Dissecting Some of the Questions that Daily Kos Asked Self-Identifed Republicans

The Daily Kos poll of Self-Identified Republicans seems to be creating quite a stir — "The results are nothing short of startling" exclaims Markos Moulitsas Zúñiga (better known as Kos) — especially given the fact that the questions seem straight-forward.

But the Research 2000 for Daily Kos questions (1/20-31) to Self-identified Republicans (MoE 2%) are not as straight-forward as they look at first sight, and how you phrase a question can bring a vast variety in the answers. (For instance, there is a difference between asking "Do you think Bush was right to start a(n illegal) war?", "Do you think the U.S. Army was right to invade (Saddam Hussein's) Iraq?", and "Do you think the United States was right to overthrow a dictator (who had killed 300,000 of his fellow citizens)?" Note that each question changes even more by simply adding — or, alternatively, removing — the respective phrase in parentheses.)

As I will be pointing out below, the main problem here is with either-or questions in which neither option is entirely satisfactory. The answers therefore help Kos make those questioned look ridiculous. Often, by voicing a question stating the exact opposite of what the original question is saying, you sense the problem with that original question — since the (unmentioned) alternative is unpalatable, or even more unpalatable, the person questioned has little choice but to accept the question, incongruous as it may be. As a matter of fact, I have reason to believe that in any case, these questions were reframed after they were asked in order to make Republicans look ridiculous — make them look more Taliban-like — but since I have no proof of this, I do not dwell into the issue. The conclusion (as I write later on): If you really want to get to know the population or a segment thereof (rather than make a caricature of them), it makes more sense to frame your queries as if they were multiple-choice questions.

As I've mentioned before, I'm putting the finishing touches on my new book, American Taliban, which catalogues the ways in which modern-day conservatives share the same agenda as radical Jihadists in the Islamic world.

As Ann Althouse states, "It turns out this poll was designed to help him with that theory." ("As far as Research2000 is concerned," according to a commentator on Althouse's post, "they had Coakley over Brown 49-41 on January 14th. So they were wrong by 13 points 5 days before that election.")

Should Barack Obama be impeached, or not?

Yes 39
No 32
Not Sure 29

For what? Who the heck knows.

The exact reverse of this question might sound something like "Has Barack Obama done nothing wrong — not a single thing — has he, in fact, been right on the money every time during his first year in the White House?" Now, this may come as a surprise for America's (and the planet's) blame-America-firsters, but for one thing a number of people do not think the nation's commander-in-chief should act as the nation's apologist-in-chief (for instance bowing to foreign monarchs). For another, some of us remember Obama's wanting (or, rather, his followers wanting) to change the U.S. Constitution so that he could be reelected endlessly, winning more than two elections (apparently — in the best of worlds — ending up as president-for-life). How about the attempts to take over one sixth of the economy and to ram that law through Congress — and down the American people's collective throats — with no input from the opposition, from the American people, and, indeed, from his own party members (this, in direct contradiction — I mention this for all the people who love the idea of impeaching an American president for his alleged lies — of his campaign promises concerning CSPAN's cameras)?

And how about Obama's wars on Fox News and talk radio, along with changes to the FCC rules which would make it harder for the latter to survive, which, even if his followers lap it up, strikes some of us as an attack on the First Amendment? Those may or may not warrant impeachment per se, but certainly it makes it understandable that some people think that those acts should be opposed with the (legal) weapons at hand… (PS: for those who think that conservatives' domination of the airwaves is truly a travesty, please realize that it is a reaction to liberal domination of the newspapers and to liberal domination of the TV networks…)

Do you think Barack Obama is a socialist?

Yes 63
No 21
Not Sure 16

That's the power of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, after one year of relentlessly claiming Obama is the second coming of Lenin ... and Hitler!

If anybody has made anybody seem like the second coming of Hitler, it isn't the Republicans with Obama; it is the Democrats (and their like-minded European brethren) with George W Bush.

More to the point, the reason Kos can make Republicans seem lame-brained here is because the question, "Do you think Barack Obama is a socialist?", makes it sound like people are being asked if they think the most preeminent member of America's Democratic Party is (really or otherwise) a full-fledged, card-carrying member of a totally different party (the Socialist Party) — "the second coming of Lenin", in Kos's leering words — but when you think about it (the obverse question would be "Do you think Barack Obama is not a socialist at all?"), isn't the underlying question, obviously — the one that people are indeed answering — has Barack Obama behaved, is he behaving (at least part of the time), like a socialist would?

How wrong (or how allegedly lame-brained) is it (for "homegrown teabaggers" or others) to refer to a man as a socialist when that man has taken over General Motors — whether or not you agree with that — and who has attempted— again, whether or not you agree with that — to take over a sixth of the economy? During which time, he and the Socialist — sorry, the Democratic — heads of the House and the Senate (remember when they passed the stimulus bill with no input from either the opposing party or the members of their own party?) tried to get the whole deal decided behind closed doors with a handful of actors, acting almost as if the country were a one-party state. (To return to the previous question, how inane does the threat of impeachment become in this case?) Notice that I haven't even mentioned Obama's support for (or lack of a stand against) known socialist strongmen such as the Castro brothers, Hugo Chávez, and their like-minded brethren…

"Given what their base demands, and this poll illustrates them perfectly, it's no wonder the GOP is the party of no" writes Kos, and he's damn right: when we see all these takeover attempts, we do say No — and we do so proudly — and we want our elected representatives to say No. "No" is not — necessarily — a sign of virulence and resentment: "No" can be a sign of logic, of common sense, and of (rightful) resistance.

Do you believe Barack Obama was born in the United States, or not?

Yes 42
No 36
Not Sure 22

We still have over a half of Republicans who don't think Obama was born in the US or think it's a matter open to debate.

It may well be that most of the writings concerning the wherabouts of Obama's birth sound delusional, but, as far as I can tell, James L Lambert's arguments are far from nonsensical… There are two problems with the alleged deluded "Birther" conspiracy that are overseen by Kos (and everywhere else). They are, first, that the real, original "long" birth certificate never seems to have materialized (the certificate of live birth being, and please correct me if I'm mistaken, a recent production); second, that to believe that an American citizen born to a foreign father who lived much of his childhood abroad may indeed have been born in a foreign country is not that far-fetched.

[Update: Not until April 2011 did the White House finally release Barack Obama's original birth certificate.]

Indeed, the difference between the Truthers and the Birthers is that in the first case, we are being asked to believe that 1) hundreds, if not thousands, of government officials were approached with a view to conspire to kill thousands of their fellow citizens, all (or most) of them innocent civilians, that 2) hundreds, if not thousands, of government officials agreed (apparently without a moment of hesitation) to conspire to murder thousands of innocent civilians, and that 3) none of these hundreds (thousands) of government officials has ever had a single, even fleeting feeling of remorse, or let the cat out of the bag, say while having too much to drink (no remorse?) during a Saturday outing to a local bar.

In the second case, we do not even have a conspiracy, but basically one single man telling a falsehood — although it might even be termed a lie of omission — a lie about what offhand is a personal matter, but has turned into the only thing (allegedly) keeping him from power (Update: The New York Times' Double Standard on Conspiracy Theories).

Most damning of all, when you pause to think of it, the castigators' proof — if it can be called that — all lies in one fact (beyond the recently released certificate of live birth): and that fact is that Obama is a man, a person whose word should never be doubted, who is capable of no lying, no evil, no chicanery. If he tells you that, say, he is a Christian, then how dare you deny he is a religious man?! How dare you imply that he is a Muslim?! How dare you state he is a socialist?!

The person who ridicules the "Birther" theory as inane has no more proof than the born-in-Hawaii skeptic of where Obama was actually born [or didn't have any more proof until over two years into Obama's presidency]: his only argument only argument — beyond the fact that the certificate of live birth and the newspaper clipping are incontrovertible proof that are not, can not be, fakes, bureaucratic mistakes, or misinterpretations — is the indisputable "truth" that Obama is someone whose honesty should not — should never — be questioned. (Whether in regards to his private life or to his political plans for America's future.)
[Update: As it happens, we would learn in 2012 (over four years after Obama was first a candidate and over three years after he entered the White House) that a "New Book Raises Questions About Obama's Memoir" (The New York Times' Michael Shear) and that, indeed, it turns out that Obama's memories were a "fantasy (like most of the President's own memoir)" (The Daily Mail). Adds Toby Harnden: "'Barack Obama: The Story' by David Maraniss catalogues dozens of instances in which Obama deviated significantly from the truth in his book 'Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance'. The 641-page book punctures the carefully-crafted narrative of Obama’s life."]

When you think about it, it might be less worrying that some do not believe Obama was born in the United States (because of the circumstances linked to his entire childhood, much of it abroad) than that some are utterly convinced he must be born in the United States (because the Chicago pol is allegedly a sainted figure who can do, who can say no evil, who is incapable of lying or of falsifying documents). Again, remember the desires of some of his followers who want(ed) the constitution to be changed, only so Obama could win one election after another and end up, in one way or another and in the best of all possible outcomes, as (de facto if not de jure) president-for-life?

Do you believe Barack Obama wants the terrorists to win?

Yes 24
No 43
Not Sure 33

Not just a quarter of Republicans believe this ludicrous premise, but another third think it's a matter open to debate. How do you negotiate with a party whose rank and file are that divorced from reality?

Again, there is a difference between "Do you believe Barack Obama wants the terrorists to win?" and "Do you believe Barack Obama wants the United States to win?" — or, alternatively, asking "Do you believe Barack Obama wants the terrorists to lose?" or "Do you believe Barack Obama wants the United States to lose?" Barack Obama has said several times that in this new, reset world of ours, there should be no losers and winners (or words to that effect), he has pointed out the many times the United States has allegedly been wrong (while making all due apologies), and, especially, he has been (or seemed) more concerned with giving Miranda rights rather than to learn more about the thugs planning (further) terrorist attacks.

Alright, answering Yes to "Do you believe Barack Obama wants the terrorists to win?" may seem far-fetched, but if it seems that he himself, BHO, would answer No to that question (or to "Do you believe Barack Obama wants the United States to lose?"), think of the opposing question — isn't it true that there are indications that BHO would not want to answer Yes to either "Do you believe Barack Obama wants the United States to win?" or "Do you believe Barack Obama wants the terrorists to lose?"

[Update: a couple of days after the ISIS attacks on Paris in November 2015 killed some 130 people, Barack Obama (proudly?) declared that What I’m not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning.]

Do you believe ACORN stole the 2008 election?

Yes 21
No 24
Not Sure 55

One in five Republicans think ACORN is so powerful as to magically make 10 million votes appear. Another 55 are open to the theory. In other words, just 24 percent of Republicans have an even passing relationship with reality.

This is called Kos's grotesque caricature weapon. Check the opposite question (asked to either Republicans or Democrats): "Do you believe that ACORN is an entirely honest organization which is deserving of the utmost trust?" Or how about this one: "Do you think ACORN played no tricks during the 2008 elections?" Those options we do not have, nor do we have (in a MCQ format) the option simply to say that ACORN cheated, without perhaps without going so far as having the ability to turn the election one way or the other. Answering No on that question therefore becomes akin to saying ACORN is honest and deserving of trust, and that is not something many people think or want to say… And so Kos feels he is allowed to caricature the results in a ridiculous way ("One in five Republicans think ACORN is so powerful as to magically make 10 million votes appear").

Furthermore, nobody believes ACORN uses (or tries to use) magic (if only!). And, in any case, it's not a matter of either stealing as many as 10 million votes or even of stealing the nationwide election. All you need are (some of) the borderline states. For example, I think a number of people could easily make the case that if not ACORN, then Soros' Secretary of State Project, stole (or was instrumental in stealing) the Minnesota senate election, a theft which required no more than a few hundred fake or dead voter names and which brought enough power to Obama's party for it to act like a one-party state and do what it wanted (at least for a few months)…

Do you believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be President than Barack Obama?

Yes 53
No 14
Not Sure 33

Sigh...

Guess what, Kos. We also think Scott Brown more qualified to be president of the United States! (Not to mention Mitt Romney, Bobby Jindal, and even… John McCain.) For one thing, Sarah Palin was mayor of a town and governor of a state (which she became in spite of her party machine) for a couple of years; how that makes one many times less (or more) qualified than head of a community organization and in the national senate (with the backing of his party machine), also for a couple of years, is beyond a few of us.

For another, Sarah Palin would likely not have tried to take over General Motors and one sixth of the economy (as Don Surber says, "she would not have wasted $787 billion on a stimulus that tanked the economy"), and she would not even have thought of reading the Christmas Day bomber his Miranda rights and putting the mastermind behind 911 on trial in Manhattan. Well, even if you disagree with any of those, that should make you understand why Palin seems more qualified to be President of the United States than Barack Obama in many of our minds. Note that the "sigh" rests on little else than, again, the uncontested "fact" that the grotesque caricature of Sarah Palin can only be real and that BHO is this holier-than-thou human being whose potential for leadership is self-evident and uncontested.

[Update: After Vladimir Putin annexed the Crimea in 2014, it transpired that one of the many things that Sarah Palin had been ridiculed for during the 2008 campaign was predicting that electing a pacifist like Obama to the White House would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine.]

Do you believe Barack Obama is a racist who hates White people?

Yes 31
No 36
Not Sure 33

I bet more people think Obama is racist, but were too afraid to tell a live operator the truth.

Again, think of the exact opposite of this question — in this case, "Do you believe Barack Obama is an unbiased uniter who loves white people?" — to see how the question is distorted. It is highly unlikely that most people — even Democrats — would answer Yes to the entire revised question. Even Democrats who might — who probably would — gladly say Yes to the first part of the revised question, would have trouble with the second part, sensing it goes too far. (This question is one of several that makes me believe that the questions have been changed since they were asked in order to make Republicans look more "Taliban-like" but, since I have no proof for that, assume that the question was asked as written here.)

There is more than a little evidence to believe that, for reasons good or bad, Obama is — to some extent — resentful of white America, not least his autobiographies, the "damn America" comment of his (former?) spiritual guide, and his "stupid" white policemen quote. Imagine a person being asked the (original) question above; if she answers No, she is effectively answering Yes to the revised question ("do you believe Barack Obama is an unbiased uniter who adores white people?"). If you do not believe the latter, you are in a dilemma in answering the original question and remaining honest.

What all this shows is that if you really want to get to know the population or a segment thereof (rather than make a caricature of them), it makes more sense to frame your queries in multiple-choice question format.

Do you believe your state should secede from the United States?

Yes 23
No 58
Not Sure 19

42 percent of Republicans aren't really patriotic. They pretend to love America only when they approve of the president. These traitors don't believe in democracy, in our nation's founding ideals, or in our flag. To them, those colors run. They are cowards.

What rot! First of all, notice that if anyone is saying anything far-fetched, it is Kos — who is effectively (read his comment again) equating opposition to Obama to being unpatriotic, traitorous, and cowardly. And the way for Kos to frame this is to say that Republicans (pretend to) love America "only when they approve of" who is in the White House, when in fact they are saying — as I have noted in the "socialist" and "impeachment" questions above — that they (might) no longer want to be part of a union if and when the government (never mind if the person in the White House is a Democrat or a Republican) threatens to take too much power…

Let's use our rule again: think of what the opposite question would sound like — "Do you believe your state should remain in the United States?" Your reaction would be, "What is this pollster talking about? Nothing of the sort is going on, why does she bring this up?" You don't have too much time, you have been talking — even if you answered No to all the questions so far — about Obama and socialism and (allegedly) impeachable offenses and presidents who (may) hate you for your race, and now you are asked: "Do you believe your state should secede from the United States?" Obviously, your answer has to do with the loss of liberty from the federal government (real or otherwise) — the feds' treason (so to speak), if anybody's — and not an absence (far from it) of patriotism.

Note, secession sentiment is MUCH stronger in the South than elsewhere -- 33 percent want out, compared to just 52 percent who want to stay. In the Northeast, "just" 10 percent want out, in the Midwest, its 18 percent, and in the West, it's 16 percent. Can we cram them all into the Texas Panhandle, create the state of Dumbfuckistan, and build a wall around them to keep them from coming into America illegally?

Notice how Kos reveals his (Stalinist?) masses-hoarding desires, allegedly uneducated masses for which the gulag-admirer (?) has nothing but contempt. The point with secession, Kos, would be to prevent contemptuous Koses like yourself from carrying out your emprison-'em-all-or-throw-'em-all-out desires.

Should Congress make it easier for workers to form and join labor unions?

Yes 7
No 68
Not Sure 25

No comments here: Notice how Kos refrains from addressing an issue that he knows will hardly prove popular (more power to the unions!). Again, think of what goes unmentioned: imagine if this question had been framed using the controversial card check objective, labor's desire to dump secret ballots, and other bullying tactics — which was/is undoubtedly on most people's minds.

Would you favor or oppose giving illegal immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here legally if they pay a fine and learn English?

Favor 26
Oppose 59
Not Sure 15

Again, Kos refrains from comment. But the reason behind this answer, I surmise, is that once illegal immigrants are in, they've already broken the law — and should not be rewarded from so doing.

Do you support the death penalty?

Yes 91
No 4
Not Sure 5

Again, no comment from Kos.

Should openly gay men and women be allowed to serve in the military?

Yes 26
No 55
Not Sure 19

Should same sex couples be allowed to marry?

Yes 7
No 77
Not Sure 16

Should gay couples receive any state or federal benefits?

Yes 11
No 68
Not Sure 21

Should openly gay men and women be allowed to teach in public schools?

Yes 8
No 73
Not Sure 19

Oof. That's some serious neanderthal action going on. Gays can't serve their country, teach children, get married, or even have civil unions. That's the GOP agenda for gays, which makes the existence of the Log Cabin Republicans that much more of a mystery.

A lot could be said on all of these questions. Note that what to a leftist is simply a "gay man or woman" (like a woman per se or an African-American or an Asian) is to many other people a "gay activist" and yes, it's true that we believe (and we have good reason to) that activism (homosexual or other) gets in the way, among other places, in schools and in the military. Moreover, a number of us believe that activists often mix rights up with privileges.

But to take only the last matter, the question "Should openly gay men and women be allowed to teach in public schools?" sounds innocuous until you realize that, in many minds (and not just in Republicans'), schools are failing, people feel that it is scandalous that there no longer is a concerted effort to teach the 3 R's (readin', writin', and arithmetic), and indeed they have in their stead brought in leftist social goals, not least of which is homosexual proselytizing, as in the mandatory reading of the book Heather Has Two Mommies and as with what has led to the ongoing scandal of Kevin Jennings. It's nor unfair here to say that the question that people heard was, "Should gay activists be allowed to teach in public schools (in which case the follow-up question becomes, to teach the 3 R's or to teach the GLSEN agenda)?"

Now, I will not judge here to what extent it is true that Obama's openly gay Safe School (sic) Czar is a member of NAMBLA and to what extent it is true that he really has held classes in which he has taught schoolkids about fisting — although it seems an undeniable fact that he once failed to protect a 15-year-old from a child predator — all I can say is that parents have a right not to like what they read about Jennings and they have a right to think that all this social activism and all these agendas (whatever the cause, gay or any other, and whether they can be termed extremist or not) are not what schools are about, not primarily and not even secondarily. To quote Matt:

I agree that every child should be valued and respected regardless of sexual orientation and that there should be no bullying in the schools, period. However, I do not feel that the schools should be promoting a gay lifestyle and or any particular lifestyle. They should stick to teaching the fundamentals of Reading, Writing, Math, Science, and History.

Think about it this way: "Should openly Muslim men and women be allowed to teach in public schools?" Most people, Republican or otherwise, would say yes (even on army bases), I believe, as long as we are pretty much sure they do teach reading (and not the Koran), they do teach writing (and not jihad), and they do teach arithmetic (and not about the 72 virgins that believers will get as a reward for killing infidels).

Should sex education be taught in the public schools?

Yes 42
No 51
Not Sure 7

Should public school students be taught that the book of Genesis in the Bible explains how God created the world?

Yes 77
No 15
Not Sure 8

In all of these questions, respondents from the South are slightly crazier, and those from the Northeast slightly less crazier, than the average. In these two questions, the differences are particularly exaggerated. In the South, the sex-ed question comes out 39-56, compared to 47-45 in the Northwest. For the creationism question, it's 82-9 in the South, compared to 70-23 in the Northwest.

"Less crazier"? First, this may come as a surprise to Kos, but humans have mated for tens of thousands of years (unless you accept the version that says humanity is 4,500 years old or so), and have done so without the need of teachers and schools (public or otherwise). This may also come as a(nother) surprise, but — again — some parents simply want the schools to teach, basically, the 3 R's and leave other things best done at home… Whatever you think about creationism and evolution, notice that in the second question, the parents are not asked whether public schools should teach creationism (or even if they should teach creationism alone, i.e., and nothing else) but whether they should teach what the Bible says — not an entirely indifferent matter.

Are marrigiages equal partnerships, or are men the leaders of their households?

Men 13
Equal 76
Not Sure 11

Should women work outside the home?

Yes 86
No 4
Not Sure 10

Should contraceptive use be outlawed?

Yes 31
No 56
Not Sure 13

Do you believe the birth control pill is abortion?

Yes 34
No 48
Not Sure 18

Do you consider abortion to be murder?

Yes 76
No 8
Not Sure 16

Over a third of Republicans believe the birth control pill is abortion, which explains why nearly a third of them want contraceptive use outlawed. This is so wingnutty, it's hardly believable. But it's true, just a bare majority oppose outlawing contraceptives.

Is it truly beyond argumentation to say that abortion is akin to murder? As usual, Kos makes no argument against another position. All he does is say it's wingnutty, it's unbelievable, it's non-progressive, it's reactionary, it's crazy, etc… He states the politically correct position and assumes that all others are nutty, adding — in shock — that the very fact that there are undecided votes is a scandalous travesty.

What we didn't ask was whether the 76 percent who consider abortion to be murder would advocate executions for women who have them. Since 91 percent of respondents support the death penalty.

This, again, is thinking that Republicans — that people in general — are robots (come to think of it, that does seem to be what many élites do happen to think, doesn't it?) who if they think one thing (A) must think another thing (B — but certainly not C) as well. For one thing, all murderers need not automatically be assigned the death penalty — it depends, or it may depend, on the circumstances — and the usual reason for standing for this position, in any case, comes not from a desire to punish a given woman but to prevent society — i.e., its doctors — from offering the procedure, and thus encourage the woman to change her behavior. (Note that I say this not as someone who believes sine qua non that abortion is murder but as someone who believes sine qua non that conservatives, of whatever bent, should not be grotesquely caricatured.)

Do you believe that the only way for an individual to go to heaven is though Jesus Christ, or can one make it to heaven through another faith?

Christ 67
Other 15
Not Sure 18

Two-thirds of Republicans assume anyone that is not a Christian is going to hell. It certainly makes it easier for them to dehumanize their enemies, either real or perceived.

Although that is hardly an unreasonable conclusion to make, notice that hell is not mentioned anywhere in the question, nor is any type of hellish (or devilish) language. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but offhand, I think it is not unfair to say that Christians do not believe unbelievers should go to hell; they believe they will go to hell, which (they further believe) is nothing if not an unfortunate state of events. Offhand, Christians — certainly not, today's Christians — do not believe that they should help unbelievers go to hell, or act actively (and zealously) to send them there — which (are you listening, Kos?) is all the difference between Christians and conservatives on the one hand, and the Taliban and other members of militant Islam on the other.

And if anyone has been dehumanized, and demonized, these past years, these past decades — as enemies of (progressive) America, as enemies (real, not perceived) of the entire planet — it is America's Republicans and conservatives…

EU too Chaotic to Bother With

In a statement upon arrival in Damascus, Zapatero said "I carry a message of friendship to the Syrian people and leadership and a message of peace to the Middle East region".

15-October-2009: Zapmaster Flash visits a mosque in the aliberal, secretive, dictatorship of Syria – a nation that has brought no peace to anyone in its’ entire Ba’athist post-putsch existence. It’s government is dominated by a religious minority called the Alawites.

Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero and Mr Obama are both expected to attend the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington on Thursday. But no bilateral meeting has been announced so far.

The informal event sees some 3,500 celebrities, businessmen, politicians and religious leaders get together in the US capital each year. It is organised by the Fellowship Foundation, a Christian fundamentalist pressure group.

Reaction: zilch, zippo, nada, bupkus.

04-February-2010: Zapatero to attend the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington in a desperate attempt to get Barack Obama’s attention. Reaction?:

Mr Zapatero, a centre-left secularist, has taken flak for his trip in Spanish media, with the El Pais daily calling his decision to attend the prayer event "shocking."

Shocked? At what? That he would sell his precious image as an inept, post-modern leftist for political access?

Something as benign as the National Prayer Breakfast will draw shock, but indulging an offshoot of Shia Islam that believes that women don’t have souls doesn’t. Great thinking, guys. At least you know where the culture’s outreach priorities are.

the ‘Socialist and Communist City Hall in Sevilla’ paid 21,000 € for ‘illegal Bolivians’ to travel to Madrid to vote for Evo Morales. The paper claims that those legal Bolivians who did not want to vote for him were excluded.

Outside of Spanish municipal authorities worshiping at the altar of 3rd world neo-marxism fantasies, the matter of fact reporting of that week managed to find this indulgence to a religion unworthy of being called “shocking” though:

Zapatero’s visit to Syria at the start of his Middle East tour brings some coverage. El Mundo has a photo of the Spanish Prime Minister putting on over-slippers to protect the floor of the Mosque.

Europeans "Shattered" by Obama's Indifference: "Bush Was Not the Problem, Obama Is Not the Solution"

How many times did we tell you — how many times did conservatives, Republicans — tell you, "No, it is not about Bush and, that, you will soon find out!"

Well, here we go. Remember the number of articles bemoaning the fact that Europeans are stupefied by Bush's arrogance, or whatever (or words to that effect)? Well, now we get a huge front-page headline in Le Monde saying Europeans Shattered by Obama's Indifference (Les Européens ébranlés par l'indifférence d'Obama, the title changes in the internet version). Meanwhile, an editorial in Le Monde bemoans the fact that Europe has been snubbed — again (this time, it is Barack Obama's refusal to participate in José Luis Zapatero's USA-Europe summit). As for Arnaud Leparmentier and Corine Lesnes' article, it starts with these words:

Bush n'était pas le problème. Obama n'est pas la solution : un an après l'arrivée à la Maison Blanche d'un président démocrate, le désenchantement est réciproque de part et d'autre de l'Atlantique. Les alliés découvrent — si tant est qu'ils l'ignoraient — que les malentendus vont au-delà des personnes.

And later, we learn that

Après avoir dénoncé l'impérialisme de M. Bush, les Européens reprochent à M. Obama son impuissance. Il lui font grief de ne pas avoir été su faire plier la Chine lors du sommet de Copenhague sur la lutte contre le réchauffement climatique. "Nous avons surestimé sa marge de manoeuvre", explique un conseiller de l'exécutif français ; "Les Chinois avaient un faible en face d'eux", accuse un proche de M. Sarkozy.

Update: Merci, Monsieur Reynolds…

And here, by popular demand, is the translation:

Bush was not the problem. Obama is not the solution: one year after the arrival at the White House of a Democratic president, disenchantment is mutual on either side of the Atlantic. The Allies are discovering — if indeed they were unaware of it before — that misunderstandings go beyond individuals.

Having denounced Mr. Bush's imperialism, Europeans are criticizing Mr. Obama for his impotence. They are complaining of his not being able to bend China at the Copenhagen summit on the fight against global warming. "We overestimated his room for maneuver," said adviser to the French executive; "The Chinese were facing a weakling", said a person close to Mr. Sarkozy in an accusing voice.

I have also been asked to provide the link for the recent BBC debate on Iraq, the War, Lies, Mass Graves, Saddam, Bush's Foreign Policy, and the (Alleged) Guilt of Tony Blair and George W Bush…

Another update, from the New York Times' Steven Erlanger: "the palpable sense of insult among European officials" … "something they said that President George W. Bush would never have done."

American officials said that Mr. Obama felt that the previous major American-European summit meeting, last June in Prague, was a waste of time, and European Union officials said that the president even skipped a leaders’ lunch at the smaller European Union-United States meeting in Washington last November, sending Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. instead, something they said that President George W. Bush would never have done.

Hatred, Low Humor, and High Culture

Sure, this kind of hatred is found in every part of the world, but it’s only in certain places where it’s done with such enthusiasm and élan, and with such care taken to spelling and the details that are as Nazi-like as possible:

The desecration in a Strasbourg cemetery came as Jews marked the 65th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz death camp, a symbol of the Holocaust, when the Nazis killed millions.

France's main Jewish organization, CRIF, said at least 18 tombstones at the Cronenbourg cemetery were found Wednesday marked with swastikas and 13 of them were overturned.

The CRIF's Marc Knobel said the inscription "juden raus" (Jews out) was found on one tomb.

Not sounding the least like it was done by immigrants or descendants thereof, it comes as somewhat of a surprise since it took place in Strasbourg, a city that has an odd historical relationship with religious minorities.

Odd, because this is the sort of history hardly a soul in Europe likes to recall. They prefer to scream about Americans, using examples as strange as Christopher Columbus, killing Native Americans. The origin or place of birth of these Americans is rarely thought about.

While Strasbourg is in present day France, it’s changed hands over and over. Family and place names speak to a majority German heritage with a French and Francofilic elite. Prior to the Nazis taking power in Germany, religious minorities in the area, including Alsace’s Jews, were under the greatest pressure when the Germans were not in charge, only getting some relief from the iron fist of one of Napoleon’s dictats.

We also find the puzzle of European culture in this as well. Over millennia in the Rhein river valley, which has a rather unique cultural outlook distinct from both of its’ neighbors, yet sides somehow are still taken to the extent that while language ghettos of a German variant in France, and French variant on the German side, not speaking your neighbors’ language is more the rule than the exception. Even to this day, one finds French fluency among young Germans (told as they are that it aids one in work, and is culturally appropriate), but hardly a soul across the river who made any effort to learn German. On two occasions, German and French persons discovered that their humble interlocutor and translator happened to be a Yanqui, also called an Ami.

Even the signs found in the main train station, even on the local and regional platforms, are not customized to the extent that they vary from the pattern of French first, English below in smaller type, and German blow that in even smaller type.

Regardless of how much one ‘celebrates diversity’ in that kind of place, the objects of an ugly mentality’s fixation remain an enemy in a sort of cold war of atmospheric cultural factionalism. It ranges from learned hate to miserable grumbling and self-pity, and it’s all very traditional – maybe even their version of the place ‘The Waltons’ keeps in US culture. So to find ‘Juden Raus’ graffiti on the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, one should hardly be surprised.

Castanets and Clowns

Sorry to barge in like this, but I do have a question:

Next fall, how many universities will be changing their course offerings of "Climate Science 101" to "Climate Scientology 101"?

Keep on Truckin’ Schnitzeling

Remember: Jesus saves. Moses invests.

Racism Redux: Obama's Election Proves That Racism Is… STILL in Existence in the U.S. (And It Is Explosive!)

Philippe Bernard's full-page interview with a Harvard law professor (Randall Kennedy is — at least, according to Le Monde — "one of the most respected analysts on racial questions in the United States") brings the startling information that it turns out that the very fact that an African-American was elected president is proof that America is racist! (And indeed, the racial issue in America is "explosive"!)

Obama a-t-il permis l'émergence d'une "Amérique postraciale" ?

Bien sûr que non ! Pourquoi les gens ont-ils pleuré lorsque Obama a été élu ? La couleur de sa peau n'y était-elle pour rien ? Bien sûr que si ! Pourquoi le moment était-il si merveilleux ? Parce que beaucoup de gens pensaient qu'ils ne verraient jamais le jour où des Blancs voteraient pour un Noir. Si l'Amérique était postraciale, vous n'auriez jamais vu ça ! La race reste centrale dans la vie quotidienne des Américains. L'amitié, le mariage, les loisirs, le logement : rien n'y échappe.

"Why did people cry when Obama was elected?" Kennedy asks. "Why was that moment so marvelous? Because many people thought they would never see the day when whites would vote for a black man."

So that proves that America is not racist, right? Right?! Wrong! No, it proves America is racist, because if America were post-racial, we would never have seen those people shedding those tears!

You can't win; I'm telling you, with those people, you can't win…

(And I predicted as much back in October 2008…)

Update: By the way, who are these Europeans who are trying to give lessons on racism to clueless Americans?

Another update: Tip of le chapeau to Monsieur Reynolds (and while you're here, check out our in-depth dissection of each of the Daily Kos poll's questions that purportedly "proves" the racism, the cluelessness, etc, of American conservatives)…

The McDonald's-French love affair: U.S. chain's 2nd-Largest Market Is France

France is now the second-biggest market for McDonald's…

"Few companies have resisted the global recession like the fast-food chains," said Nicolas Herpin, a French sociologist studying consumption. "In France, people who never came to McDonald's before are now customers."

The American fast-food icon's success in France runs counter to pop-culture images of French "cuisine," and French demonstrators have attacked the Golden Arches as symbols of American-style capitalism.

Mr. Herpin said he thinks McDonald's has appeal in a country known for its love of good food because of its affordable prices and convenient service.

"The French used to come to cafes between meals to eat a hard-boiled egg. Now they eat a sandwich at McDonald's," he said.

The New Blood Libel

As if rendering aid were not enough, the common, base anti-Americanism one is used to coming from Le Monde is rising to exceed pre-Hopey-Changey levels. A piece in today’s Al Jazeera sur Seine alleges that a massive wave of butchery-like amputation is taking place in Haiti wherever Americans doctors have engaged in triage.

This blood libel comes from 3 French Doctors who make passing comments about how “they wouldn’t have to amputate in Paris”. In spite of the fact that they aren’t practicing emergency medicine in Paris, or Houston, or Atlanta, the Le Monde readership laps it up and comments rather orgasmically over the possibility of impugning Americans in any context possible:

Monstrous USA! Everything revolves around the war home now, their policies, neo-colonialism (Iraq / AfPak = 1.5 million dead), their invasions humanitarians, their budget (on credit from other countries) that goes to 60% in war industries and death, their imagination, their films! The France was right to challenge the invasion which is seen and sees the devastation! It must be able to say the U.S. is a threat to humanity (see also Copenhagen) as was the former USSR!

Yes indeed, those films caused this!

Terrifying. Between how Americans "judge" this population, and the 20,000 soldiers landed to occupy Haiti, colonialism looms on the horizon, not so different in form and in his "speech" that might have existed in the 19th century ...

Neo-colonialism? By whom, exactly? By Barack Obama? If that’s really the case, wouldn’t we be bringing in farmers by the boatload to ‘colonize’ their land? Apparently reality and logic aren’t much of an issue to these dramatic fantasists, even tangentially playing off another commenter calling what has taken place in Haiti “like a guillotine” and comparing American aid workers to pillaging rebel forces in Sierra Leone:

"Guillotine amputations” was a technique pioneered on a large-scale children's RUF rebels in Sierra Leone in the 90s. 20 000 civilians had been victimized ...

And so forth, as per the usual pedantic yadda, yadda, yadda we’ve grown to expect that a big chunk of the readership is incapable of any other sort of statement.

Overshadowing this kind of reporting that amounts to out-of-scale agitprop, is what those with a specialty in prosthesis are gauging what their planning efforts will require of them:

Estimates of new Haitian amputees reported in the international media the first weeks after the earthquake overstated the number by tens of thousands, Winfried Danke, executive director of Prosthetics Outreach Foundation, told Associated Content Thursday. Danke said the original estimates given news media by doctors working at the disaster scene, ranging from tens of thousands to 150,000, has been pared down to "several thousand," as reports are updated and analyzed. The number may be as low as 2,000.

While there will be less amputations stemming from the earthquake than originally predicted, meeting the need for prosthetics and rehabilitative services will be difficult. Haiti's prosthetics production capacity was almost wiped out by the earthquake.

No doubt were Le Monde’s readers to have heard of that, they would connect their own sad little imaginary dots, and assume that like ‘a war for oil’, the earthquake was somehow magically engineered by that evil Obama White House to create a dependant market for prosthetics.

Knowing that he was not operating in London, Doctors of the World’s Jacques Lorblanche indicated:

"We expect to perform around 400 amputations over the coming days"

Don’t worry, I’m sure that out there in the zeitgeist there’s another “organ harvesting” story in the works.

I Swear! We were just Balancing their Humours!

Funny how the normally enraged, all feverishly sweaty from rumor-laden accusations of Israel organ theft in Gaza, an old European blood-libel schtick that never seems to go away, are not even taking notice of involuntary Organ harvesting in Europe.

Marty is investigating claims that former KLA members were involved with the trafficking of organs harvested from imprisoned Serbs during the Kosovo conflict in 1999.

Marty’s visit is “secret and his agenda was not publicized”, reports say.

Also in Priština, EULEX spokesman Christophe Lamfalussy confirmed that Marty is in Kosovo and that we will be meeting with EULEX officials and officials of other organizations.

Will all KLA members who are non-muslims, or don’t go into a fit of mindless rage when they hear the word “Zion” please raised your hand. Anyone? Bueller?

The Council of Europe has sent Swiss investigative super gumshoe Dick “Dick” Marty to Kosovo in secret in the interest of transparency, and with no PR concerns.

After all, only the great Satan and the little Satan could possibly ever be involved in organ harvesting.

Eliard's D-Day Wish Come True

Hugues Eliard's Higgins Boat crashes through the waves off Ouistreham…

Can’t Stand Your Own?

With a purponderence of eastern Europeans, Romanian prostitutes dominate. And don’t think that there aren’t too many weedy westerners who aren’t into that kind of thing.

Taking care of business has never been so foreign to western Europeans.

In most western countries, such as Denmark (65%), Finland (69%), Germany (65%), Greece (73%), Italy (90%), Spain (90%), Austria (78%), Belgium (60%), France (61%) and the Netherlands (60%), the vast majority of prostitutes are migrants.

But in economic terms, at least they’re keeping all the sex in the family:

The figures stand in contrast to 2006 when Russia and Ukraine topped the league table.

Why is EVerything a ‘league table’ with these mooks?

BBC Debate: 50 Minutes of Wrangling on Iraq, the War, Lies, Mass Graves, Saddam, and the (Alleged) Guilt of Tony Blair and George W Bush

You can now listen to the BBC debate, Should Britain be proud that Tony Blair is appearing at the Iraq inquiry?

50 minutes' time worth of debate (which you can download if you wish) on Iraq, Saddam Hussein, the Iraq war, lies, torture (real or otherwise), mass graves, American foreign policy, Iraqis' view of the conflict and the foreign presence, and the guilt (alleged or otherwise) of Tony Blair and George W Bush…

The conversation takes place between myself (in Paris), editor Marc (?), the Carnegie Endowment's Masha Lipman (in Moscow), Iraqi expatriate Salam Adil (in London), and callers from all over the world, including Ban Blair-Baiting's John Justice.

Run if you hear the Banjos

It’s Peewee Herman trying to bust into the biz on the Gong Show

Birds of a Feather

In an feverish attempt to find any kind of new public support he can, Bin Laden rants about Global Warming.

He blamed Western industrialized nations for hunger, desertification and floods across the globe, and called for "drastic solutions" to global warming, and "not solutions that partially reduce the effect of climate change."

Bin Laden has mentioned climate change and global warning in past messages, but the latest tape was his first dedicated to the topic. The speech, which included almost no religious rhetoric, could be an attempt by the terror leader to give his message an appeal beyond Islamic militants.

As in: fantasy Anarchists, Greenies, George Monboit, etc., through whose silence about Jihadist megalomania and religious suprematism, he seems to appeal to anyway.

Obviously the message is meant to point out beyond the Muslim Arab world given the incredibly low regard Arab societies largely have for not littering or even so much as using a trashcan if it isn’t to keep your own property clean.

I Will Be Debating Tony Blair's Iraq Appearance on the BBC at 6 PM GMT

I will be debating Tony Blair's appearance on the Iraq Inquiry on the BBC at 6pm GMT (7pm European continental time) tonight…

A listen live icon will come active when we go on air… It would seem that this link (cheers to Arnaud) will take you there…

Update: The debate is now live…

Voice Your Support for Tony Blair

You can watch Tony Blair live in the Iraq inquiry and leave comments (or send tweets), although the BBC'ers seem to be deleting all pro-Blair comments…

Send a pro-Blair comment to the BBC (keep it as short as possible) and sign the petition to support Tony…

Teheran’s Willing Idiots Work for ZDF

This past summer, however, the German public television network ZDF shook up the seasonal television doldrums with a sensational three-part documentary titled simply The Bomb. Broadcast over three evenings in late July and early August, it was hosted (and co-written) by ZDF's star primetime news anchor, the ever dour Claus Kleber. The tone of the 132-minute documentary is downright apocalyptic, promising nothing less than the "end of the world" if the nuclear issue is not tackled swiftly. To emphasize the urgency, each episode begins with a countdown recited by small children from around the world and interspersed with images of missiles and jet-fighters and mushroom clouds--and then a control panel switch being turned to "launch."

Writing in the Weekly Standard, John Rosenthal covers the oh-ho-hum manner in which blame and wishful hatred are bandied about in Europe. A ZDF “reporter” asks leading questions to the wife of nuke-monster A. Q. Khan, so that she can pedantically repeat the question “so just who was it that has actually used a nuclear weapon?”

The purpose, is to convince them that the launch is NOT on them, and that whoever does harm the precious bubble of illusions they live in, that it’s really the fault of the United States. After all, the warm, amniotic fluid in that bubble is so comforting that it justifies the lies on tells oneself.


Like everything ginned up in that kind of environment, it only works for them when it’s freed of both context and reason: Hiroshima is mentioned without Nan Jing, or the cost to the Japanese people and Americans of not forcing a Japanese surrender with the 2 atomic weapons dropped on Japan.


Rosenthal:

For the overriding message of The Bomb is that the nuclear threat is not constituted by Iran, North Korea, and other potential rogue possessors of nuclear weapons, but by the established nuclear powers and first and foremost by the United States. According to the odd sort of nuclear theology proposed by the film, it is the United States that committed the original sin by developing the first nuclear weapons, and the current risk of proliferation is merely the consequence of America's transgression.

The viewer gets a first hint of this tenet barely two minutes into the film. Kleber is touring New York harbor with a police patrol boat assigned to protect the city from potential nuclear terror attacks. "The consequences of the Manhattan Project, the construction of the first bomb, come back to haunt its inventors--as a weapon of terror," Kleber intones.

The consequences of the Manhattan Project? It is as if the Manhattan Project occurred in a vacuum rather than in the midst of the Second World War, with America racing to beat Nazi Germany to the bomb

ZDF’s purpose is to repeat the cheap, passive-aggression that has been a mainstay of politicized “journalism” in Europe for the past 20 years, whatever the cost or consequences are to the capacity of Europe’s population to judge the risk of an expansive, desperate, violent, Iranian government armed with nukes.

ZDF’s Kleber, with the stubbornness of an unruly child, can’t help but fantasize about an imaginary history where the Genie, could somehow, through the force of his delusions, go back into the bottle, and that wishing REALLY hard will change the tactical stance of the Iranians and the jihadist network. Like all elementary illusions, it requires a kind of taking sides which inevitable demands that he believe that a new and peaceful world comes to those that give in to the wishes of those who mean to kill them. The Japanese Empire need to have been held up as a harmless distraction. The Soviets need to be thought of as having wanted nothing to do with the rest of the world.
Bear in mind that Germany is and was the sort of place where as an American youngster, I would get people yelling at me and my sort of similar age about the Vietnam war or HiroshimaNagasakiBiteBiteBite which had ended when I was 8, as though I had something to do with it. It was a perfectly normal reaction, one that convinced the antagonist that they were not just on the side of the humane, but “politically aware” to shout down those who won’t do anything about that exercise of hatred.

You really need to do a lot to buy into it, and not caused by Kleber’s position, but has been long accepted as a given among many Germans. All Kleber does is pander to it, and inadvertently reinforce it with what he is surely telling himself is “challenging,” heartfelt, and “daring” rapportage. In reality, all it is, is the overpouring of emotionalized rhetoric posing as reason.

"For his nuclear program, Ahmadinejad can always play the national card," Kleber says over images of the Iranian president reviewing a military parade: "This is to say, the memory that Iraq invaded Iran"--and then after a dramatic pause--"with American help." The "with American help" is tossed out without any substantiation or explanation. The viewer is given no idea in what the alleged American help is supposed to have consisted. What we do know, however, is that the Iranians themselves received American help: the covert arms shipments at the heart of the Iran-contra scandal. The film makes no mention of this fact.

As if the bits and pieces of that past that matter rather selectively to Kleber will be what is driving Ahmedinejad.

Talk about ‘fighting the last war’ – Kleber and the many tear-swollen psychophants that think like him are still marching in a 50 year old protest, trying to kick a familiar strawman, and doing all the other pathetic things one looks back on after things that they could never imagine go badly wrong at the expense of those they are pretending to heroically ‘protect’.

Scott Brown's Victory: "The Return of the Macho Man; the Revenge of the White Man"

An excellent article in Le Monde on Scott Brown by Corine Lesnes.

Excellent article, that is, until the last paragraph. That's when we learn that "the Hollywood victory" of the (rather sympathetic) Republican is due to… racism (sigh)…

Les démocrates n'ont pas fini de digérer la victoire hollywoodienne de Scott Brown. Certains y voient un retour de bâton après 2008. Le retour du macho. La revanche de l'homme blanc. Avec une camionnette qui consomme 15 litres aux 100.

Apparently, at Le Monde, it is inconceivable for anyone to be against Barack Obama, or to vote for anybody who is in BHO's party, unless (!)… one is a racist!

Note to Le Monde:

Americans are against debts, deficits, and other irresponsible monetary policies if they are undertaken by a black man…

Americans are against debts, deficits, and other irresponsible monetary policies if they are undertaken by a Republican…

Americans are against debts, deficits, and other irresponsible monetary policies if they are undertaken by a woman…

And Americans are against debts, deficits, and other irresponsible monetary policies if they are undertaken by a member of the white race…

Americans are against debts, deficits, and other irresponsible monetary policies.

Period.

Hello and Good Night

Germans are all, like “Nein, aber ja, oder sowas!“ about their deployment in Afghanistan.

Very peculiar, this German Haltung (position) about sending more troops to Afghanistan.

Wait for it! There’s a punchline.

Freedom isn't given; it is earned by the man and woman who have layed down their lives for this country

I’m Just Wondering

Is Al Gore in Town?

La Jalousie et la Haine

Another day, another conflated myth that the rest of the world isn’t playing along with: Le Figaro fuels the obsession with the American intervention in Haiti somehow being about the French. While the crazies are taken at their word, most of the reader comments at this point are calling the bluff to a writer practicing a quiet bigotry of low expectations.

There are over 150 000 dead whose relatives are still suffering. The country is devastated.

But French media are stunned by the small U.S. presence. Small, because this presence, even if it doubled, would still not enough to secure the country. (The others such as France will not send more, which is criminal).

This article is about phantom international diplomats, to hide the fact that it is the journalist doing the talking.

While they were talking NEEDLESSLY of the U.S. presence in Haiti, a presence requested by the Haitians, we do not speak of Haitians’ dead, suffering relatives of the dead, and survivors suffering with poverty. It's despicable.

And this journalist ends by insulting the Haitians. Nobody is forcing Haitians to accept anything from anyone.

Stop your indirect racism. The Haitians have ANY power over Haiti they want to pursue.

And typical to Euro-think, they seem surprised when Haitians tell them that they want to rebuild, and can’t seem to make a distinction between the national notion of Haiti (presumably saying something), and Haitians telling them something. It comes from a “Risk game board mentality” about the world, spiked with the nationhood rhetoric that brackets their little world.

What comes out the other end of this beast is the commentary of armchair revolutionaries along with the basic, common sense of those who seem rather able to get the gyst of those with an accusatory tone. In the conversation which turned to a fear that Haitians rebuilding their own country after the earthquake, the typical argumentative hostility turned to corruption with the idea that Haitians can’t be trusted.

We should recolonize them first, because the independence already recognized and established since 1804 isn’t to be taken very seriously.

Strange that the commenter can’t seem to remember the basis of the Haitian rebellion, the half-century of usury that they had to pay thereafter, or from whom it was they were seeking their independence.

In light of the need to see things work, the hatred of the ‘take charge’ Americans yielded to the resignation that it should just be a de facto American protectorate for a while, because even the American military force was just a drop in the bucket in a nation of almost 10 million people.

About French aid - this will be a blow to the U.S. and a chance for France, which offers aid and its’ fellowship

It sounds oddly like they are fighting a cold war, taking up the goals of the now defunct Soviet Union, perfectly willing to use Haitians as a tool to... wait for it... render a blow to America – in particular an America that doesn’t seek to take notice of this attitude projected toward them, and discounts it as a fantastic raving no different than some other lunacy last week.

Case in point, these comments are passionless and eclipsed enormously by another article drawing the reader attention: a short item about how the US is a magnet of many people’s conspiratorial ire.

Festooned with the canned 9-11 Truther rhetoric, you can take a kind of sick pleasure in the consistent ease of replication that the subject gets, decade after decade, year after year.

Of course these arguments are credible! Besides, now everyone (except the journalists of Figaro) knows that the U.S. knew about Pearl Harbor and let it happen. We also know that they have carried out coups in South America. We also know that they have funded and armed bin Laden and the Taliban against the USSR. All this we know, it’s PROVEN. So when the towers fall at the speed of free fall, when you can not find any airplane wreckage in the Pentagon and the FBI confiscated all the pictures, when the official version does not even mention the tower 7 and well one wonders, because we are not sheep! And in any case anti-conspiracy "that support the official account are suckers because the official theory is that a PLOT was planned in the caves of Afghanistan.

Ah, stock rhetoric – a comfort food for the feeble-minded and those with an (aptly named) Napoleon complex. After all, we all know that the Soviets weren’t doing anything in South America to cause revolts, that any other events that take place, that don’t fit the conspiratorial idea that picking anything that seems related to fit into a ‘cause and effect’ model of how reality should work CAN’T be perturbed by real events.

Much as the effect continues with the stranger among the French and Venezuela over aid to victims in Haiti, so it seems to work with “Truther” logic, that hits the wall when something needs to actually be done – when some course of action has to take place, and when consequences and responsibilities for ones’ own actions or even assertions come into play.

Then, what you were more than willing to castigate as “occupation”, suddenly seems okay, because the fantasy is perturbed again by reality. Even raving lunatics who still go on about some theory about the attack on Pearl Harbor two generations ago eventually get mugged by reality.

I Always Knew they were into Greek

Berlin's international Green Week fair is a showcase for agricultural produce from around the world. Yet few products from developing countries make it to the EU due to high import tariffs and strict standards.

Right after you get the weekly lecture on how marvelously humane and global they are, and some teenager or middle aged kook gives you their fair-trade pitch, Europeans go right back to making the third world’s small-scale enterpreneurial farmers grab their ankles and take some more of Europe’s precious artisanal terroirism for the pittance their major industries would risk.

Issa Ouedraogo from Ghana has as a dream.

[ ... ]

Neighboring African countries as well as Europe could become a lucrative market for Ouedaogo and other small farmers in developing countries. But the high import taxes charged by the EU pose a major impediment to international trade.

Which would be fine if they didn’t get so caught up objectifying third world peasant farmers as pitiable victims and just buy their goods.

Critics have been arguing that the tariff policy exploits developing countries as suppliers of cheap, unprocessed food products without giving them a fair chance on the European market.

Oh! Just think of all of those horrible Food Miles!

And now for something completely different:

Tony Blair Supported the United States; Now It Is Time to Support Tony Blair

Tony Blair gave his support to the United States of America…

Now it is time to give our support to Tony Blair!

…And to sign the petition…

Justice for Tony Blair demands that

It is now time to stop BLAIR-baiting, i.e. attacks on our former Prime Minister by the dogs of anti-war. Less metaphorically it can be defined as the constant incitement of hatred against Tony Blair for taking us to war in Iraq.

This year's Blair-baiting season will reach its peak when the Iraq war inquiry starts to call witnesses. Parts of the media, the anti-Iraq war lobby and some families of soldiers killed in the war are already calling for this to be a TRIAL of Tony Blair with a view to gathering as much evidence as possible to send him to The Hague for "war crimes". Except that unlike a normal trial, Tony Blair has been presumed guilty in advance.

What is most galling about the hysterical calls calling for Blair's (and Bush's) head(s) is that it is taken as a given that 1) Blair (and Bush) lied and/or made (unforgivable) mistakes and that 2) Blair's and Bush's (alleged) lies and/or (alleged) mistakes before the conflict led to a war with a country as innocent, as peaceful, and as nonthreatening (both domestically and internationally) as the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.

The issue of weapons of mass destruction is laughed off offhand, with snorts and scorn, as if Luxembourg (or a country like it) had been the country accused of harboring ABCs. Note: the reason people — all people, not just Bush and Blair, and in nations both within and without the Coalition of the Willing — believed Saddam Hussein had weapons was that he had harbored them and that, indeed, he had used them. Saddam used chemical weapons on Iranian troops, he used them on Kurdish civilians, and he tried building nuclear weapons.

It is my fervent hope that when the trial begins, Blair won't just sit there, but that he will turn the tables on his castigators (the self-described humanitarians and human rights activists) and hammer this theme home. With quotes from all the varying actors stating their firm conviction that Iraq and/or Saddam needed to be confronted.

Related:

• Read some choice quotes of Tony Blair…
• Is there any truth to Tony Blair being the Yanks' poodle?
• Did Bush and Blair Lie About WMD?
• So Long As We Are Hunting for Liars in the Iraq Controversy…
  

The following excerpt comes from a post (So Long As We Are Hunting for Liars in the Iraq Controversy) written about Bush and his American castigators, but it can easily adapted for Tony or for any like-minded ally in the Coalition of the Willing):

In the following sentence, [we can couple "the Democrats" with "the Europeans" as well as Britain's anti-Blairites, all of which fall] under what Norman Podhoretz calls "all those who in their desperation to delegitimize the larger policy being tested in Iraq … have consistently used distortion, misrepresentation and selective perception to vilify as immoral a bold and noble enterprise":

… so long as we are hunting for liars in this area, let me suggest that we begin with the Democrats now proclaiming that they were duped, and that we then broaden out to all those who in their desperation to delegitimize the larger policy being tested in Iraq--the policy of making the Middle East safe for America by making it safe for democracy--have consistently used distortion, misrepresentation and selective perception to vilify as immoral a bold and noble enterprise and to brand as an ignominious defeat what is proving itself more and more every day to be a victory of American arms and a vindication of American ideals. [As well as British ones — natch!]

Update: I was invited to debate Tony Blair's appearance at the Iraq Inquiry on the BBC…

On the Scientific Quackery of the Carbon Cult

It’s change you can believe in... in fact all it IS is a belief:

The claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is already affecting the severity and frequency of global disasters, has since become embedded in political and public debate. It was central to discussions at last month's Copenhagen climate summit, including a demand by developing countries for compensation of $100 billion (£62 billion) from the rich nations blamed for creating the most emissions.

Ed Miliband, the energy and climate change minister, has suggested British and overseas floods — such as those in Bangladesh in 2007 — could be linked to global warming. Barack Obama, the US president, said last autumn: "More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent."

In the wake of the non-meltdown of the Himalayan icecaps that display a meltdown in the practice of ‘activist-science’, we find further truthy-truthiness:

It based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny — and ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link too weak. The report's own authors later withdrew the claim because they felt the evidence was not strong enough.

That it would cost $100 billion or some part of $100 billion matters little to those who insist that ‘we have to do something!’ and shove it through in a manner reminiscent of Genghis Khan. In fact we don’t, especially when another $100 billion will not be able to be found to do something real, and founded on, at the very least, something founded partially in fact if that’s at all possible.

It’s urban myth as science, not to mention the fact that it feeds the racketeering.

The IPCC had warned that climate change was likely to melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 -- an idea considered ludicrous by most glaciologists. Last week, a humbled IPCC retracted that claim and corrected its report.

However, the same bogus claim has been cited in grant applications for TERI. One of them, announced earlier this month, resulted in the $US500,000 grant from Carnegie. An extract from the grant application published on Carnegie's website said: "The Himalaya glaciers, vital to more than a dozen major rivers that sustain hundreds of millions of people in South Asia, are melting and receding at a dangerous rate.

"One authoritative study reported that most of the glaciers in the region `will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming, resulting in widespread water shortages'."

The Carnegie money was specifically given to aid research into "the potential security and humanitarian impact on the region" as the glaciers began to disappear. Dr Pachauri has since acknowledged that this threat, if it exists, will take centuries to have any serious effect.

It’s telling that to the political environmentalists who are actually seeking a revolutionary seizure of the control people can have over their fate, that this standard is adequate: i.e. the incorporation in whole of a WWF article into the IPCC report asserting that, unlike previous assumptions, the Amazon go from forest to savannah the next time you look at them, and that Jesus will strangle a puppy if mankind doesn’t ‘at least do something. Veracity of the source?

The two expert authors of the WWF report so casually cited by the IPCC as part of its, ahem, “robust” “peer-reviewed” process weren’t even Amazon specialists. One, Dr PF Moore, is a policy analyst.

Yeah, but he’s, like, a Doctor, ya know?

And the lead author Andy Rowell is a freelance journalist (for the Guardian, natch) and green activist.

Activist with a private line into print, scientist... repeat that often enough, and you’ll be expected to believe it.

It Depends on What the Meaning of “Already is” is

Pursuant to the familiar Eurolandish “crowding out” effect of member states in International fora and GONGOs, with multiple seats representing member states speaking to the EU, Luxembourg’s Jean-Claude Juncker proposed that the EU join the G20:

Mr Juncker also said the European Commission was set to formally propose that the eurogroup become a member of the Group of 20 major economies and that a small secretariat of "four to five" civil servants would be set up in the Council of Ministers building in Brussels to prepare the currency club's monthly meetings.

Which is an interesting request, given that the EU already is, adding one more fat head that the three they already have in the form of representation of Germany, the UK, and France.

This isn’t mania. It’s a willful desire to punch above their weight with the assistance of those they’re punching.

Somehow, the displacement of the G8 by the G20 was also positive for the EU, at least for two reasons. First, Brussels is officially the 20th member of the G20, while it was only the 9th member of the G8. To many, this might only be a symbolic nuance, as in both cases the EU has the same "rights" and "obligations" as the other members minus the right to chair and host summits and therefore no capacity to fully shape the agenda.

But in international politics, rhetoric and the choice of words are never innocent. This means that the G20 is arguably a recognition of the "emerging" or "global power" status of the EU in international affairs as much as that of China, India or Brazil.

As an emerging state, are they looking for people to come show their children how to brush their teeth? Dig wells? Train their peasants in basic agricultural practices?

One of the key challenges of this decade will be to see how the West, and more specifically how the EU will deal with this rising multipolarity. Indeed, it is in the interest of the EU – not to say a matter of survival – to promote an international order based on systemic and rule-based multilateralism because the EU is simply unable to play realpolitik with other global players.

However, not all forms of multilateralism are favourable to the EU. For instance, the formation of ad hoc bilateral or multilateral alliances could potentially be damaging to Europe. A G-2 between China and America, for example, would slowly but inevitably make the US lean towards Asia, and render Europe increasingly irrelevant.

Perhaps they haven’t been paying attention for 20 years. The US already leans towards Asia and has to drag Europe around like a millstone around its’ neck... No, what would be beneficial to humanity is to cease, for perfunctory procedural reasons, continue over-representing Europe by counting each member state + the EU when their scale doesn’t justify it having ‘the entity’ holding 28 representatives for every ONE Indian, Chinese, Brazilian, Russian, or American delegate or vote. If they DO want some form of fantasy ‘singular global democratic order’, why then does the rest of humanity have to live by the “1/28th rule” when all they seem to use it for is self-aggrandizing rulemaking gang rape?

Obama's First Year Blues

While the French-language channel of France 24 broadcast un débat en français, another studio of the channel's was screening the F24 Debate with a debate in English.

One year ago, Barack Obama was elected 44th President of the United States of America. He represented hope for many Americans and people all over the world, to the point of being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. But the defeat of the Democrat candidate in the one time party stronghold state of Massachusetts is raising questions on the popular support for President Barack Obama.

Debate hosted by Mark Owen with guests:

Zachary MILLER, Vice-Chair of Democrats Abroad France

Stuart HAUGEN, Former Chair of Republicans Abroad France

Nicholas DUNGAN, Political Commentator and President of French American Partners (Via satellite from NYC)

You’re Welcome, Douchebag

It didn’t take long to find “the balance of comments” even to an article in Le Figaro to be split between those who want the US to do as much as possible and to do its’ best in Haiti, and the predictable Moi! Moi! Moi! Regarde moi!:

The Americans are not philanthropists, they are deployed in Haiti in such force for purely STRATEGIC reasons. Although France has denounced this… or should we simply go to sleep or applaud them? Personally I don’t think it’s anti-Americanism to speak the truth.

Now with the anti-Americanism, know my good sir, that American "anti-Europeanism”, and the anti-French-ism is much more exaggerated, more virulent, more contemptuous and especially well more insulting than our image of America. Please read the articles in the American press at the outbreak of the war in Iraq to call to mind the words of appalling Ricains, before his final notice their lamentable mistake and deception, however crude their leaders!. Then confess that some of this anti-Americanism is rather nice...

Which is to rage indignantly at the possibility that the US is not doing what this cretin is fantasizing, and that in using the “Ricains” insult, we should just be thankful for them not noticing their 24/7/365 obsessive hatred – especially in light of their thin-skinned inability to get past the isolated “freedom fries” story of a decade ago.

But as we all know, they MUST have an underhanded agenda!

Does nobody find it strange how quickly the Americans have deployed?

Sending:
-10.000 Men
- 1 aircraft carrier (why?)
- 1 destroyer
- 1 cruiser
- Water DESALINATION Plants (by people with their hands in the government’s pocket)
- Thousands of tons of material (hummers, motorcycles, trucks, RVs...) Complete

All this leaves me puzzled about the events that took place. You should know that the Americans were expelled from the Dominican Republic (I went and talked with residents), since the U.S. has more places to vacation. And he was discovered by the KGB that the Americans would have used a seismic bomb under the island to cause an earthquake.

I do not say that everything is true, but I just said that we might suspect.

Unable to imagine anything unlike his own little world, he doesn’t realize that calling up 10000 reservists or troops overnight isn’t some kind of secret plan, because that’s what a callup is.

Troops were mobilized just as quickly when Katrina hit, but one would have hardly found malevolence in that frightening rapidity. We find, once again, a need to explain that a carrier can crank out 1,6M L of potable water a day, function as a hospital, and operate aircraft. Of course the fool thinks they are there in case someone needs to call in an airstrike, but there’s no pleasing some people.

And that tenuous “truthy-truth”... that thing that “just must be” for their delusions to go on undisturbed:

But Chavez also says that the United States is trying to colonize Haiti. Do you really really think they mobilized 15000 men for nothing?

And the ever popular:

There would then be OIL [there] .. This explains the U.S. interest. Just like Texas, California, Alaska ...

Which are assumed to not be part of the United States, somehow, all of "occupied" and "invaded" by their favorite Snidely Whiplash in anticipation of the discovery of the usefulness of oil almost a century before the first Tin Lizzie rolled off the line.

Remember, this is how these spankers treat RELIEF EFFORTS if the US is involved.

The World Can’t Wait

For those European “cultural types” who think they are the world to put their fantasies to rest and join the reality based community. The rest of the world is not going to live their lives based on what you want your own lives to be like.

The notion seems to boil down to the fact that to Spiegel, Obama is dead because they think he is, and they think he is because he isn’t acting as the perfect proxy of this Spiegel writer’s world view.

You simply could not get any more arrogant.


Elsewhere: I know you are, but what am I?

American designer Rick Owens continued to plumb the depths of the dark side Friday, with a fall-winter 2010-2011 menswear collection of gender-bending, space age-y designs ready for the apocalypse.

Androgynous models with enviable cheekbones skulked down the catwalk in bulky, tie-waisted trenches in lacquered microfiber or wrinkly microfiber with stiff, standup necklines and drop-crotched harem pants.

Lighten up, pal. You can always work for Acorn.

France's IREF Calls Country's Health System a Centralized, Mandatory, and Inefficient Monopoly With Prohibitive Costs

…somme toute les assurés français auraient avantage à fuir leur Sécu pour se soumettre à un régime où l’Etat n’intervient qu’à titre subsidiaire, l’essentiel du système reposant sur les assurances privées.

If Nicolas Lecaussin, development director of the Institut de Recherches Économiques et Fiscales, is to be believed,

En France nous aimerions avoir une assurance maladie mettant en concurrence des assurances privées, au lieu d’un monopole public, centralisé, obligatoire, qui a fait la preuve de son injustice, de son inefficacité, et de son coût prohibitif.