A short editorial from an Oxford student newspaper to brighten your day.
George Galloway may think he can swan around Parliament making inflammatory accusations, imitate a cat on Big Brother, and hobnob with Saddam Hussein, but let it henceforth be known that Mr. Gorgeous cannot march into the Oxford Union, a bastion of free speech and debate, and insult the very people who have gathered to hear his intemperate views. There are limits to what we can accept, and a ranting dwarf happens to be outside those parameters.
We can accept, barely, his recent desperate cries for publicity on Big Brother. When he walks into the Union and transforms the chamber into a circus, this too we can eventually come to terms with. Verbally assaulting a female student when she attempted to engage him about his foolish remarks following the debate is completely unacceptable however, and begs the question: wheres the Respect? The time of George Galloway has passed.
Accusing Oxford students of being posh and emerging from Elysian upbringings is not particularly clever or provocative. Not only is it tired, cheap, and not particularly accurate or perceptive, it is also profoundly boring. We deserve more from our speakers than worn out rhetoric. The incoherent rudeness that he indulged in at the Union bears little relation to the persona he had previously cultivated as that of a debonair wordsmith.
Gone are his convoluted verbal gymnastics; in its place is an reliance on the word fuck to make his point. The crazed prophet is no longer crazed, and no longer a prophet: sleazy and sad now seem apropos.
#2
i read this as students weren't bothered by gallaway till he came and mouthed off on the students 'turf' but hey at least thier catching on to the likes og gallaway.
Posted by: Shep UK ||
11/04/2006 4:49 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I suspect that the bright editor of this Oxford paper will soon be out of a job.
Galloway is a protected species of the left. The editor's common sense and courage simply can not go unpunished.
#4
Entirely too many Brits prize him as one of their amusing eccentrics, like Red Ken Livingston, who was so described by an English friend of mine who lives in Surrey. She did agree that as a Jew myself, I might possibly not appreciate him properly.
#5
She did agree that as a Jew myself, I might possibly not appreciate him properly.
yes, but how does that explain that as a Christian, I don't properly appreciate him either? Hmmm... maybe it's because we are Americans??? Or maybe it's because we are actually human and don't find supporting those who embrace genocide, beheadings, crashing planes into skyscrapers/government buildings, or bombing pizzarias and discos as "amusing".
#5
HOWIE DEAN has already said or inferred there will be little to no change to POTUS Dubya's policies iff the Dems win or prevail in Congress > IOW, as per HOWIE the DEMS ARE SSSSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHH FOR THE WAR + PRESENT IRAQ POLICIES???
(An editorial scheduled to appear on Monday in Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times, calls for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
The papers are sold to American servicemen and women. They are published by the Military Times Media Group, which is a subsidiary of Gannett Co., Inc. Here is the text of the editorial, an advance copy of which we received this afternoon.)
Time for Rumsfeld to go
"So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and informed public opinion ... it is necessary to tell the hard bruising truth."
That statement was written by Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent Marguerite Higgins more than a half-century ago during the Korean War.
But until recently, the "hard bruising" truth about the Iraq war has been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington. One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: "mission accomplished," the insurgency is "in its last throes," and "back off," we know what we're doing, are a few choice examples.
Military leaders generally toed the line, although a few retired generals eventually spoke out from the safety of the sidelines, inciting criticism equally from anti-war types, who thought they should have spoken out while still in uniform, and pro-war foes, who thought the generals should have kept their critiques behind closed doors.
Now, however, a new chorus of criticism is beginning to resonate. Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war's planning, execution and dimming prospects for success.
Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate Armed Services Committee in September: "I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it ... and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war."
Last week, someone leaked to The New York Times a Central Command briefing slide showing an assessment that the civil conflict in Iraq now borders on "critical" and has been sliding toward "chaos" for most of the past year. The strategy in Iraq has been to train an Iraqi army and police force that could gradually take over for U.S. troops in providing for the security of their new government and their nation.
But despite the best efforts of American trainers, the problem of molding a viciously sectarian population into anything resembling a force for national unity has become a losing proposition.
For two years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the Iraqis have told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of national identity, are only in it for the money, don't show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves.
Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.
And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand.
Now, the president says he'll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.
This is a mistake.
It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation's current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.
These officers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy many privately feared would fail. They have kept their counsel private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of subordination of the military to civilian authority.
And although that tradition, and the officers' deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.
Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.
This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:
#1
the "hard bruising" truth about the Iraq war has been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington.
And a hell of a lot harder to come by from any of the mainstream media. All these 'military' papers fall under the Gannett Co. empire which considers USA Today to be their flagship McNewspapaer. I'm betting this cheap trick generates some nasty letters to the editor and a big-ass circulation drop-off.
#2
..The 'Times' papers have no idea how badly this is going to blow back on them. The troops will stop buying and subscribing and start reading Stars and Stripes - which most overseas personnel do anyways.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
11/04/2006 11:54 Comments ||
Top||
#3
What is it with the print media's suicide agenda these days? I thought they were in "business" to make money. Guess not.
Somehow I think the goofy "truth to power" thingy plays a little better in Berkeley than Fort Benning.
#4
"What is it with the print media's suicide agenda these days?"
.com, it's not a suicide agenda to the MSM. It's nostalgia. Cue the cut from Bob Dylan's All Around the Watch Tower performed by Jimi Hendrix.
The MSM have been following the polls nationwide. They realize their unrelenting anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-Repub drum beat has finally taken root and will sprout fruit on November 7th. Hey folks, it's just like the late 1960's and early 1970's all over again! Gosh, let's have a War Moratorium Day! Let's have another Woodstock! Joni Mitchell and CSN&Y are still alive, right?
(If we - the USA - walk on Iraq and/or Afghanistan we'll be accomplice to the murder - read slaughter - to a countless number of people in those countries that allied with us. Let's review: We walked from North Korea in '53. We walked from Viet Nam in '74-'75. We walked from Iran in '79. We walked from Lebanon in '83. We walked from southern Iraq in '91. We walked from Somalia in '93. What was the aftermath? Notice the pattern? I know you do. The MSM and Dems do not.
If the Dems win just a little next Tuesday I'll blame the Repubs (for stupidity) and the MSM (for bias). If the Dems win big I will blame the MSM (bias and treason)and the American people (stupidity) for failing to recognize the threat to Western Civ. and for failing to have the will to defend (cowardice).
The MSM and most Dems do not view "walking away" or kicking the can down the street as a bad thing, but rather something to be celebrated
and admired. We both know that's bullsh+t.
I'm going to shut now before I say something that will get me sinktrapped.
Posted by: Mark Z ||
11/04/2006 13:41 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Yes, Garnett, the proud owners of US Today. I suspect the troops know what to do with this editorial (hint: anyone need toilet paper?)
Posted by: Captain America ||
11/04/2006 14:22 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Mark Z - Points well-taken, I assure you... print media's losing value and whacking staff like crazy these days, and not for fun IMO, so I do consider it a suicide agenda from a business POV - they just seem to think their editorial opinion is more important than the sales / circ numbers.
#9
Watch the circulation of the Army Time to take a dive. The next two week will have some interesting comments, like mine ending my suscription.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
11/04/2006 20:13 Comments ||
Top||
#10
I think it was interesting that Military Times made this decision. They had to be aware that this was circulation suicide for them. I have no doubt that the decision was made knowing fully well that their circulation would plummet as a result. Apparently, they masters at Gannett felt that it was worth throwing in the towel for the advantage they believe this will give them on Nov. 7.
I've notice in that last 10 days that many other papers are are talking of major cuts in the very near future. It's like they are hanging on until after this election. Perhaps that is what is going on at Military Times. Maybe Gannett isn't winning enough hearts and minds for the money they pay to keep Military Times afloat and they have decided to maximize their advantge in this next election before they bail. Whatever. It's interesting that they decided to cash in their chips. Quite honestly, I don't think it is going to have that big of an impact as they had hoped.
#12
They had to be aware that this was circulation suicide for them.
No, they have a chinese wall between news/editorial and business. The newsies disdain the business side and could care less whether the boss makes a profit. If they run the paper under they'll just get a job somewhere else. The world owes them a living.
I second this question. I wouldn't have guessed it, but it seems like the "Military" Times isn't put out by the military. Hmm. If the military has something to say, it better say it fast and loud right fuc&ing now. Otherwise it might as well give its tacit approval.
I wouldn't have guessed it, but it seems like the "Military" Times isn't put out by the military.
You have just voiced what will be the biggest loss to Military Times. This publicity will make it common knowledge that it is a civilian magazine that is just an arm of Gannett. Few people knew that. People buy it because it lists promotions, pay rates, benefits, and a few other standard features that are of interest. But all of their articles have had a typical MSM negative tone for quite some time.
#1
This can be expressed in psychological terms. The republicans are doing well because they focus on sanity, reason, organization and strategy. This works far better than the democrats haphazard attempts to emotionally stimulate the crowd of the minute with the emotionalism of the minute.
The republicans might say that since they stand for things, they have root beliefs that are unchanging, they can plan months or years ahead, using these as axioms.
But the democrats are philosophically vitiated; they not only stand for nothing, but they abhor standing for anything. While this is a position of opposition, it does not proactively lead to anything. It is not a plan.
In fact, is there anyone out there at all who can claim knowledge of what the democrat party stands for? Every stance is qualified, even a retreat from Iraq and the War on Terror. They have no guiding force behind them.
#3
"is there anyone out there at all who can claim knowledge of what the democrat party stands for?"
Sure.
They stand for winning by using any trick in the book. They stand for season tickets at the 50 yd line for Redskins games. They stand for unending cocktail parties hosted by lobbyists. They stand for enjoying all the perks of power for the "annointed ones".
Policies? We don't need no stinking policies!
Al
Posted by: frozen al ||
11/04/2006 18:11 Comments ||
Top||
#5
CARVILLE [paraphrased] > iff the Dems can't win even despite the seeming current probs-weaknesses of the GOP + Dubya, the entire premise-agenda-rationale for existence of the Democratic Party will have to be reviewed, re-evaluated, + reconsidered, or words to that effect. IMO, IOW the Dems/DemoLefties need a PC alibi-excuse to become the full-fledged SOCIALIST PARTY USA and later the CPUSA. Hated Despicable Nazi Fascist America = Well-meaning but Errorful Limited Commie Amerika will still have to surrender like WW2 VICHY PARIS to OWG, Global Socialism, + espec Mackinder's World Island aka OOOOOOOPPPPSIES RUSSIA-CHINA. Iff AMerika don't, 'tis still war agz America anytime after Year 2014 [China] - Year 2018 [Russia].
Voters are taking up the Supreme Court's challenge.
We'll all find out soon whether next week's elections yield the "Democratic wave" so many political seers have predicted. There isn't much doubt, however, about another kind of electoral wave that has been building across America and is set to crash on Tuesday.
That tsunami is the property-rights backlash, which is the direct result of last year's misguided and deeply unpopular Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London. A narrow Court majority decided that the Constitution's "takings" clause somehow allowed the government to seize private property not merely for "public use" but also on behalf of other private interests.
As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor argued in dissent, this departed from 200 years of precedent and was an invitation for the politically powerful to use government as an ally against the weak. The one grace note was the majority's concession that "Nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power."
Next week's vote will show just how many Americans are taking up the Court's challenge. No fewer than 11 states (see nearby table) have ballot measures designed to limit government's ability to pilfer private property for someone else's private economic development. Eight initiatives would enshrine those restrictions in state constitutions, and polls show that most are headed for victories.
These referendums build on anti-Kelo measures already passed by state legislatures, which aren't known for moving quickly, much less for exhibiting courage in the face of the powerful special interests (developers, local governments) driving eminent domain abuses. But fear is a powerful motivator, and voter anger at Kelo has yielded striking results. Some 28 states have already passed statutes that limit "takings" powers, and five of Tuesday's 11 ballot measures were crafted by state legislatures.
Alabama was the first to move after Kelo, passing a statute in 2005 that still gave government the leeway to pursue private property that could be defined as urban "blight." This turned out to be a major loophole, which city planners have routinely applied to any home or business they wanted to condemn and then transfer to private developers. Alabama's legislature closed that loophole this year, and "blight" is now defined in the better reforms as a property posing a danger to health or public safety.
Arizona's legislature also passed a strong anti-Kelo bill, only to watch Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano veto it in June. Arizona voters responded by pursuing their own initiative that is even wider in scope. The best model may be Florida, where the legislature passed a Constitutional amendment that goes before the voters next week.
All of this has occurred despite furious lobbying by local municipalities and developers to water down legislation. The lobbying has sometimes worked with state legislatures, but voters in Idaho, North Dakota and California have responded with ballot language for constitutional amendments that go further than their own state statutes. This ballot language tends to be legally clearer, and such constitutional provisions are harder for politicians to evade or weaken later when voters aren't looking.
At least three of these Kelo initiatives--in California, Arizona, Idaho--also include requirements that states compensate citizens for regulations that devalue property. These measures are, unfortunately, proving a harder sell at the polls, because state politicians are frightening voters with claims that such compensation would bankrupt states. Voters should instead look to Oregon, whose own "regulatory takings" law that passed in 2004 has shown the opposite. State land planners have been so worried about the cost of their actions that they are imposing fewer regulations in the first place.
As is so often the case when it comes to economic freedom, the states absent from this debate are those with liberal legislatures on the East Coast. Politicians in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut (home of Kelo) are so addicted to the tax revenue they get by forcible property transfers to rich developers that they refuse to act on behalf of property rights. This is one more reason for their citizens to keep fleeing these states for more hospitable climes, much as Third World countries that fail to protect property rights watch their human capital flee.
Also absent from this action has been the federal government. The House last year passed legislation that denies federal funds to local governments that use eminent domain for private development. The Senate, per usual, sat on its thumbs. Maybe the sound of the Kelo wave crashing next Tuesday will spur Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter to listen to the voters and act to protect one of the rights on which America was founded.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
