From the desk of Elaib Harvey on Wed, 2007-11-14 01:18
After the uprising of the 17th of June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
Mr Sarkozy was in Strasbourg today, preaching to the world and Mr Brown in particular.
"When the people say "no", we cannot say the people are wrong. We must ask why they said "no".
he said, in the public forum of the plenary chamber.
But when he spoke in private to the Conference of Presidents he spoke rather differently. The Conference of Presidents is a gathering of the most powerful figures in the European Parliament, federasts almost to a man or woman, so he felt he was amongst friends. His message here was in stark contrast to his public pronouncements.
"The French ”No” to the Constitution was a catastrophe", he said. But he made it clear that he felt that pro Europeans could not guarantee a yes vote in any European country.
"It (a no vote) can happen in all member states if they have a referendum - there is a cleavage between people and the governments in the member states. A referendum now would bring danger to the EU - there will be no Treaty at all if we had a referendum in France. A referendum which would followed by one in Britain.
To that end he said that the French ratification would take place in "the first few weeks of 2008".
As a coda he nailed any hope that the Parliament would leave Strasbourg.
This is a shocking disgrace. He has just told a crowd of the Euro political elite that he will forge ahead in an utterly undemocratic fashion against the express wishes of his people, and demands that everybody follow his frankly dictatorial lead.
His main speach will upset Mr Brown, who told us that this treaty would be the last for ten years,
"It would a mistake to think that with the simplified Treaty we have sorted everything, we can sleep easy and that no other issues a re pending. Now we have got to resolve the political issues and to broach them without fear. We have got to debate them without taboos. Budgetary policy, trade policy, monetary policy, industrial policy, taxation, all policies, any policies... What does our European commitment mean for each of us if we are incapable of debating the creation of a European defence?"
Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS)
Submitted by marcfrans on Wed, 2007-11-14 18:30.
BDS is indeed not "pretty", particularly in those frequent cases where it is based on ideology and/or perverse selfhatred of one's own country and society. However, I doubt that Quiybo fits into that category. After all, he writes himself about "the hysteria surrounding this man". Hysteria says more about the hysterics than it could possibly say about Bush. No, Quiybo's dislike of Bush seems more based on personal likes and dislikes, and also partially on misinformation. If you will, Quiybo strikes me as somewhat of a 'victim' of the current media environment and 'hysteria'.
It seems prettty stupid for you to assert (a) that Bush is "stupid" (there is contra-evidence), (b) that there is "idiocy" in his eyes, and (3) that his gaze is "hollow". If you want to say that you are unhappy with a particular policy, then say so. If you want to say that you don't like him (his demeanor, his halting-but-direct and "unsophisticated" way of speaking, his poor synthax) that would be fine too. But, this midless parroting of Bush-haters' choice words of "stupid, idiocy, and hollow" is pretty foolish. Particularly when some of your comments display an alarming lack of "sophistication" on your own part.
To illustrate the latter. It is ludicrous for you to think that anti-American hatred around much of the world would be based on any possible "stupidity" on the part of the American President. On the contrary, many would love that President to be "stupid", for they see the USA as an obstacle to some of their own and worst ambitions. Why do you care so much about America's image in other societies that do not lift a finger to promote 'democray' and individual freedom in the world? Indeed, many of them are actively undermining the limited freedom and democracy there is in the world. If you really cared about America's image elsewhere, you would not be railing against Bush, but rather against Hollywood, the New York Times, NBC, CNN, etc...because those are the DIRECT sources of the world's misperceptions about Bush's purported "stupidity, hollowness, and idiocy".
It is even more ludicrous for you to blame Bush for some of the antics of a totalitarian like Ahmadinejad, i.e. more specifically his silly 'invitation'. After all, that antic only became possible because (in reaction to) of the foolishness of the supposedly "sophisticated" faculty and adminstration of Columbia university. Bush may look "hollow" to you, but he understands much better the totalitarian mind than these supposedly highly intelligent university professors. And the way you phrased this whole "charade" implies that you think that the American President, ANY American President, should respond positively to such an offer. You directly stated that Ahmadinejad should be terrified by acceptance of such an offer! That puts you in the same category of 'useful idiots' (who do not understand the totalitarian mindset and cunning) as the Columbia university president.
For your information, I have never been a Bush fan. In 2000, I favored Republican McCain for the US presidency. And in 2004, I favored (then-)Democrat Lieberman. But since neither man got their respective party's nomination, one has to live with what's available. Politics is about concrete practical choices, not about 'ideals'. But, my dislike or disappointment with Bush doesn't even begin to approach my dislike of the multitudes of facile parroters of Bush-hatred, i.e. of Bush Derangement Syndrom 'sufferers'.
Submitted by atheling on Wed, 2007-11-14 19:33.
"After all, he writes himself about "the hysteria surrounding this man""
Merely boilerplate. This person suffers from the same BDS that other do; he just veils it with poesy (and whimsy).
His rhetoric reminds me somewhat of the kind of deranged "insight" that John Hinckley or Mark David Chapman held when they committed their crimes against President Reagan and John Lennon. Creepy.
Submitted by Bruno on Wed, 2007-11-14 12:10.
Reading these comments makes me smile and remember having read so much prose in about exactly the same terms, this was about another American president, namely Ronald Reagan. Remember the thinking elite of the 1980s'? Reagan then embodied apocalypse and right-wing stupidity for the leftist and anti-american crowd on both sides of the Atlantic. It took a few years for this myth to melt away, we all know now that Ronald Reagan thought and wrote a lot, and was much wiser than his educated critics. So let's wait a few years and see how Bush is viewed in, say, 20 years...
Submitted by atheling on Wed, 2007-11-14 05:40.
Bush Derangement Syndrome is not pretty no matter how heartfelt you may be about it.
Now take a pill and go to your room.
Submitted by Quijybo on Wed, 2007-11-14 06:56.
Think of the men in your life, your father if you are lucky, or grandfather. Think maybe of a teacher who you admired, someone in your community, I don't know who it might be for you. Hopefully, if you are like me, you learned from many different examples what a man was supposed to be, and you just know it when you see it. When I look in George Bush's eyes, I don't see it. I do not see admirable qualities. I do not see quality.
This is not derangement. This is the root of all the hysteria surrounding this man. He is not evil, as many people would like to think; he is just hollow, not big enough for the suit he is wearing, a lesser son of greater men, a poor follower of men worth emulating. It is the source of the slide in the image of America, why foreign tinpot idiots mock him freely, why Ahmadinejad can invite him to speak at an Iranian university after the Columbia charade, and not worry that the leader of the free world would take him up on his offer. That scenario should terrify a man like Ahmadinejad, but why be afraid of the strength of George Bush's character? Can you imagine that offer being proffered, by that little weasel, to Reagan? I have every right to make a judgement. 200 million Americans do not disapprove of this man out of neurosis.
In any case, the similitude stands. I think much more of Sarkozy, but when he talks that Europe jibber jabber, I see how hollow it is. If you are from Europe, I wish you to be rid of this empty idea as much as I wish to be rid of my empty president.
The speech makes no sense
Submitted by Quijybo on Wed, 2007-11-14 05:07.
This is possibly the strangest political speech I have ever read or heard, anywhere. I have to honestly say I simply do not understand to topic at hand. Even Sarkozy is befuddled, such that he is asking for a committee of wise men to tell the people what the heck is supposed to be happening. How are they to know what to think? What is Europe? Why is its conjuring necessary? If Europe did not exist, would anyone know?
As an American I die a little inside when I see George Bush speak, because deep down I know he is stupid. I know he does not have the sophistication to lead anything more than a little league team. It was clear during the 2000 election, and it was a trauma on September 11th. It was awful for the nation to be attacked, for thousands to die, but even more awful to see the idiocy in Bush's eye, the fear, the lack of mastery, and I could only compare his pathetic image to that of the great Presidents of the past, of Lincoln and FDR. Indeed, I could only compare it unfavorably to the men I have known and admired in my personal life. He is a lesser man and it shows in his hollow gaze.
Now I see the crisis on the other side of the Atlantic is much worse. Next year Bush and the void behind his eyes will be gone, and America can begin to pick up the pieces and move on. But "Europe" is a zombie. It cannot be gone.