http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2010/06/injustice-of-social-justice.html
I don't usually quote from the comments, but this was just too good:
'JG said...
I've always thought that "social justice" means ...
... let the people who work and earn something keep what they work and earn. If I plant vegetables behind my house, and do all the work of planting, tending and harvesting, then you should probably just leave me alone.
The current paradigm is that you have to give a third or a half of your work up to people who just sit on their ass waiting for you to plant the vegetables.
So the income tax kind of sucks.
A further extension of my philosophy ... that you keep what you earn ... becomes very problematic for people, even on this Web site.
If you HAVE TO tax, take it away from people who have not earned the money.
There are tons of examples and tons of specific people.
Examples: Spouses of billionaires who become billionaires themselves without doing the work that led to the billions. Tax them before me.
Children and heirs of billionaires who become billionaires themselves without doing the work that led to the billions. Tax them before me.
Pretty much anyone who gets money without work. Tax them before me.
A consumption tax to replace the income tax would be more than cool. I earn money but don't spend a whole lot. I am taxed up the wazoo.
Some hooker who defrauded a rich guy by marrying him spends a whole lot and buys a whole lot of stuff, but she earns nothing. Tax HER instead of me.
Now to specifics:
Do you really think that Heather Mills deserves to be so rich vis-a-vis emergency room physicians, cancer researchers, firemen, policemen, computer scientists, veterans who were drafted into the Vietnam war and lost their legs ... and on and on.
Then quit being chivalrous and realize that life is unfair but society doesn't have to EXAGGERATE that unfairness. Take Heather's money away from her, give her a kick in the butt to boot, and give the money to several people who are WORKING but having trouble making ends meet.
Or don't tax at all.
5:47 PM, June 23, 2010'
I completely agree with this. Not only is it just, it corrects the awful incentives of our current set of taxes.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Could he BEEEEEEEEEE more condescending?
'It would be comforting if a clear political diagnosis of the Tea Party movement were available — if we knew precisely what political events had inspired the fierce anger that pervades its meetings and rallies, what policy proposals its backers advocate, and, most obviously, what political ideals and values are orienting its members.'
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/the-very-angry-tea-party/?src=me&ref=general
If I read one more faux-hand-wringing piece of garbage like this, something in my brain is going to pop.
I interpret the above as 'Not only are poor white trash too stupid to delineate their ideas properly, paying attention to them would besmirch me.'
Well, pompous shit- your country is about to be taken over by the Tea Party, so you might want to listen up.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/the-very-angry-tea-party/?src=me&ref=general
If I read one more faux-hand-wringing piece of garbage like this, something in my brain is going to pop.
I interpret the above as 'Not only are poor white trash too stupid to delineate their ideas properly, paying attention to them would besmirch me.'
Well, pompous shit- your country is about to be taken over by the Tea Party, so you might want to listen up.
Monday, June 14, 2010
A lie repeated often enough
'Outspoken Mrs Palin has launched a series of savage personal attacks on the US President.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1286223/Sarah-Palin-lines-UK-trip--visit-Lady-Thatcher--looking-buoyant-recently.html#ixzz0qrEcC7kV
Here is a fun challenge for Simon Walters. Find ONE personal attack on Obama by Sarah Palin. One. And write it up for us in the Daily Fail. Oh, and by the way, a personal attack is an attack on the person rather than the policies. Come on, fuckwit! We're waiting!!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1286223/Sarah-Palin-lines-UK-trip--visit-Lady-Thatcher--looking-buoyant-recently.html#ixzz0qrEcC7kV
Here is a fun challenge for Simon Walters. Find ONE personal attack on Obama by Sarah Palin. One. And write it up for us in the Daily Fail. Oh, and by the way, a personal attack is an attack on the person rather than the policies. Come on, fuckwit! We're waiting!!!
Is the TPA the spawn of Satan?
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/localgovernment/2009/02/taxpayers-allia.html
There is absolutely nothing wrong with defending your interests, especially if you do it in a thoughtful and considered way. The following is a defense of local government spending by Councillor Daniel Moylan, the Deputy Leader of Kensington and Chelsea Council. Is it thoughtful and considered? Let us see:
'Conservatives have tended to be sympathetic to the stated goals of the TaxPayers’ Alliance: “campaigning for lower taxes and better government”. Which Tory could be against that? But the approach taken by the TaxPayers’ Alliance, while great fun for a party accustomed to opposition, threatens both democracy and good government in Britain and is most likely to be damaging to the poor and inarticulate. It is an approach based on three salient qualities clearly seen in the Alliance’s Better Government Position Paper: these are ignorance, raucousness and nihilism – the bedrock of anarchy (and her twin sister dictatorship) throughout the ages.'
Wow. Sounds like hyperbole, but OK. Let's hear you back that up.
'The Alliance refuses, in its Position Paper, to articulate any vision of what government is for. There are positive remarks about the Admiralty in the year 1900, so we may assume that the Alliance sees a certain role for government in the defence of the nation. But beyond that, is there any reason to believe they would not attack anything more elaborate than a basic night-watchman state? There are respectable arguments in favour of a night-watchman state but one very strong and democratic argument against it: the people of Britain do not want one, a fact the Conservative Party knows very well.'
I'm not sure that one-issue public pressure groups are expected to present the public with a complete guide to how they think the country should be run, but let's go with it for now. Councillor Moylan believes a) that the TPA want a government which runs the police and the army and nothing else and b) that the British people want... something else (sadly, not defined).
'Of course, the TaxPayers’ Alliance will never put the popularity of their view of what government is for to the test, since they will never actually field any candidates at the polls to find out. This is where raucousness comes in. As with other destructive nihilists (one thinks of the thugs who sought to take control of Paris in 1967), the TaxPayers’ Alliance is good at shouting and uninterested in the views of others.'
TPA is not a political party, so that point is valid. Its views do indeed remain un-voted on. But it doesn't seem a strong point. Vast numbers of lobbying bodies exist which could be tarred with the same brush. Does that mean lobbying bodies should all become political parties? I'm thinking no. But suddenly, Councillor Moylan goes all hyperbolic. If you lobby, you are a destructive nihilist who shouts and ignores other peoples views! Or is that, if you lobby against the things I approve of, you are a destructive nihilist yadda yadda? At this point, Councillor Moylan loses. Public policy debate is abruptly terminated at the point where those you disagree with aren't just wrong, their very participation in the argument is deemed illegitimate. And really, when one thinks of the TPA, 'one thinks of the thugs who sought to take control of Paris in 1967'?. Shall we vote on that?
'And this lack of interest in democracy – listening to what people might want – is embedded in their entire policy approach. They identify certain failings in government but then proceed to blame them on a composite fantasy class called “politicians”. (This is a technique learnt from Stalin’s murderous condemnation of “kulaks” for causing the famines he was responsible for.) These wicked, self-serving, money-grubbing politicians – leave aside for now the many examples of elected politicians whom we know from personal experience to be the reverse of all these things, not least in local government – are to be replaced for most governmental functions, say the Taxpayers’ Alliance, by “managers”, people capable (like Mussolini with the trains) of getting things done. Of course the glorious thing about managers is that they are accountable to nobody, unlike the hated “politicians”, who are and who therefore might actually be listening to people. Moreover, these “managers” would probably be no good at their job, since it is a cardinal principle of the TaxPayers’ Alliance that paying anyone in government a rate appropriate to their skills is anathema: nothing drives them into a more righteous frenzy.'
Hmm. Where to start... Apparently, there is a new crime specific to public lobbying organisations: 'a lack of interest in democracy'. This is defined as 'not listening to what people might want'. It isn't a good definition, really. Who are these 'people' of whom you speak? When did you solicit their opinions, and can I see your notes?
Mr Moylan utilises a version of Godwin's Law. If you want to blacken somethings reputation to lefties, compare it with the Nazis. If you want to do the same to right wingers, compare it to Stalins regime. Doesn't work very well, sadly. Not only do the TPA in my experience rail at managers at least as much as they do politicians, moaning about politicians has been around at least since Thucydides. Not only that, there does seem to be some straightforward good sense in blaming failings in government on politicians. You know, the ones who run the government. I would also like to point out that the reason the Bolsheviks threats against the Kulaks were important was because of the Cheka, who just after the threats were made went off to murder the Kulaks. If Councillor Moylan could point me to the TPA's Cheka I'd be much obliged.
The idea that the TPA would like to see all politicians replaced by managers is extraordinarily funny. The technocratic urge is a collectivist urge. Replace incompetent politicians with demi-godlike experts has been the cry of the collectivists since Bismarks Prussia. It Soooooooooooo isn't a Classical Liberal/Libertarian/TPA thing. Sooooooooooooooo not. '[A] cardinal principle of the TaxPayers’ Alliance [is] that paying anyone in government a rate appropriate to their skills is anathema'. Good. Remuneration for government jobs ought to be based on how much money the Government has in its limited budgets, not how much some middle manager believes his CV should get him. There is no market mechanism in Government to determine what level of remuneration any particular employee should get. Pay grades are completely arbitrary. So yes, 'a rate appropriate to their skills' is a laughable fiction, and the TPA are right to castigate profligacy with OUR MONEY.
'One of their most persistent lines of attack against local government is on communications budgets. This is understandable. They cannot tolerate the notion that people might actually know what local government does for them. There is a typically sneering piece currently on their website, attacking Knowsley Borough Council for wanting to hire someone to help make Knowsley “the borough of choice”. This is described as “non-job of the week” and an example of “burning our money”. I have no idea where Knowsley is or whether its aim to be “the borough of choice” is remotely credible. But the TaxPayers’ Alliance would deny its people even ambition and hope. One may suppose that all they need in Knowsley is some underpaid “managers” selected (no doubt by the TaxPayers’ Alliance) for their unaccountable competence at telling poor people what to do.'
Councillor Moylan is obviously distressed as he writes this, and unfortunately coherence suffers as a consequence. Here is a test question: If the average council tax-payer knew exactly what PR people do, and if we could position a CCTV camera directly above a PR persons desk and watch what they do over an average week, how many council taxpayers would vote to have PR people employed on public money? Not only do most people in my experience ignore all correspondence from the council which does not involve handing over their hard-earned money, they despise the make-work bullshit which many councils indulge in. You know, stuff like 'lets make Knowsley “the borough of choice”'.
Councillor Moylan then makes one of the stupider comments I've seen recently: He contends that the TPA squashes the ambitions and hopes of the people of Knowsley by terming their councils boondoggle “non-job of the week” and an example of “burning our money”. Seriously? Some lobbying group calls into question an action of the Knowsley council, and thereby stymies the ambitions and hopes of the people of Knowsley?
In probably his most revealing snide aside, Cllr Moylan lets us in on his true standpoint- viz, 'competence at telling poor people what to do'. He is on the side of the working class in their perpetual war with the hideous middle class and the evil aristocrats. See, Council people and the grubby working class stand shoulder to shoulder against the toffs, innit. Council people know instinctively what worthless sinecures the working slobs want created. Built right in.
'There is a strong tradition of civic pride and achievement in Britain and Conservatives have been at its forefront. I personally have no doubt that the TaxPayers’ Alliance would have been amongst the opponents of the project to build sewers for London in the nineteenth century. Society, particularly urban society, is complex. A civilised society is dependent on a degree of civic co-operation, which happily has tended to be under democratic control in this country. The TaxPayers’ Alliance seeks simultaneously to crush that civic effort and to de-democratise what remains. They are dangerous people masquerading as promoters of lower taxes and better government. The Conservative Party should have nothing to do with them and will, I have no doubt, quickly disembarrass itself of any connection on coming to power.'
I'm glad Cllr Moylan appended 'personally' to the statement that the TPA would have been dead set against building the sewers of London. I imagine that virtually no one else in the country would agree with such an egregiously stupid assertion. 'The TaxPayers’ Alliance seeks simultaneously to crush that civic effort and to de-democratise what remains'. I'm sorry, you can't just launch an accusation like that and provide no evidence for it whatsoever. Especially when it is aimed at an organisation which lobbies, rather than say employing brown-shirted thugs.
While it is true that both Parish and Borough councils have often been the forum for civic pride, when the latter was at its zenith it was the efforts of local grandees which usually provided the money for beautiful parks, monuments, poor houses, hospitals, schools, paupers cottages and swimming pools among much else. But since the State grew to ever more gargantuan proportions, and filched ever greater chunks of private wealth so it could 'make Knowsley “the borough of choice”' plus a million other stupid, non-core things, privately funded 'civic pride' has all but disappeared. Where I live in North London, I know of no example of private civic benefaction more recent than the early twentieth century.
Public compulsion destroys private volunteerism. This is so obvious I can't believe there are still people willing to deny it. But Cllr Moylan does. He seems to believe that somehow, because we the public vote for Councillors, we the public support the ever-expanding public sector payroll, the stupidly high salaries paid to these new employees, and the burgeoning 'projects' created by lefty public sector drones.
I have nothing against government- parish, local council or national. But I do have a problem with government as a cancer, eating up every function and activity and strand of our national life so it can control it, regulate it and license it. What the exact set of things I require from my government and which things I want it to leave alone is debatable.
But this piece by Councillor Moylan does not advance that debate. Indeed, what it does is say is that any criticism of increasing government activity crushes civic effort and destroys democracy. What utter tosh.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with defending your interests, especially if you do it in a thoughtful and considered way. The following is a defense of local government spending by Councillor Daniel Moylan, the Deputy Leader of Kensington and Chelsea Council. Is it thoughtful and considered? Let us see:
'Conservatives have tended to be sympathetic to the stated goals of the TaxPayers’ Alliance: “campaigning for lower taxes and better government”. Which Tory could be against that? But the approach taken by the TaxPayers’ Alliance, while great fun for a party accustomed to opposition, threatens both democracy and good government in Britain and is most likely to be damaging to the poor and inarticulate. It is an approach based on three salient qualities clearly seen in the Alliance’s Better Government Position Paper: these are ignorance, raucousness and nihilism – the bedrock of anarchy (and her twin sister dictatorship) throughout the ages.'
Wow. Sounds like hyperbole, but OK. Let's hear you back that up.
'The Alliance refuses, in its Position Paper, to articulate any vision of what government is for. There are positive remarks about the Admiralty in the year 1900, so we may assume that the Alliance sees a certain role for government in the defence of the nation. But beyond that, is there any reason to believe they would not attack anything more elaborate than a basic night-watchman state? There are respectable arguments in favour of a night-watchman state but one very strong and democratic argument against it: the people of Britain do not want one, a fact the Conservative Party knows very well.'
I'm not sure that one-issue public pressure groups are expected to present the public with a complete guide to how they think the country should be run, but let's go with it for now. Councillor Moylan believes a) that the TPA want a government which runs the police and the army and nothing else and b) that the British people want... something else (sadly, not defined).
'Of course, the TaxPayers’ Alliance will never put the popularity of their view of what government is for to the test, since they will never actually field any candidates at the polls to find out. This is where raucousness comes in. As with other destructive nihilists (one thinks of the thugs who sought to take control of Paris in 1967), the TaxPayers’ Alliance is good at shouting and uninterested in the views of others.'
TPA is not a political party, so that point is valid. Its views do indeed remain un-voted on. But it doesn't seem a strong point. Vast numbers of lobbying bodies exist which could be tarred with the same brush. Does that mean lobbying bodies should all become political parties? I'm thinking no. But suddenly, Councillor Moylan goes all hyperbolic. If you lobby, you are a destructive nihilist who shouts and ignores other peoples views! Or is that, if you lobby against the things I approve of, you are a destructive nihilist yadda yadda? At this point, Councillor Moylan loses. Public policy debate is abruptly terminated at the point where those you disagree with aren't just wrong, their very participation in the argument is deemed illegitimate. And really, when one thinks of the TPA, 'one thinks of the thugs who sought to take control of Paris in 1967'?. Shall we vote on that?
'And this lack of interest in democracy – listening to what people might want – is embedded in their entire policy approach. They identify certain failings in government but then proceed to blame them on a composite fantasy class called “politicians”. (This is a technique learnt from Stalin’s murderous condemnation of “kulaks” for causing the famines he was responsible for.) These wicked, self-serving, money-grubbing politicians – leave aside for now the many examples of elected politicians whom we know from personal experience to be the reverse of all these things, not least in local government – are to be replaced for most governmental functions, say the Taxpayers’ Alliance, by “managers”, people capable (like Mussolini with the trains) of getting things done. Of course the glorious thing about managers is that they are accountable to nobody, unlike the hated “politicians”, who are and who therefore might actually be listening to people. Moreover, these “managers” would probably be no good at their job, since it is a cardinal principle of the TaxPayers’ Alliance that paying anyone in government a rate appropriate to their skills is anathema: nothing drives them into a more righteous frenzy.'
Hmm. Where to start... Apparently, there is a new crime specific to public lobbying organisations: 'a lack of interest in democracy'. This is defined as 'not listening to what people might want'. It isn't a good definition, really. Who are these 'people' of whom you speak? When did you solicit their opinions, and can I see your notes?
Mr Moylan utilises a version of Godwin's Law. If you want to blacken somethings reputation to lefties, compare it with the Nazis. If you want to do the same to right wingers, compare it to Stalins regime. Doesn't work very well, sadly. Not only do the TPA in my experience rail at managers at least as much as they do politicians, moaning about politicians has been around at least since Thucydides. Not only that, there does seem to be some straightforward good sense in blaming failings in government on politicians. You know, the ones who run the government. I would also like to point out that the reason the Bolsheviks threats against the Kulaks were important was because of the Cheka, who just after the threats were made went off to murder the Kulaks. If Councillor Moylan could point me to the TPA's Cheka I'd be much obliged.
The idea that the TPA would like to see all politicians replaced by managers is extraordinarily funny. The technocratic urge is a collectivist urge. Replace incompetent politicians with demi-godlike experts has been the cry of the collectivists since Bismarks Prussia. It Soooooooooooo isn't a Classical Liberal/Libertarian/TPA thing. Sooooooooooooooo not. '[A] cardinal principle of the TaxPayers’ Alliance [is] that paying anyone in government a rate appropriate to their skills is anathema'. Good. Remuneration for government jobs ought to be based on how much money the Government has in its limited budgets, not how much some middle manager believes his CV should get him. There is no market mechanism in Government to determine what level of remuneration any particular employee should get. Pay grades are completely arbitrary. So yes, 'a rate appropriate to their skills' is a laughable fiction, and the TPA are right to castigate profligacy with OUR MONEY.
'One of their most persistent lines of attack against local government is on communications budgets. This is understandable. They cannot tolerate the notion that people might actually know what local government does for them. There is a typically sneering piece currently on their website, attacking Knowsley Borough Council for wanting to hire someone to help make Knowsley “the borough of choice”. This is described as “non-job of the week” and an example of “burning our money”. I have no idea where Knowsley is or whether its aim to be “the borough of choice” is remotely credible. But the TaxPayers’ Alliance would deny its people even ambition and hope. One may suppose that all they need in Knowsley is some underpaid “managers” selected (no doubt by the TaxPayers’ Alliance) for their unaccountable competence at telling poor people what to do.'
Councillor Moylan is obviously distressed as he writes this, and unfortunately coherence suffers as a consequence. Here is a test question: If the average council tax-payer knew exactly what PR people do, and if we could position a CCTV camera directly above a PR persons desk and watch what they do over an average week, how many council taxpayers would vote to have PR people employed on public money? Not only do most people in my experience ignore all correspondence from the council which does not involve handing over their hard-earned money, they despise the make-work bullshit which many councils indulge in. You know, stuff like 'lets make Knowsley “the borough of choice”'.
Councillor Moylan then makes one of the stupider comments I've seen recently: He contends that the TPA squashes the ambitions and hopes of the people of Knowsley by terming their councils boondoggle “non-job of the week” and an example of “burning our money”. Seriously? Some lobbying group calls into question an action of the Knowsley council, and thereby stymies the ambitions and hopes of the people of Knowsley?
In probably his most revealing snide aside, Cllr Moylan lets us in on his true standpoint- viz, 'competence at telling poor people what to do'. He is on the side of the working class in their perpetual war with the hideous middle class and the evil aristocrats. See, Council people and the grubby working class stand shoulder to shoulder against the toffs, innit. Council people know instinctively what worthless sinecures the working slobs want created. Built right in.
'There is a strong tradition of civic pride and achievement in Britain and Conservatives have been at its forefront. I personally have no doubt that the TaxPayers’ Alliance would have been amongst the opponents of the project to build sewers for London in the nineteenth century. Society, particularly urban society, is complex. A civilised society is dependent on a degree of civic co-operation, which happily has tended to be under democratic control in this country. The TaxPayers’ Alliance seeks simultaneously to crush that civic effort and to de-democratise what remains. They are dangerous people masquerading as promoters of lower taxes and better government. The Conservative Party should have nothing to do with them and will, I have no doubt, quickly disembarrass itself of any connection on coming to power.'
I'm glad Cllr Moylan appended 'personally' to the statement that the TPA would have been dead set against building the sewers of London. I imagine that virtually no one else in the country would agree with such an egregiously stupid assertion. 'The TaxPayers’ Alliance seeks simultaneously to crush that civic effort and to de-democratise what remains'. I'm sorry, you can't just launch an accusation like that and provide no evidence for it whatsoever. Especially when it is aimed at an organisation which lobbies, rather than say employing brown-shirted thugs.
While it is true that both Parish and Borough councils have often been the forum for civic pride, when the latter was at its zenith it was the efforts of local grandees which usually provided the money for beautiful parks, monuments, poor houses, hospitals, schools, paupers cottages and swimming pools among much else. But since the State grew to ever more gargantuan proportions, and filched ever greater chunks of private wealth so it could 'make Knowsley “the borough of choice”' plus a million other stupid, non-core things, privately funded 'civic pride' has all but disappeared. Where I live in North London, I know of no example of private civic benefaction more recent than the early twentieth century.
Public compulsion destroys private volunteerism. This is so obvious I can't believe there are still people willing to deny it. But Cllr Moylan does. He seems to believe that somehow, because we the public vote for Councillors, we the public support the ever-expanding public sector payroll, the stupidly high salaries paid to these new employees, and the burgeoning 'projects' created by lefty public sector drones.
I have nothing against government- parish, local council or national. But I do have a problem with government as a cancer, eating up every function and activity and strand of our national life so it can control it, regulate it and license it. What the exact set of things I require from my government and which things I want it to leave alone is debatable.
But this piece by Councillor Moylan does not advance that debate. Indeed, what it does is say is that any criticism of increasing government activity crushes civic effort and destroys democracy. What utter tosh.
Monday, June 07, 2010
Self Satirization
'In Maryland, where Mr. Kratovil endured considerable heckling last year over the health care legislation, which he ultimately opposed, he did not hold any large gatherings with voters. After returning from a visit to Afghanistan, he held two events with veterans before arriving at an evening discussion here at the credit union in Bel Air, north of Baltimore.
“It’s dramatically different this break than it was in August of last year,” Mr. Kratovil said in an interview after he finished speaking about financial regulatory legislation. “At town halls, there was a group of people who were there to disrupt, purely politically driven, not there because they wanted to get answers or discuss the issues.”'
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/us/politics/07townhall.html?hp [Hat-Tip: Instapundit]
Worthy of the "We can't have fighting in here. This is the War Room" Award. Fancy turning up to a political meeting and wanting to discuss politics! The cheek!
“It’s dramatically different this break than it was in August of last year,” Mr. Kratovil said in an interview after he finished speaking about financial regulatory legislation. “At town halls, there was a group of people who were there to disrupt, purely politically driven, not there because they wanted to get answers or discuss the issues.”'
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/us/politics/07townhall.html?hp [Hat-Tip: Instapundit]
Worthy of the "We can't have fighting in here. This is the War Room" Award. Fancy turning up to a political meeting and wanting to discuss politics! The cheek!
Where did all those First Amendment fanatics go?
'Veteran White House Correspondent Helen Thomas has provoked a storm in the US after saying the Jews must "get the hell out of Palestine" and "go home" to Germany or Poland.'
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3899361,00.html
Fair enough. It's a view. A pretty unpopular one outside of Neo-Naziism, but what the heck. We on the right are all about free speech. Aren't we? ... apparently not.
'Why Shouldn’t Helen Thomas Be Expelled from the White House Press Corps?
Jennifer Rubin'
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/307371
'Are these words of apology? Where is any indication that Thomas acknowledges her moral transgression? And to whom is she “apologizing?” There is no object of this so-called apology.'
http://neoneocon.com/2010/06/06/well-at-least-helen-thomas/
'Abraham H. Foxman, ADL national director, issued the following statement:
Helen Thomas’s statement of regret does not go far enough. Her remarks were outrageous, offensive and inappropriate, especially since she uttered them on a day the White House had set aside to celebrate the extraordinary accomplishments of American Jews during Jewish America Heritage Month.'
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/307781
I am a long-standing, extremely robust defender of Israel and its right to exist, defend itself, and protect its interests. But I don't think that that view should be enforced on other people. I don't think having the opposing view should get someone fired from their job. I can't imagine a conservative supporting either of those two things. Yet apparently, loads of 'conservatives' do.
Things may be considerably worse than I thought. The right to have your own opinions and not be punished for holding them is absolutely fundamental to a free society. Yet many so-called conservatives don't seem to agree. Very sad days indeed.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3899361,00.html
Fair enough. It's a view. A pretty unpopular one outside of Neo-Naziism, but what the heck. We on the right are all about free speech. Aren't we? ... apparently not.
'Why Shouldn’t Helen Thomas Be Expelled from the White House Press Corps?
Jennifer Rubin'
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/307371
'Are these words of apology? Where is any indication that Thomas acknowledges her moral transgression? And to whom is she “apologizing?” There is no object of this so-called apology.'
http://neoneocon.com/2010/06/06/well-at-least-helen-thomas/
'Abraham H. Foxman, ADL national director, issued the following statement:
Helen Thomas’s statement of regret does not go far enough. Her remarks were outrageous, offensive and inappropriate, especially since she uttered them on a day the White House had set aside to celebrate the extraordinary accomplishments of American Jews during Jewish America Heritage Month.'
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/307781
I am a long-standing, extremely robust defender of Israel and its right to exist, defend itself, and protect its interests. But I don't think that that view should be enforced on other people. I don't think having the opposing view should get someone fired from their job. I can't imagine a conservative supporting either of those two things. Yet apparently, loads of 'conservatives' do.
Things may be considerably worse than I thought. The right to have your own opinions and not be punished for holding them is absolutely fundamental to a free society. Yet many so-called conservatives don't seem to agree. Very sad days indeed.
Friday, June 04, 2010
Great news for Al Qaeda
We are living in a country supposedly on hair-trigger alert for terrorists and acts of terrorism.
So a man with two guns goes off on his own three and a half hour terrorism spree, and the cops do what?
'The police chief said that his force had deployed 42 trained firearms officers in the hunt for Bird — all those on duty in the county that day — as well as additional armed officers from the Civil Nuclear Constabulary at Sellafield, near which Bird shot several of his victims. Police and RAF helicopters were drafted in for a “massive land and air search”.'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article7144343.ece
And the upshot of all this massive activity? Nothing. No policeman challenged Birdie, as he was affectionately known. Well, as he was known before he murdered twelve people.
What a disastrously incompentent shambles. Yoo hoo, Al Qaeda! Fancy a gun-totin rampage? Britain is open, wide wide open, for whatever you have in mind. Contradict me if I'm wrong, but isn't Sellafield one of our most sensitive nuclear sites? And two of the shootings happened just outside.
I am very close to speechless. Our defences are a mirage, smoke and mirrors. Dad's Army had more organisation and effectiveness.
God protect Britain. That is our only hope.
So a man with two guns goes off on his own three and a half hour terrorism spree, and the cops do what?
'The police chief said that his force had deployed 42 trained firearms officers in the hunt for Bird — all those on duty in the county that day — as well as additional armed officers from the Civil Nuclear Constabulary at Sellafield, near which Bird shot several of his victims. Police and RAF helicopters were drafted in for a “massive land and air search”.'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article7144343.ece
And the upshot of all this massive activity? Nothing. No policeman challenged Birdie, as he was affectionately known. Well, as he was known before he murdered twelve people.
What a disastrously incompentent shambles. Yoo hoo, Al Qaeda! Fancy a gun-totin rampage? Britain is open, wide wide open, for whatever you have in mind. Contradict me if I'm wrong, but isn't Sellafield one of our most sensitive nuclear sites? And two of the shootings happened just outside.
I am very close to speechless. Our defences are a mirage, smoke and mirrors. Dad's Army had more organisation and effectiveness.
God protect Britain. That is our only hope.
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Where the **** have you been?
'The president, in my view, continues to govern in a way that suggests he is chronically detached from the central and immediate concerns of his countrymen. This is a terrible thing to see in a political figure, and a startling thing in one who won so handily and shrewdly in 2008. But he has not, almost from the day he was inaugurated, been in sync with the center. The heart of the country is thinking each day about A, B and C, and he is thinking about X, Y and Z. They're in one reality, he's in another.'
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704269204575270950789108846.html
During the 2008 election, I studied Barack Obama, as did most other sane individuals. I tried to suss out what kind of man he was. And what struck me, as someone who has lived as a foreigner in the United States, was that Obama was a foreigner. During my stay in the US, I often bumped into things in American life which were obviously deeply meaningful to those around me, but which to me seemed like nothing. As a consequence of my bad form, it was not hard for me to get a good feel for just how profoundly Americans value themselves, their culture and their folkways. For all his basketball playing and burger eating (has anybody got any Grey Poupon?) Obama is not really American. Being American is much more than a birth certificate or a passport.
It is one of the reasons I don't live there. Americans don't tend to like people who are not 'with the program', and I am just too ornery, contrary and sceptical to sign up to Americanhood. Therefore, I have a unique insight into the special situation Obama is in. He is, in my view, less than half American. I don't mean biologically. I mean in the sense of all the strands of thought, feeling, belief, association, belonging and sympathy which go to make up a persons rightness in a particular land, among a particular people.
Where would Obama rightfully fit? Perhaps nowhere. Certainly not Indonesia, certainly not Kenya. But not really America either.
And that is becoming a big problem. In the crazy busy job of President, instinct becomes the best friend of efficiency. Instinct informs you what is important, and what is trivial- what really requires your attention, and what can be left to underlings. But Obamas instincts are terrible. His instincts about what is important are totally out of sync with the nation. So, back to Peggy...
What I don't understand is this: I am no genius. Ask my wife. So how was I able to figure out what Obama was, and what he was like in mid-2008, but it has taken 75% of Americans until about yesterday to do so?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704269204575270950789108846.html
During the 2008 election, I studied Barack Obama, as did most other sane individuals. I tried to suss out what kind of man he was. And what struck me, as someone who has lived as a foreigner in the United States, was that Obama was a foreigner. During my stay in the US, I often bumped into things in American life which were obviously deeply meaningful to those around me, but which to me seemed like nothing. As a consequence of my bad form, it was not hard for me to get a good feel for just how profoundly Americans value themselves, their culture and their folkways. For all his basketball playing and burger eating (has anybody got any Grey Poupon?) Obama is not really American. Being American is much more than a birth certificate or a passport.
It is one of the reasons I don't live there. Americans don't tend to like people who are not 'with the program', and I am just too ornery, contrary and sceptical to sign up to Americanhood. Therefore, I have a unique insight into the special situation Obama is in. He is, in my view, less than half American. I don't mean biologically. I mean in the sense of all the strands of thought, feeling, belief, association, belonging and sympathy which go to make up a persons rightness in a particular land, among a particular people.
Where would Obama rightfully fit? Perhaps nowhere. Certainly not Indonesia, certainly not Kenya. But not really America either.
And that is becoming a big problem. In the crazy busy job of President, instinct becomes the best friend of efficiency. Instinct informs you what is important, and what is trivial- what really requires your attention, and what can be left to underlings. But Obamas instincts are terrible. His instincts about what is important are totally out of sync with the nation. So, back to Peggy...
What I don't understand is this: I am no genius. Ask my wife. So how was I able to figure out what Obama was, and what he was like in mid-2008, but it has taken 75% of Americans until about yesterday to do so?
Monday, May 24, 2010
The absence of any discernable Character or Principles
'I detect an ideological similarity, too — these leaders aren’t political zealots. They might, like me, opt for a pick’n’mix belief system to suit the purpose and the practicalities of the day. And they don’t do God — not because it would be divisive in PR terms, as it was for Tony Blair, but because they just don’t (other than for weddings, christenings, funerals and to shoehorn their kids into the best local state schools).'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7132346.ece
These are the people marxian mass education turns out. They don't think they have religion or ideology- but they are extremely heavily laden with both.
Eco fanaticism: religion
Despising Christianity: ideology
Despising money: ideology
Regarding the concrete knowledge of politics as unnecessary and suspect: ideology
Proletarian uniformity: ideology
Ahistoricality: ideology
Regarding personal ambition as criminal: ideology
What a banal, dismal Godless mass of idiots. What a dreary puritanical funless horde of drabs. Yeeuuuuuuuchhhhhhhhhhh!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7132346.ece
These are the people marxian mass education turns out. They don't think they have religion or ideology- but they are extremely heavily laden with both.
Eco fanaticism: religion
Despising Christianity: ideology
Despising money: ideology
Regarding the concrete knowledge of politics as unnecessary and suspect: ideology
Proletarian uniformity: ideology
Ahistoricality: ideology
Regarding personal ambition as criminal: ideology
What a banal, dismal Godless mass of idiots. What a dreary puritanical funless horde of drabs. Yeeuuuuuuuchhhhhhhhhhh!
Thursday, May 20, 2010
I'm not opposed to Draw Mohammed Day
'I’M OPPOSED TO “DRAW MOHAMMED DAY.”'
'I'm glad to see Taranto do what I was challenging my commenters to do. (I said: "If you don't think the 'Piss Christ' or the American flag hypos are sufficiently on point, then make a better hypo. That's my challenge. Make a hypo that is the same but without the Muslim element, and seriously test your thinking on the subject.")'
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/04/our-reflexive-response-to-everybody.html
This is an interesting controversy. Here is a summary of my knowledge of the relevant facts:
Certain more conservative schools of Islamic thought, esp the Wahhabists, believe that any likeness of anyone, even Mohammed, can be considered an idol. Some schools of Islamic thought aren't bothered, and in many places where Moslems live there have always been likenesses of Mohammed, just like there are millions of likenesses of Jesus in the Christian world. These likenesses are expressly not to be worshipped, as that would make them idols, and therefore against the express command of God. But apart from that, they are ok.
So, forcing Moslems of a conservative persuasion to create likenesses of Mohammed would certainly be rude and unpleasant, by any reasonable standard. But given that many Moslems make likenesses of Mohammed themselves, presumably those Moslems would have no problem with non-Moslems making respectful representations of Mohammed. And if they did have a problem with it, it would be unreasonable and hypocritical.
Let us now consider the Mohammed cartoons from Jyllands Posten. Most of them were perfectly harmless, gentle representations of a man in Arabic garb. A few were intentionally insulting, and a very few were gravely insulting. The ones which were respectful would presumably cause no concern to the many millions of Moslems who have no issue with pictorial representations of Mohammed in general. The insulting ones would certainly provoke anger amongst any Moslems.
But the response to the Jyllands Posten cartoons was not organic. If ordinary Moslems outside Denmark noticed the cartoons, they didn't seem to mind them. The crazed response was ginned up after a concerted campaign by hard-core Danish Wahhabist imams who toured the Middle East and Egypt showing the cartoons to people, and posted links to them on Islamist websites. They conducted this campaign to further their religio/political agenda, which is the expansion of Wahhabist Islam and its eventual domination of the earth.
According to the Ann Althouse view, then, being polite and not 'hurting the feelings' of conservatively-minded Moslems trumps our history of robust oppositional religious and political debate. I must respect your sacred cows, no matter how stupid I believe them to be, and no matter how much they conflict with my own beliefs.
You can tell from the differing views about the pictorial representation of Mohammed among the worldwide population of Moslems that there is no clear-cut black-and-white prohibition of it in the historical Islamic body of learning. And yet, on the authority of the Wahhabist conservatives, Ann Althouse doesn't just want the Wahhabist/conservative view enforced on believers in Islam but on non-believers too.
That isn't being nice- that is alienating yourself from your own world view so far that you don't really have one anymore. It also exalts your own importance to millions of unknown and probably unknowable Moslems in countries you hardly know the name of.
It may be that a large-scale campaign to demonstrate how little respect many people feel for Moslem shibboleths will provoke some thought among the 1.3 billion Moslems on the planet why their religion is getting such a shellacing, and why normal, sane people hold it in such low regard.
Islam is getting a very bad name because of Wahhabist/Salafist violence, bullying and blackmail. This is not an issue for us. Islam needs to clean house, and disassociate itself from the people who are blackening its reputation. If Moslems don't do that, we can all assume what many believe already- which is that most Moslems secretly agree with the agenda of the Wahhabist/Salafists, but find it inconvenient to say so publicly. Whether people like Ann Althouse like it or not, that is the rule of public engagement. If it were the Republican Party, rather the Moslems of the World, who had a militant wing chopping off heads, blowing up Markets with bombs strapped to twelve-year-old girls and driving trucks of chemicals into villages and blowing them up, what would you be saying to Republicans? Would your politeness, and your generosity of spirit extend to them?
Whether we like it or not, guilt-by-association exists. If it doesn't, explain to me why the Turkish government still deny the ethnic cleansing/holocaust of Christian Armenians in 1915/16?
NEW EXTRA BIT
'If you were really a conservative, you would think where there is a problem and the only solution so far is a bad one that the right answer is first, do no harm. The default is nothing. (The Party of NO!)
There's a problem, so we must do something, and here we have something, so we must do it. That's the reasoning I have heard over and over from President Obama, and it is something I truly loathe.
Do you defend it?' (Ann Althouse in the comments of the same blog post).
That depends if you believe that Everybody Draw Mohammed is a bad 'solution'. I don't believe it is a solution at all. A solution would stop the Wahhabist war on modernity and everthing in the world which isn't Wahhabism. It is a declaration of intent, like the nailing of the Ninety-Five Theses to the door of Wittenberg Church. We intend to not be browbeaten into modifying our lives every time Wahhabists threaten murder, mayhem and boycotts. And as such, the Everybody Draw Mohammed idea works as well as anything I've heard of.
'I'm glad to see Taranto do what I was challenging my commenters to do. (I said: "If you don't think the 'Piss Christ' or the American flag hypos are sufficiently on point, then make a better hypo. That's my challenge. Make a hypo that is the same but without the Muslim element, and seriously test your thinking on the subject.")'
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/04/our-reflexive-response-to-everybody.html
This is an interesting controversy. Here is a summary of my knowledge of the relevant facts:
Certain more conservative schools of Islamic thought, esp the Wahhabists, believe that any likeness of anyone, even Mohammed, can be considered an idol. Some schools of Islamic thought aren't bothered, and in many places where Moslems live there have always been likenesses of Mohammed, just like there are millions of likenesses of Jesus in the Christian world. These likenesses are expressly not to be worshipped, as that would make them idols, and therefore against the express command of God. But apart from that, they are ok.
So, forcing Moslems of a conservative persuasion to create likenesses of Mohammed would certainly be rude and unpleasant, by any reasonable standard. But given that many Moslems make likenesses of Mohammed themselves, presumably those Moslems would have no problem with non-Moslems making respectful representations of Mohammed. And if they did have a problem with it, it would be unreasonable and hypocritical.
Let us now consider the Mohammed cartoons from Jyllands Posten. Most of them were perfectly harmless, gentle representations of a man in Arabic garb. A few were intentionally insulting, and a very few were gravely insulting. The ones which were respectful would presumably cause no concern to the many millions of Moslems who have no issue with pictorial representations of Mohammed in general. The insulting ones would certainly provoke anger amongst any Moslems.
But the response to the Jyllands Posten cartoons was not organic. If ordinary Moslems outside Denmark noticed the cartoons, they didn't seem to mind them. The crazed response was ginned up after a concerted campaign by hard-core Danish Wahhabist imams who toured the Middle East and Egypt showing the cartoons to people, and posted links to them on Islamist websites. They conducted this campaign to further their religio/political agenda, which is the expansion of Wahhabist Islam and its eventual domination of the earth.
According to the Ann Althouse view, then, being polite and not 'hurting the feelings' of conservatively-minded Moslems trumps our history of robust oppositional religious and political debate. I must respect your sacred cows, no matter how stupid I believe them to be, and no matter how much they conflict with my own beliefs.
You can tell from the differing views about the pictorial representation of Mohammed among the worldwide population of Moslems that there is no clear-cut black-and-white prohibition of it in the historical Islamic body of learning. And yet, on the authority of the Wahhabist conservatives, Ann Althouse doesn't just want the Wahhabist/conservative view enforced on believers in Islam but on non-believers too.
That isn't being nice- that is alienating yourself from your own world view so far that you don't really have one anymore. It also exalts your own importance to millions of unknown and probably unknowable Moslems in countries you hardly know the name of.
It may be that a large-scale campaign to demonstrate how little respect many people feel for Moslem shibboleths will provoke some thought among the 1.3 billion Moslems on the planet why their religion is getting such a shellacing, and why normal, sane people hold it in such low regard.
Islam is getting a very bad name because of Wahhabist/Salafist violence, bullying and blackmail. This is not an issue for us. Islam needs to clean house, and disassociate itself from the people who are blackening its reputation. If Moslems don't do that, we can all assume what many believe already- which is that most Moslems secretly agree with the agenda of the Wahhabist/Salafists, but find it inconvenient to say so publicly. Whether people like Ann Althouse like it or not, that is the rule of public engagement. If it were the Republican Party, rather the Moslems of the World, who had a militant wing chopping off heads, blowing up Markets with bombs strapped to twelve-year-old girls and driving trucks of chemicals into villages and blowing them up, what would you be saying to Republicans? Would your politeness, and your generosity of spirit extend to them?
Whether we like it or not, guilt-by-association exists. If it doesn't, explain to me why the Turkish government still deny the ethnic cleansing/holocaust of Christian Armenians in 1915/16?
NEW EXTRA BIT
'If you were really a conservative, you would think where there is a problem and the only solution so far is a bad one that the right answer is first, do no harm. The default is nothing. (The Party of NO!)
There's a problem, so we must do something, and here we have something, so we must do it. That's the reasoning I have heard over and over from President Obama, and it is something I truly loathe.
Do you defend it?' (Ann Althouse in the comments of the same blog post).
That depends if you believe that Everybody Draw Mohammed is a bad 'solution'. I don't believe it is a solution at all. A solution would stop the Wahhabist war on modernity and everthing in the world which isn't Wahhabism. It is a declaration of intent, like the nailing of the Ninety-Five Theses to the door of Wittenberg Church. We intend to not be browbeaten into modifying our lives every time Wahhabists threaten murder, mayhem and boycotts. And as such, the Everybody Draw Mohammed idea works as well as anything I've heard of.
Shouldn't that be 'When the Euro fails...'?
'Ms Merkel believes that the EU should have stronger powers to organise the “orderly insolvency” of countries such as Greece that set giveaway budgets with no means of paying for them. After announcing a ban on speculative share trading in Germany’s top financial institutions and the bonds of eurozone countries until next March, she warned: “This challenge is existential and we have to rise to it. The euro is in danger. If we don’t deal with this danger, then the consequences for us in Europe are incalculable . . . If the euro fails, then Europe fails.”'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article7131340.ece
Quite funny really. I said this here, and mentioned the same thought to a number of people, who all scoffed and pooh-poohed the idea that that things were this serious. Well, news flash to those people who haven't been paying attention- not only is the Greek Problem extremely serious for the Euro, and by extension the EU, if the Germans stop playing this particular game, there is no game.
Without German, French and British participation, the EU would simply be another transnational talking shop, of which the world has untold numbers already. German productivity is about half of what makes the EU viable. If the Germans decide that playing sugar daddy to lazy socialists from Lisbon to Lodz is not the future they really want for themselves, the game is well and truly up.
"...If the Euro fails, then Europe fails". True, if you mean by Europe the great socialist European project strapped to the relatively unwilling European peoples for the last sixty five years. How many would mourn its passing? The EU is increasingly seen by Europeans as one of those terrible cranky old nineteen fifties ideas which has bizarrely managed to maintain a zombie existence into the twenty first century. How many would be happy with a free trade zone, and in every other way run their own affairs?
That is the question the European elites dare not ask.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article7131340.ece
Quite funny really. I said this here, and mentioned the same thought to a number of people, who all scoffed and pooh-poohed the idea that that things were this serious. Well, news flash to those people who haven't been paying attention- not only is the Greek Problem extremely serious for the Euro, and by extension the EU, if the Germans stop playing this particular game, there is no game.
Without German, French and British participation, the EU would simply be another transnational talking shop, of which the world has untold numbers already. German productivity is about half of what makes the EU viable. If the Germans decide that playing sugar daddy to lazy socialists from Lisbon to Lodz is not the future they really want for themselves, the game is well and truly up.
"...If the Euro fails, then Europe fails". True, if you mean by Europe the great socialist European project strapped to the relatively unwilling European peoples for the last sixty five years. How many would mourn its passing? The EU is increasingly seen by Europeans as one of those terrible cranky old nineteen fifties ideas which has bizarrely managed to maintain a zombie existence into the twenty first century. How many would be happy with a free trade zone, and in every other way run their own affairs?
That is the question the European elites dare not ask.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Britain is a Stalinist State, says Noam Chomsky
'Chomsky Calls Israeli Government ‘Stalinist’ for Refusing Him Entry'
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/chomsky-calls-israeli-government-stalinist-for-refusing-him-entry/
Well, ok, he didn't call Britain a stalinist state, but someone should have. Just last year, Britain denied the Dutch MP Geert Wilders entry to Britain because it didn't like the things he said. And I don't remember plangent cries of grief from the left over it. But then consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. Apart from when the left want to make a point about western hypocrisy. And then consistency is VERY VERY important.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/chomsky-calls-israeli-government-stalinist-for-refusing-him-entry/
Well, ok, he didn't call Britain a stalinist state, but someone should have. Just last year, Britain denied the Dutch MP Geert Wilders entry to Britain because it didn't like the things he said. And I don't remember plangent cries of grief from the left over it. But then consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. Apart from when the left want to make a point about western hypocrisy. And then consistency is VERY VERY important.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
News just in: Most people not very interested in politics
'With party leaders hammering out a coalition deal, Westminster was abuzz. But outside the bubble, did the rest of the country share the political class' fascination?'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8677038.stm
What motivates articles like this? The 'Woe is me' language, the constant seeking out of evidence (very scant if this article is anything to go by) to support the a priori beliefs of the author, the inability to process any information which might contradict the a priori beliefs- these are all so horribly familiar.
Why didn't the author mention that turnout in the last two elections has risen, from 59.4% in 2001 to 65.1% this time? OK, it isn't the 77.7% of electors who showed up in 1992... but its better than a poke in the eye. While I do meet people all the time who parrot the cliches about how all the politicians are as bad as each other, and they are all corrupt, the statistics say that almost two thirds of electors do think it is worth voting.
This evidence is proffered of 'a community to whom [the countries leaders] appeared utterly alien':
'In The Oddfellows pub, lunchtime drinkers muttered into their pints about the mediocre form of Watford FC, not the relative merits of a "progressive alliance" versus a Conservative-Lib Dem pact.
Along the Victorian and Edwardian residential streets surrounding the town centre, the only leaflets being delivered were for a local pizza restaurant.
The Conservatives had an office at the far end of Watford's High Street. But otherwise, in a town so recently bombarded with election propaganda, the sudden absence of party colours adorning windows and lamp-posts was strangely unsettling.'
It really is the most shoddy argumentation. If the point being made is that the Westminster elites are irretrievably alienated from the hoi polloi, the evidence given here doesn't remotely prove it.
Are people who are interested in politics a small minority? Yes. Does that matter? No. Is it any different in 2010 than it was in 1910 or 1810? Almost certainly not. What matters is that those with knowledge and power do the right things, and govern the country well. The punters in Watford will appreciate that.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8677038.stm
What motivates articles like this? The 'Woe is me' language, the constant seeking out of evidence (very scant if this article is anything to go by) to support the a priori beliefs of the author, the inability to process any information which might contradict the a priori beliefs- these are all so horribly familiar.
Why didn't the author mention that turnout in the last two elections has risen, from 59.4% in 2001 to 65.1% this time? OK, it isn't the 77.7% of electors who showed up in 1992... but its better than a poke in the eye. While I do meet people all the time who parrot the cliches about how all the politicians are as bad as each other, and they are all corrupt, the statistics say that almost two thirds of electors do think it is worth voting.
This evidence is proffered of 'a community to whom [the countries leaders] appeared utterly alien':
'In The Oddfellows pub, lunchtime drinkers muttered into their pints about the mediocre form of Watford FC, not the relative merits of a "progressive alliance" versus a Conservative-Lib Dem pact.
Along the Victorian and Edwardian residential streets surrounding the town centre, the only leaflets being delivered were for a local pizza restaurant.
The Conservatives had an office at the far end of Watford's High Street. But otherwise, in a town so recently bombarded with election propaganda, the sudden absence of party colours adorning windows and lamp-posts was strangely unsettling.'
It really is the most shoddy argumentation. If the point being made is that the Westminster elites are irretrievably alienated from the hoi polloi, the evidence given here doesn't remotely prove it.
Are people who are interested in politics a small minority? Yes. Does that matter? No. Is it any different in 2010 than it was in 1910 or 1810? Almost certainly not. What matters is that those with knowledge and power do the right things, and govern the country well. The punters in Watford will appreciate that.
How's that multi-culturism thing working out for you?
Actually, multi-culturism is probably ok as long as none of them are muslim...
Monday, May 10, 2010
Be afraid, very afraid
'Concern that European leaders will need to bail out more countries than just Greece flared from New York to Sydney last week, prompting investors to shun all but gold, dollars, yen and the safest government securities. Led by Italy’s $126 billion, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Italy have a total of $215 billion of debt coming due in the next three months, according to JPMorgan.
‘‘When we’re told something’s contained, it almost never is,” said Brian Yelvington, head of fixed-income strategy at broker-dealer Knight Libertas LLC in Greenwich, Connecticut. “There were a lot of people who didn’t realize how fully interrelated and large this is.”'
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aP2k8sq2WiRU
Living a plush lifestyle as one of Europes pampered millions? Think the gravy train runs on into infinity? There is a brick wall approaching, whether you like it or not.
‘‘When we’re told something’s contained, it almost never is,” said Brian Yelvington, head of fixed-income strategy at broker-dealer Knight Libertas LLC in Greenwich, Connecticut. “There were a lot of people who didn’t realize how fully interrelated and large this is.”'
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aP2k8sq2WiRU
Living a plush lifestyle as one of Europes pampered millions? Think the gravy train runs on into infinity? There is a brick wall approaching, whether you like it or not.
Sunday, May 09, 2010
No, Virginia, there is no Jack Bauer
'Despite governing a city that had a vast hole blown into it by Islamic terrorists, Mayor Michael Bloomberg could hardly imagine Muslim extremists targeting innocents in the “crossroads of the world.” Not when there are more congenial would-be mass murderers. On CBS News, Bloomberg speculated that the plotter would be “homegrown, or maybe a mentally deranged person, or somebody with a political agenda that doesn’t like the health-care bill or something.”
Bloomberg must be watching too many TV shows and movies, where writers always strain to create terrorist threats that have nothing to do with Muslims. But even they haven’t yet come up with a plotline involving terrorists convinced that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and that the Congressional Budget Office score of the health-care bill is too rosy.
Usually, the government is in the position of knocking down irrational conspiracy theories; it has never quite convinced everyone that the Kennedy assassination was the work of a lone gunman. But here is an active global conspiracy, and it’s the government that irrationally wants to see a series of lone gunmen. The Pakistani Taliban must have been frustrated in the initial days after the attempt, when so few in the U.S. government would believe that, yes, it might send someone to bomb Times Square.'
http://article.nationalreview.com/433668/the-lone-wolf-pack/rich-lowry
Not only is there no real-life Jack Bauer who, in spite of being shackled by idiot bureacrats and half-wit ACLU lawyers, saves the day; there exists a learning curve gradually reaching genuine threat levels. When the Taliban started using IED's about three years ago, they were pretty hopeless. They are now extremely accomplished. Ask any squaddie who has done a tour in Afghanistan lately. Americas home-grown terrorists are climbing the same learning curve right now.
Apparently, Napolitano and Holder have got everything crossed hoping that something or other will crop up and save the US from successful jihadi terrorism. Nice one, guys! Way to stay on top of the situation. I'm sure their response would be that some people must be sacrificed so that America can hold its head high in the world, and be consistent with its own nicey-nicey no-torture happy-clappy principles. I want Janet Napolitano to say that while looking the mother of some poor kid blown up or minced in some terrorist atrocity in the eye.
This is not a TV show. This is not some fiction where somehow in the 24th episode everything gets resolved nicely, and Jack takes a well-earned vacation. Young, determined men will come along who are technically accomplished, who are utterly dedicated, and then we won't be laughing about silly, inept terrorists any more.
And here is my prediction. The anger and the desire for revenge, stoked up by 9/11, will pour out the next time there is a big successful attack on the U.S. You will NOT want to get in the way of that, let me assure you.
Bloomberg must be watching too many TV shows and movies, where writers always strain to create terrorist threats that have nothing to do with Muslims. But even they haven’t yet come up with a plotline involving terrorists convinced that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and that the Congressional Budget Office score of the health-care bill is too rosy.
Usually, the government is in the position of knocking down irrational conspiracy theories; it has never quite convinced everyone that the Kennedy assassination was the work of a lone gunman. But here is an active global conspiracy, and it’s the government that irrationally wants to see a series of lone gunmen. The Pakistani Taliban must have been frustrated in the initial days after the attempt, when so few in the U.S. government would believe that, yes, it might send someone to bomb Times Square.'
http://article.nationalreview.com/433668/the-lone-wolf-pack/rich-lowry
Not only is there no real-life Jack Bauer who, in spite of being shackled by idiot bureacrats and half-wit ACLU lawyers, saves the day; there exists a learning curve gradually reaching genuine threat levels. When the Taliban started using IED's about three years ago, they were pretty hopeless. They are now extremely accomplished. Ask any squaddie who has done a tour in Afghanistan lately. Americas home-grown terrorists are climbing the same learning curve right now.
Apparently, Napolitano and Holder have got everything crossed hoping that something or other will crop up and save the US from successful jihadi terrorism. Nice one, guys! Way to stay on top of the situation. I'm sure their response would be that some people must be sacrificed so that America can hold its head high in the world, and be consistent with its own nicey-nicey no-torture happy-clappy principles. I want Janet Napolitano to say that while looking the mother of some poor kid blown up or minced in some terrorist atrocity in the eye.
This is not a TV show. This is not some fiction where somehow in the 24th episode everything gets resolved nicely, and Jack takes a well-earned vacation. Young, determined men will come along who are technically accomplished, who are utterly dedicated, and then we won't be laughing about silly, inept terrorists any more.
And here is my prediction. The anger and the desire for revenge, stoked up by 9/11, will pour out the next time there is a big successful attack on the U.S. You will NOT want to get in the way of that, let me assure you.
Why you should think long and hard before you let twenty million Mexicans into your country
'About 85 mostly Hispanic students staged a noon protest march through Morgan Hill on Thursday, one day after five students at Live Oak High School were sent home after showing up in clothing with American flags on Cinco de Mayo.
The protesters supported the school's decision, while the parents of the students sent home blasted it and the school district's superintendent called the entire incident "extremely unfortunate."...
"While campus safety is our primary concern and administrators made decisions yesterday in an attempt to ensure campus safety, students should not and will not be disciplined for wearing patriotic clothing," Smith said.
Kathleen Sullivan, a school board trustee, said Live Oak experienced problems on Cinco de Mayo last year. She said some students had complained to the principal and vice principal that they had felt intimidated by students waving American flags.
In response to those complaints, school officials had asked students not to provoke other students by wearing or waving flags this year, Sullivan said.
"The district's position is that that is not in our policy," Sullivan said. "But the underlying reason for it was student safety."'
http://cbs5.com/education/rally.american.flag.2.1680060.html
Let us imagine a time in the future when the United States goes to war with Mexico. Neighbor countries often go to war, much more often than countries who are not neighbors, so it is not beyond the realms of possibility. Who would the Mexican immigrants fight for? How many of them would be a fifth column for the Mexican forces?
As usual, the left sees no danger. They never see danger as long as the situation can be manipulated to help the cause of the left. Which in this case it most decidedly can. Mexican immigrants now vote overwhelmingly Democrat. That is why they don't want a border fence. And why in a fight between patriotic Americans and very unpatriotic immigrants, they will support the latter.
Very dangerous dynamics are being created. But those who create these dynamics will never accept responsibility for it.
The protesters supported the school's decision, while the parents of the students sent home blasted it and the school district's superintendent called the entire incident "extremely unfortunate."...
"While campus safety is our primary concern and administrators made decisions yesterday in an attempt to ensure campus safety, students should not and will not be disciplined for wearing patriotic clothing," Smith said.
Kathleen Sullivan, a school board trustee, said Live Oak experienced problems on Cinco de Mayo last year. She said some students had complained to the principal and vice principal that they had felt intimidated by students waving American flags.
In response to those complaints, school officials had asked students not to provoke other students by wearing or waving flags this year, Sullivan said.
"The district's position is that that is not in our policy," Sullivan said. "But the underlying reason for it was student safety."'
http://cbs5.com/education/rally.american.flag.2.1680060.html
Let us imagine a time in the future when the United States goes to war with Mexico. Neighbor countries often go to war, much more often than countries who are not neighbors, so it is not beyond the realms of possibility. Who would the Mexican immigrants fight for? How many of them would be a fifth column for the Mexican forces?
As usual, the left sees no danger. They never see danger as long as the situation can be manipulated to help the cause of the left. Which in this case it most decidedly can. Mexican immigrants now vote overwhelmingly Democrat. That is why they don't want a border fence. And why in a fight between patriotic Americans and very unpatriotic immigrants, they will support the latter.
Very dangerous dynamics are being created. But those who create these dynamics will never accept responsibility for it.
Thursday, May 06, 2010
Beautiful, just Beautiful
'"I've got it!" he shouted, foaming at the lips with enthusiasm. "Quickly, Holder, what group of deranged conspirators now constitutes the greatest potential threat to the republic?"
"I believe you are alluding to the anarchists of the Tea Party," I said.
"Precisely, Holder!" he shouted, amorously embracing a rubbish bin. "Look at the facts all around -- they square only with one conclusion -- that this was the handiwork of Tory extremists, driven to blind violent rage by His Majesty's Heath Care Reform Act. I would wager my last farthing on it!"
"By Jove, you're right Holmes!" I replied, finally catching on to his brilliant syllogism. "The proverbial dogs who did not bark. It's all right there in the report of Lady Napolitano."
"Lady Napolitano?" Holmes asked, momentarily stunned.'
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451eb3469e20133ed3d21a1970b
Remember, folks, only IowaHawk can guaruntee you at least three, often many more, belly-laughs per satire.
Now, if the subjects of these satires were only educated enough to understand them...
"I believe you are alluding to the anarchists of the Tea Party," I said.
"Precisely, Holder!" he shouted, amorously embracing a rubbish bin. "Look at the facts all around -- they square only with one conclusion -- that this was the handiwork of Tory extremists, driven to blind violent rage by His Majesty's Heath Care Reform Act. I would wager my last farthing on it!"
"By Jove, you're right Holmes!" I replied, finally catching on to his brilliant syllogism. "The proverbial dogs who did not bark. It's all right there in the report of Lady Napolitano."
"Lady Napolitano?" Holmes asked, momentarily stunned.'
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451eb3469e20133ed3d21a1970b
Remember, folks, only IowaHawk can guaruntee you at least three, often many more, belly-laughs per satire.
Now, if the subjects of these satires were only educated enough to understand them...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)