Surely this article has it all wrong. How is it that these individuals are making their own economic choices, based upon their own criteria, without being compelled or forced by some governmental edict:

The phenomenon is initially American, but already a local chapter has been formed in the Flemish-speaking part of Belgium. The philosophy is simple: rather than boycotting shop owners for not doing enough for the environment, carrotmobbers use their consumer power to reward those that do.

What's new about carrotmob - the name comes from the carrot rather than the stick approach - is that it concentrates not on large corporations but on small neighbourhood businesses: the grocery store, the supermarket, the local restaurant.

"Everybody shops but it is not organised," Niel Staes of the Flemish chapter explained. "When you do organise shopping, you can get the shop owner to make an effort in exchange for your business." For instance: get the shop owner to invest some of the proceeds in saving energy.

"Instead of telling the shop owner: we're not going to buy from you anymore until you invest in making your shop more sustainable, we will go to his store on a particular day with a bunch of people to shop. In exchange we ask that part of the money we've spent is invested in green management."

Could it be something called "a market"?

|

Has anyone noticed what seems to be the (very real) similarities between the overthrow of Manuel Zelaya and that of Salvador Allende? Plus ça change… (Needless to say, the Apologizer-in-Chief recently voiced regret about Augusto Pinochet's "coup" as well…)

In Latin America, José Piñera, armed with evidence including "the momentous Agreement of 23 August 1973 … widely unknown outside Chile", opines that because

President Allende became a tyrant when he broke his solemn oath to respect the Constitution and the Chilean laws [and because] his government [had] fomented the creation of armed militias … the origin of the Pinochet government is that of any revolutionary one, in which only the use of force was left in order to remove a tyrant [and to] "put immediate end" to these constitutional violations. It must be agreed that this was, in fact, an unequivocal call to remove by force the President who had initiated the use of force with the purpose of imposing a communist dictatorship.

…the truth demands recognition that former President Pinochet led a legitimate rebellion against tyranny and that the origin of Chile's civil war --and its victims-- lies with former President Allende and his marxist Socialist party. … The Economist said it clearly at the time: "The temporary death of democracy in Chile will be regrettable, but the blame lies clearly with Dr. Allende and those of his followers who persistently overrode the Constitution" (September 15, 1973).

Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God

Read also about Allende's purported suicide…

And check out Romanticists Overlook Allende's Many Faults: Senator Ricardo Núñez Muñoz added in a NYT interview (emphasis mine) that

It’s wrong to say that the CIA, the armed forces, and the bourgeoisie alone brought down the Allende government. It’s obvious we need to admit we made critical economical and political errors that were as decisive if not more decisive

No less a figure than the president of the Partido Socialista, Núñez went on to conclude that

we know another Allende-like experiment would only be a collossal failure.

(Then again, that NYT report was back in 2001…)

|

The Commander in Chief is a buffoon.

If Richard Nixon had been impeached and convicted for Watergate, and then refused to leave office, until being forced out by the military, would that have been a “military coup”? Of course not. But Obama and many in the press are taking essentially that position in demanding the reinstatement of Honduras’s would-be dictator.

The WH’s handling of the Hondurans’ legal removal of their own president is laughable. They either don’t have anyone at state actually watching what’s going on, someone ignoring communications from the Embassy, or they just have a thing for leftist strongmen. Then again, maybe it’s all just aspritational, and they need to hold to this course of action to head off any future accusations of inconsistency.

Now, Obama, who knows nothing about Honduran law, is ignorantly claiming that Zelaya's removal was "illegal," and demanding that Zelaya be reinstated as president. His demand is joined in by the Organization of American States, many of whose leaders, like Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, have either violated their own countries' constitutions, or likewise seek to eliminate term limits contained in their own countries' constitutions. ("A senior Obama administration official said the United States would probably move to suspend economic development and military assistance" to Honduras, one of the poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere).

Sheez-o-peak! Give peace a chance, will ya man? I mean I know it’s all about not trying to look like you’re siding with dictators, but do you have to side with dictators to try to prove that whole ‘image thing”?

Besides, what would THAT victory lap look like? Will the entertainment at the hand-shaking ceremony with Chavez, Daniel Ortega, and aging Cuban Milli Vanilli cover act, the Castro boys, be a couple of public hanging and a parade of Chinese discount missile launchers?

|

Our left-wing touchstone unwittingly brings up an interesting question yet fails again to find a proper answer:

It is in the private sector that we need cuts – or more tax if they refuse to do it. The reason is straightforward: much (and I know, not all) of what the the private sector does is froth on the top of the cappuccino, nice but wholly unnecessary. It’s the state sector that provides what we need most: health, education, housing (oh yes – all of it is regulated), safe food (oh yes – again, we only have that because it is regulated), transport infrastructure, safety, protection and so much more. They are, if you like the coffee in life. The froth is the extra. And we can do without some froth – we can’t do without the coffee.

The relationship is of course inter-related with both relying on each other. It is the extent of reliance which is the debate (if anything the proper starting point is precisely opposite of the hyper-regulating tax-gobbling mindset displayed above). A simple question to start from, where does the public sector get their funding?

Update: Gosh, that is not what we really meant.....
Update II: Gosh, well we sort of really meant it.....

|

Where the hell is U*2 to enjoy it?!

France on Monday unveiled a list of state-owned stakes in companies, worth 14 billion euros, that will be transferred to the government's strategic investment fund.

Sarkozy, a long-standing advocate of government intervention to support domestic industry where necessary, said the fund would allow the state to protect companies weakened by the financial crsis from foreign "predators".

The government will also transfer 20 stakes in listed companies held by state bank Caisse des Depots.

These are: Accor, L'Air Liquide, Alcatel-Lucent, Altran Technologies, Assystem, Danone, Eiffage, Eutelsat Communications, Imerys, Lagardere SCA, Nexity, Schneider Electric, Seche Environnement, Sodexo, Technip, Ubisoft Entertainment, Valeo, Vallourec, Vivendi, Zodiac Aerospace.

Strategic yogurt production is finally a reality. Félicitations U*2, you have been waiting for years!

|

The White House is flailing under a pall of ignorance, disorganization and unprofessionalism. It has the air of an Italian city’s Sanitation Department. In a desperate bid to not make the US into an appetizing target, the president presiding over this embarrassment is trying to find a way international policy matter that will permit him to preach to the converted, and get visible kudos on cue: arms control. Now the eternally troubled baby boomers and everyone they’re conditioned into parroting them can take get sentimental about an old straw man from the malaise of the 1980s.

The president:

yesterday hailed an agreement with Russia to cut the two countries’ nuclear arsenals by two-thirds as a move that would "liquidate the legacy of the Cold War".
The president said the agreement would usher in a new phase in US-Russian relations. "The new era will be a period of enhanced mutual security, economic security and improved relations," he said.

It’s an old dream, this age of Aquarius business where we want to buy the world a Coke and keep it company, or like, whatever.

Under the agreement, the United States and Russia will reduce the two countries’ nuclear arsenals to an agreed upon range of 1,700 to 2,200 warheads. The United States currently has about 7,000 strategic nuclear weapons, Russia about 6,000.

The president in question is George Bush, and by virtue of ideological fanaticism and blindness unparalleled since Mao’s cultural revolution, it was not considered at all, and immediately identified as a bad idea based solely on the ideological reflexes of the press.

Now, it will be called “historic”, “brilliant”, and any other superlatives that are available for rent. Absent is the fact that Moscow signs things that look great in the news (such as the Kyoto accord, or as agreed with the EU on the Georgia adventure,) with no intention of actually abiding by them.

Evidently the fact that this nearly always happens isn’t enough evidence for the press to be skeptical about Obama’s childish bid for good publicity. He’s such a lightweight, his office is acting as though this is no different than cutting a ribbon at a kindergarten, something that when brought to idly signing treaties undermines America’s plausibility and moral authority.

The obviousness that pandering wrecks the tools of soft power seems completely lost on the White House. “Seems” I say, because it could well be that they’re just acting out a holding action to prevent the world from noticing what a horrible state State is in.

|

No, not the corrupted Jihadist notion of one, the kind that chooses to actively murder others because of who they represent to him, even if the use of the word has infected the rest of the Arab world and now most of the perceptual boundaries of the European left.

Piotr Stanczak did not exhibit the slightest hint of hesitation when the Pakistani Taliban asked him to choose between execution and conversion to Islam.

Whether the Polish geologist acted out of pride or religious conviction, he decided to pay through his blood to save his faith, a choice that bewildered his killers and keep them talking about him with respect after his murder.

Stanczak, 42, was kidnapped September 28 on his way to survey for oil exploration in Attock district, of Pakistan's eastern province of Punjab. The kidnappers also killed his driver and two guards.

Late Polish engineer Piotr Stanczak is a martyr, a man who died holding on to his convictions, even though dispensing of them would be easy.

The description of a martyr given by the pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus (XXII, xvii), shows that by the middle of the fourth century the title was everywhere reserved to those who had actually suffered death for their faith.

|

It has been interesting to watch the Dutch slowly chip away at the statist/governmentalist mindset when it comes to that smoking ban. It is unfortunate that one has to take mini-steps in restoring individual rights and individual liberties, but if the result in the end is the same, so be it:

|

It pays for those things we want?

Licence payers fund BBC chief's £8m pension

Two BBC bosses have racked up the biggest pensions in the public sector, together worth more than £14m.

Mark Byford, 51, the deputy director general, is to receive a pension of at least £229,500 a year from a pot valued at almost £8m. This could rise to more than £10m if he works at the BBC until the age of 60.

Alan Yentob, 62, the arts presenter and creative director of the BBC, has accumulated a pension worth £6.3m, giving an annual retirement income of £216,667 for the rest of his life, according to new research.

|

Weekends are good for quiz time:

1) If you are a woman, where would you live to find the most happiness:
A) Saudi Arabia
B) Germany

2) If you are a parent, where would you live to find the most happiness in raising your children?
A) Bangladesh
B) France

3) If you are an entrepreneur, where would you live to find the most happiness in running your business:
A) Venezuela
B) Netherlands

If you answered anything other than (A) above, well you must not have the nuance and/or lucidity to understand this year's Happy Planet Index. For a much more trenchant critique of the HPI check out Tim Worstall, of course.

Btw, the US scored #114 out of 143 (Just edging out Nigeria but light years behind the happiness powerhouses of Moldova and the Congo).

|

Some societies are just better at mental masturbation

|

|

|

Oh really?

Homeowners across the country are challenging their property tax bills in droves as the value of their homes drop, threatening local governments with another big drain on their budgets.

"It's worthy of a Dickens story," said Gus Kramer, the assessor in Contra Costa County, Calif., outside San Francisco. "These people are desperate. They know their home's gone down in value. They've watched their neighborhoods being boarded up. They literally stand in there and say: 'When can I have my refund check? I need to feed my family. I need to pay my electric bill.' "

Let's yell it out time and again....

|

|

Taking a break from lionizing themselves for either thinking they have a serious position in the world, to lionizing themselves for never taking a position on anything of mortal importance. We find a kind of lost capability to even just do anything at all.

If another crisis hits eastern Europe in the summer, the US is likely to respond faster than the European Union.

What we’re talking about here, is that central governments will be too understaffed to even do the ‘feigned shock’ routine that European now think of a having international policy positions.

When the people who run the western world go on holiday, bad things happen in eastern Europe. Last August Russia invaded Georgia. Over Christmas its gas spat with Ukraine left millions of European consumers shivering (at least from nerves, if not real cold). Easter (on the western Christian calendar) brought protests against ballot-rigging in Moldova.
What the coming summer may bring as new upsets can only be guessed at. Another war in Georgia is always possible. Crimea remains a flammable mixture of incompatible military and ethnic interests. The Kremlin's relations with the once-docile regime in Minsk are uncommonly icy. Your columnist will be keeping his BlackBerry fully charged and close by the poolside.

Somebody please tell this idiot that the EU-3 do not ‘run the western world’. If they can’t even support a problem within the EU that happens to their east, where do they get the idea that they do anything substantive in the interest of ‘the western world’ when they can barely manage the ugly business of securing their own interests?

An insightful new paper by the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), a think-tank, shows how the EU is complacently frittering away its advantages and losing out to Russia in the countries of the new Eastern Partnership – Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. On paper, the EU's position should be invincible. For five of these countries (Belarus is the exception), it is a bigger trading partner than Russia is. That is a big shift from the days when the Kremlin dominated the ex-Soviet economic space. The EU's freedom and prosperity gives it a lot of soft power too: even a distant prospect of membership counts for a lot more than the tangled embrace of Kremlin-run projects such as the still embryonic Eurasian Economic Community or the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO). Belarus has flounced away from an important CSTO summit meeting amid a bitter row about new Russian barriers to its food exports.

Yet the Eastern Partnership is faring poorly. Launched by the crippled Czech presidency at the Prague summit, the new programme is struggling to make an impact. From the big EU countries, only German Chancellor Angela Merkel bothered to show up at its birth. And Germany was among the countries that insisted that the most vital ingredient in the package – liberalisation of visas – was diluted almost to the point of meaninglessness.

In case you were not about to ask, the ‘eastern partnership’ is basically an internal matter of the EU which seems to be fizzling under natural apathy, while the Russians doing one of those make-believe organization things that ends up with an acronym, a large staff of unproductive people with PhDs, and a large building – that thing that Europeans are so good at, seem to be able to manage it fairly well. They might even be able to pretend that it’s a UN agency for the management of something internal.

Either way, what we’re looking at is an inability to even demonstrate an awareness of where there are borders between dimwitted prestige projects and operating a government, about meets-and-greets and diplomacy, or much of anything else. They’ve been feeding themselves a diet of so much speciousness, conferences with names of cities that result in implausible declarations named after cities, and press-releases as a salve to the problem of no-one being in to pick up the damn phone.

Besides that, what is it exactly that they’ve been calling “taking action” lately anyway? Floating a canned press release containing the phrase “deeply concerned”? A trained chimpanzee could manage that routine.

Look if “another crisis hits eastern Europe,” the EU, which is to say Western Europe would let Eastern Europe hang, and they know it. It isn’t a sense of obligation that will change that, it will be a sense of individual humiliation or Russian threats of sphere-expansion that might get the EU’s “boldest and brightest” to so much as cut their vacation short.

|

Take this hypothetical: imagine that Barack Obama announced that he was going to hold a referendum on legalizing a third term for himself. Imagine that even his attorney general, Eric Holder, advised him that it was illegal. Imagine that the Supreme Court ruled that holding the referendum was unconstitutional. In spite of that, let's imagine that Obama coerced the FEC into holding the referendum anyway. Then - let's further imagine -- we found out that Venezuelan strongman Chávez (who has pulled off a similar power grab in his own country) was financing the referendum. What should the Joint Chiefs do in such a case? And if they removed Obama from office, would they be destroying the Constitution or preserving it?

That is the question asked by Pamela Geller on American Thinker (gracias para Larwyn). Oliver North has more.

This is exactly what has occurred in Honduras, to a tee. …

Obama is on the same side as Chávez, Ortega and the Castro brothers.

And the irony is thick. In a press conference on June 23, Obama said: "I've made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not interfering with Iran's affairs." He never called upon the Iranian mullahs to "respect democratic norms." On the contrary, he ostentatiously refuses to "meddle" in Iran, where individuals are courageously risking life and limb for the idea of free elections. Brutal Islamic nazis are crushing dissent, and Obama talks about "lively debate." Former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami spoke out Thursday against what he called a "velvet coup against the people and democracy." Obama has sided with that coup, while in Honduras, Obama and the whores at the United Nations have no qualms about interfering to back a Chávez proxy. On Tuesday, U.N. General Assembly piled on, condemning the "coup" in Honduras and demanding that Zelaya be returned to office. It passed - by acclamation - a resolution calling upon all member states not to recognize the new government.

|

Elle’s website reports:

Yesterday[Ed.: 30-June] , a 29 year old woman was sprayed with a corrosive product in a sensitive suburb of Grenoble. It was "probably acid," police said. Burned on the lip and hand, the young woman of North African origin was at home during the attack. The doorbell rang and when she opened the door, "a man had thrown the liquid at her. The attacker fled before he could be identified. According to preliminary results of the investigation, jealousy could be the cause of this aggression. The victim was rushed to hospital in Grenoble.

”sensitive suburb” is code for the rat-traps that are devolving into the battlefield of a one-sided religious war. But who are we to judge this attacker’s act if it was motivated by culture or if it’s a 3rd world practice that’s supposed to have something to do with how village hicks worship. Obviously Unitarians are to blame.

|

A single mega-colony of ants has colonised much of the world, scientists have discovered.

Argentine ants living in vast numbers across Europe, the US and Japan belong to the same inter-related colony, and will refuse to fight one another.

The colony may be the largest of its type ever known for any insect species, and could rival humans in the scale of its world domination.

|

Sometime readers of NP will recall that in the past we asked several times what would happen to those TARP funds (and any extra made on the deals) once the repayments began.

Congressman Barney Frank offers a clue which fits in with what we thought might happen:

When President Obama announced on June 9 that some financial institutions would be allowed to repay Troubled Asset Relief Program dollars, he said the massively expensive TARP bailout had made money for the federal government. "It is worth noting that in the first round of repayments from these [TARP recipients], the government has actually turned a profit," the president said. Indeed, TARP supporters have long held out the hope that the program might be profitable.

But now Rep. Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has come up with a proposal to spend any TARP profits before they can be returned to the taxpayers. Last Friday, Frank introduced the "TARP for Main Street Act of 2009," a bill that would take profits from the program and immediately redirect them toward housing proposals favored by Frank and some fellow Democrats.

As we mused in early April:

One can easily imagine a scenario under which the banks get the screws put to them so tightly that they will not only subscribe to the terms above but also the creation of some new, and permanent, set of governmental programmes which dole out the repaid TARP funds, or a big enough portion of them, for all kinds of social re-engineering programmes. The governmentalist mindset will think, "We created this new money, why waste it by simply closing out the TARP programme?"

The banks of course will line up squealing with praise for these new programmes and the need to use these repaid TARP funds for the "better social good". And why wouldn't they line up to do so, they will have repaid the TARP funds and removed the government substantially off their backs. The fact that some new social re-engineering programmes have been created and foisted onto the tax-payer in perpetuity makes no difference to the banks, they got rid of their problem.

We continue to watch but appreciate Congressman Frank for starting the process which may confirm our fears.

|

A YOUNG schoolboy was “converted” to Islam on the streets of Birmingham by a radical Muslim preacher, the Sunday Mercury can reveal.

The bewildered-looking 11 year-old, who gives his name as Sean, was filmed repeating Arabic chants and swearing allegiance to Allah.

The white schoolboy is prompted throughout by controversial cleric Anjem Choudary, a follower of exiled hate-preacher Omar Bakri Mohammed.

One can only wonder where both radical and not-so-radical Islam’s hate – hate relationship with the world comes from, especially when it comes to the sick business of exploiting the young. It seems different for boys than it is for girls, but it’s still founded upon a kind of coercion and exploitation, knowing that from the scared and the innocently young, the hateful and manipulative will go unchallenged. As with paedophiles, they get a feeling of control over another living being that cannot evade that headlock of submission.

Muslim countries in the Middle East and north-central Africa lead the world in human trafficking, according to a new U.S. State Department report. Of the 17 countries that were given the "Tier 3" listing reserved for the worst offenders, nine were Muslim countries or countries with a large Muslim population from these two regions. Tier 3 countries are defined as those “whose governments do not fully comply with the minimum standards" of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 and "are not making significant efforts to do so.”

Is it rare? Is it merely a rural phenomenon? Can one be convinced to call it a feature of native culture that has to be respected as so many of the west’s theoretical expects on culture (but not civilization) would have you know? Of course not.

Amir Taheri on the other hand doesn’t wonder at all. They are not alone in taking joy of others’ pain:

Foucault was not alone among Western leftists to be seduced by Khomeinism. Some of the historic figures of the May 1968 student revolts in Europe visited Iran during these troubled days to see their fantasy revolution take shape in a Third World country. Like impotent voyeurs, they watched the tragedy imposed on Iran by a revolution they could only dream of in their own countries.

And for the thinnest of reasons too, the same reason it’s impolite in EUtopia to dwell too much – too much being in any way that would make a real impression – on the real state of being of those exploited for the pleasure of a fantasy-revolutionary or an equally mal-adjusted people who enjoy taking advantage of those they’ve made servile.

For Western return-ticket revolutionaries, watching the Iranian tragedy was-and for some, still is-a way of obtaining vicarious pleasure without a price in pain. Just as quite a few Western pedophiles travel to Third World nations to gratify the bestial tastes they cannot easily indulge at home, aging European and American revolutionaries flocked to Iran to see a revolution such as they no longer hoped to see in their own countries, and they tried hard to describe it as a "people's revolution."

And for those in western Europe too simplistic to look past the first explanation they’re handed, the use of terminology might sound familiar:

In a single incident in August 1978, over four hundred people were burned alive at Cinema Rex in Abadan, set on fire by one of the commandos that Foucault had admired. The commando had blocked the emergency exits from the outside and destroyed firefighting equipment to make sure that a maximum number of people would die. The Supreme Guide of the revolution, Khomeini, dismissed the incident as "a sign of the rage of our youth."

So don’t be surprised if the consequences we see someday are largely the same.

|

What If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

asks the Free Republic (merci à Hervé).

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to “Cinco de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the Fifth of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had misspelled the word advice would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potato as “proof” of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on “Earth Day”, would you have concluded he’s a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush’s administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually “get” what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he is inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 10 weeks — so you'll have three years and nine-and-a-half months to come up with an answer.

Update: If George W. Bush had gotten the age of his daughters wrong, would you have joined in the (neverending) scorn and the (neverending) ridicule?

|

Reality is a concept often eschewed by those pushing the various "end of the world now" types of environmentalism. Fortunately for the rest of us, reality seems to be the basis for this study directed by Dr. Gabriel Calzada Álvarez:

Optimistically treating European Commission partially funded data1, we find that for every renewable energy job that the State manages to finance, Spain’s experience cited by President Obama as a model reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created.

Therefore, while it is not possible to directly translate Spain’s experience with exactitude to claim that the U.S. would lose at least 6.6 million to 11 million jobs, as a direct consequence were it to actually create 3 to 5 million "green jobs" as promised (in addition to the jobs lost due to the opportunity cost of private capital employed in renewable energy), the study clearly reveals the tendency that the U.S. should expect such an outcome.

Despite its hyper-aggressive (expensive and extensive) "green jobs" policies it appears that Spain likely has created a surprisingly low number of jobs, twothirds of which came in construction, fabrication and installation, one quarter in administrative positions, marketing and projects engineering, and just one out of ten jobs has been created at the more permanent level of actual operation and maintenance of the renewable sources of electricity.

This came at great financial cost as well as cost in terms of jobs destroyed elsewhere in the economy.

The study calculates that since 2000 Spain spent €571,138 to create each "green job", including subsidies of more than €1 million per wind industry job.

The study calculates that the programs creating those jobs also resulted in the destruction of nearly 110,500 jobs elsewhere in the economy, or 2.2 jobs destroyed for every "green job" created.

Do note, these are just some of the highlights. One wonders what will be in tatters first for producing such a reality-based study, the Dr's funding or their reputation.

h/t and deep bow to EU Referendum

|

|

Dousing all skepticism in the interest of nationalism, which at this points merely amounts to peddling their goods, we find some interesting ironies in the Yemenia Airlines post-crash rear-guard action. Even the Times’ Charles Bremner doesn’t seem immune to the repetition.

The Yemenia Airbus that came down yesterday off the Comoros islands, killing 152 aboard, had nothing to do with the problems that ended Flight 447. The plane was a relatively old (19 years) A310 that was in poor condition and which had been banned from French air space in 2007.

That point is being hammered by the French media today.

Okay, that makes sense.

The Yemeni plane was a first-generation Airbus, a relatively simple aircraft. These do not have the computerised, fly-by-wire system that Airbus has used since the 1980s and which is under suspicion in Air France flight 447

Emphasis mine.

The plane was a relatively old (19 years) A310 that was in poor condition and which had been banned from French air space in 2007.

Which is to say that depending on the month of completion, it was fabricated in 1989 or 1990, years after one would understand ‘fly-by-wire’ to have come into use.

Were the aircraft or the passengers of a less fashionable culture of origin, make no doubt about it that the flinching instinct to look for, say “the missile that no one saw” would be whipped out in a cold minute, otherwise the press will accept that because it’s a product of their countrymen and government, to accept that their products are perfectly fabulous, had they only replaced it when the French government (that also has a hand in selling them) said so.

That an airline executive would take that urging to replace it with a grain of salt is actually somewhat understandable, knowing that a big, fat dogpile of dirigisme might be behind the ‘warning’, which would partially mask a genuine safety bulletin.

As for a press corps that selectively doesn’t ask questions when they think their neighbors’ job or national prestige is at stake, well, heal thyself assmonkey, and spare us your never-ending supply of evasive theories about America.

|

It seems to be a quite simple question, yet an answer is never given. So, we try again:

|

As he points to the urbane élites in Europe whose outstanding health care bureaucracies are a model for America's clueless and greedy capitalists, Barack Obama will be happy to know that in Paris, according to an official study reported on by Cécile Prieur of Le Monde, 25% of doctors refuse to treat poor patients.

And why is that, pray tell? The primary reason announced is being fed up with (get ready to be shocked — shocked, I tell you)… administrative red tape!

La première raison invoquée est la lourdeur administrative et la "paperasse" qu'impliquerait la prise en charge des patients CMU [couverture maladie universelle] : ces derniers ne payant pas leur consultation, le remboursement du médecin s'effectue par l'assurance-maladie, ce qui peut prendre du temps si le praticien n'est pas informatisé.

…Mais la principale raison du refus reste financière : les patients CMU ne pouvant se voir infliger un dépassement d'honoraires, les prendre en charge constitue un manque à gagner pour les médecins…

L'étude souligne ainsi qu'avant d'accorder un rendez-vous, certains praticiens opèrent "un tri en fonction de ceux qui seraient des "bons pauvres" ou des "mauvais pauvres". D'autres tentent de renvoyer les patients CMU à l'hôpital public : avec l'idée qu'il s'agit là d'un lieu pour les plus défavorisés, les cabinets de ville étant réservés aux "autres patients"."

Needless to say, the news of the report, reports Cécile Prieur, is but leading to more laws, i.e, to more… red tape…

While French readers are scandalized — bemoaning the capitalist system à l'américaine (naturally!) — a number of doctors bring their testimony, including one Michel D:

…spécialiste en fin de carrière, j'ai refusé d'être informatisé. Ayant pris en charge des patients bénéficiaires de la CMU, j'attends le paiement de la sécurité sociale DEPUIS PLUS DE 2 MOIS ! C'est la SANCTION de la sécu. En 30 ans, le tarif sécu d'un spécialiste secteur 1 a diminué d'un tiers : le tarif horaire du psychiatre moins cher que le plombier, le coiffeur, le garagiste ... après 10 ans d'étude, une vie de formation continue et une vingtaine d'années d'analyse !!! Scandale !

|

Why wouldn’t Obama panic at the sight of a Congress and Supreme Court removing a left wing Socialist President who violated the Constitution in pushing to make himself el-presidente for life, by violating term limits?

asks Daniel Greenfield in the Canadian Free Press (merci à RV).

Today Manuel “ALBA” Zelaya. Tomorrow it could be Barry “Hussein” Obama. And Barry knows better than anyone else the full catalog of lies, crimes and scandals brewing beneath his regime. Obama’s rise to power has been part of an American hemisphere trend that covers the likes of Chavez, Zelaya, Correa, Silva and even the return of Kerry’s old buddy, Ortega, to power in Nicaragua. What all of them have in common with Obama is a left wing socialist agenda that ignores the rule of law. An attack against Zelaya, could in Obama’s mind be seen an attack against him equally.

…Meet Obama, the bright young Senator with a phony biography geared to playing up his biracial angst for the college campuses. Who promised his leftist volunteers an end to rendition, detentions, eavesdropping and a whole bundle of other things, only to pull a bait and switch on them.

After all tools like that come in handy, even if they’re less likely to be used against Muslim terrorists, than they are against Tea Party protesters.

Meet Barack Obama, the man who was going to bring an end to the American coercion of other countries. No more would the White House tell the rest of the world what to do. Except of course to dictate where Jews can live in Israel, how the Honduran judiciary can operate and who can head the Muslim community in Greece.

Of course Obama has drawn the line somewhere. He has drawn the line against standing up to Ahmadinejad, Chavez or any Socialist or Muslim tyrant. Instead Obama has browbeaten America’s democratic allies, in support of Muslim and Socialist tyrannies. You can read that as Obama putting his own political and religious loyalties ahead of America’s interests. Or you can read it as the act of a craven coward who hopes to sacrifice America’s remaining allies in order to win over America’s enemies.

…Obama has been compared to JFK, but what he represents is no profile in courage, but a profile in cowardice. A liar and a manipulator who serves his own ends first and his host country’s, last. Who proclaims, Ask not what I can do for your country, Ask what your country can do for me. And above all else, a craven coward.

|

|

Le Monde reported on the 26 June:

Swedish police accused officers of the Swedish Migration of being infiltrated by left-wing extremist groups.

As if that was a shock. Of course the very idea that people who fancy themselves as revolutionaries of the adolescent sort that would “smash the system” even if it was their own, isn’t endemic to Sweden, but largely true of people with emotional problems and those who pretended to be well-adjusted when they were children.

According to police intelligence services (SÄPO), these "infiltrators", linked to left wing groups like AFA (Antifascist Action) or Revolutionär Fronten ( "revolutionary front"), arrange to complicate or even block the work of police officers who carry out evictions, and in some cases, help asylum seekers to flee.

The REALLY FUNNY thing is that the other kind of stupid “revolutionaries” just ripped their mask off. You know the one – the one that hid the racism and selfishness. The one that says “I got mine, now buzz off”.

For the past 14 months Undocumented Migrants have occupied the premises of the CGT Labor Exchange on rue Charlot in Paris (II). They were ordered to leave the premises by Wednesday 24 June under the double pressure of the law and the CGT, which has tried to remove them while police remained outside according to sources.
Before the "impasse" in discussions with the occupants for several months, the CGT had mobilized to Paris in the morning "dozens" of militants to dislodge them, according to the union.

The ball-busting union thugs that have traditionally supported any unlawful resident in the interest of their egos is now seeing them as competition for jobs, which is precisely the opposite of the position that they traditionally held against blue-collar conservatives, and something they tried to cast as nationalist nativism.

According to the National Commission for the Coordination of the Undocumented, "a hundred thugs from the security service of the CGT who were wearing balaclavas and armed with iron bars, sticks, and tear gas, penetrated to within 11.30 in the Exchange ( ...) but were repulsed by those present, including women and children to throw them out. "More than 60 came out shouting. It was really impressive," said Rodolphe Netti, president of SOS support to undocumented migrants. Questioned by nouvelobs.com, Bernadette Citot, Spokesperson for CGT Paris, said that "unions have first asked the occupants to vacate the premises peacefully. That a third did. Those who remained were then rocked everything that fell under the hand in court. Violence followed on the outside, and that's when the police intervened. "

Turns out that they will admit that all it is, is economics if it requires a sacrifice from them. The sit-in set pulls a Bull Conner on the poor, waifish lot we’re supposed to believe that THEY are.

What do you expect when it’s the union that has the Pinkertons, even if they get pasted by a bunch of lightly armed illegal aliens (including women and children).

|

...it must be time for an update on how we are all going to die.

89 months before Gaia unleashes her wrath.

|