Archive for the 'Bush' Category

the next guy

May 18, 2007

As often, Bush’s simple straight-talk gets it right: yesterday, in meeting Blair for the last time, Bush referred to Brown as “the next guy”. Not as Gordon Brown. Not as the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Not as the future Prime Minister. Just the next guy. I guess it will always be like that for Brown, the guy that came after Tony Blair.

Can i work with the next guy? Of course.


misusing words: ‘terrorist’ and ‘boycott’

February 18, 2007

The term ‘terrorist’ is abused. There are a lot of ugly monsters – who deserve their intestine microwaved – out there. But, contrary to what President Bush’s speech-writers appear to think, they are not all terrorists. This point, often made by the left, I accept (as I have already discussed here). But now I have noticed that ‘boycott’ is another term often abused and misused (by the left (read: BBC), for example). Someone should tell the BBC News editors that if Israel (and the US) don’t want to negotiate with people whose expressed aim in life is the destruction of Israel, that is not a boycott. Last night, one of those ugly monsters who are not terrorists (believe it or not, Mr. Bush) approached me with a knife. I dared to run away, instead of negotiating over the contents of my wallet. I am waiting for the poor fucker to complain to the BBC over my unfeeling boycott.

measures in the sky (with guns)

February 9, 2007

The US Government wants to arm pilots on commercial flights. That would be better, they argue, than having armed air marshals fly as passengers: pilots have to be on board anyway. Indeed, it would also be cheaper, easier, and would avoid having passengers stare at each other wondering who’s got the gun. Have you ever received a “Have you got the gun?” stare? You might not have identified it: it’s not that different from the “Are you the terrorist?” stare. The pilot is in charge, and he or she already has the trust of the passengers. So, definitely, if someone’s got to carry a gun, let it be the pilot. In fact, I might venture to propose to the US Government some even better measures: since it would be a pain, both politically and financially, to have to gun-train all those pilots, why don’t just make airlines employ military pilots? Those guys already know everything about guns, terrorists, and dangerous situations. Doubtless, military pilots would be fitter for the job. But then you would have to train military pilots for commercial flights. So why don’t we just all travel in military aircrafts? That would definitely spare quite a lot of training and money; and, I can assure you, Mr. President, many of us would feel quite a lot safer in a darker looking aircraft carrying the US AirForce insignia.

Choosing your readers

February 8, 2007

Today The Guardian runs a commentary, by Garton Ash, under the title: ‘We must stop Bush bombing Iran, and stop Iran getting the bomb’. If the title had been the other way around, I might have bothered to read the article; this way, they can forget it.

Climate change: means and ends

January 30, 2007

George Monbiot is ugly, boring, and slightly annoying – in a word, academic; but he does his homework, providing a useful service to his readers. Today, Monbiot didn’t do his homework as well as usual: he was trying to refute the American plan to reflect sunlight back into space rather than cut emissions; but the dismissive vagueness with which he dealt with the arguments left you with a bad feeling: that environmentalists are not wanting to cut emissions as a means to the end of stopping climate change, but that they campaign on climate change as a means to the end of cutting emissions.

Are they talking about the same war?

December 6, 2006

US President George W. Bush, 1.5.2003: “In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed”.

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates, 5.12.2006: “the US are not winning conflict in Iraq”.

love-making for war

December 6, 2006

Great token of Bush rhetoric in The Herald yesterday: “Like most of the young men at the [Trident peace] camp, Hoosie and Garry do not regard peace as a simple ideal, but as a maxim to be fought for”.