their ideas and sense of martyrdom. by arguing with them on a rational level, the chances are they'll trip themselves up anyway. so that night was a proud one for british politics and basically a triumph for js mill :D

america is, on the surface, all about freedom of speech, but by having hugely partisan and partial media networks which are owned and funded entirely by private interests who, inevitably, influence output and the opinions given, i think freedom of speech is lost, because no one gets a full and frank debate. i've watched fox news and, honestly, to brits it's often seen as comedy - we just can't fathom that a channel calling itself "news" can be so vitriolic, shouty, biased, angry etc. i mean, sure, like i said, we have our one-sided and angry media but having something to counter that goes a long way towards most of us being able to grasp precisely that it IS one sided and angry. and fox isn't the only one, it seems to me all us news networks are pretty biased, at least compared to ours. we get sky news here, which, like fox, is owned by murdoch (ick) and that's far less impartial than the BBC but it is still, relative to fox, not too bad.

oh dear, sorry, i went off on one there - i guess my point is that as a brit (and partly as a politics student) i always find the US news system quite sad, and it makes me understand why so often in the press over here we read about american citizens making bizarre claims (like the one about obama being muslim/socialist/marxist, for instance - and believe me if obama is marxist then true marxists will be defecting sharpish and marx will be spinning in his grave, because obama is far, far from it!) - because if you don't have at least some impartial news output, how the hell are you ever going to get the whole truth? i confess i know i a lot of brits who go "oh, americans, they're so stupid, they think this that or the other" and i have to disagree, americans on the whole are no more or less stupid than we are, they just get propaganda instead of news and when that's all you have to rely on how are you supposed to form a genuine opinion?" - of course there are other outlets if you look for them (for instance the net, smaller channels, some newspapers/mags) but people don't tend to have the time (or the inclination) to look for it - if you get all your news input in an easy and passive format from the tv, why work harder and look elsewhere? again, that's not a criticism, it's just the way life works these days - i'd rather watch the tv news than have to read 3-4 papers to get a balanced view! it's not an "americans" thing, the same thing would happen here if our news media was structured in the same way, luckily we have the balance in place. but it's happening in italy now, i believe, where berlusconi (president) owns and controls the primary media outlet (and has, i believe, attempted to shut down media outlets that have been less than complimentary about him). most of europe/the world can see damn well that berlusconi is a philandering idiot, but in italy he's really popular - couldn't possibly because he's controlling the media output and painting himself in a favourable light, oh no.... honestly, to me it's the start of a very slippery slope to the likes of stalin & mao - ok, maybe there's less forced labour and genocide, but essentially this kind of "news" is propaganda, nothing more, nothing less.

once again i want to say this isn't an anti-americans (or for that matter anti-italians!) rant in the least, i love america, and americans, i just find it really sad when from what i can tell an entire nation of citizens gets duped and because business and government are so deep in each other's pockets, very little can be done to change it.

[/rant]

So, you really laid it on the line. A friend of mine met a Brit through Facebook, and is in touch with him on her laptop, and I one day was with her and told her to say HI to him, which she did he said "HI" back, so I go "ask him what he thinks of Tony Blair" she did, and her eyes widened and she goes he said "he had his head to far up Bush's arse":wtf:

yep, it's true. there were so many descriptions, cartoons etc at the time describing him as bush's poodle. i just came across this tho, which made me giggle:

a comment on a website said:
To believe thay Blair was Bush's poodle is an insult to poodles everywhere

So thank's for all the vivid, detailed descriptions of him, and what he's not done. So most can't stand him right? I read today he did cancel a book signing in London due to the protesters..again. Guess that's how most Americans feel about Bush.~

yeah he isn't popular, i think during his leadership there were some that still thought he was ok, even for a while after that - but the whole lying about the war and then lying *again* at the inquiry didn't help him at all and his popularity just plummeted. of course he's a narcissist so i'm sure as far as he's concerned all publicity is good.

ok, i'll stop ranting now :)
 
Here here! My constant lament to my cousin in Chicago (my "American" liaison, even though he's Canadian. ;) ) is that the N.A. media BLOWS. Here in Canada we have CBC at least, but I think we still fall a little short of the BBC's non-partisanship.

I truly long for the days when there will be true, objective reporting... but I fear that's as unlikely as Ann Coulter finding a heart. :p As you said, as long as the corporations/big business/investment bankers are running the show (and don't kid yourself, America, THEY ARE) you're never going to see a countrywide objective news media.
 
^ exactly, and no one can be expected to make an informed decision or have a rational opinion with only half the information. and as far as i can tell it's not just a lack of information (although there is that, i mean, the news channels certainly don't give both sides of most stories) but it's an overkill of opinion. "the news" is supposed to give viewers/listeners the facts about a story (which is what bbc news does for the most part) but something like fox news (to use them as an example again) doesn't do that - you get opinionated anchors not only giving the 'facts' but also telling viewers what to think of them. i just don't think that's right, i don't think news should be about what to think, it should be about letting people make up their own minds. and like you say the anchors are sponsored by big business interests so naturally those opinions are the ones you get.

obviously i'm not suggesting there should be no opinions at all on tv, or on news channels, but the bits that are opinion should be marketed as such. in the same way that in newspapers the opinion columns are clearly marked as op.ed. or similar, as opposed to just fact reporting. i think if news channels want to give opinions, which is fine, they should let you know which bits of the broadcast are news and which bits are their thoughts on the news!

oh and for the record - the bbc does have flaws, but i am soooooo glad we have it despite that. the impartiality is what makes it so important. sure other aspects of its tv output are rubbish, but the news really is great. oddly enough our other main channels (ITV and channels 4 & 5) are independent but their news broadcasts are also (relatively) impartial - including regional broadcasts. channel 4 news does veer slightly towards opinion but its anchors are very experienced and even handed so they still try to demonstrate both sides.
 
Last edited:
WOW again lisasimpson your very descriptive, and thank's for you input and the others too:bolian:

PHONE-HACKNG SCANDAL EXPANDS-A top official is implicated in the alleged efforts to illegally access voice-mail messages

London.. Scotland Yard said Tuesday that it expected to question a top aide to British Prime Minister David Cameron in a growing scandal over a tabloid newpaper's alleged efforts to hack the cell phones of celebrities, politicians and members of the monarchy. Andy Coulson, Cameron's communications director, stepped down as editor of the weekly News Of The World 3 years ago after one of the paper's reporters was convicted of illegally accessing voice-mail messages left for staff members of the royal houshold, including Prince William and Prince Henry. Coulson denies knowing that such hacking took place. But a report by The New York Times over the weekend quoted former journalists at the newspaper as saying the practice was widespread at the tabloid and that Coulson was fully aware of it. John Yates, assistant commissioner at Scotland Yard, told lawmakers Tuesday that police were seeking an interview with Sean Hoare, a former News Of The World reporter who was fired several years ago. Hoare has alleged that Coulson was present in meeting after meeting in which stories based on hacked cell phones were discussed. Coulson has said that he would be willing to meet with police. Cameron declared earlier this week that Coulson had his unqualified support. Police have been under pressure in recent days to reopen their investigation after The New York Times story accused Scotland Yard of failing to follow up furthur leads in the case of the News Of The World's royal affairs reporter who was convicted in 2007~

Henry Chu..Los Angeles Times~
 
^ as for that, well, i'm not sure anyone's really surprised. the papers in question (the sun and NOTW) are notoriously underhanded in their pursuit of news (and guess what? they're owned by rupert murdoch!), and this kind of thing's been suspected for a very long time.

i think the most awkward part of it is how prominent coulson is in the current government - it could get quite difficult for cameron if he keeps coulson around, but he's supporting him. the sad thing is coulson has claimed he had no knowledge of this stuff - he was editor for god's sake, how could he not? that's like saying blair had no knowledge of the lies in the WMD dossier, or hitler saying he had no idea what was going on at auschwitz - it's bulls*it. so cameron giving him support is quite worrying. why would a supposedly caring, sharing, honest and open prime minister want someone like that on their team?

i realise that in our nation we have such a thing as innocent until proven guilty, but the evidence against coulson and the papers really is quite overwhelming, these allegations have come up so many times, last time the paper was actually convicted, i think people find it very very hard to believe they only did it once, and there really can't be this much smoke without some fire.
 
Here's a chap we haven't heard from in a while...

Fidel Castro says Cuban economic model no longer works

September 08, 2010
Jeff Franks


HAVANA—Fidel Castro said Cuba’s economic model no longer works, a U.S.-based journalist reported Wednesday following interviews with the former president last week.
Jeffrey Goldberg, a writer for the Atlantic Monthly magazine, wrote in a blog that he asked Castro, 84, if Cuba’s model — Soviet-style communism — was still worth exporting to other countries and he replied, “The Cuban model doesn’t even work for us anymore.”
The comment appeared to reflect Castro’s agreement, which he also expressed in a column for Cuban media in April, with his younger brother President Raul Castro, who has initiated modest reforms to stimulate Cuba’s troubled economy.
Goldberg said Julia Sweig, a Cuba expert at the Council on Foreign Relations think tank in Washington who accompanied him to Havana, believed Castro’s words reflected an acknowledgment that “the state has too big a role in the economic life of the country.”
Such sentiment would help President Castro, who took over from his brother in 2008, against those members of the ruling Communist Party who oppose his attempts to loosen the state’s hand, Sweig told Goldberg.
Goldberg wrote in a blog on Tuesday that Castro summoned him to Havana to discuss his recent article about the likelihood of conflict between Israel and Iran, with possible U.S. involvement, over Iran’s growing nuclear capabilities.
He said Castro criticized Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for anti-Semitism and denying the Holocaust.
Castro, since emerging in July from four years of seclusion following intestinal surgery, has become an anti-nuclear weapon crusader expressing concern about the future of the world.
He fears that if the United States and Israel try to enforce international sanctions against Iran for its nuclear activities, nuclear war will break out.
Castro also criticized his own actions during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis when he urged the Soviet Union to launch nuclear weapons against the United States, telling Goldberg “it wasn’t worth it at all.”
During their visit, Goldberg and Sweig went with Castro, at his invitation, to see a dolphin show at Cuba’s National Aquarium in Havana.
They were accompanied by local Jewish leader Adela Dworin, who Castro kissed in front of the cameras in a possible message to Iranian leaders, Goldberg said in his Wednesday blog.
Goldberg described Castro as physically frail, but energetic and mentally acute.
 
hmm that's kind of a surprise. he always seemed so staunch in his belief in their system (and i'm a manics fan so i have a long experience of having to listen to him waffle on about it!).

i think he's onto something about iran though :(
 
Yes, it was surprising to me as well. Maybe his ensuing mortality has made him do a little personal re-evaluation? Either way, it's nice to see him changing up his mantra.
 
And that podunk Florida pastor has called off the Quran burning after a plea from the president. I'm not sure what we learned here, except further evidence of how the media can make a bad situation worse.

Oh, correction: He says he called it off because he claims Imam Musri has agreed to move his community centre from the proposed Ground Zero location. I hope that's not true.
 
Last edited:
Yes, it was surprising to me as well. Maybe his ensuing mortality has made him do a little personal re-evaluation? Either way, it's nice to see him changing up his mantra.

well, it's that, or he's realised that his little brother will be taking over very shortly (i know he already has but y'know, he won't be around anymore) and he has much more modern/progressive/different views. the old school communist advisers are up in arms, of course, but they're all of castro's era i think so they probably won't be around much longer anyway. maybe he just realised there's no way for that regime to cling on now. and i guess his bro will have an easier ride with his blessing.

And that podunk Florida pastor has called off the Quran burning after a plea from the president. I'm not sure what we learned here, except further evidence of how the media can make a bad situation worse.

oh yes. and, y'know, i'm as atheist as you can get (antitheist in fact) but even i say "thank god he called it off" - in my case it's a figure of speech but i think for a lot of people it has more depth and in this case that's fair enough.

Oh, correction: He says he called it off because he claims Imam Musri has agreed to move his community centre from the proposed Ground Zero location. I hope that's not true.

same. from what i can tell i think it's not true. he also mentioned in that interview (although quickly and quietly) something about an FBI visit, i think, so y'know, that might have greased the wheels somewhat!
 
It abominable that yet another lunatic would do such a vile thing. No one has the right ever to burn another's religious book. Crazy for sure. what would it prove.. nothing, just more chaos.. And there's "no deal" to move the Mosque to another location:rolleyes:So whoever talked this creep to not do this, praise him or them:bolian:
 
I was wondering.... today (11th of september) Geert Wilders (he's a controversial politician here in the netherlands because of his bold statement regarding the Islam) has spoken on Ground Zero in favor of those who are against an islambuilding planned to be build in the area of Ground Zero.

He has spoken on "persoonlijke titel" (he was not representing the netherlands with his point of view).

As I was saying... I was wondering if he made the news in usa? Is he known in the states?

In the meantime we still don't have a new government... right now there's a second (third) try for a rightcoloured government... a minority government which will be supported by the pvv (the party leaded by Geert Wilders)...

These are strange political days :rolleyes:
 
I was wondering.... today (11th of september) Geert Wilders (he's a controversial politician here in the netherlands because of his bold statement regarding the Islam) has spoken on Ground Zero in favor of those who are against an islambuilding planned to be build in the area of Ground Zero.

He has spoken on "persoonlijke titel" (he was not representing the netherlands with his point of view).

As I was saying... I was wondering if he made the news in usa? Is he known in the states?

In the meantime we still don't have a new government... right now there's a second (third) try for a rightcoloured government... a minority government which will be supported by the pvv (the party leaded by Geert Wilders)...

These are strange political days :rolleyes:


Add to that what Mona Salin said in Sweden .....I think we are heading for troubled waters in Europa.
 
Yes, we have heard of Geert, but I wasn't paying attention to the news that much this weekend, and didn't notice if his Ground Zero attendance made the papers- probably. There was recently an article somewhere (although it may have been Canadian news?) that was discussing this rising them in Europe... of all the places I would have figured to be more "left" leaning, European countries would have been my number one region. Apparently I was more than a little off base. Sarkozy, for example continues to amaze me.

I really don't know what's happening with the world- it's like we're regressing!
 
Back
Top