To Understand Liberal Issues Like Gay Marriage Correctly, It Is Vital to Get the Basic Premises Right

There are few times that I do not agree with John Stossel, but the Fox News libertarian doesn't understand what could possibly be wrong with gay marriage, ending a recent column with the words:

Sorry, but I still don’t see what divorce and unwed motherhood have to do with gay marriage. It’s mostly straight people who are doing the divorcing and unwed mothering.

1) John Stossel doesn't seem to realize it, but when he mentions "alimony, child support", "divorce and unwed motherhood" as well as "straight people" — along with comments such as "I don’t care if there are three fathers and six mothers [if] it’s a stable relationship and the kids are connected with their parents" — he is answering his own question (notwithstanding the fact that the libertarian does not seem to be noticing all the ways in which judges, lawyers, divorce industry experts, and other government bureaucrats and parasites have managed to infiltrate themselves inside what was once called the sacrosanct family unit — check out Stephen Baskerville to see how bad that problem is).

First of all, no one is preventing two people from living together and from loving each other and from "commit[ting] to a life partner", and to a certain extent, nobody ever has. The gay sense of victimization throughout the centuries has been exaggerated, certainly this past century or two. In its obituaries of the 19th century, for instance, The Times of London would note that a certain person had been a "lifelong bachelor", and everyone understood what the newspaper meant by that.

So is there still a good reason to prevent gays from marrying? Well, the problem is — and I think that, upon thought, many a gay person would not disagree with me here (in fact, I believe that a gay person — a Log Cabin Republican? — could have written this post in the exact words I did) — not that gays want to get married, but what had to happen for them to want to get married in the first place…

Tell me if I'm wrong (I admit to being no expert on the new-fangled college courses on gay history or gay literature), but throughout the centuries, throughout the millennia, there have been no calls, and no examples of longing (or very very few) for marriage between two men or between two women — nor indeed were there (m)any calls to "commit to a life partner" in the first decades of the gay rights movement.

For lifelong love, yes, and for tenderness and sweet nothings, yes, for lust for lean or muscular bodies, certainly, but for the desire of nuptials and a life spent together as "husband" and "wife" in a single bourgeois-type home, not really (or they are few and far between or with a touch of a smirk attached).

These calls came about only after — and only because of — the decline of traditional marriage (agreed, between straight people) along with the advent of open marriages and no-fault divorce. In other words, the desire of gays, male or female, for the "benefits" of matrimony only came about after, and only came about because, feminists and leftists dumbed those "benefits" down by making it OK to divorce on a whim and by making it alright to commit (what is now considered passé to be called) adultery.

Again — tell me if I'm wrong, but gayness has mostly to do, rightly or wrongly, with lust (and I mean that in a neutral way, neither in a positive nor in a negative sense), which is the same that we feel (or some of us feel) for a member of the opposite sex. Now, many heterosexuals are attracted to "hot chicks" (guys) and "hot bods" (gals), which is normal and neither good or bad, but our grandfathers and our grandmothers would have told us (or they would have told our fathers and our mothers) that marrying someone, solely or mainly, because of lust (say, a "bad boy" or a "trophy wife") was not necessarily a good idea. Get rid of your lust first (whether for same-sex partners or partners of the opposite sex), get it out of your system, if necessary, and then marry; but do not marry (solely) because of the lust and/or do not lust for others once the wedding is consummated…

Certainly, marriage due to lust, or with widespread lust remaining in the "hearts" (and in the loins), was commonly understood not to be a good idea until the feminists and their allies on the left brought us open marriages and no-fault divorce. The same can be said for gay marriage, and the calls for gay marriage, like the tendency for quickie marriages between heterosexuals, would start vanishing when and if (as soon as, in fact) the legal underpinnings as well as the cultural support for open marriages and/or for no-fault divorce came to an end.

2) Now, from a libertarian perspective, Amy D asks:

Why should the government have a bloody thing to say about marriage other than recognizing the legal contract issues?

You other conservatives say you want smaller government with less intrusiveness....would this not be the way to go?

The answer has been given in Harry Jaffa's A New Birth of Freedom: Marriage came before society; the advent of married couples came before the advent of individuals organizing themselves into societies; the one led to the other. All of the left's theses in the past century or so are basically based on the premise that society, and government, came before, and/or is superior to, marriage and that the bonding of two (necessarily clueless) people (of different sex or of the same sex) is hardly more important than — it is but one more issue for the state (for government) to solve — fixing the roads or organizing society's defense. Therefore, the raison d'état predominates, and a (married) couple, like an individual, exists to serve the raison d'état. And if the government decides to "make" individuals, say, "tolerant" — if only to make those who govern look good by making them feel like the heroic defenders of the (allegedly) downtrodden — then that is how those individuals should act…

What Jaffa states eloquently is that originally, society did not "create" matrimony; the fact of matrimony was what led to the creation of societies — and of governments. There is no mention of gay rights whatsoever in any of his books (that I remember), but the following premises will give you an idea of why details such as gay marriage cannot be seen without getting the premises correct and why, in conclusion, strong marriages (necessarily between a man and a woman) are important.

Individual rights become valuable only insofar as they result in a good society — a society in which man's moral and intellectual virtues can find their fullest measure of opportunity. There is in Jefferson none of that radical individualism that sees the rights of the individual transcending and opposing the moral demands of a good society. The opposition between the demands of society and the rights of the individual, so familiar in our time, arose only as those rights were no longer understood to be natural rights subject to the natural law.

…Self-realization was in fact the only correlate of the new atheism. As there could no longer be any distinction between man and God, which distinction is as fundamental to the Declaration of Independence as to the Bible, there could be no distinction between base and noble desires. All desires were understood to be created equal, since all desires were seen as originating in that highest of all authorities, the self-creating self.

…fathers as well as mothers usually prefer the preservation of their young to their own individual preservation. It follows from this that among humans it is the family, rather than the individual, that seeks survival…

…it is human families or their representatives, rather than "abstract" human individuals, who found or institute political communities…

…Only as one understands the priority of the partnership of male and female in the generation, nurture, and education of the young can one understand the relationship of individuality to community in the political order…

Update: Back in the 1830s, Justice Joseph Story wrote:

Marriage is … in its origin a contract of natural law … It is the parent, and not the child of society; the source of civility and a sort of seminary of the republic.

Update 2: Ed Morrissey:

Marriage has always been a forward-looking institution aimed at protecting and nurturing the next generation of children, not a love license for the adults of the present

Update 3: Canada's Precedent in Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage:

… marriage and family become mere adjuncts of the state after the removal of the de facto conditions that make the traditional family a pre-political institution in the first place. No longer is family something that, in the words of Douglas Farrow, “precedes and exceeds the state.” No longer is the family a hedge against the totalitarian aspirations of the state because no longer is the family prior to the state.

Update 4: 5 Gay Marriage Myths:

It is those who oppose same-sex marriage who are the true champions of liberty. Indeed, if gay “marriage” is ever legalized, it is likely to result in unprecedented restrictions on freedom of speech and even thought.

The Term "Shoah" Is Non Grata in French High School Textbooks, While Palestine's "Nakhba" Is Acceptable

A type of negationism is infecting France's high school history textbooks, warns Claude Lanzmann in Le Monde (the day after a post on France's obvious anti-Americanism and antisemitism appeared on No Pasarán), with the word "Shoah" for the Nazi Holocaust of World War II being banned (but only for grammatical reasons, you understand, "because it is a foreign word", and so it has been replaced by the "annihilation"). Read on:

Une circulaire … sur la nécessité de supprimer le terme "Shoah" des manuels scolaires. …

Il y a une douzaine d'années, après une réunion à Stockholm de tous les chefs d'Etat et de gouvernement accompagnés de leurs ministres de l'éducation nationale, dont le but était d'élaborer un compendium sur la Shoah qui aurait force de loi et d'usage dans le monde entier, M. Dominique Borne, doyen de l'inspection générale d'histoire au ministère français de l'éducation nationale, déclarait sans précaution ni fard : "Il faut bannir le mot “Shoah” des manuels, car c'est un mot étranger."

M. Borne n'est plus doyen, mais il demeure puissant et sa tendance semble largement majoritaire, il est en tout état de cause suivi par les éditeurs de manuels mis en vente à la rentrée 2011, puisque le mot de Shoah n'y apparaît plus sauf, pour certains, en note de bas de page indiquant que c'est le terme par lequel Israël désigne… quoi au fait ? Le manuel des éditions Hachette, qui suit à cent pour cent la recommandation du bulletin de l'éducation nationale, nous le dit on ne peut plus clairement : il faut utiliser désormais le mot "anéantissement".

There is only one slight problem — besides the fact that the Shoah (sorry, the "annihilation") of the Jews is said to be comparable to the "annihilation" of the gypsies, no more and no less — because while Shoah is non grata in France's high school history textbooks (remember, it is a foreign word), Nakhba is acceptable and does in fact appear in the textbooks. Needless to say, a vast number of Le Monde readers have reacted in the comments section, most of them seeming to castigate Claude Lanzmann and wax ironic, and scornfully, about his column in the daily.

… Savoir si la guerre contre le nazisme était une juste guerre n'intéresse pas nos nouveaux concepteurs, qui mettent en parallèle et sur le même plan les bombardements des villes allemandes par l'aviation alliée, Hiroshima, et la Shoah. Pardon, non, l'anéantissement. C'est une vieille histoire : refuser l'unicité ou la spécificité des événements historiques, les noyer dans des catégorisations abstraites et réductrices, tout cela se préparait de longue date. Aujourd'hui on passe à l'acte. Le mot "Shoah" est éradiqué, mais pour la première fois, dans un manuel d'histoire (Hachette), apparaît celui de "Nakhba", terme en miroir, forgé par les Palestiniens pour nommer leur propre catastrophe : la création de l'Etat d'Israël. Lequel Israël tient très peu de place dans ces nouveaux livres, qui prennent les choses de plus haut, faisant référence au seul "Moyen-Orient, foyer de conflits".

Manuela Wyler has more, as does Jean-Marc MOSKOWICZ…

Even if Handguns were Banned, they would still find a way to Shoot Us in the Foot

Russians of virtually every sort seem to get along rather nicely with America’s left – for the simple reason that they like to promote the same, convenient “Hate America” causes and campaigns.

Experts are looking for a reason behind Tuesday afternoon’s unlikely 5.8 magnitude earthquake that shook people up and down the East Coast, and some are saying that a recent rise in fracking could be the culprit.

Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” is the man-made splintering of underground rocks to expedite the exploiting of natural resources. It’s become a widespread phenomenon since its introduction in 2004, and though the practice can help increase supplies of oil and gas without reaching out internationally for imports, the result it can have on the geological make-up of the Earth can be ravaging. Now some experts say the rise in fracking could be to blame for yesterday’s quake.

So long as it denies employment, prosperity, or self-sufficiency to Americans, they both agree that it must be opposed. Alas, why, you ask?


The irony is that the American Left probably don’t understand WHY Russian might want American to not extract fuel that they might otherwise import. Russia is basically little more than a Banana Republic of petroleum at this point, and RT is a sort of occasionally “not completely unhinged-seeming” house organ. The more rabid and impractical your environmentalism, the better it is for sales, if not to Americans, that to others who reduce the supply of energy on the market through their demand.

The left’s hatred of their own societies has made them into permanent and predictable suckers. In effect, they shill for polluting de-facto dictatorships.

Because the Poor Still aren’t Hiring

Thank God that someone on the continent permanently blighted with envy and class-hatred is saying it.

In Portuguese daily Público professor and political scientist João Carlos Espada criticises the notion of levying an extraordinary tax on the super-rich. “Taxes are not the primary source of improving the living conditions of the majority. The wealth of Europe and the West – which even today is worthy of the admiration of the rest of the world – was not the product of redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor through taxes. It was the product of the creation of wealth in a climate of economic freedom, generally associated with low taxation, swift justice and, above all, the absence of barriers to the entry of new competitors”.

Espada argues that “the best contribution of the rich to the common good lies in ensuring that goods or services are being produced in a way that is most affordable to the greatest number of people; it consists of guaranteeing that this good or service is not artificially protected from competition and that it is chosen willingly by those who consume it”. Espada believes that this is the factor that was the great “social elevator” in Europe and the West that enabled successive generations of ordinary people to afford goods and products that previous generations never dreamed of having.

As you can expect with apostacy, the article was deleted.

As early as 1945, France, instead of recognizing mistakes, opted to divert attention by cultivating an ungrateful and hypocritical anti-Americanism

… Thanks to General de Gaulle, France, instead of recognizing its [World-War-II-era] mistakes, opted to divert attention by cultivating, as early as 1945, an ungrateful and a hypocritical anti-Americanism

writes Michel Garroté as he launches into a rant against "That Judeophobic and Americaphobic France".

Today, in 2011, the anti-Americanism and the antisemitism in France are obvious. And one must be deaf and blind — or an accomplice? — to fail to notice.

Indeed, France, instead of reducing — immediately and dramatically — the Pharaoh-sized costs of the apparatus of the French state, prefers to continue its borrowing habit in order to live. But to do this with impunity, it is necessary for France to have scapegoats, "guilty" bodies who in fact are not guilty. As early as October 2008, I warned on this blog of the formulas against "international finance", "financial oligarchy", "New York finance", and other neo-Pétain slogans which implicitly accuse the Jews and the Yanks of all the ills of Europe, and even of the entire planet.

... Le Point comments: "Professor Philippe Dessertine [thanks to him for his good common sense in this matter] says that the outburst of Laurence Parisot reflects the French temptation to look for scapegoats to deflect the responsibility of public and private officials in the crisis. It's very, very dangerous to move towards the idea of ​​an Anglo-Saxon economic news business that is beholden to a political ideology, this is absolutely false. It [the Anglo-Saxon business press] is one of the few to provide accurate information" [finally a French professor of economics who recognizes that].

... On the one hand, the false allegations against the United States on an economic basis, and on the other hand, the conspiracy theories against the so-called "Jewish power" are part and parcel of a single fraud. It is both disturbing and distressing to see France, in 2011, in the twenty-first century, in the third millennium, resorting — once again in its history — to such processes.

Can you Smell that, Son? Can you Smell the Mendacity?

The relationship between climate change and hurricanes is one that scientists are still trying to understand.

This somehow leads to this level of certainty:

Irene’s Potential for Destruction Made Worse by Global Warming, Sea Level Rise

We live in an age of propagandists, and the bien pensents simply accept that as a social good.

The Reality? Enh! Don’t believe ‘da hype!

Scientists Slam Link Between Hurricanes and Global Warming

Just like the hyped predictions of disaster to the East Coast from Irene over the weekend, the new report says that models used by global warming scientists "over-estimate" the the warming trends of the globe to back up their warnings of future droughts, killer storms, and famine.

Meanwhile back in the land of politics of trying to prove that you’re Moses: Obama Narrowly Escaped 31 MPH Winds And 0.03 Inches Of Rain At Martha’s Vineyard

And to think that we nearly lost him!

"The poor" are the human shields behind whom advocates of ever bigger spending for ever bigger government advance toward their goal

While Bill Whittle reports that "Despite what you hear from the media and the Democrat party, the poor are getting richer" and while Star Parker writes that "The Poor Are Not Poor Because the Rich Are Rich" ("The formula for more black wealth: less government, more ownership and initiative"), Thomas Sowell steps up to the plate and lays it out, black on white:

The whole future of the welfare state depends on how poverty is defined. "The poor" are the human shields behind whom advocates of ever bigger spending for ever bigger government advance toward their goal.

If poverty meant what most people think of as poverty — people "ill-clad, ill-housed, and ill-nourished," in Franklin D. Roosevelt's phrase — there would not be nearly enough people in poverty today to justify the vastly expanded powers and runaway spending of the federal government.

Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation has for years examined what "the poor" of today actually have — and the economic facts completely undermine the political rhetoric.

Official data cited by Rector show that 80 percent of "poor" households have air-conditioning today, which less than half the population of America had in 1970. Nearly three-quarters of households in poverty own a motor vehicle, and nearly one-third own more than one motor vehicle.

Virtually everyone living in "poverty," as defined by the government, has color television, and most have cable TV or satellite TV. More than three-quarters have either a VCR or a DVD player, and nearly nine-tenths have a microwave oven.

As for being "ill-housed," the average poor American has more living space than the general population — not just the poor population — of London, Paris and other cities in Europe.

Various attempts have been made over the years to depict Americans in poverty as "ill-fed" but the "hunger in America" campaigns that have enjoyed such political and media popularity have usually used some pretty creative methods and definitions.

Actual studies of "the poor" have found their intake of the necessary nutrients to be no less than that of others. In fact, obesity is slightly more prevalent among low-income people.

The real triumph of words over reality, however, is in expensive government programs for "the elderly," including Medicare. The image often invoked is the person who is both ill and elderly, and who has to choose between food and medications.

It is great political theater. But, the most fundamental reality is that the average wealth of the elderly is some multiple of the average wealth owned by people in the other age brackets.

Why should the average taxpayer be subsidizing people who have much more wealth than they do?

If we are concerned about those particular elderly people who are in fact poor — as we are about other people who are genuinely poor, whatever their age might be — then we can simply confine our help to those who are poor by some reasonable means test. It would cost a fraction of what it costs to subsidize everybody who reaches a certain age.

But the political left hates means tests. If government programs were confined to people who were genuinely poor in some meaningful sense, that would shrink the welfare state to a fraction of its current size. The left would lose their human shields.

Over at the National Center for Policy Analysis, John Goodman quotes the same Heritage Foundation report, then responds to a liberal criticism of the report.

More than 30 million Americans are living in "poverty," according to the U.S. Census Bureau. That’s one out of every seven people. But what does it really mean to be "poor" in America? …

To most Americans, the word "poverty" implies significant material deprivation, including inadequate food, clothing and shelter. The actual living conditions of America's poor are very different, however. …

The home of the average poor family was in good repair and not overcrowded. In fact, the typical poor American had more living space than the average (non-poor) European, the Heritage scholars note. The poor family was able to obtain medical care when needed. When asked, most poor families stated they had had sufficient funds during the past year to meet all essential needs.

Does that mean it’s game, set, match. Case closed? Well not quite. Liberal blogger Matt Yglesias says the Heritage report leaves out three things: housing, education and health care. …

But what do these three sectors have in common that’s missing from the market for television sets and video games? Government.

… Don’t blame it on capitalism.

If Nations were Lawyers, Germany Would Advertise on the Side of a Bus

On Libya:

Germany Just Wants To Help
To help itself to a piece of Libya’s reconstruction pie, that is.

The funny thing is that most European anti-semitism is inaccurately founded on accusations of mercantilist parasitism that German society actually practices, and actually calls "pacifism".

And they will get it, too. They always do, although they may have to squirm and grovel around for a bit first. Damn. If this were the US we were talking about here I’d have to say that they are only in it for the oil.

Things Which May not be said "for the Good of the Man".... Sound Familiar?

Gore explained that in order for climate change alarmists to succeed, they must “win the conversation” against those who deny there is a crisis.

Al Gore has reduced himself to the social tactics of fascism.

So to please him, some may not utter specific opinions, or otherwise be sanctioned for saying them. That's okay by Al. Those are the tactics of totalitarians.

In one respect, he's gotten it right... about apocalypse peddlers who confuse political fealty with propriety. Scientific investigation must be banned from his little world to uphold his absolutism:

“This is an organized effort to attack the reputation of the scientific community as a whole, to attack their integrity, and to slander them with the lie that they are making up the science in order to make money,” Gore said.

Planking for Ché

Here it is reaching its’ natural conclusion as he would have had it.

Good for society: Child labor, ticket scalping, price gouging, kidney selling, blackmail

We grow up learning that some things are just bad

writes John Stossel:

child labor, ticket scalping, price gouging, kidney selling, blackmail, etc. But maybe they're not.

What I love about economics is that it can show that what seems harmful is actually good for society. It illuminates what common sense overlooks.

This is all covered in the eye-opening book Defending the Undefendable by economist Walter Block. …

Nasty, Brutish, and Short

So where is this armpit of the European Union, this cancer of the continent?

Stop that! I know what you’re thinking!

Greece? The Balkans? Not exactly. Behold the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, population 503,000, a tiny freckle on the map between Belgium, France, and Germany.

Actually, I would call it a pollup. It’s one of those highly unusual places where, if you weren’t told were you were dropped in, you would have some sense you’re in northern Europe, but would be unable to establish where.

Luxembourg boasts the world's highest per capita GDP, $108,832 in 2010. But something must be wrong.

Much as no-one seems to make the strange and politically specious “affluenza” argument anymore, one wonders what they’re measuring:

The miserable Luxembourgers – who rate lower than all but one other European country on the Happy Planet Index (they're tied with war-torn Sudan!) – buy more cigarettes and alcohol and have a higher per capita carbon footprint than any other country.

Why can’t they practice self-immolation like the REAL believers in a desperate cause?

The feminist goal was never equal pay for equal work but always was for more pay for less work

The feminists are so accustomed to having their gender doctrines prevail in the courts, in the bureaucracy, in the media and in academia

writes Phyllis Schlafly,

that they can't deal with being told the truth, i.e., that their notions don't make sense and are unfair to others, especially employers, husbands and fathers. …

[The 64-page decision in a workplace class-action suit brought by the feminists' friends in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission] is another example of the fact that the feminist goal was never equal pay for equal work but always was for more pay for less work.

… Mirabile dictu! The judge really shocked the feminists since they usually win when they assert fault against the so-called patriarchy without any evidence or fear of prosecution for perjury.

The trouble with many younger women is that they've been falsely taught by feminism to plan their life career in the workplace without any space or time for marriage, husband or children. They have a total lack of understanding of how demanding a new baby is, and also of the way their own attitudes can change in regard to how they really want to spend their time after a baby arrives.

When Mother Nature asserts herself and babies appear, the women who have been misled by feminist ideology expect their employers and, indeed, the rest of the world, to accommodate their change of schedule. The feminists expect their employer to assume the costs of the priorities and the interruptions that once were easily absorbed in the traditional lifestyle of husband-provider and fulltime homemaker.

However, as Judge Preska wrote, "the law does not mandate 'work-life balance.'"

… How to balance work and family is the number-one topic in women's magazines today. Article after article tries to present a plan for balance between baby and job, plus advice to help the mother feel not guilty when baby gets the short end of the stick.

However, the articles sound hypocritical because for years the feminist movement has carried on a strenuous campaign to move all homemakers out of the home ("a comfortable concentration camp," in Betty Friedan's words), and into the workplace on the argument that caring for babies is not a worthy occupation for an educated woman. Feminists have even propagated the myth that expecting mothers to care for their own babies is an example of the oppression of women by the patriarchy.

Update: A person who used to work for a California law firm shares his experience in this matter:

Years (and years, and years) ago I was an associate in a big law firm in LA. Now, the way law firm finances work (this depends on the firm, and things are a lot more diverse now, but...), an associate has an associated cost: salary, benefits, of course, but also overhead, a secretary, office space, computer, phone, etc. Typically, an associate's collections (money collected from clients based on work the associate performed) are viewed as 1/3 salary, 1/3 overhead, 1/3 partner profit (meaning the associate is expected to bill and collect enough to cover those costs, though partner profit is not really a cost, it is an expectation). If you aren't working, you are not collecting, and you become a serious cost center.

During one two-year period, I had two children (admittedly, the wife did most of "bearing" work). During the same two-year period, one of my direct peers also had two children. She did the bearing work, in that case. Thus, during that two-year period, she was able to take 6 months off (four with full pay, and of course she kept her benefits, her office lay empty, her secretary still kept a job, etc. the entire six months), three months for each child. I, on the other hand, took 2.5 days off (it helped that one kid was born on a Friday, but that was the second kid so I probably would have been in the next day anyway).

Yet when we came up for partner or for bonuses or whatever, we were both to be treated equally.

Despite what you hear from the media and the Democrat party, the poor are getting richer

Despite what you hear from the media and the Democrat party, the poor are getting richer. In fact, America's poor are so rich, we should be celebrating it. Bill Whittle has the facts to back it up [merci à Carine].

And for more information, check out the excellent research from the Heritage Foundation: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/07/What-is-Poverty

Democrats have been running our inner-cities for the past 30 to 40 years, and blacks are still complaining about the same problems. More than $7 trillion dollars have been spent on poverty programs since Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty​ with little, if any, impact on poverty. Diabolically, every election cycle, Democrats blame Republicans for the deplorable conditions in the inner-cities, then incite blacks to cast a protest vote against Republicans
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16500
Since 1964 we have spent $8--10 trillion on antipoverty programs.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16860

Update — Thomas Sowell: "The poor" are the human shields behind whom advocates of ever bigger spending for ever bigger government advance toward their goal

Waaah! We’re Oppressed!

Only in firmament of the needy EUtopian leftist mind would somebody compare a 14 day suspended prison sentence as being “treated like a terrorist”.

Greenpeace Copenhagen Gatecrashers Convicted – Fret They Are Being Persecuted

Great! Take Them Back With You!

NASA has expended some of its’ waning brain power speculating on the political affiliation of aliens, or at least a rosy sci-fi imagining of who they might be.

Of course, the fact that this is also the chosen political affiliation of people who are prone to be hostile to religious faith seems entirely lost on them when said energy is expended contemplating something as spiritually relevant as “ abduction by small greys”.

It’s sad. Their leftism is showing.

"Nowhere Can Real Checks and Balances Be Found": How France Is Seen By Foreign Correspondents 3/3

" Les médias français, notamment audiovisuels, ont une attitude de respect énorme par rapport au pouvoir en place ", relève … Paulo Dentinho [correspondant de la Radio-Télévision portugaise]. " J'ai l'impression que Paris est un centre très spécial où les élites politiques, économiques et les médias se rencontrent dans un cercle fermé. Peut-être cette proximité est-elle trop grande ", note Michael Strempel [de la télévision allemande ARD].

Apart from Nicolas Sarkozy and, to a lesser degree, the Le Pen politicians, foreigners have little interest in French persons and subjects, writes Jean-Baptiste de Montvalon in the final part of a Le Monde series on how France is seen by foreign correspondents based in Paris.

Dans la majorité, tout converge vers Nicolas Sarkozy : affaire de style, mais aussi de système institutionnel. Côté style, la recette qui a fonctionné ici a connu ailleurs le même succès. " Les deux premières années de son mandat ont été formidables pour l'image, note l'Italien Alberto Romagnoli (RAI). Du vrai théâtre : Sarkozy divorce, Sarkozy parle avec des ouvriers, Sarkozy épouse une Italienne... " " Sarkozy ? Ah oui, ça, c'est un personnage ! s'exclame Pierre Marlet (RTBF). Quand on le met en titre, on est sûr d'être consulté sur Internet. "

Evoquant " une certaine curiosité " par rapport à " quelqu'un qui sort du comportement normal des anciens présidents de la République ", Paulo Dentinho juge que la présence à ses côtés de Carla Bruni, cette " beauté féminine au parcours un peu exotique ", compte désormais pour beaucoup. " Sans elle, il ne serait pas très intéressant pour le public international ", estime-t-il.

But this people-based journalism is not only the doings of irresponsible foreigners interested only in artifice. The lack of interest in other subjects derives naturally from the France's monarchical presidency.

" NULLE PART UN CONTRE-POUVOIR "

Pragmatiques, les correspondants étrangers basés à Paris se sont ainsi adaptés à la présidentialisation du régime, tout en étant plutôt circonspects sur sa nature, qui reste un sujet de curiosité. " Il est intéressant d'observer un tel pouvoir du président, une personnalité qui domine à ce point dans une démocratie ", note Michael Strempel, qui rappelle qu'en Allemagne, " la politique, c'est le compromis éternel ". La comparaison produit chez lui un sentiment ambivalent.

Un ton en dessous de Jim Bittermann, qui estime que le système institutionnel français est " beaucoup plus efficace " qu'aux Etats-Unis, Michael Strempel concède une " relative admiration dans certaines circonstances ", lorsque la France prend des décisions de manière " plus rapide et plus claire " que l'Allemagne. La présidence française de l'Union européenne (du 1er juillet au 31 décembre 2008) est là encore citée en exemple. Pour autant, le correspondant allemand juge " un peu étrange " le " manque de contrôle du pouvoir " dans notre pays. " Personnellement, je trouve que les pouvoirs du président sont exagérés. C'est un peu trop pour une démocratie ", conclut-il.

" On ne trouve nulle part un contre-pouvoir valable ", constate lui aussi Joav Toker, évoquant notamment " la faiblesse du Palais-Bourbon ", siège de l'Assemblée nationale. Pour le correspondant israélien, cette toile de fond pèse sur les médias, qui sont " seuls au front, face à un homme et sa cour ". Résultat, même si des progrès ont été accomplis depuis vingt ans, " la capacité et la volonté critique de la presse française à l'égard du pouvoir restent en retard par rapport à la pratique dans les autres pays démocratiques. " " C'est un problème organique, une question d'ADN ", ajoute Joav Toker.

" Les médias français, notamment audiovisuels, ont une attitude de respect énorme par rapport au pouvoir en place ", relève également Paulo Dentinho. " J'ai l'impression que Paris est un centre très spécial où les élites politiques, économiques et les médias se rencontrent dans un cercle fermé. Peut-être cette proximité est-elle trop grande ", note Michael Strempel.

Jean-Philippe Schaller, de la télévision suisse romande, a observé lui aussi ce " côté connivent " du journalisme politique à la française, ainsi que son corollaire, " le risque d'être plus indulgent ". Il en a fait l'expérience en couvrant un voyage de Nicolas Sarkozy dans l'Orne, en septembre 2009. Alerté par des syndicalistes qu'il avait interrogés pour préparer ce déplacement, il obtient confirmation que les salariés présents sur l'estrade aux côtés du chef de l'Etat ont été sélectionnés en raison de leur petite taille. Diffusé sur la TSR puis sur la RTBF, le sujet fait le tour du Web avant d'être repris par les télévisions françaises.

" Les correspondants étrangers ne subissent pas la même pression, reconnaît Jean-Philippe Schaller. On peut se permettre une certaine insolence, une prise de distance. Ici, on sent que la presse se bride un peu, pratique l'autocensure. Certains journalistes français m'ont dit : "Vous, vous pouvez faire ce qu'on ne peut pas faire." "

Where do I get the Feeling...

That men of a politically minded persuasion will want to get a blowjob in front of this sign.

"Mes compatriotes ont été très choqués; Ils découvrent une France dure, et c'est nouveau pour eux": How France Is Seen by Foreign Correspondents 2/3

Le Brésilien Franz Vacek [correspondant depuis trois ans et demi à Paris de Rede TV, grande chaîne de télévision brésilienne] : " Entre les expulsions de Roms, les trains d'immigrés tunisiens bloqués à la frontière franco-italienne et les campements de Calais, mes compatriotes ont été très choqués. Ils découvrent une France dure, et c'est totalement nouveau pour eux. "

Cette rudesse a aussi surpris les auditeurs allemands : "Chez nous, on aime le compromis. La rapidité d'intervention des autorités françaises contre les Roms a choqué, témoigne Anne-Christine Heckmann [correspondante à Paris pour plusieurs stations de radios publiques regroupées au sein de l'ARD]. Cette image négative est contrebalancée par l'activisme diplomatique de Sarkozy. Les Allemands se disent que tactiquement, c'est bien de prendre des initiatives sur la scène internationale et ils admirent cette stratégie."

In the second article in a series of three of how France is seen abroad, written by Alain Constant and illustrated by Patrick Chappatte, treats foreign viewpoints of France's foreign policy.

Le poids du passé colonial de la France est aussi présent dans les sujets envoyés par l'Américaine Eleanor Beardsley, correspondante à Paris de NPR (National Public Radio). " J'ai fait des sujets sur les pieds-noirs, sur les soldats musulmans qui se sont battus pour la France et ont ensuite été rejetés. Cela intéresse les Américains, qui ont de la France l'image d'un pays très antimusulman. J'ai également beaucoup traité du volontarisme de Sarkozy sur le front libyen. Aux Etats-Unis, les gens sont étonnés de cette réalité car ils gardent en tête l'image d'une France refusant de combattre en Irak et rechignant à faire la guerre. Je rappelle régulièrement dans mes papiers que la France est engagée aux côtés des soldats américains en Afghanistan ", souligne la journaliste qui, entre autres sujets ayant trait à l'action militaire française, est allée sur la base aérienne de Solenzara (Corse-du-Sud) rencontrer des pilotes de combat français.

… La France et les Roms, un sujet qui n'intéresse pas que l'axe Paris-Bucarest : " Les actions de la police française contre les Roms ont fait beaucoup de bruit au Mexique. Lors d'un sujet, j'ai interviewé des Roms qui m'ont dit avec un certain humour : Sarko nous déteste parce qu'il est hongrois ! ", raconte Kasia Wyderko. Même intérêt chez les Chiliens, si l'on en croit le témoignage de Paola Martinez Infante, correspondante de la radio indépendante Bio Bio : " Mes compatriotes ont été très étonnés d'apprendre comment la France traitait les Roms. Le décalage entre l'image du pays des droits de l'homme et les expulsions a choqué. Mais le Chili, où vivent beaucoup de "gitanos", n'est pas épargné par le racisme. Là-bas, ce sont les Boliviens et les Péruviens qui en sont victimes."

Where’s my Insane-O-Meter?

Firmly planted in this donkey’s sphincter:

A state lawmaker is explaining his remark that suggests the impact of Pennsylvania's booming natural gas industry includes the spread of sexually transmitted disease "amongst the womenfolk."

Democratic Rep. Michael Sturla of Lancaster County was expected to discuss the remark at a previously scheduled hearing Wednesday on gas drilling.

To wit, the CYA was unleashed on the gift that keeps on giving:

However, Sturla was apparently citing testimony by Troy Community Hospital from May that says among its experiences with the influx of drilling crews is an increase in sexually transmitted diseases.

”Drilling crews” Huh. Huh-huh.

Right. That makes about as much sense as attributing it to something like this:

The Latino population in Lancaster County has grown by 68 percent in the last 10 years, the fifth-largest gain in Latinos statewide.

In the city of Lancaster, nearly two out of every five city residents identify their ethnicity to Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba and other Latin American countries.

By Sturla’s “concurrence” reasoning, one could even blame the “womenfolk’s” contagious affliction on virtually anything.

Cliché-opolis

Guides try their best to recreate the odd world behind the Wall. "Safari" guests are subjected to traffic checks by men dressed as officers of the former East German police force. A now they are also forced to exchange their euros for East German marks, which they can spend on such classic Socialist fare such as "Solyanka," a Russian soup, or an Eastern European version of ragoût fin.

But are businesses like this trivializing East German history?

No, they are trivializing East Germans, and trivializing their accomplishments. Worst still, the Soljanka he’s talking about is hard to find and awful. Newsflash, Wessie exploiter: ketchup is not Tomatenmark.

That aside, Frank Hornig’s article in Spiegel’s online English edition has provoked me to think about the eternal vacuity that seems to accompany the Art School black “fake seriousness” in Berliners’ discussion of Berlin’s history.

Thus the Wall, which the East Germans had officially dubbed an anti-fascist protective barrier, finally became a wall in people's minds, an imaginary place that various players from the federal and state governments now seek to occupy. Some prefer to emphasize the victory of freedom and the market economy, while others would rather draw attention to the policy of détente and the East German civil rights movement.

With all of their usual self-absorption and “unseriousness”, how could a trivialized history of the Berlin wall become that “wall in the mind?”

The context he’s now using the stale term seems to be limited to the mind merely capturing images of it, if not a few memories of it.

At least he isn’t pretending to play pop psychologist, as one would find almost universal to the usual dragging out of the “wall of the mind” phrase.

It’s Never Blood for Oil when EUvians do it, Silly!

EU oil companies get set to return to Libya This includes a curious redefinition of the word “goodwill”:

EU oil firms are preparing to return to Libya amid good will generated by Nato support. The military alliance has also carried out "prudent planning" for a potential peacekeeping mission.

ONE hit. Yes, only ONE, and it’s also lampooning
the “No Blood for OOOOOOOil!!!!” crowd.

"150,000 Americans less! Excellent!": Le Monde Remembers 9/11

"Tu regardes la télé ?
— Euh, non.
— Tu devrais."

In another summer series, Le Monde has asked for remembrances from a dozen people, from writers André Aciman (translated by Myriam Dennehy) and Jorge G. Castañeda (whose main regret is not the thousands of dead but "La panique sécuritaire, l'hyperbole militariste et le climat d'hystérie qui s'empareraient inévitablement des Etats-Unis [et qui] auraient des conséquences désastreuses pour le monde entier" — also translated by Myriam Dennehy), to photographer Susan Meiselas, viaTom Roger, whose daughter Jean, 24, was a flight attendant on the first plane to smash into the North Tower.

"There is a huge smoke on your left" ("Il y a une immense fumée sur votre gauche"). Je suis alors sorti de ma demi-somnolence, j'ai regardé par le hublot et, effectivement, j'ai vu un gros nuage gris-blanc au-dessus de Manhattan.

Juste après, l'avion s'est cabré, avant d'accélérer comme jamais un avion de ligne ne le fait d'habitude. Puis nous avons atterri à l'aéroport Logan de Boston, d'où nous avons été éjectés dans la précipitation la plus totale. (Pierre Moscovici)

But mostly, there are Frenchmen: Patrice Jarreau, who had recently become Le Monde's America correspondent; Radio France's Jean-Luc Hees (who says he was brought out of the mourning for 9-11 by the election of Barack Obama); Jean-David Lafitte, who was serving as France's ambassador to the United States; Pierre Moscovici, who was on a plane close to Manhattan; Denis Kessler, an insurer who was in Monte Carlo (Une journaliste me tend un micro en me demandant : "De combien les primes d'assurance automobile et habitation vont-elles augmenter en France, à la suite de ces attentats ?"); the actor François-Xavier Demaison; and of course Jules Naudet, who was filming a documentary on New York's firefighters with his brother Gédéon and whose footage became some of the most vivid documents of the era.

But the most repelling memories come from the writer Charles Dantzig:

As I was leaving my home, shortly before 6 pm [Paris time], I overheard two shopkeepers talking on their doorstep, "Attacks in New York ... tens of thousands of deaths ..."

What was amazing was the immediate insolence of the fanaticism. We saw images of East Jerusalem and Nablus where crowds were shouting for joy. The report was quickly removed, to avoid giving ideas to ticklish Islamists, or to otherwise avoid giving in to their sensitivities, some people having the right to call for the annihilation of others while decrying the persecution if they are asked not to put their elbows on the table. A great stupidity was spoken by the composer Karlheinz Stockhausen when he called the attacks "the greatest work of art ever created." A German should use his brains more before mixing aesthetics with destruction (Stockhausen later denied speaking the words).

La Revue des deux mondes offered a cocktail of reactions. A far-right journalist who fantasizes he is of the left because he opposes the "plutocracy" etc, was crossing the boulevard Saint-Germain: "150,000 Americans less! What excellent news!" At the Revue, rue de Lille, where cocktails had been canceled out of decency, a left-wing sociologist sputtered: "When Hanoi was being bombed, we didn't pause!" In times of crisis, evil speaks faster than good does. The good and the decent are dumbfounded. They have nothing to do but feel sorry. Evil, hitherto sleepy, goes on the attack without a warm-up period. The swiftness of evil as soon as it feels a weakness is incredible.

Interpretative stupidity arrives next. In the aftermath of malicious joy, conspiracy theories and other certainties allows one to believe oneself to be both intelligent and swindled, this second reaction being the delicious fantasy-filled proof of the first one.

Comme je sortais de chez moi, peu avant 18 heures, deux commerçants parlaient sur le pas de leur porte : "Des attentats à New York... des dizaines de milliers de morts..."

…Le stupéfiant a été l'immédiate insolence du fanatisme. On montrait des images de Jérusalem-Est et de Naplouse où des foules hurlaient de joie. Le reportage a vite été supprimé, pour éviter de donner des idées aux islamistes chatouilleux, ou au contraire céder à leur susceptibilité, certains ayant le droit d'appeler à l'anéantissement d'autrui tout en criant à la persécution si on les prie de ne pas mettre les coudes sur la table. Une belle sottise a été dite par le musicien Karlheinz Stockhausen qualifiant les attentats de "plus grande oeuvre d'art jamais réalisée". Un Allemand devrait réfléchir avant de faire de l'esthétisme avec la destruction — Stockhausen a ensuite nié l'avoir dit.

La Revue des deux mondes donnait un cocktail de rentrée. Un journaliste d'extrême droite qui se fantasme de gauche parce qu'il est contre la "ploutocratie", etc., passait sur le boulevard Saint-Germain : "150 000 Américains de moins ! Excellent !" A la revue, rue de Lille, où le verre avait été annulé, par décence, un sociologue d'extrême gauche tempêtait : "Quand on bombardait Hanoï, on n'arrêtait rien !" Dans les moments de crise, le mal parle plus vite que le bien. Le bien et le décent sont sidérés. Ils n'ont rien à faire que s'apitoyer. Le mal, jusque-là somnolent, passe à l'attaque sans progression. La prestesse du mal dès qu'il sent une faiblesse est inouïe.

La sottise interprétative arrive en second. Après la joie mauvaise, les théories du complot et autres certitudes permettant de se croire intelligent et floué, ce second est la preuve fantasmatiquement délicieuse du premier.

"Paris fait toujours rêver": How France Is Seen by Foreign Correspondents 1/3

« C'est vrai, nous envoyons des cartes postales, soupire Alberto Romagnoli, de la RAI. Avec la baguette de pain ou Carla Bruni, pas besoin de rappeler le contexte. »

Martine Valo has a piece in Le Monde (illustrated by Mix & Remix), which starts a mini-series of three articles about how France is seen by foreign correspondents based in Paris.

David Picazo annonce, réjoui, son projet du moment : une traversée touristique de la capitale pour les dix ans du film Amélie Poulain. En Espagne, ça va plaire. …

« La cuisine, la mode, le tourisme marchent toujours auprès des Américains. J'ai eu pas mal de retour sur les truffes, les huîtres, le Tour de France », témoigne pour sa part Eleanor Beardley de la NPR (National Public Radio). « En Allemagne, Paris fait toujours rêver, assure Anne-Christine Heckmann, de l'ARD (la radio publique allemande). J'envoie beaucoup de sujets sur l'art de vivre, la culture, les vacances. Je pourrais en vendre un par jour sur les fromages, les endroits insolites à Paris. » L'exotisme étant une donnée relative, vu du Brésil, du Mexique ou du Chili, le Vélib' — une véritable vedette — et Paris Plages le disputent désormais au champagne. Le strip-tease reste une valeur sûre. Quant aux Bleus et à leur « bus de la honte », comme dit Kasia Wyderko, de Televisa Mexico, ils ont fait un carton universel lors de la dernière Coupe du monde de football en Afrique du Sud. …

TÉNOR ITALIEN ET ACADÉMICIEN BELGE

Seidik Abba suit l'agenda du Quai d'Orsay. Mais, curieusement, lorsqu'au ministère de l'intérieur on parle de l'immigration subsaharienne, on oublie de l'inviter. Cela ne risque pas d'arriver avec les chefs d'Etat africains en déplacement. Le travail de tout correspondant est en effet rythmé par la venue de ses compatriotes célèbres : joueur de tennis espagnol, ténor italien, écrivain belge qui entre à l'Académie française, entrepreneurs de poids et pléthore de personnages poli-tiques qui aiment se mirer aux JT du soir, filmés dans quelque prestigieux décor parisien.

… Quant à Dominique Strauss-Kahn, il a donné lieu à d'innombrables interventions, a fait la « une » pendant trois semaines des JT belges, un sujet magazine d'une heure à la télévision espagnole... « En Italie, cette histoire a beaucoup plu. L'argent, le pouvoir, le sexe, l'Amérique, il y avait tout », glisse Alberto Romagnoli.

…Au bout de quatre ou cinq ans, un correspondant est prié d'aller voir ailleurs, souligne David Picazo, sinon il risque d'adopter la vision des autochtones.

Sarkozy Attacked for 'Sacrilegious' Plan to Build Over 100 Wind Turbines Off Normandy's D-Day Beaches

Nicolas Sarkozy has come in for heavy criticism after approving plans for a large wind farm complex off the D-Day coast where Allied troops launched their World War Two assault in 1944

reports the Daily Mail (merci à Carine à New York).

The French President was accused of a 'grave attack on the collective memory' of Allied forces after giving the go-ahead for the plans on the Calvados coast near the Normandy landing beaches.

The proposed project will see more than 100 turbines more than 525ft high erected just seven miles from the beaches, synonymous with the D-Day landings.

Mr Sarkozy's decision to open the bidding process on the €20 billion (£17.5 billion) project has been branded 'sacrilegious' by critics, including British veterans' families.

Blight: How the view from the beachhead at Normandy might look if the plan for an offshore wind farm goes ahead

It was claimed the windmills' flashing lights would ruin poignant night remembrances on Juno and Omaha beaches by giving off a 'disco' effect.

Juno was the target of 3rd Canadian Infantry Division supported by British Royal Marine Commandos.

It is less than 20 miles from the coastline codenamed Omaha Beach in 1944, where U.S. forces suffered more than 2,000 casualties during the operation.

1886 Liberal-Type Judgment Moderated by Common Sense

It is a bad thing to judge by appearances

wrote Inspector Thomas F Byrnes in his 1886 book Professional Criminals of America,

but it it not always safe to judge against them.

Plantu's Fetish...

...Appears to be doing fat chicks:



"Carla" figure: ..."Who is this woman?"
Sarko: "I'm doing her for Europe!"

Politeness Compared in Countries Around the World

In one of innumerable summer series, short and long, to keep readers interested in the daily during the July and August months, Le Monde presents a series on politeness around the world, from Thailand, Japan, and South Korea to Israel, Russia, and Italy via Columbia, California, and the East Coast. (The Alain Salles article about Greece is perhaps the most interesting, in view of Athens' recent economic meltdown and the country's debt…)

Syria's European Flunkies

Come from the "humanist, intellectual left" like this flunky, a former East German VoPo "criminal investigator" (and Honecker's answer to The Karate Kid) who was loved by the chillingly misnamed "VoltaireNet." Let's revisit the Baghdad Bob-esque Jürgen Cain Külbel when the Syrian regime he was covering for is making its' perfectly normal behavior known more broadly to the world. Don't mind their hysterical tone. That's normal for them to see the world as one big potential beer hall putsch, that is, when they imagine Voltaire would be shilling for autocrats and advocating mandatory mindfucks for any real free-thinkers who might slip out of their grasp on their way to adulthood.

Got Issues? Need to Induce Vomiting?

Then here are some poorly drafted vaguely homoerotic paintings of Obama Naked with Unicorns, not to mention saving ugly Betty's self-respect from that cruel, vane world out there. Note how he's walking his fantasy steed on the Canadian side of the border.

Hated it!

Asked Whether He Might Think of Himself as American or as Partly American, George Soros Answers Proudly and Defiantly: "I Am European!"

Vous êtes né à Budapest mais vivez aux Etats-Unis. Vous sentez-vous européen ?

Je suis européen !

In an exclusive interview with Cécile de Corbière and Claire Gatinois, George Soros admits — or he doesn't admit, he states proudly, he states defiantly — that although the Budapest-born Hungarian has lived for years, for decades, in the United States — he has been in America for over half a century (!) and is a naturalized citizen — his identity is fully and exclusively European.

Insofar that George Soros has any love for America, therefore, it seems like it is only, like Barack Obama's, to transform it "fundamentally" into a European-style welfare state.

Otherwise, the main focus of the interview is the weak state of the Euro, and the fact that this puts the EU in danger, along with George Soros's dissing of the Germans for their demanding balanced budgets from all member states of the EU and his dissing of the ("simple-solution"-demanding) American people for opposing more state "stimuli" and other types of intervention.

Faut-il autoriser des pays à sortir de la zone euro ?

Oui. L'euro peut survivre à la sortie de pays comme la Grèce ou le Portugal, de taille modeste. Mais l'Union éclaterait si c'était le cas de l'Italie ou de l'Espagne. Il faut donc distinguer les petits pays des grands. Mais même si un petit pays comme la Grèce abandonnait l'euro, cela provoquerait un chaos, l'effondrement de son système bancaire. Autoriser un pays à quitter la zone euro réclame donc une préparation minutieuse. Il faut s'assurer que les prêteurs ne sont pas spoliés, garantir les dépôts des épargnants et faire en sorte que les banques restent debout. Tout cela doit être écrit noir sur blanc.

… Si vous ne pouvez augmenter le déficit, alors vous êtes piégés.

Que faire ?

En Grèce comme en Espagne, il faut mettre en place des réformes structurelles ; rendre plus flexible le marché du travail et gagner en compétitivité. Mais la demande intérieure doit aussi être stimulée. Il faut établir des règles qui autorisent les pays dont le chômage est élevé à rester déficitaire. Le problème est que l'Allemagne a des idées fausses à ce sujet. Elle aimerait que tous les pays aient des budgets à l'équilibre.

Les Etats-Unis aussi ont un problème de dette et de croissance…

Le problème est d'ordre politique. Il faut mettre en place des stimuli pour accroître la productivité et redémarrer la machine. Mais les pressions politiques contre une hausse des dépenses publiques empêchent ce type de mesures. Dès lors la Réserve fédérale américaine (Fed) peut être le recours. La banque centrale peut déployer un nouveau "QE3", pour injecter plus d'argent dans le système. Cela ferait baisser le coût du crédit, encouragerait les investissements et la consommation. Mais c'est moins efficace. L'argent pourrait rester dans les banques ou se nicher hors des Etats-Unis. Finalement, le blocage est politique comme en Europe. C'est plus grave.

Que voulez-vous dire ?

Les problèmes sont complexes mais les gens veulent des réponses simples. Cela conduit certains à être frustrés et à adopter des positions antieuropéennes comme en Finlande ou en Allemagne où certains se disent opposés aux transferts financiers. Nous devons être unis. Nous n'avons pas le choix.

Chronicles of Helplessness

Europe on Iraq, 2003: there are alternatives to war
Europe on Syria, 2011: we have no alternatives at all

Despite Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's increasing violence against his people there is no chance of the West launching a military intervention against his regime, writes the liberal business paper De Tijd: "Unlike Libya Syria is in the middle of the most explosive region in the world. And while Colonel Gaddafi was pretty isolated even within his own region the Assad clan has been very successful in the past decade in playing off powerful neighbours like Israel, Turkey, Iran and Iraq against each other. In the case of Syria underlining the condemnations with military action like in Libya is not an option. Assad's regime can still count on sufficient support from the regional superpower Iran.

And what exactly is Europe's "nuclear option"?

"We are [also] advocating for the UN Security Council to address the Syria issue again this week,"

Good luck with that, great compassionate minds of Mitteleuropa.

The 21st-century plantation where the Democrat Party has forever taken the black vote for granted

Fox News:

Republican Rep. Allen West, describing himself as a "modern-day Harriet Tubman," said Wednesday he wants to lead black voters on an underground railroad away from the Democratic Party.

The Florida congressman … the only Republican member of the [Congressional Black Caucus], told Fox News the Democratic Party as a whole has let black voters down.

"You have this 21st-century plantation that has been out there. Where the Democrat Party has forever taken the black vote for granted and you have established certain black leaders who are nothing more than the overseers of that plantation. And now the people on that plantation are upset because they've been disregarded, disrespected and their concerns are not cared about," West said.

"So I'm here as the modern-day Harriet Tubman to kind of lead people on the underground railroad away from that plantation into a sense of sensibility."

Applying European Sensibilities to Europeans

In an effort to improve interspecies relations, I thought that it would make an interesting experiment to apply the perfectly normal sentiment thrown around by Europeans when it comes to the rest of the world onto Europeans themselves. As such, let’s look at a sign which formerly graced Spiegel Online’s website for nearly three years which depicted a expectation that they had for the stock exchange transported to the ethical Olympus of the Frankfurt Börse on a day where the EURO STOXX 50 lost around 5%, and SocGen and Barkleys Bank are being soundly dumped and taking Opa’s savings with it:

Might as well jump. Go ahead and jump.

Welfare state spending is a major cause of our debt, and it is also morally costly because it chases fathers out of homes

This extraordinary change [the fact that having children has become increasingly detached from marriage] is the primary reason that government budgets, both federal and state, are so bloated

writes Phyllis Schlafly as the author of Feminist Fantasies comments on a report showing how illegitimate births for all Americans have risen from 26 percent in 1990 to 41 percent today "and could be headed higher."

Without fathers to provide for these millions of children, their mothers turn to "big brother government."

The economist Robert J. Samuelson recently concluded that, "the welfare state is winning the budget war." The bipartisan budget deal, which slashed our military budget but kept welfare-state handouts mostly off limits, turned out to be "a triumph of the welfare state over the Pentagon."

…Now, half of Americans depend, in whole or in part, on government handouts for their living expenses, paid by the other half who pay income taxes.

…In Ronald Reagan's famous caveat, when you subsidize something you get more of it. So the subsidies to women who have no husbands in the house, have promoted more and more children growing up without fathers.

…We can now see clearly that giving cash and benefits to single moms, beginning with Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty, destroyed families by making fathers unnecessary and created a barrier to the women receiving free money.

This common-sense analysis was confirmed by British commentator Melanie Phillips, who described the current London riots as the result of "the promotion of lone parenthood;" "the willed removal" of fathers from the family unit by the welfare state; and the "ultra-feminist wreckers" of the traditional family with a male breadwinner. She calls for removing "the incentives to girls and women to have babies outside marriage" and for dismantling "the concept of entitlement" from the welfare state.

…Welfare state spending is a major cause of our debt, and it is also morally costly because it chases fathers out of homes. The Heritage Foundation's figures don't even count the social and fiscal costs of drugs, sex, suicide, school dropouts, runaways and crime that come mostly from female-headed households.

Also, welfare spending is a failure; it doesn't advance us toward any constructive goal, such as helping recipients get on their feet economically. It merely increases dependence on government handouts and votes for leftwing politicians.

The Obama strategists know their political bread is buttered on the side of creating more and more women dependent on government.