ChezGiven

Obama has already done more than either of them.

No i'm not diluting my points, Pilger's article was full of shit, calling the nobel committee reverse racists, blithely mis-representing the facts on Guantanamo, blaming Obama for centuries of US involvement in Latin America and generally demonstrating zero understanding of the US political process. Obama wants to build a consensus across parties on the main issues and to be inclusive in the deliberation process, this is a direct reaction and change to the previous regime. This does mean he will not unilaterally change US policy on key issues, so lots of the status quo will be retained. As for that Chomsky quote, what the fuck would he know of how Obama treats other world leaders in private? I dont care if he's clever, thats just utter bollocks, no one in the right mind could think that mainstream political aides are briefing Chomsky on Obama's personal style behind closed doors. If these commentators dont want empty rhetoric, perhaps they should think about publishing less of it themselves.

Ok, will Guantanamo still be open when Obama's presidency comes to an end? Do you believe it will still be open? Will that mean that the same torture policies inside the prision will be being followed as under Cheney/Bush? Its significant that getting a vote on the Senate floor on this issue came with months of him being President.

What happened with Owen? I missed the game.

What's your goal? A boyfriend.

I thought the article lucidly outlined the outcome of Obama administration policies. I don't see where (or why) good intentions comes into it whether or not he has them. No, the Pilger article tried to claim that Obama had somehow reneged on his promises about Guantanamo but failed to detail the Senate voting against his wishes, or his comments decrying their decision. It also is a static analysis of his administration, rather than a comparative dynamic analysis of what came before and which direction he is moving the US in now. You can poke holes in lots of US policies, always have been able to, their current economic position is under severe threat and they are trying to shore up their domestic economy. Same in the EU.

Haven't Goldman Sachs identified 'climate change' as their next bubble? Jimmy Carter agrees with me about the award too.

I expect those journalists to bring clarity to the issues involved and not blithely dismiss lack of results as a lack of conviction.

Thompers used to spy on Doggers in lay-bys just outside Bishop Auckland iirc.

I remember the Barnes cross most and the feeling of devastation when Linneker missed the header chance at the far post. Presume i was at home watching. Think i wanted Argentina to win too for some bizarre reason.

I was just getting ready to get into one, then read that.

I like him.

Of course it is, people dont understand that their healthcare problems are due to market failure and that the only alternative to free market allocation is some form of government intervention. Its not a simple insight, so many Americans (including democratic politicians) dont get it. These people, amongst others, are the ones who will design the bill and then send it to the White House. Contrast this to the UK, where a single bill would be sent by the government (the White House) to Parliament (Congress) for approval. The US process means that every view, no matter how stupid, is accounted for in the Bill drafting process.

I don't think anyone with an ounce of sense thinks Obama is evil and sits at his desk glorying in the destruction in his wake (or that Bush did for that matter). It would take an extraordinary individual to live up to the expectations on Obama's shoulders, but you can't run a campaign on the 'audacity of hope' with a slogan of "Yes we can" and play "Change is gonna come" when you win, then expect people to sit mutely when you have no discernable effect whatsoever, and get lauded for it. In American culture, governments dont change or do anything, a Republican is someone who believes that the only role of government is defense. They have no role in healthcare ffs, widely recognised by the rest of the planet as a core function of government. The healthcare bill (the single biggest issue facing the US) is moving forward. Thats change. 'Sitting mutely' is just an absurd way to characterise Obama's first 10 months.

I'll get back to you on some of the other points later as i'm off out but i will respond to your final point now as i think that gets to the heart of the point i'm trying to make. I believe that Obama is fundamentally a good man and in doing his job he will balance 3 things, his personal beliefs, the needs of his party and the complex financial, procedural and ethical minefield that is the US political process. All of his actions need to be judged in light of these things, which provide the realistic counter-points to the people who expect too much from him.

You want us to pull out of Afghanistan or stay? Personally i want us out but he didnt put us there, nor can he just walk away. As promised http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7080101233.html Clinton said that years ago. And the Iranians are lying about their nuclear capacity, only numb-nutted extreme-lefty freaks think otherwise (ooh that'll be Pilger) The jewish problem wasnt going to disappear overnight, how naive to think otherwise. Inflation. And the British pulled out of Iraq. Inflammatory bollocks. Yes John, presidents approve crowd control techniques. "Can we use the LRAD Sarge?" "Not sure skipper, i'll give Obama a quick bell". Does this cunt do any research? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/21/o...s_n_206189.html "The president spoke one day after the Senate voted resoundingly to deny him money to close the prison in Cuba, but Obama said he was still determined. And he decried arguments used against his plans." I'll come back to US political processes for you in a bit. You wanna buy some coke or something John? Funnily enough, Obama getting into power probably depended on his promises to the 'war on drugs' lobby. He might be the most liberal sounding President for a while but not sure he would get very far if he didnt actively try and control the cocaine supply. Our lefties are even in on it. Fuck off. Just fuck right off. Indeed but its a little bit more complicated than that. This is still the US we are talking about. Aye right John. In a dangerous world in need of hope, lets call the Nobel committee racists for giving a good man an honourable award. I was reading the latest on the healthcare bill yesterday and was thinking about how many commentators (including your fine self HF) have questioned the the sincerity of Obama and it got me thinking about the process required to get a bill in front of the President for him to sign. When you look into the process, you begin to get an understanding of the importance of Obama's election mantra. Effecting change in the US is incredibly complex and requires consensus across a huge range of individuals. If you take this example and think about the Senate blocking the finance for Guantanamo, you'll begin to see that 'yes we can' was as much a reminder to himself than a call to the people of the US. There are 5 congressional panels tasked with debating the reform proposals. Yesterday, Senator Snowe (Rep) signalled an intention to vote yes on one of these congressional panels. She is on Max Baucus's Finance committee, one of two Senate committees (the other is the Health Committee) that need to come together at some point and provide a Senate Bill for a Floor vote. At the same time there are 3 House of Representative Committees ('Ways & Means', 'Energy & Commerce' and 'Education and labour'). Together they need to provide a House of Reprsentatives Bill that will go for a floor vote. The composition of the committees reflects the relative split in each House between the parties. Some of the democrats chosen (and lobbied for by all sorts of Washington lobby groups) will be fiscal conservatives. The Democrats are divided on the issues, making progress extremely difficult. Once both houses have voted and approved their respective bills, then a conference committee needs to reconcile the two versions. Once this is done, each chamber needs to approve the final version. Only then is a Bill is sent to Obama to sign. He does not sit on any of the committees personally. "Yes we can"?

If by 'politically' you mean he doesn't want real reform as much as wants to keep his political sponsors on side and ensure a second term, then I agree 100%. I think thats a naive interpretation of 2009. We talk about the power of the corporations on the one hand and yet expect our governments to be more powerful. There is only so much to go around and its shared pretty thinly. Sorry I'm not sure what your point is. "We talk about the power of the corporations on the one hand" ...yes, it's a bad thing... "yet expect our governments to be more powerful" ...yes, that would reduce the injustice of a few corporations dictitaing policy for millions of citizens. Of course it's naive and wooly to imagine that our government shouldn't be bought. But then I'm a wooly liberal who thinks government should use laws to protect it's citizens from corporations whether it's from the moneylenders, expansion of the military complex, damage to the environment, dangerous foodstuffs, tobacco, medicines, electrical goods or any number of things the lobbyists will always try to keep as dishonest as possible in the name of profit. I agree, am just saying that was the status quo when he came to power i.e. the way of the world. With power already skewed so far towards the corporations, how much power do you think a President has? A lot but not enough to change the world overnight.

Embrace the nerves, they are your energy.

If by 'politically' you mean he doesn't want real reform as much as wants to keep his political sponsors on side and ensure a second term, then I agree 100%. I think thats a naive interpretation of 2009. We talk about the power of the corporations on the one hand and yet expect our governments to be more powerful. There is only so much to go around and its shared pretty thinly.

i assume you're talking about selling of the council houses?? i dont know ANYBODY that did'nt make a profit out of that. Err..People who need affordable housing now?? what?, and you're blaming that on Thatcher? Correct me if i'm wrong but didnt the housing price 'boom' happen long after Thatcher had left office?? She reomved almost the entire council stock into private ownership man. That's fine if you profited from it at the time (and acted as a fantastic bribe to the electorate) but what's happened 20 years down the line? would of been fine if the market had'nt been artificially inflated in the late 90's. and who was in power then?.......... The housing market was artifically inflated when credit laws allowed banks to lend 120% mortgages to poor people with no deposit. That happened around 2002. Untill then there was just normal inflation from economic cycles. To clarify, was this practice actually illegal before 2002? Think so, against financial regulations at least.

Because there is a difference between wanting to do something personally and being able to acheive it politically. Especially in the US.

i assume you're talking about selling of the council houses?? i dont know ANYBODY that did'nt make a profit out of that. Err..People who need affordable housing now?? what?, and you're blaming that on Thatcher? Correct me if i'm wrong but didnt the housing price 'boom' happen long after Thatcher had left office?? She reomved almost the entire council stock into private ownership man. That's fine if you profited from it at the time (and acted as a fantastic bribe to the electorate) but what's happened 20 years down the line? would of been fine if the market had'nt been artificially inflated in the late 90's. and who was in power then?.......... The housing market was artifically inflated when credit laws allowed banks to lend 120% mortgages to poor people with no deposit. That happened around 2002. Untill then there was just normal inflation from economic cycles.

"Beware the yellow peril" My grandma told me they used to say that when she was little. She was born in 1909.

No it doesnt, stop being so melodramatic. Where you see double standards, i see complex situations with multiple stakeholders, needs and objectives, without a single solution. Obama also 'wants' to reform healthcare. Thats not exactly a sparkling success either. At least the ideas and what he says are right, hence influencing and cajoling a whole generation of americans with the right words. The soundbite is mightier than the sword.

Didn't the company voluntarily drop it for this very reason? It was dropped since under PGI, production had to stay in Newcastle and couldnt move to the Fed at Gateshead, different city. No one complained because it was still really in Newcastle. 3 years later or whatever and 'domestic beer consumption' is being blamed. I dont get this at all, under a PGI, the world's supply of Brown Ale has to be made in the NE? Right? Then how does the 30% reduction in the value of sterling and the defintite medium term sterling target of the BoE mean that UK produced beer is under pressure now? Unless the brewery in the NE only serves the UK, as i presume the US beer is produced over there. The devaluation in sterling to encourage 'export-led' recovery should help a domestic beer that is exported, so why the need to consolidate at Tadcaster? Because falling beer sales are hitting short-term profits and managers need to hit their targets.