How far back do american politicians/historians go?

I was listening to Radio 4 one morning not so long ago when I heard the name Pat Buchanan being dropped - no, he wasn’t just having his name dropped he was a guest on the show to speak about a new idea he’s had…

The idea that he was talking about can be found on his ‘blog,’ indeed.

Now whilst I may have an interesting divergence from his headlined view on free trade the point he’s making is no power should give ‘blank checks’ and part of that was that Britain should not have supported Poland in 1939… He does have a critique referring to WWI but let’s get on with it. His view about British policy was that Britain couldn’t have competed with Germany as Britain should have known that it could never have won… on it’s own…

But this has been British foreign policy for centuries - never let a power become too powerful on the continent. This was pointed out to me by a ‘war-gamer’ of the Napoleonic era - not the sort that just shoves pieces around and makes a good go of it - this was from the type of war-gamer who not only takes an interest in the ‘game’ [normally table top] but also in the background and the history behind the conflict - even to the point of getting hold of small print runs or copies of officers from the actual campaign…

Britain, or was that England all those years ago when the army [on the continent] was roughly 70% Irish - couldn’t even with all the Irish that were recruited hope to defeat Napoleon on it’s own yet still… and a rather large coalition of powers managed to see Napoleon off…

As with Napoleon so with Hitler - a rather large coalition was assembled and the ’superpower status’ of an European country was defeated. I would agree with Pat that Britain on its own couldn’t defeat Hitler but some of his points are false - the reality behind Stalin getting his hands on so much was due to Churchill’s weakness as a politician despite his greatness as a war leader and that various things were just handed to Stalin - who terrible and mighty as he was never became too powerful in Europe to upset the post war balance.

This leaves me with two points and a divergence - the two points are that this means that the centuries old British foreign policy worked and that we also managed to drag the USA into Europe to support it. Which on the face of it is a rather large diplomatic victory….

Oh, and my divergence, more of an indulgence really - is Obama doing a McGovern? In the sense that he could play the liberal card well whilst running for candidacy but now he’s reigning that stuff back - thereby losing support as did Humphrey? I’m not sure.

I think I ought to declare my position

regarding British American Tobacco.

Until the foreseeable future when the appropriate policies of that company are applied globally so that children and young teenagers no longer targeted by it - then I have decided to boycott British American Tobacco products.

My reasons are given here if anyone is interested.

But lest we forget - Nestle is even worse.

To be honest, as a pipe smoker I’m not entirely sure how badly that will effect me - but that is not the point - as I’ll probably take a good look and find out what products ‘BAT’ makes.

North Korea has won…

This is more just a jolt of thought that’s been bugging me ever since the whole ‘affair’ of North Korea’s dash for a ‘nuclear arsenal’ and the whole shebang that’s resulted from it…

Alistair Cook managed to report, before his career came to a premature halt [I miss his letters still], that North Korea had 400 conventional weapon batteries within range of the capital of South Korea. That’s right 400 guns within range of Seoul…

No matter how you view the step to ‘nuclear’ power having a deterrent to any and all military action - a lot of fire power on one of the valued allies of the west is enough in that area as long as you don’t go off and invade it. And it is for this reason that I disagree with folk that N. Korea was/is ruled by a madman - he’s not to my liking but then again folk who make low cocoa chocolate aren’t either (but I wouldn’t go on a rampage or relabel it) …

I’m guessing that Kim Jong-il had something that he wanted and couldn’t get - that’s fine - and so he set about his nuclear weapon programme to have the biggest bargaining chip on the table - he didn’t need it for his hand was strong enough but he could get it and then just trade it in and now he’s done it.

And still the 400 conventional weapons in range of Seoul - still no way a western government is going to try something with those pointing at their ally. What will Kin Jong-il want next? And will the west keep it from him long enough for him to go back to the ‘nuclear’ bargaining position?

Obama vs McCain or Clinton?

As I pointed out earlier that if Boris Johnson doesn’t make a mistake then he’ll, as Mayor of London, be an asset to the Conservative Party come the next General Election… Only to have a couple of his remarks thrown back at me, which is fair enough but my observation is that Boris was elected after those comments - it’s all very well saying Obama has ‘no history’ and some may find that important but when it comes to it - folk vote for the future - thinking who (for whatever reason) is going to do a better job than the other (for whatever reason)…

Thinking that I wanted to get a better grip on the whole US candidate race I turned to the Doc of Gonzo, Hunter S. Thompson’s and finally bought at the beginning of the year “Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trial ‘72″ it was either that or try to find some old broadcasts of Alistair Cooke’s “Letter from America” with his wisdom and knowledge of the states… and then some of the politico commentators started referring to the ‘72 McGovern campaign… So I’ve been chewing away at the pages trying to figure out what is going on and here, for better or for worse, is my snapshot of what the heck matters and is possibly going on…

Obama is ahead in votes and nigh on unbeatable in a straight roll call of delegates except that’s not what’s going to happen - you need a ‘magic number’ and if you don’t get that on the first vote you can get into some terrible scraps - the kind McGovern wriggled out of by some fierce organizational prowess. My guess is that Obama could probably repeat that which leaves Hilary Clinton out for revenge or reconciliation?

At the moment I wonder - does she think that if she pick axes Obama this year then in four years time she could have another go? I think she may not think she could have another go but she might be able to ‘pick’ a candidate and leverage away behind it… perhaps her daughter, Chelsea [maybe not next time...] The Clinton’s probably know that, despite what they say, Obama has the better chance of taking on McCain - look at the polls around the country not some section here and there…

Perhaps she is trying to realise the ghost of ‘72 to make the Party Bosses think that the ‘McGovern’ candidate lost then but there in lies the most significant difference from ‘72 to now - Obama will not be facing an incumbent. From what I can tell McCain lacks the political stature of Nixon and that this time the ‘McGovern’ candidate could well win - which is exactly the kind of observation Clinton will want to avoid being aired and the best way to wreck Obama is to wreck the party that’s supposed to stand behind him.

Hunter’s cruel, and possibly incorrect guess, observation that Nixon signaled that once his tenure was over there’d be an easy victory for the Democrats - so the party bosses could bunker down and wait for a candidate they could control. This time they’d be throwing a good chance now for another go four years hence with an incumbent - who, it is true could age badly on the job but, could well establish himself within the country so it might be another eight to go before a real chance… Does Hilary have the kind of fight and support which could resign the Democratic party to this wilderness?

In ‘72 the ‘ABM’ or Anybody But McGovern campaign was big within the democratic party in ‘08 I can’t see an ‘ABO’ [Anybody But Obama] would get much traction - in ‘72 the democrats lost and then Carter won but who would sit on their seats now and think to themselves ‘Why didn’t we support McGovern?’ and then get up and decide four years or more later is not worth throwing when there’s a chance this year.

Whilst in the USA you’ve had

politicians going round the place with lots of speeches and heavy expense accounts the folks over here have just debated a life and death issue or is that a life and choice issue. Yes the amendments about abortion were defeated leaving the top date for an abortion [without any complications or 'handicaps' of the foetus inc. a cleft palate as these allow for an abortion/termination at any time during pregnancy] as they were… As a note - I’m not for banning abortion but I do think there is a case for looking at the issue critically - which is what I’ll do on my own blog…

So the end time for a termination is still 24 weeks and I’ll come clean and say that my interest is personal - I once went out with someone who was born premature at 23 weeks and when I was no more than a paranoid teenager I met a rather mixed up teenager who’s father hadn’t wanted her - which is the main reason behind my poem. Yes, that’s right - I have shown this to women and even other folk and they normally react strangely emotionally or just tell me I’m ‘brave’… Therefore I’ll let you decide and see if this sparks any debate.

Taken from the wing

Who knows what life we missed,

Who knows what life they might have had,

If they hadn’t been taken from the wing.

Who knows what part they would have played

Had they stayed,

But their feet ne’er e’en touched the stage

And whose loss is that, but yours,

And it is mine.

And each of us bears the loss

In the friend we ne’er knew

The grandchild we ne’er saw

As the lights go out unseen

Who knows what life we missed,

Who knows what life they might have had,

If they hadn’t been taken from the wing.

And abortion or miscarriage

Are all the same to me,

Just a different motivation

Of another mother-not-to-be.

The loss is ours

And it is theirs

And the stage

Is one more short

Each time a light

Goes out unseen.