Will a climate change plan end the hot air?
is an interesting suggestion - the White House might be planning some kind of global warming initiative. This would allow the candidates to tout their own plans (McCain is almost European in his dislike of carbon emissions) - which might make a change from small towns/religion/dotty preachers etc. Time for some meat soon, I feel.
The primary process has been wonderful so far - a reinvigoration of American democracy. But running in the wake of an unpopular president allows candidates to coast when it comes to uncomfortable messages - such as the need to reimpose the fiscal discipline lost in the Bush era. As the puts it, the thinking boils down to: "After George W Bush, everything will be fine".
How about McCain going all out for the flat tax beloved of Steve Forbes and - - of Europeans.
I find it odd that there isn't a stronger push for a flat tax in the US among Republicans looking for new ideas (alright, new old ideas), particularly given its obvious appeal in other serious free economies...
Meanwhile a very senior British diplomat based in Washington takes the afternoon off from his labours (even in the wake of a visit from Gordon Brown and the presidential candidates and goodness knows who else) to tell me that he too knew that Thunderbirds was British.
, he adds, was originally French:
"It was originally known as 'Le Manege Enchanté' and was created in France in 1962. In the UK it was narrated by Eric Thompson (Emma Thompson's Dad).
"In the French version, Dougal was known as Pollux - he was an English character with a bad French accent (as also heard in the sitcom Allo Allo).
"You should add that the French Government were convinced that the character of Dougal was meant to poke fun at De Gaulle. I am told (but can't confirm) that the Elysee wrote formally to complain to the British Government at the time the programme was first transmitted in the UK."
Truly the British foreign service is staffed with all-rounders with time on their hands...
Hello, I'm 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
Poor Justin-this whole cultural chasm thing has really gone streight to your head!!! Ok...I'll do my best to streighten out your understanding of things.
First, while the presidential candidates have not been nearly enough I agree, promoting their climate change inicitives, Obama in particular has been at least mentioning it in evry major speech he has given!! I'm not sure I can say the same for Mccane, though I do conseed that his inicitive is a break with Bush in this respect, although I doubt this new plan from Bush will do much good now.
Second, while a presidential candidate running in the wake of an unpopular president does, as you rightly put it, give them the ability to coast on the need to talk about solveing serious issues that they otherwise wouldnt've had, still, this doesn't mean that the Democrats aren't at least pushing hard their plans and inicitives, domesticly especially with the bad economy, fiscal and otherwise!! I urge you to google an Obama speech or Clinton one and you'll see my point!!
So this British diplomat actually took off the whole rest of his day to explain to you his understanding of the tellevision show '"Thunderbirds", huh? O my! Must've been one heck of an elaborate description!! For goodness sake!! What else did he do with his "free time"? Tell you about his favorite toothpaste perhaps? Wait!! I don't want to know that!
Justin, as much as I admire your work as the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s North American Editor, I wouldn't submit a CV to the Entertainment News department any time soon - I suspect you're probably the only person who didn't know that Thunderbirds was British!
Whilst it might seem that we get an awful lot of American TV imports in the UK it is a two way street, albeit perhaps a rather lopsided one. Many British programmes do very well in the US, the revamped Doctor Who being an excellent example.
That said, there is a tendency for the Americans to remake these series to their own tastes which can cause some rancour, especially when they are re-imported over here. The UK version of the Paramount Comedy Channel advertised the US version of 'The Office' with the slogan, "Like your Office, only funnier." Now, speaking personally, I could easily believe that (I never could see what all the fuss was about), but it's also easy to see that this could lead to accusations of Cultural Imperialism, no matter how tounge in cheek it was intended to be.
Lol
How could you not know that Thunderbirds was British?
As for the "senior British diplomat", surely entertainment migration is something the Foreign Office has to monitor?
I suppose you also didnt know that Pingu is from Switzerland?
No flat tax for us, thank you very much, because our government is too broke. Simply to prevent things from getting worse on current revenue, we have to slash defense, Medicare and Medicaid and eliminate farm subsidies. Even if we eliminate the Bush tax cuts, we're still looking at needing to find significant spending reductions in the above programs.
And in order to get those reductions it requires a massive shift in priorities. Meaningful cost-control in health care. A meaningful shift away from an imperial foreign policy. Acceptance by our political powerful agriculture lobby that they really can stand on their own two feet. And realizing that biofuels are not the answer to climate change and energy dependency on the Middle East.
The last time we did serious tax reform in 1986, it almost didn't pass; the right and the left hated it and the center barely mustered the votes and President Reagan was derided by neoconservatives for selling out when he signed off on it. The hard right special interests in particular will have to be fought to give up their special tax breaks, while the left at this point can say with some justification that any tax increase on their underpaid constituents (say, from the 15% basic rate to a flat 20) is simply too much. So I don't see how you get there.
Please enlighten me. I thought the term thunderbirds referred to the USAF's aerobatics team a counterpart to the U.S. Navy's Blue Angels. The only other reference of which I could think was a cheap wine sold in the 1960s at a price point similar to Ripple, and Boone Farm.Were you referring to something else?
Thunderbirds, Stingray, UFO, Space: 1999... All British, by golly! So were The Tripods, Doomwatch, Timeslip, Doomwatch, Blake's 7, and countless other gems of the golden age of British television. Golden age? The production values may have been limited - Fingerbobs and Tiswas are not exactly multimillion dollar productions. On the other hand, their charm and appeal hold up to any comparable television show today, either side of the Atlantic.
And that is perhaps far more depressing than the occasional gaffe by a reporter, or even the occasional blunder by someone trying to do a remake. (Remember the US version of Red Dwarf?)
It's not about American culture or British culture. The first two Harry Potter movies were very watchable, despite being a British story being presented by an American company. Nor is this unique. The colour episodes of the 1960s series The Avengers were made in the United States. It didn't seem to harm it at all.
No, the problem is far more fundamental than that. It is very hard to make things that are truly good, good on an international level, that transcends cultural differences. It is so hard that most people don't bother. Why should they? The international viewers don't show up in the ratings. Sponsors, where applicable, also are unlikely to care. That's not where their primary markets are.
Inperialism isn't about America, Britain or any other country, it's about the attitude. Imperialism exists wherever the originator's culture is seen as the only culture, and that's also the only place it exists.
You know, its interesting and sad in my opinion. When America recieves a lot of British entertainment (the Beatles and all of the bands from the 60s, Leonna Lewis, The Office, etc), we seem to enjoy it, and want to see what else the UK has to offer. However when Britain recieves a lot of American entertainment, be it music, shows, or movies, they see it as "cultural imperialism and dominance". They don't seem to enjoy it, or revamp and tweek it perhaps for their audience, thinking that the forms of entertainment is a fresh idea on it that could be enjoyed. They immediately brand it the absolute worst thing it could be called, giving it a darn near devilish tone. "cultural imperialism", as if to say, '"O look! those dumb yanks are shoveing their entertainment down our throats!! As if starting wars and economic dominance aren't good enough for them, they have to compleet their world occupation by takeing over the one last place where we could find refuge-our entertainment industry!!!" Why? Why does everyone have to be so judgemental of everything in the absolute worst way all the time?!! Now I'm certainly not suggesting that everyone feels this way-I have no way of knowing!! But it certainly seems to be the case on this blog!
O if I were an entertainment CEO the things I would change...
Justin appears to be part of a veritable British 'old boys' network in DC - if if it's not yet another link to a UK paper and its American correspondent it's a cozy relationship with British diplomats! But having lived here for so long, I must take issue with Mike Plunkett over the statement that "British programmes do very well in the US."
Other than low-brow shows such as American Idol, Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? and The Office, what recent British shows have been successful for the three major networks? Thirty or more years ago Till Death Us Do Part became All in the Family, a very popular but less biting production than its original. The enormous success of Upstairs, Downstairs (shown on Public Television) was not matched by the US network (CBS) version Beacon Hill. Queer as Folk was seen only on cable stations, and thus by a more limited audience. Fortunately Americans do get to see some of the very best of British television productions by way of Public Broadcasting, the costume dramas, lighter vehicles such as Miss Marple and Poirot, not to mention Prime Suspect, Inspector Morse and House of Cards. The late John Maynard, a close friend and colleague of Tony Holland, co-creator of EastEnders, told me that they were thrilled when it appeared that the show would be "on American television" - but, communications years ago being poorer than today, didn't realise that initially it was on a very small local PBS station, KOCE. And so it is with many British productions, rarely translating to American tastes, especially in comedy. The achievements of The Office probably would not have occurred had it not been for the Golden Globes which, suspiciously to my cynical mind, awarded it Best Comedy and Best Comedy Actor - for a production with a very limited American viewing public. It is not forgotten that Pia Zadora, wife of multimillionaire Meshulam Riklis, was awarded "Best New Star of the Year"!
It seems to me that British shows are more cerebral, slower paced and, regrettably, with imperfect sound recording compared to their American counterparts which are crisp, rapidly edited and with sound which is audible at all times, something which appears to be attractive to British audiences. The best of British can be wonderful and we are thankful to be able to see them, but I fear that much of what is shown in the United Kingdom is not always a reflection of life here - certainly not Baywatch and Beverly Hills 90210!
FT Blogger makes a very good point. In some ways this is not a good election to win, precisely because of that expectation that the end of Bush will be the end of the problems he created. In fact, the end of Bush will be the start of a hard process of paying the costs of his presidency.
For example, I find it highly unlikely that the Democrats will raise taxes on America's wealthy to anything like the extent required to offset (a) the estimated trillions lost on the Iraq war and (b) the credit binge of the last 8 years. Probably much of the fiscal belt-tightening will be borne by the middle and lower classes, who will also be suffering from the sub prime debacle and from the recession more generally. The next President will either have to continue Bush's fiscal recklessness or be the person who makes the US public pay the consequences of that recklessness. Not a good position to be in.
The other main reason this is not a good election to win is Iraq. The surge was supposed to reap political benefits. Without those, its served only to press the pause button on a conflict which, as we've seen in Basra and Baghdad recently and as we will see in Kirkuk very soon, is a long way from being over. Much of the bloodletting will take place on the next President's watch, and their ability to blame it on Bush will diminish rapidly as time passes.
Not only that, but the strategic bind the US is in as a result of its frustrations in Iraq is a Gordion knot that the next President will have to unravel. Leave and you abandon a key square on the oil and gas chessboard to (at least) one of your bitterest rivals (Iran, plus Russia and China in all likelihood). Stay and continue to lose an unwinnable war, and continue to pay the fiscal consequences of doing so in a time of economic calamity.
In short, there is huge scope for the next president to end up being seen as a total failure, and not entirely through fault of their own.
The flat tax has some advantages but it would seem to have one disadvantage at least as far as politicians go - it would be less flexible. There would be no room to promote "good behavior" or punish "bad behavior" by changing tax rates on goods/services e.g. no more "green" taxes on fuels etc. Also a little extra tax cannot be raised or reduced by adjusting at the margins - it's a single rate.
Would be interesting if McCain went for that as a policy as there was only one primary candidate with a redical tax plan - Mike Huckabee. he was in favour of a federal sales tax to replace income tax etc. (That is one idea that would not work in Europe where one can drive across one country in a hour and shop in another which would have a different sales tax rate.)
Strange, I'm a big fan of the UK version of 'The Office' but I never took that Paramount advert to be a knock at the British version. I assumed they were talking about 'your office' as in the place you work, and not 'your Office' as in our much loved comedy show.
A flat tax is the only moral way to take tax. 22% of say 20,000 yields less than 22% of 50,000 (in whatever currency). To take more of someone's wage just because they earn more is unfair and immoral. There are plenty of ways to ensure that the very poor are given the tax break they need. Read the Adam Smith Institute's recommendations.
Oh, and by the way, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ "Licence" fee is not a flat tax, since as a percentage of a wage, the poor pay a higher rate! But I love to read of it that is a tax. To call it a licence fee is another lie that UK governments have been pulling on the public for too long. Time for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to go private.
The UK was on the way to having a flat tax rate until the wretched Gordon Brown took over the country's purse. Perhaps one day ...
Richard (#5), Thunderbirds was a television programme made with puppets rather than actors; a style that was parodied in the film Team America: World Police. Thunderbirds article on Wikipedia
I'm sure it is good to know that you have 'friends in high places' reading the blog...
I think this is the longest of elections runs so far so commentors have been finding it hard to find anything new to talk about. Take for instance Fox New they have been re-using old news and spinning it into news even though they say the 'The spin stops here' and the fact that they say they are fair and balance dosnt seem to look all that true either.
I know this for sure the three canidates have been having it easy so far. what we need is a american question time where the american mr/mrs joe bloggs can ask those questions the politiains like to avoid that will show who is worthy of of the whitehouse.
R
The most thorough plans for climate change will be put forth by a seemingly unlikely source: John McCain.
If you listen to his speeches in comparison with those of Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama, you will find very little substance in the democrat’s speeches; they promise change but aren't willing or able to describe how, or to what extent, they will go about making these changes.
Barrack has the least substance of all in his speeches; he echoes popular sentiments because he has no idea what he's going to do if he becomes president.
Even promises by Hillary and Barrack to bring an end to the Iraq war are couched with qualifying remarks that make their general messages seem misleading and insincere.
The next president will seem to be better, who ever that might be, simply because he, or she, will not be George W. Bush.
Only time will tell.
Flat taxes are the sexiest thing in economics at the moment!
Just imagine how much simpler everything would be... Raise the level of the personal allowance and you'd be able to hear the boom from Mars.
Give people control of how they spend their money.
Flat taxes are inherently immoral, and it is entirely moral to tax a higher proportion the more someone earns.
The main reason is simply that the more you earn, the easier it is to earn more. An average promotion for someone on £$20,000 a year will be rewarded far less than a promotion from £$200,000. There is no guarantee to say that those on higher incomes work proportionally harder or are proportionally any more talented either in America, Britain, or anywhere in the world. Eastern Europe, ridden by cronyism and massive inequality in the wake of over-rapid privatisation, is most definitely not an advert for starting a flat tax system.
At university I knew a man, age 20, who borrowed nearly £4 million ($8 million) to start a business with almost zero business experience.
It is much easier to gain, obtain, earn and acquire more money when you are already wealthy - this is simply how life is, and this is why we tax higher earners more.
Oh, for a politition/party/government who is willing to be brave and take a long-term view and do what's best for the people rather than what will 'tide them over' until the next election/term.
A fairer tax system based only on income or usage (of a service), proportional representation, no change of a head of state without a public election (John Major, Gordon Brown I'm looking at you)), no-one is really willing to take the 'risk'.....
I completely agree with post #12, and if those opposed would speak with real work-for-my-paycheck-the-hard-way Americans, they would see the merits of flat-tax. My husband started his working career as a maintenance worker picking up trash from a restaurant parking lot. Over 25 years of hard work and initiative, he worked his way up in that company and now earns 100K a year. He stepped on no one, did not disenfranchise nor discriminate against others for his own gain. He worked for it. We didn't get where we are today from old money, or inheritances, or big corporate gains, or wherever the opposing side believes money comes from that is earned without government entitlements attached. There are no grants or government money for our college student children. We pay full price for every child (although the University of Wisconsin did tell my oldest daughter that if she were unmarried and with child she could get a fully-paid government ride. She declined the "generous" offer).
Flat tax is fairly and evenly appointed throughout all incomes. If complaints are issued against flat tax, I can only assume they are made by those who feel they should have more of what others have made without having put forth the work, years and sweat to do it themselves.
The brilliant result of flat tax would be that government would have to control its spending, government having to ACTUALLY BUDGET the money coming in and INTELLIGENTLY deciding where the people's money would be best spent. A truly novel----and long, long overdue----idea.