Those very aggressive beggars in Paris

Those very aggressive beggars in Paris

http://preview.tinyurl.com/76a4zEvleths

"Tis PJ O'Donovan" wrote in message
...
Those very aggressive beggars in Paris

http://preview.tinyurl.com/76a4zEvleths


"Mike" wrote in message
...
news.google.com

Between the U.S. and Britain, an ideological parting
By Anne Applebaum
Tuesday, March 16, 2010; A19

AND WOULD YOU BELIEVE SOMEONE BY THE NAME OF APPLEBAUM HAS CHOSEN, OR BEEN
CHOSEN TO POINT OUT THE MISGIVINGS OF A BREAK BETWEEN TWO ALLIES WHOSE ONLY
DIFFERENCE AT PRESENT WOULD BE THE EMBARASSING OBEISANCE AND HUMBLE
PROTESTATIONS OF OBEDIENCE AND LOYALTY ABOVE AND BEYOND ANY REQUIRED BY A
LEADING PARTNER TO A NAUGHTY DEPENDENT.

EMPHASISING TO AMERICA AND ENGLAND THEY CAN HOPE FOR NOTHING WITH THEIR
WITLESS AND GUTLESS POLITICIANS.

Republicans held up the British health-care system as an example of the
nightmare that might await America if Obama's health-care proposals were
passed.

SO STRANGELY ENOUGH WE ARE TAKING ABOUT COMPARISON OF A UNIVERSAL HEALTH
CARE SYSTEM CARING FOR AL OF THE POPULATION.

AND THE REPUDS/JEWISH PARTY'S EFFICENT HEALTH FOR JEWISH AMERICANS AND SOME
NON JEWISH AMERICANS NONE FOR THE NON JEWISH 98% OF THE POPULATION WITHOUT
SHELLING OUT TO THE JEWISH POPULATION AS MUCH AS THE JEWISH HEALTH SYSTEM
CAN SOAK EM FOR AND STILL LEAVE 80% OF THE POPULATION WITH INSUFFICIENT OR
NO HEALTH CARE.

SO HOW YOU CAN POSSIBLY COME TO THE CONCLUSION NO HEALTH CARE IS GOOD FOR
ANYONE BUT THE AFFLUENT MINORITY POPULATION WHO MOST HAVE WHICH HAVE BEEN
FORCED INTO TENT LIVING WITH DESTROYED NEST EGGS BY JEWISH DOMINATED BANK
AND INSURANCE SYSTEMS TO SUPPORT THE JEWISH ISRAEL SADISTS WHO CANNOT RUN A
GOVERNMENT WITHOUT NATIVE BARBARITY WHICH ATAGONISES ALL NON JEWS IN IT'S
BARBARIC APARTHEIDIS RACISM AND INJUSTICE.

BUT JEWISH INFLUENCE INAMEICA HAS DECIDED TT ISRAEL WOULD BE SUPPORTED TILL
IT HURT.
AND BUYING OUT OF AMERICAN POLITICIANS WITH AMERICAN AID FUNDS CONTRIBUTING
TO THEIR PROBLEMS SEEMS IRONIC.

Further evidence that the days of ideological cross-pollination are over
can be seen in discussions about education. Many of the troubles of the
British state school system sound familiar to American ears:
Falling standards, inner-city violence, private schools outperforming
their state counterparts, uneven performance in different parts of the
country.

TEN SHE PUTS SIMILAR PROBLEMS THAT THE WST HAS SOLVED BEFORE WITHOUT THE
BREAKUP AND CO-OPERATION SE WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE IS HAPPENING?

WHY, TO SUPPORT THAT BREAKUP AND IMPROVE THE STATUS OF WORLDWIDE JEWRY AS
THE PROPER RESOLUTION SHE WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE OF THE FALL OF WESTERN UNITY
, SO STAND ASIDE AND LET WORD JEWRY TAKE OVER?

PERHAPS THERE IS SOMEWHERE PRESIDENTS OF TE CALIBRE IT WOULD TAKE TO MAKE
AMERICA A TRUE LEADER AGAIN INSTEAD OF WHAT MOST NOW SEE , AN AMERICAN
POODLE KICKED AROUND BY AN ISRAELI MASTWER.


LONDON

"Two nations, divided by a common language" is how somebody once
described Britain and America. "Two nations, divided by a common
politics" is another way to put it. Ever since the days of Margaret
Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, the political fortunes of the United
States and Britain have tracked and reflected one another in odd ways.
For many years they moved in tandem: The harmonious center-right union
of Thatcher-Reagan was followed by the equally harmonious, if less
affectionate, center-left union of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton.

But then came Blair-Bush, which worked out rather badly for Blair. Now
we have Brown-Obama, who barely speak to each other. And even though
in Gordon Brown and Barack Obama we once again have two "center-left"
candidates in charge, a distinct lack of harmony characterizes
transatlantic political debates. Our health-care conversations, for
example, are totally different. This became apparent last year when
Republicans held up the British health-care system as an example of
the nightmare that might await America if Obama's health-care
proposals were passed. British conservatives -- who had been bashing
their centralized system for years -- immediately rallied to its
defense. David Cameron, the Conservative Party leader who is angling
to become prime minister in this spring's election, has even promised
to "ring-fence" health care so that it is not affected by future
budget cuts.

Further evidence that the days of ideological cross-pollination are
over can be seen in discussions about education. Many of the troubles
of the British state school system sound familiar to American ears:
Falling standards, inner-city violence, private schools outperforming
their state counterparts, uneven performance in different parts of the
country. To combat these ills in the United States, 48 governors have
started talking about the voluntary bipartisan creation of "national
standards," an idea the Obama administration and its supporters have
embraced with enthusiasm, as have many conservative education
reformers. This is now the cutting edge of the U.S. education debate:
A child's education must not depend "primarily on ZIP code," the low
standards of many school districts must be raised, and only concerted
action across the nation can fix the problem.

But the British already have not only national standards but also a
national curriculum and national exams. And it is precisely those
curriculums and exams that the British public want to escape. Hence
the popular Conservative Party proposal: Liberate state schools from
"stifling state control." Allow parents and teachers to start small
charter schools from scratch. Let the child's Zip code determine not
only the curriculum, in other words, but the nature and philosophy of
the school, the size of the classes, the methods of education. Make
schools not more alike but more different. Free pupils from pointless
exams.

I don't want to make too much of these examples: More than anything
else, the divergence of our transatlantic debates reflects cultural
differences that have always been a lot deeper than they first seem.
But they do reflect some transatlantic and even global political
changes. Thatcher and Reagan could share a simple and ideologically
compatible vision of the world because they had clear ideological
opponents: Soviet-style communism abroad, welfare statism at home. In
the post-Cold War moment, Blair and Clinton could also share an
ideologically compatible goal: Both wanted to bring the old left into
the new center.

Nothing is nearly so clear anymore, and certainly not in tricky
subjects such as education. Is a national math curriculum right- or
left-wing? Are smaller class sizes right- or left-wing? In Britain,
the Labor Party is identified with standardized testing. In the United
States, that honor belongs to the Bush administration. But then any
random list of subjects -- Iraq, environmentalism, homeland security
-- would produce an equally odd assortment of ideological positions in
both countries. President Obama's positions on Afghanistan would be
considered "far right" in Britain, yet a percentage of his compatriots
consider him a "far left" radical.

The old labels are no longer of much use on either side of the
Atlantic -- except, of course, to people who prefer their politics in
sound bites. They seem to work, some of the time, for the authors of
political bestsellers. But as a shorthand for describing the fickle
moods of the British and American electorates -- or as a way of
explaining the politicians in either country -- forget it.


SO STAND BY TO HAND IT ALL TO WORLD JEWRY THE ONLY UNITED FORCE OF ANY
ACCOUNT IN THE WORLD TODAY.