Short selling and individual mandates

I'VE BEEN firing out those articles over at YPNation - do read.

In defence of short selling and in opposition to individual mandates.

Does Gordon take drugs? Who cares...

A LOT has been said on the internet about Gordon Brown's alleged use of anti-depressants.

Guido has long been asking why nobody has ever raised this issue with the Prime Minister. Well, Andrew Marr did, and now he's persona non grata at Number 10.

To give him credit, Iain Dale said that we should be showing some empathy towards the Prime Minister if he's on medication. I would most certainly agree.

Today, Shane Greer states:

Would I have a problem with a Prime Minister taking anti-depressants? Absolutely not. But if a Prime Minister is taking anti-depressants, then voters have a right to know the extent to which the demands of the job are affecting them mentally and to take that into account when voting.

Now, this is the most bizarre conclusion. Taking medication is a personal issue, no matter what the (legal) drug. Unfortunately there is still a great deal of stigma attached to depression and somehow squeezing some sort of 'confession' out of the Prime Minister is hardly going to help matters.

In addition, do we really need to run off the number of exceptional leaders who had had to deal with depression? I'll give you a clue, one fella' - a lawyer by trade - kept his country together amidst a Civil War. What about Churchill's black dog? If Greer "doesn't have a problem" with Brown taking medication, then why does he believe that people should take the Prime Minister's alleged illness "into account when voting"? Really?

For all we know the Prime Minister could be dealing with severe depression brought on by the death of his son. Yes, lets get the PM to 'fess up.

Looking at the issue, Brown's state of mind is irrelevant. The man is not insane, just incompetent. I believe the voters should have a crack at voting Brown out of office because of his record. Not what's in his medicine cabinet.

This entire debate appears to have set perceptions of mental illness back decades.

What a pitty.

Smeato

SO, JOHN 'Smeato' Smeaton, alleged terrorist battering machine, has decided to run in the Glasgow North by election.

B'Jeez.

This will be interesting. Do you think the Labour Party are happy on a little ticked off by this? Current polls suggest he would finish third. I would have thought that the Labour Party would be delighted at the prospect of any candidate entering the race to stop the SNP.

What are the chances of the Labour candidate dropping out? Zero?

Some views on LabourList

I'VE POSTED a short - OK, rather long - comment on LabourList regarding this post about the mean right wing press in America.

Yes, there will always be people who despise Obama because of his race. No matter how much we wish this away, this will - regretfully - always be the case. However, this rant about the right-wing media is a little rich.

Am I a fan of O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity? God no. I'm more of a Jason Lewis kinda' guy. However, the left also has demagogues of their own. Look at Maddow, Olberman... Can you really say they don't subject people to the same sort of scare tactics? Can you really say that they were never as vitriolic about Bush as Hannity et al are about Obama?

I too campaigned last year and was called a "Nazi", "baby killer", and a "racist" just because I was there with the Republicans. It's a real pitty that both sides have resorted to such nonsense.

Now, to fisk a few points...

"Dream on, Mr. President. This is Obama as he wants to be; the unifier, the healer, a latter day Washington, transcending partisanship, geography, race and class. But this Obama cannot and will never be - not while there exists in America a significant but powerful minority that is determined to utterly destroy his presidency, just because it exists."

If Obama wants to be a unifier, then why on earth is every single speech he makes so partisan? Can you really tell me that his address to the Joint Houses of Congress was bipartisan? His talk of bipartisanship was but campaign rhetoric. I'm open to being corrected, but do feel free to point out when this "bipartisan" Obama existed. Where's the record?

"The monster goes way beyond healthcare, quite beyond policy and philosophy and entirely beyond party. Many Americans, of course, quite legitimately oppose the President out of genuine political differences, but maintain their respect for him and the office he holds. The others simply hold him in contempt. They are afraid, afraid of precisely the thing that excites his own liberal base: that this president is the first truly liberal chief executive since FDR, and represents the biggest threat to the cosy conservative hegemony that has for so longed ruled the American roost."

That's worth saying. Yes, many Americans do oppose Obama without resorting to the sort of Beck-esque rants. But then again, you will have people from both sides who "hold him (the President) in contempt. What about Bush? I struggle to recall any members of MoveOn.org complaining about the disrespect shown towards Bush. A plague on both their houses I say. And the first "truly liberal President since FDR" - you sure about that? What about Truman, Johnson and Carter? How on earth can you omit Johnson, who was probably more liberal than FDR?

"Consequently, the right wing media and radio talk show hosts peddle the politics of that fear, playing on their audience’s most base instincts with a relentless, sustained campaign of lies and misinformation. They cannot accept that somehow the Democrats won so conclusively in November, that somehow, just somehow, they might not speak for the average Joe on Main St. anymore. Worse, the man who seems to do so is black. Worse still, he’s a black liberal (or maybe a socialist, or communist, or was that fascist?) and he’s taking your America from you. You, they say, must stop him, whatever the cost."

Again, I would never claim that race is not involved. But to claim that people oppose him solely for his race is, quite frankly, bonkers. As you state, he is a liberal President, which is quite enough. Saying that the opposition to Obama's agenda comes from race, is like saying opposition to Bush was down to his Christianity. Also, go look at the poll numbers. It seems that neither party is doing too well with the man on the street.

"Working in a Congressional office, as I’ve been lucky enough to do over the last few months, has given me a ringside seat on the young Obama presidency, and his first meaningful stab at bringing about the ‘change’ on which he ran. Over that time, I’ve seen a rabid and feckless right wing media mutilate and distort a healthcare bill that has the potential to help tens of millions of Americans and I've learned that meaningful political discourse in America has become nigh-on impossible with a media machine virtually intent on destroying the Obama presidency."

What? The tens of millions of rich people who will be covered by the bill?

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9981

Bush got things past, despite a hostile media. Obama simply, despite having a super majority, doesn't have the votes. Simple as. That's not the fault of the media, but his gross miscalculation that he could rule by decree.

"A line constantly trotted out by Fox News is that the President and his allies are blinded by ideology. The irony of such a statement would be literally hilarious if it were not so utterly depressing. The likes of Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck (Fox’s pin-up of the month, famous for gems like the one below) in fact possess an ideology that goes beyond conservatism: it's nothing more than a crass anti-Obamaism."

As I've already stated, I'm hardly a fan. And given Bush's very own support of big government, I find their sudden epiphany a little late. Having worked for the Republicans in 2005 I can testify that the vitriol thrown at Bush during the Roberts and Alito hearings as well as his calls to reform social security was just as bad.

"This opposition to all Obama, great and small, is not discriminate and goes beyond anything any previous President has ever had to endure. It manifests itself in whatever the President does and every move he makes: healthcare, the Stimulus, Cash for Clunkers, Justice Sotomayor, Afghanistan and heaven help Obama if he wants to try and talk to the kids. When Obama had the audacity to try and speak to America’s school children about getting decent grades, Fox News and top Republican law-makers urged families to take their kids out of school lest they be brainwashed by the President’s ‘socialism’. Of course, no-one uttered so much as a peep when George W.Bush addressed schoolchildren in 2001, but of course, he was a Republican. He couldn’t possibly have been trying to brainwash children."

When did Bush address school children? 9/11? That was hardly an address now was it? Maybe you're referring to George HW Bush when he addressed kids? It's also worth noting that the Democrats opposed Poppy Bush addressing a school. Can you really say that the current opposition from the Republicans is not akin to that of the Democrats 2004-2006?

"And Bush never had to put up with ‘Birthers’, either. Anyone who denies that the criticism directed at Obama does not possess a racial element need only look at this absurd ‘birther movement’, an idea seriously reported on and even encouraged by various media outlets, including CNN."

The birthers are an absurd minority. But then again, who keeps giving them publicity? Please ask yourself why the birthers are getting so much publicity on MSNBC and ACORN get so much press on FOX? The Obama administration WANTS the media to report the birthers story because it will only hurt the Republicans. It figures doesn't it.

So toxic have some attacks on Obama become that so-called ‘patriots’ refuse to even accept their President’s own legitimacy as Commander-in-Chief by questioning his very birthplace. Obama was, of course, born in Hawaii, but it’s interesting to consider whether any such movement would have existed if John McCain had been elected. McCain was born at Coco Solo Naval Station in Panama, but of course, had McCain won, no such issue would ever have come about; I mean, come on, just look at McCain, he’s white! Of course he’s an American, silly.

Yes, but McCain was also born in a United States territory, just like Barry Goldwater. And just to let you know, there was a movement to question whether he could serve legitimately as President - remember?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/11/arizona-law-professor-mcc_n_112126.html

"Sarah Palin scared millions with her irresponsible talk of death panels, a Congressman advocated domestic terrorism and Rep. Joe Wilson thought nothing of shouting ‘You Lie’ at his Commander-in-Chief at a Joint-Session of Congress. Even Bush never had to endure anything like this."

Now come on, that's just complete BS. "Bush never had to endure anything like this." Are you deliberately being absent minded? Do you recall the 2005 State of the Union? No? If you watch it, Mr Wilson's "heckle" can be equated to a whisper.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/09/10/flashback_democrats_boo_bush_at_2005_state_of_the_union.html

"‘Death panels’, Birthers, taking guns to presidential rallies, calling for the Confederate flag to be lifted on Southern federal buildings and a blind devotion to the Fox News agenda, these are the hallmarks of much of the Grand Old Party today. When traditional Republicans, like Senator Olympia Snowe, speak out against this agenda of destruction and try and work constructively with the president, she gets called out for being a DINO (Democrat In All But Name). Lincoln must be spinning in his grave."

It's RINO - Republican In Name Only. And what's a "traditional Republican"? A Rockefeller Republican? So they have to either hog the center ground or represent a state in New England? Please. I'm a Goldwater guy, so I'm hardly a fan of the religious right. I do however acknowledge that their rhetoric can be both divisive and destructive, a lot like the Left.

"To call these people ‘conservatives’ does a disservice to the American conservatives of old. These people are the radicals and they are the monster of modern American politics. President Carter was right when he spoke of a racial element to some of Obama’s opposition. It has been fused with a refusal by some on the American right to acknowledge any liberal’s right to be President."

Who are these American conservatives of old? I'm interested because I agree. But, again, would you not also say that the very same movement exists on the left, whereby people refuse to acknowledge a Christian conservative as President?

"Anyone who honestly spoke of a post-racial America was always living in cloud cuckoo land, but what could perhaps not have been anticipated is the extent to which some have so brazenly questioned the President’s legitimacy. No-one talked of ‘Taking Back America’ in Clinton’s time, nor in Carter’s. It is for this President, this liberal black President, that that particular honour is reserved. It is to those people that propagate all this garbage and despicable misinformation that John Dean (former Nixon White House staffer) referred when he spoke of ‘conservatives without conscience’, and it is for these people that all Americans should hold outright contempt."

There will never be an entirely post-racial America. Then again there will never be a post-racial country anywhere. Remind me, how many black cabinet members in the House of Commons has there been?

One point, Barry Goldwater talked about "taking our country back" because he opposed Johnson's policies of big government and disdain for the constitution. Are you saying he too was a racist? The man who desegregated his stores and the Arizona national guard? Hillary Clinton also called on her supporters to "take the country back". Was she being anti-Bush? Anti-Obama?

In all, you have an interesting piece of analysis here. However, it would have been a little more interesting to look at the vitriol being spewed from both sides. To say that Bush was never subjected to the same opprobrium as Obama is nonsense. The press on the left and right have very short memories. To hear Rachel Maddow gurn about people accusing Obama of being "a Hitler" is a little perplexing, given that there was a Hitler/Bush banner at every anti-Bush rally. Do we all have such short memories? Can you honestly say that Olberman didn't subject Bush to the very same diatribes?

The only way we can resolve this is if people from both parties and movements speak out, rather than accusing Fox or MSNBC of "being meaner".

Comment on Scottish-America relations

THE EXCLUSIVE. I occasionally claim to have one, Iain Dale and Guido get them all the time.

Well, Newsnet Scotland has caught a big 'un:

In the week that will see Gordon Brown publicly meet Libya’s Col Gaddafi in New York we have the BBC in Scotland again running a story suggesting Scotland’s relationship with the USA has been harmed by the compassionate release of Al Megrahi.

This conveniently timed story results from comments made by someone called Susan Stewart who, according to the BBC, was Scotland's former "ambassador" in the United States.

Ah, excellent stuff - Susan Stewart, one of Scotland's greatest advocates. Having had the pleasure of serving as an intern with Susan in 2004, I can attest that if you want to know about Scottish-American relations, she is the 'gal to go to. If she's unavailable, go to Sean Connery.

Stewart told BBC Scotland: "I think undoubtedly there has been some short-term damage to the relationship between Scotland and the United States, but I don't think that damage is irrevocable.

"Their perspective on Lockerbie I think is that it was an attack on the United States and on their citizens, which makes the anger and the hurt that many Americans feel very real.

"So, yes there has been a problem but not one I think that we can't get past."

Stewart’s comments were reported on Monday’s Good Morning Scotland by Glenn Campbell who had already been despatched by the BBC to New York. They also appeared on the BBC Scotland website and have featured in news items throughout the day.

Yes, pretty much spot on. The anti-Scottish diatribes have faded a lot in the last few weeks. This is mainly because people in the United States watched the verdict, rather than followed the case. Had people been aware of the gross injustices involved in the Megrahi case, I'm sure many would have taken a different opinion. That being said, Scotland's reputation in the US has taken a bit of a bashing of late, but nothing "that we can't get past."

However it is an altogether different ‘special’ relationship that has led to suspicion that all is not as it appears.

Oh dear. Here it comes...

Ms Stewart’s official title was not that of ‘ambassador’ but rather Secretary for Scottish Affairs, she was based at the British embassy in Washington until the role ended in 2005. Susan Stewart was appointed to this role in 2001 by former Labour First Minister Henry McLeish.

Yes, because Scotland is not an independent state. Therefore you are not, by diplomatic protocol, allowed to be addressed as 'ambassador'.

The connections to Scottish Labour do not end there, for Newsnet Scotland can reveal that Susan Stewart is also the former chief press officer to one ....... Jack McConnell, a role she occupied when he was education minister.

Yes, go on...

Furthermore Stewart’s partner at the time was Jeanne Freeman, who was a special adviser to McConnell after he became the First Minister and was one of his most trusted aides.

And...

Jack McConnell is just one of many Unionist politicians who have attempted to politicise the Megrahi decision and who have embraced the opportunity to falsely claim international outrage at the decision. McConnell even went as far as to suggest that the decision had “shamed Scotland”, flying in the face of statements of support from many respected figures within the international community.

No, I really hate to break it to you, but people in the US - y'know, "internationally" - were pretty pissed off. This was not "falsely" claimed outrage. It happened. I was there. And given how cack-handed the entire affair was, rightfully so.

Of course, Newsnet Scotland would never dream of suggesting that this story has been contrived and carefully timed in order to once again deflect attention away from Labour’s 'dodgy' deals with Gaddafi and onto the Scottish Government.

We would also never suggest that the BBC are only too happy to continue to promote the myth that the release of Al Megrahi has caused a significant backlash against Scotland in the USA and damaged relations between the two nations.

Others though may take a different view.

Wait a sec - so all of a sudden we're getting all conspiratorial? Cripes. So let me get this straight - Susan Stewart and the BBC are in cahoots with Scottish Labour. Right. And through this cabal they're attempting to mount yet more pressure on the Scottish government over their handling of the affair. Right.

Interesting theory, except for those who will remember, the relationship between Stewart and McConnell ended acrimoniously in 2005. So, despite the protestations of the Scottish-American community and her desire to stay on in the post, Stewart was recalled boy Westminster and McConnell failed to grow some and do something about it. And yet Stewart is still more than happy to be McConnell's stooge?

I guess I am one of those who "may take a different view".

How exotic...

I WON'T say much about James Macintyre's nonsensical diatribe against the Conservative Party in the New Statesman. Over the years, having spent several evenings in the Carlton Club I have taken issue with the Conservative Party on a number of levels. A number. Fortunately, one of those issues has never been race.

As Iain Dale rightly points out, racism is as rife in the Conservative Party as it is in the Labour Party. Of course, from my own experience I've encountered anti-Scottish sentiments from people in both political parties. I would like to attribute this to light hearted banter than anything else, although - I regret to say- the Lockerbie saga did turn things ugly for a bit.

Nonetheless, Macintyre's piece picks a few quotations from Dan Hannan, drawing the conclusion that the man is a racist. This one in particular I thought was a hilarous:

"Barack Obama has an exotic background and it would be odd if some people weren't unsettled by it."

Interesting. I seem to recall someone once saying this:

”I have an unusual name and an exotic background, but my values are essentially American values. I'm rooted in the African-American community, but I'm not limited by it.”

Yes, it was that racist... Barack Obama...

Couple of articles for ya'll

FOR THOSE of you not enjoying a light lager after work, do feel free to read my piece at YPNation on the state of British banks.

Also, for those of you following the healthcare debate see Derek Hunter's piece at Big Government.