Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Farewell Patrick Bartholomew!
Off he goes to assume the role of King of Europe. Go on ya good thing!!!
Democrats aren't lying. McCain is a moron.
The conservative media have been up in arms about the assertion by Obama and Clinton that McCaion said he wanted to fight a hundred year war in Iraq. McCain didn't say that, they claim or didn't mean it the way Dems are suggesting. He qualified his remarks, saying that U.S troops have been in Germany and Japan for decades. That's the sort of situation he is comfortable with for Iraq. A large American presence, projecting American power so long as no soldiers are being killed or injured. How little does McCain know about the world. Does he really believe that there will ever be a time when the people of Iraq tolerate the presence of U.S. troops on the soil. I appreciate that politicians are obliged to pretend like the army and marines can do no wrong, but privately McCain must understand how much resentment and hatred the occupation has caused. Iraq will obviously never be like Germany or Japan. If America stays in Iraq for a century, it will fighting a hot war for a century. I'm all for staying till the job is done, I just agree with the Democrats that the job is improving the lives and security of Iraqis, not increasing American economic and geo-political interests.
Gosh, I love Hillary!!
As even casual observers of American politics and history will know, Sen. Hillary Clinton ranks as one of the great American leaders. Her achievements speak for themselves, her work on the Goldwater and McGovern campaigns, her health-care reforms, her vast foreign policy experience, bringing peace to Northern Ireland, the Balkans, and the Middle East, her efforts along with fellow New York Democrat Gov. Elliot Spitzer to improve and enrich the lives of New Yorkers etc.. The list is infinite and unmatched by any living public figure, Republican or Democrat. Its not just her record of achievements that make her the only real choice for the Democratic nomination, her magnetic and irresistible charm and decency also raise her above her opponents. Her honesty and integrity, her wit and hard working, never say die attitude are the stuff of legend. For these, and countless other reasons, I'm for Hillary!!
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
I finally understand what American conservatives were on about. I really hate Hillary Clinton.
1)She's a liar: Not only has her campaign distorted virtually everyhting that Obama and his aides have said, in a way that would make Richard Nixon blush, but she keeps harping on about her experience. She helped bring peace to Northern Ireland now apparently. How exactly? By recieving a kettle as a gift from the Women's Coalition on a trip there with her husband. Thank's Hillary.
She pretends to cry: There's nothing wrong with crying. But people have to decide whether thay want to elect a candidate who might start balling if the ambassador to Iran is being mean to them. Maybe she cried because the nomination for which she seemed a dead cert was slipping away, in which case she's a spoilt brat. Either you believe she was genuinely moved, in which case she's a wimp, or you believe she pretended in which case she's a liar.
She's ambitious to the point where she'd rather she win the democratic nomination than the democrats win the general election: She said John McCain was better able to protect America that Barack Obama. There's no excuse for that.
She's not that smart, she's not that tough, she has no genuine experience: Watch any of the debates. Her supposed mastery of policy details is a lazy sop, thrown to her by journalists worried that they may be accused of being too pro-Obama. Being a presidents wife offers no more experience than being a surgeon's wife enables you to preform surgery. Obama has consistently out-smarted her at every debate.
She's not more electable, she's less electable: 40% of American voters hate Hillary Clinton. The big stae primaries she won mean nothing in a general election. the democrats could elect a monkey as their candidate and he'd win California and New York in the general. Obama could win Virginia and Iowa. Clinton couldn't
If she wins the nomination, she'll lose the presidency. That would be a catastrophe.
She pretends to cry: There's nothing wrong with crying. But people have to decide whether thay want to elect a candidate who might start balling if the ambassador to Iran is being mean to them. Maybe she cried because the nomination for which she seemed a dead cert was slipping away, in which case she's a spoilt brat. Either you believe she was genuinely moved, in which case she's a wimp, or you believe she pretended in which case she's a liar.
She's ambitious to the point where she'd rather she win the democratic nomination than the democrats win the general election: She said John McCain was better able to protect America that Barack Obama. There's no excuse for that.
She's not that smart, she's not that tough, she has no genuine experience: Watch any of the debates. Her supposed mastery of policy details is a lazy sop, thrown to her by journalists worried that they may be accused of being too pro-Obama. Being a presidents wife offers no more experience than being a surgeon's wife enables you to preform surgery. Obama has consistently out-smarted her at every debate.
She's not more electable, she's less electable: 40% of American voters hate Hillary Clinton. The big stae primaries she won mean nothing in a general election. the democrats could elect a monkey as their candidate and he'd win California and New York in the general. Obama could win Virginia and Iowa. Clinton couldn't
If she wins the nomination, she'll lose the presidency. That would be a catastrophe.
Everton on course to shut Rob Hogan up.
If we beat Fulham at the weekend and then West Ham at home, I predict Everton will go into the derby game on the 30th and beat Liverpool, consigning them to the ultimate humiliation, The UEFA Cup. Put a monkey on it!!
Spitzer sex scandal opens the door to liberal dream candidate.
If Spitzer has to resign, he'll be replaced by his Lt. Governor. His name is David Paterson. Not only is he black, he's also blind!! If only he was in a wheelchair.
A Poem About Paris.
Je t'aime, Je t'aime,
City on the Seine,
Je t'adore, Je t'adore,
City full of whores,
Je veux, Je veux,
To spend some time with you
Tu-veux, aussi,
To spend some time with me?
City on the Seine,
Je t'adore, Je t'adore,
City full of whores,
Je veux, Je veux,
To spend some time with you
Tu-veux, aussi,
To spend some time with me?
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Let's get serious for a second
A Roadblock on the Road-Map.
Why is the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians so widely reported, discussed and dissected, analysed and argued over? Is it, as some Israelis and their supporters would have you believe, because of a latent anti-Semitism that pervades so much of Europe and the Arab world? Is it the insidious and centuries old hatred of the rootless, cosmopolitan Jew, which leads critics of Israel to berate her for her treatment of the Palestinians? Why, when half the world lives under governments that range from the kleptocratic incompetents of the Arab Middle-East, to the insane tyranny of North Korea, is Israel singled out for the criticism she receives? Why should Israel, a liberal democracy in a sea of corrupt autocracies, surrender her right of self defence and self preservation when faced with enemies who threaten to wipe her from the face of the earth? Jews know only too well what happens when they opt to leave their safety in the hands of the benevolence of the human spirit, rather than stand up and fight for their rights. 6 million of their co-religionists could attest to that, had they not been gassed and incinerated 60 ago.
My father, a life-long social democrat and trade-unionist can remember huddling around the radio in 1967, listening in for reports on the Six-Day war. When news of Israel’s swift and decisive victories would come through, he would cheer. As would all his leftist friends in the union movement and the Labour party. It seems unthinkable now, but before the occupation, before the settlements and checkpoints and suicide bombings and collective punishments, the liberal left was enthusiastically pro-Israel. For them, she represented a bastion of social-democracy against which the forces of chauvinistic Arab-nationalism crashed and ruptured. Criticism of Israel came almost exclusively from the right, from the unreconstructed anti-Semites of the European aristocratic elite, and the red-faced rednecks of the American fringe right.
That something changed in the aftermath of 1967 is obvious. If those who denounce all critics of Israel as anti-Semitics are right, then somehow for some reason, in 40 years, the international left, inspired by the teachings of Karl Marx, a German Jew, and numerous other influential Jewish socialists, suddenly abandoned their pluralism and tolerance and subscribed to the doctrines of their mortal enemies on the right. Simultaneous to this, the international right, enamoured for a time in the mid thirties with the notion of a world cleansed of the Jewish menace, suddenly saw the error of their ways and embraced philo-Semitism.
Or perhaps there is another explanation. Perhaps the transformation of Israel, from a socialist, democratic haven for the Jewish Diaspora, into a military super-power, an occupier and oppressor of the weak, is what turned the liberal left against her. Perhaps it’s the callous disregard for the welfare of the Palestinians, the smug, weasel worded explanation and justification for every latest atrocity, the disingenuousness of the accusations of anti-Semitism. Perhaps it’s the settler programme, a movement so heinous and blatantly illegal that even a majority of Israelis have grown to despise the racist xenophobes that steal land, poison livestock and torment Palestinian locals, all in the name of Greater Israel.
Israel’s most vocal supporters and justifiers, come from the American Jewish community. In America, lobbying groups like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), exhort politicians to out-do each other in demonstrating reverence for the sacred right of Israel to ‘defend herself.’ Criticism of Israeli policy is almost non-existent in the pages of American newspapers or on American television. The public is fed a diet of pro-Israeli narratives and pundits offering competing explanations as to why Israel is right and the Arabs wrong. Two years ago, an article by two of the world’s leading academics in the field of international relations, that appeared in the London Review of Books, was denounced as racist propaganda. It dared to suggest that America’s strategic interests are not best served by its uniquely close relationship with Israel. They claimed that if America continues to give Israel billions of dollars in military and economic aid, and perseveres in defending it from any sanction in the United Nations, the perception in the Arab world that America and Israel are one and the same will persist. For this apparent truism, they were condemned.
But for some, it’s not anti-Semitism or the suppression of criticism or even the conduct of the occupation that infuriates them about Israel. Rather it’s the deception. It’s the great lie that Israel and her justifiers spin. The lie is told after every ‘targeted assassination’, after every incursion that leaves death and destruction in its wake. When ever anyone tells you that Israel wants peace, they’re lying. Israel has peace. On the beach front bars of Tel Aviv and in the nightclubs and restaurants of Haifa, Israel is at peace. Israel has nothing to gain from a just and dignified peace process, and everything to lose. What concession could the Palestinians offer that would make it worth Israel’s while to concede the territory it captured in the West Bank?
If Israel wanted peace, why does it continue to construct new settlement blocks in the occupied territories in direct violation of numerous assurance it gave? Why not just continue without a peace process? Continue constructing settlements and separation barriers, continue declaring your desire for peace until the Palestinian people are so weary of poverty and oppression that they settle for whatever scraps are left? Why not wait till ’the facts on the ground’ favour Israel? What compels Israel to make concessions? It’s not in any mortal danger. One suicide attack in a year and a half that killed one civilian? A barrage of crude home made rockets that have killed 9 people in 7 years? It seems clear that the Israeli establishment have engineered a situation whereby the price of ’war’ with the Palestinians is one they are willing to pay if it means no territorial concession. The only thing that could convince them otherwise is a pressure to act from America. I wouldn’t bet on it.
Why is the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians so widely reported, discussed and dissected, analysed and argued over? Is it, as some Israelis and their supporters would have you believe, because of a latent anti-Semitism that pervades so much of Europe and the Arab world? Is it the insidious and centuries old hatred of the rootless, cosmopolitan Jew, which leads critics of Israel to berate her for her treatment of the Palestinians? Why, when half the world lives under governments that range from the kleptocratic incompetents of the Arab Middle-East, to the insane tyranny of North Korea, is Israel singled out for the criticism she receives? Why should Israel, a liberal democracy in a sea of corrupt autocracies, surrender her right of self defence and self preservation when faced with enemies who threaten to wipe her from the face of the earth? Jews know only too well what happens when they opt to leave their safety in the hands of the benevolence of the human spirit, rather than stand up and fight for their rights. 6 million of their co-religionists could attest to that, had they not been gassed and incinerated 60 ago.
My father, a life-long social democrat and trade-unionist can remember huddling around the radio in 1967, listening in for reports on the Six-Day war. When news of Israel’s swift and decisive victories would come through, he would cheer. As would all his leftist friends in the union movement and the Labour party. It seems unthinkable now, but before the occupation, before the settlements and checkpoints and suicide bombings and collective punishments, the liberal left was enthusiastically pro-Israel. For them, she represented a bastion of social-democracy against which the forces of chauvinistic Arab-nationalism crashed and ruptured. Criticism of Israel came almost exclusively from the right, from the unreconstructed anti-Semites of the European aristocratic elite, and the red-faced rednecks of the American fringe right.
That something changed in the aftermath of 1967 is obvious. If those who denounce all critics of Israel as anti-Semitics are right, then somehow for some reason, in 40 years, the international left, inspired by the teachings of Karl Marx, a German Jew, and numerous other influential Jewish socialists, suddenly abandoned their pluralism and tolerance and subscribed to the doctrines of their mortal enemies on the right. Simultaneous to this, the international right, enamoured for a time in the mid thirties with the notion of a world cleansed of the Jewish menace, suddenly saw the error of their ways and embraced philo-Semitism.
Or perhaps there is another explanation. Perhaps the transformation of Israel, from a socialist, democratic haven for the Jewish Diaspora, into a military super-power, an occupier and oppressor of the weak, is what turned the liberal left against her. Perhaps it’s the callous disregard for the welfare of the Palestinians, the smug, weasel worded explanation and justification for every latest atrocity, the disingenuousness of the accusations of anti-Semitism. Perhaps it’s the settler programme, a movement so heinous and blatantly illegal that even a majority of Israelis have grown to despise the racist xenophobes that steal land, poison livestock and torment Palestinian locals, all in the name of Greater Israel.
Israel’s most vocal supporters and justifiers, come from the American Jewish community. In America, lobbying groups like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), exhort politicians to out-do each other in demonstrating reverence for the sacred right of Israel to ‘defend herself.’ Criticism of Israeli policy is almost non-existent in the pages of American newspapers or on American television. The public is fed a diet of pro-Israeli narratives and pundits offering competing explanations as to why Israel is right and the Arabs wrong. Two years ago, an article by two of the world’s leading academics in the field of international relations, that appeared in the London Review of Books, was denounced as racist propaganda. It dared to suggest that America’s strategic interests are not best served by its uniquely close relationship with Israel. They claimed that if America continues to give Israel billions of dollars in military and economic aid, and perseveres in defending it from any sanction in the United Nations, the perception in the Arab world that America and Israel are one and the same will persist. For this apparent truism, they were condemned.
But for some, it’s not anti-Semitism or the suppression of criticism or even the conduct of the occupation that infuriates them about Israel. Rather it’s the deception. It’s the great lie that Israel and her justifiers spin. The lie is told after every ‘targeted assassination’, after every incursion that leaves death and destruction in its wake. When ever anyone tells you that Israel wants peace, they’re lying. Israel has peace. On the beach front bars of Tel Aviv and in the nightclubs and restaurants of Haifa, Israel is at peace. Israel has nothing to gain from a just and dignified peace process, and everything to lose. What concession could the Palestinians offer that would make it worth Israel’s while to concede the territory it captured in the West Bank?
If Israel wanted peace, why does it continue to construct new settlement blocks in the occupied territories in direct violation of numerous assurance it gave? Why not just continue without a peace process? Continue constructing settlements and separation barriers, continue declaring your desire for peace until the Palestinian people are so weary of poverty and oppression that they settle for whatever scraps are left? Why not wait till ’the facts on the ground’ favour Israel? What compels Israel to make concessions? It’s not in any mortal danger. One suicide attack in a year and a half that killed one civilian? A barrage of crude home made rockets that have killed 9 people in 7 years? It seems clear that the Israeli establishment have engineered a situation whereby the price of ’war’ with the Palestinians is one they are willing to pay if it means no territorial concession. The only thing that could convince them otherwise is a pressure to act from America. I wouldn’t bet on it.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Oh woe is he, who loves the Toffees.
This figure stalks my dreams. Who is he and how do I kill him, I used to wonder. The I realised that supporting Everton means being haunted by the faceless blue man. Its still worth it.
It's your loss, RTE!
The following script programme ideas or 'formats' were deemed not suitable for production or broadcast by RTE.
1)Murder in my Mind
Solomon Pearls is just about the best detective Dublin Homocide has ever had. But when a new serial killer starts cutting up little boys, Pearls has to come to terms with the fact that he's got a split personality and turns into a murderer when he goes to bed.
Tag line: How do you catch a killer, when its you that's the killer?
2)Be hopeful for me
In a 4 part fly-on-the -wall docu drama, the show will investigate whether or not a downs-syndrome sufferer can accomplish everyday tasks without assistance.
Can he?
Episode one: Join the SAS
Episode two:Get away with murder
Episode three:Order a pizza
Episode four:Find true love
I have a meeting with TV3 on Monday. They seem very enthusiastic.
Homeless Cocktails!! What they're drinkin on the street.
Trampagne: 1btl Chilean Merlot
1 Soda Stream
Pour the wine into the soda stream. Get busy with the fizzy.
Tramp Shandy: 6 cans cheap lager (amsterdam, dutch gold etc.
1btl Schweppes ginger ale.
Pour the beer and ginger ale into a jug or other large receptical. Swirl and serve.
Crazy Gabby: 1btl Cork Dry Gin
2 pint btls Guinness Extra Stout
Drink chilled Guinness quickly. Drink Gin. Threaten to blow up a shop.
Beach Hill Shaky: 1btl Glen's 'Exciting' Vodka
1 small bottle of diet coke.
Pour vodka into pint glass. Add a dash of coke for colour. Repeat every 45 minutes till shaking ceases.
Scrumpy Suicide: 6 cans Scrumpy Jack Cider
1 btl Ariki sauvignon blanc
1 (1/4) bottle High Commissioner Scotch Whisky
Drink 2 cans of cider. Mix third can with scotch. Drink remaining cans. Drink wine (straight from the neck). Die in a ditch.
1 Soda Stream
Pour the wine into the soda stream. Get busy with the fizzy.
Tramp Shandy: 6 cans cheap lager (amsterdam, dutch gold etc.
1btl Schweppes ginger ale.
Pour the beer and ginger ale into a jug or other large receptical. Swirl and serve.
Crazy Gabby: 1btl Cork Dry Gin
2 pint btls Guinness Extra Stout
Drink chilled Guinness quickly. Drink Gin. Threaten to blow up a shop.
Beach Hill Shaky: 1btl Glen's 'Exciting' Vodka
1 small bottle of diet coke.
Pour vodka into pint glass. Add a dash of coke for colour. Repeat every 45 minutes till shaking ceases.
Scrumpy Suicide: 6 cans Scrumpy Jack Cider
1 btl Ariki sauvignon blanc
1 (1/4) bottle High Commissioner Scotch Whisky
Drink 2 cans of cider. Mix third can with scotch. Drink remaining cans. Drink wine (straight from the neck). Die in a ditch.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)