You don’t have to have decided that Simon Russell Beale should be the Doctor to sign up, merely support the notion that he should be considered.
Thank you for your support.
Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /customers/5/0/6/theliberati.net/httpd.www/quaequamblog/wp-includes/post-template.php on line 284
Bloggers have been lining up to expose the “hypocrisy” and “stupidity” of Sarah Palin calling Barack Obama an evil socialist for calling for redistribution, while supporting it herself:
“And Alaska – we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.”
Hat tips all round to Stephen Glenn, Jennie Rigg and Andrew Ducker, but they all got it from Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, and his delivery is quite entertaining so why not enjoy it for a few minutes?
But I feel the need to defend Palin here because it is just possible she is making a distinction between redistributing income and redistributing wealth. Alaska’s system works by redistributing the revenue raised from Alaska’s natural resources, specifically oil and other minerals, while Obama’s proposals are to switch taxes from people on low and middle incomes to taxes on high incomes.
Obama’s plan sounds very moderate and reasonable to these European ears, but it has to be said that it is very different to the Alaskan system that Palin is referring to. What’s more, it would almost certainly be a good thing if the Alaskan system were used more widely.
Of course, McCain isn’t campaigning on such a promise, and Palin and her Republican colleagues have repeatedly attacked the very concept of “redistribution” as leftwing and “totalitarian,” so we can safely say they themselves fail to understand the difference. But there is a fine distinction and we should give Alaska credit for having a sensible policy.
The Lib Dem press office has just issued a press release about today’s PMQs. In it, he accuses Gordon Brown of deliberately misrepresenting Lib Dem policy on tax and spend:
On numerous occasions you have deliberately misrepresented Liberal Democrat economic policy in the House of Commons, claiming that we propose a Â£20bn cut in public spending:
As I have repeatedly made clear, Liberal Democrat policy is to identify Â£20bn of Government spending which is either wasteful or ineffective and to re-allocate it to Liberal Democrat priorities in areas such as education and care for the elderly.
If there is money remaining once Liberal Democrat spending priorities have been met we propose to increase the funded tax cuts we are already offering to those on low and middle incomes.
Is Gordon Brown deliberately misrepresenting party policy? Of course he is! But the fundamental problem here is that Clegg hasn’t repeatedly made our policy clear; quite the opposite. What’s more, it had another opportunity at PMQs again. Brown made the accusation after his first question and Clegg did not respond, instead robotically going into his second question. Yet this was a pretty predictable accusation to come from Brown; so why wasn’t Clegg better prepared?
It really is time Clegg got his act together on this issue. It’s been a problem for months now and he can no longer afford to let it get in the way of our broader message.
I’m struggling to avoid writing about the Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand affair, but it has to be said that the Daily Mail really do take the biscuit on this one. In it, Georgina Baillie calls for Brand and Ross to be sacked for leaving her grandfather ‘utterly horrified and disgusted’ after ringing him up and claiming that Brand has slept with her. Of course, it happens to be true and the Mail see fit to print several pictures of Andrew Sachs’ granddaughter which might conceivably also ‘horrify’ and ‘disgust’ him, but sod that – BURN THE WITCHES!
To be fair though, that story is being printed in most tabloids today. It is to another story we must turn if we want to really uncover the dark heart of Dacre. Today the Mail also prints a story about teachers having sexual relationships with their pupils. Under the headline “Dear Sir, I really thought you loved me…,” it includes several soft focus pictures of girls in school uniforms and paragraphs like this one:
Awkwardly, 14-year-old Laura Walker sat down on the log, among the dark trees, her thigh just brushing against that of her 32-year-old teacher, Steven Edwards.
‘I had butterflies inside my tummy,’ she says. ‘I knew what was coming.’
The mature man bent his head and kissed the young teenager – ‘snogged’ is the word she uses.
‘I was so excited,’ she says. ‘I couldn’t believe that he was interested in me, but he was clearly showing that he was. The kiss was very passionate.’
Do we really need this level of detail and flowery prose in an article which is supposed to be about exposing child abuse? This isn’t the first time I’ve read stories in the Mail which are ostensibly censorious but appear more than a little salacious. I recall reading an article about an actress a couple of years ago who was apparently raising her child with a gay man which went into an inordinate amount of detail about her physical characteristics and naked frollicking.
But the killer, for me, is the change in tone when the story examines the case of a female teacher sleeping with a male pupil:
Looking at Dean Dainty – a normal, spiky-haired, slightly scruffy schoolboy – you wonder how any grown woman could think it appropriate to view him as a sexual being.
The relationship began when Dean was 15 and the teacher gave him a mobile phone ‘for doing so well in her class’.
On it, he found her own personal mobile number, and they began texting each other. The texts quickly became sexual. No doubt the schoolboy could not believe that this pretty, blonde teacher might be interested in him.
‘We arranged to meet up, and she swore me to secrecy,’ he says.
He went to after-school break-dancing sessions with her, and she took him into a pub.
The affair was clandestine, with the pair – Dean was by now 16 – snatching sex wherever they felt they would not get caught.
Where are the references to his thighs? Or the talk about how ‘passionate’ their kisses were?
This ambiguous attitude towards paedophilia is of course nothing new in the Mail – it was one of the things that Chris Morris’ Brass Eye Special a few years ago both parodied and highlighted in its immediate aftermath. But we should never forget that these self-appointed guardians of moral virtue are uncomfortably close in attitude to the very people they claim to be condemning.