You Don't Say

John Kerry softened America’s demand yesterday that Syria’s dictator must step down, declaring that the timing of Bashar al-Assad’s departure was open to negotiation.

The US secretary of state retreated from the earlier US position that Assad’s removal must be the first step towards resolving Syria’s civil war.

He spoke as the regime carried out a series of air strikes near the ancient city of Palmyra, which has fallen into the hands of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil). The Syrian air force flew as many as 25 sorties, killing perhaps 26 people on the ground, including Isil fighters.

Assad has been emboldened by Russia’s decision to provide direct military support. In recent weeks, Russian tanks and troops have been deployed in Syria, along with a small number of advanced jet fighters.

Russia’s goal appears to be to prevent Assad from suffering more battlefield defeats while also complicating any escalation of America’s air campaign against Isil targets in Syria....

Just admit you fucked up already.  Overplayed your hand.  Turning against Assad so soon was a mistake.  And the notion of democracy easily sweeping the Middle East folly.  It's not too late.


And, while we're on the subject of your ineptitude, about Ukraine...

Just Do It Already

Go right ahead, then:

Everything's Bigger in Texas After All

One of the great gifts (intentional or not) to the Democratic Party in Donald Trump's bid for the nomination of the GOP is the way he's been tearing down, or attempting to tear down, one of his Republican rivals after another, in an entirely uninhibited way, often with entirely valid criticism.

Such as with blood-thirsty fan of state-sanctioned killings* of people who may or not be guilty, may or not be competent, Rick Perry -- best remembered from the last elections for his 'Oops' facepalm-moment in the debates.

Rick Perry seems to believe that wearing glasses might make him come across as more mentally competent this time around, such that he now seemingly never appears in public without them.  And of course, Trump has no problem in calling out Perry's use of the glasses to make himself seem smarter, no problem questioning his mental competence.

So, how does Rick Perry respond to Trump's criticism ?  How does he do so in a way, that demonstrates his competence and credibility as candidate for the highest office in the land ?

Why, by challenging Donald Trump to a contest to see who can perform the most pull-ups, of course.  Just about the most stupid macho pissing-contest-style response (short of proposing an actual pissing-contest of course)**, imaginable.

And thus the man who came across as an even dumber version of George W Bush last time around, proves he still has that...special touch.


* 279, baby !  Beat that if you can !

** The simile works equally well with another 'contest', but the other's just a bit too vulgar.***

*** Which didn't stop my hinting at it in the title of the post.

Because the Finances of Government(s) are totes like a Kitchen Table Budget

I just...No, not even gonna.  I don't trust myself.  No.  Are you still speaking, Liz ?

Speaking of...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH !

Andy Burnham

So, this is the guy that Labour seemingly expects to lead them into the next elections huh ?  Because one generation lost to Tory-in-all-but-name Tony wasn't enough ?

Andy Burnham, the frontrunner to be the next Labour leader, is to argue that his party should value entrepreneurial businessmen and women as much as nurses and teachers.

The shadow health secretary, who is the favourite for the leadership, over Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall, will promise an audience of business leaders on Friday that he would improve Labour’s reputation on the economy and ensure it values the contribution to society made by those who run companies.

All the candidates have now talked of the need to champion wealth creators in a significant change in tone from Ed Miliband’s rhetoric about standing up to corporate vested interests.

Because of course, business-interests have been so horribly under-represented in government the last several decades, whilst we endlessly coddle teachers and nurses, and pay them such outrageous wages.  All hail the 'wealth-creators' ! (™ Fox News)

Andy Burnham, the shadow health secretary, has made a surprise move to assert his independence from the trades unions by saying he will not take any union cash to fund his Labour leadership campaign. Burnham made his announcement as one of his chief rivals, Liz Kendall, tried to seize the mantle as the change candidate and new Labour MPs expressed their concern that the nomination process may narrow the field to two before the party has had a chance to hear the start of a debate.

Burnham has been labelled in some quarters as the unions’ favoured candidate, but he said: “I am not going to take any money from the trades unions in this leadership campaign. No money has been offered, but if it was, I would encourage it to be given to the Labour party to assist the rebuilding after the election. But I am actively seeking the support of individual trade union members and am pleased they have a bigger say in this contest.

“I am aware that, whatever the result of this contest, the party must come out of this well. I am going to be my own man. I am independent and will make my own judgments. I make no apology for our historic links with the trades unions

No idea why he would be the 'union's favoured candidate', but if they had any sense, they might note the use of the word historic.  As in, time to put it behind us, part of our ancient heritage, something we'll acknowledge quietly, but obviously something that has no place in this modern century of glorious capitalistic ascendancy.

He will say Labour should not have been running a deficit before the financial crisis hit, and will promise that as prime minister he would eliminate the deficit if the Tories fail.

But his admission that the party made a mistake is sure to raise eyebrows – Mr Burnham was Chief Secretary to the Treasury from 2007 and 2008, when the crisis hit.

Words fail me.  You do realise that letting your party be blamed for the (primarily US-caused) global economic crisis, is one of the reasons you lost the last election, don't you ?  And you think more austerity will 'eliminate the deficit' perhaps ?  By the year, erm...2300 maybe ?

Andy Burnham, the Labour leadership candidate, is planning to resurrect plans for what critics have described as a "death tax" to pay for people's care in old age.

Friends of Mr Burnham, the shadow health secretary, said that will return to the idea of a system where social care is funded by imposing a tax on estates when people die.

The plans have been criticised by the Conservatives as a "death tax" but characterised by Mr Burnham as a "social insurance system".

He has previously suggested that the current system is unfair because it penalises people who become ill and need care in old age. He has said that it means the most vulnerable in society pay the most and described it as a "dementia tax".

Oh, you 'ole socialist, you !  Taking money from people when they're dead and can't fight back is always a winner.  Of course if you wanted a 'social insurance system', you could always, oh, I don't know...use regular taxation...income tax say...while people are...actually still alive.  We could even...stay with me here...have a 'progressive' tax, whereby people are taxed according to their ability to pay.  From each according to his ability, right ?  Radical, huh ?

This post is titled Andy Burnham, but realistically, any of the candidates' names would probably fit just as well.  What it comes down to is this: Labour's leadership are professional politicians who happen to have ended up playing for 'Team Labour', 'Team Red' if you will.  'Team interchangeable meaningless label.'  But they don't actually believe in their own brand.  In fact, they're embarrassed by it.  And...It shows.  And if they don't buy what they're selling, then the voters certainly won't either.

Taking bets now for another Tory win in 2020, in the by-then rUK, consisting of an uncomfortable alliance of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, surrounded by and barely tolerated by the European Union.

Proofreaders, Who Needs 'Em ?

Pah, who has time for proofreaders, when you're breaking stories this important ?