Well, it's certainly creative.
The winner of the 2010 ICCL Human Rights Film Awards is Gaza: Post Operation Cast Lead.
The eight and a half minute topical film by Dearbhla Glynn takes a look at everyday like in Gaza, under "siege" by the Israeli military.
Someone might want to point out to those who use the word "siege" in relation to Gaza that the term explicitly implies a desire to capture the besieged area, something that Israel has no intention of doing with Gaza.
The film is the sort of propaganda that would make Mussolini proud. Lots of images of suffering people with subtitles laying the blame squarely with Israel.
No mention of Kassam rockets (around 300 at last count, including one yesterday) or the election of Hamas- the fascist, Islamist, Iran-backed faction that seeks the obliteration of Israel.
The funniest moment in the film comes at 4:06, where a particularly patronising Irish woman tells two confused-looking young men that they are "entitled to their freedom". It's well worth a watch just for the look on their faces.
The film really is awful. You may just throw up a little in your popcorn. Be warned.
UPDATE: they just deleted my comment! hilarious
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Libby Davies Comments
How exciting to move to British Columbia and be told it is a sensible place with sensible people. How less to to find out there's a cancer called the NDP who may be in power in the province come the next election. One of the NDP's members of the national Parliament is Vancouver East rep Libby Davies, a nasty piece of work as you might imagine.
Her blog can be found here, complete with unmoderated comments from some, admittedly, subliterate persons who nonetheless aren't afraid to get straight to the point:
Libby's Big Idea (and most libs usually only have one in their lifetime) is something called the National Housing Strategy, for which she has a petition. If you think it sounds wonderfully Communist, don't worry: it is.
While there's something sugary and nice about "homes for everyone", there's always the unspoken yet sinister undertone: you're going to pay for it.
Her blog can be found here, complete with unmoderated comments from some, admittedly, subliterate persons who nonetheless aren't afraid to get straight to the point:
Lady, how did you get into power with your such racist fews in the first place?!
Why don't you just resign your post and get the hell out of politics already?! You don't know your own ass from a hole in the ground!!
says one, and
Libby do you really support Women's rights? Islamic terrorists do NOT support women's rights. How could you have support for both,it is contradictory.says another. Fun stuff, and maybe Ms Davies might consider either replying to or moderating such comments.
Libby's Big Idea (and most libs usually only have one in their lifetime) is something called the National Housing Strategy, for which she has a petition. If you think it sounds wonderfully Communist, don't worry: it is.
While there's something sugary and nice about "homes for everyone", there's always the unspoken yet sinister undertone: you're going to pay for it.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Obama 2001 Interview: Wealth Redistribution
I'm not usually so interested in what people have said in the past - if you'd interviewed me in 2001 and taped it, I'd be too embarrassed about my inane ramblings I'd never leave my house again.
But BHO is the POTUS, and what he has said can and should be used against him, to coin a phrase. Most importantly, if he has not refuted his previous statements, it is reasonable to assume he still sticks to them.
Here is the man himself on Chicago radio, regretting that the US Constitution does not allow the state to redistribute wealth, and lamenting that the Civil Rights Movement did not "reinterpret" the Constitution to that end.
What is interesting to me, too, is that the Constitution is of vital importance to the Civil Rights Movement, and also to womens' suffrage and other issues involving the extension of full Rights to all citizens.
It has been argued that the Constitution was written by white, slave-owning men, as though this renders the document irrelevant to today at best, and at worst a piece of historical garbage. It is rather the case that while the US only granted those priviliges guaranteed in the Constitution to while males of property, those privileges were later extended to everyone not by rubbishing the Constitution but by arguing from it.
This is a crucial point, and one that BHO completely misses in the above interview. The Constitution made possible the extension of the franchise to blacks and women by its own words, just as soon as it was shown that universal suffrage was inherent in the Constitution itself rather than an alien addition to it. If those movements were not rooted in the Constitution, they would have succeeded without removing it completely.
The Constitution of the United States has survived over two centuries without major alteration because it guarantees mostly 'negative' Rights. The most the government can ever do is ensure those rights are upheld.
But BHO is the POTUS, and what he has said can and should be used against him, to coin a phrase. Most importantly, if he has not refuted his previous statements, it is reasonable to assume he still sticks to them.
Here is the man himself on Chicago radio, regretting that the US Constitution does not allow the state to redistribute wealth, and lamenting that the Civil Rights Movement did not "reinterpret" the Constitution to that end.
What is interesting to me, too, is that the Constitution is of vital importance to the Civil Rights Movement, and also to womens' suffrage and other issues involving the extension of full Rights to all citizens.
It has been argued that the Constitution was written by white, slave-owning men, as though this renders the document irrelevant to today at best, and at worst a piece of historical garbage. It is rather the case that while the US only granted those priviliges guaranteed in the Constitution to while males of property, those privileges were later extended to everyone not by rubbishing the Constitution but by arguing from it.
This is a crucial point, and one that BHO completely misses in the above interview. The Constitution made possible the extension of the franchise to blacks and women by its own words, just as soon as it was shown that universal suffrage was inherent in the Constitution itself rather than an alien addition to it. If those movements were not rooted in the Constitution, they would have succeeded without removing it completely.
The Constitution of the United States has survived over two centuries without major alteration because it guarantees mostly 'negative' Rights. The most the government can ever do is ensure those rights are upheld.
As Europe Laments the Welfare State, US turns to it
The comments are interesting too...
By Michael D. Tanner
As President Obama meets this weekend with the leaders of the G-20 nations in Toronto, it is increasingly apparent that the United States and the European countries are headed in diametrically opposite directions.
The Obama administration has been racing to transform the U.S. into a copy of the European social-welfare system, while at the same time those countries are being forced to come to grips with the failure of that welfare state. Greece, Hungry and Portugal have received the most news media attention as their growing debt has threatened the viability of the euro. But all across the European Union, countries are discovering that they can no longer afford the massive cost of providing cradle-to-grave government benefits.
•France: The poster-child for euro-socialism is facing a national debt of 1.49 trillion euro, about 77% of its GDP. That doesn't count the unfunded liabilities of the country's state pension system, which may exceed 200% of GDP by themselves. Reforming the French welfare system has long been seen as politically impossible, but the fiscal facts have forced the French government to finally propose an increase in the retirement age. The French government is also selling off government-owned land and other property. And the French health care system has gradually been increasing co-payments and other forms of consumer cost-sharing.
•Germany: Every working person in Germany shoulders 43,000 euro ($53,000) in debt. In response, the German government has announced plans to cut more than 80 billion euro in government spending, nearly 3% of GDP, over the next four years. It has already announced 3 billion euro in cuts in this year's budget, including a reduction in unemployment benefits. The retirement age will be raised from 65 to 67 by 2029. Government universities, previously free, have begun charging tuition.
•Great Britain: England's national debt is a staggering 90,000 pounds ($133,000) per household. The new government of Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron has already announced more than 6 billion pounds in budget cuts. It plans to raise the retirement age under its Social Security system and abolish payments to parents of newborn children. The government also aims to implement U.S.-style welfare reform, including a work requirement for those receiving benefits.
•Italy: Even the notoriously dysfunctional Italian government has been forced to come to terms with a national debt larger than its entire GDP. Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has proposed more than 30 billion euro in budget cuts over the next two years, including a billion-euro cut to its national health care system, and a crackdown on fraudulent disability payments. Berlusconi also called for a three-year pay freeze for all government workers.
•Spain: Facing the country's worst economic crisis in decades, Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodiguez-Zapatero has slashed government spending by 15 million euro. Payments to the parents of newborn children were ended, and disability payments cut. The Spanish government also has proposed hiking the retirement age for men from 65 to 67.
These countries are discovering a basic economic truth: eventually you run out of Peters with which to pay Paul.
Meanwhile, the U.S. is well down the road toward a European level of government spending and debt. Already, the U.S. national debt tops $72,000 per household. The Congressional Budget Office projects the debt will equal 90% of our GDP by 2020. That would be higher than any of the countries mentioned above except Italy — and we are closing in on that mark quickly.
Last year, U.S. federal spending topped 24.7% of gross domestic product — nearly a quarter of every dollar earned in this country. As the full force of entitlement programs kicks in, the federal government will consume more than 40% of GDP by the middle of the century. And the trajectory of government spending is projected to keep rising beyond 2050, eventually hitting an unfathomable 80% of GDP, according to the CBO.
Kicking and screaming, Europe is realizing the folly of the welfare state and taking the first small steps to return to fiscal sanity. Alas, Congress seems more inclined to repeat Europe's mistakes than to learn from them.
Michael D. Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.
Quote of the Week
From the delightful Scaramouche:
Read the whole article.
The last time six million Jews disappeared from the earth, it was because of a malevolent megalomaniac who thought he was doing the world a favour by ridding it of the Jewish contagion. This time around if six million or more are wiped out, it could well be because of people who love trees, buy organic food, keep tabs on their carbon footprint and march in solidarity with Pride paraders. For the Jews, of course, it matters not a whit if the people who want them dead harbour the worst of intentions, or the very best.
Read the whole article.
"Racism" Again! Crime Stats and Stop-and-Frisk
Here's an interesting piece from the NYT, responding to claims that city cops are "racist" because they stop and search proportionally more blacks and fewer whites:
THERE was a predictable chorus of criticism from civil rights groups last month when the New York Police Department released its data on stop-and-frisk interactions for 2009. The department made 575,000 pedestrian stops last year. Fifty-five percent involved blacks, even though blacks are only 23 percent of the city’s population. Whites, by contrast, were involved in 10 percent of all stops, though they make up 35 percent of the city’s population.
According to the department’s critics, that imbalance in stop rates results from officers’ racial bias. The use of these stops, they say, should be sharply curtailed, if not eliminated entirely, and some activists are suing the department to achieve that end.
However,
Allegations of racial bias, however, ignore the most important factor governing the Police Department’s operations: crime. Trends in criminal acts, not census data, drive everything that the department does, thanks to the statistics-based managerial revolution known as CompStat. Given the patterns of crime in New York, it is inevitable that stop rates will not mirror the city’s ethnic and racial breakdown.
And,
Such stops happen more frequently in minority neighborhoods because that is where the vast majority of violent crime occurs — and thus where police presence is most intense. Based on reports filed by victims, blacks committed 66 percent of all violent crime in New York in 2009, including 80 percent of shootings and 71 percent of robberies. Blacks and Hispanics together accounted for 98 percent of reported gun assaults. And the vast majority of the victims of violent crime were also members of minority groups.
Non-Hispanic whites, on the other hand, committed 5 percent of the city’s violent crimes in 2009, 1.4 percent of all shootings and less than 5 percent of all robberies.
.......Given these facts, the Police Department cannot direct its resources where they are most needed without generating racially disproportionate stop data, even though the department’s tactics themselves are colorblind. The per capita rate of shootings in the 73rd Precinct — which covers Brooklyn’s largely black Ocean Hill and Brownsville neighborhoods — is 81 times higher than in the 68th Precinct in largely white Bay Ridge. Not surprisingly, the per capita stop rate in the 73rd Precinct is 15 times higher than that in the 68th.
Indeed,
For several years, the ratio of stops in New York that resulted in an arrest or summons — about 12 percent of the total — was identical for whites, blacks and Hispanics, suggesting that the police use the same measure of reasonable suspicion in stopping members of different racial and ethnic groups. Just because a stop does not result in an arrest or summons does not mean that it did not interrupt a crime. Someone who is casing a victim or acting as a lookout may not have inculpatory evidence on him on which to base an arrest.
.....The attack on the Police Department’s stop-and-frisk data is based on the false premise that police activity should mirror census data, not crime. If the critics get their way, it would strip police protection from the New Yorkers who need it most.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Chavez on "Genocidal" Israel
This is great stuff, coming from Venezuela's useless prez.
He accuses Israel as acting as assassin for the United States - presumably because they kill Muslims. But if he disliked countries that kill Muslims he must loathe Syria, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, who kill an awful lot more Muslims than Israel does. If Israel is the assassin of the United States, those winners must be mass annihilators.
He accuses Israel as acting as assassin for the United States - presumably because they kill Muslims. But if he disliked countries that kill Muslims he must loathe Syria, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, who kill an awful lot more Muslims than Israel does. If Israel is the assassin of the United States, those winners must be mass annihilators.
By Frank Jack Daniel
CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez described Israel on Saturday as a genocidal state that acted as an assassin for the United States, predicting the Middle East nation would one day be "put in its place."
The socialist Chavez is a harsh critic of both Israel and the United States and cut relations with Israel after accusing it of "holocaust" for its 2009 offensive in the Gaza Strip.
"It has become the assassin arm of the United States, no one can doubt it. It is a threat to all of us," Chavez said, during a visit by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
Chavez said he supported a peaceful struggle for the return to Syria of the Golan Heights, captured by Israel in 1967.
"The territory will one day return to the Syrian hands," Chavez said. "Of course we want it to be peaceful because we don't want more war."
"But one day the genocidal state of Israel will be put into its place, and let's hope that a really democratic state emerges there, with which we can share a path and ideas."
Chavez did not offer further details of what putting Israel "in its place" would entail.
U.S. attempts to isolate Syria and reshape the Middle East have failed, he said, and Israel was fast losing allies.
Israel last week eased its land blockade on the Gaza Strip, allowing in all goods except for arms and related materials. That move followed widespread criticism for a raid on a blockade-busting group of boats, in which nine activists died.
Hugely popular in the Arab world for his fierce "anti-imperialist" stance. Chavez received a hero's welcome when he visited Syria in 2006. He returned to Damascus on a tour last year.
ASSAD TOUR
Assad arrived in Venezuela on Friday, the first stop on a rare Latin American tour. He is also due to visit Argentina, Brazil and Cuba.
Syria has started to raise its international profile in recent years, shrugging off Western efforts to weaken it and developing ties with former foe Turkey, Russia and with Latin American nations.
Assad, who faces a decline in domestic oil production and droughts that have hit agriculture, is looking to reinforce links with a rich Syrian expatriate community in the region and with economic power Brazil.
His tour is expected to focus on bilateral issues and Syria's hopes to attract $44 billion in private foreign investment over five years to repair its infrastructure.
He applauded Chavez's loud criticism of the United States and Israel. "Few politicians are brave enough to say no, when it is necessary to say no," Assad said as he arrived at the Miraflores presidential palace.
"He has revealed an image of Venezuela in resistance, creating a place for Venezuela on the international map. He has been on the side on just causes both in Latin America, in our region the Middle East and in the whole world."
"We Muslims are lucky Jews only want Jerusalem"
from Point of No Return
original source here
Farid Ghadry
original source here
Farid GhadryHate for Jews following the Free Gaza flotilla incident is off the scale, Farid Ghadry, leader of the Syrian Reform Party and now a US citizen, has calculated. Yet, Muslims who inflict much more pain on each other and own 97 percent of the Middle East, escape accountability. Every Muslim should try being a Jew for one day. (With thanks: Lily)
When I Googled the words “Hate Jews” and “Hate Zionsim”, I received back 1,520,000 and 4,100,000 hits. Similarly, when I Googled the words “Hate Muslims” and “Hate Islam”, I received back 1,170,000 and 2,110,000 hits. But these numbers tell part of the story because if you are a good statistician (I just know finance), you would know that 1,520,000 or 4,100,000 for a global population of let’s say 15,000,000 Jews is vastly different from a 1,170,000 and 2,110,000 hits for a global population of 1,400,000,000.
How different?
In percentages, Jews are hated to the tune of 121 times more. That is 12,125% more than people hate Muslims if the ratio of number of Muslims as compared to Jews is taken into account as well as the “Hate Index” of each. An index that the unsuccessful, jealous of Jewish accomplishments, keep pushing up.
In spite of the terror we Muslims inflict daily on others and on each other, Jews are hated more than we could ever be.
Israel attacked Hamas only after Hamas launched thousands of rockets. But Hamas attacked the PLO in Gaza for no reason. Yet, the Jews are hated, and the Muslims, inflicting pain unto each other, escape accountability. Israel established a blockade to weaken its extremist nemesis, yet, the Jews are hated for defending their borders when we Muslims own 97% of the lands. Lands where Jews lived and roamed thousands of years ago and where remnants of Synagogues are found today in several Arab countries, including Syria, Yemen, Oman, Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, and as far as Morocco.
We, Muslims, should be lucky the Jews only want Jerusalem.
Read post in fullNot a Real Libertarian?
Ha!
If there's one term that has almost no standard definition, it seems to be 'Libertarian'. It doesn't bother me, but I'm bothered now; someone told me I can't be a real individualist because I claim to be,
Being an individualist does not preclude one from being a patriot or even a Nationalist. Skip on over to Libertarian Republican and you'll find some very proud Americans. Likewise, UKIP waves both the Libertarian flag and the Union Jack.
Weak, left-libertarianism is a chaotic non-ideology that borders on anarchism, whereas true lovers of Liberty understand that you have to have your own house in order before you can spread the ideals of civilisation around the world.
No man is an island, we are all part of a nation, a community, a culture. That does not mean we cease to be individualists, for individualism cannot deny the myriad factors that come together to make up a person. At the same time the acceptance of collective belonging does not necessitate the need for collective action, or any sort of communal living.
The United States Constitution, the pinnacle of Enlightenment thought contains the phrase "We, the people", and yet goes on to praise the values of individual freedom, and the pursuit of happiness.
One can believe in equality and still know what makes one different from one's neighbour. Respecting and acknowledging that difference, through pride in our own heritage and culture, is what real diversity is, while pretending we are all alike is the self-deception of the multiculturalist.
To be a Nationalist, to me, means to take our brethren for brethren- whether we like them or not- which is why I've always had the utmost respect for Nationalists of all kinds. To be a Patriot means to love our own values, and our nations' contribution to civilisation. But to be an individualist means only to acknowledge that people are not perfect, that while even if sometimes our own nation may have little to be proud of, we ourselves can uphold and respect values that transcend our own lives in the hope that those around us can change, or at the very least not try to change us.
If there's one term that has almost no standard definition, it seems to be 'Libertarian'. It doesn't bother me, but I'm bothered now; someone told me I can't be a real individualist because I claim to be,
an Ulsterman of Norse and Anglo-Saxon heritage.The author doubtless expects 'true' individualists to have no flag and no heritage, perfectly island-like independent beings, adrift in a sea of individuality. I'm reminded of the Ascended from Star Gate SG1, being of pure spirit with little time for worldly affairs.
Being an individualist does not preclude one from being a patriot or even a Nationalist. Skip on over to Libertarian Republican and you'll find some very proud Americans. Likewise, UKIP waves both the Libertarian flag and the Union Jack.
Weak, left-libertarianism is a chaotic non-ideology that borders on anarchism, whereas true lovers of Liberty understand that you have to have your own house in order before you can spread the ideals of civilisation around the world.
No man is an island, we are all part of a nation, a community, a culture. That does not mean we cease to be individualists, for individualism cannot deny the myriad factors that come together to make up a person. At the same time the acceptance of collective belonging does not necessitate the need for collective action, or any sort of communal living.
The United States Constitution, the pinnacle of Enlightenment thought contains the phrase "We, the people", and yet goes on to praise the values of individual freedom, and the pursuit of happiness.
One can believe in equality and still know what makes one different from one's neighbour. Respecting and acknowledging that difference, through pride in our own heritage and culture, is what real diversity is, while pretending we are all alike is the self-deception of the multiculturalist.
To be a Nationalist, to me, means to take our brethren for brethren- whether we like them or not- which is why I've always had the utmost respect for Nationalists of all kinds. To be a Patriot means to love our own values, and our nations' contribution to civilisation. But to be an individualist means only to acknowledge that people are not perfect, that while even if sometimes our own nation may have little to be proud of, we ourselves can uphold and respect values that transcend our own lives in the hope that those around us can change, or at the very least not try to change us.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Israel Haters Unite!
So you want to boycott Israel, hey?
Well, you're in good company. The Boycott Israel Campaign has done some fascinating research into ways in which you can express your Judenhass.
Boycott Starbucks. Because why?
Not only that, but Starbucks opened an outlet in Afghanistan, which is evil because, well, .. who knows?
Anyway, if you want to get your hate on, get your triple mocha soy latte elsewhere. Boycott Israel and let the good feelings flow!
Well, you're in good company. The Boycott Israel Campaign has done some fascinating research into ways in which you can express your Judenhass.
Boycott Starbucks. Because why?
"Howard Shultz, the chairman of Starbucks is an active zionist."Better than being an inactive one, I suppose. Schultz is such a Very Bad Man because he won an award for, get this (the dastard),
"playing a key role in promoting close alliance between the United States and Israel"He also said some Palestinians were terrorists or something.
Not only that, but Starbucks opened an outlet in Afghanistan, which is evil because, well, .. who knows?
Anyway, if you want to get your hate on, get your triple mocha soy latte elsewhere. Boycott Israel and let the good feelings flow!
Boycott BP now?
Here we go again, and this time the victim of the lefty kneejerk reaction boycott brigade is a big nasty corporation - BP. Which is a bit of a double whammy for them, an ego-stroking boycott campaign and socking it to the Big Corporation all in one.
Except BP hasn't actually done anything wrong.
Sure, the effects are horrible, but at no point has BP tried to blame anyone else or refused to fix the spill. It was an accident, it seems, until some evidence of tampering or negligence emerges.
In the meantime though, why let facts or due process get in the way of a good protest?
Never mind that there are dozens of oil well in deep water that have had a 100% safety rate until now. Never mind that the Federal government is kinda responsible for the oil wells being out there and not in the snowy safety of Alaska. Never mind that the Federal government has turned away myriad offers of help from experts foreign and domestic, including the Dutch government, and continues to hamper the cleanup efforts through over-regulation.
If we all boycott BP and send them bankrupt (as if, but just bear with me), then who is going to clean up the oil?
Anyway, the Obama administration is going to have a lot of fun using the crisis to force through more of its favourite draconian anti-business regulations, probably some environmental ones, and possibly even cap-and-trade. All of which means that far greater disasters are on the horizon ...
Except BP hasn't actually done anything wrong.
Sure, the effects are horrible, but at no point has BP tried to blame anyone else or refused to fix the spill. It was an accident, it seems, until some evidence of tampering or negligence emerges.
In the meantime though, why let facts or due process get in the way of a good protest?
Never mind that there are dozens of oil well in deep water that have had a 100% safety rate until now. Never mind that the Federal government is kinda responsible for the oil wells being out there and not in the snowy safety of Alaska. Never mind that the Federal government has turned away myriad offers of help from experts foreign and domestic, including the Dutch government, and continues to hamper the cleanup efforts through over-regulation.
If we all boycott BP and send them bankrupt (as if, but just bear with me), then who is going to clean up the oil?
Anyway, the Obama administration is going to have a lot of fun using the crisis to force through more of its favourite draconian anti-business regulations, probably some environmental ones, and possibly even cap-and-trade. All of which means that far greater disasters are on the horizon ...
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Why Lie About SA Crime?
Adriana Struijt, tireless journalist of South African crime, posts from a comments section of a New Zealand news site. A commentator, claiming to be from France, writes about crimes committed against friends of his during the World Cup. When I read it, my alarms immediately went off. Here is the text:
First of all, this is not written by a Frenchman. He has misspelt derriere ...
It is written by someone whose first language is English, as you can tell from the use of colloqualisms, and from the pathetic effort to insert French words.
Also, what kind of person casually mentions that his friends were raped?
It frustrated me because there are so many true stories to tell, so why make them up?
It goes to show that the only way you can, to quote the 'author', "spew" "crap" is talk out of your backside!
Just returned. Francois (France)11:51AM Friday, 25 Jun 2010
My 4 Eyropean friends were robbed and raped in most brutal fashion close to Rustenburg and then again insulted by local Police who blamed them for not having been careful. They were ridiculed and 2 girls had to go on retro-viral medications.This is something that really bothers me about South African crime reports; there is so much of it about that there's no need to bullshit. And this comment is bullshit.
Anyone on this site claiming SA is safe is as far I am concerned a Propaganda writer hired by either the ANC or FIFA. That you would toy with tourists lives like that is pathetic and sickening. Your country has become a disgraceful increasingly 3rd world joke.
We will never forgive FIFAs BS safety propaganda nor forgive the safety crap you spewed before we arrived there.
We hope FIFA gets its derierre sued for playing with people lives.Bon voyage to anyone stupid enough to still visit your crime infested, corrupt and racist country. All we experienced was trauma worth a lifetime. Thanks to the writer of you story to tell your experience. We wish we would have known all this before going.
First of all, this is not written by a Frenchman. He has misspelt derriere ...
It is written by someone whose first language is English, as you can tell from the use of colloqualisms, and from the pathetic effort to insert French words.
Also, what kind of person casually mentions that his friends were raped?
It frustrated me because there are so many true stories to tell, so why make them up?
It goes to show that the only way you can, to quote the 'author', "spew" "crap" is talk out of your backside!
Thursday, June 24, 2010
What Happened to African-Americans?
Reading up on African-American representation in the US House and Senate, the Wikipedia table on the subject is startling.
During the 18th Century, after the civil war, there were a number of African-American congressmen and senators, and all of them were Republicans.
There wasn't a black Democrat in either house until 1935, and thereafter, almost all have been Democrats. In fact, to date, there have only been three African-American Republicans elected (two in the house and one senator).
I just find it remarkable that the contrast is so stark. I wonder what happened around 1935 to make such a change occur?
During the 18th Century, after the civil war, there were a number of African-American congressmen and senators, and all of them were Republicans.
There wasn't a black Democrat in either house until 1935, and thereafter, almost all have been Democrats. In fact, to date, there have only been three African-American Republicans elected (two in the house and one senator).
I just find it remarkable that the contrast is so stark. I wonder what happened around 1935 to make such a change occur?
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Insight into the Liberal Mind
Every now and then Steve Sailer writes some interesting stuff and his latest on evidence of racial bias in the American SATs is fascinating, as a segway into the subject of liberals and how they think.
The findings:
Which is verifiably true, although the main point here is not about who is smarter - something I believe has little relevance - but the thought process of the researchers compared to that of Sailer (and conservatives generally).
Liberals find something they don't like, constantly on the watch for injustice as they tend to be. They find evidence of "inequality", understood not in the traditional sense as unfairness, but in the sense of different outcomes. They must immediately seek out and correct the source of that inequality.
Most people see the SAT results and think, well, I guess those guys need some more education or something. Similarly, when we see that black Americans fill jails disproportionally to their numbers in the overall population, we assume that they just commit more crimes, for reasons best known to themselves. Liberals, on the other hand, don't see a problem with the criminals, they see a problem with the 'system'. No doubt there has historically been discrimination in sentencing, but that does not account for the disparities involved.
The SAT results lead to a similar reaction: libs don't like what they see, and instead of seeing an imbalance they see a 'structural' problem that urgently requires their expert attention. Liberals assume the one-rule-for-everybody situation must result in perfect proportional representation in every sphere of performance from sports to politics to jobs to exam results. Anywhere you find 100 people doing anything, there will 'naturally' be 15 blacks and 50 women, as well as the correct number of handicapped and gays.
But conservatives know that this will never happen and if it did it would be cause for concern. It would mean that somebody's been cooking the books and freedom has suffered.
Liberals see a fair rule that has an uneven outcome as an unfair rule. What do they want? a different set of standards for each and every ethnic group or sexual orientation? That's the only real conclusion. But not only that; if you believe in a 'neutral' set of standards (which libs believe is essentially racist) then you are perpetuating racism. This is a commonly held position amongst so-called antiracists and progressives.
The way most progressives rationalise this is to claim that those neutral standards are not neutral at all, but have a hell of a hard job explaining why - which, in itself, explains the raison d'etre of most of academia.
(I left academia behind me long ago, as it became obvious that very little of importance emerges from it except endless "studies" that everybody ignores anyway. The policy thinktanks are where it's at these days, and much of 'old' academia is designed to keep our generation of school-leavers out of the real world for a few more years. Of course, there is such a thing as education for its own sake and that is hugely important; The 'Liberal Arts' have immense merit and their study is vital to the mental and spiritual wellbeing of any nation.)
The obsession with eliminating "inequality", at the end of the day, punishes everybody.
The findings:
A new study may revive arguments that the average test scores of black students trail those of white students not just because of economic disadvantages, but because some parts of the test result in differential scores by race for students of equal academic prowess.Sailer's conclusion:
.......what Freedle found in 2003 has now been confirmed independently by the new study: that some kinds of verbal questions have a DIF [differential item functioning] for black and white students. On some of the easier verbal questions, the two studies found that a DIF favored white students. On some of the most difficult verbal questions, the DIF favored black students. Freedle's theory about why this would be the case was that easier questions are likely reflected in the cultural expressions that are used commonly in the dominant (white) society, so white students have an edge based not on education or study skills or aptitude, but because they are most likely growing up around white people. The more difficult words are more likely to be learned, not just absorbed.
While the studies found gains for both black and white students on parts of the SAT, the white advantage is larger such that the studies suggest scores for black students are being held down by the way the test is scored and that a shift to favor the more difficult questions would benefit black test-takers.
By definition, blacks and whites are equally good at randomly guessing on multiple choice questions. So, the more difficult the question and thus the higher the percentage of students who randomly guess, the narrower the white-black differential.
If you made all the questions impossible esoteric, the white-black gap would disappear. If you made them all unbelievably easy, the white-black gap would also disappear. But when you make them a reasonable mix of difficulty in order to maximize the predictive value of the SAT, you wind up with a white-black gap -- because there is also a white-black gap in real world performance.
Which is verifiably true, although the main point here is not about who is smarter - something I believe has little relevance - but the thought process of the researchers compared to that of Sailer (and conservatives generally).
Liberals find something they don't like, constantly on the watch for injustice as they tend to be. They find evidence of "inequality", understood not in the traditional sense as unfairness, but in the sense of different outcomes. They must immediately seek out and correct the source of that inequality.
Most people see the SAT results and think, well, I guess those guys need some more education or something. Similarly, when we see that black Americans fill jails disproportionally to their numbers in the overall population, we assume that they just commit more crimes, for reasons best known to themselves. Liberals, on the other hand, don't see a problem with the criminals, they see a problem with the 'system'. No doubt there has historically been discrimination in sentencing, but that does not account for the disparities involved.
The SAT results lead to a similar reaction: libs don't like what they see, and instead of seeing an imbalance they see a 'structural' problem that urgently requires their expert attention. Liberals assume the one-rule-for-everybody situation must result in perfect proportional representation in every sphere of performance from sports to politics to jobs to exam results. Anywhere you find 100 people doing anything, there will 'naturally' be 15 blacks and 50 women, as well as the correct number of handicapped and gays.
But conservatives know that this will never happen and if it did it would be cause for concern. It would mean that somebody's been cooking the books and freedom has suffered.
Liberals see a fair rule that has an uneven outcome as an unfair rule. What do they want? a different set of standards for each and every ethnic group or sexual orientation? That's the only real conclusion. But not only that; if you believe in a 'neutral' set of standards (which libs believe is essentially racist) then you are perpetuating racism. This is a commonly held position amongst so-called antiracists and progressives.
The way most progressives rationalise this is to claim that those neutral standards are not neutral at all, but have a hell of a hard job explaining why - which, in itself, explains the raison d'etre of most of academia.
(I left academia behind me long ago, as it became obvious that very little of importance emerges from it except endless "studies" that everybody ignores anyway. The policy thinktanks are where it's at these days, and much of 'old' academia is designed to keep our generation of school-leavers out of the real world for a few more years. Of course, there is such a thing as education for its own sake and that is hugely important; The 'Liberal Arts' have immense merit and their study is vital to the mental and spiritual wellbeing of any nation.)
The obsession with eliminating "inequality", at the end of the day, punishes everybody.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Dishonouring the Memory of Aqsa Parvez
Huge uproar over the Jim Coyle's Toronto Star article on Aqsa Parvez, the young Canadian Muslim teenager murdered by her family for, well, being a teenager. Ezra Levant has a go, so does Kathy Shaidle and the National Post's Tarek Fatah.
According to Coyle, critics should go easy on the Honour Killers, because:
According to Coyle, critics should go easy on the Honour Killers, because:
They need to understand how profoundly disorienting is the experience of immigration – the risk taken, the price paid by someone moving to the other side of the world, almost always in the interests of the next generation.
The stakes are huge, just like the aspirations, just like the certainty of divided loyalties and conflict to come.
Mr. Parvez was not too concerned with the interests of the next generation when he watched his son strangle her for refusing to wear a hijab.
What the multiculturalists fail to understand, is that there shouldn't be any "divided loyalties and conflict to come"; it should be assumed that new immigrants have already made the choice between their old and new lives. That's the scenario without the Multicult, which instead informs the new immigrants that their "culture" is far superior to ours so they should cherish it and, not to worry, we will accommodate you.
Levant hits the nail on the head:
... it is bigotry. Accepting this extreme, deadly misogyny is bigotry: the soft bigotry of low expectations. Jim Coyle and the Star don't think Muslims can be any better. They don't think they can hold them to higher standards. So they excuse and explain.
Canadian Immigration Report
As a recent immigrant to Canada I read with interest Charlie Gillis' article in Macleans. Well worth reading in its entirety, one paragraph in particular stood out.
According to Liberal MP - of course - Jim Karygiannis,
“A lot of immigrant families want to have the parents or grandparents here to help raise the kids,” he says. “If they can’t do that, they say, ‘Thank you very much but I’m gone.’ ”
I laughed out loud.
As if Mr. and Mrs. Chaudry are going to pack up and head back to the Punjab because granny and grandpa can't come and live with them, leaving the promised land of Canada behind in their wake.
The overall theme of the article is, Canada is getting more picky.
And about time, too.
According to Liberal MP - of course - Jim Karygiannis,
“A lot of immigrant families want to have the parents or grandparents here to help raise the kids,” he says. “If they can’t do that, they say, ‘Thank you very much but I’m gone.’ ”
I laughed out loud.
As if Mr. and Mrs. Chaudry are going to pack up and head back to the Punjab because granny and grandpa can't come and live with them, leaving the promised land of Canada behind in their wake.
The overall theme of the article is, Canada is getting more picky.
And about time, too.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Bono Appears to Talk Sense (and stuff about Bloody Sunday). Eamonn McCann, not so much.
Bono writes on the conclusion of the Saville Inquiry,Figures I had learned to loathe as a self-righteous student of nonviolence in the ’70s and ’80s behaved with a grace that left me embarrassed over my vitriol. For a moment, the other life that Martin McGuinness could have had seemed to appear in his face: a commander of the Irish Republican Army that day in 1972, he looked last week like the fly fisherman he is, not the gunman he became ... a school teacher, not a terrorist ... a first-class deputy first minister.
Interesting admission of former idiocy there, but also an acknowledgment that there was an IRA commander active in 1972, something people tend to forget, and that he is now deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland.
Bono's article is actually highly readable and a welcome contribution to the subject in my view.
But Commie scumbag supreme Eamonn McCann just can't leave it there.
McCann is one of the warmongers who has to see the "wider significance" of the event, and milk every ounce of political leverage he can from it. He wants to see the events of Bloody Sunday (1972) as symptomatic of British rule in Ireland generally, and so has to use the tragedy to set the blame as widely as possible.The effect [of the report] is to insulate the rest of the British army from blame. The report was brilliant for the Bloody Sunday families. It wasn't a bad result for the British army either.
"David Cameron might have found it more difficult to disown those involved in the atrocity so forthrightly had Saville included in his list of culprits, say, Major General Robert Ford, Commander of Land Forces, Northern Ireland, at the time, or General Sir Michael Jackson, second-in-command to Wilford on the day, later army chief of staff and Nato commander in Kosovo."
If he wants to play that game, then he is in trouble. A more astute commentator might realise that his own house is made of glass before he starts throwing the rocks. Ireland's problems are many, but what perpetuates them has been, for centuries in fact, the cycle of blame that never seems to let up. Because it is never allowed to. When closure on an event like Bloody Sunday seems so near, there is always someone who is unhappy that the violent past may be laid to rest, because they are so infused with it that they cannot survive without it.
This is a man who, after all, narrowly escaped prison in 2008 for destroying the offices of an arms manufacturer in Derry, the very city where Bloody Sunday took place in 1972. Despite their admissions of guilt, the nine vandals were acquitted of criminal damage because it was considered a legitimate political statement! (Raytheon was making missiles for Israel).
McCann, and others on the Irish left, want to see blame apportioned to the British Army in general, as though just having an army is a crime in itself. The Left see "institutional violence" in everything; no event can occur on its own, it has to be the fault of the entire "system", which is probably the laziest form of analysis that exists.
They also want to make the event about British "imperialism", as though the army weren't present on their own soil, with the blessing of the majority of the population.
The conclusion of the Saville Inquiry is no doubt hugely significant for the families of the victims. They have, for 38 years, been denied the truth about what happened to those killed that day. Now they know. Well, they always knew, but that knowledge was denied. But there are thousands of others in the same position in Northern Ireland, who had relatives and friends murdered during 25 years of paramilitary activity. Many of them still do not even know the locations of their relatives' bodies.
The whole point of something like the Saville Inquiry is both to bring closure to the victims' families and, more importantly perhaps, to drag up the past so it can be reburied, in full view of everyone, and with a view to making peace in the future. McCann reveals he has no interest in this, and will happily use the tragic events to make a political statement about his vision of Ireland's future. An Ireland that, given his character and political affiliation, will be considerably un-free.
Government Spending
I encountered this gem of an article while researching in the area. I'd love to know what other economically-minded persons think of it as an analysis. It certainly fits in with my own thoughts on the subject.
Chart 1. U.S. Government Spending
Enlarge in new window 
Chart 2. Swedish Government Spending
Enlarge in new window
******
First, though, is a quote from David McWilliams latest article:If the government increases spending to invest in productive assets, like education or infrastructure, it means that, on one side of the balance sheet is debt, but on the other side is an asset, the productive investment which increases the long run growth of the country. This is beneficial spending, because it increases productivity and thus offers a return on investment.
If, on the other hand, governments are spending money to shore up the balance sheets of the banks because the banks have made bad investments in Greece, Spain or Ireland, this is a waste of public money. In this case, the debt is on one side of the balance sheet while, on the other side, instead of productive asset, we have collapsed property loans.
*******
In most countries government spending has grown quite rapidly in recent decades. Chart 1 shows U.S. federal spending as a percentage of gross national product from 1790 to 1990. Chart 2 shows Sweden's central government expenditures as a percent of GNP. Although not many countries have such long data series, these countries apparently are typical. As the charts show, the central government's share of the economy was remarkably stable for nearly 150 years but grew quite rapidly throughout the latter two-thirds of the 20th century.
Chart 1. U.S. Government Spending
Enlarge in new window
Chart 2. Swedish Government Spending
Enlarge in new window
In the past, government spending increased during wars and then typically took some time to fall back to its previous level. Because the effects of World War I were not totally gone by 1929, the line for the United States from 1790 to 1929 has a very slight upward slant. But in the second quarter of the twentieth century, government spending began a rapid and steady increase. While economists and political scientists have offered many theories about what determines the level of government spending, there really is no known explanation for either part of this historical record.
The data contradict several prominent economic theories about why government spending as a percent of GNP grows. One such theory is presented by British economists Alan Peacock and Jack Wiseman, who suggest a "ratchet effect." If a war, say, raises expenditures, expenditures after the war will not fall all the way back to their prewar level. Thus the name "ratchet effect." This theory cannot explain the long period of stable government expenditures before 1929. Nor can it explain the steady growth since 1953.
The "leviathan" theory holds that governments try to get control of as much of the economy as possible. Obviously, the leviathan theory is inconsistent with the early decades of stable government spending. Moreover, this theory also would imply sharp increases in government spending followed by leveling off when the maximum size of government has been reached. But this is not what we see after 1945. Wagner's law—named after the German economist Adolph Wagner (1835-1917)—states that the growing government share of GNP is simply a result of economic progress. Wagner propounded it in the 1880s. However, the forty years of stability after that time would seem to rule out his theory.
Another theory, propounded by William J. Baumol, is that productivity in the private sector increases, but public-sector productivity stagnates. Therefore, says Baumol, for the government to maintain a suitable level of services per person, government spending must grow as a percent of GNP. Even granting his view of relative efficiency, Baumol's theory certainly does not explain the nongrowth of government spending before 1929. Indeed, all theories of growth to date fail to explain either the many early decades of stable government spending or the growth of government spending after 1953—or both.
The relatively smooth growth of government after 1953 is particularly hard to explain. We would anticipate that if the government took on new responsibilities, government spending would rise sharply and then stay level after these responsibilities had been fully absorbed. But in fact, spending did not rise sharply, nor did it level off.
Considering what governments spend money on may help. Government spending on so-called public goods, national defense and police, for example, is sometimes blamed. But American military expenditures have shrunk as a share of the GNP—from 13.8 percent in 1953 to 6.3 percent in 1988. Spending on police is mainly a local expenditure and, at under 1 percent of GNP, is too small in any event. Expenditures on most other public goods have also grown slowly. Of the 1991 federal budget, 43 percent is direct benefit payments to individuals, 14 percent is for interest, and 25 percent is military spending. This leaves only 18 percent for general public goods. Further, two-thirds of the remaining 18 percent is grants to local governments. This leaves only 6 percent for the rest of the federal government. Clearly we must look elsewhere.
It is frequently asserted that the government spends much in helping the poor. Although the government does do so, the bulk of all transfer payments go to people who are relatively well off.
Economists trying to explain government spending have recently attributed it to special interest coalitions lobbying the government to transfer wealth to them. The term economists use to describe such lobbying is "rent-seeking." Rent-seeking certainly has grown. The farm program, for example, did not even exist in 1929. It now absorbs about $30 billion a year. The elaborate water control projects in the West cost the general taxpayer a high multiple of the benefits to the relatively small groups of beneficiaries. Both are the result of rent-seeking.
"Rent-seeking," therefore, may explain the long, more or less steady rise in government spending as a fraction of GNP. Political rules may limit the government's ability to hand out money to more than a few new pressure groups in each session of Congress. If so, we would expect the long, gradual increase in government spending that we observe. It cannot be said, however, that the data prove this particular theory; in fact, it cannot even be said that this particular theory is a very good one. It certainly does not explain the long level period from 1790 to 1929.
The bottom line is that governments have grown in recent decades, that they did not do so earlier, and that economists do not really know why.
The End of International Football as we Know it?
Well, not really.
But over the last few World Cups I have noticed an increasing tendency for teams to field players that do not come from the country in question. During the 2002 World Cup, there were 4 0r 5 teams with at least one Brazilian player, and in the current tournament that trend has continued.
Just as few (if any) of Liverpool F.C.'s team were born in Liverpool, we could see a situation where countries fill their teams with foreign players to improve their chances, handing out citizenships like sports scholarships. Some wily middle-eastern kingdom will doubtless be the first to realise this.
Back in the 1930s, ancestry rules were used by Spain, Portugal and Italy to fill their sides with South American talent. Any time Uruguay won a game, representatives of their ancestral nations would be there waiting to snaffle their best players. As a result, the rules were changed to prevent players from playing for more than one country in their lifetimes, and many believe this is why Bruce Grobelaar never played for England.
The Republic of Ireland famously fielded almost entirely British-born players with great success, and with little public objection to their Irishness. Even with names like Cascarino. But now many countries have figured out that players only need to have citizenship in that country to be eligible to play.
Which will be the first country to field a team of Brazilians? Apart from Brazil that is...
An article on the subject can be found here.
But over the last few World Cups I have noticed an increasing tendency for teams to field players that do not come from the country in question. During the 2002 World Cup, there were 4 0r 5 teams with at least one Brazilian player, and in the current tournament that trend has continued.
Just as few (if any) of Liverpool F.C.'s team were born in Liverpool, we could see a situation where countries fill their teams with foreign players to improve their chances, handing out citizenships like sports scholarships. Some wily middle-eastern kingdom will doubtless be the first to realise this.
Back in the 1930s, ancestry rules were used by Spain, Portugal and Italy to fill their sides with South American talent. Any time Uruguay won a game, representatives of their ancestral nations would be there waiting to snaffle their best players. As a result, the rules were changed to prevent players from playing for more than one country in their lifetimes, and many believe this is why Bruce Grobelaar never played for England.
The Republic of Ireland famously fielded almost entirely British-born players with great success, and with little public objection to their Irishness. Even with names like Cascarino. But now many countries have figured out that players only need to have citizenship in that country to be eligible to play.
Which will be the first country to field a team of Brazilians? Apart from Brazil that is...
An article on the subject can be found here.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Apologising For Obama's Apologies
This is great!
President Palin (or Perry) is going to have her (his) work cut out!
President Palin (or Perry) is going to have her (his) work cut out!
Apologizing for Obama’s Serial Apologies
The next president will have to embark once again on a worldwide “reset” campaign, apologizing to America’s allies for the shabby treatment meted out to them by Obama.
As we all know by this time, judging from President Obama’s junket behavior and his endless nostrae culpae, America is probably the most flawed, aggressive, and insensitive nation on the face of the earth, bar none. It is guilty, we’ve been informed, of harboring the mistaken notion of historical exceptionalism, which it supposedly does not merit. It is guilty of imposing its imperial will on other countries and peoples without regard for their economic well-being and without the slightest consideration for their cultural structures, beliefs, and presuppositions. It has identified as an “axis of evil” nations which may have had legitimate grievances. It has been, apparently, a blundering hegemon riding roughshod over the planet, prosecuting wars it had no business starting in the first place, alienating nations it could have dealt with diplomatically, and wreaking misery and havoc when, with both insight and foresight, it might have brought peace and mutual understanding among needless belligerents. It has a dark past to purge and much to apologize for. So goes the current presidential narrative. And under Obama, it has indeed apologized, and done so with a vengeance, presumably redeeming its sullied image for all posterity.
Thus Obama has apologized to the UN for America’s propensity to “act alone” rather than take the road of multilateral consultation, a claim which is patently false. Obama has apologized to Europe for failing “to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world” and for being arrogant, “even derisive.” Obama has apologized to Islam for having misprised, neglected, or demeaned the Muslim world and for grinding the umma beneath its colonial boot, and is now seeking pardon in the hope of restoring the harmony of “20 or 30 years ago” — which of course never existed. Obama has apologized to Turkey for “difficulties” and “strained” trust over “these past few years” — the same Turkey that is moving inexorably into the Iranian orbit of influence. Obama has apologized, through State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley, to Libyan despot Muammar Gaddafi for offensive remarks clumsily delivered. Dispatching his adviser Valery Jarrett to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Obama has apologized by proxy to the entire planet for America’s role in the economic meltdown. Obama effectively apologized to Japan for the way in which the war in the Pacific theater was brought to an end. Obama has apologized to Russia by other means, offering to press the “reset” button, as per the hapless Hillary Clinton. Via his mouthpiece Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner, Obama has apologized to China, perhaps the world’s worst human rights offender, for Arizona’s entirely legitimate new immigration law. Obama’s Magical History Tour shows no sign of ever folding its tent and returning, however belatedly, to the real world or to the realm of national dignity.
When Obama is swept from office in 2012, as he surely will be if the American people still retain a femtogram of good sense, a Republican president will have his or her work cut out for them. Be it Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin or — who knows? — the very impressive Tom McClintock (sanely refusing to apologize to Mexican President Felipe Calderón, who objected to the Arizona immigration law, but administering a thorough dressing down instead), a major rehabilitation effort will be necessary. For the new president will have to embark once again on a worldwide “reset” campaign, apologizing to America’s allies for the shabby treatment meted out to them by the former president.
He (or she) will need to apologize to Honduras for Obama’s backing of mini-Chavez, would-be dictator Manuel Zelaya who attempted to steal a country. He (or she) will need to apologize to Poland and the Czech Republic for Obama’s broken promises and his crude mishandling of the anti-missile program. He (or she) will need to ask forgiveness from the Iranian people whom Obama abandoned in the midst of their bloody uprising against a repressive and violent regime. He (or she) will need to soothe the ruffled feelings of the British electorate for having insulted their prime minister with the meager gift of unplayable CDs and for returning the bust of Winston Churchill. And he (or she) will need to make amends to Israel for Obama’s inexcusable conduct toward Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and for putting all the onus for the success of the so-called “peace talks,” whether “proximity” or “direct,” — or the blame for their failure — on the Jewish state while giving the Palestinians every benefit of the doubt and pandering to their insatiable demands.
This will be no easy task as the abjection of apology does not befit a great and admirable nation, but Obama has left his successor no choice but to apologize, both for his orgy of apologies to America’s enemies and competitors and for his churlish betrayal of America’s allies and friends.
When the business of restitution is accomplished, enemies put on notice and friends restored to their proper place, and once the United States is prepared to resume its former pre-eminence and proud stature as the world’s best arbiter and as Abraham Lincoln’s “last best hope,” apologies can cease altogether — except, perhaps, for the apology the American people should make to themselves and to their children for having elected the most feckless and damaging sorcerer’s apprentice of a president in the storied chronicle of the republic.
David Solway is a Canadian poet and essayist. He is the author of The Big Lie: On Terror, Antisemitism, and Identity, and is currently working on a sequel, Living in the Valley of Shmoon. His new book on Jewish and Israeli themes, Hear, O Israel!, has just been released by Mantua Books.
Quote of the Week: Melanie Phillips
It may seem strange to lump all these ideologies [progressives, Islamists, environmentalists, fascists, militant atheists, and religious fanatics] together since they are all so different. But, when you look at them, it is immediately apparent that they are all at root utopian, millenarian visions of the perfection of the world through human agency — the age-old recipe for totalitarian terror. The idea that fascism is in a wholly different place from the Left is in my view quite misplaced: Although conventionally one is described as “right” and the other as “left,” this is historically and philosophically inaccurate; they share common roots in the repudiation of individual reason and liberty.
H/T AmericanPower
Who Are You Cheering For?
Big question when it comes to the World Cup and your country isn't playing. You can't ignore it, so there's a curious logic that comes into play when we're forced to find another team to follow.
Helen Zille, former mayor of Cape Town and unofficial leader of the opposition in South Africa, has come out declaring her support for South Africa first (of course), then 'Africa', and then 'the Southern hemisphere', in that order. The rationale is clearly geographical, but it's interesting that she favours, say, Cameroon, over any of her ancestral nations - white South Africans could choose between any combination of England, the Netherlands, Germany or France, but she chose not to. Very political choice!
Most Irish people are cheering for anyone who isn't England. There's a perverse support for France, who knocked Ireland out, under the logic that they're taking Ireland's place in the finals. Some choices are strange and some people just support the team they think will win, hence international support for Brazil or Argentina - teams for which I have no love whatsoever, or even mild affection.
Canadian TV interviewed various locals who, in this part of Canada at least, were torn between the Mother Country (England) and their nearest neighbour (the USA). There is a familial loyalty at play here, but politics is never far from the surface. I admit to using both a familial and a political logic when it comes to selecting teams. I noticed that even when two countries are playing that have no connection to me at all, I will still pick a favourite, and try to analyse the logic involved after the fact. Why did I cheer North Korea in their game against Brazil? Antipathy clearly plays as much a part as affection.
I tend towards the 'home nations', which in the World Cup nearly always means England. My country of birth, Northern Ireland, hasn't qualified since 1986 and I occasionally support the Republic. After that, I favour the Northern European nations, in this case Denmark and Germany, but not the Netherlands; the memory of Koeman and the team's tendency to commit fouls has soured me towards them permanently. Which I think is the reason I don't like the South Americans too. Their brutal tactics put me off; but I was cheering for Paraguay against Italy recently. I have no more reason to support 'Europe' generally than Zille has to cheer for 'Africa'.
Shakira seems to think "it's time for Africa", but then half the song is in Spanish so what does she know?
Alongside the north Europeans, I cheer for the old colonies - NZ, Australia, the USA in this case, even though their chances are marginal at best. Why not? I am vaguely related to them and that counts for something. Even when two favoured teams play each other, loyalty is not so strongly divided; I'll cheer for one based on their capacity to beat other non-favoured teams in the next round. Different sets of logic can overlap, but ultimately each person has their own; and that is what I find fascinating about the World Cup.
Helen Zille, former mayor of Cape Town and unofficial leader of the opposition in South Africa, has come out declaring her support for South Africa first (of course), then 'Africa', and then 'the Southern hemisphere', in that order. The rationale is clearly geographical, but it's interesting that she favours, say, Cameroon, over any of her ancestral nations - white South Africans could choose between any combination of England, the Netherlands, Germany or France, but she chose not to. Very political choice!
Most Irish people are cheering for anyone who isn't England. There's a perverse support for France, who knocked Ireland out, under the logic that they're taking Ireland's place in the finals. Some choices are strange and some people just support the team they think will win, hence international support for Brazil or Argentina - teams for which I have no love whatsoever, or even mild affection.
Canadian TV interviewed various locals who, in this part of Canada at least, were torn between the Mother Country (England) and their nearest neighbour (the USA). There is a familial loyalty at play here, but politics is never far from the surface. I admit to using both a familial and a political logic when it comes to selecting teams. I noticed that even when two countries are playing that have no connection to me at all, I will still pick a favourite, and try to analyse the logic involved after the fact. Why did I cheer North Korea in their game against Brazil? Antipathy clearly plays as much a part as affection.
I tend towards the 'home nations', which in the World Cup nearly always means England. My country of birth, Northern Ireland, hasn't qualified since 1986 and I occasionally support the Republic. After that, I favour the Northern European nations, in this case Denmark and Germany, but not the Netherlands; the memory of Koeman and the team's tendency to commit fouls has soured me towards them permanently. Which I think is the reason I don't like the South Americans too. Their brutal tactics put me off; but I was cheering for Paraguay against Italy recently. I have no more reason to support 'Europe' generally than Zille has to cheer for 'Africa'.
Shakira seems to think "it's time for Africa", but then half the song is in Spanish so what does she know?
Alongside the north Europeans, I cheer for the old colonies - NZ, Australia, the USA in this case, even though their chances are marginal at best. Why not? I am vaguely related to them and that counts for something. Even when two favoured teams play each other, loyalty is not so strongly divided; I'll cheer for one based on their capacity to beat other non-favoured teams in the next round. Different sets of logic can overlap, but ultimately each person has their own; and that is what I find fascinating about the World Cup.
US and Israel Send Humanitarian Aid Flotilla into Persian Gulf
.... consisting of 60 fighter bombers and a hell of a lot of marines :)
They're humanitarians! I suspect a lot more peace will be brought to the region with efforts such as these ......
HAT TIP: Holger Awakens
They're humanitarians! I suspect a lot more peace will be brought to the region with efforts such as these ......
HAT TIP: Holger Awakens
Friday, June 18, 2010
Dutch Muslim Journalist Reacts to Geert Wilders' Election Success
from GatesOfVienna
On May 20, before the elections, Izz Ad-Din Ruhulessin, a Muslim columnist for the [left-wing] newspaper De Volkskrant, wrote (translated excerpt):- - - - - - - - -
On June 2 [excerpt], from De Volkskrant:
On May 20, before the elections, Izz Ad-Din Ruhulessin, a Muslim columnist for the [left-wing] newspaper De Volkskrant, wrote (translated excerpt):- - - - - - - - -
The horrors of history, hey? This is same guy who also said,It is up to the Dutch people: Do not recognize a government with Wilders, not in word nor deed. Say: “I do not recognize this government as legitimate representative of the people.” Strike. Demonstrate. Barricade. Occupy. Do not collaborate. A political crisis will result. But that’s just the price to be paid, if one really wants to take a stand for the Muslims. […] The Muslims will at least have clarity about their position in the Netherlands. Once and for all know we will who our friends are and who our enemies are. Those who accept the legitimacy of a government that includes the Party for Freedom are our enemies. The upcoming formation [of a coalition government] will be a historical one. […] Wilders and the Party for Freedom cannot and must not be tolerated under the guise of “he is just democratically elected” and other fallacies. Being democratically elected does not automatically mean they are legitimate or morally just. Even democratically elected governments can act outside the democratic ethic. Nip the PVV in the bud while you can, because prevention is better than a cure. Thinking that the horrors of history cannot repeat themselves in a “civilized country” such as the Netherlands is dangerous, naïve, and foolish.
On June 2 [excerpt], from De Volkskrant:
If we really want to accomplish anything in this discussion, than the traditional concepts should be resolutely rejected. Nearly nine million natives must be re-educated; and learn that they are not in the position to demand, or expect, of other ethnic groups, but to adapt to them.“
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Canadian Attorney thinks "Honour-Killers" should have their "culture" taken into account.
from Scaramouche
See, when you buy the Multicult pony and invest in the identity-politics of interest-group jostling, you paint yourself into a moral corner when it comes to making judgment calls about horribly barbaric practices that fall under the rubric of "culture".
BlazingCatFur has more on the Aqsa Parvez honour-murder.
defence attorney Lawrence Ben-Eliezer thinks judges should take these differences into consideration because we have "multiculturalism"Watch the Feminists .... say absolutely nothing.
See, when you buy the Multicult pony and invest in the identity-politics of interest-group jostling, you paint yourself into a moral corner when it comes to making judgment calls about horribly barbaric practices that fall under the rubric of "culture".
BlazingCatFur has more on the Aqsa Parvez honour-murder.
Former Spanish PM Aznar 'Gets it' on Israel
And he'd know. Aznar was ousted by the Spanish people in an act of mass capitulation to Islamic terror in 2004.
Ex-Spain PM: If Israel goes down, we all go down
In Times op-ed, José Maria Aznar asks West to remember Israel its only ally in 'turbulent' region Ynet Published: 06.17.10, 13:06 / Israel News
| José Maria Aznar, former prime minister of Spain, published an opinion article with the London Times Thursday saying the world must support Israel because "if it goes down, we all go down".
Aznar, who has joined the 'Friends of Israel' campaign to which David Trimble, a foreign observer taking part in Israel's flotilla raid probe, also belongs, calls on Europe to refuse to put up with cries to eliminate Israel as part of global Christian-Jewish cooperation.
"Anger over Gaza is a distraction. We cannot forget that Israel is the West’s best ally in a turbulent region," Aznar writes of the IDF's calamitous raid on a flotilla bound for Gaza on May 31. "In an ideal world, the assault by Israeli commandos on the 'Mavi Marmara' would not have ended up with nine dead and a score wounded. In an ideal world, the soldiers would have been peacefully welcomed on to the ship." Aznar also criticizes Turkey, to which the Marmara belonged, for placing Israel "in an impossible situation" in which it would have to either give up its security or face world condemnation. The former prime minister calls on the world to "blow away the red mists of anger" and take a "reasonable and balanced approach" based on the fact that Israel was created by a decision of the UN and therefore unquestionably a legitimate state. "Israel is a nation with deeply rooted democratic institutions. It is a dynamic and open society that has repeatedly excelled in culture, science and technology," he adds. However, he says, "62 years after its creation, Israel is still fighting for its very survival. Punished with missiles raining from north and south, threatened with destruction by an Iran aiming to acquire nuclear weapons and pressed upon by friend and foe, Israel, it seems, is never to have a moment’s peace." Aznar says the real threat to the region is extreme Islamism, "which sees Israel’s destruction as the fulfillment of its religious destiny and, simultaneously in the case of Iran, as an expression of its ambitions for regional hegemony". "Both phenomena are threats that affect not only Israel, but also the wider West and the world at large," he adds.
"It is easy to blame Israel for all the evils in the Middle East," he writes. Some even act and talk as if a new understanding with the Muslim world could be achieved if only we were prepared to sacrifice the Jewish state on the altar. This would be folly." | |||
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Ireland Protestors on Wrong Side, as usual
Mark Humphrys brings us some interesting photos from recent anti-Israel protests in Dublin, some of which show Hezbollah flags and a "death to Israel" t-shirt on prominent display.
At the bottom of the page he shares my thoughts on the anti-Iran protest, also in Dublin recently. The Irish decided in the main not to bother with this protest -against a fascist Islamic state - instead leaving it to some Iranian dissidents. The contrast between the anti-Israel and anti-Iran protests is shocking. And shameful.
h/t American Power
Dublin demo, 31 May 2010.
On the RHS, Labour LGBT protests against Israel, the only country in the Middle East where LGBT people have rights.
On the LHS, the Hamas flag. Hamas tortures and executes gays.
Photo from Indymedia. It is noteworthy that Indymedia chose to upload this photo and saw nothing wrong with it.
Responses:
The SIPTU trade union marches with Hamas, 31 May 2010.
From here.
Protester at the anti-Israel demo, Dublin, 31 May 2010, wears a t-shirt that says "Death to Israel" in Hebrew and Arabic.
He's hiding it from the English-speaking useful dhimmis around him.
But he wants the Israeli Embassy, and any passing Jews who know Hebrew, to get the message.
He also assumes that passing Arabic speakers will approve, and enjoy the secret joke.
From here.
As for the Arabic, to see that the shirt says "Death to Israel" in Arabic, see this Iranian parade in 2007.
Robert Spencer notes that the slogan here says "Death to Israel", not "Down with Israel", which is just taqiyya for a western audience.
The man above with the "Death to Israel" shirt is also at the demo on 3 June 2010, with a sign that says "FILTHY ZIONISTS".
From here.
Protester waves the Hezbollah flag at anti-Israel demo, Dublin, 3 June 2010.
Again, does no one notice? Does no one care?
From video:
See larger and other shot.
Hezbollah flag at anti-Israel demo, Dublin, 5 June 2010.
From here.
At the bottom of the page he shares my thoughts on the anti-Iran protest, also in Dublin recently. The Irish decided in the main not to bother with this protest -against a fascist Islamic state - instead leaving it to some Iranian dissidents. The contrast between the anti-Israel and anti-Iran protests is shocking. And shameful.
h/t American Power
Hamas flag at Dublin demo, 31 May 2010
Dublin demo, 31 May 2010.
On the RHS, Labour LGBT protests against Israel, the only country in the Middle East where LGBT people have rights.
On the LHS, the Hamas flag. Hamas tortures and executes gays.
Photo from Indymedia. It is noteworthy that Indymedia chose to upload this photo and saw nothing wrong with it.
Responses:
- John McGuirk got an unimpressive response from Labour LGBT about this.
- I wrote a letter to the Irish Times pointing out the flag.
- National Review linked to me.
- Gaza: fools rushed in by Leah Tobin, June 2010, notes the Hamas flag. Copy here.
Notes:
- The Labour gays aren't the only blind and foolish gays in the West: Madrid gay pride organisers ban Israeli gays from upcoming march, June 2010, as revenge for the death of the Turkish Islamists (who no doubt hated gays). The Israeli gays respond: "We invited the organisers of the gay pride event in Madrid to join a march this Friday in Tel Aviv, the only place in the Middle East where you can be gay in public. They would be able to talk to Arab gays who travel here secretly because they would be murdered at home if they revealed their sexuality."
The Hamas flag at the Dublin demo.
From the Workers Solidarity Movement. Full set here.
It is noteworthy that the Workers Solidarity Movement chose to upload this photo and saw nothing wrong with it.
The Irish Times, 1 June 2010, front page photo was of the demo, showing both the Hamas flag and the LGBT banner.
And the Irish Times did not notice!
Still from video of the demo: showing Hamas flag being carried prominently at the front as they march along.
Did no one notice? Did they not care?
The video shows the flag throughout the demo, and shows chants of "Allah Akbar!" which is what jihad terrorists shout when killing infidels.
In fact, just three days after this march in defence of Turkish Islamists, a Turkish Islamist shouted "Allah Akbar!" as he killed a Catholic bishop in Turkey.
Still from the above video, showing the Hamas flag and the idiot gays.
Another video shows the flag, and the chant: "From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will Be Free" urging the destruction of Israel.
Flag of Islamic terror carried openly in Irish streets.
From here.
Other idiots (apart from the gays) marching with Hamas
The SIPTU trade union marches with Hamas, 31 May 2010.
From here.
The National Womens Council of Ireland marches with Hamas, 31 May 2010.
Hamas of course arrests uncovered women, women found with unrelated males, and so on. Western feminists couldn't give a toss.
From here.
Spotted by Tom Carew.
"Death to Israel" at Dublin demo, 31 May 2010
A man wore a t-shirt saying "Death to Israel" in Hebrew and Arabic at the above protest. Did the many Arabic speakers on the march not care? Did they approve?Protester at the anti-Israel demo, Dublin, 31 May 2010, wears a t-shirt that says "Death to Israel" in Hebrew and Arabic.
He's hiding it from the English-speaking useful dhimmis around him.
But he wants the Israeli Embassy, and any passing Jews who know Hebrew, to get the message.
He also assumes that passing Arabic speakers will approve, and enjoy the secret joke.
From here.
- Hebrew to English translation:
- I don't even know the Hebrew alphabet, so how did I figure this out?
- I typed the words into litetype.com, and then I could paste them into Google Translate to get the English.
- That this says "Death to Israel" has now been confirmed by a Hebrew speaker.
- The Jawa Report links this.
As for the Arabic, to see that the shirt says "Death to Israel" in Arabic, see this Iranian parade in 2007.
Robert Spencer notes that the slogan here says "Death to Israel", not "Down with Israel", which is just taqiyya for a western audience.
"Death to Israel" at Dublin demo, 3 June 2010
The man above with the "Death to Israel" shirt is also at the demo on 3 June 2010, with a sign that says "FILTHY ZIONISTS".
From here.
Another shot at the same demo.
From here.
Another shot at the same demo.
Still from this video.
Another shot from above video.
The infidel idiots have no idea what his t-shirt says.
Hezbollah flag at Dublin demo, 3 June 2010
Protester waves the Hezbollah flag at anti-Israel demo, Dublin, 3 June 2010.
Again, does no one notice? Does no one care?
From video:
See larger and other shot. 
The Hezbollah flag at the above demo.
From here.
The Hezbollah flag at the above demo.
From here.
Palestinian activist Claudia Saba, speaking at the above demo, wears a t-shirt calling for the destruction of Israel.
From video:
Doesn't she care that Israel is a free society for women, gays and atheists, while Gaza is an Islamic sharia hellhole?
Shouldn't she be marching to free Gaza from Hamas?
Hezbollah flag at Dublin demo, 5 June 2010
Hezbollah flag at anti-Israel demo, Dublin, 5 June 2010.
From here.
Stupidest Fauxtilla Article Yet
And of course it comes from Rabble.ca
Disappointingly attractive Canadian Hamas apologist Linda McQuaig proves she's just a pretty face, comparing Israel's seizure of a terrorist-infested "humanitarian" vessel in International WatersTM to Somali pirates on the high seas. Indeed,
it's hard to imagine Harper being so welcoming and convivial had, say, the Iranian navy -- or Somali pirates -- seized a ship in international waters and killed nine people on board.
True enough. But if you're too stupid to see the difference, there's little hope for you. The idea of "international waters" as some kind of international playpool is still being peddled by a clueless media.
She adds,
Let's not lose sight of what was going on. Nearly 700 activists from 50 nations took great personal risks in order to bring humanitarian aid -- including medical supplies and wheelchairs -- to the 1.5 million blockaded people of Gaza, whose plight has been largely ignored by the world.
Largely ignored by the world? We hear of little else! Possibly because these are perhaps the only Muslims in the world whose suffering and privation is not 100% attributable to Islam. (It's probably only around 95%.)
And what "great personal risks" have they taken? Bringing humanitarian aid to Gaza is 100% legal, it's just bringing it there without having it inspected for weapons that's not. Any risk they took was in pursuit of martyrdom, and nine of them achieved their goal.
This unarmed "freedom flotilla" wasn't planning to attack heavily armed Israel.
Yes it was. And it did. (Not every "attack" is full frontal military assault, particularly given the West's media bias.)
Disappointingly attractive Canadian Hamas apologist Linda McQuaig proves she's just a pretty face, comparing Israel's seizure of a terrorist-infested "humanitarian" vessel in International WatersTM to Somali pirates on the high seas. Indeed,
it's hard to imagine Harper being so welcoming and convivial had, say, the Iranian navy -- or Somali pirates -- seized a ship in international waters and killed nine people on board.
True enough. But if you're too stupid to see the difference, there's little hope for you. The idea of "international waters" as some kind of international playpool is still being peddled by a clueless media.
She adds,
Let's not lose sight of what was going on. Nearly 700 activists from 50 nations took great personal risks in order to bring humanitarian aid -- including medical supplies and wheelchairs -- to the 1.5 million blockaded people of Gaza, whose plight has been largely ignored by the world.
Largely ignored by the world? We hear of little else! Possibly because these are perhaps the only Muslims in the world whose suffering and privation is not 100% attributable to Islam. (It's probably only around 95%.)
And what "great personal risks" have they taken? Bringing humanitarian aid to Gaza is 100% legal, it's just bringing it there without having it inspected for weapons that's not. Any risk they took was in pursuit of martyrdom, and nine of them achieved their goal.
This unarmed "freedom flotilla" wasn't planning to attack heavily armed Israel.
Yes it was. And it did. (Not every "attack" is full frontal military assault, particularly given the West's media bias.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)