Heartland

From BBC Radio 4 "any answers" program. October 2005

Is George Bush suffering from "second term-itus" ?

I think if you ask the question 'is he suffering from second term-itus'
it rather implies that his decline in popularity and public prestige
is simply due to having been in power for quite a long time, and I must
say I think its alot more than that. I think he is suffering from
the perception both internationally and in large parts of the US
that he made the wrong judgement over Iraq, and has been shown to
have said the wrong things and misled people at the time that we
went into war. the same thing that damaged so much of the UK
Government’s reputation with so many people in the last general
Election. I think he suffered in the eyes of many people in his country
and abroad for his attitude to issues such as climate change
and the perception by the management of the emergency situation
in the hurricane that was experienced recently in the United States
of America that he was out of touch with the problems that were
going on, particularly in a very vulnerable community, so I think
this is alot more than second term-itus, this is about mistakes
that he's been making as president, not just the amount of time
he's been in power. I rather hope that he won't be looking for
something to secure his legacy, because people looking for
something to secure their legacy can be very dangerous indeed."

I don't often feel sorry for ministers, but I did
for your last speaker for having think of anything nice to say about
George Bush, when it’s perfectly obvious that he's been a catastrophe
not only for the United States, but for the western world.
Tony Blair has chosen to put almost
everything, to put all his chips onto supporting George Bush as
President of the united states and some policies that have turned
out to be both disastrously ill-conceived and unbelievably crudely
and incompetently executed. i remember a year or two ago
somebody saying to me "its not grown up to hate George Bush", well one's
now tempted to say 'why not?'
This is a man entrusted with the leadership of the western world
who's proved unfit to exercise it, who's proved that all the things
that were said by many people about him at the beginning, as a man
that is a terrifying combination of arrogance, and ignorance,
is true, and all this has now come home to roost. I was in
Washington two weeks ago, and a friend of mine who works for
the pentagon said "welcome to the hundred year Iraq war",
and they know over there, the Americans have now percieved what
others have perceived before, that we have a very serious
situation, the leadership of the western world is in completely
Incompetent hands and how we are going to get out of the mess
that George bush has put not only in the US but the western world
into, god only knows.

I think the more pertinent question for the majority of H- Landers, living as we do in Old Blighty, is...
"Is Tony Blair suffering from third- or- fourth- or- however- long- it- is- he's- been- in- and- now- he's- got- a- chancellor- who's- been- eyeing- his- job- for- donkey's- years- and- a- cabinet- full- of- petty- squabbling- bastards- and- one- really- dodgy- dealer- also- he's- made- a- total- balls- up- of- the- EU- presidency- and- the- Tories- have- got- a- shiny- new- public- school- boy- to- save- their- sorry- arses- in- addition- to- absolutely- nobody- liking- him- itis?"

And the answer is of course, YES. Who'd be a Prime Minister, eh?

*edited by markfiend because it was apparently breaking the layout. It didn't on my Mac; what's up with PCs that they can't put in a line-break at a hyphen? Anyway, fixed now.

@ Ocean Moves:

I agree with you insofar as that it's far more than just the long time Bush has been president, and that it has a lot to do with how incompetent and misleading he and his entourage are (I sometimes wonder to what degree he is just a willing puppet of interests "behind" him).
But the trouble for me already starts at the point where somebody is given the role of a "leader of the western world". And this is something that both, the USA and (part of) the rest of the world, are responsible for...

Eva wrote:@ Ocean Moves:

I agree with you insofar as that it's far more than just the long time Bush has been president, and that it has a lot to do with how incompetent and misleading he and his entourage are (I sometimes wonder to what degree he is just a willing puppet of interests "behind" him).
But the trouble for me already starts at the point where somebody is given the role of a "leader of the western world". And this is something that both, the USA and (part of) the rest of the world, are responsible for...

It annoys me too that the American President is automatically given the role of a leader to us. As you say though, it's our governments who are complicit in this.

George Bush is suffering from life-itis. Or rather we're suffering from it.

Mewishes that would change. In a very narrowminded way of course. I don't care to think about who would take his place.

boudicca wrote:I think the more pertinent question for the majority of H-Landers, living as we do in Old Blighty, is...
"Is Tony Blair suffering from truncateditis?"

And the answer is of course, YES. Who'd be a Prime Minister, eh?

The page is suffering from stretchy-itis

Eva wrote:@ Ocean Moves:

I agree with you insofar as that it's far more than just the long time Bush has been president, and that it has a lot to do with how incompetent and misleading he and his entourage are (I sometimes wonder to what degree he is just a willing puppet of interests "behind" him).
But the trouble for me already starts at the point where somebody is given the role of a "leader of the western world". And this is something that both, the USA and (part of) the rest of the world, are responsible for...

I agree with you, the entourage is probably more dangerous than he is.

incidently, I didn't write that piece, its a transcription of the radio
program, unfortunately I don't have the guest speakers names.

Motz wrote:

boudicca wrote:I think the more pertinent question for the majority of H-Landers, living as we do in Old Blighty, is...
"Is Tony Blair suffering from truncateditis?"

And the answer is of course, YES. Who'd be a Prime Minister, eh?

The page is suffering from stretchy-itis

It's a bastard to type words without spaces... just as well my brain works very very slowly...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4400728.stm

welcome to the free world, boys and girls.

Ocean Moves wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4400728.stm

welcome to the free world, boys and girls.

Did that surprise you then?

Just read about the new security advisor who's replacing that Lewis Libby guy. Seems quite a nice fellow, thinks the Geneva convention nor the human rights should go for whoever is a terrorist

Problem with all these conservatives is they occupy all places and won't leave until someone who is at least as conservative as they are comes to replace them, why the hell are progressives way more fair in those matters.

@Eva: You're very right, but then again, what would they do if we would not longer take them as leaders of the world? Put us on the axis of terrorist countries or something?

I seem to remember they gave us some hints when the EU proposed to switch from country armies to an united army and thus a centralised NATO-membership and all that.

Bush isn't as stupid as we think, that's for sure, but I think those behind him are far more evil than we think too...

The only thing that could counter Imperial Amerika is a new nation-state of Europe, but the chances of that are slim to none. NATO was a good idea, but even then it barely worked - re: The French - and now we don't have an external threat to work against, it's falling apart.

Nonetheless, the economic might posed by most of Europe and assorted others melding together probably has the GOP running scared

timsinister wrote:The only thing that could counter Imperial Amerika is a new nation-state of Europe, but the chances of that are slim to none. NATO was a good idea, but even then it barely worked - re: The French - and now we don't have an external threat to work against, it's falling apart.

Nonetheless, the economic might posed by most of Europe and assorted others melding together probably has the GOP running scared

ever heard of a little place called china?

the [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4400728.stm]BBC link[/url] wrote:The CIA is running a network of secret prison facilities around the world

Why not be honest and call them concentration camps?

because thats what bad people who run countries like north korea do.

not, free thinking, free world loving america.

right? umm..

RicheyJames wrote:

timsinister wrote:The only thing that could counter Imperial Amerika is a new nation-state of Europe, but the chances of that are slim to none. NATO was a good idea, but even then it barely worked - re: The French - and now we don't have an external threat to work against, it's falling apart.

Nonetheless, the economic might posed by most of Europe and assorted others melding together probably has the GOP running scared

ever heard of a little place called china?

I don't think that Europe has to be changed into a nation-state to economically rival or threaten the US - it's quite capable of doing so in its current form (as it did when it forced the US into a defeat on Bush's protectionist steel tarrifs a couple of years ago).

If you read some of the hate-filled diatribes written by some (republican) US columnists against the EU, then I think you'd be correct in saying that the EU already has the GOP running scared.

Although still considered quite powerful (even increasingly powerful) based on older economic models, China cannot properly compete in the growing new economy where unrestricted data flow is both currency and product. Its insistence on restricting data flow in order to maintain its Orwellian control of the information available to its citizens (still very much in effect, and noticable in the recent deals done between China and US companies such as Google, Yahoo and Microsoft) is crippling it.

India, on the other hand, is currently well placed to start a slow and steady growth in this new area.

i agree with lazcorp, although china's got one up on india: Inter-Continental-Ballistic-Missiles.i'm certain that without these the west would not be quite so willing to play nicely with them.

and to answer the initial question: surely second-term-itis is irrelevant in US politics as the constitution doesn't allow third-term presidencies?

@Obivousman: America could try to continue an even more isolationist way than it already does, although that wouldn't work for long.
I doubt that they could include "us" (Europe) entirely in the axis of evil, but imho the problem aren't the governments per se.
The problem are we, who a) prefer to not inform ourselves as much as we should, wherever we live on this planet (given "free press"), and that b) "we" still prefer our own sorry little private interests to something larger, something more fair.
And I'm not talking about the "choices" of poor people, I'm talking of people like "you" and "me" who are relatively well off, but still, if we loose our jobs, because the companies move further east where the wages are lower etc. prefer to become racist to looking at the "big picture".
As long as we demand easy answers to complicated questions nothing will improve. And I still think that the potential power to improve anything lies with the people, not the governments.

eastmidswhizzkid wrote:i agree with lazcorp, although china's got one up on india: Inter-Continental-Ballistic-Missiles...

I'm not sure how long for though. In any case India's nukes are largely assumed to be targeted at its nuclear neighbours Pakistan and China itself; targets easily reached by the missile technology India does have. India is also believed to be especially keen to beef up its airforce; it's not beyond the realms of imagination that some of the new medium-range bombers they're buying could be upgraded to carry nuclear weaponry.

I also seem to recall reading that India has recently bought (one? a few?) reconditioned former Soviet-navy nuclear-powered submarines, which almost certainly could hold nuclear-capable-missiles long-ranged enough to hit most targets from a convenient nearby ocean.

lazarus corporation wrote:Although still considered quite powerful (even increasingly powerful) based on older economic models, China cannot properly compete in the growing new economy where unrestricted data flow is both currency and product. Its insistence on restricting data flow in order to maintain its Orwellian control of the information available to its citizens (still very much in effect, and noticable in the recent deals done between China and US companies such as Google, Yahoo and Microsoft) is crippling it.

Surely it's only a matter of time though, until their system mellows to the point of... well, basically no longer being either Communist or totalitarian. And data flows much more freely.
I think the reason so many people see it as increasingly powerful is because they do seem to keep dropping bits and pieces of their ideology in order to compete globally. The lure of capitalism and the promise of being a major world power if they just gave in to it could prove irrestible...

Err, what is the/a GOP?

eastmidswhizzkid wrote:i agree with lazcorp, although china's got one up on india: Inter-Continental-Ballistic-Missiles.

I'd consider ICBMs to be an economic disadvantage to China. Developing and maintaining a nuclear arsenal is a drain on the economy - and China's huge arsenal is a proprtionately huge drain compared to India's (although in North Korea's case they do prevent the US invading you, even if they consider you a "rogue state"®.).

Obviousman wrote:Err, what is the/a GOP?

GOP = Grand Old Party = the US Republican Party

boudicca wrote:

lazarus corporation wrote:Although still considered quite powerful (even increasingly powerful) based on older economic models, China cannot properly compete in the growing new economy where unrestricted data flow is both currency and product. Its insistence on restricting data flow in order to maintain its Orwellian control of the information available to its citizens (still very much in effect, and noticable in the recent deals done between China and US companies such as Google, Yahoo and Microsoft) is crippling it.

Surely it's only a matter of time though, until their system mellows to the point of... well, basically no longer being either Communist or totalitarian. And data flows much more freely.
I think the reason so many people see it as increasingly powerful is because they do seem to keep dropping bits and pieces of their ideology in order to compete globally. The lure of capitalism and the promise of being a major world power if they just gave in to it could prove irrestible...

That's true. They've dropped so much of their ideology that they aren't Communist anymore but totalitarian Capitalists. Not that their system ever did pass for what I'd see as Socialism. A perfect example of why I don't believe in leaders.

Driven wrote:

boudicca wrote:

lazarus corporation wrote:Although still considered quite powerful (even increasingly powerful) based on older economic models, China cannot properly compete in the growing new economy where unrestricted data flow is both currency and product. Its insistence on restricting data flow in order to maintain its Orwellian control of the information available to its citizens (still very much in effect, and noticable in the recent deals done between China and US companies such as Google, Yahoo and Microsoft) is crippling it.

Surely it's only a matter of time though, until their system mellows to the point of... well, basically no longer being either Communist or totalitarian. And data flows much more freely.
I think the reason so many people see it as increasingly powerful is because they do seem to keep dropping bits and pieces of their ideology in order to compete globally. The lure of capitalism and the promise of being a major world power if they just gave in to it could prove irrestible...

That's true. They've dropped so much of their ideology that they aren't Communist anymore but totalitarian Capitalists. Not that their system ever did pass for what I'd see as Socialism. A perfect example of why I don't believe in leaders.

Unfortunately for China, it's the totalitarian social-control aspect of their state (the 'Orwellian control of the information' as I put it) that is holding it back from taking advantage of this new economy, rather than whether it is economically communist, socialist or capitalist. And they show no signs of becoming less totalitarian.

Eva wrote:@Obivousman: America could try to continue an even more isolationist way than it already does, although that wouldn't work for long.
I doubt that they could include "us" (Europe) entirely in the axis of evil, but imho the problem aren't the governments per se.
The problem are we, who a) prefer to not inform ourselves as much as we should, wherever we live on this planet (given "free press"), and that b) "we" still prefer our own sorry little private interests to something larger, something more fair.
And I'm not talking about the "choices" of poor people, I'm talking of people like "you" and "me" who are relatively well off, but still, if we loose our jobs, because the companies move further east where the wages are lower etc. prefer to become racist to looking at the "big picture".
As long as we demand easy answers to complicated questions nothing will improve. And I still think that the potential power to improve anything lies with the people, not the governments.

wise words, imho.

however I think some very elementary things prevent improvement
of our world at present, such things as:

-the life span of political life
(who cares about implementing policies that take 30 years to complete?
lets make politicies that encourage people to vote for us now)

-human life span
(who cares if my policies f**k things up in 80 years? i won't be around)

-geography
(if bad such happens in southern africa, who cares? its not on my
door step. and i dont live in frontier pakistan either. out of sight,
out of mind. thats basic human nature for you. sad, but true.
i want hear about local gossip, i'll sell papers that tell insipid stories
about popular culture because i'll sell more papers, not because it
informs people)