'An Alphabet Soup Of Terror
Bahukutumbi Raman
Why did the Taliban attack the ISI?'
http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/29/taliban-isi-let-jem-lashkar-jaish-pashtun-afghanistan-opinions-contributors-pakistan.html
In this recent post, I discussed the roots of Pakistans various combatant parties. Mr Raman knows a lot more than I do, and if you're interested in the worlds hottest current hotspot, its worth a read.
A couple of things struck me- there is never an effort on the part of the big media organisations to make distinctions between the various groups. The word 'Taliban' is used as a catch-all, despite the very important distinction between groups which are basically deniable proxies of the Pakistan government (Pakhtu Neo Taliban, Punjabi LET) and the rest, which to some extent are at war with it.
The other thing which I found odd- what was the Red Mosque doing full of Pakhtu children? Islamabad is not in a Pakhtun area. Branch office? And I guess the fact that the place was full of weapons and that weapons training was going on in the Red Mosque didn't make the management suspect that maybe the Pakistani government would eventually tire of having this armed camp just up the street from Parliament? I really truly do not understand the dynamics of Pakistani society.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Friday, May 22, 2009
Russian Stupidity
'Russia alarmed over new EU pact: Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has warned the European Union not to turn a proposed partnership with former Soviet countries against Moscow.
Mr Medvedev was speaking at the end of a Russia-EU summit held against a background of deep divisions over security, trade and energy supplies.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8061042.stm
D'oh! What did the idiots running Russia think would be the consequences of these actions:
- Cutting off the essential energy supplies of half of the EU like Mafiosi
- invading Georgia for no reason other than a kind of race memory of conquest
- as soon as Russias treasury got in the $50 grand necessary to buy the aviation fuel, re-starting the obnoxious in-your-face overflights of NATO countries, shipping etc. by aging prop-planes
- not just supplying the religio-fascist rulers of Iran with Nuclear technology and supplies, but shielding them in the UN Security Council for good measure
- lining up with every nutjob regime round the world like Venezuela, in a kind of Grand Alliance of the Criminal Regimes
- murdering the few independent-thinking people left in Russia, or indeed wherever they happened to be, including London
- using extreme nationalism and xenophobia as a means of bolstering their illigitimate rule in Russia
- strong-arming foreign companies trying to do business in Russia, until the executives of those companies flee for their lives into hiding
Just a little list off the top of my head. Putin has managed to snatch lowering hatred from the jaws of civility and amicability. The whole of the advanced world willed Russia to step away from the awful inheritance of Communism, and become a new Germany or Japan- countries which also have recent pasts which they still have much to apologise for, yet still play a positive and constructive role in the world.
But they just couldn't do it. Paranoia, corruption, thuggishness and brutality have re-asserted themselves as the driving forces of Russian politics and external relations. How sad, and how stupid.
Mr Medvedev was speaking at the end of a Russia-EU summit held against a background of deep divisions over security, trade and energy supplies.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8061042.stm
D'oh! What did the idiots running Russia think would be the consequences of these actions:
- Cutting off the essential energy supplies of half of the EU like Mafiosi
- invading Georgia for no reason other than a kind of race memory of conquest
- as soon as Russias treasury got in the $50 grand necessary to buy the aviation fuel, re-starting the obnoxious in-your-face overflights of NATO countries, shipping etc. by aging prop-planes
- not just supplying the religio-fascist rulers of Iran with Nuclear technology and supplies, but shielding them in the UN Security Council for good measure
- lining up with every nutjob regime round the world like Venezuela, in a kind of Grand Alliance of the Criminal Regimes
- murdering the few independent-thinking people left in Russia, or indeed wherever they happened to be, including London
- using extreme nationalism and xenophobia as a means of bolstering their illigitimate rule in Russia
- strong-arming foreign companies trying to do business in Russia, until the executives of those companies flee for their lives into hiding
Just a little list off the top of my head. Putin has managed to snatch lowering hatred from the jaws of civility and amicability. The whole of the advanced world willed Russia to step away from the awful inheritance of Communism, and become a new Germany or Japan- countries which also have recent pasts which they still have much to apologise for, yet still play a positive and constructive role in the world.
But they just couldn't do it. Paranoia, corruption, thuggishness and brutality have re-asserted themselves as the driving forces of Russian politics and external relations. How sad, and how stupid.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Talking freely about the society we want
'Liberals can never say exactly what they want because it’s scary. That’s why they don’t work on talk radio. If they say what they’re goals are unfiltered, it even scares themselves. Look at college campuses; if liberals were unrestrained, is there any doubt their final goal would be socialism and fascism? They inch into any control they can have about our finances and behavior and clamp down on it like wolverines never letting go, but they never talk about their ultimate goals except in the vaguest terms (”Change and happiness!”) because they’re well aware of how much it would freak people out. They want socialism and government control, but they just don’t want to state it that way.'
http://www.imao.us/index.php/2009/05/dont-hide-from-the-message/
Absolutely right. The Obama campaign in a nutshell. The mask slipped a couple of times, but nobody except conservatives was watching. Shame, because we were 100% correct.
'Conservative ideals can be stated frankly, though, and not send people running. It can be a little scary - freedom and responsibility is scary - but it’s an argument people will accept. So while liberals dance around what they want, we need to state frankly what our goals are. Lay out a real vision for the future to inspire people.'
I would call this the Mark Steyn\Rush Limbaugh\Daniel Hannan conservatism. Free from self-doubt, shame and timidity; plain spoken; un-fased by the constant lies told about them by the socialists. And most importantly, confirmed in their beliefs by the great mass of evidence around them. When you are trying to persuade people of something, it helps if your words are confirmed by the world itself. If you can point to things all around that confirm your view of the world, most reasonable people will accept what you are saying.
This is something the democrats/socialists/labour can't do. Every time they have their way, the wheels fall off in dramatic fashion. Compare 1979 Britain with 1999 Britain, if you don't believe me. 2009 Britain is returning to 1979 Britain, but then you have the same fu**ing morons in charge. When will the electorate learn? Actually, its worse than 1979. As I pointed out a few days ago, most of our soveriegnty now resides in the hands of the European Commission (unelected). We can't even sack the bastards. Just may have to be the bullet rather than the ballot. Oh well, freedom has ALWAYS been worth fighting for.
http://www.imao.us/index.php/2009/05/dont-hide-from-the-message/
Absolutely right. The Obama campaign in a nutshell. The mask slipped a couple of times, but nobody except conservatives was watching. Shame, because we were 100% correct.
'Conservative ideals can be stated frankly, though, and not send people running. It can be a little scary - freedom and responsibility is scary - but it’s an argument people will accept. So while liberals dance around what they want, we need to state frankly what our goals are. Lay out a real vision for the future to inspire people.'
I would call this the Mark Steyn\Rush Limbaugh\Daniel Hannan conservatism. Free from self-doubt, shame and timidity; plain spoken; un-fased by the constant lies told about them by the socialists. And most importantly, confirmed in their beliefs by the great mass of evidence around them. When you are trying to persuade people of something, it helps if your words are confirmed by the world itself. If you can point to things all around that confirm your view of the world, most reasonable people will accept what you are saying.
This is something the democrats/socialists/labour can't do. Every time they have their way, the wheels fall off in dramatic fashion. Compare 1979 Britain with 1999 Britain, if you don't believe me. 2009 Britain is returning to 1979 Britain, but then you have the same fu**ing morons in charge. When will the electorate learn? Actually, its worse than 1979. As I pointed out a few days ago, most of our soveriegnty now resides in the hands of the European Commission (unelected). We can't even sack the bastards. Just may have to be the bullet rather than the ballot
Monday, May 18, 2009
Getting Pakistani terrorism wrong
'Pakistan is the powder-keg of the contemporary world.
I said this six years ago, in my investigation of Daniel Pearl's death.
I repeated it on September 12th, 2003 in a piece published by the Washington Post. Its thesis was that the war in Iraq would persist because it was a grossly miscalculated target, one of the worst strategic errors ever to have been committed by the American administration.'
The first statement is a commonly agreed truism. The second, a much repeated bit of pundit folk-wisdom. "I told you the Iraq war would be a disaster!! See what a clever boy I am!" Trouble is, the Iraq 'war' is over and the Iraqi government/US won; despite the best efforts of Al Qaeda, Jaysh-al-Mahdi, the Sunni tribes, the Irainian government, the Syrian government, the French government, the Spanish government, the Russian government and many many more. What a spectacular victory, won with a staggeringly low casualty count by historical standards, and despite the utterly depraved actions of the enemy such as constantly bombing mosques and marketplaces.
Mr Henri-Levy, like most pundits of the same view, fails to state why the Iraq intervention was a strategic error. To generically assert that this or that intervention is a strategic error is asinine- answer the question why if you want to be even vaguely legitimate. I can list at least ten good strategic reasons to invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam Hussein. Can you list ten good reasons why it shouldn't have, Mr Henri-Levy? I bet you can't.
1. To get rid of Saddam Hussein, and his hideous, beastly tyranny
2. To create a focal point for islamist terrorists that was NOT the continental United States; to gather them up and kill them; a killing ground if you will.
3. To put a 155,000 man army on the border of Iran, with the obvious implications for the Iranian government.
4. To put a 155,000 man army on the border of Syria, as above.
5. To indicate to China and the other emergent powers that the American military is not limited to sitting in its bases, and will be used for advancing American strategic objectives.
6. To show Saudi Arabia that the US would not allow Iran and Iraq impunity to attack it.
7. To create a showpiece democracy in the Middle east, friendly to the US.
8. To ensure that the flow of oil from easy-extraction countries was not interfered with.
9. To turn the US military from a bloated, relatively low-morale, unblooded bureacracy into a hardened veteran, legitimate fighting force with high morale.
10. Most importantly, to counteract the world-wide perception that the US did not have the stomach for a fight any more.
Sadly, most of these strategic gains derived from the hard graft and sacrifice of American soldiers, marines and airman have been squandered by the intellectual giant in the White House.
'And where lie the roots of this disturbing Pakistani situation? There is, first of all, the fact that when we refer to the “Taliban” in Pakistan, we are talking about Al Quaeda, and literally Al Quaeda, since the constituent elements of its sphere of influence – groups like Lashkar-e-Toiba, Lashkar-e-Janghvi, or Jaish-e-Mohammed – comprise the hardcore of Bin Laden’s organization itself.'
From everything I have read about Pakistani terrorist groups, that is a deformation of the actual situation. For example, Lashkar-e-Toiba is the main vehicle for Pakistani terrorism and destabilisation operations in Kashmir. It's been around a very long time, much longer than Al Qaeda. Lumping together all islamic terror groups as simply elements of Al Qaeda provides no insight whatsoever. The Taliban government in Afghanistan were happy to host Al Qaeda, but they weren't Al Qaeda. The Afghani Taliban had very different goals. They were happy to have Afghanistan as their scope for action. Al Qaeda have always seen the whole world as their stage. The Afghani Taliban were the Stalinists, Al Qaeda Trotskyists, if you will.
Not only that, a very large part of both Afghani and Pakistani Taliban motivation is Pakhtun culture, the Pahktunwali. They are proud mountain warriors, and they despise the farmers and traders of the lowlands. They have always lived by the gun and extortion. In contrast, Al Qaeda are the islamist fascist vanguard, spoiled children of middle-class muslims from all over, but especially the richer countries. They see it as their role to murder their way to world domination in the name of a stark, puritanical wahhabist islam.
Indeed, Al Qaeda is a hodge-podge of malcontents from all over, whose main unifying principle is murderous intent. Most of the groups named by Henri-Levy have very different goals indeed. Laskar-e-Toiba want Kashmir in toto to be ruled from Islamabad. Where is the cross-over with Al Qaeda? There is very little. Most of the groups named are also creatures to some extent of the Pakistani government, and act as its proxies. Al Qaeda is not. It is useful to no one, really, due to its rediculously extreme positions and 7th century ideas, and habit of murdering other muslims. How many of the rank and file of the Taliban, Laskar-e-Toiba etc want the return of a caliphate, the destruction of America, the re-conquest of Al-Andalus, and all the other Al Qaeda holy grails, in any other than a very theoretical way? Their goals and aims are far more concrete and local.
There is no question that the whole of Pakistani society provides a friendly pond in which ALL islamist terror groups can swim. The police will only very infrequently interfere with them, and the man on the Islamabad omnibus is heartily in favor of their goals. This does present the rest of the world, but in particular India and Afghanistan with a depressing long-term problem. Al Qaeda may be an unwelcome guest in Pakistan, but most Pakistanis will do nothing to help destroy it.
The question in my mind is this: will myopia in Pakistan eventually lead to the almost complete destruction of Pakistini civil society from within, and invasion by its neighbors enraged by the constant attentions of the Pakistani government proxies? There is a strange symmetry here between the arc of Al Qaeda, and the country of Pakistan. Initial success before the victims determine the real intentions, followed by long-term defeat, indeed annihilation. Lets hope for the sake of millions of disinterested ordinary Pakistanis that thats not true.
I said this six years ago, in my investigation of Daniel Pearl's death.
I repeated it on September 12th, 2003 in a piece published by the Washington Post. Its thesis was that the war in Iraq would persist because it was a grossly miscalculated target, one of the worst strategic errors ever to have been committed by the American administration.'
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22602.html
The first statement is a commonly agreed truism. The second, a much repeated bit of pundit folk-wisdom. "I told you the Iraq war would be a disaster!! See what a clever boy I am!" Trouble is, the Iraq 'war' is over and the Iraqi government/US won; despite the best efforts of Al Qaeda, Jaysh-al-Mahdi, the Sunni tribes, the Irainian government, the Syrian government, the French government, the Spanish government, the Russian government and many many more. What a spectacular victory, won with a staggeringly low casualty count by historical standards, and despite the utterly depraved actions of the enemy such as constantly bombing mosques and marketplaces.
Mr Henri-Levy, like most pundits of the same view, fails to state why the Iraq intervention was a strategic error. To generically assert that this or that intervention is a strategic error is asinine- answer the question why if you want to be even vaguely legitimate. I can list at least ten good strategic reasons to invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam Hussein. Can you list ten good reasons why it shouldn't have, Mr Henri-Levy? I bet you can't.
1. To get rid of Saddam Hussein, and his hideous, beastly tyranny
2. To create a focal point for islamist terrorists that was NOT the continental United States; to gather them up and kill them; a killing ground if you will.
3. To put a 155,000 man army on the border of Iran, with the obvious implications for the Iranian government.
4. To put a 155,000 man army on the border of Syria, as above.
5. To indicate to China and the other emergent powers that the American military is not limited to sitting in its bases, and will be used for advancing American strategic objectives.
6. To show Saudi Arabia that the US would not allow Iran and Iraq impunity to attack it.
7. To create a showpiece democracy in the Middle east, friendly to the US.
8. To ensure that the flow of oil from easy-extraction countries was not interfered with.
9. To turn the US military from a bloated, relatively low-morale, unblooded bureacracy into a hardened veteran, legitimate fighting force with high morale.
10. Most importantly, to counteract the world-wide perception that the US did not have the stomach for a fight any more.
Sadly, most of these strategic gains derived from the hard graft and sacrifice of American soldiers, marines and airman have been squandered by the intellectual giant in the White House.
'And where lie the roots of this disturbing Pakistani situation? There is, first of all, the fact that when we refer to the “Taliban” in Pakistan, we are talking about Al Quaeda, and literally Al Quaeda, since the constituent elements of its sphere of influence – groups like Lashkar-e-Toiba, Lashkar-e-Janghvi, or Jaish-e-Mohammed – comprise the hardcore of Bin Laden’s organization itself.'
From everything I have read about Pakistani terrorist groups, that is a deformation of the actual situation. For example, Lashkar-e-Toiba is the main vehicle for Pakistani terrorism and destabilisation operations in Kashmir. It's been around a very long time, much longer than Al Qaeda. Lumping together all islamic terror groups as simply elements of Al Qaeda provides no insight whatsoever. The Taliban government in Afghanistan were happy to host Al Qaeda, but they weren't Al Qaeda. The Afghani Taliban had very different goals. They were happy to have Afghanistan as their scope for action. Al Qaeda have always seen the whole world as their stage. The Afghani Taliban were the Stalinists, Al Qaeda Trotskyists, if you will.
Not only that, a very large part of both Afghani and Pakistani Taliban motivation is Pakhtun culture, the Pahktunwali. They are proud mountain warriors, and they despise the farmers and traders of the lowlands. They have always lived by the gun and extortion. In contrast, Al Qaeda are the islamist fascist vanguard, spoiled children of middle-class muslims from all over, but especially the richer countries. They see it as their role to murder their way to world domination in the name of a stark, puritanical wahhabist islam.
Indeed, Al Qaeda is a hodge-podge of malcontents from all over, whose main unifying principle is murderous intent. Most of the groups named by Henri-Levy have very different goals indeed. Laskar-e-Toiba want Kashmir in toto to be ruled from Islamabad. Where is the cross-over with Al Qaeda? There is very little. Most of the groups named are also creatures to some extent of the Pakistani government, and act as its proxies. Al Qaeda is not. It is useful to no one, really, due to its rediculously extreme positions and 7th century ideas, and habit of murdering other muslims. How many of the rank and file of the Taliban, Laskar-e-Toiba etc want the return of a caliphate, the destruction of America, the re-conquest of Al-Andalus, and all the other Al Qaeda holy grails, in any other than a very theoretical way? Their goals and aims are far more concrete and local.
There is no question that the whole of Pakistani society provides a friendly pond in which ALL islamist terror groups can swim. The police will only very infrequently interfere with them, and the man on the Islamabad omnibus is heartily in favor of their goals. This does present the rest of the world, but in particular India and Afghanistan with a depressing long-term problem. Al Qaeda may be an unwelcome guest in Pakistan, but most Pakistanis will do nothing to help destroy it.
The question in my mind is this: will myopia in Pakistan eventually lead to the almost complete destruction of Pakistini civil society from within, and invasion by its neighbors enraged by the constant attentions of the Pakistani government proxies? There is a strange symmetry here between the arc of Al Qaeda, and the country of Pakistan. Initial success before the victims determine the real intentions, followed by long-term defeat, indeed annihilation. Lets hope for the sake of millions of disinterested ordinary Pakistanis that thats not true.
What is a moderate?
'Obama picks off another moderate
President Barack Obama’s decision to appoint Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman as ambassador to China doesn’t merely remove a likely challenger — it strips the Republican Party of one of its few voices urging moderation.
Obama’s pick leaves the GOP without an obvious centrist presidential candidate two years before the primary jockeying begins in full. By dispatching Huntsman to Beijing, Obama is effectively trying to determine the sort of Republican he and his top advisers would like to face in 2012.'
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22636.html
RINO. Statist. Big governmenter. Indistinguishable from euro-Dems. Against the use of American power to do good in the world. Unwilling to fight Islamist fascism. Thats a moderate.
Politics is very often about the use and misuse of language. As the wretched out-dated, long-debunked 20th century policies of the Democrat/Socialists/Big staters have grown ever more shop-worn and pathetic, the geniality of the debate has succumbed to desperation. Given what they are selling, the Dems have to lie A LOT. They have to use every dubious strategem of misdirection, Big Brother Newspeak, covering evidence, manufacturing evidence and the politics of personal destruction.
I'm going to make a prediction. The internal idiocy of the Dems current position, trying to sell the 20th centuries worst ideas as 21st century hip, snazzy novelties; will bring about one of the shortest periods of dominance for a major political party ever. By early 2010, the Obama white house, the Pelosi House of Representatives and the Harry Reid Senate will be busted flushes.
Don't forget to check back in.
President Barack Obama’s decision to appoint Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman as ambassador to China doesn’t merely remove a likely challenger — it strips the Republican Party of one of its few voices urging moderation.
Obama’s pick leaves the GOP without an obvious centrist presidential candidate two years before the primary jockeying begins in full. By dispatching Huntsman to Beijing, Obama is effectively trying to determine the sort of Republican he and his top advisers would like to face in 2012.'
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22636.html
RINO. Statist. Big governmenter. Indistinguishable from euro-Dems. Against the use of American power to do good in the world. Unwilling to fight Islamist fascism. Thats a moderate.
Politics is very often about the use and misuse of language. As the wretched out-dated, long-debunked 20th century policies of the Democrat/Socialists/Big staters have grown ever more shop-worn and pathetic, the geniality of the debate has succumbed to desperation. Given what they are selling, the Dems have to lie A LOT. They have to use every dubious strategem of misdirection, Big Brother Newspeak, covering evidence, manufacturing evidence and the politics of personal destruction.
I'm going to make a prediction. The internal idiocy of the Dems current position, trying to sell the 20th centuries worst ideas as 21st century hip, snazzy novelties; will bring about one of the shortest periods of dominance for a major political party ever. By early 2010, the Obama white house, the Pelosi House of Representatives and the Harry Reid Senate will be busted flushes.
Don't forget to check back in.
Bed, Bath and Beyond Gift vouchers?
'Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu to meet Obama
Mr Netanyahu and his wife Sara arrived in Washington on Sunday
Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu is due at the White House for his first meeting with US President Barack Obama.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8055105.stm
I wonder what hastily bought tawdry crap he can expect?
Mr Netanyahu and his wife Sara arrived in Washington on Sunday
Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu is due at the White House for his first meeting with US President Barack Obama.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8055105.stm
I wonder what hastily bought tawdry crap he can expect?
Disgusting misdirection of the public debate
'Can MPs recover from expenses row?
Can politicians recover from the expenses row?
The Speaker of the House of Commons is to make a statement to MPs on Monday, amid growing calls for him to quit over the expenses scandal. Has politics been permanently damaged?
The Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg has called for Michael Martin to resign while MPs from all parties have signed a motion of no confidence.
After the latest revelations in the Daily Telegraph, Downing Street says an inquiry will be launched into claims that Labour MP Ben Chapman was given permission to claim allowances for mortgage interest he no longer paid.
Have you lost faith in politicians? How can MPs regain your trust? Is it enough to pay back the money claimed on expenses? Have these revelations put you off voting?'
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=6430&edition=1&ttl=20090518122245
When the general public and the massed ranks of the underemployed, over excitable big media get over their flamboyant hysteria over this 'scandal', there may well be some red faces. From so many angles, this is a non-story. Britain has ceded something like 84% of its sovereignty to the EU. That means that Westminster parliamentarians are responsible for the other 16%. Which by my reckoning makes them pretty unimportant, apart from the residual affection the public have for their legacy parliament. Even if our MP's are complete rubbish, it doesn't really matter to Britain. We are governed from Brussels, Strasbourg and Frankfurt. Enormously greater sums of money are wasted by the EU institutions than our 569 MPs.
Enormously greater sums of money are wasted by the grotesquely bloated UK government, with all its massive benefit regimes, quangos and socialist boondoggles. But since the Tories stopped discussing socialism in public, those topics have disappeared completely from public discourse in Britain. Now, apart from a few lonely voices like Daniel Hannan, the statist world-view envelopes all. Discussing a few hundred pounds of expenses when hundreds of billions of our wealth are disappearing down the toilet is not just obtuse- its obscene. I tell you what- we'll get back to discussing the MP's expenses just as soon as the state is removed from education provision, health provision, 'job creation', enabling dependent lifestyles and fixing the economic playing field.
Can politicians recover from the expenses row?
The Speaker of the House of Commons is to make a statement to MPs on Monday, amid growing calls for him to quit over the expenses scandal. Has politics been permanently damaged?
The Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg has called for Michael Martin to resign while MPs from all parties have signed a motion of no confidence.
After the latest revelations in the Daily Telegraph, Downing Street says an inquiry will be launched into claims that Labour MP Ben Chapman was given permission to claim allowances for mortgage interest he no longer paid.
Have you lost faith in politicians? How can MPs regain your trust? Is it enough to pay back the money claimed on expenses? Have these revelations put you off voting?'
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=6430&edition=1&ttl=20090518122245
When the general public and the massed ranks of the underemployed, over excitable big media get over their flamboyant hysteria over this 'scandal', there may well be some red faces. From so many angles, this is a non-story. Britain has ceded something like 84% of its sovereignty to the EU. That means that Westminster parliamentarians are responsible for the other 16%. Which by my reckoning makes them pretty unimportant, apart from the residual affection the public have for their legacy parliament. Even if our MP's are complete rubbish, it doesn't really matter to Britain. We are governed from Brussels, Strasbourg and Frankfurt. Enormously greater sums of money are wasted by the EU institutions than our 569 MPs.
Enormously greater sums of money are wasted by the grotesquely bloated UK government, with all its massive benefit regimes, quangos and socialist boondoggles. But since the Tories stopped discussing socialism in public, those topics have disappeared completely from public discourse in Britain. Now, apart from a few lonely voices like Daniel Hannan, the statist world-view envelopes all. Discussing a few hundred pounds of expenses when hundreds of billions of our wealth are disappearing down the toilet is not just obtuse- its obscene. I tell you what- we'll get back to discussing the MP's expenses just as soon as the state is removed from education provision, health provision, 'job creation', enabling dependent lifestyles and fixing the economic playing field.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
The Real Barack Obama slides into view
'Obama could have had a one-time stimulus, then vowed to balance the budget. He might have praised wind and solar as he asked the carbon industry to ‘get us through.’ He could have politely disagreed with Bush, but framing differences in the tragic notion of no good choices. He might have cooled the overseas apologies, savvy that other nations have more to apologize for than his own. Obama should have established zero-tolerance for tax avoidance at a time of record tax increases. He could have remonstrated with Wall Street, and sought to rein in excess without Europeanizing the financial sector. He could have proactively reformed entitlements with bipartisan support, rather than, as will happen, drastically address them in the 11th hour.'
http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/929/2/
Possibly the best way of analysing Obama I have yet read. I think of it like this: if Obama was the man he told us he was, he would have done what the superbly clear Victor Davis Hanson describes.
http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/929/2/
Possibly the best way of analysing Obama I have yet read. I think of it like this: if Obama was the man he told us he was, he would have done what the superbly clear Victor Davis Hanson describes.
Friday, May 15, 2009
George W Bush II
"Obama 'to revive military trials'
US President Barack Obama is expected to announce on Friday that he is reviving military trials for some of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8051275.stm
New boss, same as the old boss, as Instapundit would say.
Far from Obama showing us a piercing and original intellect, over and over again he demonstrates that his hifalutin sermonizing during the electoral campaign was based on no serious analysis. He has no replacement for Guantanamo Bay, he has nowhere to send the terrorists in Guantanamo Bay, and he has no legal solution to the status of the terrorists in Guantanamo Bay other than the one already devised.
He is a hollow vessel. His denunciations from 2008 now fall upon his own head, and are revealed as the specious cant that we said they were at the time.
US President Barack Obama is expected to announce on Friday that he is reviving military trials for some of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8051275.stm
New boss, same as the old boss, as Instapundit would say.
Far from Obama showing us a piercing and original intellect, over and over again he demonstrates that his hifalutin sermonizing during the electoral campaign was based on no serious analysis. He has no replacement for Guantanamo Bay, he has nowhere to send the terrorists in Guantanamo Bay, and he has no legal solution to the status of the terrorists in Guantanamo Bay other than the one already devised.
He is a hollow vessel. His denunciations from 2008 now fall upon his own head, and are revealed as the specious cant that we said they were at the time.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Madness in the Westminster Village
I don't know about swine flu- it looks like mad cow disease is back. EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeekkkkk!
Somali pirates not a shower
'The Somali pirates attacking shipping in the Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean are directed to their targets by a "consultant" team in London, according to a European military intelligence document obtained by a Spanish radio station.'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/11/somali-pirates-london-intelligence [Hat Tip: Dustbury.com, also simplyjews.blogspot.com]
Why didn't I hear about this from the big media? I don't really consider the Guardian big media. Once upon a time, maybe. But this is really one of those WTFF? moments. Like most folks, I imagined the Somali pirates being parallel to most things in Somalia- extremely low tech; mad, bad and dangerous but thoroughly disorganised and shambolic. Appears not.
Of course, if WE know this much, our security services must have a firm grip on the situation... right?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/11/somali-pirates-london-intelligence [Hat Tip: Dustbury.com, also simplyjews.blogspot.com]
Why didn't I hear about this from the big media? I don't really consider the Guardian big media. Once upon a time, maybe. But this is really one of those WTFF? moments. Like most folks, I imagined the Somali pirates being parallel to most things in Somalia- extremely low tech; mad, bad and dangerous but thoroughly disorganised and shambolic. Appears not.
Of course, if WE know this much, our security services must have a firm grip on the situation... right?
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Seeing eye to eye
'“If the U.S. solves three problems,” the general said, “American-Arab relations will be very good. First, resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. Second, promote democracy in the Arab world. Third, destroy the Wahhabis. If you solve these problems, all will be well.”'
General Nasser, Iraqi Army.
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2009/05/the-future-of-i.php
Same page, my man, same page.
General Nasser, Iraqi Army.
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2009/05/the-future-of-i.php
Same page, my man, same page.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
There ARE far more important things
'He said there were "far more important things going on in the world" - but became agitated when Ms Gracie asked why Mr Martin had tried to block the publication of expenses.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8045414.stm
If I had written this in first year English, I'd have been assaulted by my teacher. In what way is the statement 'became agitated when Ms Gracie asked why..." in any way a dependent clause of the first? Its not. Its intention is to destroy the impact and importance of the statement. And this is the pivotal statement in this whole story.
MP's expenses are utterly unimportant. Not only would most of them pass the reasonable man test, but the amounts of money are pitifully small. In relation to all British government expenditure, they are a tiny fraction of a droplet in the ocean.
Our MP's are not by any standard corrupt. By world standards, they are cleaner than clean, and thank God thats true. So why this demented witch hunt by the newspapers and TV news people?
There are two answers I can think of, both unpalatable. First, there is nothing going on for the newshounds (if only they were) to get their tiny baby teeth into, so this made-up story will do for cheap thrills. The second is worse- it is a cynical ploy to destract the population of this country from scrutinising the positively stupendous amounts of taxpayer wealth being thrown at various dubious projects up and down Britain.
Last year, it was revealed that the NHS spent 100 million pounds per year on translation services, so it can provide 'free' healthcare to somalis and bangladeshis and every other dreg that washes up on these shores in their own language. A hundred million pounds would cover the MP's expenses in toto, and much much more. Those translation services actively militate against immigrants assimilating here, and becoming useful and productive. A dismal lose-lose situation for the poor bastards paying the ginormous tab.
So the next time a whole NewsNight is spent chewing over some poor MP's claim for curtain rods, try to remember the big picture...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8045414.stm
If I had written this in first year English, I'd have been assaulted by my teacher. In what way is the statement 'became agitated when Ms Gracie asked why..." in any way a dependent clause of the first? Its not. Its intention is to destroy the impact and importance of the statement. And this is the pivotal statement in this whole story.
MP's expenses are utterly unimportant. Not only would most of them pass the reasonable man test, but the amounts of money are pitifully small. In relation to all British government expenditure, they are a tiny fraction of a droplet in the ocean.
Our MP's are not by any standard corrupt. By world standards, they are cleaner than clean, and thank God thats true. So why this demented witch hunt by the newspapers and TV news people?
There are two answers I can think of, both unpalatable. First, there is nothing going on for the newshounds (if only they were) to get their tiny baby teeth into, so this made-up story will do for cheap thrills. The second is worse- it is a cynical ploy to destract the population of this country from scrutinising the positively stupendous amounts of taxpayer wealth being thrown at various dubious projects up and down Britain.
Last year, it was revealed that the NHS spent 100 million pounds per year on translation services, so it can provide 'free' healthcare to somalis and bangladeshis and every other dreg that washes up on these shores in their own language. A hundred million pounds would cover the MP's expenses in toto, and much much more. Those translation services actively militate against immigrants assimilating here, and becoming useful and productive. A dismal lose-lose situation for the poor bastards paying the ginormous tab.
So the next time a whole NewsNight is spent chewing over some poor MP's claim for curtain rods, try to remember the big picture...
Monday, May 11, 2009
Fight smoulder with fire
In the comments:
peterike:
'This is the Jon Stewart-ization of “comedy.” The poison-tipped arrows always fly in one direction, with occassional powder-puffs tossed the other way to “prove” they “poke fun at everyone.”
Same old model. Take a non-fact and spin it into a vicious joke. Repeat ad nauseum. And it works. Stewart, Colbert, Maher etc. did as much as anybody to destroy Bush and get Obama elected.
Really, some enterprising Republican (hah!) should look into suing them under Federal election law (double-hah) for illegal campaign contributions in kind (triple hah).
Why don’t conservatives have people infiltrate the audiences of these shows in order to boo resoundingly? That’s the kind of media guerilla fighting we need.'
http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/05/10/a-laughing-matter/
Somebody called Wanda Sykes did some 'jokes' at the White House Correspondents annual shindig at the Belmont club. It wasn't humor, so much as a bitter tirade against people no longer in power. Watch it if you don't believe me. I found this in the comments, and it seems to be exactly the oppposite of whats needed. People watch Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert because they are funny. They may agree with the heavy dem slant, but they watch because the jokes are actually jokes.
What the conservative/libertarians need is funny people to do the same from their perspective. Go out into the by-ways and highways and FIND PEOPLE WHO ARE FUNNY, for goodness sake. Get them on TV to take the piss out of all the Dem sacred cows. Sheesh. Have I gotta come over their and do it for you? You don't want that...
peterike:
'This is the Jon Stewart-ization of “comedy.” The poison-tipped arrows always fly in one direction, with occassional powder-puffs tossed the other way to “prove” they “poke fun at everyone.”
Same old model. Take a non-fact and spin it into a vicious joke. Repeat ad nauseum. And it works. Stewart, Colbert, Maher etc. did as much as anybody to destroy Bush and get Obama elected.
Really, some enterprising Republican (hah!) should look into suing them under Federal election law (double-hah) for illegal campaign contributions in kind (triple hah).
Why don’t conservatives have people infiltrate the audiences of these shows in order to boo resoundingly? That’s the kind of media guerilla fighting we need.'
http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/05/10/a-laughing-matter/
Somebody called Wanda Sykes did some 'jokes' at the White House Correspondents annual shindig at the Belmont club. It wasn't humor, so much as a bitter tirade against people no longer in power. Watch it if you don't believe me. I found this in the comments, and it seems to be exactly the oppposite of whats needed. People watch Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert because they are funny. They may agree with the heavy dem slant, but they watch because the jokes are actually jokes.
What the conservative/libertarians need is funny people to do the same from their perspective. Go out into the by-ways and highways and FIND PEOPLE WHO ARE FUNNY, for goodness sake. Get them on TV to take the piss out of all the Dem sacred cows. Sheesh. Have I gotta come over their and do it for you? You don't want that...
Obama and the press
'Obama's high level of public support is largely a product of his positive image the media have crafted.'
http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2009/05/dijongate-what-have-we-learned.html
I was happily reading through this relatively standard analysis of DijonGate, something you may well not have heard about. To nutshell, DijonGate was a tiny, teeny little bit of media manipulation which caught the keen eye of the conservative/libertarian blogosphere. The President and Vice President of the United States went for lunch at a burger place, Rays Hell-Burger, in Arlington, Virginia. Thats very close to DC. Its meant to have really mean burgers. They aren't cheap by US standards at $6.95, though. Anyhoo, when President Obama ordered his, he asked for Dijon or some such mustard.
BFD right? Strangely, his request for Dijon mustard never made it on air. MSNBC, which happened to have cameras on hand at the restaurant BEFORE the presidential visit, were in the frame for eliding it out. Hmmm, thought all the people who were in the restaurant, he definitely said it. Why did MSNBC not want other Americans to hear their president asking for Dijon mustard? As usual, the cover-up caused much more stink than the comment itself.
But the reason for my post is to contest the assertion I direct quoted above. I do not believe that hundreds of millions of Americans love Obama because they read that they ought to in the LA Times, or were asked to on MSNBC. Some public figures are just beloved. I may not like them, I may not agree with their policies, but I will accept that millions of people disagree with me, for reasons I may never understand. And to delude yourself that millions and millions of people are the simple dupes of the big media organsitions is to start down a stone-cold dead-end.
As far as opposing the Obama policies, both tradition and common sense dictate that the man and his electorate are treated with respect while the policies are roasted with appropriate vigor. Being a loyal opposition can require great reserves of patience and a very thick skin. But in societies that don't want to use 7.62 rounds to solve their political differences, it is absolutely essential to deploy them.
The media may well love Obama, but that doesn't mean he is their creation.
http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2009/05/dijongate-what-have-we-learned.html
I was happily reading through this relatively standard analysis of DijonGate, something you may well not have heard about. To nutshell, DijonGate was a tiny, teeny little bit of media manipulation which caught the keen eye of the conservative/libertarian blogosphere. The President and Vice President of the United States went for lunch at a burger place, Rays Hell-Burger, in Arlington, Virginia. Thats very close to DC. Its meant to have really mean burgers. They aren't cheap by US standards at $6.95, though. Anyhoo, when President Obama ordered his, he asked for Dijon or some such mustard.
BFD right? Strangely, his request for Dijon mustard never made it on air. MSNBC, which happened to have cameras on hand at the restaurant BEFORE the presidential visit, were in the frame for eliding it out. Hmmm, thought all the people who were in the restaurant, he definitely said it. Why did MSNBC not want other Americans to hear their president asking for Dijon mustard? As usual, the cover-up caused much more stink than the comment itself.
But the reason for my post is to contest the assertion I direct quoted above. I do not believe that hundreds of millions of Americans love Obama because they read that they ought to in the LA Times, or were asked to on MSNBC. Some public figures are just beloved. I may not like them, I may not agree with their policies, but I will accept that millions of people disagree with me, for reasons I may never understand. And to delude yourself that millions and millions of people are the simple dupes of the big media organsitions is to start down a stone-cold dead-end.
As far as opposing the Obama policies, both tradition and common sense dictate that the man and his electorate are treated with respect while the policies are roasted with appropriate vigor. Being a loyal opposition can require great reserves of patience and a very thick skin. But in societies that don't want to use 7.62 rounds to solve their political differences, it is absolutely essential to deploy them.
The media may well love Obama, but that doesn't mean he is their creation.
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Dark path
'The names of some of the people barred from entering the UK for fostering extremism or hatred have been published for the first time.
Islamic extremists, white supremacists and a US radio host are among the 16 of 22 excluded in the five months to March to have been named by the Home Office.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8033060.stm
This is no longer a free country. This is not the Britain of old. This is not the home of liberty. This is not the home of robust free speech. We have to do something about this. This isn't even a left/right issue.
Islamic extremists, white supremacists and a US radio host are among the 16 of 22 excluded in the five months to March to have been named by the Home Office.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8033060.stm
This is no longer a free country. This is not the Britain of old. This is not the home of liberty. This is not the home of robust free speech. We have to do something about this. This isn't even a left/right issue.
Monday, May 04, 2009
Jon Stewart gets scorched
http://www.pjtv.com/video/Afterburner_/Jon_Stewart%2C_War_Criminals_%26_The_True_Story_of_the_Atomic_Bombs/1808/
This is absolutely superb argumentation. Textbook, or at least, should be. If you care about historical veracity, and the increasing dominance of revisionist lies, you will want more of this.
This is absolutely superb argumentation. Textbook, or at least, should be. If you care about historical veracity, and the increasing dominance of revisionist lies, you will want more of this.
Saturday, May 02, 2009
Pete Seeger, lovely old communist
A session with Seeger
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8027215.stm
Imagine if you will, that Pete Seeger were an ageing Nazi, whose songs eulagised Hitler and the delights of the Nazi philosophy and way of life.
'Affection for Pete was not always so widespread.
In the 1950s he was blacklisted for his former membership of the Communist Party, and his performing career seemed all but over.'
You can hear the implied tutting from hundreds of miles away. Oh, and by the way, the word 'former' in that sentance is a lie. There is nothing 'former' about his membership. It is very current.
'Typically, he refused to go away. In 1955 he declined to co-operate with the Un-American Activities Committee which was investigating radical activities of public figures.'
What a hero! He refused to go away. Unlike, for instance, a huge swathe of the Russian officer corps, the intellectuals and the upper reaches of the communist party, who went away anyway. Never to return. But then America is implacably evil in a very very benign not-evil sort of way. Weird that.
'He was sentenced to a year in prison for contempt, although a smart lawyer spared him imprisonment.
I asked Seeger if he ever came to resent his country in what he calls "the frightened fifties".'
If only those aforementioned core of Russian society had had smart lawyers (and a couple of hundred armoured divisions, just in case). "The frightened fifties". Can't these commies get their stories straight? I thought we were SUPPOSED to be afraid, because we are bourgeois exploiters of the down-trodden masses?
'"America's treated other people much, much worse. I've spoken frankly about once being a member of the Communist Party. Should I apologise for it? Well, a lot of apologies are due.
"White people in the US should apologise to native Americans for stealing land - and to African Americans for slavery. Europeans could consider apologising for centuries of worldwide conquest. On the other hand, let's look ahead!"'
Quick, get out the highly highly highly abridged bumper book of world history, the one with only American 'crimes'. Thats the one! Now read to me again of the peculiar awfulness of those yankees.
'His energy and optimism is characteristic. He remains as fascinated by the world as he must have been as a young man when he dropped out of Harvard.'
Shouldn't that be 'are characteristic'? I'm guessing the energy and optimism are what keep him focussed so intently on Americas evils. There just isn't time for any analysis of communisms deadly fruits. 'He remains fascinated by the world as he must have been back when he was a commie'. 'He remains ossified in the rancid bitterness of the pampered children of wealth and privilege.' Thats what Vincent Dowd meant to write, but his pen slipped. 'Seeger came from a prosperous middle-class family but was inspired by the singer Woody Guthrie, seven years his senior, to explore America's folk tradition.' Prosperous middle-class family? Really?
'Seeger has always believed words and music will help make society better.'
Of course, he has always believed communism would make society better, so I'm not sure we can trust his judgement.
'In part, the New York concert is an apology for how the US once treated him - though Seeger would be the last person ever to seek such a thing.'
Read that sentance a few times, and mull over those thoughts for a minute. The United States should apologise to a rich old communist for not putting him in prison, not killing him or his family, and allowing him a long and gratifying (for him) career. Don't wait up for his apology for supporting the biggest mass murderers in history.
You could not publish in any mainstream forum an ecomium like this to an ageing Nazi. So why is it ok to do so with the other ideological abhorrence of the 20th century?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8027215.stm
Imagine if you will, that Pete Seeger were an ageing Nazi, whose songs eulagised Hitler and the delights of the Nazi philosophy and way of life.
'Affection for Pete was not always so widespread.
In the 1950s he was blacklisted for his former membership of the Communist Party, and his performing career seemed all but over.'
You can hear the implied tutting from hundreds of miles away. Oh, and by the way, the word 'former' in that sentance is a lie. There is nothing 'former' about his membership. It is very current.
'Typically, he refused to go away. In 1955 he declined to co-operate with the Un-American Activities Committee which was investigating radical activities of public figures.'
What a hero! He refused to go away. Unlike, for instance, a huge swathe of the Russian officer corps, the intellectuals and the upper reaches of the communist party, who went away anyway. Never to return. But then America is implacably evil in a very very benign not-evil sort of way. Weird that.
'He was sentenced to a year in prison for contempt, although a smart lawyer spared him imprisonment.
I asked Seeger if he ever came to resent his country in what he calls "the frightened fifties".'
If only those aforementioned core of Russian society had had smart lawyers (and a couple of hundred armoured divisions, just in case). "The frightened fifties". Can't these commies get their stories straight? I thought we were SUPPOSED to be afraid, because we are bourgeois exploiters of the down-trodden masses?
'"America's treated other people much, much worse. I've spoken frankly about once being a member of the Communist Party. Should I apologise for it? Well, a lot of apologies are due.
"White people in the US should apologise to native Americans for stealing land - and to African Americans for slavery. Europeans could consider apologising for centuries of worldwide conquest. On the other hand, let's look ahead!"'
Quick, get out the highly highly highly abridged bumper book of world history, the one with only American 'crimes'. Thats the one! Now read to me again of the peculiar awfulness of those yankees.
'His energy and optimism is characteristic. He remains as fascinated by the world as he must have been as a young man when he dropped out of Harvard.'
Shouldn't that be 'are characteristic'? I'm guessing the energy and optimism are what keep him focussed so intently on Americas evils. There just isn't time for any analysis of communisms deadly fruits. 'He remains fascinated by the world as he must have been back when he was a commie'. 'He remains ossified in the rancid bitterness of the pampered children of wealth and privilege.' Thats what Vincent Dowd meant to write, but his pen slipped. 'Seeger came from a prosperous middle-class family but was inspired by the singer Woody Guthrie, seven years his senior, to explore America's folk tradition.' Prosperous middle-class family? Really?
'Seeger has always believed words and music will help make society better.'
Of course, he has always believed communism would make society better, so I'm not sure we can trust his judgement.
'In part, the New York concert is an apology for how the US once treated him - though Seeger would be the last person ever to seek such a thing.'
Read that sentance a few times, and mull over those thoughts for a minute. The United States should apologise to a rich old communist for not putting him in prison, not killing him or his family, and allowing him a long and gratifying (for him) career. Don't wait up for his apology for supporting the biggest mass murderers in history.
You could not publish in any mainstream forum an ecomium like this to an ageing Nazi. So why is it ok to do so with the other ideological abhorrence of the 20th century?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)