Christopher Hitchens: Patriot cum Citizen
God bless Christopher Hitchens! Congratulations, buddy! I think I can speak for everyone here at LLP that would like to offer Christopher Hitchens a warm welcome to American citizenship.
Unlike other expat legends—rock stars Bono and Neil ("Shock & Awe") Young come to mind—who fashion themselves as U.S. foreign policy experts while keeping their citizenship and their vote elsewhere, Mr. Hitchens had a change of heart after terrorists attacked New York and Washington. He watched the Pentagon burn from the rooftop of his apartment in northern Virginia and later lost a mailman to anthrax. So one day this month he will walk into a government office just outside Washington, pledge his allegiance to the United States of America, and become a citizen.
Lucianne directed the way.
Posted by Aaron at 12:19 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
English Speaking Peoples
I've always wondered why the UK (and Ireland), Austrailia, Canada, New Zealand (and to some degree Israel) didn't just come up with our own pact to protect Western Culture. This article makes for an exciting read. How long do you think it will be before the writer is chided as a racist?
OVER THE last few years, due to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, many commentators have discerned the emergence of a new American empire. Some critics blame the Bush Administration, arguing that, but for Bush, there would be no crisis over American "unilateralism" or "hegemony." Others blame the end of the Cold War for "unleashing" America on the world.
Actually, American pre-eminence extends much further back--to World War II or before. It really continues a British primacy that dated back at least to 1815. During the 20th century, Germany, Japan and Soviet Russia challenged the Anglo ascendancy, but they were turned back. So today the world order bears a remarkable resemblance to the late Victorian era. Now as then, the world is globalizing, and English is its lingua franca. The United States has merely supplanted Britain as the leading power.
American primacy is not an accident of this or that administration. It reflects the special capacity of English-speaking countries to lead the world order. These "Anglo nations", or the "Anglos" as I will call them, include Britain and the chief territories that were settled initially from Britain--pre-eminently the United States but also Australia, Canada and New Zealand. What makes a country Anglo is that its original settler population came mainly from Britain. So even though a minority of Americans today have British roots, they inherit a political culture initially formed by the British. Some other countries that Britain ruled, such as India or South Africa, are not Anglo in this sense because British settlers never formed the bulk of their populations. They may be English-speaking, and their public institutions have British roots, but British culture did not form the society as it did in the Anglo countries.
Read the whole thing.
Posted by Aaron at 11:44 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
The Next War in Ukraine?
Could the US be drawn into a proxy war with Russia in the Ukraine? Things that make you go hmmm:
The dispute between Russia and Ukraine over natural-gas pricing has resulted in a cut-off of supplies to the West-leaning Ukraine, a development that started today as that nation refused to accept a quadrupling in price as a result of their closer poltical alliance with Europe. And since Russian supplies to Europe have to pass through Ukraine to get there, the spigot has run empty to the rest of the Continent despite Russia's insistence that the dispute would have no effect on its exports:
In a move that could hit fuel availability across Europe this winter, the state-controlled Russian firm Gazprom started reducing pressure in the gas pipeline to its neighbour before the deadline for agreement, set at 10am local time, had passed.Gazprom supplies 25 per cent of western Europe's gas, much of which comes via Ukraine.
The company said today that deliveries to western Europe would not be affected, but the Italian oil and gas firm Eni said it had been warned by Gazprom that supplies could be disrupted.
Poland now confirms that the disruption has moved beyond the theoretical. Their gas company, PGNiG, announced within the hour that they expect to lose 14% of all their natural-gas supplies:
Supplies of natural gas to Poland have been hit by cuts imposed by Russia on the amount of gas entering the pipeline system in neighbouring Ukraine, Poland's gas company PCNiG has said."Today at 11:00 am (1000 GMT), PGNiG was informed by the National Gas Directorate of a fall in pressure at the connection point at the Polish-Ukrainian border at Drozdowicze," PGNiG said in a statement. "This indicates a fall in supplies originating in Ukraine and is a consequence of the decision by Russia's Gazprom to restrict deliveries of Russian gas to Ukraine."
The restrictions on Russian supplies to Ukraine would affect 14 percent of the overall volume of natural gas used in Poland, the statement added Sunday.
Ninety percent of the natural gas imported into Poland comes from the east.
Perhaps Russian diplomats truly are naive, or else they thought that the rest of Europe would be stupid enough to believe that Russia could cut off gas supplies to Ukraine while still transiting gas across Ukrainian pipelines to its other customers. Viktor Yuschenko has called the Russian bluff on this little game of chicken that Vladimir Putin has suddenly decided to play.
The reason that Russia can transit gas to customers across the continent is that Ukraine allows them to use their land. In return for that access, through which Gazprom makes its profits, it has given Ukraine steep discounts on their use of natural gas. Yuschenko had expressed a willingness to pay more for it, an increase of about 60%, without getting into a diplomatic/economic war over it. Russia refused to budge, but still told its European clients that it could deliver natural gas without a problem even if the Ukrainian defiance did not change. Apparently, the Russians expected people to believe that Ukraine would sit back and allow their taps to run dry while gas got pumped across their land to Gazprom's other customers. Not even the Russians believed that, however.
Posted by Aaron at 04:12 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Sanity Check
Just when we thought we were going crazy on the right, leave it up to the terrorists and the leftists to remind us we are on the sane side of things:
- IAEA, El Baradei win nobel prize.
- No. 2 leader Zawahiri tells Zarqawi that Iraq should be center of new Islamic state but it is not mentioned in the report on CNN.com and isn't even found at MSNBC.com.
- Dems Promote 'Smart, Sensible' National Security Legacy and a 'Sensitive' War on Terror
- Thomas Sowell: Bashing Bush? Simma Down Now
- Dems: How many verses are in this blasted hymnal???
Posted by Aaron at 11:46 AM | Comments (12) | TrackBack
The Next Margaret Thatcher
Posted by Aaron at 11:32 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Ill Wind
As the full horror of Hurricane Katrina sinks in, thousands of desperate columnists are asking if this is the end of George Bush's presidency. The answer is almost certainly yes, provided that every copy of the US Constitution was destroyed in the storm. Otherwise President Bush will remain in office until noon on January 20th, 2009, as required by the 20th Amendment, after which he is barred from seeking a third term anyway under the 22nd Amendment.
As the full horror of this sinks in, thousands of desperate columnists are asking if the entire political agenda of George Bush's second term will not still be damaged in some terribly satisfying way.
The answer is almost certainly yes, provided that the entire political agenda of George Bush's second term consists of repealing the 22nd Amendment. Otherwise, with a clear Republican majority in both Houses of Congress, he can carry on doing pretty much whatever he likes.
As the full horror of this sinks in, thousands of desperate columnists are asking if the Republican Party itself will now suffer a setback at the congressional mid-term elections next November.
The answer is almost certainly yes, provided that people outside the disaster zone punish their local representatives for events elsewhere a year previously, both beyond their control and outside their remit, while people inside the disaster zone reward their local representatives for an ongoing calamity they were supposed to prevent. Otherwise, the Democratic Party will suffer a setback at the next congressional election.
Read More
As the full horror of this sinks in, thousands of desperate columnists are asking if an official inquiry will shift the blame for poor planning and inadequate flood defences on to the White House. The answer is almost certainly yes, provided nobody admits that emergency planning is largely the responsibility of city and state agencies, and nobody notices that the main levee which broke was the only levee recently modernised with federal funds. Otherwise, an official inquiry will pin most of the blame on the notoriously corrupt and incompetent local governments of New Orleans and Louisiana.
As the full horror of this sinks in, thousands of desperate columnists are asking if George Bush contributed to the death toll by sending so many national guard units to Iraq.
The answer is almost certainly yes, provided nobody recalls that those same columnists have spent the past two years blaming George Bush for another death toll by not sending enough national guard units to Iraq. Otherwise, people might wonder why they have never previously read a single article advocating large-scale military redeployment during the Caribbean hurricane season.
As the full horror of this sinks in, thousands of desperate columnist are asking how a civilised city can descend into anarchy.
The answer is that only a civilised city can descend into anarchy.
As the full horror of this sinks in, thousands of desperate columnists are asking if George Bush should be held responsible for the terrible poverty in the southern states revealed by the flooding.
The answer is almost certainly yes, provided nobody holds Bill Clinton responsible for making Mississippi the poorest state in the union throughout his entire term as president, or for making Arkansas the second-poorest state in the union throughout his entire term as governor. Otherwise, people might suspect that it is a bit more complicated than that.
As the full horror of this sinks in, thousands of desperate columnists are asking if George Bush should not be concerned by accusations of racism against the federal government.
The answer is almost certainly yes, provided nobody remembers that Jesse Jackson once called New York "Hymietown" and everybody thinks Condoleezza Rice went shopping for shoes when the hurricane struck because she cannot stand black people.
Otherwise sensible Americans of all races will be more concerned by trite, cynical and dangerous political opportunism.
As the full horror of that sinks in, this columnist is simply glad that everybody cares.
Posted by Aaron at 12:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Draft Iraqi Constitution
I just finished reading what has been made public here.
I think it looks great to me. Here are some of the points that stick out.
1. It says that Islam is a main source of legislation. A source...not THE source. And it continues:
No law may contradict Islamic standards
No law may contradict democratic standards
No law may contradict the essential rights and freedoms mentioned in this constitution
2. The constitution guarantees that women will always hold no less than 25% of National Council seats. So that dashes Howard Dean's hopes that women will be treated like property.
3. It also guarantees: freedom of expression by all means, freedom of the press, printing, advertising and publishing. I love the advertising part! No nanny state interventions in Iraq!
4. Lastly, I liked this article: Iraqis are free to abide in their personal lives according to their religion, sects, beliefs or choice.
Posted by Aaron at 09:34 AM | Comments (17) | TrackBack
Pat Robertson to Hugo Chavez: Drop Dead
I am still trying to figure out why this is headlining the three cable news sites:
Um, again...what is the news item here other than the media's desire to use the words "Religious" and "Christian" and "Televangelist" etc?
Posted by Aaron at 08:29 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
One of These Things Is Not Like The Other
Remember that little Sesame Street ditty? "One of these things is not like the other; one of these things just isn't the same," and so on. Then, kids watching the show had to figure out which object out of the four didn't belong with the group (say three types of balls and a tennis racket, for example).
Well in today's lesson, which name do you think goes with torture and mistreatment, Gitmo or Castro?
If you are a Democrat or a member of the MSM (interchangable terms these days), you would say Gitmo belongs. Which is nonsense, of course. The only thing these two terms have in common is that they both are in Cuba. However, the similarities end there.
The left has been howling for months now about the alleged abuse of prisoners at Gitmo, the detention center at Guantanamo Bay for those captured with relation to Islamofascist terror. They say our interrogation of those men, even their very presence at Gitmo, goes against the Geneva Convention and that Gitmo should be closed. Dickie Durbin even likened the soldiers who are stationed there to Nazis.
Meanwhile, Castro has begun yet another crackdown on those who dare to speak out against his communist government, and there is nary a ripple on the left side of the pond. (Please note the brevity of the article this post links to...the subject is apparently not worthy of anything longer.)
Opposition figures in Cuba say at least 20 Cuban dissidents have been detained as part of a crackdown against the country's political opposition.
[...]
Cuba's long-standing position is that dissidents are not representative of public opinion, but rather mercenaries in the pay of the US.
That's Castro's logic for you. Anyone who doesn't enjoy living in the hell he created 40 some-odd years ago must be on the U.S. payroll. What a guy!
Yet Castro remains an icon to many, including celebrities like Robert Redford, Stephen Spielberg, Jack Nicholson (who called Castro a "genius"), and outspoken American communists like Leslie Cagan, who actually ran a think tank promoting Castro's dictatorship.
This is war. Our military will take into custody those who fight against us and keep them there for two reasons: to get information and to keep them from rejoining their murderous pals. And, let's not forget that if the U.S. were the truly oppressive "regime" the loony left says it is, people like Ward Churchill would have their sorry butts thrown into prison with no trial and not much chance of seeing the sun shine within the next 10 to 20 years.
What did the Cubans who were tossed in jail do? They organized a meeting. Here's what happened there:
About 200 delegates attended the rare public meeting they helped organise in May. At the meeting, delegates approved a resolution in which they described Cuba's system of government as Stalinist and its economic policies as obsolete.
Being arrested for simply airing views contrary to those of the government is something that happens in oppressive regimes like Cuba, not the U.S. or her allies. It also doesn't happen with our military. They have a job to do, and they are doing it well. If a couple of hundred murderous thugs have to cool their heels in jail while enjoying volleyball, three course meals and all the prayer rugs they can kneel on in the interim, then I'm all for it.
Unfortunately, there are those who hate Bush and his administration so much, they would rather pin the crimes of cruel dictators like Castro (and Saddam Hussein) on him than on those who deserve the blame.
That is truly tragic.
Posted by at 08:17 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Live 8 CRAP
America keeps it's promises. Yawn.
Will the DU post this:
The Live 8 organiser said he had recently defended Mr Bush on the issue in France.
"They refuse to accept, because of their political ideology, that [Bush] has actually done more than any American president for Africa," Geldof told Time magazine. "But it's empirically so."
?
Posted by Aaron at 08:23 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Because They Went all French on US
Is it any news that Austrailia is currently our strongest ally? National Review Online seems to think so, but this is no surprise to me. Why?
BECAUSE THEY WERE ATTACKED!
Good Lord! Did it take a genius to figure out that PM Tony Blair and President Bush get along, but the UK really isn't into the War on Terror? The British soldiers in Iraq need to be commended. They are paying a price and sacrificing more than half our own nation would be wont to do.
The analysis from Michael Rubin is absolutely correct, but he does not hit at the heart of the issue. The other Anglo-inspired nations around the world are not on board 100% because they were not attacked. We only need to look to our own history to discover this trend among Crown-founded nations.
Pearl Harbor needed to be bombed into ruin until the United States joined the "War on Fascism" aka World War Two. England was being bombed daily, Australia was under iminent threat of Japanese invasion. But we let our allies languish by standing aside in the war fighting and only providing "logistical and material support" to our bretheren fighting Hitler and Hito.
But once attacked we became went all out and fought with our allies in two hemispheres.
So in this next great World War on Terrorism, how many Anglo nations have been attacked other than the United States and Australia? ZERO.
Therefore, the UK needs to be commended--as all other non-Anglo nations--that joined us in Iraq who were not attacked (with special thanks to the Eastern Europeans). They did not need to have the Thames bombed by Zeros to recognize the need. But that is only the government and not the public.
Blow up 200+ people in the name of Allah in a nightclub in any other Anglo nation and you will see a public shift in opinion.
Australians KNOW the evil and horror we face. Others, unless we are 100% successful, will find out in time--just like we did on December 7, 1941.
Posted by Aaron at 06:01 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
EU Backlash Continues
(I originally posted this entry on my own blog, Blogmeister USA.)
Unhappy with their recession and high prices, Italians are considering going back to the lira.
With elections due next spring and the nation in recession, Italy's politicians are becoming increasingly sensitive to public anger over economic difficulties and likely to be worried about any anti-European backlash in the wake of "no" votes from France and the Netherlands over the new European Union constitution...
"I have no nostalgia for the lira. But from the citizens a cry for help is reaching our ears," [Labor Minister Roberto] Maroni said. "The euro is the legitimate child of the European model which, with worry, we're watching fail," he was quoted as saying.
Whether or not they do it, only time will tell. And of course, even if Italy goes through with it, it may only be a temporary measure.
It seems that Tony Blair is also giving up "on Europe as an issue worth fighting for." Bravo, Mr. Blair.
In other EU news, both Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder want the other European nations to move on with the ratification process, despite depressing "no" votes from both France and Holland.
French voters who felt the charter imposed "ultra liberal" economic values and worried about losing jobs and Dutch voters wary about losing influence in an expanded bloc, have sparked a bout of soul-searching among European leaders over how to reconnect with an increasingly disillusioned public.
As I have commented before, the major problem with the concept of the EU is trying to cram all of the different values, cultures, and idiosyncracies of each individual country into a "one size fits all" category. Slicing Europe (and part of the Middle East) into pieces after both World Wars, using lines drawn on a map with no thought as to regional differences, didn't work either.
Some worry that, if Europe doesn't unite under an EU umbrella, that the countries might go back to their feuding (and possibly warring) ways. That's always possible...no one can predict the future. But it's obvious that Europe, much less the rest of the world, is ready for a Star Trek-type civilization, where one central government controls all of the world's countries and everyone lives in harmony.
Sorry, UN-fanatics, but loyalty to one's country still means a lot for many of us, both here in the U.S. and abroad. And that, in my opinion, is why the concept of the EU is falling apart.
UPDATE: This excellent article by Charles Moore in the Telegraph UK highlights some of my points and then some. An excerpt:
Unreal schemes often appear and even dominate for a time - fascism, Communism, the League of Nations are examples. But the truth eventually finds them out. I am sure that the "ever-closer Union" on which the European Union has been built from the beginning is one of these unreal schemes, since it believes in two falsities - uniformity where in fact there is diversity, and the primacy of government over people. The two main instruments by which truth reaches politics are votes and markets, which is why political Utopians instinctively dislike both. In Europe, the voters have told the truth, and now the markets are watching.
Click here for the rest (requires free registration). Hat tip to our very own Aaron, who brought this article to my attention!
Posted by at 03:11 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Tale of St. Jimmy, St. Jimmy, St. Jimmy...
Would our distinguished former president Jimmy Carter rush to judgment on the recent elections in Ethiopia? The EU thinks so. Erick Woods over at Confessions of a Political Junkie has the scoop:
St. Jimmy, Patron Saint of Dictators
While you're there, wish Erick a happy 30th birthday!
Posted by at 01:07 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
The EU Constitution: France Votes Today
First of all, why do all of those European countries seem to vote on Sundays? Oh right, because they don't care about religion anymore.
Snarkiness aside, this is the day that could make or break the EU constitution France votes today and as all member states must ratify it, a no vote in France could well stop the process in its tracks. However, some experts are saying that's not necessarily so, as it could pass in another referendum. The constitution must be ratified by all by September of 2006; plenty of time for more hashing out..
According to the Telegraph UK, the French "no" means something much different than a British "no":
The French want more social protection and stronger workers rights enshrined in the constitution [figures - ed.]. The majority of those in Britain who oppose the constitution think the EU is taking too much power away from Westminster.
Europe is at a crossroads. Socialism and bureaucracy run amok has emasculated many of the countries, and citizens who once bowed to kings now bow to paper pushers in Brussels. Each country once had its own identity. Now, those identities are being pushed aside in order to create a super-state that, it is hoped, will be able to put the U.S. in its place (those darn Colonials).
Yet even if the EU constitution is accepted without a hitch, Europe faces many obstacles that are really self-imposed. Socialism is really a new form of the old feudal system, with the government doling out restrictions in the guise of benefits, and many have lost their will to do any more work that is necessary. The immigration and deliberate non-assimilation of Muslims is a bomb waiting to go off, as many of these people feel no allegiance to the countries in which they live, work, and raise their children.
The more nations that vote "No", the stronger the Eurosceptic case becomes. However, even without widespread support for the constitution, politicians will salvage parts of it by implementing them in other treaties. No doubt the EU's political pace would slow to a crawl for some time while the damage was repaired.
That's the crux of the situation. No matter if the people vote "no," the politicians will make sure they get their way in the end. Isn't that what bureaucracy is all about?
Posted by at 09:27 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
What do the Brits think about the EU?
Tim Worstall has posted a contest on his blog, asking for the best obnoxious bumper sticker slogans for the EU his readers can come up with. Here are some of my faves:
EU will be assimilated
Screw EU!
The EU: Serf ‘n’ Turf
EU. Ewwwwwwwww.
Click here to see more. The contest will run throughout the weekend, and the winner will be announced Monday.
Posted by at 10:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Non
I love Ace's mastery of language and imagery. This is too funny [regarding the impending doom of the EU "constitution"]:
Let's hope that whatever happens, a great many Europeans are dismayed and even filled with "heart-ache" and write a lot of navel-gazing columns and letters to the editors and maybe get off of America's tits for like five minutes.
Posted by Aaron at 11:20 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Were Islamic Terrorists Fall Guys for Spanish Socialists?
(Forgive the cheesy cast photo of that show The Fall Guy from the early '80s...I couldn't help myself.)
The headline is disturbing, but possibly true. In an article on the National Review's website, Frank J. Gaffney explores this frightening possibility. Regarding the 3/11 attacks in busy Spanish train stations that ultimately tossed the conservative government out on its ear, the Madrid newspaper El Mundo
...suggests that, almost immediately after the 12 bombs went off in one of the city’s busiest train stations, some in the Spanish police force fabricated evidence, then swiftly hyped it to the domestic and international press. The object seems to have been to support the oppositions’ claims that Islamists angry over the government’s support for the war in Iraq were responsible for the attacks.
If this is true, then it can only prove that Spanish socialists were so desperate to win that they'd do just about anything.
We can't cut the Islamic terrorists any slack, of course. But if, IF, members of the Spanish socialist party were at all responsible for setting these guys up in order to win an election, then they are just as scary, if not more so, than the Islamic thugs willing to maim and kill innocent victims by bombing.
Gaffney reminds us that
...if the leads published in recent days pan out, it would appear that Spain’s 2004 elections were stolen by terrorists, alright. But the terrorist operation that brought the socialists to power may have been an inside job — in effect, a coup perpetrated by some of the same authorities who are responsible for preventing terror. Explosive stuff, if true. But all preliminary and speculative right now. [emphasis added]
The entire article can be found here. Will there be an investigation? Let's hope so...
Posted by at 10:51 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Another Euro "Artiste" Slams Bush and America
Ah, to be a European with an artistic temperament like Danish director Lars von Trier.
At the Cannes Film Festival, von Trier said:
"Mr Bush is an a**hole. So much in Denmark is American. We are a nation under influence.
"America fills about 60 per cent of my brain. So, in fact, I am American.
"But I can't go there to vote and I can't change anything, because I am from a small country. So that is why I make films about America."
No, Mr. von Trier. Although there are some Americans who share your sentiments (not counting yours truly), you are definitely not an American. If you really feel so passionately about how things are done here, then why don't you take leave of your socialist utopia and emigrate to America? You can apply for citizenship and then, if it is granted (that is, if we want you), you can vote and perhaps make the difference you so badly want to make. And perhaps, you'd actually get to know more than three or four Americans, and you'll find out that we really aren't a bunch of half-witted dullards who don't know where Denmark lies on the map. (Can you locate Iowa on a map of the U.S.?)
Then again, is it so much that you despise all that is American? Or is that not many people here take much notice of your films, and that you aren't making big bucks like Steven Spielberg and George Lucas? In fact, could it be that the thing Denmark is most known for is its...its...heck, I don't know, why don't you fill me in?
If the Danish people didn't like American films and American products, they wouldn't be buying them...so take it up with your countrymen. Instead of whining about our influence in the world, why don't you do something about the lack of Danish influence?
Perhaps if you stop whining, you'll find the energy to make a bigger splash in the commercial movie market.
Thanks...and be sure to stop by my place when you next come to the States. I'll fix up a nice batch of Spamwiches on Wonder Bread with Miracle Whip, and crackers with Cheez Whiz on the side. (Isn't that the sort of thing you expect us uncouth Americans eat?)
Posted by at 11:32 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
France is the Whipping Boy of Europe
According to the Telegraph UK, Europeans are united in their hatred of France. While I'm a little late in finding this, those of you who haven't seen it should get a good laugh:
Typically, the French refuse to accept what arrogant, overbearing monsters they are.
But now after the publication of a survey of their neighbours' opinions of them at least they no longer have any excuse for not knowing how unpopular they are.
Why the French are the worst company on the planet, a wry take on France by two of its citizens, dredges up all the usual evidence against them. They are crazy drivers, strangers to customer service, obsessed by sex and food and devoid of a sense of humour.
But it doesn't stop there, boasting a breakdown, nation by nation, of what in the French irritates them.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, Britons described them as "chauvinists, stubborn, nannied and humourless". However, the French may be more shocked by the views of other nations.
For the Germans, the French are "pretentious, offhand and frivolous". The Dutch describe them as "agitated, talkative and shallow." The Spanish see them as "cold, distant, vain and impolite" and the Portuguese as "preaching". In Italy they comes across as "snobs, arrogant, flesh-loving, righteous and self-obsessed" and the Greeks find them "not very with it, egocentric bons vivants".
Interestingly, the Swedes consider them "disobedient, immoral, disorganised, neo-colonialist and dirty".
But the knockout punch to French pride came in the way the poll was conducted. People were not asked what they hated in the French, just what they thought of them.
"Interviewees were simply asked an open question - what five adjectives sum up the French," said Olivier Clodong, one of the study's two authors and a professor of social and political communication at the Ecole Superieur de Commerce, in Paris. "The answers were overwhelmingly negative."
It's nice to know Americans aren't the only ones looked down upon in the Old World.
Hat tip: Little Green Footballs
Posted by at 01:42 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
An Opinion on the Saudi Elections
GM over at the blog Big Pharaoh had a few words today regarding the first municipal elections in Saudi Arabia. Since GM is Egyptian, his commentary is especially valuable, as he can understand the Saudi mindset better than the average American.
Saudi had its first municipal elections. Wow that’s awesome, that’s great news! Well, hold on a little, Islamists won every seat available! Those guys are more radical than the royal family itself. What, the royals are not radical? Nah, those guys are hardcore, they were endorsed by Saudi’s Wahabi clerics and won by a landslide.
GM continues by analyzing why the radicals, as he terms them, won. He names several factors:
-Women were denied the vote.
-Many citizens thought the elections a waste since the royal family
chose half of the council members and so didn't bother voting.
-Saudi Islamists are extremely organized and have the support of
hardcore clerics.
He then goes on to compare the Saudi experience with the Egyptian experience, making the following observation:
So the way forward is this: Mubarak should have another term in office but this time he has to allow liberals and progressives to start mobilizing and reaching out to people. Once liberals appear on Egypt’s political scene and the average Egyptian starts to believe in political participation, we will just have to hope and pray that the Egyptian people will elect enough progressives to counter the influence of Islamists and other radicals. If the Egyptian people let me down, you will find me running towards foreign embassies screaming “ASYLUM”. I hope that won’t be the case.
It's a thoughtful exercise, as are all of his writings. Please take the time to read the whole post, and be sure to peruse his past postings as well. If you're like me, you'll visit his site on a regular basis.
Posted by at 08:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Saddam a True Royal?
Apparently, Saddam Hussein was an even more important personage than we were all led to believe.
He claimed to be the reincarnation of King Nebuchadnezzar, known for being the architect of the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World (although it is gone today).
Babylon is now modern-day Iraq.
According to the story by Judi McLeod at Canada Free Press, Saddam parroted the ancient king’s propensity for undertaking ambitious construction projects, such as ornate temples and shrines; the reinforcement of walls and pyramids and striving to make Babylon the most powerful nation in the world. MacLeod references findings by William Henry, an "investigative mythologist." (Hey, it won't be long now before Henry is offered his own reality show on either MTV or A&E!)
So that's why Saddam built all of those palaces discovered by coalition soldiers during the invasion!
The only problem is, rather than bringing Iraq into a period of prosperity like the one Babylon enjoyed, Saddam spent all of the country's money on himself, letting his people languish in an imposed limbo, wanting for many basic needs and living in fear for their lives should they dare to complain.
Hardly the stuff legends is made of...more like nightmares.
Oh, and there's a U.N. connection here (big surprise):
United Nations soothsayer Sri Chinmoy...who reads hands at the UN, has stated that he was Thomas Jefferson in another life.
Oy vey!
Posted by at 02:23 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Does Europe Hate Us?
There's a documentary airing tomorrow night on the Discovery Times channel about it. Read my thoughts on the whole idea here.
Posted by at 02:10 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Do Canadians Care About Government Scandal?
Those of you who get your news from the internet certainly know about the current scandal in Canada called Adscam. Basically, members of Canada's dominant Liberal Party have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
From Captain's Quarters blog, "A political scandal involving the Public Works Ministry, a government effort called the Sponsorship Program, and allegations of corruption in the ruling Liberal Party has Canada abuzz with rumors of payoffs, Mob ties, and snap elections. For the last two years, Canadian politics has been gripped by the so-called “sponsorship scandal” – tens of millions of dollars in government contracts which were funneled into advertizing firms closely connected with the Liberal government for little or no work, but with shadowy rumours that much of the money found its way back into Liberal coffers."
Now, worried that the episode may hurt them, the Liberals are looking to have a snap election...meaning, don't wait until the scheduled election date but move it up to increase damage control. Fortunately, that's something that cannot happen here in the U.S.
But will the episode affect the Liberals in power?
For one thing, there has been a ban on coverage within Canada on the scandal itself (which some Canadian bloggers are ignoring, and so we have to wonder how much the average Canuck knows about what's going on.
What's interesting here is that, even if there was extensive coverage, some wonder if Canadians really care? Arthur Weinreb of Canada Free Press doesn't think so:
The revelations that are coming out of the Gomery Commission will be significant in the province of Quebec, but probably nowhere else. Because the whole sponsorship scheme was supposedly undertaken to keep that province in Canada and the advertising companies that made the big bucks were based in Quebec, Quebeckers are taking it personally. But it is doubtful that the Commission will make a dent in how the voters in Ontario, the ones who usually determine which party will govern Canada, will vote in the next election.
Also:
The only effect that Adscam will have on the next election will be a possible shutout for the Liberals in Quebec. Martin will merely step up his rhetoric and convince the rest of Canada that they will be doomed, simply doomed, if they elect a Conservative government. It will work in the east and it will work in Ontario. The likely effect will be another minority government.
In other words, because it doesn't affect them directly, most Canadians may be yawning at the news. Have they become so enamored of their "free" healthcare and other nanny state perks (not to mention high taxes) that they would rather have a bunch of frauds and bilkers in office than a Conservative government that might shake things up a bit?
Canadians should take a good hard look at their government. If corruption like this is happening in the realm of advertising, then where else can it be lurking?
Posted by at 09:07 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack