Whatsthatsmell?

Sorry it's been quiet...

Not felt like blogging of late.  Lots of stuff to observe and comment on, but no will...

I think it may have a lot to do with the fact that we are watching the end of the world as we know it, and I'm just getting my head around it (and building up my grab-and-go box, just in case.)

I think there are a few things that will affect me directly, and perhaps get exacerbated by the potential nationalisation of everything and the potential presidency of Obama.  Kind of scary.

For one, my anticipated return to the US may be put off for a while, as this whole mess sorts itself out.  It may take longer to get sorted if the wrong policies are pursued (such as a tax hike on "rich" people.)  This is a very real possibility; as one commentator pointed out, there are far-left Democrats in Congress who have been waiting decades for a like-minded POTUS to help them re-engineer America.  Even if Obama is a "moderate", which seems unlikely given his past associations and self-admitted dabblings in Marxism, he is not strong enough to stand up to the apparatchiks in his party.

I really hope I'm wrong, because this could potentially be very problematic, because they are not going to be Fabian in their approach, like almost all good idealogues who finally get their way, they are going to overplay their hand.  And I don't think the American people are the sorts to take things sitting down.  A recent survey, for instance, put American opposition to the redistribution of wealth at about 85%.  85% of the US population is to the right of the Democrat Party platform.  And a lot of them are armed.

And, outside of the government, there isn't going to be a lot of job creation in the US with a Reid-Pelosi-Obama leadership.

The Republicans were dip-sh**s when they were running Congress.  And now we are all going to pay.

 

 

And this economic thing...A lot of Europeans are patting themselves on the back because they avoided this nasty subprime business that's happened in the US.  But as we are seeing the beginning of the end to the problems in the US, we are seeing the end of the beginning for Europe.  Where do you think all that bad debt ended up?  European institutional investors have always preferred debt over equity as investment vehicles.  Those lovely subprime loans looked really tasty a couple of years ago.

Plus the European banks have their own sub-prime messes to muddle through in the Baltics and the Balkans.  The European banking system is teetering completely on the edge.

Why do you think they are dictating to Bush that the US has to come along?  So that when their own systems go tits-up, the US's will too.  Unlike Britain and the US, the European systems have already been nationalized or at least collectivized (as in Germany) to the extent that the banks and private industry are so intertwined that they cannot be considered separate sectors.

So I haven't been of cheery mien of late.  But as with everything, this too, shall soon pass.  But what will take its place?

Obamabots...

If his volunteers feel sufficiently empowered to do this, then imagine how empowered an executive branch populated by 3,000+ appointees would feel...

Folks, an Obama presidency is going to be more triumphalist than the 1997 Labour Party, they are not going to be gracious winners.

(H/T Kim du Toit)

Sent to the Newsnight Editorial staff...

I am writing regarding the Jerome Corsi interview the other night. 

I was extremely disappointed by the refutations of Corsi's assertions.  Your only source for the refutations seemed to be the Obama campaign's own poorly constructed 50-page tome which was economical (to say the least) with the truth in many places.

When that didn't seem to refute Corsi's assertions effectively, Ms. Wark reverted to ad hominem attacks on Corsi.  I am not a fan of Corsi's at all; in fact I understand him to be a conspiracy nut and an anti-Catholic bigot. 

However, there is a very good reason the mainstream American press is going nowhere near his book or the book by David Freddoso: they are afraid of what they will find under those rocks when they do something as simple as a Lexis-Nexis search on local Chicago newspapers -   something that anyone who claims the mantle of journalist should know how to do.  A secondary school teacher would have failed an expository essay which used only the candidate's word as a refutation.

If serious allegations of corruption were levelled against a British politician, I am certain that you would have done more research than taking the politician's word for it.  Your interview and treatment of Corsi betrayed nothing but shear partisanship and a lack of journalistic integrity in covering the American elections.  I've come to expect this from the rest of the "serious" British press (with the notable exception of the Times' editorial page), but for some reason, I was expecting more from Newsnight.

Obama is not an agent of change and, instead, comes from two of the most unpalatable persuasions of American political life: Chicago machine politics and '60s radical chic.  And a cursory inspection of those people with whom he associated on his rise would throw up some serious questions about his integrity, particularly when he claims to be a uniter.

I am warning you now, please do not be upset, like the rest of the press pack was in 2000 and 2004, when those rednecks in America vote for the "wrong" person in November.  There has been very little scrutiny of Obama, his past, and his record, and the next couple of weeks will throw up a lot of mud that will probably stick to him.

Regards,
James G-

That Obama Speech...

Watching the coverage of it here in the UK, I have a feeling that the British press is going to go through the same paroxysms of denial that it went through in 2000 and 2004 when it turns out those redneck ignoramuses in the US don't vote for Barry come November.

This one guy who isn't even the head of state, acts as the presumptive president-elect and promises the world everything in the most arrogant of tones (particularly to these redneck American ears).  If, for instance, Tony Blair, as elected head of government, made anywhere near as aspirational a speech as Obama's in front of any group, the British press would have been all over him like flies on you-know-what (and that would have been the journalists who liked Blair.)

Watching Kirsty on Newsnight last night attacking the McCain campaign for complaining about the press coverage of Obama.  She kept asking whether it showed weakness in McCain.  Not really...It's a fact.

Look, on the three major network newscasts over a one-month period, Obama got 114 minutes of coverage to McCain's 48 minutes of coverage.  All three network news anchors went on tour with Obama, something they would rarely do for an actual sitting president.  One guy from NBC even said, once, that his knees quaked when Obama spoke.

The media are, as they say, in the tank for Obama.  That is a fact.  And I think most Americans can see that.  And those who aren't already convinced to vote for Obama may not do so on the basis of this over-exposure.

Another interesting fact: Obama is raising more than twice as much money as McCain and burning through it even quicker.  With the sort of exposure the media is giving him and with all that extra cash, you'd think he'd get a lead in the polls greater than 5% by this point.

Did you notice, too, in his speech, he could not take his eyes off of his teleprompters.  The guy cannot do anything extemporaneously without sticking his foot in his mouth.  (Think George Bush has a communications problem?) 

He is in real trouble if there is ever an unscripted, unmoderated encounter with McCain, something McCain has been pushing for in a townhall setting.  Obama is damned either way.  If he meets McCain, he's going to look like an idiot, and if he doesn't meet McCain, he's going to look like a wuss.

Obama-lovers, especially you in the British press, be prepared to be disappointed, once again, by the American people.

Many people think it is more important to look after America's interests than it is to be loved by Yurpeeins.  And rightly so.

I Should Avoid "Thought for the Day"

on the Today programme on Radio 4.  Some C of E clergyman today began with the idea of how biofuels are an easy target as the scapegoat for the world's food problems, but that it is difficult to balance hunger against our need to tackle "climate change" and our energy needs.

It's not bloody difficult, matey...

You and your ilk made us take on these "climate change" policies on the basis that people could find themselves starving and there will be world anarchy in fifty years if we don't do something, anything!

Well, guess what, bucko?  It's happening now...

Because of your climate change policies.

Heck, even our lefty Chancellor sees there's a problem with biofuels...But no, because the EU will not give way, we must go with them.  (Did someone hear the word sovereignty in there?)

Who cares, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, can you?

Even More Solzhenitsyn

There’s plenty to blog about, but I don’t really have the discipline to do that on top of schoolwork, paid work, and life...So, here you go, a third helping of Solzhenitsyn from The Gulag Archipelago. And if you ever get a chance, I recommend you read it yourself.

A must read for anyone interested in morality and freedom.

A Fantastic Rant by

Roger Gardner of Radarsite:

...For at least two generations now we Americans have been taking it on the chin from ignorant, self-righteous student activists and disillusioned psuedo-intellectuals brought up on that pervasive academic witches brew of those Marxist-driven, Moscow coordinated sanctimonious and cynically manipulated student protest movements of the 60s. We -- and you -- are now living with the bitter fruits of their destructive labors. Cynicism and disillusionment have become a refined art form throughout Old Europe and the UK, the motley uniform of the latest anti-capitalist, anti-American, antiwar avant-garde...

Read the whole thing...(H/T A Western Heart)

I've had a few debates where I wish I could have displayed anywhere near the amount of erudition and coherence Roger expressed in his rant.

More Solzhenitsyn

In no exact order:

Quoting the head of the Cheka, Martin Latsis from the newspaper Red Terror, in 1918:

"We are not fighting against single individuals.  We are exterminating the bourgeoisie as a class.  It is not necessary during an interrogation to look for evidence proving that the accused opposed the Soviets by word or action.  The first question which you should ask him is what class does he belong to, what is his origin, his education and his profession.  These are the questions which will determine the fate of the accused.  Such is the sense and the essence of the red terror."

And I wonder how far away we are from this:

So, who really won the Cold War?

Particularly here in Great Britain:

How many citizens who were robbed knew that the police didn't even bother to look for the criminals, didn't even set a case in motion, so as not to spoil their record of completed cases - why should they sweat to catch a thief if he would be given only six months, and then be given three months off for good behaviour?  And anyway, it wasn't certain the bandits would even be tried when caught.

Finally, sentences were bound to be reduced, and of course for habitual criminals especially.  Watch out there now, witness in the courtroom!  They will all be back soon, and it'll be a knife in the back for anyone who gave testimony!

Therefore, if you see someone crawling through a window [...] shut your eyes! Walk by!  You didn't see anything!

Three guesses as to who wrote that. 

Peter Hitchens?  No.

Melanie Phillips?  No.

Theodore Dalrymple?  No.