Does Margaret Thatcher have syphilis?
Lady Thatcher’s symptoms, as described by her daughter, are just as consistent with neurological damage caused by tertiary syphilis as with dementia: personality changes, memory loss, minor strokes and so on. The megalomania and grandiloquence noted by many in the later stages of her rule are also consistent with the later stages of the disease.
There’s every bit as much justification for putting this about as there is in spreading rumours about Brown’s mental state.
Fair’s fair.
Posted on August 28th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
| See also • Of course the appeal to fairness runs through British history • What’s Your Poison? • My imaginary friend is wiser than your imaginary friend |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
• Filed under Tories |
• |
It would appear that all political leaders go bonkers after a while. The power goes to their head, perhaps? In Brown’s case, the onset seems to be early, but maybe a decade of brooding took its toll.
Longrider’s latest blog post… One to Watch Out For
I can’t wait for the faux outrage of Dale when he reads this.
Merk’s latest blog post… Agggghhhh
Hahaha! Iain is very fond of taunting people with accusations that they’re being over-sensitive about anonymous accusations he publishes on his website, but I’m sure Justin will recall his reaction to a suggestion that he was mincing his words:
http://icanhaz.com/oversensitive-dipstick
Tim Ireland’s latest blog post… Gordon Brown wearing a nappy on a rocking horse
The difference is she has been retired for 18 years; he is still PM.
Another one missing the point. Next!
Sorry, what was the point then? You drew a parallel between two situations, I pointed out an important distinction. Do try not to be so tribal.
Why is it an important distinction? Did you not read Jamie’s post?
There’s every bit as much justification for putting this about as there is in spreading rumours about Brown’s mental state: there’s an obvious case for re-examining Thatcher’s convictions, now apparently universally shared across the political establishment, if they were the product of sexually acquired organic brain disease rather than intellectual rigour.
Well of course papers are as much perveryors of gossip as they are of news so in that regard there is little difference. However in terms of news worthiness, the mental state of a serving politician is far more important to the nation than the mental state of a politician 18 yrs retired. Surely I can observe that without being thought to employ double standards.
Personally I don’t feel qualified to speculate on the mental health of either. I susect the Bonkers Brown meme is more mischeive than serious speculation. But I can see how the mental health of one is of far more relevance to the nation than the mental health of the other.
“There’s every bit as much justification for putting this about as there is in spreading rumours about Brown’s mental state: there’s an obvious case for re-examining Thatcher’s convictions, now apparently universally shared across the political establishment, if they were the product of sexually acquired organic brain disease rather than intellectual rigour.”
Ok, this bit I buy, if there is speculation that her mental faculties were impaired when she was serving. Although even then, this would be a matter of historical interest now. No decision now hinges on her mental state then, even if she was a looney. Brown as PM is in the present, so decisions can be made on the basis of his metal state.
If people complain about attacks on Thatcher on the grounds of it being disrespectful, I’ll join you in calling it rank hypocrisy. If people don’t find it offensive, but point out that it is hardly the same as speculation about the contemory PM’s mental health, then I hardly think they are being hyprocrites, merely pointing out the obvious.
“there’s an obvious case for re-examining Thatcher’s convictions, now apparently universally shared across the political establishment, if they were the product of sexually acquired organic brain disease rather than intellectual rigour.”
I’ve just re-read this bit. Respectfully, I couldn’t disagree more. That is not how beliefs should be held or examined. She isn’t some god whose convictions should ever have been blindly accepted. Convictions and beliefs should continuously be re-examined regardless of the provenence of those beliefs. Beliefs should be examined on their own merits and they should stand and fall on their own merits. The smartest people get it wrong sometimes, and the stupidest are sometimes correct.