From the column: All kinds of PMQ info!
Posted by Jennifer J. Foster on 05/16 at 11:04 PM
(0) Comments


I’m so excited about the possibility of an American version of Prime Minister’s Questions that it took me twice as long to write my column this week. I kept getting distracted by all the neat PMQ content on web sites out there!

  • If you’re new to PMQ, start with this Wiki entry on it. Here you can learn the basics about why MPs do all that jeering and yammering on. Also, you’ll find a list of all the prime ministers to have participated in PMQ; note, especially, how the author lists the prime ministers’ opposition: “...faced by...” There are also some good links to some PMQ documentaries, if you find yourself addicted to the genre. On the down side, yes, the Wiki explanation is dense with parliamentary procedure. But on the bright side, that’s what makes it so useful to a newcomer. Read through it once, even if you don’t quite get it (it is British, after all); it will make more sense as you watch the procedures in action. Which leads me to:
  • The YouTube PMQ collection. Check out some of the more famous (or infamous!) showdowns across the Dispatch Box. If this whets your appetite for more, you’re ready for:
  • The official web home of the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, where you’ll find the mother lode of PMQ information. This treasure trove includes links to live PMQ presentations every week, information on the history of the convention and archives of previous editions, which include WMP and mp3 versions and the news stories from each week. There are even transcripts available, in case you just can’t decipher those accents. And get this: There’s even a “Tony Blair archive.” (See, I told you he was a cult phenomenon!)
  • Here’s the link to the BBC story where the Brits were buried in self-examination, trying to figure out whether an American version of PMQ was a good idea.
  • Finally, there’s one guy out there who says HE ALONE had the idea to import PMQ to the United States. John McCain ripped him off, he says. His claim includes this statement:

    Obviously, I think it is a great idea but suddenly seeing it raised as this great idea McCain and his campaign came up with is curious. I don’t write for a top tiered news organization like the New York Times or Washington Post or Miami Herald and I know it is possible for more than one person to come up with the same idea at the same time. However, when people seem to come up with the same idea and then phrase their justification of the idea almost exactly the same way and then do not give any sort of nod as to where they got the idea, that is irksome.

    SIDEBAR: “Irksome.” You know what’s irksome? Lack of punctuation. You know what else? Run-on sentences. Talk about irksome. END SIDEBAR

    But I know you’re curious, so here’s the link to the guy’s original post he says gave rise to McCain’s proposal Thursday.

    One thing’s for sure: This right honorable fellow doesn’t lack for self-esteem.




    Obama and the 57 states
    Posted by Jennifer J. Foster on 05/16 at 10:39 PM
    (0) Comments


    Watch this clip of Barack Obama in Oregon last week:

    Fifty-seven states?

    Let’s think about this: He specifically eliminated Alaska and Hawaii, and he said he had one more state to go. Fifty states, minus Alaska, Hawaii and one other state, equal 47 states.

    Is it possible that Obama meant to say, “47 states?”

    It seems like a pretty reasonable explanation, right?

    Watch it again. What do you think?

    Now, consider this: The conservative blogosphere is on fire about the 57 states remark. It seems that 57 states (countries) make up the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC). From its web site:

    The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is the second largest inter-governmental organization after the United Nations which has membership of 57 states spread over four continents. The Organization is the collective voice of the Muslim world and ensuring to safeguard and project the interests of the Muslim world in the spirit of promoting international peace and harmony among various people of the world. The Organization was established upon a decision of the historical summit which took place in Rabat, Kingdom of Morocco on 12th Rajab 1398 Hijra (25 September 1969) as a result of criminal arson of Al-Aqsa Mosque in occupied Jerusalem.

    As if Obama didn’t already have enough problems with rumors about his religion. Many conservative bloggers have taken to calling him by his entire name,"Barack Hussein Obama.” (Yes, it is his name. But I haven’t heard them start referring en masse to the GOP nominee as “John Sidney McCain.")

    This whisper campaign has produced countless rumors that have been promulgated like a virus over e-mail. Obama’s campaign set up this page on his campaign site in an effort to discredit and stamp out those rumors. There’s no missing the meaning: The title is, “Obama has never been a Muslim.”

    What do you think? Honest mistake attributable to campaign fatigue meets unfortunate coincidence? Or, in the words of some conservative bloggers, “Freudian slip?”




    Saudi smackdown
    Posted by Jennifer J. Foster on 05/16 at 10:49 AM
    (0) Comments


    OK, back to being an adult.

    This from CNN:

    RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (CNN)—Saudi Arabia Friday rebuffed President Bush’s request to immediately pump more oil to lower record prices, saying it does not see enough demand to increase production.

    I hate to quote a talking parrot, but it seems appropriate here (3:40):

    IAGO: (Extremely sarcastically) Oh, there’s a big surprise. That’s an incred-- I think I’m gonna have a heart attack and die from that surprise! 

    But wait! There’s more! From CNN:

    The Saudis said they would increase production if customers demanded it, Steven Hadley, Bush’s national security adviser, said.

    What, exactly, do the Saudis believe constitute a demand from customers??

    Oil hit $127 a barrel on Friday, up more than $27 since President Bush’s last visit to Riyadh in January (when Bush’s earlier appeal for increased production was rejected), when Americans were paying $3.06 a gallon on average for gasoline, CNN said.

    The average price for a gallon now is $3.78—and rising.

    But wait! There’s more!

    On the heels of the bad news from the Saudis, U.S. Energy Department officials announced that they will stop sending oil shipments to the government’s reserves when the department’s current contract expires in July.

    That move was discouraged by the Bush Administration, which argued that the amount of oil diverted into the general market from the reserves is too little to make a dent in oil prices. Worse, the president said, halting contributions to the reserves constitutes a threat to national security, since those reserves would be tapped in the event that a national emergency disrupted shipments of foreign oil to the United States.

    But Congress was unconvinced. Facing constituents’ growing outrage over fuel prices, senators recently voted overwhelmingly to support the reserves diversion.

    I wish I could say that I’m stunned by this latest stick-in-the-eye from the Saudis.

    But I’d be lying.

    Most frustrating, though, is that America seems powerless to do anything about it.




    Page 1 of 27 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »

    Advertisement

    Advertisement