French Philosopher Equates Today's English-Language Ads with Nazi-Era Proclamations of the 1940s

Same old, same old.

The Daily Telegraph's Stephen Clarke can usually be counted upon to get up in arms about denizens rising to the defense of the French language.

A French philosopher, whose philosophy clearly isn’t strong enough to make him philosophical, has been complaining about the amount of English used in France. Michel Serres told a newspaper that he had seen “more English written on the walls of Toulouse than there was German during the Occupation”. He means advertising, not graffiti (which is pretty illegible anyway).

Now, leaving aside the fact that the “English” adverts in question are very often bilingual puns invented by French companies rather than Anglo invaders, it is pretty thoughtless (to say the very least) to compare advertising posters that we are free to ignore completely with Nazi proclamations informing people that they will be shot if they are found out of doors after curfew or sent to death camps if they belong to certain ethnic groups. Perhaps Monsieur Serres is just practising the philosophy of the absurd. The absurdly absurd.

The above-named “philosopher” (sorry, I can’t believe he “loves ideas”) also suggests that French people boycott any shops that have English names or use English slogans. Why just English, though? Why not boycott every pizzeria that doesn’t change its name to “Italian-style restaurant selling hot, circular covered breads”? And why not encourage foreigners to do the same whenever they see a French brand in their mall or high street? Michel Serres would translate as “Michael Greenhouses”, and a jibe springs to mind about throwing stones.
 
Surely if you are a true philosopher and believe in individual freedom, you should let people buy what they want – as, in fact, they currently do? Anyone who doesn’t like the English name of a shop or café in France simply doesn’t go there. No need to call for a boycott. The French are free. You see, Monsieur Greenhouse, it’s not really like a Nazi occupation at all.

… People everywhere are inventing new phrases and new words every day. Language is a DIY affair, not a government policy.

 … despite what certain “philosophers” think, the ideal solution to language issues is not to have things banned, it is to see them shared and explained. Why make people poorer when you can enrich them? As Albert Camus said, “the evil in the world usually arises from ignorance.”

Paul Theroux Shows His Infinite Wisdom by Naming Noam Chomsky as Required Reading

What’s the … last book that made you furious?

When I read anything political and polemical by Noam Chomsky, I think (angrily): Why isn’t anyone listening to this man?

Perhaps, Paul Theroux, because Chomsky is a far-left kook who believes in elaborate fairy tales? The author, most recently, of “Deep South”, Theroux answers questions by the New York Times.

Whom would you want to write your life story?

No one. I will put every obstacle in the way of any future biographer. I have described this noncooperation in detail in an essay in Smithsonian magazine. My life belongs to me — do not interfere or presume. I have used it continuously in my work, and that indeed is my life story. But if you insist on a biographer’s name, I would suggest Hieronymus Karl Friedrich, Freiherr von Münchhausen, a.k.a. Baron Munchhausen.

You really can’t have a Scandinavian-style welfare state without a broad high tax burden

American capitalism has always been distinct from continental European capitalism

notes David Brooks in the New York Times (more on Denmark here).

We’ve had more entrepreneurial creativity but less security. Our system has favored higher living standards for consumers while theirs has favored stability for employees and producers.

 … American values have always been biased toward individualism, achievement and flexibility — nurturing disruptive dynamos like Bell Labs, Walmart, Whole Foods, Google and Apple — and less toward dirigisme, order and economic equality.

It’s amazing that a large part of the millennial generation has rejected this consensus. In supporting Bernie Sanders they are not just supporting a guy who is mad at Wall Street. They are supporting a guy who fundamentally wants to reshape the American economic system, and thus reshape American culture and values. As he told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, he wants to make us more like northern Europe.

 … First, Sanders would centralize power in Washington. If you radically increase the amount of money going to the Washington establishment, as Sanders would, you’re giving that establishment greater resources to control American life.

Second, Sanders would weaken the ability of members of the middle class to make choices about their own lives. He would raise taxes on the rich, but there is only so much money you can squeeze out of such a small group of people. European welfare states generally rely on a highly regressive value-added/sales tax — usually around 20 to 25 percent.

Middle classes across Europe bear a much higher tax load than the American middle class. As Austan Goolsbee, a former economic adviser to President Obama, has noted, you really can’t have a Swedish-style welfare state without a broad high tax burden. That means less spending power for most Americans, and fewer resources to choose one’s own lifestyle.

Giving that establishment greater resources to control American life…

Less spending power for most Americans, and fewer resources to choose one’s own lifestyle…

Hm…

Isn't that exactly what leftists — and not just Bernie — want?! (Even your beloved Obama, David Brooks?)

Third, Sanders would change the incentive structure for the country’s most successful people. He proposes raising the top tax rate to 52 percent. As Josh Barro noted in The Times, when you add in state, local and other taxes, top earners would be paying a combined tax rate over 73 percent. 

 … When you make risk-taking less rewarding, you get fewer risk-takers, which is exactly what you see across the Atlantic. When you raise taxes that high, the Elon Musks of the world find other places to build their companies.

Fourth, Sanders would Europeanize American public universities. It sounds great to make college free. In fact, it’s a hugely expensive program that would mostly benefit the already affluent.

It would create, as in Germany, a legion of eternal students who have little incentive to leave school because the costs are so low. It would give Washington officials greater control over state universities, determining what sort of faculty they could hire and what sort of programs they could run. It would threaten hundreds of private colleges, which could no longer compete against the completely subsidized state system. It would reduce the pressures universities now feel to reform themselves because it would cushion them with federal largess. Slowly, American universities would look more like their European counterparts. They’d be less good.

The changes in the health care system would be along the same lines. Sanders would create a centralized and streamlined system. His approach would also, as in Europe, reduce the rate of medical progress, increase the rationing of care, increase the wait times for patients, induce many doctors to retire and centralize decision-making. He might reduce health care costs by $6 trillion over the next decade, but his proposal to do this gives new meaning to the word vagueness.

 … It’s amazing that so many young people want to mimic a continent that has been sluggish for decades. It’s amazing that so many look to the future and want a country that would be a lot less vibrant.

That's what state education will do for you, David Brooks…

Related: Scandinavia’s quality of life didn’t spring from leftist policies; It survived them

The accusation of “verbal harassment” is the authoritarian censor’s primary weapon against our constitutional rights

“It’s illegal to offend people,” said the UT-Austin police officer to [the] Christian evangelist. The officer then proceeded to write the evangelist a citation. Yes, that actually happened in America.

Benny Huang can hardly believe that Colleges Are Cultivating America’s First Truly Authoritarian Generation (thanks for the Maggie's Farm link, Bird Dog).

Thankfully, the citation was later voided and the officer received re-training.

The event occurred just off campus where two evangelists were preaching against homosexuality. According to the police officer, a student complained that he was being “verbally harassed” which in fact he was not. The whiney student, if he exists at all, was simply being exposed to words and ideas that offended him. The accusation of “verbal harassment” is the authoritarian censor’s primary weapon against our constitutional rights.

Three officers responded to the call (three!) and together the five of them then proceeded to have a conversation that was cordial but nonetheless alarming. Most of the conversation occurred between an evangelist named Joshua Borchert and a certain Officer Wormsley, who proceeded to inform Borchert that he had a duty to enforce the law; and the law, according to Wormsley, is that any speech that offends anyone is illegal. He’s apparently never heard of this other law called the US Constitution.

 … “So the job here is to write you up as a citation, disorderly conduct, for offending someone.”

Officer Wormsley later conferred with another officer, saying: “He indicates that it’s [his] first amendment, he can say what he wants, freedom of speech, but that’s not what the law says. The law says, I mean, if you offend somebody, if they want to press charges, you can’t do that.”

Perhaps the most terrifying part in the video is when Borchert asked the three police officers if they have ever issued citations for the “crime” of causing offense. “Yes,” said one cop. “Oh yes,” said another. When Borchert asked what fine the judge might impose the officer replied: “We write so many, I can’t answer that question for you.” That alone should tell you that this is not an isolated incident.

 … Across the fruited plain, on campuses both public and private, universities strictly regulate student speech. The first amendment watchdog group Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) annually rates colleges on their free speech policies using a color-coded system. … Only 5 percent got a green rating.

I wish I could say that I’m shocked by this but I’m not. College campuses are hostile environments for all of our first amendment rights but especially to our right to free speech. … The whole purpose of the first amendment is to protect offensive speech. But alas, UMass received a red rating from FIRE and for good reason; it’s basically a gulag on a picturesque New England campus.

It’s important to note however that the campus authoritarians are not just cops and administrators. The students are cool with being told what to say and they won’t hesitate to rat you out for thought crimes. Censorship is accepted practice and no one bats an eyelash. 

 … Thirty-five percent said that the Constitution does not protect “hate speech,” an imprecise term that basically means whatever liberals hate hearing. Among self-described liberals 30 percent said that the first amendment was “outdated.”

Free speech is all too often perceived as a shield for bigots to hide behind—which it is, of course, though I don’t mean to imply that everyone accused of bigotry by the campus authoritarians is guilty as charged.

“Bigotry” is an all-purpose word used to describe Orwellian thought crimes, most of which are not bigoted at all.

It nonetheless protects authentic bigotry too. There’s absolutely no need to parse out the difference between genuine bigoted speech and non-bigoted speech because both are constitutionally protected. Yet campus authoritarians don’t want anyone to have a shield to protect themselves so they attempt to delegitimize first amendment protections as somehow cowardly; as if standing against majority opinion doesn’t take guts. “Quit hiding behind the first amendment!” they shout. Why the heck shouldn’t someone hide behind the first amendment? That’s what it’s for—protection.

Part of the reason that censorship is so rampant on college campuses is that people are by nature selfish. They want protection for themselves but won’t extend it to others.

 … The very notion that people can just speak their minds is considered dangerous in and of itself. It’s a thought too scary for a generation raised in safe zones to contemplate. Ideas must be controlled!

My only hope is that the Constitution will protect us and someday this will all be straightened out, perhaps by some watershed court decision. But I doubt it. Our constitutional rights are only as good as the public officials who interpret and enforce them. I have little faith that tomorrow’s judges, cops, and college administrators will allow the first amendment to be anything more than dead words on a page, hypocritically maintained in theory while endlessly violated in practice. After all, the students who clamor for “safe spaces” today will someday be the public officials whose job it is to safeguard our freedoms. This is truly the first authoritarian generation reared on American soil. Should they fail to mature in their appreciation for the first amendment our freedom will be lost.

Thanks to Obama's 7 Years of Peaceful Outlook on the World, a "New Cold War" with U.S. Army and NATO Forced to Enhance Military Presence in Europe

Shouldn't we all pause and say a prayer of gratitude to the Nobel Peace Prize-winning apologizer-in-chief for the smart diplomacy that is making the world more safe and more peaceful?

Russia's prime minister seems to be especially grateful — accusing as Dmitry Medvedev is the United States of rekindling a new Cold War — as should be the members of the U.S. Army as it pivots back to Europe (thanks to Instapundit's Stephen Green).

The New York Times' Michael S. Schmidt:

The defense ministers from all 28 NATO countries approved a plan on Wednesday to enhance the alliance’s military presence in Central and Eastern Europe, part of its expanding efforts to deter Russian aggression, according to NATO’s secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg.

 … Among the countries that NATO and the United States are looking to protect are Hungary, Romania, Ukraine and the Baltic States, according to administration officials.

The size of the American contribution surprised some analysts, who saw it as one of the most aggressive moves the United States has made in the region since the fall of the Soviet Union. Administration officials have said they hope that their commitment to protecting these countries sends a message to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia that his aggression in the region will no longer be tolerated.

Update: none of John Schindler's recommendations on how to prevent Cold War 2.0 from going hot were implemented by the Obama administration

Prime Minister [Dmitri] Medvedev then echoed [foreign minister Sergei] Lavrov’s alarming statement by warning of “a new world war” in an interview with a German newspaper. The Kremlin promptly objected and released a Russian-language version of the interview that included the gentler phrase “another war on earth.” This appears to be a trademark Moscow provocation since the German-language interview unmistakably says “a new world war” (einen neuen Weltkrieg). Releasing different translations of key statements is an old KGB trick that Mr. Putin’s regime has played on the West more than once, but here they are truly playing with fire.

Spasibo, Tovarich Barack Hussein.

Unexpectedly: MSM Article Stars Republican Politician as a Good Guy, Never Identifies His Party

Haven't we heard regular reports about how, when a scandal envelops a politician who is a Republican, his party is mentioned immediately — and prominently — while, when a scandal hits a politician who is a Democrat, his party is either never mentioned at all or only, in passing, towards the end of the report — if the scandal, small or large (see IRS and email controversy), isn't ignored altogether.

Instapundit's Ed Driscoll has a current example of the “name that party” game:

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS:
Ex-NY Gov. Eliot Spitzer being investigated for assaulting woman.
Curiously, at least in the initial version of the Daily News’ article,
Spitzer’s party goes “unexpectedly” unmentioned.

Head over to USA Today for another case in point:

In the front-page article (or at least the main online home page article) on background checks for teachers or the lack thereof, we find what in the writer's view is a good politician and what is a bad politician. First, Steve Reilly describes the good politician:

A bill first introduced by former Florida Congressman Adam Putnam in 2007 would have required the U.S. Department of Education to develop a database of teachers found to have engaged in sexual misconduct and make that information available to the public.

 … Putnam's legislation failed to grain traction, but advocacy and education policy groups have continued to push for a more reliable way to share information between states.

Then Steve Reilly describes the bad politician:

Concerns by anti-federalist lawmakers have prevented the legislation from moving forward. Opponents included Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., who said during floor debate in April 2014 that he opposed the bill because responsibility for checking the backgrounds of teachers should be local.

“If we want safe schools, that is the job of parents, communities, school boards and states,” Alexander said. “It is not a duty to be bucked upstairs to the Senate and the Department of Education.”

The bad politician is (immediately) named as a Republican.

(Both men, need less to say, have good points, and whether you agree with one or with the other — or with both or with neither — is beside the point; what matters is which man, from USA Today's perspective, has the compassionate viewpoint — protect the children — and which man has no compassion but is finicky if not crazed and hateful.)

Although all other politicians in the story were duly identified ("the Protecting Students from Sexual and Violent Predators Act was championed by U.S. Sens. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., and Joe Manchin, D-W.Va"), the good politician's party is never named.

So what we have is "Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn." (bad guy) vs. former "Florida Congressman Adam Putnam" (good guy).

How much do you want to bet that the good politician (Putnam) is not a Democrat (or he would have been immediately identified as such)?

You would win a lot, you know…

Now, do you understand the difference between a Conservative and a Liberal?

Quoting Jim Spivey on Facebook, YesImRight's Elvin Bartley recounts the difference between a Republican and a Democrat:

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were walking down the street when they came to a homeless person.

Trump gave the homeless person his business card and told him to come to his office for a job.

He then took $20 out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person.

Hillary was very impressed, so when they came to another homeless person, she decided to help.

She walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office.

She then reached into Trump’s pocket and got out $20.

She kept $15 for her administrative fees and gave the homeless person $5.00.

Now, do you understand the difference between a Conservative and a Liberal progressive?

75 Years Ago, Ellis Island Knew How to Go About Showing Humaneness for Undocumented Aliens (Hint: It's the Context, Stupid)

A 75 Years Ago item gives what proves to be a far more humane policy of humaneness for individual undocumented aliens than a blanket amnesty for all comers.

New York Herald Tribune, European Edition, Feb. 5, 1941:
Michael Storrie, nine-year-old Scot, who arrived alone on Monday in New York in search of refuge, stood dry-eyed yesterday before a special board of inquiry at Ellis Island and heard himself ordered excluded from the United States for lack of proper entry papers. His unblinking acceptance of the blow moved the board to arrange an appeal and an immediate parole. Michael, whose father is in Lisbon on a war mission and whose mother is doing war work in Bermuda, was to have been the guest of Mr. and Mrs. George C. McIntosh at Clifton Springs, Va., for the duration of the war, but he did not have a card of identification and American visa.

Apparently, the boy refugee would go on to win his stay.

Another 75 Years Ago item from the previous summer (New York Herald Tribune, July 7, 1940) had

Seventy-one calm and self-contained Britain children [arriving in the Big Apple on July 6, 1940] aboard the Cunard White Star liner Scythia, bringing with them cricket bats, governesses, flannel shorts and a restrained curiosity about that unbelievable place, America. They were the first large group of thousands of English children who will be brought to Canada and the United States for the duration of the war. The children in this group were not refugees in the grimmer sense of the word. Almost all of them were sons and daughters of well-to-do English families and were on their way to the homes of friends or relatives in this country

"We’re talking about Iran" Says Salman Rushdie; "These are, how shall I put it, unreliable people"

Answering questions by the New York Times, Salman Rushdie says that he was impressed by Ta-Nehisi Coates's “Between the World and Me,” that the one book that made him who he is today is “The One Thousand and One Nights,” and that if he could require the president to read one book, it would — also — be “The One Thousand and One Nights.”

In a separate Alexandra Alter interview, we learn that

Salman Rushdie was a teenager when he first learned that his last name was invented rather than inherited.

“My grandfather wasn’t called Rushdie,” he said. “My father just made it up. He made a really good choice. It came from his interest in the philosophy of Ibn Rushd.”

Later Mr. Rushdie came to share his father’s obsession with the work of Ibn Rushd (pronounced Roosht), a 12th-century philosopher better known in the West as Averroes. Now, he has made him a central character in his new novel, “Two Years Eight Months and Twenty-Eight Nights” … a homage of sorts to the myth of Scheherazade.

 … During a recent interview at his publisher’s office in Midtown Manhattan, Mr. Rushdie spoke about his love of science fiction, his failed television series, being on Al Qaeda’s hit list and his falling out with the novelist Peter Carey. These are edited excerpts from the conversation.

Q. You were very vocal in supporting the PEN American Center’s decision to honor the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo this year, something that some other writers, including Peter Carey and Francine Prose, opposed, because they said the magazine perpetuated bigoted ideas. Were you surprised to be on the other side of an ideological divide from some of your peers?

 

A. I could not believe it. Still can’t believe it. So many writers who are old friends. It was really shocking. Now, of course, the lasting damage is in some of those friendships. I haven’t seen any of them, nor have any of them been in touch with me. I felt a sense of injustice, that these people were executed for drawing pictures. If we’re a free-speech organization, how can we not be on their side? For Mr. Carey to say to The New York Times that he didn’t see it as a free-speech issue, I thought, “What?”

Q. He’s a friend of yours, right?

A. Well, was. It’s bewildering and saddening.

Q. You’ve been living in the open for years after going into hiding following the fatwa, but you’ve gotten threats from other extremist groups more recently. In 2013, Al Qaeda’s magazine Inspire put you on its hit list, along with other public intellectuals they view as hostile to Islam.

A. A lot of magazines put me on lists. I think I’m in more danger from n+1 [the literary magazine] than from Al Qaeda.

Q. The United States is on the brink of possibly ending sanctions against Iran and opening up diplomatic relations. As someone who was given a death sentence by the country’s religious leaders, how do you feel about this development?

A. Truthfully, I really do not know what I think. I am quite conflicted about it. On the one hand, the last decade or so show us that war hasn’t worked, so maybe try peace. The other argument is, we’re talking about Iran. These are, how shall I put it, unreliable people. I’m on that strange ground where I don’t quite know what I think. Which is all right — I’m a novelist. Fortunately I don’t have to rule the world.

In a somewhat similar vein, Cuban exile Richard Blanco tells Michael Luongo that he

was impressed by the president’s bold move [with Havana]. At the same time, I considered with great empathy the life stories of exiles like my mother, Cold War struggles for freedom and the American dream. I found myself craving some guarantee these historic changes will lead to greater freedoms and prosperity for the people of Cuba, which I hope the president does not lose sight of.

the Watcher’s Council’s ‘Weasel Of The Week’ nominations

Over at Trevor Loudon's New Zeal, Terresa Monroe-Hamilton presents the Watcher’s Council’s three ‘Weasel Of The Week’ nominations (obrigado per Luís):  
Michelle Obama and Beyoncé;
the far-left, militant pro-abortion group NARAL 
(National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League); 
and Barack Obama for his mosque speech. 
Read the commentary…

From the Archives: Big Oil and the Dirty Capitalist Pigs' Other Evil Multinationals Put Into Context

The next time you hear about the evil multinationals and/or about Big Oil and/or about America's dirty capitalist pigs and/or about the benefits of the welfare state vs private enterprise, send them this reminder from the archives of Powerline's John Hinderaker and John J Ray (while the 2008 numbers may certainly have changed somewhat in 7-8 years, those changes are hardly likely to be gigantic):

 … the largest American oil company, Exxon Mobil, is only the 14th largest in the world, and is dwarfed by the really big oil companies–all owned by foreign governments or government-sponsored monopolies–that dominate the world’s oil supply.

This graph tells the story; you can barely see the American oil companies as minor players on the right side of the chart. The chart was presented to the House committee by Chevron …

 … With 94% of the world’s oil supply locked up by foreign governments, most of which are hostile to the United States, the relatively puny American oil companies do not have access to enough crude oil to significantly affect the market and help bring prices down. Thus, Exxon Mobil, a small oil company, buys 90% of the crude oil that it refines for the U.S. market from the big players, i.e, mostly-hostile foreign governments.

Related: The Real Party of the Rich: Democrats Have More Top Donors, Millionaires in Congress

Ever since Americans were old enough to crawl in front of a television set, they’ve been told that Republicans are the party of rich white guys, and Democrats are the champions of the poor.

Prepare to flip that thinking upside down.

 … 20 of the top 32 donors lean Democrat, while only 6 lean Republican. The rest are on the fence.
 
Not only that, if you factor in all the indirect benefits the Democrat Party gets from the non-profit sector, left-wing activism, public and private sector unions, Wall Street banks, universities, and superfund contributors, it has been estimated by Dr. David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin in their book The New Leviathan that the Republican Party is outspent in politics by a factor of 7-to-1.

Bear this in mind when the left goes off on a tirade about the Koch Brothers bogeymen, who come in 59th on a list of top contributors. Public and private sector unions leave the Koch Brother’s measly $18 million over 25 years in the dust.

For those “progressives” who are scratching your heads right now, this is very simple. The bigger the government, the easier it is for the increased power to be abused by moneyed interests. Growing the government doesn’t change that fact; it only changes the people who become rich.

Lest there be any doubt about the new “party of the rich,” there are now more Democratic millionaires in Congress than Republican ones.

… While the rich do get expense of the poor in a socialistic economic, a free market economy (not a corporatist one) allows the rich and poor to better their standards of living together.

Europeans like to boast about their superior ways; but, in truth, they never had “free” medical care — they had American-funded medical care

Modern Europe has been the softest side of socialism

writes the Bookworm in the Weekly Standard.

It lets people have their own businesses, but keeps services such as health care, railways, and heavy industry (coal mining, steel production), under its control.  It also buries its citizens under regulations.  Every single aspect of life in a modern European socialist country is regulated.

For a long time, Europeans thought they’d found the perfect solution in this “loving” socialism. Their citizens could run their own businesses and make money, so they had some economic growth.  In addition, in exchange for extremely high taxes, the citizens got “free” medical care (which they’d prepaid with their taxes), low-cost train and bus fares, and good elder care.  It all looked so beautiful in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s.

What the Europeans conveniently forgot was that, after WWII, it was American money that rebuilt their infrastructure.  This meant that Europeans didn’t have to repay capital investments.

Europeans also liked to ignore that, during the entirety of the Cold War with the Soviet Union, America paid Europe’s defense costs.  That free up money for all the free medical care and cheap train fare that Europeans liked to boast about as a sign of their superiority.  None would admit that they didn’t have “free” medical care — they had American-funded medical care.

Maggie Thatcher, who was the conservative Prime Minister in England during the 1980s, famously said “Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money.”  In Europe, American money started vanishing when the Cold War ended.

Editorial Cartoons: Are They Humor or Are They Propaganda?

Above and below are typical entries from the page on About.com's Political Humor by "Political Humor Expert" Daniel Kurtzman that is supposed to show the reader 20 Cartoons and Memes That Put Climate Change in Perspective.

As Hollywood in Toto has asked before (albeit about FunnyOrDie.com), doesn't this type of humor sites turn out not to be so much about humor but about propaganda that "doubles as a political weapon, a cudgel meant to smite Obama’s enemies"? Recently, About.com had a(n only slightly tongue-in-cheek) pictorial of (I kid you not) Photos of Obama Being Awesome (Funny, Playful and Cool Photos of President Barack Obama)!

So: Need we add that every single Cartoon and Meme That Puts Climate Change in Perspective mocks the conservative point of view, and the conservative point of view alone? That not a single Cartoon and Meme That Puts Climate Change in Perspective pokes the slightest amount of fun at the progressive point of view? (No Michael Ramirezes here, thank you very much.)

Below is a cartoon that About.com's "Political Humor Expert" did not choose as a Cartoon or Meme That Puts Climate Change in Perspective.

Now, think of New York City, of Miami, of Galveston, of San Francisco, of Tokyo, of Sydney, of Goa, of Alexandria, of Saint Tropez, of Copenhagen.

Correct me if I am wrong, but in the past 5 years, in the past 50 years, even offhand in the past 500 years (?), has the sea level in any of those places risen by even one inch, by even one centimeter?

So don't you think that if the humorists had any kind of level thinking (instead of double standards), they might, y'know, just once in a while poke fun at the politicians and scientists (and the cartoonists?) who continue their shouts and screams about the sky that's fallin'?
Related: Artists Unite: In this era of integrated information, we
are witnessing the most concerted attack on freedom in world history

Update: Don't forget Issac Cordal's equally melodramatic Berlin sculpture called Politicians discussing global warming.

Eccentric: 25 weird and wacky British sports

The Daily Telegraph reports on 25 weird and wacky sports enjoyed in Britain, some dating as far back as the 13th century…

The Peanuts Character Lucy Capturing the Attitude of the Lefty Environmentalist

Years ago, Charles Schulz's Lucy captured the attitude — the certainty and the melodrama — of the lefty environmentalist.

(PS: I'm not quite sure why today's colorist felt the need to color the (same) sky three different colors in four panels…)

Stephen Clarke on the Absurd Translations That the Telegraph's Expat Has Come Across

Among the bad translations of English noted by the Daily Telegraph's Stephen Clarke is this one from

 … the complexity of the linguistic gymnastics you do in your own head shows how essential it is to get translations right when tourists come to your country and try to do everyday tasks.

An English friend was withdrawing some cash with a UK card here in Paris yesterday and told me he thought that the French machine was surprisingly good at English. He’d understood all the commands, and had only been slightly confused when the cash dispenser informed him at the end that his money was “going to come out”, as if it was about to reveal some great secret about its private life.

This reminded me of the absurd translation you so often get if you try to use a French card to buy tickets or withdraw money in the UK. On numerous occasions I’ve been told to “tapez votre broche” which literally means “tap your brooch”. I don’t usually wear brooches, and would therefore be totally befuddled if I hadn’t worked out that broche is a bad literal translation for “pin”.

Unfortunately, the French verb “taper” does also mean type or key in, so a naive French tourist could be misled into thinking that they need to wear some kind of badge that has to be shown to the CCTV cameras and tapped with a fingernail to prove that it’s metal rather than a plastic imitation. After all, England is a place of weird traditions like playing sports matches that last for five days and using indicators on roundabouts. Why not tap a brooch to get money? Anyway, for the information of any Brits out there whose job involves managing a machine that sells things to French speakers via credit cards, the appropriate phrase would be “tapez votre code secret”.

 … [Translation] has been on my mind most of the summer because I finally gave in to peer pressure and decided to check out why these Scandinavians have such a great reputation for crime writing. Is it just because their nights are so long and dark, except in mid-June? Or could it be because pickled herrings make such great murder weapons? Stuff one of those into someone’s throat and they’ll choke in seconds. (That, by the way, is not a suggestion.)

So I’ve read a few, and jolly gory they have turned out to be. It’s not just the herrings that get gutted and pickled. But what has struck me most of all is that I can feel all the time that I’m reading a translation. There have been so many awkward sentences where it felt as though the translator was too scared to stray from the original. Which I can understand – if these crime writers do to their translators what they do to their characters, I’d be terrified of mistranslating the punctuation, let alone a whole sentence.

I tell the translators of my books that I’d like their version to read like perfectly natural writing in their own language, except where I’m deliberately playing with accents or idioms. But maybe the Scandinavians want their books to sound Scandinavian, even when translated, so we get the full effect of a killer prowling through Norwegian slush or a police Volvo skidding on a freshly dismembered body part.

Points to Ponder in the Same Sex Debate

Instapundit's Ed Driscoll links to an old post of the Federalist's Mollie Hemingway (thanks for the Maggie's Farm link, Bird Dog), who seems to have some important views on recent subjects:

[The] CEO of Mozilla, Brendan Eich … wasn’t hounded out of corporate life because he was wrong. He was hounded out of corporate life because he was right. His message strikes at the root of a popular but deeply flawed ideology that can not tolerate dissent.

And what we have in Eich is the powerful story of a dissident — one that forces those of us who are still capable of it to pause and think deeply on changing marriage laws and a free society.

 … Perhaps there should have been a bit of a burden of proof on those who wanted to change the institution — something beyond crying “Bigot!” in a crowded theater. Perhaps advocates of the change should have explained at some point, I don’t know, what singles out marriage as unique from other relationships under this new definition. What is marriage? That’s a good question to answer, particularly if you want to radically alter the one limiting factor that is present throughout all history. Once we get an answer for what this new marriage definition is, perhaps our media and other elites could spend some time thinking about the consequences of that change. Does it in any way affect the right of children to be raised by their own mother and father? Have we forgotten why that’s an important norm? Either way, does it change the likelihood that children will be raised by their own mother and father? Does it by definition make that an impossibility for whatever children are raised by same-sex couples? Do we no longer believe that children should be raised by their own mother and father? Did we forget to think about children in this debate, pretending that it’s only about adults? In any case, is this something that doesn’t matter if males and females are interchangeable? Is it really true that there are no significant differences between mothers and fathers? Really? Are we sure we need to accept that lie? Are we sure we want to?

Welcome to the mob

“Part of the essence of the post-totalitarian system is that it draws everyone into its sphere of power,” writes Havel. We create through our involvement a general norm and, thus, bring pressure to bear on our fellow citizens. We learn to be comfortable with our involvement, “to identify with it as though it were something natural and inevitable and, ultimately, so they may—with no external urging—come to treat any non-involvement as an abnormality, as arrogance, as an attack” on ourselves.

There’s much to be thankful for in aftermath of the madness of the Eich termination. For one thing, many people have rightly figured out that what happened there is terrifying. It’s not just natural marriage advocates but even some of same-sex marriage supporters most vocal advocates. I’m reticent to point it out but Andrew Sullivan took a break from vilifying natural marriage advocates, a long-time specialty of his, to wonder if maybe things had gotten completely out of control. William Saletan wrote an important satirical piece that noted the absurdity of these types of witch hunts. And Conor Friedersdorf criticized Mozilla’s hypocrisy and worried about the dangerous precedent that was set.

 … Eich’s most important political work was not making a paltry $1,000 donation in defense of natural marriage laws. It was in refusing to recant.

Pro-Castro Frenchmen to Journalist (2 Videos): If You'd Behaved That Way in Cuba, "You Would Be in Prison, You Would Be Dead"

This is supposed to be an argument in favor of the Castro brothers and in favor of the Caribbean island's socialist paradise model?!?!

Members of the ¡Cuba Si! association tell (warn) a reporter what the consequences would be in Cuba if journalists like him had behaved like his television show had:

In Cuba … you would be dead!

There are actually two stories here:

The first story goes as follows: As Raúl Castro pays a visit to France, Cuban state television showed a couple of Frenchmen expressing hearty welcomes to the líder maximo (or to the brother of the líder maximo).

"Bienvenue au président Raul Castro et 

qu'il revienne le plus souvent possible"

Strangely enough, it turns out that the two men supposedly representative of the French people seemingly filmed in two widely different locations of Paris (intercut with images of the Champs-Élysées bedecked with Cuban flags, it seems to take place there) happened to be filmed on… opposing sidewalks of… the same street in the 15th arrondissement, 20 meters away from… the Cuban embassy!

(Sounds like Cuban state TV personnel would have no trouble finding work in the mainstream media of the United States and other countries in the West.)

Le Petit Journal – Raul Castro à Paris : Le... by nonstopzappingofficiel

The second story concerns an update by Canal +, as Le Petit Journal found out (warning: shocker ahead) that the Frenchmen interviewed by Cuban TV turned out to be members of the pro-Castro ¡Cuba si! association.

The journalist proceeded to try to ask them some questions. An aging member of ¡Cuba Si! tells the cameraman of Le Petit Journal's Hugo Clément to cut the camera, after which the conversation continues as follows:

• Hugo Clément: We have freedom of the press in this country, Sir; we're not in Cuba here!
• Moustache: Well, you're lucky that we're not in Cuba, you're lucky!
• Hugo Clément: Otherwise, what would have happened?
• Fellow in the background: They would be in jail!
• Moustache: Don't provoke, it's not worth it. Don't provoke!
• Hugo Clément: Well, you are threatening me, you said I was lucky. Otherwise, what would have happened?
• Fellow in the background: Pff, you would be dead, whaddya think!

Ambiance très tendue entre un journaliste du... by morandini

In French: Le Petit Journal – Raul Castro à Paris : Le reportage mensonger de la télévision cubaine (vidéo):

Yann Barthès présentait lundi soir et comme chaque soir de la semaine Le Petit Journal de Canal+. Et dans l’actualité de ce début de semaine il y avait évidemment la visite en France du président cubain Raul Castro. Un homme pas franchement connu pour avoir ouvert son pays à la démocratie ou à la liberté de la presse, comme l’a confirmé le Petit Journal hier soir. Une séquence que nous vous proposons de retrouver sur notre site Non Stop Zapping.

Décidément les chefs d’Etat reçus par François Hollande ces derniers temps font polémique. La semaine dernière, le président de la République accueillait en effet pour la première fois depuis 1999 son  homologue iranien, Hassan Rohani. Venu parler diplomatie mais surtout gros sous, celui-ci s’était dit déterminé à "tourner une page" afin d’"ouvrir une relation nouvelle entre la France et l’Iran". Mais si cette visite a semble-t-il ravi le gouvernement et les entrepreneurs français, elle a en revanche été beaucoup moins bien perçue par les Femen. Pour contester contre la venue d’Hassan Rohani, l’une des activistes féministes a ainsi simulé une pendaison sur la passerelle Debilly, qui enjambe la Seine et se situe face à la Tour Eiffel. Au-dessus d’elle flottait une banderole avec inscrit dessus : "Welcome Rohani, executioner of freedom" (Bienvenue Rohani, bourreau de la liberté.

"Bienvenue au président Raul Castro et qu'il revienne le plus souvent possible"

Et lundi François Hollande recevait un autre chef d’Etat infréquentable il n’y a pas si longtemps en la personne de Raul Castro, le président cubain. Une fois encore, difficile de dire qu’il s’agisse là d’un fervent défenseur des Droits de l’Homme, de la démocratie ou de la liberté de la presse. En ce qui concerne cette dernière, Le Petit Journal a d’ailleurs pu constater que peu de progrès avaient été faits ces dernières années en décortiquant un reportage tournée par la télévision cubaine à l’occasion de la visite de Raul Castro à Paris. Ou plutôt un micro-trottoir réalisé afin de connaître l’opinion des Français sur la venue du chef d’Etat. Et chose incroyable, tous les Français interrogés semblent être de grands supporters de la politique menée par Raul Castro : "Bienvenue au président Raul Castro et qu’il revienne le plus souvent possible" lance même l’un des interrogés. Sauf que fait amusant, le Petit Journal a retrouvé l’endroit où a été enregistré le reportage. Et comme par hasard, c’est à 20 mètres à peine de … l’ambassade de Cuba. Certains des interrogés seraient d’ailleurs des militants pro-régime cubain. Pas sûr qu’ils soient réellement les plus représentatifs des Français…

Gracias por los links, Fausta y Carlos

Who Wants the Hide of the Republican Party? The Incredible Donald Trump

Coming in March (merci à Francine Girond) is Qui veut la peau du parti républicain ? L'incroyable Donald Trump (Who Wants the Hide of the Republican Party? The Incredible Donald Trump), a softcover book by Jean-Éric Branaa, the author of another 2016 paperback with a question in the title, Hillary : Une présidente des Etats-Unis ? (Hillary: A Female President of the United States?)

Just in case you're wondering whether his latest opus isn't proof of his love for conservative candidates and a concern for the well-being of the GOP, the man's Facebook page seems to show quite a leftist outlook while the writer of the Trump book's preface is a well-known supporter of the Left (I have debated François Durpaire on television several times).

Besides, it is hardly possible to write a school book in France (is it possible in the rest of Europe? In… the United States?!) without belonging to the left.

Jean-Éric Branaa is also author of such school assistance books (combining learning about American culture and English-language ) as American History Made Simple (L'Histoire des États-Unis Facile), American Law Made Simple (Le Droit Américain Facile), American Government Made Simple (Le Gouvernement Américain Facile), and American Civilization Made Simple (La Civilisation Américaine Facile : Problèmes Économiques, Politiques et Sociaux Contemporains).

Scandinavia’s quality of life didn’t SPRING FROM leftist policies; It SURVIVED them

When Bernie Sanders was asked during CNN’s Democratic presidential debate how a self-proclaimed socialist could hope to be elected to the White House, he gave the answer he usually gives

notes Jeff Jacoby in the Boston Globe:

Socialism has been wonderful for the countries of Scandinavia, and America should emulate their example.“We should look to countries like Denmark, like Sweden and Norway, and learn from what they have accomplished for their working people,” Sanders said.

Liberals have had a crush on Scandinavia for decades. “It is a country whose very name has become a synonym for a materialist paradise,” observed Time magazine in a 1976 story on Sweden. “Its citizens enjoy one of the world’s highest living standards. . . . Neither ill health, unemployment nor old age pose the terror of financial hardship. [Sweden’s] cradle-to-grave benefits are unmatched in any other free society outside Scandinavia.” In 2010, a National Public Radio story marveled at the way “Denmark Thrives Despite High Taxes.” The small Nordic nation, said NPR, “seems to violate the laws of the economic universe,” improbably balancing low poverty and unemployment rates with stratospheric taxes that were among the world’s highest.

Such paeans may inspire Clinton’s love and Sanders’ faith in America’s socialist future. As with most urban legends, however, the reality of Scandinavia’s welfare-state utopia doesn’t match the hype.

 … It was in the late 1960s and early 1970s that taxes soared, welfare payments expanded, and entrepreneurship was discouraged.

But what emerged wasn’t heaven on earth.

That 1976 story in Time, for example, went on to report that Sweden found itself struggling with crime, drug addiction, welfare dependency, and a plague of red tape. Successful Swedes — most famously, Ingmar Bergman — were fleeing the country to avoid its killing taxes. “Growing numbers are plagued by a persistent, gnawing question: Is their Utopia going sour?”

Sweden’s world-beating growth rate dried up. In 1975, it had been the fourth-wealthiest nation on earth (as measured by GDP per capita); by 1993, it had dropped to 14th. By then, Swedes had begun to regard their experiment with socialism as, in Sanandaji’s phrase, “a colossal failure.”

Denmark has come to a similar conclusion. Its lavish subsidies are being rolled back amid sharp concerns about welfare abuse and an eroding work ethic. In the last general election, Danes replaced a left-leaning government with one tilted to the right. Loving Denmark doesn’t mean loving big-government welfarism.

The real key to Scandinavia’s unique successes isn’t socialism, it’s culture. Social trust and cohesion, a broad egalitarian ethic, a strong emphasis on work and responsibility, commitment to the rule of law — these are healthy attributes of a Nordic culture that was ingrained over centuries. In the region’s small and homogeneous countries (overwhelmingly white, Protestant, and native-born), those norms took deep root. The good outcomes and high living standards they produced antedated the socialist nostrums of the 1970s. Scandinavia’s quality of life didn’t spring from leftist policies. It survived them.

 … No, Scandinavia doesn’t “violate the laws of the economic universe.” It confirms them. With free markets and healthy values, almost any society will thrive. Socialism only makes things worse.