General Hot Topics

[Tenarke]

Well; as Iraq moves steadily towards autonomy and self rule it may soon represent the same degree of success as the previously liberated, Afghanistan.

www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/opinion/05tue2.html?th&emc=th

Soon our triumph in the Middle East will be as complete as our war on drugs is here at home.

[RobertGraves]

I think the point well made in this article: we're competitive bastards.

www.smh.com.au/news/Ross-Gittins/Ponder-higher-taxes-at-your-leisure/2005/04/12/1113251626219.html

[wordswordswords]

Yessir, I'm going to the nearest supermarket just as fast as I can and am going to buy out all the bananas! And I'm not going to share them, either! ;D

[Wyndham]

An interesting article Robert! I suggest that everybody read the book 'The Two Income Trap'. Problem with everybody working so much harder is that there is only so much to go around -- a healthy economy only grows at 2% a year. Consequence? There isn't that much more to go around. 50 years ago, middle class families lived better on one income than they do today with two. Most of the residual income is taken up in rising housing and car prices. Would you rather make $20,000 a year (one income), and have a wife who stayed at home, driving a $4,000 chev and living in a $20,000 dollar house, or combined make $200,000 a year (two incomes) and drive two $35,000 Nissans, carrying a $350,000 mortgage? The math is easy, no? Search for status = bankruptcy, the middle class disease.

Never really understood either the argument that high taxes discourage work. I would have thought the contrary -- you would work that much harder to make up the difference.

[RobertGraves]

www.nytimes.com/2005/04/18/opinion/18herbert.html?hp

How 'radical' was Roosevelt?

[Tenarke]

This is deserving of an answer. I haven’t had full access to my computer for a bit or I would have come back sooner.

Roosevelt was serving his last term as I was in my teens and coming of age politically. At that time his actions which bailed us out of the depression and skippered us through the war were generally considered to be successful by a grateful nation. During his first term, however, his own affluent social peers were outraged at him denouncing him as a radical socialist and a “class traitor”. He was after all a Roosevelt. But by the time I was in high school his “New Deal” was well established and pretty much considered an acceptable and normal way of doing things.

This has put me personally in rather a silly predicament. I think my values have remained pretty much the same. During the late Roosevelt and early Truman eras I was mostly middle of the road. With the coming of Joe McCarthy and my college studies in the liberal arts, I was obviously some kind of commie weirdo. Under Kennedy I was a little left of center, but acceptably so. From Nixon and beyond I seem to have drifted farther and farther to the left. This of course with the exception of the time that I lived in San Francisco, held down an 8:00 to 4:30 job and raised a family during the “Flower Child” era. The hippies, I am sure, would have considered me a crypto-fascist.

It is indeed a lively dance trying to stand fast in an oscillating universe. Something of a paradox; because I hold fast to and conserve some very old established values, today’s conservatives consider me and my like to be radicals.

Speaking of radical documents; have you read the Declaration of Independence lately?

Abruptly changing the subject; England is electing a new government. I understand that the Labour party will remain in power though with a very reduced majority and that our Tony is once again teetering.

[RobertGraves]

...and that completes the trifecta - Bush, Howard and Blair have all been re-elected.

[Wyndham]

Not totally complete Robert: only remaining major leader of an English speaking power, Paul Martin, is about to fall. His replacement, if Conservative, will be a Bush wannabe (Stephen Harper makes no bones of the fact that he would have had us in Iraq).

[Tenarke]

More on Blair:

www.nytimes.com/2005/05/06/international/europe/06britain.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=th

Speculation (wishful thinking?) here seems to be that Blair squeaked by to reelection by emphasizing his domestic policies and playing down, as much as possible, the decision to back Bush in Iraq. Thus what kept him alive politically was his work in strengthening the same social security, health and education services in Britain that Bush is so industriously trying to tear down in the US. This is in spite of his endorsement of the Iraq “regime change” not because of it.

My comment that he was still teetering comes from speculation that his Labour party rival Gordon Brown may be relieving him of duty in the next year or so; so that Tony can spend more time with his family – of course.

[RobertGraves]

If Blair's opponent had more charisma than a chair the result would have been different.

[Aravis]

According to all the Brits I've been talking to, the Conservatives have been far too racist to stand a chance. Blair was the lesser of two evils. Sound familiar? However his party didn't win by as much as they expected to and Labor lost several seats. It is the hope of the Brits that he learns a lesson from that. Indeed, he has already claimed to have done so.

Right. We'll see.

[Tenarke]

“The charisma of a chair”; indeed Robert. The worst I have seen in our press is that Gordon Brown is a dour Scot; like most of my own ancestors, no doubt.

Come, come. We canna a' be cheerful!

A grim presbyterian frown in place of a friendly warm nose up the bum might do our Georgie a world of good.

[RobertGraves]

Depends on who you think his 'opponent' was, Tenarke. ;D We all know that the Labor Party can hate it's own much more than the foe - but I was think Michael Howard was the 'chair'.

[Tenarke]

Ah; now I see. Wrong furniture.

[Tenarke]

I am now seeing more in our press re Blair. Apparently to mend fences within the Labour Party he has let it be known that he will turn over leadership before this present new term is complete. Speculation is now sometime in 2006. Nothing to confirm whether it will be Gordon Brown or some other. The clear message however seems to say that being buddies with Bush is not a political asset in the UK regardless of party.

Meanwhile our George has had a new hot potato handed him.

www.nytimes.com/2005/05/09/national/09exile.html?th&emc=th

That will be neat semantic trick, separating the “good” terrorists from the “evil” terrorists.

Of course Sr. Carriles is 77 and is suffering from cancer. If George waffles long enough this problem will self destruct.