George Galloway blasts the Senate

Read a statement of claim from the U.S. sometime, nimh. Galloway's got plenty to work with there, if he's got a mind to. We already know he likes to sue - he's almost American in his interest in litigation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

But that is truly just a sidebar. Enough media outlets should still have the entire audio/video of the proceedings in their archives. Someone will post them/publish them again.

I know for a fact that the CBC, for one, doesn't destroy that sort of material quickly.

If it doesn't reappear in the next 48 hours, I'll be surprised, and very discouraged about the state of the things in the U.S.

Not to worry We're doing just fine.

Decidely a matter for debate . . .

Or a poll. I'll go see if I can find one

Have fun, don't hurry back . . .

That's the right attitude, JW.

Guess you're not up for any good news

debate....an endangered species in Bushlandia...

Sure up for good news. Go ahead.

The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

American optimism stuns pollsters
By Jennifer Harper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published May 19, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American spirit is alive and well: A landmark study released yesterday from a New Jersey medical school finds that the majority of us are overwhelmingly optimistic about the future, even if catastrophe looms on the horizon.
A sampling: 82 percent of Americans ages 18 to 24 feel optimistic about their futures; 82 percent of those ages 25 to 44 do so as well; and 75 percent of those ages 45 to 64 and 64 percent of those 65 or older agree. Only 15 percent to 22 percent of the respondents say they have grown more pessimistic over the past five years.
The public's response flabbergasted the pollsters.
"What amazed us most was their determined optimism, even as they showed great concern about bad things happening in the world," said Dr. Donald Louria of the Department of Preventive Medicine & Community Health at the New Jersey Medical School in Newark, which conducted the study.
The study of 2,000 adults in four distinct age groups was conducted for the school by McLaughlin & Associates throughout April.
Not all respondents were wearing rose-colored lenses, however: Between two-thirds and three-quarters of those in all the age groups fear the United States will suffer a biological or nuclear attack in the next 20 years.
Thirty percent to 40 percent feel the country can solve all or most of its problems, yet it doesn't deter the hopeful feelings. Across the board, 75 percent still insist they are optimistic about their futures, despite the global threats.
Greenhouse gases and holes in the ozone layer don't cause much concern. The survey reveals that roughly one-third consider global warming a major problem, though this number increases among the college-educated respondents.
"We found this relative lack of concern surprising, given the overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is occurring now, and that if unchecked, could be disastrous," said Dr. Cheryl Kennedy, a psychiatrist with the school.
Respondents who deem religious faith "very important to them were much more optimistic about their own and the world's future compared to those who listed religion as unimportant," the study states.
Good feelings don't necessarily extend beyond America's border, though. In the event of an attack, global warming or societal problems, just 36 percent to 40 percent of the respondents feel optimistic about "the future of the world."
Dr. Louria, meanwhile, is urging politicians, public officials, teachers and others concerned with public morale to take the reassuring findings seriously. A drop in personal optimism could be "a harbinger" of all sorts of societal ills, from substance abuse to reckless driving, he said.
"Those in leadership positions in our society, as well as educators, should pay close attention," Dr. Louria said, adding that all this public positivity should not be taken for granted.
"We believe this personal optimism is sort of a last barricade," he said, and could prove "shaky."

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050518-110514-8271r.htm

_______________________________________________________

Well, now. That didn't take long at all

And from that sterling, never to be doubted source, the Washington Times . . .

First class effort, JW, my hat would be off to you, if ever i wore one . . .

Oh, I thought you were talking of good news.... But then, you weren't.

<< Eternal optimist

I don't at all agree with Nimh's dismissive interpretations of the Tyrrell piece or his interpretation of the character and actions of Mr Galloway. This British MP's buffonery doesn't play well even in our own often comical political arenas. His posturing before the Senate committee produced little effect even on opponents of the Bush administration. Galloway is a lunatic, self-aggrandizing figure in British politics, and he reinforced that fact in his appearance here. Though I have little interest (or time) with which to pursue the available details of his case, the reporting of his criminal acts has been so detailed and widespread and hac come from so many diverse sources that I find it quite convincing. Moreover his denials were obvious bombast - loudly spoken sound and fury - but nothing of substance. Not an encouraging sign. No one here has addressed the real substance of Tyrrell's well reasoned arguments.

Interesting study on personal optimism.

Not much to do with anything in discussion here.

Of course they haven't. And...they won't.

Bush's approval rating is at its lowest, and the high optimism in the poll (contrary to every shred of logic and piece of information) was the news. Hardly good news.

Oh....

"What's the good news today?"

"I feel absolutely optimistic!"


....

I doubt I'll ever understand....

Apart, of course, from the large settlement he recently won in a defamation of character suit.

The "well-reasoned arguments" statement is so absurd, but i'll just refer you to NIMH's remarks above.

From Wikipedia article on George Galloway:

On April 22, 2003, the Daily Telegraph published an article describing documents which the paper claimed had been found by its reporter David Blair in the ruins of the Iraqi Foreign Ministry. The documents purport to be records of meetings between Galloway and Iraqi intelligence agents, and state that he had received £375,000 per year from the proceeds of the Oil for Food programme

Galloway completely denied the story, insisting that the documents were forgeries, and pointing to the questionable nature of the discovery within an unguarded bombed-out building. He instigated legal action against the newspaper, which was heard in the High Court from November 14, 2004

On December 2, Justice David Eady ruled that the story had been "seriously defamatory", and that the Telegraph was "obliged to compensate Mr Galloway... and to make an award for the purposes of restoring his reputation". Galloway was awarded £150,000 damages plus costs estimated to total £1.2 million. In UK libel cases, the winning party is also normally awarded costs, with the loser paying the bill. The court did not grant leave to appeal; in order to appeal in the absence of leave, the defendants would have to petition the House of Lords.

The libel case was regarded by both sides as an important test of the Reynolds qualified-privilege defence. The Daily Telegraph did not attempt to claim justification (a defence in which the defendant bears the onus of proving that the defamatory reports are true): "It has never been the Telegraph's case to suggest that the allegations contained in these documents are true". Instead, the paper sought to argue that it acted responsibly because the allegations it reported were of sufficient public interest to outweigh the damage caused to Galloway's reputation. However, the court ruled that "It was the defendants' primary case that their coverage was no more than 'neutral reportage' ... but the nature, content and tone of their coverage cannot be so described."

The Daily Telegraph has not published any investigation as to whether their documents were genuine, but a 2005 US senate report comments that the original article "apparently included forged documents".


It helps to marshall one's facts before making such statements.