http://www.11alive.com/video?maven_playerId=immersiveplayer3&maven_referralObject=1208541313
I recommend watching this clip right to the end. Remember what Representative Scott says about meeting up with him to discuss health care issues in the public forum, as opposed to what he actually does. Note also his repetition of the absurd characterisation of 'hijacking the public forum'. One decent, penetrative question, and you are hijacking a public forum apparently. For many of the current set of Senators and Congressmen, democracy has no substantive meaning whatsoever.
There's that, and also the Representatives assumption that his questioner is a Republican, because he disagrees with the Representative. Absolutely pathetic.
Sunday, August 09, 2009
Saturday, August 08, 2009
Future alliances
'India and China fought a brief border war in 1962. India lost the war, but territorial disputes with China have endured. Aside from the area that India calls Arunachal Pradesh, the two countries also differ over part of the border with China's Tibet Autonomous Region....
The sources of friction go well beyond contested territory. India continues to view with suspicion China's close strategic relationship with its arch-rival Pakistan, including recent deals to build nuclear reactors and manufacture jet fighters. China, meanwhile, has closely watched India's warming ties with the U.S., including a civilian nuclear deal that has formed the cornerstone of a new strategic partnership and its closer defense cooperation with the world's only superpower.'
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124964895363214289.html
If British foreign policy were up to me, this would be my plan for the next twenty-five years. India would be the strategic cornerstone of my relationships in south Asia. India seems increasingly inclined to take its rightful place as part of the Anglo-sphere, countries whose political, legal and business systems are derived from British ones. It is a functional democracy with proper legal systems and a political class who show a genuine desire to work on behalf of the less fortunate in Indian society. In comparison to China, where hundreds of millions have fallen through the gaping chasms into extreme poverty and out of functional society, India shows real signs of trying to reach out to minorities and very low castes to try to integrate them into the burgeoning success story of Indian industry and business. India has thriving political parties some of which have left behind their original caste, religious or ethnic character to become genuine political parties based on a systematic political philosophy. The major parties now genuinely compete to prove their fiscal seriousness, their humanitarian intent, and their professionalism in government.
China, on the other hand, has an ossified system based on ludicrous falsehoods. It is a relatively benign oligarchical dictatorship, but with the vestigial clothing of a communist dictatorship. That is a very unstable mix. The Chinese government has no real legitimacy, which mean all political activity is dangerous and frustrating. The pressure from below, especially the new rich middle class in China will grow and grow. And the discontent from the many hundreds of millions cut off from their land, from political power and from employment will fester too. In many places China is becoming a polluted hell on earth.
China has no proper independent, trustworthy legal system, no trade unions or organised protection from harsh and exploitative employers, no safety net for the poor and dispossessed, and no outlet for political feeling. Chinese culture allows the minuscule oligarchy some leeway, as Chinese culture conditions people to put up with harsh, arbitrary and unjust rule. But there are thresholds. When China reaches them, the results could be extremely unpleasant. At the moment, a rising tide of economic productivity gives the Chinese something good to focus on. What happens if that stalls, or worse, goes into reverse? Then the systemic faults will prove what a terribly fragile edifice Chinese society is.
The last of the great Asian powers is Russia. My goal would be to isolate Russia, give Russia as little encouragement as possible, and encourage the rest of the world to do likewise. The government of Russia, if they can be graced with that description, are simple murderous thugs. They have snuffed out civil liberties, destroyed the nascent political party system, rigged politics so only one outcome is possible, endeavoured to be as unpleasant, unhelpful, aggressive and destructive as they can in international relations, and utilised extreme xenophobia and paranoia as a way of ginning up grass-roots support for their disgusting regime. They have stolen billions of dollars from western companies, reneged on contracts, cut off essential energy supplies to neighbors in the dead of winter, invaded neighboring countries generally behaved like criminal mafiosi. Despite only recently becoming basicly solvent, Russia has already started to try to throw its weight around, like a short drunk guy in a bar picking fights with people three times his size. It is a terrible shame for the Russian people to be governed in this way. Will they do anything about it? If we are unequivocal on all occasions about the nature of the Russian regime, ordinary Russians may at some point find a way to replace their regime with a real government.
I would boost military, commercial and political ties with India, and make it clear that we would back India in any confrontation with China or Russia, especially the latter. We would supply India with our latest weaponry, and make sure they always kept a clear technological and quantitative edge over the Chinese in all the major weapons systems. That is because in my view, India will need to fight at least one major defensive war against a deranged China before China gets a proper legitimate government. Countries with very weak governments often launch into wars of conquest to try to fix the political situation at home. And for any number of reasons, we would want India to win that war.
Another good reason for becoming very long term strategic partners of India is the hopeless nature of Pakistan. Most countries dominated by islam have very weak and illigitimate governance. I don't think I need to present a list to demonstrate this, you can write it yourself. Those few which do, like Turkey, only do so as a consequence of taking the destabilising influence of islam head-on, and consciously removing it from civil society. Sadly for Turkey, the gains it made in the twentieth century under secular rule are steadily being eroded in the 21st. I expect Turkey to look more like Saudi Arabia in twenty years time, and less like Germany, with all the terrible downside that entails.
Pakistan has done exactly the opposite of what Kemal Ataturk did in Turkey- they have taken a society with a secular parliament, law courts, army, civil institutions and educational systems, and subsumed them to islamic jurisdiction. If it weren't for the positively stupendous amounts of financial 'assistance' (free money) dumped on Pakistan from every direction for the last forty years, first because of the cold war and then because of the war on terror, Pakistan would be Somalia already. The Pakistani army is not funded by Pakistanis, but mainly by Americans and EU citizens. The Pakistani army is really the last thing left in Pakistan that even vaguely works properly. If the foreign money stops coming, Pakistan will collapse like a bad souffle.
Britain should cut the extremely detrimental umbilical which connects the stone age hills of Pakistan with the post-industrial towns of the North East of England immediately. It should stop assisting Pakistan, apart from money or programs linked directly to changed behaviour; all incentives should be towards reversing the islamification of Pakistan and towards secularisation. On every substantive issue, Britain should take Indias side. Pakistan has already chosen China as its strategic ally, so we would not be jeopardising any existing good will or intentions. Any and all steps that can be taken to remove Pakistans nuclear capability should be taken. I can't understand why people who are staying awake at night over a near-future nuclear Iran aren't bothered much at all by a very much current nuclear Pakistan. Iran has a very solid foundation as a nation state, and a cultured and civilised electorate. Pakistan has neither. I can easily see Pakistan being ruled by Taliban-like individuals in the short to medium term. Pakistan is in the middle of a process of Wahhabisation- hence the burgeoning violence being meted out to Shia moslems and Christians alike.
Wahhabist islam is also destroying the hold of sunni and shia islam in Britain, mostly due to the umbilical that connects Pakistan to northern England but also because of showers of Saudi money into British mosques. If I were in charge, both of those would be stopped tomorrow morning.
I can see very few downsides to a long-term alliance with India, and many positives. I doubt the great and good of our Foriegn Office see it the same way, sadly.
The sources of friction go well beyond contested territory. India continues to view with suspicion China's close strategic relationship with its arch-rival Pakistan, including recent deals to build nuclear reactors and manufacture jet fighters. China, meanwhile, has closely watched India's warming ties with the U.S., including a civilian nuclear deal that has formed the cornerstone of a new strategic partnership and its closer defense cooperation with the world's only superpower.'
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124964895363214289.html
If British foreign policy were up to me, this would be my plan for the next twenty-five years. India would be the strategic cornerstone of my relationships in south Asia. India seems increasingly inclined to take its rightful place as part of the Anglo-sphere, countries whose political, legal and business systems are derived from British ones. It is a functional democracy with proper legal systems and a political class who show a genuine desire to work on behalf of the less fortunate in Indian society. In comparison to China, where hundreds of millions have fallen through the gaping chasms into extreme poverty and out of functional society, India shows real signs of trying to reach out to minorities and very low castes to try to integrate them into the burgeoning success story of Indian industry and business. India has thriving political parties some of which have left behind their original caste, religious or ethnic character to become genuine political parties based on a systematic political philosophy. The major parties now genuinely compete to prove their fiscal seriousness, their humanitarian intent, and their professionalism in government.
China, on the other hand, has an ossified system based on ludicrous falsehoods. It is a relatively benign oligarchical dictatorship, but with the vestigial clothing of a communist dictatorship. That is a very unstable mix. The Chinese government has no real legitimacy, which mean all political activity is dangerous and frustrating. The pressure from below, especially the new rich middle class in China will grow and grow. And the discontent from the many hundreds of millions cut off from their land, from political power and from employment will fester too. In many places China is becoming a polluted hell on earth.
China has no proper independent, trustworthy legal system, no trade unions or organised protection from harsh and exploitative employers, no safety net for the poor and dispossessed, and no outlet for political feeling. Chinese culture allows the minuscule oligarchy some leeway, as Chinese culture conditions people to put up with harsh, arbitrary and unjust rule. But there are thresholds. When China reaches them, the results could be extremely unpleasant. At the moment, a rising tide of economic productivity gives the Chinese something good to focus on. What happens if that stalls, or worse, goes into reverse? Then the systemic faults will prove what a terribly fragile edifice Chinese society is.
The last of the great Asian powers is Russia. My goal would be to isolate Russia, give Russia as little encouragement as possible, and encourage the rest of the world to do likewise. The government of Russia, if they can be graced with that description, are simple murderous thugs. They have snuffed out civil liberties, destroyed the nascent political party system, rigged politics so only one outcome is possible, endeavoured to be as unpleasant, unhelpful, aggressive and destructive as they can in international relations, and utilised extreme xenophobia and paranoia as a way of ginning up grass-roots support for their disgusting regime. They have stolen billions of dollars from western companies, reneged on contracts, cut off essential energy supplies to neighbors in the dead of winter, invaded neighboring countries generally behaved like criminal mafiosi. Despite only recently becoming basicly solvent, Russia has already started to try to throw its weight around, like a short drunk guy in a bar picking fights with people three times his size. It is a terrible shame for the Russian people to be governed in this way. Will they do anything about it? If we are unequivocal on all occasions about the nature of the Russian regime, ordinary Russians may at some point find a way to replace their regime with a real government.
I would boost military, commercial and political ties with India, and make it clear that we would back India in any confrontation with China or Russia, especially the latter. We would supply India with our latest weaponry, and make sure they always kept a clear technological and quantitative edge over the Chinese in all the major weapons systems. That is because in my view, India will need to fight at least one major defensive war against a deranged China before China gets a proper legitimate government. Countries with very weak governments often launch into wars of conquest to try to fix the political situation at home. And for any number of reasons, we would want India to win that war.
Another good reason for becoming very long term strategic partners of India is the hopeless nature of Pakistan. Most countries dominated by islam have very weak and illigitimate governance. I don't think I need to present a list to demonstrate this, you can write it yourself. Those few which do, like Turkey, only do so as a consequence of taking the destabilising influence of islam head-on, and consciously removing it from civil society. Sadly for Turkey, the gains it made in the twentieth century under secular rule are steadily being eroded in the 21st. I expect Turkey to look more like Saudi Arabia in twenty years time, and less like Germany, with all the terrible downside that entails.
Pakistan has done exactly the opposite of what Kemal Ataturk did in Turkey- they have taken a society with a secular parliament, law courts, army, civil institutions and educational systems, and subsumed them to islamic jurisdiction. If it weren't for the positively stupendous amounts of financial 'assistance' (free money) dumped on Pakistan from every direction for the last forty years, first because of the cold war and then because of the war on terror, Pakistan would be Somalia already. The Pakistani army is not funded by Pakistanis, but mainly by Americans and EU citizens. The Pakistani army is really the last thing left in Pakistan that even vaguely works properly. If the foreign money stops coming, Pakistan will collapse like a bad souffle.
Britain should cut the extremely detrimental umbilical which connects the stone age hills of Pakistan with the post-industrial towns of the North East of England immediately. It should stop assisting Pakistan, apart from money or programs linked directly to changed behaviour; all incentives should be towards reversing the islamification of Pakistan and towards secularisation. On every substantive issue, Britain should take Indias side. Pakistan has already chosen China as its strategic ally, so we would not be jeopardising any existing good will or intentions. Any and all steps that can be taken to remove Pakistans nuclear capability should be taken. I can't understand why people who are staying awake at night over a near-future nuclear Iran aren't bothered much at all by a very much current nuclear Pakistan. Iran has a very solid foundation as a nation state, and a cultured and civilised electorate. Pakistan has neither. I can easily see Pakistan being ruled by Taliban-like individuals in the short to medium term. Pakistan is in the middle of a process of Wahhabisation- hence the burgeoning violence being meted out to Shia moslems and Christians alike.
Wahhabist islam is also destroying the hold of sunni and shia islam in Britain, mostly due to the umbilical that connects Pakistan to northern England but also because of showers of Saudi money into British mosques. If I were in charge, both of those would be stopped tomorrow morning.
I can see very few downsides to a long-term alliance with India, and many positives. I doubt the great and good of our Foriegn Office see it the same way, sadly.
Stopping the tides
'The message for modern conservation, say the authors, is that some groups are more vulnerable to extinction than others, and the focus should be on the lineages most at risk....
"Big groups of organisms tend to be similar to one another," he explained. "Look at the large cats for example."
But genetic similarities also mean, said Dr Grenyer, that "a bad effect that affects one of them, will likely affect all of them".'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8188166.stm
King Cnut, Englands last Danish king, demonstrated to his fawning courtiers that he had no more power over the great natural forces that shape our lives than any other man by the simple expedient of sitting on the beach and commanding the tides to halt. Todays conservationists and global warm-mongers alike feel no such constraints.
Species going extinct? No problem, mankind will override evolutionary processes on your behalf! Global climate changing? No problem, man will command the seas to recede, the Sun to warm less, and the atmosphere to be constituted from different gases. Can you say hubris, children? Can you say tilting at windmills children?
Thoughtful scientists long ago gave up thinking of extinction events as things to be fought and tamed. Just like thoughtful people long ago stopped thinking that wildfires were evil and had to be stopped at any cost.
Todays popular scientific culture reminds me of kids in their early teen years- vividly struck by their own importance and capability, overwhelmed by the first taste of adult responsibility and access. This tips constantly over into arrogance and hubris. Thats just the way it is. Everybody makes allowances for it. But it is nevertheless fatally mistaken.
"Big groups of organisms tend to be similar to one another," he explained. "Look at the large cats for example."
But genetic similarities also mean, said Dr Grenyer, that "a bad effect that affects one of them, will likely affect all of them".'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8188166.stm
King Cnut, Englands last Danish king, demonstrated to his fawning courtiers that he had no more power over the great natural forces that shape our lives than any other man by the simple expedient of sitting on the beach and commanding the tides to halt. Todays conservationists and global warm-mongers alike feel no such constraints.
Species going extinct? No problem, mankind will override evolutionary processes on your behalf! Global climate changing? No problem, man will command the seas to recede, the Sun to warm less, and the atmosphere to be constituted from different gases. Can you say hubris, children? Can you say tilting at windmills children?
Thoughtful scientists long ago gave up thinking of extinction events as things to be fought and tamed. Just like thoughtful people long ago stopped thinking that wildfires were evil and had to be stopped at any cost.
Todays popular scientific culture reminds me of kids in their early teen years- vividly struck by their own importance and capability, overwhelmed by the first taste of adult responsibility and access. This tips constantly over into arrogance and hubris. Thats just the way it is. Everybody makes allowances for it. But it is nevertheless fatally mistaken.
Friday, August 07, 2009
Who are we dealing with here?
The White House, the congressional leaders and the left-wing legacy media are desperate to de-legitimize the surging wave of anti-single-payer anti-obama-health-reform Americans. It has tried a few narratives on for size already. First was: they are extremist proto-fascist Republican nutjobs who want a riot. Then it was: they are an astroturf renta-mob hired by the usual suspects in the health insurance industry to protect their cushy lifestyles. They now have a third narrative: these are the posh-dressed upper class twits who don't care if poor people die in the road, as long as their health insurance and tax rates don't go up.
Untold damage is being done at this very moment to not only the prospects of the democrat party in 2010, but in 2012 as well. Many of the Americans being serially insulted and mocked are the dedicatedly non-political third of the American population who NEVER get involved in partisan shenanigans. Well, not until the pathetic children running the country become just too arrogant and destructive, like now. What they are NOT used to is having their patriotism, ethics and good intentions questioned by pathological, cynical blowhards.
Many of the Tea Partiers are old. Indeed, many come from what in America is called the Greatest Generation, the one that fought world war II. Ask Imperial Japan- these are not people you want to piss off. Once angered, their vengeance is terrible and their memories long. In British terms, the Tea Partiers are the Womens Institute brigade, the stout yoemen of the local cricket club, the decent and hard-working backbone of the country. Why you would pick a fight with these people its hard to know, but they will not forgive nor forget.
Chicago rules only work when you have all the levers of power under your control. Thankfully Obama doesn't and never will. First and foremost, among the Tea Partiers are many, many people with kids in the armed forces. Pick a fight with mom and dad, and you'll get son and daughter into the bargain. President Obama may have the rockiest ride of any US president, and not because of racism...
If they send one of yours to the hospital, you send one of theirs to the morgue
Chicago Rules. I know this video is from St Louis, but the mood in America is darkening across the whole country. For many previously a-political Americans, their first experience of organised politics will be exactly what is shown in this video. They are going to protest something they straightforwardly disagree with, and what confronts them is organised thuggery, the prevention of their participation in public events, and the railroading of public events to ensure that their voice remains unheard.
You are storing up for yourself a whirlwind, President Obama.
UPDATE
'I got into the line immediately after taping it, but not everyone was abiding by the same rules. Carnahan staffers were wandering through the line with a list of “guests” that, as expected, got to jump the line and join the Astroturf of Purple inside. Not sure how many “town halls” operate like a gated community, but this one certainly did.'
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/08/07/photos-and-video-carnahan-event-in-st-louis/
I'm not sure, but that doesn't sound like democracy to me.
The Beast has awoken
This is a very telling video. Watch in particular the guy who talks very simply but effectively from around the six minute mark. Obama has awoken the great white non-political slumbering giant.
Its amazing to watch the sad ninnies who try to corral the meeting as they talk down to the people they consider uninteresting cannon-fodder. The pathetic bitch who takes away the microphone in a vain attempt to stop the meeting from continuing without her permission is straight from central casting.
In a recent post, I called the straight-jacketing of American political life the victory of the school-marm over the working stiff. What the school-marms never expected was that one day, the working stiffs might rouse themselves from their somnolence and re-take the field of battle. Look at their response to Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin and now the Tea Partiers- they don't know how to react, they don't have a plan for this. Nothing in their play-book tells them how to cope with PEOPLE FIGHTING BACK. Especially when they take the gloves off and fight back using the same tactics the left thinks are their intellectual property.
When the Dems want people screeching, swearing, getting in peoples faces and smashing things up, then screeching, swearing and violence are good. When the Dems want people sitting like obedient sheep and baaaing in unison, sitting and baaaing are good. But should you have the temerity to screech and swear when they don't want, you are a traitor destroying the very fabric of civilised politics. Even if you don't screech and swear, but forbear to baa in unison, you are STILL a traitor destroying the very fabric of civilised politics. For the very foundation-stone of the liberal is, do what I say, don't do what I do.
Obama is in a steep nose-dive. And he is being ably aided and abetted by the young, arrogant idiots at this AARP meeting.
Thursday, August 06, 2009
Even journalists have mortgages
'Mr Murdoch said he was "satisfied" that the company could produce "significant revenues from the sale of digital delivery of newspaper content".
"The digital revolution has opened many new and inexpensive methods of distribution," he added.
"But it has not made content free. Accordingly, we intend to charge for all our news websites. I believe that if we are successful, we will be followed by other media.
"Quality journalism is not cheap, and an industry that gives away its content is simply cannibalising its ability to produce good reporting," he said.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8186701.stm
Many bloggers are firmly of the opinion that journalists should not be paid for their work. Its a weird thing to believe, especially as many of the same bloggers are loud boosters of the capitalist system, free enterprise and doing business. Work hard, get paid accordingly, apart from if you are a journalist.
Huge scorn has been heaped on the New York Times and Associated Press for charging people for reading their material. I imagine News International will get the same treatment. Its sad, because Mr Murdoch is right- quality journalism is not cheap. Even some very profound bloggers seem to think that what they do is journalism. But its not true. Like most jobs, if you are doing it right, there is not time for a second job. Most journalists don't have time to be pundits. And unless you are one of the tiny minority of bloggers who make a living at blogging, you have a day job. Which means you don't have time for a whole other career as a journalist.
Simple facts, but ones which seem beyond the ken of many bloggers. Journalism is time consuming, revolves around lots of fiddly details, involves travelling very often, there's lots of logistical crap to deal with, and then the writing up of notes into finished pieces. It may even involve having to do pieces to camera if you're a TV journo. Amateur bloggers are just not going to get all that done. You might be able to squeeze a tiny bit of journalism around your day job, but you'd end up with no time for anything else.
So the demise of lots of newspapers and news organisations is not fantastic. Our need for the product that journalists provide has not changed. The requirement for the scrutiny of public officials and the myriad of other things journalists report on, sport, science, business, culture and all the other things still remains. Whether we read that stuff on bits of paper or from pixels on a screen is completely immaterial. Just as the people who write songs should get paid when their songs are played, people who write news stories should get paid when they are read. Work should be rewarded with payment.
Everything else is just noise. Last time I checked, Associated Press employ around 10,000 journalists. If AP goes bust, who will pay those 10,000 journalists? More importantly, how will I ever find out what is going on where those journalists report from if AP don't pay him to tell me? The Huffington Post? InstaPundit? The Drudge Report? Yeah, I don't think so.
The first people on the world wide web had some very hippyish ideals- some very 1980's ideals. They didn't like business, that was selling out man. Everything would be done for the love of it by cool and hip and eccentric people, for free. The web would be the place where 'Imagine' wasn't just a song, but a way of life.
And then everybody else got on the web. And then it became just like the rest of the world, but with much more porn. And guess what? People wanted to earn money from websites. People created websites just for selling stuff. And that whole hippy thing disappeared as quickly as a bongful of best Afghan.
But for some reason, there are still vestiges of that long-gone era- like insisting that news websites shouldn't charge for people to read the news. In reality, there are only two options: enormous quantities of intrusive advertising on every page of news; or paid subscriptions for news without the intrusive ads. I know which one I'll be taking...
"The digital revolution has opened many new and inexpensive methods of distribution," he added.
"But it has not made content free. Accordingly, we intend to charge for all our news websites. I believe that if we are successful, we will be followed by other media.
"Quality journalism is not cheap, and an industry that gives away its content is simply cannibalising its ability to produce good reporting," he said.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8186701.stm
Many bloggers are firmly of the opinion that journalists should not be paid for their work. Its a weird thing to believe, especially as many of the same bloggers are loud boosters of the capitalist system, free enterprise and doing business. Work hard, get paid accordingly, apart from if you are a journalist.
Huge scorn has been heaped on the New York Times and Associated Press for charging people for reading their material. I imagine News International will get the same treatment. Its sad, because Mr Murdoch is right- quality journalism is not cheap. Even some very profound bloggers seem to think that what they do is journalism. But its not true. Like most jobs, if you are doing it right, there is not time for a second job. Most journalists don't have time to be pundits. And unless you are one of the tiny minority of bloggers who make a living at blogging, you have a day job. Which means you don't have time for a whole other career as a journalist.
Simple facts, but ones which seem beyond the ken of many bloggers. Journalism is time consuming, revolves around lots of fiddly details, involves travelling very often, there's lots of logistical crap to deal with, and then the writing up of notes into finished pieces. It may even involve having to do pieces to camera if you're a TV journo. Amateur bloggers are just not going to get all that done. You might be able to squeeze a tiny bit of journalism around your day job, but you'd end up with no time for anything else.
So the demise of lots of newspapers and news organisations is not fantastic. Our need for the product that journalists provide has not changed. The requirement for the scrutiny of public officials and the myriad of other things journalists report on, sport, science, business, culture and all the other things still remains. Whether we read that stuff on bits of paper or from pixels on a screen is completely immaterial. Just as the people who write songs should get paid when their songs are played, people who write news stories should get paid when they are read. Work should be rewarded with payment.
Everything else is just noise. Last time I checked, Associated Press employ around 10,000 journalists. If AP goes bust, who will pay those 10,000 journalists? More importantly, how will I ever find out what is going on where those journalists report from if AP don't pay him to tell me? The Huffington Post? InstaPundit? The Drudge Report? Yeah, I don't think so.
The first people on the world wide web had some very hippyish ideals- some very 1980's ideals. They didn't like business, that was selling out man. Everything would be done for the love of it by cool and hip and eccentric people, for free. The web would be the place where 'Imagine' wasn't just a song, but a way of life.
And then everybody else got on the web. And then it became just like the rest of the world, but with much more porn. And guess what? People wanted to earn money from websites. People created websites just for selling stuff. And that whole hippy thing disappeared as quickly as a bongful of best Afghan.
But for some reason, there are still vestiges of that long-gone era- like insisting that news websites shouldn't charge for people to read the news. In reality, there are only two options: enormous quantities of intrusive advertising on every page of news; or paid subscriptions for news without the intrusive ads. I know which one I'll be taking...
No no, you think again
'Think Again: Africa's Crisis
As U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton heads to Africa, the continent is in far better shape than most experts think
It's true that some countries in the region are as poor as England under William the Conqueror, but that doesn't mean Africa's on the verge of doomsday. How many serfs had a cellphone? More than 63 million Nigerians do. Millions travel on buses and trucks across the continent each year, even if the average African road is still fairly bumpy. The list of modern technologies now ubiquitous in the region also includes cement, corrugated iron, steel wire, piping, plastic sheeting and containers, synthetic and cheap cotton clothing, rubber-soled shoes, bicycles, butane, paraffin candles, pens, paper, books, radios, televisions, vaccines, antibiotics, and bed nets.'
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/07/31/think_again_africas_crisis?page=0,0
What is the motivation to write pieces like this? I mean, really, what? I remember getting to Rhodesia in 1975, and one of the most consistently touchy subjects among white Rhodesians was the state of technological development in Africa.
'Everybody in Europe thinks we all live in mud huts and drive donkey carts' they would moan. This despite the fact noone had suggested that either was true. I believe the underlying fear was that Africa is just so far behind the rest of the world that it might never catch up.
Forget about the technologies Africans use- what technology is made in Africa? What percentage of those 63 million cellphones were manufactured in Nigeria? Nought percent. And even more importantly, how many technologies used from Saskatchewan to Sarawak were invented, developed and marketed first by Africans? That would be another nought. Mosquito nets, quinine and DDT between them have save hundreds of millions of lives in Africa. Invented by Africans? No....
Silly pieces like this which try to gild the slops bucket avoid the extremely unpalatable truths abundantly evident to visitors to Africa. Greed, brutality, extremely macho culture, curruption, tribalism and a complete disrespect for the communal civil space ruin Africas prospects at every turn. Africa is in many places wrecked ecologicaly, not from the depredations of the constantly demonised white man, but by the catastrophic 'farming' practises of the black population. Goats, the most commonly kept animals, make deserts. I'm not kidding. Sheep and cows crop grass, goats tear plants out whole, destroying them and allowing the soil to blow away. Slash and burn farming is still practised in much of Africa- and fragile ecosystems often take decades, if not centuries to recover. 'Bush meat' has become huge in Africa. To you and me and the documentary makers, they might be scarily endagered species, but to the locals they are yummy dinner.
Africas tragedy to me is that it needed five hundred years of colonial rule, and most of it got less than a hundred. In that hundred years, bits and pieces of modernity were introduced to Africa, but only in a shallow and superficial way. Think of it this way- 63 million Nigerians own mobile phones and probably zero know how a mobile phone system works. Robert Mugabe knows the word Democracy but he has no emotional or cultural investment in the idea itself. Where would Africa be in the 21st century if it had not been colonised? Have you been to New Guinea?
As U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton heads to Africa, the continent is in far better shape than most experts think
It's true that some countries in the region are as poor as England under William the Conqueror, but that doesn't mean Africa's on the verge of doomsday. How many serfs had a cellphone? More than 63 million Nigerians do. Millions travel on buses and trucks across the continent each year, even if the average African road is still fairly bumpy. The list of modern technologies now ubiquitous in the region also includes cement, corrugated iron, steel wire, piping, plastic sheeting and containers, synthetic and cheap cotton clothing, rubber-soled shoes, bicycles, butane, paraffin candles, pens, paper, books, radios, televisions, vaccines, antibiotics, and bed nets.'
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/07/31/think_again_africas_crisis?page=0,0
What is the motivation to write pieces like this? I mean, really, what? I remember getting to Rhodesia in 1975, and one of the most consistently touchy subjects among white Rhodesians was the state of technological development in Africa.
'Everybody in Europe thinks we all live in mud huts and drive donkey carts' they would moan. This despite the fact noone had suggested that either was true. I believe the underlying fear was that Africa is just so far behind the rest of the world that it might never catch up.
Forget about the technologies Africans use- what technology is made in Africa? What percentage of those 63 million cellphones were manufactured in Nigeria? Nought percent. And even more importantly, how many technologies used from Saskatchewan to Sarawak were invented, developed and marketed first by Africans? That would be another nought. Mosquito nets, quinine and DDT between them have save hundreds of millions of lives in Africa. Invented by Africans? No....
Silly pieces like this which try to gild the slops bucket avoid the extremely unpalatable truths abundantly evident to visitors to Africa. Greed, brutality, extremely macho culture, curruption, tribalism and a complete disrespect for the communal civil space ruin Africas prospects at every turn. Africa is in many places wrecked ecologicaly, not from the depredations of the constantly demonised white man, but by the catastrophic 'farming' practises of the black population. Goats, the most commonly kept animals, make deserts. I'm not kidding. Sheep and cows crop grass, goats tear plants out whole, destroying them and allowing the soil to blow away. Slash and burn farming is still practised in much of Africa- and fragile ecosystems often take decades, if not centuries to recover. 'Bush meat' has become huge in Africa. To you and me and the documentary makers, they might be scarily endagered species, but to the locals they are yummy dinner.
Africas tragedy to me is that it needed five hundred years of colonial rule, and most of it got less than a hundred. In that hundred years, bits and pieces of modernity were introduced to Africa, but only in a shallow and superficial way. Think of it this way- 63 million Nigerians own mobile phones and probably zero know how a mobile phone system works. Robert Mugabe knows the word Democracy but he has no emotional or cultural investment in the idea itself. Where would Africa be in the 21st century if it had not been colonised? Have you been to New Guinea?
Lovely lovely islam
Dateline Iraq:
'In January, police arrested a middle-aged woman, Samira Ahmed Jassim, for allegedly recruiting female suicide bombers. In a prison interview, Jassim told The Associated Press about a plot in which young women were raped and then persuaded to carry out suicide attacks to reclaim their honor.'
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090806/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq;_ylt=AjWQ28sN9hJCtz3lAVhR8k9H2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTJhMzJ0MGxqBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwODA2L21sX2lyYXEEY3BvcwMzBHBvcwMzBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDaXJhcWl0ZWVuZ2ly
What is not to love about islamism? Either get with caliphate, or we'll rape some of our own women and use their shame and self-disgust to coerce them to go out and murder other muslims. Well, murder anybody really.
'In January, police arrested a middle-aged woman, Samira Ahmed Jassim, for allegedly recruiting female suicide bombers. In a prison interview, Jassim told The Associated Press about a plot in which young women were raped and then persuaded to carry out suicide attacks to reclaim their honor.'
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090806/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq;_ylt=AjWQ28sN9hJCtz3lAVhR8k9H2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTJhMzJ0MGxqBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwODA2L21sX2lyYXEEY3BvcwMzBHBvcwMzBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDaXJhcWl0ZWVuZ2ly
What is not to love about islamism? Either get with caliphate, or we'll rape some of our own women and use their shame and self-disgust to coerce them to go out and murder other muslims. Well, murder anybody really.
NIT response
'Hamas rocket attacks 'war crimes'
The firing of rockets into Israel by Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip amounts to a war crime, a prominent human rights group has said.
Human Right Watch (HRW) said Hamas should "publicly renounce" the attacks and hold those responsible to account.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8187446.stm
You might have heard of JIT. Its a business strategy where you do something 'Just in Time' rather than way beforehand. There is a downside to JIT, which is NIT, 'Not in Time'. When implementing JIT, too many NITs will bring the whole system to a grinding halt. Human Rights Watch have sat around on their arses for the last four years not condemning Hamas for the constant drizzle of mortars and rockets into Israel, presumably because they didn't think it was a big deal.
But just a few weeks back, Human Rights Watch came under enormous scrutiny by the media in the US when it was revealed that HRW was trawling for funds in Saudi Arabia. Most Americans don't think much of human rights in Saudi Arabia. But as a result of the sudden glare of the spotlight on HRW, a number of other facts came to light which shocked many observers. The woman who is Middle East and North Africa Director, Sarah Leah Whitson was an active member of the New York chapter of the American-Arab Antidiscrimination Committee, which actively militates against Israel. She served on its Steering Committee and was a member of its Board of Directors when she was hired by Human Rights Watch. Conflict of interest? I leave that to your judgement.
Anyway, lots of journalists have been going back over the output of HRW just to see if there is a pro-palestinian slant. And guess what? There is! How surprising. And there have been lots of pieces in the press questioning whether HRW is what it claims to be- against the abuse of human rights wherever and by whomever they are perpetrated.
And thats why HRW have put out this press release about Hamas. Since September 2005, the rockets and mortars have been thumping into southern Israel, and since then HRW have ignored them. But TODAY, they've discovered that these may be war crimes. What a coincidence. Thats not a JIT response. Thats a NIT response if there ever was one.
The firing of rockets into Israel by Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip amounts to a war crime, a prominent human rights group has said.
Human Right Watch (HRW) said Hamas should "publicly renounce" the attacks and hold those responsible to account.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8187446.stm
You might have heard of JIT. Its a business strategy where you do something 'Just in Time' rather than way beforehand. There is a downside to JIT, which is NIT, 'Not in Time'. When implementing JIT, too many NITs will bring the whole system to a grinding halt. Human Rights Watch have sat around on their arses for the last four years not condemning Hamas for the constant drizzle of mortars and rockets into Israel, presumably because they didn't think it was a big deal.
But just a few weeks back, Human Rights Watch came under enormous scrutiny by the media in the US when it was revealed that HRW was trawling for funds in Saudi Arabia. Most Americans don't think much of human rights in Saudi Arabia. But as a result of the sudden glare of the spotlight on HRW, a number of other facts came to light which shocked many observers. The woman who is Middle East and North Africa Director, Sarah Leah Whitson was an active member of the New York chapter of the American-Arab Antidiscrimination Committee, which actively militates against Israel. She served on its Steering Committee and was a member of its Board of Directors when she was hired by Human Rights Watch. Conflict of interest? I leave that to your judgement.
Anyway, lots of journalists have been going back over the output of HRW just to see if there is a pro-palestinian slant. And guess what? There is! How surprising. And there have been lots of pieces in the press questioning whether HRW is what it claims to be- against the abuse of human rights wherever and by whomever they are perpetrated.
And thats why HRW have put out this press release about Hamas. Since September 2005, the rockets and mortars have been thumping into southern Israel, and since then HRW have ignored them. But TODAY, they've discovered that these may be war crimes. What a coincidence. Thats not a JIT response. Thats a NIT response if there ever was one.
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Don't bother reading his lips
'Linda Douglass, communications director for the administration’s health-reform efforts, says, “There are a lot of very deceiving headlines out there right now,” then points on-screen to the Drudge link.
“There are people out there with a computer and a lot of free time, and they take a phrase here and there. They simply cherry-pick and put it together and make it sound like he’s saying something he didn’t really say,” she says.'
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/08/04/drudge-driving-more-youtube-hits-than-whitehousegov/?mod=rss_WSJBlog?mod=
I think its a mistake for the White House to counter any criticism about any policy by saying "Barack said this rather than that". Even the trusting, not-paying-very-good-attention centre of American politics has started to grasp a large truth about Obama: it doesn't really matter to Barack Obama what he says. His words are endlessly elastic, being used to hide his intentions rather than reveal them.
Ms Douglass is 100% right about what Barack Obama is saying. He keeps repeating the mantra "You will be able to keep your current insurance if you like it, nothing will change unless you want it to". But she is occupying a mental space from eight or nine months ago, when it was sufficient to simply say 'Barack Obama said X' and all the millions of Obama supporters would believe that his words constituted a concrete commitment to X. But many mainstream voters have Moved On since then.
There have been many broken commitments, lies and cynical backtrackings since the inauguration. For many of the moderate voters who took Obama at his words when he took on hundreds of moderate views for the last three months or so of his campaign, the reality of Barack Obama has been a bucket of iced water to the face. Which Obama do we believe, they ask themselves? The one in 2003 who stated very very honestly and clearly to an AFL-CIO meeting his commitment to a single-payer socialised medicine that would have to be introduced slowly so the frog didn't jump out of the saucepan. Or the Obama who states that nothing will change at all hardly, and the people who are saying all those stupid things are just haters. Or the Obama who is at this very moment presiding over a bill which will change the US healthcare system irrevocably and lead inexorably to the single payer system.
In short, read my lips has been trumped by watch my hands.
“There are people out there with a computer and a lot of free time, and they take a phrase here and there. They simply cherry-pick and put it together and make it sound like he’s saying something he didn’t really say,” she says.'
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/08/04/drudge-driving-more-youtube-hits-than-whitehousegov/?mod=rss_WSJBlog?mod=
I think its a mistake for the White House to counter any criticism about any policy by saying "Barack said this rather than that". Even the trusting, not-paying-very-good-attention centre of American politics has started to grasp a large truth about Obama: it doesn't really matter to Barack Obama what he says. His words are endlessly elastic, being used to hide his intentions rather than reveal them.
Ms Douglass is 100% right about what Barack Obama is saying. He keeps repeating the mantra "You will be able to keep your current insurance if you like it, nothing will change unless you want it to". But she is occupying a mental space from eight or nine months ago, when it was sufficient to simply say 'Barack Obama said X' and all the millions of Obama supporters would believe that his words constituted a concrete commitment to X. But many mainstream voters have Moved On since then.
There have been many broken commitments, lies and cynical backtrackings since the inauguration. For many of the moderate voters who took Obama at his words when he took on hundreds of moderate views for the last three months or so of his campaign, the reality of Barack Obama has been a bucket of iced water to the face. Which Obama do we believe, they ask themselves? The one in 2003 who stated very very honestly and clearly to an AFL-CIO meeting his commitment to a single-payer socialised medicine that would have to be introduced slowly so the frog didn't jump out of the saucepan. Or the Obama who states that nothing will change at all hardly, and the people who are saying all those stupid things are just haters. Or the Obama who is at this very moment presiding over a bill which will change the US healthcare system irrevocably and lead inexorably to the single payer system.
In short, read my lips has been trumped by watch my hands.
Monday, August 03, 2009
A return to tradition
I'm reading De Tocquevilles 'Democracy in America' at the moment. What is vividly apparent is how far America in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries drifted from its traditions. The kind of fractious and robust interaction between represented and representative you can see in this video is normal for the mid-nineteenth century. By the end of the twentieth it had virtually disappeared. The rough-and-tumble of the traditional way of American democracy had been replaced by a pallid and wizened faux-politess.
The same bloodless and dreary atmosphere dominated (and still dominates) American newspapers as well. I think of it as the victory of the school-marm over the working stiff. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Americans felt completely free to get in the face of their representatives and tell them how it was using short and brutal words. And those representatives took it for what it was- the electorate making sure the elected knew what was expected of them. The more vigorous the exchange, the harder the representatives listened- these were the people they were doing the job for. That attitude is long gone.
The doddery old farts and plastic fantastic used-car salesmen who currently occupy positions in Congress do not feel it is part of their job to have to listen to disgruntled voters. All those hicks and NASCAR watchers should know their place and leave governing to the professionals! Look at the enormous response to Joe the Plumber during the 2008 election. Upstart! Ignoramus! Yokel! How dare he intrude into our choreography and myth-making exercises!
Joe the Plumber may well have planted the seeds for the Tea-Party uprisings. His was the only truly revelatory question of the entire campaign. He did what the massed legions of drudge journalists wouldn't- he asked a question Obama didn't want to answer, didn't have the wit to dodge, and revealed for the only time in the campaign his real thoughts about taxation and the redistribution of wealth by government diktat. Joe the Plumber knew Americas traditions, and kept to them in the finest way imaginable.
Politicians in America had almost managed to invert the true intent of democracy- the working slobs worked for them, for their perks, for their grandiosity, for their glory. Right now, at this very moment, they are being brought down to earth with a bump. They are getting the truth right between their eyes. Many of them can't handle it, apparently. Hopefully at the next election, they will be replaced by people who not only can handle it, but who see that as 'business as usual'.
Saturday, August 01, 2009
Conservative party principles
From a Conservative Party email:
'This is not the Iraq Inquiry the nation wanted
William Hague has warned that the Iraq War Inquiry announced this week by Sir John Chilcot will not be "the inquiry that the nation wanted to see".
The Shadow Foreign Secretary condemned the "worrying new caveat" that sessions will be held in private not just when national security is concerned, but also when there is a need for candour.
He stressed, "If there are difficult truths to be told they should be told in the light of day, not behind closed doors."'
Can you say unprincipled shit-for-brains?
The Conservative Party were FOR THE WAR IN IRAQ. They voted for it on all possible occasions. They supported Tony Blair against his own party. If there are difficult truths to be told, how about 'you supported the war on all occasions'? Is that a difficult one for you to own up to?
The people who want an inquiry into the war have already made up their minds what its conclusions will be. Their stiflingly limited knowledge of history, their laserlike focus on a few trivial details and their cold war-hangover hatred of Britain and the United States mean that for them an inquiry is simply a formality to rubber-stamp their opinions. How dare the United States and Britain squash an enemy like an over-ripe grape? How dare they stride manfully about the world exerting power? They should be grovelling like frightened girls in the dirt, apologising for their very existence, like Obama and Hillary do.
The educated, knowledgeable, moral part of the nation which supported the war never needed an enquiry. What would it enquire into? Why spend the money? We know why the war was fought. We needed to conclude business unfinished by 'realists'Clown Colin Powell and G H W Bush. The Iraqis needed someone in charge of thier strategically pivotal nation who wasn't an aggressive psychopath. See how easy that is to explain David/William/Oliver?
So why all this pathetic half-assed pretending that you are actually principled critics of the Iraq intervention? When are we going to be governed by grown-ups?
'This is not the Iraq Inquiry the nation wanted
William Hague has warned that the Iraq War Inquiry announced this week by Sir John Chilcot will not be "the inquiry that the nation wanted to see".
The Shadow Foreign Secretary condemned the "worrying new caveat" that sessions will be held in private not just when national security is concerned, but also when there is a need for candour.
He stressed, "If there are difficult truths to be told they should be told in the light of day, not behind closed doors."'
Can you say unprincipled shit-for-brains?
The Conservative Party were FOR THE WAR IN IRAQ. They voted for it on all possible occasions. They supported Tony Blair against his own party. If there are difficult truths to be told, how about 'you supported the war on all occasions'? Is that a difficult one for you to own up to?
The people who want an inquiry into the war have already made up their minds what its conclusions will be. Their stiflingly limited knowledge of history, their laserlike focus on a few trivial details and their cold war-hangover hatred of Britain and the United States mean that for them an inquiry is simply a formality to rubber-stamp their opinions. How dare the United States and Britain squash an enemy like an over-ripe grape? How dare they stride manfully about the world exerting power? They should be grovelling like frightened girls in the dirt, apologising for their very existence, like Obama and Hillary do.
The educated, knowledgeable, moral part of the nation which supported the war never needed an enquiry. What would it enquire into? Why spend the money? We know why the war was fought. We needed to conclude business unfinished by 'realists'
So why all this pathetic half-assed pretending that you are actually principled critics of the Iraq intervention? When are we going to be governed by grown-ups?
Let the punishment fit the crime
'Pictures of models, some of whom were partially-clothed, were taken inside and outside St Michael Penkivel Church near Truro.
Cornwall-based photographer Andy Craddock is the subject of legal action by the priest in charge for blasphemy...
Andrew Yates, the priest in charge of St Michael Penkivel, said in a statement: "No permission was ever sought by or given to Mr Craddock by the priest-in-charge or by the churchwardens for these photographs.
"I am deeply shocked that Mr Craddock could consider taking action that will inevitably cause great offence."'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/8179635.stm
As a punishment for this crime, this idiot must shoot all the same pictures in a mosque in Bradford. We all know that no Christian is going to do anything serious about this disgusting behaviour, but we know some people who will! Rusty sword time Craddock.
Cornwall-based photographer Andy Craddock is the subject of legal action by the priest in charge for blasphemy...
Andrew Yates, the priest in charge of St Michael Penkivel, said in a statement: "No permission was ever sought by or given to Mr Craddock by the priest-in-charge or by the churchwardens for these photographs.
"I am deeply shocked that Mr Craddock could consider taking action that will inevitably cause great offence."'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/8179635.stm
As a punishment for this crime, this idiot must shoot all the same pictures in a mosque in Bradford. We all know that no Christian is going to do anything serious about this disgusting behaviour, but we know some people who will! Rusty sword time Craddock.
Friday, July 31, 2009
President of Haiti
'...AmeriCorps is one of Obama’s favorite federal programs. They know that AmeriCorps gave an $800,000-plus grant to Kevin Johnson, the mayor of Sacramento, Calif., who just happens to be an influential friend and supporter of the president. They know that Walpin investigated Johnson’s misuse of that federal money. They know that as a result of Walpin’s probe, Johnson was suspended from receiving any new federal grants, a fact that caused controversy in Sacramento when leaders realized it could prevent the city from receiving millions in federal stimulus money. They know that, amid the local uproar over the Johnson affair, the acting U.S. attorney in Sacramento, Lawrence Brown, made a deal to let Johnson off the hook, and then took the unusual step of denouncing Walpin. They know that Walpin vigorously objected to Johnson’s getting off easy. And they know that after Walpin protested, the president fired him.'
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Probe-finds-new-clues-in-AmeriCorps-IG-scandal--52109667.html
Amongst the many, many things Barack Obama promised during his campaign for President was an end to business-as-usual Washington politics. Most people interpreted that as a good thing. They believed it meant transparency would replace secrecy, that clean government would replace corruption and venality, and that representatives would listen to their constituents rather than lobbyists.
What is has meant in this case is that large organisations who recieve funds from the federal government now need not worry about misspending the money- as long as they are friends of Barack. Can you say Banana Republic? Can you say 'public policy as operated by all the third-world shitholes'? Can you say becoming more like Haiti and less like the United States every day?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Probe-finds-new-clues-in-AmeriCorps-IG-scandal--52109667.html
Amongst the many, many things Barack Obama promised during his campaign for President was an end to business-as-usual Washington politics. Most people interpreted that as a good thing. They believed it meant transparency would replace secrecy, that clean government would replace corruption and venality, and that representatives would listen to their constituents rather than lobbyists.
What is has meant in this case is that large organisations who recieve funds from the federal government now need not worry about misspending the money- as long as they are friends of Barack. Can you say Banana Republic? Can you say 'public policy as operated by all the third-world shitholes'? Can you say becoming more like Haiti and less like the United States every day?
HRW: ignorant or worse?
'Human rights campaigners have voiced concern over the death of the leader of an Islamic sect in Nigerian police custody, calling it "unlawful" killing.
Nigerian government officials said Mohammed Yusuf, 39, was shot while trying to escape. His capture by police had been announced just hours earlier.
His group is blamed for days of unrest that has left hundreds of people dead....
Staff at Human Rights Watch said there should be an immediate investigation into the case.
"The extrajudicial killing of Mr Yusuf in police custody is a shocking example of the brazen contempt by the Nigerian police for the rule of law," said Human Rights Watch's Eric Guttschuss.
Another Human Rights Watch researcher, Corinne Dufka, told AP news agency: "The Nigerian authorities must act immediately to investigate and hold to account all those responsible for this unlawful killing and any others associated with the recent violence in northern Nigeria."'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8177681.stm
Is this deliberate provocation? The houses torched byProcol Boko Haram are still smoking, the bodies of the dead policemen and Christian citizens are not buried yet, and Human Rights Watch is positively incensed by the summary execution of the leader of the murderous gang. This goes beyond a weird sense of priorities, straight across into cheerleading for the muslims. By making a big splash about the killing of Muhammad Yusuf, they guaruntee that most muslim enclaves in Britain and round the world will never spend a second thinking about the dead Nigerian Christians, but only embroidering their vast conspiracy and grievance theories.
It almost defies belief. Do these smart, smart people really think that Northern Nigeria has a crime problem? Do they really think that the missing ingredient is proper police procedures?
Think back to Rwanda. What stopped the Hutu genocide? A highly effective Tutsi army. They didn't go round the country insisting that the Hutus follow proper police procedures; there wouldn't be any Tutsis left. Is the HRW attitude parochial and ignorant, or is it worse than that?
Given their casual equanimity with hundreds of brutally murdered Christian Nigerians, we have to suspect that it is.
Nigerian government officials said Mohammed Yusuf, 39, was shot while trying to escape. His capture by police had been announced just hours earlier.
His group is blamed for days of unrest that has left hundreds of people dead....
Staff at Human Rights Watch said there should be an immediate investigation into the case.
"The extrajudicial killing of Mr Yusuf in police custody is a shocking example of the brazen contempt by the Nigerian police for the rule of law," said Human Rights Watch's Eric Guttschuss.
Another Human Rights Watch researcher, Corinne Dufka, told AP news agency: "The Nigerian authorities must act immediately to investigate and hold to account all those responsible for this unlawful killing and any others associated with the recent violence in northern Nigeria."'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8177681.stm
Is this deliberate provocation? The houses torched by
It almost defies belief. Do these smart, smart people really think that Northern Nigeria has a crime problem? Do they really think that the missing ingredient is proper police procedures?
Think back to Rwanda. What stopped the Hutu genocide? A highly effective Tutsi army. They didn't go round the country insisting that the Hutus follow proper police procedures; there wouldn't be any Tutsis left. Is the HRW attitude parochial and ignorant, or is it worse than that?
Given their casual equanimity with hundreds of brutally murdered Christian Nigerians, we have to suspect that it is.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
West Wing vs Engine Room
'The one leading policy wonk on health care, Budget Director Peter Orszag, has either missed signals of danger or has failed to communicate their seriousness to his colleagues. On Feb. 25, Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf, a Democratic appointee, signaled in testimony to the Senate Finance Committee that the CBO would not credit health care bills with the budget savings the administration was promising.
Orszag, as a former CBO director himself, should have realized what this meant, which is that Democrats would have to shape their bills accordingly. They didn't, and were stunned when the CBO came out in June and this month with estimates of little or no savings.'
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obama-has-aura-but-doesn_t-know-how-to-legislate-8032142-51922177.html
You may have seen "The West Wing", a beautifully-filmed fantasy of how spectacularly thoughtful, humane, sophisticated, urbane, witty and effective a Democrat President and his acolytes would have been if they'd actually won; and that dim-wit Bush hadn't spoiled the party. Time after time, the fictional protagonists razor-sharp wits and deeply moral underpinnings led America away from evil and towards the light.
Then Barack Obama won the Presidency. Now we can measure "The West Wing" against an actual, blood-and-bone Democrat presidency. Oooops!
Can you say 'amateur'? This was the line that caught my eye - 'He created the impression on the campaign trail that he was familiar with major issues and readily ticked off his positions on them.' How many of the people occupying chairs in the White House are at the level of a tick-list when it comes to understanding the problems and difficulties of the United States? You know, they've read the bullet points. They've read the handy synopses of the issues printed up for distribution at demos. They've discussed Americas problems in the bar, and at BBQ's and over dinner. What more does a Democrat politician need?
And of course the answer is NOTHING. Sadly, though, the people in the White House are meant to be executive personnel not politicians. Canny politics, those arts of misdirection, vagueness and lying got them into the White House. But now they have to run the country. Oooops again.
Five out of Obamas twelve years as a 'legislator' were spent running for some other more senior office. He had written two books about himself by the time he was twenty eight. Obamas major, perhaps only, subject is Barack Obama. You can see why he might not have had time to bone up on dusty, boring subjects like the Health Care industry in the United States. I mean, where is the Barack Obama angle?
Obama is still wedded to all his sophomoric marxist fantasies and fundamentally they are what guide his opinions and behaviour on legislation. He doesn't care about the details, he wants that huge chunk of human life comprised in health care under the aegis of government. Details are for lesser mortals- the Harry Reids and Nancy Pelosis of this world. All the difficult policy work on Obamas agenda has so far been outsourced to the dimwits on Capitol Hill. At least Billary had the nous and the work-ethic to produce their own Health Care Reform bill, although it never got out of the starting blocks.
I'm going to make a prediction: by the end of his term in office, Obama will be the least-respected, most-reviled President ever. The pathetic platitudes, lordly hauteur and pseudo-intellectualism that got him into office will metastasize in the publics minds and become terrible jokes. Walter Mitty will get laughed out of town. He had better hope the Dems don't pass a terrible, ignorant Health care reform bill. Doing nothing won't get you in as much trouble as doing something terrible.
Orszag, as a former CBO director himself, should have realized what this meant, which is that Democrats would have to shape their bills accordingly. They didn't, and were stunned when the CBO came out in June and this month with estimates of little or no savings.'
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obama-has-aura-but-doesn_t-know-how-to-legislate-8032142-51922177.html
You may have seen "The West Wing", a beautifully-filmed fantasy of how spectacularly thoughtful, humane, sophisticated, urbane, witty and effective a Democrat President and his acolytes would have been if they'd actually won; and that dim-wit Bush hadn't spoiled the party. Time after time, the fictional protagonists razor-sharp wits and deeply moral underpinnings led America away from evil and towards the light.
Then Barack Obama won the Presidency. Now we can measure "The West Wing" against an actual, blood-and-bone Democrat presidency. Oooops!
Can you say 'amateur'? This was the line that caught my eye - 'He created the impression on the campaign trail that he was familiar with major issues and readily ticked off his positions on them.' How many of the people occupying chairs in the White House are at the level of a tick-list when it comes to understanding the problems and difficulties of the United States? You know, they've read the bullet points. They've read the handy synopses of the issues printed up for distribution at demos. They've discussed Americas problems in the bar, and at BBQ's and over dinner. What more does a Democrat politician need?
And of course the answer is NOTHING. Sadly, though, the people in the White House are meant to be executive personnel not politicians. Canny politics, those arts of misdirection, vagueness and lying got them into the White House. But now they have to run the country. Oooops again.
Five out of Obamas twelve years as a 'legislator' were spent running for some other more senior office. He had written two books about himself by the time he was twenty eight. Obamas major, perhaps only, subject is Barack Obama. You can see why he might not have had time to bone up on dusty, boring subjects like the Health Care industry in the United States. I mean, where is the Barack Obama angle?
Obama is still wedded to all his sophomoric marxist fantasies and fundamentally they are what guide his opinions and behaviour on legislation. He doesn't care about the details, he wants that huge chunk of human life comprised in health care under the aegis of government. Details are for lesser mortals- the Harry Reids and Nancy Pelosis of this world. All the difficult policy work on Obamas agenda has so far been outsourced to the dimwits on Capitol Hill. At least Billary had the nous and the work-ethic to produce their own Health Care Reform bill, although it never got out of the starting blocks.
I'm going to make a prediction: by the end of his term in office, Obama will be the least-respected, most-reviled President ever. The pathetic platitudes, lordly hauteur and pseudo-intellectualism that got him into office will metastasize in the publics minds and become terrible jokes. Walter Mitty will get laughed out of town. He had better hope the Dems don't pass a terrible, ignorant Health care reform bill. Doing nothing won't get you in as much trouble as doing something terrible.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
MI-6 strike again, a bit like Spectre
'They have launched co-ordinated attacks across northern Nigeria, threatening to overthrow the government and impose strict Islamic law - but who exactly are the Nigerian Taliban?'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8172270.stm
Isn't it obvious? Its MI-6! Who else could it be?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8172270.stm
Isn't it obvious? Its MI-6! Who else could it be?
Monday, July 27, 2009
Its the Somme all over again II
This is an update of the previous post by this name. Last night I watched a documentary called "1916: Total War". It was mainly about the Somme- why it was fought, how it was fought, what it meant to those who took part, and what its effect was on the British army.
The Somme is constantly used by lefties as shorthand for 'prime example of the futility of war, and especially the stupidity of donkey aristocrats who think nothing of killing their working class squaddies'. As this documentary points out, that analysis is bullshit. Approximately two hundred thousand ordinary soldiers turned out for Earl Haigs funeral. Earl Haig was the general in charge at the Somme. The Somme was the blooding of a whole nations fighting men, Lord Kitcheners New Army. It was the formative experience which enabled the victories of 1918, the greatest victories a British army has ever won, by the largest army Britain has ever fielded.
British casualties on the first day of the Somme were 57,470 of which 19,240 were killed or died of wounds. As a point of comparison, the whole Rhodesian army was approximately 20,000. The battle then ground on for four and a half months.
No British engagement in the twenty-first century compares to the great clashes of the twentieth. To put it into perspective, the New Zealand Division, lost 2,000 of its 15,000 men at the Somme. That is more men lost in one battle than Britain has lost in all warfare since the Korean war. Britain lost 179 personnel (many not combat fatalities) in Iraq between 2003 and 2009. It has lost 191 personnel in Afghanistan (again many not combat fatalities) in the even longer period 2001 to 2009. By absolutely any yardstick, those are miniscule totals. Given the amount of contacts and combat that have taken place in both countries, it shows how staggeringly effective our forces are at killing and not being killed.
Yet if you read the BBC website, you'd imagine that not only are our troops pathetic little children wandering about in someone elses war, but that they are taking casualties on a massive scale. They are victims, hung out to dry by the monster Gordon Brown and the despicable MOD.
How many Britons outside the White City group wank see our armed forces this way? A tiny sprinkling in our big cities, and thats all. Everybody else (excepting the moslems in the moslem state-within-a-state enclaves) see them as heroes, the battle-hardened but thin green line toughing out a mostly unrewarding posting in inhospitable places on our behalf.
The BBC coercively takes £3.2 BILLION every year from British taxpayers, and yet their coverage of Afghanistan is completely pathetic and shit.
Compare:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8167615.stm
with:
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/an-artery-of-opium-a-vein-of-taliban.htm
Michael Yon gets no assistance from anyone, just private contributions (please make one if you like his material). And yet he does a better job than the whole over-paid BBC. Why aren't people angry? Maybe they are.
The Somme is constantly used by lefties as shorthand for 'prime example of the futility of war, and especially the stupidity of donkey aristocrats who think nothing of killing their working class squaddies'. As this documentary points out, that analysis is bullshit. Approximately two hundred thousand ordinary soldiers turned out for Earl Haigs funeral. Earl Haig was the general in charge at the Somme. The Somme was the blooding of a whole nations fighting men, Lord Kitcheners New Army. It was the formative experience which enabled the victories of 1918, the greatest victories a British army has ever won, by the largest army Britain has ever fielded.
British casualties on the first day of the Somme were 57,470 of which 19,240 were killed or died of wounds. As a point of comparison, the whole Rhodesian army was approximately 20,000. The battle then ground on for four and a half months.
No British engagement in the twenty-first century compares to the great clashes of the twentieth. To put it into perspective, the New Zealand Division, lost 2,000 of its 15,000 men at the Somme. That is more men lost in one battle than Britain has lost in all warfare since the Korean war. Britain lost 179 personnel (many not combat fatalities) in Iraq between 2003 and 2009. It has lost 191 personnel in Afghanistan (again many not combat fatalities) in the even longer period 2001 to 2009. By absolutely any yardstick, those are miniscule totals. Given the amount of contacts and combat that have taken place in both countries, it shows how staggeringly effective our forces are at killing and not being killed.
Yet if you read the BBC website, you'd imagine that not only are our troops pathetic little children wandering about in someone elses war, but that they are taking casualties on a massive scale. They are victims, hung out to dry by the monster Gordon Brown and the despicable MOD.
How many Britons outside the White City group wank see our armed forces this way? A tiny sprinkling in our big cities, and thats all. Everybody else (excepting the moslems in the moslem state-within-a-state enclaves) see them as heroes, the battle-hardened but thin green line toughing out a mostly unrewarding posting in inhospitable places on our behalf.
The BBC coercively takes £3.2 BILLION every year from British taxpayers, and yet their coverage of Afghanistan is completely pathetic and shit.
Compare:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8167615.stm
with:
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/an-artery-of-opium-a-vein-of-taliban.htm
Michael Yon gets no assistance from anyone, just private contributions (please make one if you like his material). And yet he does a better job than the whole over-paid BBC. Why aren't people angry? Maybe they are.
Unintended consequences of Liberal Bullshit #79,832
'HEATHER MACDONALD: Inside the Jail Inferno. Excerpt: “The spread of quality-of-life policing, which targets low-level offenses like aggressive panhandling, public urination, and littering, has brought a more mentally unstable, troubled population into jails—one that mental hospitals would have treated before the deinstitutionalization movement of the 1960s and ’70s shuttered most state mental hospitals. In fact, jails have become society’s primary mental institutions, though few have the funding or expertise to carry out that role properly.'
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/82546/
I'm sure you've seen 'One flew over the Cuckoos nest'- pretty much everybody in the world must have seen it by now. And the point of the movie, which they clonk you over the head with over and over and over again, is that mental asylums are evil places where wonderful, quirky, sweet, harmless weirdos are sent to be zombified and murdered. Asylums are run by little hitlers and sadistic bitches. The staff- indeed the whole institution- represent 'The Man' who just wants to sweep all the slightly aberrant people off the streets into a prison for the mind and body.
So America and Britain and lots of other countries close their Mental Asylums, and guess what? The REAL prisons fill up with the mentally ill. Hmmmmm. Good result!
Normal prisoners, prison warders, the mentally ill and relatives of the mentally ill are all losers. The winners are the libtards who can now sleep the sleep of the self-righteous, knowing they have destroyed the evil Mental Asylum system. Yay for Liberals! Yay for the bright future!
UPDATE
'The number of people killed by those with a mental illness increased between 1997 and 2005, official figures show. The National Confidential Inquiry reported while 54 people were killed in England and Wales in 1997, this had risen to over 70 in both 2004 and 2005.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8173386.stm
Quirky, sweet, harmless weirdos!
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/82546/
I'm sure you've seen 'One flew over the Cuckoos nest'- pretty much everybody in the world must have seen it by now. And the point of the movie, which they clonk you over the head with over and over and over again, is that mental asylums are evil places where wonderful, quirky, sweet, harmless weirdos are sent to be zombified and murdered. Asylums are run by little hitlers and sadistic bitches. The staff- indeed the whole institution- represent 'The Man' who just wants to sweep all the slightly aberrant people off the streets into a prison for the mind and body.
So America and Britain and lots of other countries close their Mental Asylums, and guess what? The REAL prisons fill up with the mentally ill. Hmmmmm. Good result!
Normal prisoners, prison warders, the mentally ill and relatives of the mentally ill are all losers. The winners are the libtards who can now sleep the sleep of the self-righteous, knowing they have destroyed the evil Mental Asylum system. Yay for Liberals! Yay for the bright future!
UPDATE
'The number of people killed by those with a mental illness increased between 1997 and 2005, official figures show. The National Confidential Inquiry reported while 54 people were killed in England and Wales in 1997, this had risen to over 70 in both 2004 and 2005.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8173386.stm
Quirky, sweet, harmless weirdos!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)