Question Time and This Week

also.. the crazy older lady with drawn-on eyebrows and a red, white, and blue jacket hollering about how clinton was actually the one responsible for letting bin laden get away. i thought (hoped?) that she was going to have a seizure.

I saw a bit of it but found it so Jerry Springerish I had to go to bed. They should have forced the audience to watch a couple of episodes of Proper Question Time before filming began to give them an idea of how we like our audiences and panel members to behave. Romy & Michelle was way better, but Ally didn't laugh at it much, so I didn't make him switch back to it.

I didn't like the voting lady much either, especially when she paused for an uncomfortably long time before saying "incarnation", and it was completely not the right word.

all of the audience were like hilarious caricatures. there was the feisty young cuban woman who made no sense about voting cards; the moody goth who just said 'boxcutters'; the woman who was really a man talking about personal liberty.

i've realised i liked the voting woman mainly because of her eyebrow usage.

the moody conservative goth: "so what if weapons of mass destruction weren't found. you could walk on a plane with boxcutters."

ok. lock everyone up and have done with it. we're all capable of walking on to a plane.

I am surprised about Ally. I didn't know he was such a misery-guts.

I watched this with my mum and she pointed out there was a lot of screaming etc. Apart from the first 10 mins I was listening to the radio and put the subtitles on so from those opening moments it didn't seem that bad considering there is an election next week, the country being far more divided etc. (also there is a lot more cheering in US shows).

I liked Michael Moore's answer to the man who suggested that he wouldn't want war under ANY circumstances.

'I am still wondering about the pagan woman. Why was her voted discounted? Not because she was pagan, surely? She seemed to imply that.'

oh that is what she was saying.

I really got bored from the question about Blair onwards so I didn't get through all of it.

Moore was disappointing, he came over as smaug and complacent. But still infinitely preferable to Littlejohn, who's comment that Moore was a modern day 'Lord Haw-Haw' was unbelievably offensive but washed over the panel and audience, probably as it's such a British reference.

I didn't get the Lord Haw-Haw reference, but laughed anyway.

British pro-Nazi propagandist who broadcast in English from Germany during WWII.

Oh, I just Wikipediaed and it's a lot more offensive than I thought. No wonder Moore looked so outraged.

Is it really offensive as far as Moore would (should?) be concerned?

Someone who speaks out in direct opposition against the leader of their country, using disinformation as a tactic, while in a "war"?

Sounds like it entirely sums up his past 4 years.

Attacking Bushco=!Defending the Reich

Either you're being sarcastic, or you're being a cunt. You decide.

Can't I be both like most days?

Oh, all right..

But there is a more serious point. Lord Haw Haw, singnificant insult though it is, describes Moore completely given that he himself accepts America is at war (otherwise he could not claim, without contradiction, that Kerry should "go after terrorists better than Bush did"). The man has no place in rational or democratic politics, pure and simple. He fails to understand the process or the mechanism. (I take Pete W's point upthread about Littlejohn's "supporting your leader", but this is different. We're talking about Moore's own definition.)

I'll go back to being a cunt then Aldo, 'cause I believe it's utter twaddle to equate Moor's criticism of this war, its justifications, the administration, the administration's grasp of the threat, the admin.'s approach to protecting America to the annhiliationist, anti-semitic, outright treason that Haw Haw committed from enemy soil and in enemy pay. One doesn't have to like Moore, God forfend, but your argument is either willfully ignorant or has feet of purest clay.

xpost

I think there's a world of difference between someone campaigning in a democratic forum, where his opinions can be challenged and tested, and yes, sometimes found wanting. Versus someone acting as a propagandist, spreading lies and misinformation for one of the most vicious regimes in history.

I have to disagree. Again, and much as I said it at the beginning of my input to this thread, it pains me to disagree with Littlejohn, but Moore is reliant on obfuscation, , and plain disingenueity, to win this "war" - as he himself has described it, for the first time in "Stupid White Men", I believe although he repeats it in "Dude..." and "F9/11", - against Bush and his perceived allies, and will align himself with the opposition irrespective of their deeds in present or past (I'll be one of the first to assert that the Saddam of 2004, 0r 2003, was of no threat, the the Saddam 10 years ago was - something Moore is a denier/apologist for, merely see his last book: he takes on a David Irving-esque approach to Saddam's part in the attacks on Kurds and Iranians, because they were BUSHCO's fault) and to repeat lies, mistruths and allegations as fact in support of his aims.

Moore, by his own definition is fighting a "war" and is spreading disinformation in support of it. Aside from direct parallels such as anti-Semetism, which I don't anyone accuse Moore of to date, I don;t see what other part of it is wrong.

He's a free man, in free society expressing his views and, unless you know something I don't, he's not being sheltered or aided by Al-Qaida or die-hard Baathists. By all means, call him out, show the inconsistencies in his arguments or approach but to equate him to pseudonymous traitor in the Nazi's pay actually does your critique of him a disservice.

Much as I hate the man, I still think Littlejohn's equation is correct.

Wikipedia's front page (since it was quoted above) for Lord Haw Haw says :

Lord Haw-Haw was a propaganda radio program broadcast by Nazi German radio to audiences in Britain and Ireland on the mediumwave station Radio Hamburg and by shortwave to the United States. It started on September 18, 1939 and continued until April 30, 1945, when Hamburg was overrun by the British Army.

Two announcers played Lord Haw-Haw:

Wolf Mitler was a German national who spoke as the caricature of an upper-class Englishman. His persona was described by some listeners as similar to P.G. Wodehouse's Bertie Wooster. Journalist Jonah Barrington of the Daily Express coined the term "Lord Haw-Haw" to describe Mitler's voice: "he speaks English of the haw-haw, dammit-get-out-of-my-way-variety". Under Mitler, the program reached its greatest popularity in the British Isles, with over six million listeners.
William Joyce replaced Mitler in 1939. Joyce, a former leader of the British Union of Fascists, fled England before his planned arrest on September 1, 1939. For biographical details, please see William Joyce.
After Joyce replaced Mitler, Mitler was paired with the American-born announcer Mildred Gillars in the Axis Sally program and also broadcast to ANZAC forces in North Africa. Mitler survived the war and appeared on postwar German television. Joyce was hanged for treason on January 3, 1946.

Other British subjects willingly made propaganda broadcasts, including Raymond David Hughes, who broadcast on the German Radio Cymru; Norman Baillie-Stewart, a former Guards officer cashiered for selling secrets to Germany; and John Amery.

By all means, show me where Moore doesn't fit into that characterisation. He broadcasts propaganda, by his own admission. He speaks to his 'audience' in the language they will answer to (in his opinion). He co-opts other American subjects to make propaganda broadcasts on his behalf.

I'm assuming when you refer to "in the Nazi's pay" you mean Mitler's German nationality, and Joyce's adopted German nationality, in which case, yes, I agree entirely, they were in the direct pay of the country they were giving disinformation in favour of.

Moore is not in the direct pay of either the Afghanis or the Iraquis, but continues to broadcast propoganda (by his own definition) which includes disinformation (by anybody else's definition) against the country he is a passport holder of. Does this make him less or more stupid than Lord Haw-Haw? Unless you're assume that making millions from said disinformation from the free market is cleverer than making it directly from the people you're spreading the disinformation in favour of.

Oh, and I feel I must clarify something at this point - I'm not Pro-Kerry. I'm not Pro-Bush. Like the huge majority of Brits, I couldn't give a fuck what happens in this US election. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. BOTH PARTIES ARE EXACTLY THE FUCKING SAME. (It only takes a cursory look at the differences between the Clinton administration and any recent Republican administration - Bush Jr included)

Does this mean I don't think Bush is an incompetent fuckwit, in the pay of big industry, and war-crazy? No.

Do I think this means John Kerry is automatically a better choice?

I fully expect to see every British poster to ILX signing their allegiance to Michael Howard underneath this if their answer to the above sentence is "Yes".

Micael,

I shouldn't have called you a cunt last night. Sorry, I was a bit pissed.

I'm not quite clear on this yet. Should Michael Moore be executed for treason, or not? I think we need to know.

this was broadcast here tonight. was indeed pretty crap. but, as regards this thread (or maybe just aldo cowpat): for fucks sake, can we have a moratorium on people insisting that there's no difference between bush and kerry? i'm glad you feel like you're coming off all 'world-weary' with such a generous helping of critical distance and remarkable foresight but you are wrong. a cursory look at the clinton administration and the bush one will reveal no apparent difference? really? i mean, fuck, really?? if you've pulled your eyes out their sockets, taking a sizeable chunk of your grey matter with them, perhaps?? i'm sounding like alex in nyc, but... you people....

I'm glad youre' glad I think I'm wrong. I'd love for somebody to tell me the difference, but I don't see it.

Just like I'd love for any American ("or maybe just" m) to tell me the difference between Tony Blair and Michael Howard?

Michael Moore says we should vote for Kerry because he'll be tough on terrorists. BillClinton bombed a soap factory in Sudan because "intelligence" told him it was a munitions plant. Michael Moore even admits in 'Stupid White Men' that Clinton passed most of his so-called ethical policies (like agreeing to Kyoto) in his final days because he knew he wouldn't have to enact them.

As an outsider, and not drawn along the whooping political lines we say on the Question Time, it doesn't seem hugely different to me. Yes, Bush appears to be a complete fuckwit. As I said above, for the same reasons most British people on this thread would consider Tony Blair a complete fuckwit. Now see how many of them will automatically vote for the opposition because of that.

(for the record, i'm not an american)

(btw, ythink bubba c made barely covert attempts to skew the intelligence he was recieving on sudan such that he might carry out the ideological aims of the anti-cleanliness hawks running his administration under the guise of 'ridding the world of dangerous weapons'?)(ps before you tell me that i am, i'm not saying clinton's blameless, but conflating some very different, and differently motivated, military, economic and environmental blunders with the 'they're all big industry puppets' line is, at best, oversimplification)

(this is all in parenthesis because its 2am and i'm not even in a fighting mood)

That's good, because it's 1am here (although the end of summertime shifts it to midnight).

Erm... actually, the Clinton administration have made overt claims about the Sudan bombing being "to send a message to the world" and "to teach them a lesson" despite what intelligence sources were willing to leak to the contrary about the place he was bombing, as Michael Moore admits in "Stupid White Men".

Yes, Bush is wrong on a great number of things - and motivated by big industry and other economic, sometimes personal, relationships. Does this make him any different to practically every world leader alive today?

(btw, the only countries I've ever been to where I've heard no political dissent are Cuba and Japan. I'm sure there are different reasons why in either place.)

Oh, and I'd still like a non-Brit to point out the differences between Blair and Howard.

the question of bush and his motivations is i think a lot less vague than you're making out - we've got an exceedingly clear idea of his policies and ideologies (y'know, the ones that lead to the iraq invasion and to abu ghraib and to the patriot act) and the people behind them, in a way that's very specific and not at all universal, and significantly different to the ones likely to follow a kerry victory (unless you're absolutely determined to paint the motivations of 'people in power' in the broadest of strokes)

(i sleep now)

I think we're beginning to fudge the issue here - the problem with Bush is that he's in fact a very weak President and has allowed himself to be led by the same Team B that led Reagan into an escalating 'war' against the Russians, based on made-up information about the military capabilities of the 'enemy'. But then every US president for the last 25 years has (although not to the same extent), so why should he be any different? They're certainly what led to the attack on Iraq - though I do think Bush's "going after the man who tried to kill my Daddy has a ring of truth about it, horrific though that sounds - but Abu Ghraib? That was directly the fault of the Bush administration? To me that was the fault of two discrete items - the US penal system (which seems, as portrayed, to be mindless and brutal, with a climate of fear deciding who 'wins' and rape and beatings commonplace) and the US military (it's just something you 'do' for most people, the least professional Army I've ever come across. I recall the thread on here where I expressed horror at some of the things that were going on in the military barrack such as fraternisation between sexes and between ranks, heavy drinking and free access within the prison, and being told there was nothing wrong with it, that that's how 'the military' is). Where does Bush enter that equation? The Patriot Act is a fair call - some ludicrous stuff in there - but from Kerry's own website, he's going to do even more because America isn't secure enough? "We've seen some progress in making America more secure since September 11 - but there is still much more to be done. Today our government is not doing enough to make us safe." "Track And Stop Terrorists
Many of the intelligence problems that allowed terrorists to slip into our country before 9/11 have not been addressed. John Kerry and John Edwards will improve our ability to gather, analyze, and share information so we can track down and stop terrorists before they cause harm.

Protect Our Borders And Shores
Today, our borders, our ports, and our airports are not as secure as they must be. John Kerry and John Edwards will make our airports, seaports, and borders more secure without intruding upon personal liberties. " The last part of that second one is interesting: if I object to having my fingerprints taken on entering America, is that enough? If 100 people object? How do you make something more secure without increasing restrictions or surveillance?

On domestic policies Bush and Kerry do indeed seem to have differences, although very minor ones - the rhetoric is almost identical, although Kerry fixates on "middle classes and those who aspire to be middle class". But both say they'll create well-paid jobs and give tax breaks. Bush actually says he'll give them to "all". (I don't believe a word of it, but we can only judge Kerry on rhetoric so it's only fair to do the same with Bush)

On the environment they differ hugely, obviously, but I think what's interesting about Kerry is that he only focusses on environmental issues within America (the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and urban regeneration).

I had a quick look at a Michael Moore book called 'Dude, Where's My Country?' and it looked a bit crappy.

So if we can't execute him for treason, can we execute him for writing crappy books?

(I still want to know whether aldo thinks that Moore should be put on trial for treason or not, even if he doesn't believe in the death penalty for it)

I don't think he should, because I personally don't think "The War On Terror" is that kind of war. In times where we are not at war, what Moore is doing in entirely within the democratic process - as would what Lord Haw-Haw have been were we not at war at the time.

However, if Bush Jr and Moore both believe they are in that kind of war, as they have both stated at different times that they believe they are, then an accusation of treason may well apply.

Oh- get out of it. To maintain this position for three days is just twatty now.

Eh? Maintain what position? (And all I've done is answer other people who have asked me questions since after my first couple of posts)

The word treason shouldn't come anywhere near this discussion, I mean. Only Free Republicans are worthy of that. Just ditch the word and the concept entirely. It doesn't apply at all, in any situation, you might concieve.

Oh that's all right then, it's not me you're criticising. I never brought up that word, I only answered a direct question as to my opinion in relation to that word.

we know that people in the bush administration were manipulating the definition of torture in order to expand what could be legally 'gotten away with' at abu ghraib, i'd certainly place specific blame there.

aldo, is your position here essentially (pick one): a) that (the current popular definition of) 'neo-conservatism' is a myth, or b) that neo-conservatism is comprised of a worldview indistinguishable from that shared by any recent american administration.

(i think both options are misguided).

That's changing the goalposts slightly - you're now talking about a different thing with Abu Ghraib. I agree completely, to try and avoid prosecution for torture is wrong. The way you word it first, however, is as if it is direct policy, enforced by the Bush administration, which I don't believe it is and I don't believe anybody has ever accused them of making it happen in the first place. Covering it up - yes, and very wrong.

Although to give me two options you both think are misguided and force me to pick one is exceptionally bad form, if I have to pick one I'll say b). It's far more polarised than I'd describe it, however. I think it's near-indistinguishable to those outside America, and there are differences on internal (i.e. within the territory of the US) policies.

I did not mean to imply there's anything wrong with writing crappy books. Also, I only glanced at it, I might find out, upon closer inspection, that it's good. I don't think he should be put on trial. He just seems somehow 'insufficient'.

Might be good tonight - see the reactions to Bush's victory. Evin if Ben bloody Elton is on it.

It is from Glasgow next week. I expect a good turnout from YOU LOT. You have to either ring them up or go to their website. It will be like THE COOK REPORT, I hope, and THE RJG FILES.

'Gentleman with the massive quiff. Yes, you sir.'

When it was in St. Andrews I applied via their website, and I didn' hear from them: for nobody checks voicemail. So, I had tickets, and failed to go. Damn. Might go to Glasgow, got people to visit. But I probably won't.

What a state this fucking shithole of a country is in if the most left wing voices they can find for a post-US election debate are Ben "Hello, Mr Lloyd Webber, let's make lots of money" Elton or Shirley "Let's destroy the Labour Party and make it unelectable" Williams.

Tonight's viewing:

10.35 BBC1 Question Time, possibly featuring the ILX Glasgow Massive.
11.35 BBC1 This Week.
12.20 BBC2 Breathless, as in the Jean Luc Godard film.

Miller, your Cook / Dick post was funny.

I am glad you are not going to the FAP, because I like you a lot already, the way you are.

I applied to be on QT but I didn't get picked : (((

I think I would have picked you.

Aw. I forgot about it altogether - but I doubt I could be bothered going through anyway. Is it wrong that I really look forward to Question Time each week? My friends think it is. :(

i met someone who has been in a Question Time audience last week.