Question Time and This Week

Micael,

I shouldn't have called you a cunt last night. Sorry, I was a bit pissed.

I'm not quite clear on this yet. Should Michael Moore be executed for treason, or not? I think we need to know.

this was broadcast here tonight. was indeed pretty crap. but, as regards this thread (or maybe just aldo cowpat): for fucks sake, can we have a moratorium on people insisting that there's no difference between bush and kerry? i'm glad you feel like you're coming off all 'world-weary' with such a generous helping of critical distance and remarkable foresight but you are wrong. a cursory look at the clinton administration and the bush one will reveal no apparent difference? really? i mean, fuck, really?? if you've pulled your eyes out their sockets, taking a sizeable chunk of your grey matter with them, perhaps?? i'm sounding like alex in nyc, but... you people....

I'm glad youre' glad I think I'm wrong. I'd love for somebody to tell me the difference, but I don't see it.

Just like I'd love for any American ("or maybe just" m) to tell me the difference between Tony Blair and Michael Howard?

Michael Moore says we should vote for Kerry because he'll be tough on terrorists. BillClinton bombed a soap factory in Sudan because "intelligence" told him it was a munitions plant. Michael Moore even admits in 'Stupid White Men' that Clinton passed most of his so-called ethical policies (like agreeing to Kyoto) in his final days because he knew he wouldn't have to enact them.

As an outsider, and not drawn along the whooping political lines we say on the Question Time, it doesn't seem hugely different to me. Yes, Bush appears to be a complete fuckwit. As I said above, for the same reasons most British people on this thread would consider Tony Blair a complete fuckwit. Now see how many of them will automatically vote for the opposition because of that.

(for the record, i'm not an american)

(btw, ythink bubba c made barely covert attempts to skew the intelligence he was recieving on sudan such that he might carry out the ideological aims of the anti-cleanliness hawks running his administration under the guise of 'ridding the world of dangerous weapons'?)(ps before you tell me that i am, i'm not saying clinton's blameless, but conflating some very different, and differently motivated, military, economic and environmental blunders with the 'they're all big industry puppets' line is, at best, oversimplification)

(this is all in parenthesis because its 2am and i'm not even in a fighting mood)

That's good, because it's 1am here (although the end of summertime shifts it to midnight).

Erm... actually, the Clinton administration have made overt claims about the Sudan bombing being "to send a message to the world" and "to teach them a lesson" despite what intelligence sources were willing to leak to the contrary about the place he was bombing, as Michael Moore admits in "Stupid White Men".

Yes, Bush is wrong on a great number of things - and motivated by big industry and other economic, sometimes personal, relationships. Does this make him any different to practically every world leader alive today?

(btw, the only countries I've ever been to where I've heard no political dissent are Cuba and Japan. I'm sure there are different reasons why in either place.)

Oh, and I'd still like a non-Brit to point out the differences between Blair and Howard.

the question of bush and his motivations is i think a lot less vague than you're making out - we've got an exceedingly clear idea of his policies and ideologies (y'know, the ones that lead to the iraq invasion and to abu ghraib and to the patriot act) and the people behind them, in a way that's very specific and not at all universal, and significantly different to the ones likely to follow a kerry victory (unless you're absolutely determined to paint the motivations of 'people in power' in the broadest of strokes)

(i sleep now)

I think we're beginning to fudge the issue here - the problem with Bush is that he's in fact a very weak President and has allowed himself to be led by the same Team B that led Reagan into an escalating 'war' against the Russians, based on made-up information about the military capabilities of the 'enemy'. But then every US president for the last 25 years has (although not to the same extent), so why should he be any different? They're certainly what led to the attack on Iraq - though I do think Bush's "going after the man who tried to kill my Daddy has a ring of truth about it, horrific though that sounds - but Abu Ghraib? That was directly the fault of the Bush administration? To me that was the fault of two discrete items - the US penal system (which seems, as portrayed, to be mindless and brutal, with a climate of fear deciding who 'wins' and rape and beatings commonplace) and the US military (it's just something you 'do' for most people, the least professional Army I've ever come across. I recall the thread on here where I expressed horror at some of the things that were going on in the military barrack such as fraternisation between sexes and between ranks, heavy drinking and free access within the prison, and being told there was nothing wrong with it, that that's how 'the military' is). Where does Bush enter that equation? The Patriot Act is a fair call - some ludicrous stuff in there - but from Kerry's own website, he's going to do even more because America isn't secure enough? "We've seen some progress in making America more secure since September 11 - but there is still much more to be done. Today our government is not doing enough to make us safe." "Track And Stop Terrorists
Many of the intelligence problems that allowed terrorists to slip into our country before 9/11 have not been addressed. John Kerry and John Edwards will improve our ability to gather, analyze, and share information so we can track down and stop terrorists before they cause harm.

Protect Our Borders And Shores
Today, our borders, our ports, and our airports are not as secure as they must be. John Kerry and John Edwards will make our airports, seaports, and borders more secure without intruding upon personal liberties. " The last part of that second one is interesting: if I object to having my fingerprints taken on entering America, is that enough? If 100 people object? How do you make something more secure without increasing restrictions or surveillance?

On domestic policies Bush and Kerry do indeed seem to have differences, although very minor ones - the rhetoric is almost identical, although Kerry fixates on "middle classes and those who aspire to be middle class". But both say they'll create well-paid jobs and give tax breaks. Bush actually says he'll give them to "all". (I don't believe a word of it, but we can only judge Kerry on rhetoric so it's only fair to do the same with Bush)

On the environment they differ hugely, obviously, but I think what's interesting about Kerry is that he only focusses on environmental issues within America (the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and urban regeneration).

I had a quick look at a Michael Moore book called 'Dude, Where's My Country?' and it looked a bit crappy.

So if we can't execute him for treason, can we execute him for writing crappy books?

(I still want to know whether aldo thinks that Moore should be put on trial for treason or not, even if he doesn't believe in the death penalty for it)

I don't think he should, because I personally don't think "The War On Terror" is that kind of war. In times where we are not at war, what Moore is doing in entirely within the democratic process - as would what Lord Haw-Haw have been were we not at war at the time.

However, if Bush Jr and Moore both believe they are in that kind of war, as they have both stated at different times that they believe they are, then an accusation of treason may well apply.

Oh- get out of it. To maintain this position for three days is just twatty now.

Eh? Maintain what position? (And all I've done is answer other people who have asked me questions since after my first couple of posts)

The word treason shouldn't come anywhere near this discussion, I mean. Only Free Republicans are worthy of that. Just ditch the word and the concept entirely. It doesn't apply at all, in any situation, you might concieve.

Oh that's all right then, it's not me you're criticising. I never brought up that word, I only answered a direct question as to my opinion in relation to that word.

we know that people in the bush administration were manipulating the definition of torture in order to expand what could be legally 'gotten away with' at abu ghraib, i'd certainly place specific blame there.

aldo, is your position here essentially (pick one): a) that (the current popular definition of) 'neo-conservatism' is a myth, or b) that neo-conservatism is comprised of a worldview indistinguishable from that shared by any recent american administration.

(i think both options are misguided).

That's changing the goalposts slightly - you're now talking about a different thing with Abu Ghraib. I agree completely, to try and avoid prosecution for torture is wrong. The way you word it first, however, is as if it is direct policy, enforced by the Bush administration, which I don't believe it is and I don't believe anybody has ever accused them of making it happen in the first place. Covering it up - yes, and very wrong.

Although to give me two options you both think are misguided and force me to pick one is exceptionally bad form, if I have to pick one I'll say b). It's far more polarised than I'd describe it, however. I think it's near-indistinguishable to those outside America, and there are differences on internal (i.e. within the territory of the US) policies.

I did not mean to imply there's anything wrong with writing crappy books. Also, I only glanced at it, I might find out, upon closer inspection, that it's good. I don't think he should be put on trial. He just seems somehow 'insufficient'.

Might be good tonight - see the reactions to Bush's victory. Evin if Ben bloody Elton is on it.

It is from Glasgow next week. I expect a good turnout from YOU LOT. You have to either ring them up or go to their website. It will be like THE COOK REPORT, I hope, and THE RJG FILES.

'Gentleman with the massive quiff. Yes, you sir.'

When it was in St. Andrews I applied via their website, and I didn' hear from them: for nobody checks voicemail. So, I had tickets, and failed to go. Damn. Might go to Glasgow, got people to visit. But I probably won't.

What a state this fucking shithole of a country is in if the most left wing voices they can find for a post-US election debate are Ben "Hello, Mr Lloyd Webber, let's make lots of money" Elton or Shirley "Let's destroy the Labour Party and make it unelectable" Williams.

Tonight's viewing:

10.35 BBC1 Question Time, possibly featuring the ILX Glasgow Massive.
11.35 BBC1 This Week.
12.20 BBC2 Breathless, as in the Jean Luc Godard film.

Miller, your Cook / Dick post was funny.

I am glad you are not going to the FAP, because I like you a lot already, the way you are.

I applied to be on QT but I didn't get picked : (((

I think I would have picked you.

Aw. I forgot about it altogether - but I doubt I could be bothered going through anyway. Is it wrong that I really look forward to Question Time each week? My friends think it is. :(

i met someone who has been in a Question Time audience last week.

Thank you, the PF. I had to fill in a form about all my views, and now I'm wandering which one it was that they didn't like.

QT is the highlight of my week, some weeks.

My friend Emmie T was in a QT audience last year, and I was very envious. She was only shown for a brief second, but she was making an amusing face.

The thing to do is to hold an amusing face for the whole hour, just in case.

now that the US election is over i'm not sure QT will remain my favourite TV show (replaced by Chiles Of The Day possibly)

Gosh, Cathy - the highlight of your WEEK?

Oh, now I feel ashamed.

Maybe it is different, in Scotland!

I meant, the programme.

Or, the week?

No, it is the same in Scotland.

Sometimes I watch QT with RJG, and we tut and laugh at it together. And I like This Week almost as much. Tonight I'm going to watch the Lord Lucan program then Frank Skinner then QT then This Week, and I will probably enjoy it all very much except I don't really like Frank Skinner.

Don't feel guilty - it's the TV highlight of my week sometimes too. Not my week generally though.

Cathy, that does not sound a lot like Great Television.

Frank Skinner is bad! But I kind of enjoyed seeing Rufus Wainwright on his show.

Yet, I am glad that you enjoy it. Maybe RJG's presence is key to the pleasure? So often is that true.

Great Television it may not be, but I will enjoy it, I'm sure. RJG's presence is best, but tonight I am alone and looking forward to it all nonetheless.

This Week, in particular, is often quite funny.

It was great to see Rufus Wainwright on Frank Skinner, but it's still insufferable dross.

Question Time in an unadulterated joy. Did anyone see Paul Heaton on it a few years ago.

I don't even remember last week, let alone years ago, sorry. Good to see Rosie with a PPU poppy.

And great to see Francis Maude make a complete fool of himself, too.

Indeed. Some of the Palestine arguments got pretty heated. I ended up feeling kind of sorry for that (quite good looking, I thought) pro-Israeli guy everyone yelled at. He seemed like a prick though.

I got furious when Francis Maude suggested, if I heard correctly, that the majority of the terrorist casualties were on the Israeli side. The suicide bomb casualties sure, but the terrorist casualties? Or is it not terrorism when carried out by a state, to Maude? Francis Maude is a prick.

I think you're not allowed to count Palestinian deaths because that is just Israel defending themselves. Yes, he is a prick.

People in Glasgow are very impassioned. Well, the Scottish ones. I have just explained to Carsmile Steve that I did not go on QT because I am too calm.

Peter Oborne was fun in a kind of strange way. He reminded me a little of Boris Johnson, except that he never seemed to give an actual opinion on anything. Perhaps he is not that kind of journalist.

I watched alone. Perhaps, I should have invited Cathy over. Oh well.

That was an oddly po-mo act of remembrance at the end of this week...

Next time, Ally C. Your calm would be a good counter to my occasional seething rage.

How many weeks has Diane Abbot been wearing that leopard print top? At least three. I wonder if I'm the only one to notice.

hooked. on. grief.

yeah yeah.