Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, said famed 18th century British lexicographer Samuel Johnson. To update the quote for our current era you might substitute children for patriotism and climate alarmist for scoundrel.
Last week, outgoing United Nations World Food Program chief James Morris reminded us that 18,000 children die every day from hunger and malnutrition. Morris called the situation a terrible indictment of the world in 2007.
In contrast to our quixotic fixation with trying to fine-tune global climate by tweaking atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, the ongoing tragedy of starving children would seem to be a relatively easy problem to solve. After all, wealthy developed nations have plenty of surplus food and the wherewithal to deliver it to the worlds malnourished.
While the long-term solution for the starving children, of course, is the sort of economic development and political reform that would enable poverty stricken regions to develop self-sustaining economies, the short-term solution requires immediate direct aid from developed nations. And so it would seem that if the developed worlds opinion leaders and policymakers truly cared about the children as much as they publicly claim, food aid would already be flying to the worlds starving.
But its not. The only things flying around, in fact, are ubiquitous professions of alleged concern for children.
Steve Milloy, a Junk Science debunker, proceeds to go after everyone who advocates climage change "reform" while claiming it's "for the children". RTWT. Truly a thing of beauty.
#1
The only things flying around, in fact, are ubiquitous professions of alleged concern for children.
Not quite. There's also a lot of private jets flying around, bearing a lot of celebrity climate change evangelicals (e.g., AlGore) to various conferences and speeches where they admonish the rest of us to reduce our "carbon footprint."
Posted by: Mike ||
02/23/2007 15:20 Comments ||
Top||
Its a testament to the relative political stability Italy enjoyed under the five-year premiership of Silvio Berlusconi that the fall of an Italian government makes the news. When I was a lad, you had to rake the things off the yard. But Romano Prodis resignation this week gave the European press a certain retro flavor . . . and it gave the Democrats a good lesson in how not to govern.
The best thing about Leftists everywhere is that when they win power, they suddenly find themselves in a rope glut. The stuff is everywhere. Wow, look at all this rope! they say. Then they either hang their opponents, which is what we call the Chavez-Mugabe option, or they hang themselves, as they did in Rome a few days ago. Faced with the prospect of funding Italian army units participating in the NATO mission in Afghanistan, a couple of Murtha-like legislators in Prodis governing coalition, emboldened by anti-American demonstrations following a decision to expand the American military base in Vicenza, said they wanted the troops out now and in doing so brought down the government and reduced their own power to nil. . . .
As the Guardianseditorial suggests, the satisfaction of voting against anything thats pro-American is irresistible these days in Europe, where often the only way of attracting votes to candidates without plausible platforms is to exploit the continents rising tide of anti-Americanism. As a rule, most people dont pay much attention to what their morning paper thinks, but when nearly every newspaper, TV station, radio broadcaster echoes the same anti-American line, eventually, anti-Americanism becomes a kind of small worldview. In America itself, liberals will try to convince themselves that anti-Americanism is based on a dislike of Bush, but in reality, its a consistent and very long-running hatred that is essential to the self-understanding of European elites, as many have pointed out, including Roger Philippe in his French bestseller The American Enemy.
The thing is, European anti-Americanism looks and sounds exactly like the Democrats in the U.S. Congress. The entire continent, from the Ural Mountains to the North Sea islands, is as blue as Pelosis congressional district. At least superficially, theres no difference between the anti-American positions taken by most European leftists and the anti-Bush positions taken by almost all Democrats. They both want to force the US to engage with Iran and Syria and to get out of Iraq, no matter the consequences, and they both see nothing but quagmire ahead in Afghanistan. To both, an American retreat (or redeployment, to use the now favored euphemism) is seen as preferable to an American victory.
For years the Europeans have approached foreign policy the same way Clinton did with pious anxiety and demands for what Madeleine Albright used to call time outs. The so-called European initiative that was supposed to have engaged Iran and dissuaded the mullahs from building bombs was exactly as effective as the Democrats were in dealing with North Korea and the growing threat of terrorism. The only question now is whether the Democrats in the Congress will do as leftists do in Rome and vote themselves into irrelevancy.
- Denis Boyles is author of Vile France: Fear, Duplicity, Cowardice and Cheese.
Posted by: Mike ||
02/23/2007 12:43 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11125 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Well, the democrats are anti-american anyway, so the resemblance is more than passing.
#2
It has been pointed out that western philosphies tend toward combinations of two sets of polar opposites: idealism and realism; and optimism and pessimism.
In the US, the red States are traditionally realistic and optimistic; the blue States idealistic and pessimistic. Europe, on the other hand is realistic and pessimistic.
This means that Europe tends to reflect the cynicism and defeatism of the blue States, and is repelled by the idea that life could become better, in any way.
But unlike the starry eyed idealists of the blue States, the Europeans are cynical about any great new, pie in the sky idea.
This dislike the optimism of republican presidents, but disdain the naivete of the democrats.
The United States has fought many wars since 1941, but never again declared one. Abroad, no one declares war anymore either, perhaps because it has the anachronistic feel of an aristocratic challenge. Whatever the reason, today Congress doesn't declare war; it authorizes the use of force.
In October 2002, both houses of Congress did exactly that with open eyes and large majorities. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a Democratic member of the Senate Intelligence Committee who had access to all the relevant information at the time, said, I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks and we should not minimize the risks we must authorize the president to take the necessary steps to deal with that threat.
Now, more than four years later, the Democrats want out of the resulting war. Most, such as Rep. John Murtha, want to do so for a simple reason: They think the war is lost. If you believe that, then getting out is the most reasonable and honorable and patriotic policy.
Congress has the power to do that by cutting off the funds. But Democrats will not, because it is politically dangerous. Instead, they are seeking other ways, clever ways. The House is pursuing a method, developed by Murtha and deemed ingenious by antiwar activist Tom Andrews of Win Without War, to impose a conditional cutoff of funds, ostensibly in the name of protecting the troops. Unless the troops are given the precise equipment, training and amount of rest Murtha stipulates no funds.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, Murtha is not disingenuous enough to have concealed the real motives for these ostensibly pro-readiness, pro-troops conditions. He has chosen conditions he knows are impossible to meet We have analyzed this and we have come to the conclusion that it cant be done'' in order to make the continued prosecution of the war very difficult, if not impossible, for the commanders in the field.
But think of what that entails. It leaves the existing 130,000 troops out there without the reinforcements and tactical flexibility that the commander, Gen. David H. Petraeus, says he needs to win.
Of course, the Democrats believe that the war cannot be won. But if thats the case, they should order a withdrawal by cutting off the funds. They shouldnt micromanage the war in a way that will make winning impossible. That not only endangers the troops remaining in the field, it makes the Democrats the-war-is-lost mantra a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Murthas ruse is so transparent that even Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, who opposes the war, will not countenance it: I think that sends the wrong message to our troops.
Levin has a different idea change the original October 2002 authorization. Well be looking at modification of that authorization in order to limit the mission of American troops to a support mission instead of a combat mission, says Levin. That is very different from cutting off funds.
While this idea is not as perverse as Murthas, it is totally illogical. There is something exceedingly strange about authorizing the use of force except for combat. That is an oxymoron. Changing the language of authorization means if it means anything that Petraeus will have to surround himself with lawyers who will tell him, every time he wants to deploy a unit, whether he is ordering a legal support mission or an illegal combat mission.
If Levin wants to withdraw our forces from the civil war in the cities to more secure bases from which we can continue training and launching operations against al Qaeda, he should present that to the country as an alternative to (or fallback after) the administration's troop surge. But to force it on our commanders through legalisms is simply to undermine their ability to fight the war occurring on the ground today.
Slowly bleeding our forces by defunding what our commanders think they need to win (the House approach) or rewording the authorization of the use of force so that lawyers decide what operations are to be launched (the Senate approach) is no way to fight a war. It is no way to end a war. It is a way to complicate the war and make it inherently unwinnable and to shirk the political responsibility for doing so.
#1
Slowly bleeding our forces by defunding what our commanders think they need to win (the House approach) or rewording the authorization of the use of force so that lawyers decide what operations are to be launched (the Senate approach) is no way to fight a war. It is no way to end a war. It is a way to complicate the war and make it inherently unwinnable and to shirk the political responsibility for doing so.
This brilliant tactic of slow bleeding troops in harm's way will come back to haunt the democrats
Defund Public Broadcasting? Slow bleed 'em...
Defund the Brady Act? Slow bleed it...
and so on...
Thanks, Jack Murtha. You just signed the death warrent to 1960s style liberalism. We'll slow bleed it...
#2
Our economy is based on oil. Our food is made of oil, brought to our stores in oil-fueled trucks, and we use oil to go to those stores and buy the food, often as not earned from employment in businesses dependent on a reliable and cheap source of oil. The other items used in our daily life are usually shipped to us from far across the sea in container vessels fueled by oil. 9608, do you think Bush (or any US president) really has a choice in the matter? I've got to go & gas up my SUV.
BANGALORE - While the larger aim of the terror attack on the Delhi-Lahore Samjhauta Express last Sunday night might have been to undermine the ongoing India-Pakistan peace process, it was to snap the mass people-to-people contact that the train enabled that could have been the more immediate goal.
Pakistan-based jihadis, who Indian security officials say are the most likely to have carried out the attack in which nearly 70 people died, are said to be alarmed by the "corrupting influence" of Indian popular culture on Pakistani people. By targeting the Samjhauta Express, those who masterminded the attack sent out a chilling message that they are determined to sever the growing links between the people of the two countries.
The Samjhauta Express, which connects Delhi with the Pakistani city of Lahore, was launched 30 years ago. Also called the "Friendship Train", it is often regarded as the barometer of the India-Pakistan relationship. It has been suspended twice - in the mid-1980s at the height of the Sikh separatist movement in the Indian border state of Punjab and in 2002, when India and Pakistan were on the brink of war after an attack by Pakistan-backed terrorists on India's parliament building.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: John Frum ||
02/23/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11124 views]
Top|| File under:
HILARIOUS--well worth a read.
...WHAT STARTED THIS bouncing around in my head was the headline in the Los Angeles Times, last Saturday: "House Takes Stand Against Troop Buildup."
And I thought, "Really? That's what they're taking? A stand? Is that what this is? A principled stand? This . . . non-binding thing, whatever it is?
That's my favorite new phrase in politics: non-binding. What does it even mean? Do you realize that, outside of Washington, D.C., nothing in life is "non-binding"?
"I had twelve drinks last night, but they were non-binding." Then I guess there's no headache. Lucky you.
"I slept with a waitress from the Airport Marriott in Hartford, but she and I both agreed it was non-binding." Good luck with that, and let me know if that rash is non-binding, too.
You get the point. A resolution expressing disapproval? "Expressing"? Metamucil is more binding than this thing.
That's from Col. Sean B. MacFarland, commander of the 1st BCT, 1st AD which has returned to its home base in Wiesbaden, Germany after a 14 month deployment in Ramadi, where he flipped the majority of Ramadi's tribal shaykhs to our side.
Money quote:
Now, "If you talk to these sheiks, theyll tell you that theyre in no hurry to see the Americans leave al-Anbar," he said.
"One thing Sheikh Sattar keeps saying is he wants al-Anbar to be like Germany and Japan and South Korea were after their respective wars, with a long-term American presence helping ... put them back together," MacFarland said. "The negative example he cites is Vietnam. He says, yeah, so, Vietnam beat the Americans, and what did it get them? You know, 30 years later, theyre still living in poverty."
Freakin' priceless. Shaykh Sattar knows a stronger tribe when he sees one.
Posted by: Mike ||
02/23/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11127 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
WOT > very much an INTER-/INTRA-MUSLIM CONFLICT. Many in Saudi Arabia make like the idea of a OWG = Global Muslim State = Islamic Superpower, etc. BUT NOT AT THE COST OF LOSS TO RADICAL IRAN OF SA's = MECCA'S PRESTIGE AS A WORLD-ACKNOWLEDGED, MAJOR = SOLE SOURCE OF PAN-MUSLIM THOUGHT-INTERPRETATION.
The Thai counter-terrorism agencies have not yet been able to arrest the inexorable Waziristanisation of the four Muslim-majority provinces of Southern Thailand. Targeted attacks with small arms and ammunition on individuals with extreme cruelty, multiple explosions with minimum casualties and attacks on places considered anti-Islam such as places of entertainment continue to be reported almost every day. The individuals targeted are not only Buddhists, but also public servants, including Muslims, viewed as collaborators of the government. The ground situation resembles partly that in the the Waziristan area of the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan and partly that in Bangladesh. There are no similarities with the ground situation in the rest of South-East Asia.
The targeted attacks with extreme cruelty on individuals viewed as collaborators of the government and the attacks on places such as Karoke bars viewed as symbols of non-Islamic decadence call to mind what has been happening in South and North Waziristan almost every day. Very often, the Pakistani authorities have no clue as to who is behind the continuing violence in the Waziristan area. Al Qaeda, the Neo Taliban, the local Taliban, tribal militant groups of various hues, followers of individual tribal leaders, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, the Chechens from Russia and the Uighurs from the Xinjiang region of China have all been blamed on different occasions by the Pakistani authorities with no conclusive evidence. Unidentifiable jihadi forces orchestrated by an invisible command and control have been keeping the security forces at bay. So too in Southern Thailand.
#1
More indicia why 9-11 occurred - in 20 years, world will have 2.6 Bilyuhn Christians, OR HIGHER by other analyses; in 20 years, Islam will be STATIC, OR LOWER, despite high birth rates. Christians will be economically STATUS QUO OR UPWARDLY ESCALATORY; Islam will still be fighting for Honor Killings and Camels-As-Third-Wives Marriage Rights.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
by Denis Boyles, National Review
