Orthopterology over onolatry...

---

Hazard a guess at these two countries: the first country "is one of the region’s oldest and strongest democracies. 

"It boasts a stronger social safety net than any of its neighbors and is making progress on its promise to deliver free health care and higher education to all its citizens. It is a model of social mobility and a magnet for immigrants from across Latin America and Europe. 

"The press is free, and the political system is open; opposing parties compete fiercely in elections and regularly alternate power peacefully. It sidestepped the wave of military juntas that mired some Latin American countries in dictatorship. Thanks to a long political alliance and deep trade and investment ties with the United States, it serves as the Latin American headquarters for a slew of multinational corporations. It has the best infrastructure in South America. It is still unmistakably a developing country, with its share of corruption, injustice, and dysfunction, but it is well ahead of other poor countries by almost any measure...

"The second country is one of Latin America’s most impoverished nations and its newest dictatorship. Its schools lie half deserted. The health system has been devastated by decades of underinvestment, corruption, and neglect; long-vanquished diseases, such as malaria and measles, have returned. Only a tiny elite can afford enough to eat. An epidemic of violence has made it one of the most murderous countries in the world. [sic]

"It is the source of Latin America’s largest refugee migration in a generation, with millions of citizens fleeing in the last few years alone. Hardly anyone (aside from other autocratic governments) recognizes its sham elections, and the small portion of the media not under direct state control still follows the official line for fear of reprisals. By the end of 2018, its economy will have shrunk by about half in the last five years. It is a major cocaine-trafficking hub, and key power brokers in its political elite have been indicted in the United States on drug charges. Prices double every 25 days. The main airport is largely deserted, used by just a handful of holdout airlines bringing few passengers to and from the outside world." 



The two countries? Answer: these two countries are in fact the same country: Venezuela. Forty years is a long time.

(Highlight with cursor to see answer).



Read the rest of the article HERE. 'Venezuela’s Suicide. Lessons From a Failed State.' By Moisés Naím and Francisco Toro at Foreign Affairs Magazine.

Orthopterology over onolatry...

---

Hazard a guess at these two countries: the first country "is one of the region’s oldest and strongest democracies. 

"It boasts a stronger social safety net than any of its neighbors and is making progress on its promise to deliver free health care and higher education to all its citizens. It is a model of social mobility and a magnet for immigrants from across Latin America and Europe. 

"The press is free, and the political system is open; opposing parties compete fiercely in elections and regularly alternate power peacefully. It sidestepped the wave of military juntas that mired some Latin American countries in dictatorship. Thanks to a long political alliance and deep trade and investment ties with the United States, it serves as the Latin American headquarters for a slew of multinational corporations. It has the best infrastructure in South America. It is still unmistakably a developing country, with its share of corruption, injustice, and dysfunction, but it is well ahead of other poor countries by almost any measure...

"The second country is one of Latin America’s most impoverished nations and its newest dictatorship. Its schools lie half deserted. The health system has been devastated by decades of underinvestment, corruption, and neglect; long-vanquished diseases, such as malaria and measles, have returned. Only a tiny elite can afford enough to eat. An epidemic of violence has made it one of the most murderous countries in the world. [sic]

"It is the source of Latin America’s largest refugee migration in a generation, with millions of citizens fleeing in the last few years alone. Hardly anyone (aside from other autocratic governments) recognizes its sham elections, and the small portion of the media not under direct state control still follows the official line for fear of reprisals. By the end of 2018, its economy will have shrunk by about half in the last five years. It is a major cocaine-trafficking hub, and key power brokers in its political elite have been indicted in the United States on drug charges. Prices double every 25 days. The main airport is largely deserted, used by just a handful of holdout airlines bringing few passengers to and from the outside world." 

The two countries? Answer: these two countries are in fact the same country: Venezuela. Forty years is a long time.
(Highlight with cursor to see answer).

Read the rest of the article HERE. 'Venezuela’s Suicide. Lessons From a Failed State.' By Moisés Naím and Francisco Toro at Foreign Affairs Magazine.

Obvious obscurantism; overtly obsequious...

---

Opaque or obtuse? [edited] Lots of 'o's describing the government attempts at professional behaviour; they are woefully poor. That and:  'The Government has ignored the basic principles of successful negotiation in its dealings with Brussels', IMHO they have ignored the basic principles of standing up for themselves and those they purport to represent. But David Heathcoat-Amory - once a near neighbour - writing at Brexit Central hits the nail/s on the head; hopefully the nails of the 'Chequers' coffin. Firstly, and most importantly:

"The EU referendum decision was categorical and final. Both sides of the argument agreed this in advance. The Leave decision is not a radical constitutional experiment: Britain will be joining the rest of the world, which is founded on the principle of national self-government, which includes unconditional control over citizenship, borders, laws and trade policy."

Only those with open or hidden invested personal (monetary) interests that are jeopardised would seriously believe anything different. And they are most probably wrong about the 'jeopardised' bit too.



Heathcoat-Armory makes one mistake, he says "At root there is a failure to understand the true nature of the EU", IMHO this is simply not true: May and Hammond, the treacherous senior civil servants in their dealings, plus Soubry, Clarke, Clegg, Blair, Major, Mandelson, Campbell, Adonis et al in their vociferous and increasingly shrieky cries for a 2nd referendum (or cancelling of the 2016 vote) understand all too well the true nature of the EU. That is precisely the problem: the blithering ramblings, the convoluted speeches, the twisting of words and the seeming incompetence at all and every step is all intentional: they know the true nature of the EU and want it!

"The EU is not an association of nation states coming together for certain common purposes. It is a highly self-interested bureaucracy which has one response to any problem: more Europe. Its entire legal order is founded on the principle of ever closer union."

This has always been the case and to be honest, most EU founders, formers and followers have never denied it!

Obvious obscurantism; overtly obsequious...

---

Opaque or obtuse? [edited] Lots of 'o's describing the government attempts at professional behaviour; they are woefully poor. That and:  'The Government has ignored the basic principles of successful negotiation in its dealings with Brussels', IMHO they have ignored the basic principles of standing up for themselves and those they purport to represent. But David Heathcoat-Amory - once a near neighbour - writing at Brexit Central hits the nail/s on the head; hopefully the nails of the 'Chequers' coffin. Firstly, and most importantly:

"The EU referendum decision was categorical and final. Both sides of the argument agreed this in advance. The Leave decision is not a radical constitutional experiment: Britain will be joining the rest of the world, which is founded on the principle of national self-government, which includes unconditional control over citizenship, borders, laws and trade policy."

Only those with open or hidden invested personal (monetary) interests that are jeopardised would seriously believe anything different. And they are most probably wrong about the 'jeopardised' bit too.

Heathcoat-Armory makes one mistake, he says "At root there is a failure to understand the true nature of the EU", IMHO this is simply not true: May and Hammond, the treacherous senior civil servants in their dealings, plus Soubry, Clarke, Clegg, Blair, Major, Mandelson, Campbell, Adonis et al in their vociferous and increasingly shrieky cries for a 2nd referendum (or cancelling of the 2016 vote) understand all too well the true nature of the EU. That is precisely the problem: the blithering ramblings, the convoluted speeches, the twisting of words and the seeming incompetence at all and every step is all intentional: they know the true nature of the EU and want it!

"The EU is not an association of nation states coming together for certain common purposes. It is a highly self-interested bureaucracy which has one response to any problem: more Europe. Its entire legal order is founded on the principle of ever closer union."

This has always been the case and to be honest, most EU founders, formers and followers have never denied it!

Order Order on overt one-sidedness...

---

To be honest I would have said 80-20 at the very least. "Brexiteers always like to complain about Brexit bias on the BBC". Indeed, and don't forget the normal everyday bias, anyone fair-minded and the Right and right side of centre already know this. Anyhow, "Guido has crunched the numbers on the BBC’s three flagship panel shows, Question Time, Politics Live and Any Questions to see if they have a point... "

A whopping 87% of the panels had a Remainer majority – only 13% of shows had a panel equally balanced between Leavers and Remainers. Not once have Leavers outnumbered Remainers.

No surprise at all. That is just Brexit; the 'Left-Right' bias they normally have is easily just as bad. How many hundreds of times have a 'student', a 'nurse', a 'single mum', a 'council estate resident', an 'economist', a 'whatever', turned out to be a paid up dyed-in-the-wool raving lefty activist?...happens most days. How many sane normal moderately Right wing guests have been introduced clearly highlighting their political allegiance....all of them, and how many 'innocents' called 'Far-Right'? BBC bias is wrong, insidious, sinister and pretty damn treacherous.



Come the day, they should be treated as per Mr Ecks' (a commentator at Raedwald's and elsewhere) proposed treatment of the Civil Service traitors "fire the Senior Civil Service en masse, without a penny compo and their pensions confiscated. If needed use Bliar's Civil Contingences Act to prevent any attempts by the sacked scum to run to lawyers/judges. They go out and stay out.



The chief enemies of a decent UK would be out on their cultural Marxist arses and shock waves of terror would flow thro' the wannabe global elite all around the planet."



Yep. Soon as possible please.

Order Order on overt one-sidedness...

---

To be honest I would have said 80-20 at the very least. "Brexiteers always like to complain about Brexit bias on the BBC". Indeed, and don't forget the normal everyday bias, anyone fair-minded and the Right and right side of centre already know this. Anyhow, "Guido has crunched the numbers on the BBC’s three flagship panel shows, Question Time, Politics Live and Any Questions to see if they have a point... "

A whopping 87% of the panels had a Remainer majority – only 13% of shows had a panel equally balanced between Leavers and Remainers. Not once have Leavers outnumbered Remainers.

No surprise at all. That is just Brexit; the 'Left-Right' bias they normally have is easily just as bad. How many hundreds of times have a 'student', a 'nurse', a 'single mum', a 'council estate resident', an 'economist', a 'whatever', turned out to be a paid up dyed-in-the-wool raving lefty activist?...happens most days. How many sane normal moderately Right wing guests have been introduced clearly highlighting their political allegiance....all of them, and how many 'innocents' called 'Far-Right'? BBC bias is wrong, insidious, sinister and pretty damn treacherous.

Come the day, they should be treated as per Mr Ecks' (a commentator at Raedwald's and elsewhere) proposed treatment of the Civil Service traitors "fire the Senior Civil Service en masse, without a penny compo and their pensions confiscated. If needed use Bliar's Civil Contingences Act to prevent any attempts by the sacked scum to run to lawyers/judges. They go out and stay out.

The chief enemies of a decent UK would be out on their cultural Marxist arses and shock waves of terror would flow thro' the wannabe global elite all around the planet."

Yep. Soon as possible please.