The Golden Strawberry

Despite the deranged and idiotic sqwarkings of the anti-American Left (and Right), America remains a Democratic, Liberal and Secular country. It has a great tradition of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press, one which goes from strength to strength today. From the Nation, New Yorker and New York Review of Books in print journalism, through John Stewart and Keith Olbermann on the TV and now the increasingly powrful blogsphere and online media, real, hard hitting journalism thrives in the US.

Keith Olbermann is one of the best newscasters in the world and he could be considered the heir of the legendary Edward R. Murrow (indeed he even signs off his shows with Murrow's famous phrase 'Goodnight and Good Luck'). His latest broadside against the monstrous Donald Rumsfeld is a thrilling and passionate indictment of one of the most incompetent and callous men ever to inhabit the Pentagon.

Watch it, it really is excellent. THe BBC would never broadcast such a blood raising piece.

-posted by Adam

Balance is usually something we are not accused with at the Golden Strawberry. But, for a change, here is an article by some Christian Bush blogger who thinks that science is dead.

Pfft....

-posted by Roy

I'm afraid you'll have to make do with this link, as I can't seem to put the picture on this blog:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3495/1779/1600/New_journal.jpg

Hat tip to BB, via SimplyJews

-posted by Roy

Can you imagine the damage to the free world this would cause?

Iran's president has challenged US President George W Bush to a live TV debate on world affairs.

This has to be prevented at all costs. Just the thought of Bush debating with anyone with half a brain cell and heaps of rhetoric fills me with a foreboding. Cripes.

-posted by Roy

Just a snippet to whet your appetite, an interview with Francis Beckett, a biographer (apparently) who has rated all the Prime Ministers on a rating out of five. Eden and Chamberlain get 0, Thatcher and Atlee get 5, Blair gets three.

I particularly agree with what Beckett says here:

FB: This series will (hopefully) serve as a political history of the 20th century - 20 prime ministers in 20 books. In my view the best way to understand history is through biography. There are "great forces", the Marxist idea of history, operating, but even then I find it more interesting to see those forces acting through individuals.

And I do actually believe individuals make a difference, and history would be different without them. Does anyone, for instance, think we would have been better off if Halifax had become prime minister in 1940, rather than Churchill? Or that things would not have been different if Rab Butler had won the Tory leadership rather than Harold Macmillan?

And not least, I, for one, believe things would have been fundamentally different if John Smith had lived - no Iraq, no PFI, no dome, no city academies, a proper comprehensive system of education based on what he had seen had worked in Scotland, and higher taxes, or at least hypothecated ones for education and health. And, basically, a Labour party not enslaved to Thatcher's idea that the private sector is always best.

It's a moot point whether you agree with the specifics of what Beckett has to say (I do as a matter of fact) but biography is the most interesting way to study history. Maybe it doesn't help you (as much) to understand root causes, but it's more fun reading about the lives of the medieval French kings than economic and social changes in twelfth century France, for example.

-posted by Roy

Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah has apologised for capturing two Israeli soldiers, because he didn't think the action would lead to such a response from Israel.

In other news, Japan has apologised for bombing Pearl Harbour. A spokesman for the Japanese emperor said he would never have ordered the bombing of Pearl Harbour, if they knew it would lead to such a response from the US army.

-posted by Roy

Apologies for my lack of blogging this week. I've hardly been in, as I've been celebrating my birthday with various groups of friends and family most nights this week.

Which means I've not blogged during the biggest controversy to hit cricket for quite some years.

I will be collating my thoughts and giving them to you when I've got them straightened out.

I'm sure you can't wait...

-posted by Roy

Maybe, if we see a President McCain:

His growing kitchen cabinet spans an array of issues and backgrounds, and includes James Jay Baker, a former lobbyist for the National Rifle Association; Niall Ferguson, a historian at Harvard; and Barry McCaffrey, who was the drug czar under President Bill Clinton.

Niall Ferguson is a brilliant man and an always entertaining read, but letting him anywhere near the levers of power would be a bad idea.

-posted by Adam

Lieberman's lead on anti-war rival narrows:

Lieberman's lead over anti-war challenger Ned Lamont has narrowed to a razor-thin margin, two polls showed on Wednesday.

The 2000 vice presidential candidate lost the Democratic primary vote in Connecticut to Lamont this month, but is running for re-election as an independent in a contest that has exposed deep divisions over the unpopular Iraq war.

An American Research Group poll conducted Thursday through Monday said the race was a statistical tie, putting Lieberman's support among 790 likely voters at 44 percent versus 42 percent for Lamont, a political novice and wealthy cable TV executive.

It would be a catastrophe if the Democrats turned away from the US's commitments in the War on terrorism. The spectacular and tragic incompetence of the Bush administration can be mitigated with a Democrat victory for the in the Congressional mid-term elections in November, but if the party is taken over by people like Lamont then the only people who should be celebrating were this to occur are the insurgents in Iraq and Osama bin Laden.

What is needed is a cross party alliance on issues relating to the War and the fight against terrorism. At the head of this should be Senators John McCain, a man of honour who has attempted to make it illegal for Rumsfeld and the Pentagon to use torture and Senator Lieberman who, whilst guilty for not critiscising Bush enough, realises the gravity of the situation and cost which must be paid to meet it. Were the Democrats to show that they could be trusted with the security of the nation, the 2008 Presidential election would be theirs to lose.

A Democrat in the White House next time would be good for American Democracy, would heal some of the deep cultural divides which have split the nation so painfully in the past decade and would get the US back on track to fiscal stabiliy by repealing Bush's ridiculous tax cuts.

The Democrats need to be taken seriously, however. This means matching the Republicans on security issues, whilst offering basic competence in the domestic sphere - something that has been lacking in the White House in the past few years. We'd also see the back of Donald Rumsfeld - a man who has single-handedly sabotaged any chance the Iraqis had of building a new society.

-posted by Adam.

AS YOU CAN SEE, CAPSOFF IS A VERY ANNOYING KEY. IT MAKES PEOPLE LOOK LIKE THEY ARE SHOUTING ALL THE TIME. ESPECIALLY WHEN COMBINED WITH LOTS OF EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Which is why this campaign deserves more airtime.

-posted by Roy