Saturday, June 18, 2005


Hm., why is it that John Conyers who sounds like a complete idiot, never attracts any criticism or derision - while hatemongers pretending to be sensitive and concerned citizens will spend 5 years repeating that Bush is an idiot?

They know this presumably by taking a pair of calipers to the heads of people in majority Republican districts or some other such new-fangled 18th century science...

The point is that when John Conyers drilled an Assistant Attorney General (testifying for the Department of Justice) at a hearing discussing the extension of the Patriot Act and brings up the Abu Greib affair, he must have known that its a matter for the Department of Defense, not the Department of Justice.

No matter if he did or didnt. It makes no difference to me if Conyers is ignorant enough to ask such a question, or that Conyers thinks that his political supporters who wanted to hear the question asked are ignorant it happened, and the media didnt carry it, not even the reflexive Bush-haters at Pacifica Radio. Even that non-addictive sedative C-SPAN snuffed it, probably out of sympathy for a man who embarrassed himself.

While theyll be blanketly critical of the president, theyll gladly trombone any of Bushs opponents, no matter how inept and overblown they are, and go as far as call meme pimper Randi Roades brilliant if it props up their tender egos.

If you aren't sold yet on the concept of the propaganda of the middle-minded left, compare THIS to THIS on PBS which has been giving trobone lessons for decades, is as much of a non-profit entity as Adnan Khashoggi is, and only behaves evenhandedly during pledge drives.

Democrats have failed the U.S. public - they should be engaging in debate with the majority instread of navel gazing at the top of their lungs. They're supposed to be the argumentative check and balance in a time of change. Instead they act like they need to have their heads checked, and quite frankly given their predeliction of talking about how oh-so-very bright they and their agendas are, they have yet to prove it.

First you have to make something to give away

Finally, a group of people who wont be bullied with counterintuitive recreational compassion. Some clear thinkers finally start a free market, social agenda neutral" investment fund, so that someone can actually make something to give away.

Friday, June 17, 2005

Still feeding on each other

Neocoms has-beens are still fighting over Trosky's icepick.

Reuters poses cheesy glamorshots for psychopathic suicide murderers

From the Captain’s Quarters blog:
«What caught my eyes were the fact that the "insurgent" had his finger off the trigger and along the frame (excellent safety practice, but something not expected of an untrained insurgent, especially in a firefight). The second thing was that fact that he had his hand wrapped around the barrel, which would be very hot is he were actually firing it (especially during the summer in Iraq). The Machine gun in the picture is a Russian PK, which fires the powerful, long rimmed 7.62 cartridge, not the lighter intermediate round of the AK-47. Speaking as a "gun nut, firing such a machine gun in automatic while in that crouched position would put you on your rear end, with the barrel pointing towards the sky.

In short, this smells of a "staged" picture.»

When does the documentary glorifying their "bravery" come out?

The modern orientalist seeking fame and forture

Thursday, June 16, 2005

Jewish cemetery hit by 117th attack in 15 years

The Guardian reports on the west Ham Jewish cemetery which has gone unmolested for more than a century, but hit by 117th attack in 15 years. West Ham is well known to football fans, but to neo-nazis and jew-haters?

«It is the 117th attack on the West Ham Jewish cemetery in east London in 15 years. Some of the graves had stood for 150 years but were pushed over or broken over the last 10 days. Others were daubed with graffiti, or sprayed with swastikas.»
Only in the last 15 years. 1990... 1991.... lets see... about the time the rock throwing craze in praise of including the Death-cult gang branch of the Palestinians in the "never-ending revolution" took hold on a large scale at the Unis. While they're whining about not holding a book with both hands, they barely make mention of ces cons who desacrate graves to insult the living.

«"Whoever did this would have had to have put some real effort in to push the stones over because they are deep in the ground. That is one thing that is so upsetting. These idiots have tried really hard to do damage. They have kicked in the door to a 19th century mausoleum dedicated to two members of the Rothschild family and have spray-painted a swastika ... on the side.

"These graves have been here in peace for 120 years and these mindless thugs have ruined that forever."»

Anti-capitalists, maybe? People envious that others manage to make a living on their own wits and effort?

Does it even matter with cowardly wankers who take their troubles out on the dead?

Born impotentL'impuissance innée
Remember those idiotic sites after Bush's re-election where people held up little signs apologizing for their own impotence? Now the French are doing the same thing following the referendum.
Souvenez-vous de ces sites à la con suite à la réélection de Bush où les gens demandait pardon pour leur propre impuissance? A présent, ce sont les franchouilles qui s'y mettent.

Son, can you SMELL that, can you smell the mendacity?

The normally reasonable Johann Hari seems to have drunk the Indy Kool-Aid of America envy, joining the BBC in a habit of simply making up data to prop up a flawed concept.

Expat Yanks Robert Tumminello and Scott “Tiberius” Burgess notice especially poignant “vernal pools” of hateful invention:

«Mr. Hari immediately reveals himself to be one of the uncomprehending masses, severely misrepresenting administration policy with his claim that:

"If you are an organisation in Africa seeking a single dollar of US funds, you have to agree that - across your entire organisation - you will sign up to the evangelical agenda."

An evangelical agenda which, according to Mr. Hari, holds that "you must never 'promote promiscuity' by handing out condoms or vigorously promoting their use."

Mr. Hari needs to inform USAID, the primary administrator of American aid for Africa, as they've been consistently violating this evil no-condom policy - more so, in fact, than any organisation in the world….

…As a matter of fact, not only does the organisation support condom use, but, as the
New York Times reported in 2004 - in an article headed "Bush Backs Condom Use To Prevent Spread of AIDS" (seemingly missed by Mr. Hari) - donations of condoms by USAID nearly tripled from 1999 to 2004, making that organisation (again, the primary means by which US aid is distributed) the world's largest condom donor. Mr. Hari's description of a concerted administration policy to "assault and undermine the providers of condoms" is simply ridiculous.»

Scott also points out that USAID is the largest distributer of condoms in the world. He also points out that they have a policy of not funding abortion as a birth control method, something which is compatible with virtually every person’s view of the world unless they live in Europe and North America.

Hari, in an effort to laud the greatness of the holy capucha, the most virtuous and divine preservatif, simply cant lie quickly enough to not be caught out by a guy who holds down a real job and doesn’t write political tripe for a living. Never mind that those hideous results that show that the most densely Catholics parts of Africa are least likely to be have rapid and widespread communication of HIV/AIDS.

Robert finds the Beeb trying hard to form a Zappa cover band as a mother of invention:
«Standing next to [General] Pace, Rumsfeld said nothing to contradict or to embelish on any of that.

Well, he didn't until he appeared on BBC's Newsnight, when he SUPPOSEDLY told us the following -- according to the BBC web site:

Iraq 'no more safe than in 2003'

Now, what does that title and those introductory lines indicate to you? That's right, that Rumsfeld said those words verbatim. Indeed, when I first read this page, I thought, "Wow! He said what?"

Then, seconds later, realizing it is the BBC after all, and that they are only single stroke quotes, I went looking anyway for that exact phrase . . . which had led me to believe, based on the opening lines that followed, that Rumsfeld had said that. No good. It appears NOWHERE in the piece as a Rumsfeld quote.»
If the likes of the Indy and the BBC didn’t keep inviting people to shoot fish in a barrel, they wouldn’t. Readers can smell the mendacity.

An educationally useful hoax?

Michel L., a ¡No Pasaràn! reader, sent us the follow note and a link to a foolish busybody activity which is both scientifically misguided, and quite thankfully ineffective. It seems to come from the old joke about what sort of earthquake you’d get if everyone in China jumed off of a chair at the same time. Speaking to this idiotic “Jump Day” after school activity, Michel writes:

«Apparently, liberals have found a way not only to reduce global warming, but also to extend daytime (how this is a good thing I don't know), create a more homogenous climate on Earth and still help the poor people of the third world.

Now, I'm just a humble electronics engineer and my knowledge in such matters is very limited. But, do these people even know the disaster it would be if the Earth were to change its orbit just slightly? We're talking tsunamis and typhoons everywhere.

Plus, 600,000 people jumping at the same time could hardly create enough energy to match a mild earth quake.»
Sounds more like a conspiracy started by podiatrists and orthopedic surgeons. Never mind the anger about blaming man for natural changes in the jet-stream - these folks want to unionize the air molucules and SHUT IT DOWN!

They don’t like cars, fireplaces, or industry thinking that it’s too much of a risk, but they want to alter the earth’s orbit? Oddly enough, they speak to the childish mentality of activists – everything that they don’t understand in the world is wrong – it MUST change, regardless of what it changes into or however disasterous that might be.
Don’t you think that this needs some serious scientist to look at the matter, and say, a global referendum, including animal? The problem with this anti-intellectual view that they have is that science is only used as a convenient excuse when a movement can get a scientific group to say what they want it to, but not when they don’t. It also always seems to be based on some whim which passes for a solution to something people are feeling.

What will it be a year later? Jumping the earth back into its’ original orbit?

Another fallacy is that it doesn’t understand the scale of man’s effect on nature, which if you have a hatefully inflated notion of yourself and the human race is wildly inflated.

Do these same people think that they’re living harmoniously with the nature that they pretend to care about if they try to change earth’s orbit? The reason we are not as barren and lifeless as our neighboring planets IS that orbit. Does they think that this make us a rogue planet not worthy of Mars’ goodwill? Do we need to destroy ourselves to be fair and stop making some other rock orbiting the sun less envious?

The mind boggles! Like the sandal and army bag wearing fakers you knew in high-school that were pained with worries about the earth, but struggled with algebra, these folks don't deserve to be ignored, they need to have their argument undercut to inspire some rationalism.


But if NOT, what we have here is a wonderful setup - the groundwork for breakthrough moments for the sort of Greenie that goes along with the latest trendy complaint. Like the precience of the great Sokol suckering of '96, when the nuts rooting for the uses of a "scientific" effort for their political goals realize that they need sound science behind science, minds will change themselves.

Trailer trash nationLes Sous-Doués en vacances se font l'Europe
'We must not let our greatness flicker'. What a joke. The French are happy to watch a DVD at home, go away on a cheap holiday, and gaze at their pierced navels. Other than that, don't bother them.
'Il ne faut pas laisser ... notre grandeur'. Quelle blague. Les franchouilles sont contents de regarder des DVD chez eux, s'éclipser de temps en temps en Framtour, et se contempler le piercing. A part ça, plus la peine de les déranger.

Wednesday, June 15, 2005

The hysteria that the world’s hyper-power must be perfect or it is no good is in dire contrast to the treatment given to China

The world has been recently flooded with media accounts that U.S. soldiers may have dropped or at least gotten wet a few Korans
writes Victor Davis Hanson (Shih-sheh to Stavn Piranha), although I fear his last sentences are too optimistic.
Abu Ghraib, we are told, is like the Soviet gulag — the death camp of millions. Americans are routinely pilloried abroad because they liberated Iraq, poured billions into the reconstruction, and jumpstarted democracy there — but were unable to do so without force and the loss of civilian life.

This hysteria that the world’s hyper-power must be perfect or it is no good is in dire contrast to the treatment given to China. Yet Pavlovian anti-Americanism may soon begin to die down as the Chinese increasingly flex their muscles on the global stage and the world learns better their methods of operation.

…The Patriot Act to a European is proof of American illiberality in a way that China’s swallowing Tibet or jailing and executing dissidents is not. America’s support for Saudi Arabia is proof of our hypocrisy in not severing ties with an undemocratic government, while few care that a country with leaders who traverse the globe in Mao suits cuts any deal possible with fascists and autocrats for oil, iron ore, and food.

…As nations come to know the Chinese, and as a ripe Europe increasingly cannot or will not defend itself, the old maligned United States will begin to look pretty good again. More important, America will not be the world’s easily caricatured sole power, but more likely the sole democratic superpower that factors in morality in addition to national interest in its treatment of others.

China is strong without morality; Europe is impotent in its ethical smugness. The buffer United States, in contrast, believes morality is not mere good intentions but the willingness and ability to translate easy idealism into hard and messy practice.

Most critics will find such sentiments laughable or naïve; but just watch China in the years to come. Those who now malign the imperfections of the United States may well in shock whimper back, asking for our friendship. Then the boutique practice of anti-Americanism among the global elite will come to an end.

Cal Thomas has more on the gathering threat of China…

Une maxime française (?)

There is a French maxim saying nothing kills as surely as ridiculousness
writes John Vinocur in the International Herald Tribune.
It probably goes back to the royal court at Versailles where the wrong ruffle, or faulty flounce, or stocking hue (not peach, you fool, but apricot! ) first meant hilarity, then dead men walking.

Much the same rule seems to pertain to European politics in 2005. Ridiculousness continues to look lethal.

I'm thinking of a separation from reality these days that overwhelms the acceptably contradictory and becomes grotesque - the equivalent of generals ordering their vanquished armies to defend destroyed fortifications to the death.

This is not insisting that politics should survive without contradictions and maneuvering, which, like digressions, are often the best part of the story.

But after the rejection of the European Union's constitution in referendums in France and the Netherlands, and Gerhard Schröder's mortifying defeat in a regional election in Germany's biggest state, there is a degree of political slippage, a mortal skid, really, whirling Schröder and Jacques Chirac at the heart of Europe in the direction of the absurd.

The […] French-German-supported diversion might successfully offload attention for the moment from Chirac and Schröder's leadership to Tony Blair's supposed budgetary intransigence. But it concretizes a kind of ridiculousness - offering, instead of a ruthless post-mortem discussion, the deathly internal EU tactics that Europeans have now shown they despise and that the president and chancellor just may not outlive.

In any event, neither man will die from an overload of coherence.

From fear of popular revolt, Chirac and his novice prime minister, Dominique de Villepin, are quixotically saying that no economic reform will be allowed in France that would challenge the 1960s welfare state apparatus they insist on calling the "French social model."

Schröder, in turn, claims he will defend the thin structural reforms he has undertaken. But he bases his argument for new elections in September on his reported confession to the German federal president - who will decide in July if the national vote can go ahead in September - that his own Social Democratic and Green parliamentary majority no longer has confidence in his course!

… Not everybody takes this on straight-faced. Elements of Chirac's Gaullist party openly mock his sworn "social model" bottom line. Patrick Devedjian, a right-hand man to Nicolas Sarkozy, the party's president, said over the weekend: "The French social model isn't a model, because no one wants to emulate it. It's not social, because it's caused record unemployment."

… In the middle of this, the following brainstorm: Villepin, who had toyed publicly with the idea two years ago, said in his first major policy speech that the countries ought to move toward a French-German Union in "specific political areas." Whacked upside the head by this added incongruity, Schröder's government first responded that it "is not on the current agenda."

In fact, if Villepin is talking airily about union, it's a next-to-ridiculous concept in real time. The French have no plans to share their most treasured international lever with their neighbors: Take it on good authority, it was French insistence earlier this month that led Germany to drop its demand for UN Security Council veto-power from its very shaky bid for a council seat. …
Speaking of ridicule, Roger Cohen listed 10 points about the Constitution that "have become clear", even before the French vote took place. Nr. 7 was:
The U.S. Constitution begins with the phrase "We the People of the United States." The German, in its first sentence, says "The German people have adopted, by virtue of their constituent power, this constitution." But the EU constitution begins by saying that "His Majesty, the king of the Belgians" and other European heads of state have "agreed on the following dispositions." The French, in their unease over the treaty, have seized on something antidemocratic in its drafting and presentation. By so doing, they have already done Europe a service.

Cough up the explanations and the lootRendre compte et rendre gorge
Give back the cash.
Rendez l'oseille.

There are other ways to do this

"Untiring public campaign for hostages' release": a display of the european mainstream left wing public's delusion that having a baloon festival would accomplish something, or that the captors would be 'tuned in' to their view of the world or even care.

How self-inflated does ones' self-image have to be to think that this could accomplish anything?

The facts are found (or not found)
elsewhere: the government denies paying blood money fo rtheir release (which guarantees a repetition of this kidnapping kabuki), but since they are mum about the terms of release, we have to rely on their history of dealing with these things as a guide.

Then again, if all it took was money, why did it take 5 months to find out who they needed to deal with? And what does France now owe the Syrians or a network of the shady leftovers from the Ceausescu era?

I thought it was a freak showMoi, je croyais qu'elle était une foire aux atrocités
Europe becomes a sideshow.
L'Europe n'est plus qu'une attraction de foire.

Soon appearing at Dangerfield'sBientôt au Palais des Glaces
Florence provided some good stand up comedy yesterday. Libération head honcho was on hand to call the shots and hopefully prop up newspaper sales which have tanked since the campaign for the referendum.
Hier, Florence a fait un beau one man show. Serge July était là, histoire de tirer les ficelles et booster un peu les ventes de Libé qui ont pris un coup depuis la campagne pour le référendum.

Tuesday, June 14, 2005

Another successful five year plan enabled for Sino-french relations

France and China are reinforcing relations and improving the means of contact with the technical miracle of a direct flight - which is a first commercial flight for this aircraft.

It's so nice to see these bonds develop. Especially in a shiny brand spanking new Air France Boeing 777-300, the only maker of a commercial aircraft that can pull this off.

Incessant bluster from Airbus Boeing was noticably absent.

I see a pile of shitMoi, je vois un tas de merde
Asia looks at Europe and sees pitfalls. Canada no longer sees a credible alternative social model.
L'Asie porte son regard sur l'Europe et elle ne voit que des écueils à éviter. Canada n'y voit plus un crédible modèle social alternatif.

For this kind of stuff they have plenty of energyPour ce genre de magouille, ils dépensent une énergie folle
Racism, denunciations, anonymous tipsters. The full richness of French society stands out in this article which tells how courageous French resistants gave chase to Portuguese workers employed in France. Outstanding.
Le racisme, la délation, et les corbeaux. Toute la panoplie des richesses de la société franchouille est mise en relief dans cet article qui raconte comment les braves résistants fwançais s'en ont pris à des travailleurs portugais employés en France. Jouissif.

The Bitch is Back
So the cunt is out. We can soon expect her anti-American, pro-terrorist rants to resume for her commie rag newspaper. Libération is milking this for all it is worth. According to Marianne, Libération's PropagandaStaffel circulation is down 20% since they adopted their haughty pro-Yes stance for the referendum.
Comme ça la roulure est sortie. Nous pouvons nous attendre à la reprise de ses diatribes anti-américaines et pro-terroristes dans son torchon pour cocos. Serge July essaie de tirer un max de fric de cette histoire. Selon Marianne, la circulation de Libé PropagandaStaffel est en chute libre (-20%) depuis que le journal a appelé, de façon fort hautaine, à voter Oui au référendum.

Just where IS all that news about Michael Jackson?

James Tiberius Kirk umm., Dr. Rusty Shakleford, rather, point us to this cute little thought published on Syrian Terror Leader Wanted to Use a Baby as a Bomb
He noted: Terrorists now planning on using babies for bombs (no objection from Planned Parenthood).

Thanks, Rusty - you're starting to really freak me out now....

“This was worse than Nick Wapshott being stuck on the QE2 on September 11”

From The Times Online (UK), a book extract from CHRIS AYRES’ “War Reporting for Cowards”:

«“Well, it’s your call,” said Ben. “No one’s going to second-guess you.”

“Thanks,” I said. “Can I, er, sleep on it?” “Of course,” said Ben, sounding surprised. “And keep the stories coming.”

“OK, CHRIS,” he said. “You ain’t gonna like this one bit, but I have orders. I have no choice. You understand?”

I stared at the captain’s lean, muscular face, and wondered what could possibly call for such a melodramatic opening.

“Yes,” I said slowly. “I understand.”

“What kind of satellite phone do you have?” asked Buck. The phone was still in my hand. I looked at it.

“It’s a Thuraya,” I said.

“I’m going to have to take it,” said Buck. “I have orders to confiscate all Thuraya phones being used by media representatives.”

My jaw slackened in a visual cliché of surprise. “I need your phone,” reiterated Buck.

“Are you serious?” I asked. “Why?”

I could tell that the question irrita- ted him. Warriors don’t ask for orders to be explained. He turned to the Marine behind him.

“Staff sergeant,” he said, “did the order for the phone ban give a reason?”

“It says the French sold the codes of the phones to the Iraqis, sir,” came the reply. “It means the enemy can trace the signals, sir.”

“There you have it,” said Buck.»

The frivolous demands made on our military betray an irresponsibility made worse by ingratitude toward men who have put their lives on the line for us

Whom, in today's world, would the MSM lionize as "boulders of opposition"?

With the sentence, "[the pacifist] parents are also reacting to what they see as the military's increased intrusion into the lives of their children", Damien Cave's NYT article goes on to take as granted the "pacifists'" claim — conscious or not — that all a community's children are the collective responsability of all its parents (so far, no problems) and that this means — ipso facto — that the said "pacifists" are the ones carrying out the protective duties of the innocent generation (suggesting in turn that those not opposing the military recruiters, or even failing to act or speak up, are not doing their protective duty and are thus, directly or not, unworthy of having their opinions considered).

In related news, we have this from The (London) Times' Richard Beeston (shookhran to the reader whose email has vanished from my screen):

THE invasion of Iraq and its aftermath caused the deaths of 24,000 Iraqis, including many children, according to the most detailed survey yet of postwar life in the country.

The UN report paints a picture of modern Iraq brought close to collapse despite its oil wealth. Successive wars, a decade of sanctions and the current violence have destroyed services, undermined health and education and made the lives of ordinary Iraqis dangerous and miserable.

The survey for the UN Development Programme, entitled Iraq Living Conditions Survey 2004 [and] released by the Ministry of Planning yesterday, could finally resolve the debate over how many Iraqis were killed in the war that overthrew the regime of Saddam Hussein in April 2003.

The 370-page report said that it was 95 per cent confident that the toll during the war and the first year of occupation was 24,000, but could have been between 18,000 and 29,000. About 12 per cent of those were under 18.

The figure is far lower than the 98,000 deaths estimated in The Lancet last October, which said that it had interviewed nearly 1,000 households. But it is far higher than other figures.…

[Barham Salih, the Iraqi Planning Minister,] said that the condition of his country was particularly tragic given its huge oil wealth and access to water. He insisted that the blame lay with Saddam’s regime, which had embarked on two wars against its neighbours, persecuted its population and provoked sanctions. “Undeniably, from the perspective of many, the former regime’s aggressive policies, its wars, its repression and mismanagement of the economy are an important part of why we are here today,” he said.

Which brings us to Thomas Sowell (quoted by the Federalist Patriot):
The frivolous demands made on our military — that they protect museums while fighting for their lives, that they tiptoe around mosques from which people are shooting at them — betray an irresponsibility made worse by ingratitude toward men who have put their lives on the line to protect us. It is impossible to fight a war without heroism. Yet can you name a single American military hero acclaimed by the media for an act of courage in combat? Such courage is systematically ignored by most of the media. If American troops kill a hundred terrorists in battle and lose ten of their own men doing it, the only headline will be: 'Ten More Americans Killed in Iraq Today.' Those in the media who have carped at the military for years, and have repeatedly opposed military spending, are now claiming to be 'honoring' our military by making a big production out of publishing the names of all those killed in Iraq. Will future generations see through this hypocrisy — and wonder why we did not?

We must not delude ourselves that the war is a PR contest and place ourselves and our troops into a PC straightjacket for the sake of the polls

If I hear one more time how the United States better clean up its image in the world so we don't further alienate foreigners and generate more terrorists, I think I'm going to wretch
pukes David Limbaugh as he (knowingly or not) describes many smug European commentators — pundits, common citizens, and public opinion alike — as well.
There is no small amount of irony in the fact that the people who are doing their level best to make sure the news is dominated by stories portraying America as imperialistic and inhumane are the same ones warning that we dare not permit our image to deteriorate.

They are determined to bring us stories week after week that depict the United States as a heartless monster. They have been telling us since we attacked Iraq that the Bush administration manipulated the intelligence data on WMD and lied to get us into war, and that we preemptively struck Iraq without provocation and in contravention of international law. …

They just kept disseminating the same lies — to the point that 90 percent of the Democrat base was actually taken in by them. And, finally, after waiting patiently for years for a smoking gun to incriminate the Bush administration, the American Left thought it had received a gift from the God it doesn't believe in: the Downing Street Memo.

… All but Bushophobic readers understood that this same memo disclosed a genuine belief by the Brits that Saddam did in fact have WMD and that he might unleash them on allied forces if we attacked. Even liberal columnist Michael Kinsley doesn't seem to buy that the memo is a smoking gun. The memo has turned out to be much ado about nothing.

Not to worry. There's always Gitmo: the story that just won't die — the Left will see to that. Their relentless mantra is that the Bush administration systematically abuses and tortures terrorist war prisoners — at Gitmo and elsewhere.

Forget that we mostly bend over backward to treat enemy combatants with kid gloves, feeding them better than our own troops, providing them with copies of the Koran and enforcing special rules to ensure it is treated respectfully. Forget that the toughest interrogation techniques to which many objected only lasted two weeks, and still did not result in the 20th 9-11 hijacker being physically assaulted. But they did result in the ascertainment of critical information that may have saved many American and Iraqi lives.

The Left steadfastly chooses to ignore the positive, hype the negative and presume American culpability. They deny their reflexively anti-American instincts and congenital softness on terrorism, insisting they are more committed to winning the war than even the evil "neocons." It's just America's methods they disapprove of.

But where did they get this rarely challenged, counterintuitive and nonsensical idea that terrorism is spawned primarily by American misconduct — or America's cavalier image? How can anyone with the slightest hint of objectivity conclude that Islamic terrorism is a reaction to, or a byproduct of, evil emanating from the United States? Who, besides the terrorist themselves could possibly take such garbage seriously?

Leave it to the American Left, which bristles at the slightest insinuation that it sometimes goes to extensive lengths to conceal its patriotism, to figure that the outcome of the war will be determined by means of a popularity contest — America's image abroad — rather than bombs, guns and bullets.

Indeed, the Left and squishy moderates are now saying we should close down Gitmo, even if it is clear no mistreatment of terrorist prisoners is occurring there — because such a gesture will show the world our goodwill and rehabilitate our image.

Such thinking is pathetic and promises disastrous consequences. Of course we should comport ourselves consistent with our high moral standards — because it is the right thing to do. But we must not delude ourselves into thinking the war is a PR contest and place ourselves and our troops into a PC straightjacket in order to score higher on the next international poll.

The notion that our success in the war will depend on our image is appeasement-driven psychobabble. But if the Left is so convinced of it, isn't it time they ceased and desisted doing everything in their power to destroy our image?

Playing the crumpled anti-"Anglo-Saxon" card

President Chirac had a long meeting with Germany’s Chancellor Schröder the weekend after the two referendums
writes John Zvesper (merci to the Ashbrook Center's Peter W Schramm).
Doubtless they talked—as usual, in their only common language, English—about playing the crumpled anti-"Anglo-Saxon" card, in order to promote (as John Vinocur puts it) "their version of Europe’s battle-to-come, pitting the guardians of the welfare state against the icy Anglo-Saxon hordes of free-market capitalists." This anti-liberal rhetoric, which is often deployed by Prime Minister de Villepin as well, will surely characterize much of the French reaction to the referendum. After all, before the referendum, Chirac tried to play this card in a way that would favor the treaty’s approval. Socialist "yes" proponents tried that too. Even Socialist "no" voters shared the common premise here—opposition to economic "ultra-liberalism"; they simply concluded that the EU and its latest treaty themselves are "ultra-liberal."
PS: Read what has allegedly been annoying le Président de la République recently

Monday, June 13, 2005

Fun, fun, fun, in the summertime

David’s Medienkritik and your most obedient servant are preparing to warmly welcome Gerhard Schröder to Vashingtong, TC.

Across from the White House at Lafayette Park

June 27th at 12.30

Do join us.

That notwithstanding, I hope da boyz don’t feel bitter about how the natives greeted Bush in Mainz.

Humorless leftists forget their who their real friends are.

Leftists are suddenly concerned with public virtue (no doubt to let themselves display some outrage) and are cranked up about a pornstar prone to pulling stunts who gets tingly for W. Forgotten, of course is that Democrats have been going to bat and getting the support of the smut biz for years (not an entirely work-safe link).

I thought American lefties liked the political participation of people who make a living cheerlessly getting their faces spunked on?

Mentally unhealthy link

It is difficult for Americans to appreciate just how removed from the French people the nation's bureaucratic elite is

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.

Thomas Jefferson

As the AFP describes the recession of French industry, Anatole Kaletsky tells Europe's politicians, It’s the euro, stupid, and French political leaders jockey for position ahead of 2007 election (merci à Grégoire).

Plus C'est la Même Chose, sighs John Fund. In his maiden speech as prime minister, Nero

assured his audience that his government would not adopt free-market policies of the sort that have made America a robust economy, rescued Britain from two generations of decline, and brought unparalleled prosperity to countries as culturally different as South Korea and New Zealand. Mr. de Villepin comes from an antimarket tradition in France that has long worshipped the centrality of the state. His patron, Mr. Chirac, has even declared that "neoliberalism is the new communism" because it forces societies into a rigid straitjacket of economic policies that include lower taxes and less regulation.

Mr. de Villepin did acknowledge that France, which has suffered from double-digit unemployment for a decade, has to "look reality in the face." But then he declared he was "deeply attached to the French social model" and announced policies that are almost guaranteed to ensure that economic reality will slap France back—and hard. …

It is difficult for Americans to appreciate just how removed from the French people the nation's bureaucratic elite is. Its arrogance is mind-boggling. One of Mr. Chirac's ministers privately compared the public's repudiation of the EU Constitution to a self-indulgent temper tantrum. …

Jean Michel Fourgous, a parliamentary member of Mr. Chirac's Union for a Popular Movement, bemoans his party's refusal to adopt more transparent and consultative government. He told Time magazine that the country has "been hijacked by an intellectually brilliant elite that's dangerously ignorant about the economy." He notes that while the current government is made up largely of people who call themselves conservative, 80% of ministers have never worked at all in the private sector. The few who have "are tolerated, but shoved into subaltern posts."

Small wonder then that those who realize France must change are pinning their hopes on Nicolas Sarkozy, the president of Mr. Chirac's party and the new interior minister, who has announced he will leave office by the end of next year to explore a likely run for president. While he is no Ronald Reagan or even Tony Blair, Mr. Sarkozy cautions against an overly romantic attachment to France's current economic model. "The best social model is one that gives work to everyone," he told an audience recently. "That is no longer ours."

At least the glimmerings of a debate on the role of the state in France's economy and, yes, even some discussion of whether France should be in perpetual conflict with the United States, is beginning. Should Angela Merkel, the pro-U.S. leader of Germany's conservative opposition, win planned elections this fall, and should Mr. Sarkozy succeed Mr. Chirac in 2007, there is at least a chance that Europe will begin to address its problems straight on and even seek a better relationship with the U.S. All the evidence suggests the alternative is continued economic stagnation, which in and of itself breeds resentment and antipathy towards the U.S.

The pompous pontificating pundits who prefer the comfort and safety of home

What Can We Do to Earn More Trust From the American Public? Asks America's mainstream media. Perhaps the answer is, go even further and write more hard-hitting articles about the American military… (Then again, maybe not…)
I was fed up with the pompous pontificating pundits who can go to Iraq anytime but prefer the comfort and safety of home
fumes Michael Fumento, a syndicated columnist with Scripps Howard News Service and a Senior Fellow at Hudson Institute (fumento at who was embedded with the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force in the Anbar Province. Regarding the common anti-war tactic of saying unless you are in Iraq, you should shut up about supporting the war, his observations join mine, the ones that conclude that if anyone should go to Iraq to learn anything, it is the anti-war protestors themselves
I observed that troop morale in even the most hostile areas was better than I would have believed. Unless I identified myself, nobody knew I was a reporter. Troops didn’t hold back antiwar feelings on my account. Yet I heard none. I also carefully fastidiously read the ubiquitous graffiti in the portable toilets and only once found a negative scrawling – a Bush bash. But three other scrawlings ambushed that first one.

The military has worked doggedly on morale. The food was delicious and varied. It was so hot outside you could barely eat; but don’t blame the chow. The vast majority of troops have hot showers. Toilet facilities were odor-free and fly-free. I was stunned to find living quarters are almost universally air-conditioned.

The ultimate stressor is something about which the military can do nothing; being 9,000 or more miles from home, family, and friends. I pitied the troops for this. But even this blow was softened with discount telephone cards in trailers filled with phones and with Internet cafes.

The only real complaints I’d heard were about “the kindler, gentler military.” Political sensitivity – enhanced by shenanigans such as Newsweek’s – are tying at least part of an arm behind our backs.

Opposite me in the Baghdad hospital recovery wound was an Iraqi with two gunshot wounds received a week apart. I was told he was shot running away from an improvised explosive device (IED) trigger but had nonetheless been treated and released, partly in hopes that American hospital hospitality might give him a change of heart. Tough luck. A week later he was again shot running away from a trigger. “Now he’s being released to Abu Ghraib prison,” I was told.

The professionalism of these men and women is almost indescribable. … The Iraqis are fighting and dying for their country. We need vastly more of them and their training must continue to improve. Yet they are the key to ultimate victory.

Overall – and this is based both on observation and outside study – I’d say the war is ours to lose. But I don’t think we will. In a true guerrilla conflict, time favors the insurgency. But progressively this war has shifted to one waging non-Iraqi terrorists against primarily Iraqi civilians, secondarily Iraqi military and police, and last against Americans. …

It’s perfectly understandable that Iraqis resent any foreign troops on their soil. But they know the suicide bombers randomly turning Iraqi civilians into shredded wheat are also foreigners. They’re skeptical about a U.S. withdrawal; but they see the American route appears to be leading to independence. And they know the Jihadist route is one too horrible to contemplate.

The poor, born into our welfare state, and their attitudes of dependency and their resentments of other people's succes

If this is a class-ridden society denying "access" to upward mobility to those at the bottom, why is it that immigrants can come here at the bottom and then rise to the top?
asks Thomas Sowell, as he evokes the "counterproductive and self-destructive attitudes toward education, work and ordinary civility found in many of America's ghettos" as well as the "reliance on the welfare state and a … set of intellectuals making excuses for their behavior and denouncing anyone who wants them to change their ways."
The latest round of statistics emboldens more intellectuals to blame "society" for the failure of many people at the bottom to rise to the top.

One obvious reason is that many poor immigrants come here with very different ambitions and values from that of poor Americans born into our welfare state and imbued with notions growing out of attitudes of dependency and resentments of other people's success.

The fundamental reason that many people do not rise is not that class barriers prevent it but that they do not develop the skills, values and attitudes which cause people to rise.

The liberal welfare state means they don't have to and liberal multiculturalism says they don't need to change their values because one culture is just as good as another. In other words, liberalism is not part of the solution, but part of the problem.

Racism is supposed to put insuperable barriers in the path of non-whites anyway, so why knock yourself out trying? This is another deadly message, especially for the young.

But if immigrants from Korea or India, Vietnamese refugees, and others can come here and move right on up the ladder, despite not being white, why are black and white Americans at the bottom more likely to stay at the bottom?

[If more people at the bottom were rising to the top in the past,] that does not necessarily mean that "society" is holding them down more today. It may easily mean that the welfare state and liberal ideology both make it less necessary today for them to change their own behavior.

If you see a lot of headgear, don't expect much

An editorial in today's Beirut Daily Star says it all without really saying it: the only real debating going on is when you're no-where near this guy (Hassan Nasrallah). The further you get away from Hizballah types, the more likely your election will resesmble an actual choice.

What's better is that this time the likely winner isn't some former big-wigs relative.

Feudalistic stupidity from the West Bank to Manhattan

'Allah turned girl into dog

«Punishment meted out after girl mishandles Quran, according to rumor circulating at Arab-Israeli town

TAIBEH Harsh punishment? A Muslim girl from Taibeh was punished by Allah and turned into a dog, according to rumors that have been circulating in the Arab-Israeli town this week, Arab-language newspaper Panorama reported.»
As far as infantile wild invention goes, the NY Times refuses to be outdone.

From from the fever swamps of their minds, the NYT concluded that having once asked the newly appointed SEC chairman to write a review of a collection of Ayn Rand's letters, they now label him a dyed-in-the-wool objectivist. Wrote George Will:

« She wrote fat and pitilessly didactic novels -- e.g., Atlas Shrugged'' and The Fountainhead'' -- celebrating severe individualism and unfettered capitalism. The third paragraph of The New York Times front-page story reporting Cox's nomination called him a devoted student'' of Rand.

Cox, however, has never read a Rand novel. He sampled her work only when preparing, for the Times, a less-than-reverent review of a collection of her correspondence. Still, the devoted student'' description swiftly reverberated in the echo chamber of Washington journalism, where much of the reporting about Cox's nomination has had a cartoon-like quality. »
Using that logic, given this fine book review, what conclusion should we come to about their book reviewers?

Inasmuch as I have stumbled over NYT employees honoring us with a visit to ¡No Pasaran!, should I assume that they uniformly agree with our little blog?

Sunday, June 12, 2005

What leftists call compassion creates shitholes.

This must surely be the sign of a successful nanny stare: something that could only politely be called public composting. You’re not allowed to seem judgemental, now! This must mean that the welfare state is too small, not too large, right?

- lifted from the industrious John Ray

Ideological rope-a-dope by the pipsqueaks of the German media

How N-TV treats Conservative Angela Merkel:
Complete with concocted captions, and images worthy of the Pravda's lame attempts to make foreign leaders look older than Brezhnev.

Here theyre trying to find the Nixon-like stooped shoulder shot
N-TV: civilization hates this kind of thing. Aren't you listening?

She's Out

After five months' captivity in Iraq, Florence Aubenas is free and heading for home. The Libération reporter is expected in Paris Sunday afternoon.

Likewise, her chauffeur has returned to his family in his Baghdad home…

According to RSF, up to $15 million was asked for Aubenas and Hussein Hanoun's liberation when they first vanished, something the Quai d'Orsay has denied.

As for France's ambassador to Iraq, Bernard Bajolet has expressed doubts concerning the media hooplah surrounding kidnapped French reporters:

I have reservations concerning the impact of the media campaign for the liberation of the hostages; although the intentions are good, one has reason to ask oneself if it really serves towards the purpose of ensuring their freedom (Je m'interroge sur l'impact de la campagne médiatique pour la libération des otages car si elle part de bons sentiments, on peut se demander si elle sert vraiment à leur libération)

If you didn't like French policies before, you're going to like them even less now

In general, there's a Catch-22 here. Europe's political leaders are responding to the referendum debacle with the same lack of accountability for which they've just been censured
writes Christopher Caldwell in The Weekly Standard (Thanks to Gregory).

Check out the cartoons on the Non vote…

Meanwhile, Philip Gordon has this in the New Republic (lire la traduction française de Nadja Berrebi):

American glee at the sight of Chirac with mud on his face is understandable; he was, after all, the leading opponent of the Iraq war and has long championed a Europe capable of serving as a counterweight to U.S. power. But Americans should hold their applause, which they may soon come to regret. That's because the eclectic group of angry French leftists, populists, nationalists, and nostalgics who opposed Chirac and the constitution had very different—in fact, precisely opposite—reasons for doing so than the Americans who cheered them on. In other words, if you didn't like French policies before Sunday, you're going to like them even less now.

It should be noted from the start that the major reason for recent American anger at Chirac—his opposition to the Iraq war—had absolutely nothing to do with his defeat. (If anything that remains one of his few redeeming qualities in the eyes of many French.) Indeed, the quick choice of former Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin—who led France's anti-Iraq-war campaign at the United Nations—to head the new government should quickly dispel any U.S. hopes that this aspect of French foreign policy will now change.…

Far from a statement about Chirac's foreign policies, the main message delivered by voters on Sunday was about the economy. And it was certainly not, as many Americans would have liked, that the French are fed up with excessive regulation, protectionism, and high taxes. Rather, the French no camp seemed to be saying it wanted more protection and regulation, not less. True, Chirac tried to defend the constitution by claiming that it would protect the French from "ultra-liberal Anglo-Saxon" economics. But voters did not believe him, and they wanted an EU constitution that made their preferences explicit. Does anybody really think that free-market reform and the defense of globalization will now become priorities of the French government?

The script says the U.S. is supposed to always play the bad guy!!!

Literary sort Anne-Solange Noble, commenting an FT item by Christopher Caldwell ("Europe shocks true democrats",) on the US view of the European constition referenda, on Anne-Solange Noble shows us how far many Europeans have gone off of the deep end:

«"the so-called US opposition [to the European constitution] was, at every level, a figment of anti-American imagination". There goes the good old "European anti-Americanism" complaint again!

Mr Caldwell keeps telling us that Mr Bush's position "endorsed, by and large, by the American public" is the following: Yes to a Europe as strong as it wishes to become, No to a Europe that sees itself as a "counterweight" to the US. And he goes on saying that "many US papers could pass for europhile organs of the continental press . . . "

So how would all these seemingly pro-European in the US (the president, the people, the media) react to the following European position? Thank you for accepting that we become as strong as we wish - and by the way we wish to become a (friendly and balanced) counterweight to the US.

Or is that being too europhile for your taste?»

- Anne-Solange Noble, Paris, France

Do you notice how everything is about them and their pet peeves? Does she want America to HELP the EU become a hyper-puissant entity with a taste for impoverishing trade restrictions, condescension for the rest of civilization, and those nanny-like lectures? Should the U.S. pose as a sort of Snidely Whiplash to make them feel more virtuous when they find petty things to dwell on, or feed their population's ulcer of perpetual hatred?

Her desire to scrap with euro-heretics far exceeds Caldwells point which is about the democratic deficit in the EU, and that very Kristallnacht sort of obsession with the U.S. found in Europe, not about whatever it is that they think of Georges Boooosh. Newsflash for Ms Noble: Americans really dont care about how Europeans governance wants to comport itself. We're for it because it seemed to be what most Europeans want. It's called being supportive, if you can remember what that's about.

As for being a counterweight, every region of the world is a counterweight to every other in certain matters, and the world is bigger than just the EU and US and far bigger than your imagination. Victor David Hanson points out who Europeans should really not break their gaze from:

«Yes, we are witnessing one of the great transfers of power and influence that have traditionally changed civilization itself, as money, influence, and military power are gradually inching away from Europe. And this time the shake-up is not regional but global. While scholars and economists concentrate on its economic and political dimensions, few have noticed how a new China and an increasingly vulnerable

Europe will markedly change the image of the United States. As nations come to know the Chinese, and as a ripe Europe increasingly cannot or will not defend itself, the old maligned United States will begin to look pretty good again. More important, America will not be the worlds easily caricatured sole power, but more likely the sole democratic superpower that factors in morality in addition to national interest in its treatment of others.»

So while Ms Noble who displays great cultural sensitivity is preoccupied with the US, the world is changing. Since its about her image of America, yhe meaningless of her dwelling will undermine itself without anyone ever having to feel her pain.

- Re-remerci to the very alert Steve Piranha and Michael D.