Nullius in Verba

Now that it looks like the Liberals have a chance…

Stephane Dion states that “Stephen Harper squandered the surplus on.” Then he goes on to insert either tax cuts, innovation spending, the GST or whatever is appropriate for the moment. This leaves me to ask, what exactly would Dion do with the surplus’ which, if I may remind him, come from you and I, and not some magic place. There is no macro economic plan I know of which proposes government keep surpluses accruing over years. Wait, actually there is a plan, its’ one where a dictator puts all that money in his Swiss Bank Account, but I digress. Even companies will invest profits or provide dividends while keeping a small amount to use as a contingency plan - something Paul Martin borrowed from the business world. So what did Harper do with the cash? Three billion spent on the military, which even the outgoing Liberals were planning on doing to refurbish a dying Canadian institution. Four billion spent on Health Care, on which has actually resulted in a reduction in waiting lists according to surgeons I have spoken with (we’ll see the big numbers). Six billion was used to lower the GST, while not the favorite of Economists, Harper was correct in stating that this is a regressive tax which harms the poor more than the rich - something every Economist knows, but the media won’t report (Harper has done more for the poor than the Liberals in 10 years so far).

So what would the Liberals have done? Probably nearly the same thing if in that situation. Or do they suggest not spending on Health Care or the desperate military, which was launched into Afghanistan by the Liberals in the first place?

What depresses me the most is not that Dion can say these things, in fact its what every opposition member would do. It is that the Mainstream Media isn’t all over Dion about this every time he opens his pie hole. Why don’t they ask about the Health Care spending, like “Hey Dion would you not have spent on Health Care, old boy?” There is a bias.

I think it is time to review these articles on the Green Shift, and how it will not reduce emissions but is likely to increase emissions, and moreover how even Jack Mintz, the Economist who helped write the plan, thinks it isn’t necessarily going to work.

Secondly let’s consider the NDP’s plan to increase corporate taxes. During a time when it is even more necessary to reduce taxes to make us more competitive against other leading countries (Stephen Harper plans to reduce our corporate taxes to the lowest in the G-7), Jack Layton wants to raise them. The OECD summarized the findings of the harmful effects of corporate taxes which I describe briefly in this article. In an open economy, Layton will only succeed in helping the blue collar workers lose their jobs. Right now Canada is rated to lead the G-7 in growth, albeit slow growth.

Yes, many economists describe a Keynsian style system of government spending through recessions, but Harper is correct in saying that once you go down that path it is hard to come back. Keynsianism is easy to understand, and lefties like that, but Robert Lucas and Milton Freidman have rightly critisized it and many have pointed out its failures. As both an economist and a politician I think he has good insight into the problems of Keynsian economics, what do you fund? Who gets funding? Are you picking winners and losers? Once a subsidy is given, it is not easy to take it away. Are you pouring money down the drain? Will the public go for it? It is easy as an economist to describe the best methods of targeted subsidies, but the public is as likely not to agree! You are constrained by public foolishness and corporate greed or seeking legalized monopoly establishment. Soon I will describe the critical paper that demonstrated government action extended the Great Depression.

Its not really useful if you read these, get your lefty friends to read the evidence. Or let them know the evidence. They believe in fairy tales.

I’ve spoken time and time again about how the media are completely biased in this country and indeed influence what happens on the political scene. They don’t necessarily work for a politcal party per say, but they do work for specific people: for example there is no doubt that they killed Paul Martin for Chretien’s benefit. In fact Chretien through friends and friend’s marriages had the media quite sown up. As I’ve said before they failed to truly explain Chretien’s complicity in involving Canada in Iraq. Lately in Ontario John Tory’s Progressive Conservatives were defeated simply because the media reported only one issue and did a fifth grader job of describing the complete issue as well: I refer to the Private School funding. Yesterday I heard that the global idiot Al Goreacle won the Nobel Peace Prize at a time when there are people who actually deserve this award.

There are wild dogs, wild hogs, and then there’s the mainsteam media.

Today all you hear on CBC is their jeering tone describing Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez’s speech attacking the Bush Administration at the Military Reporters and Editors’ conference.

Now they have made mistakes in Iraq, but lately under General Petraeus’ leadership a lot of things have gone right and I have described some of them here in this blog as reported by independent journalists. I have no doubts that people involved in real real research into military and development of third world countries savaged by civil war will examine many of his methods.

The fact is that Sanchez was a failure. He was unable to interact with other members of his team and colleagues. He kicks Bush where it deservedly hurts, but fails to examine his own personal ineptitudes. Not only that but Sanchez was hung out to dry during the Abu Ghaib disaster and he’s one bitter man.

The media forgot to look in the mirror today, because Sanchez said something else. Something more significant and something you’ll never hear.

Because Sanchez spent much of his speech slamming the media’s horrible coverage of Iraq. This is something we can learn from in this country as well as the media does an abysmal job of covering Afghanistan. Some people try and blame the current government for not spreading a good message but I think the failure lies with a media doped up on the intoxication of mass death and explosions rather than boring works of human endeavor or improvement.

In Sanchez’s words:

GIVEN THE NEAR INSTANTANEOUS ABILITY TO REPORT ACTIONS ON THE GROUND, THE RESPONSIBILITY TO ACCURATELY AND TRUTHFULLY REPORT TAKES ON AN UNPRECEDENTED IMPORTANCE. THE SPECULATIVE AND OFTEN UNINFORMED INITIAL REPORTING THAT CHARACTERIZES OUR MEDIA APPEARS TO BE RAPIDLY BECOMING THE STANDARD OF THE INDUSTRY. AN ARAB PROVERB STATES - “Four things come not back: the spoken word, the spent arrow, the past, the neglected opportunity.” ONCE REPORTED, YOUR ASSESSMENTS BECOME CONVENTIONAL WISDOM AND NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO CHANGE. OTHER MAJOR CHALLENGES ARE YOUR WILLINGNESS TO BE MANIPULATED BY “HIGH LEVEL OFFICIALS” WHO LEAK STORIES AND BY LAWYERS WHO USE HYPERBOLE TO STRENGHTEN THEIR ARGUMENTS. YOUR UNWILLINGNESS TO ACCURATELY AND PROMINENTLY CORRECT YOUR MISTAKES AND YOUR AGENDA DRIVEN BIASES CONTRIBUTE TO THIS CORROSIVE ENVIRONMENT. ALL OF THESE CHALLENGES COMBINED CREATE A MEDIA ENVIRONMENT THAT DOES A TREMENDOUS DISSERVICE TO AMERICA.

Never were truer words spoken.

Such things remind me of how society as reflected by the mainstream media at it’s worst finds people to use as a scapegoat to sacrifice to the god of distractions. Late last week as an example that naive fraud Wei Chen agreed heartedly on CBC radio Ontario that “we’ll see how the economists like it when they are laid off as the world unites to have one main Bank to set monetary policy.” - in reference to an economist explaining the grim realities of cheap foreign labor when yet another Windsor Ontario car plant laid off people.

“The Republic has no need of geniuses,” stated a self-important and wholly ignorant judge during the sentencing and death of the scientist Antoine Lavoisier, at a time in France when genius’ and good men were needed more than ever.

The starknesss that society doesn’t need people pointing out the truth as much as it may hurt is plainly laid before us. What they really want and need is someone to blame… and quickly.

(Truth is Naked)

I firmly believe that both the mainstream media (MSM) especially CBC, as well as most socialists would rather see Iraq (and Afghanistan) a destroyed smoking heap than for the Americans to have any success there. That’s how selfish they are.

(The twisted irony is that Socialists more than any other group of people seem to have all the traits of the Seven Deadly Sins)

Whether the invasion was right or wrong, at this moment in life it is what it is.

The real question is now what? Leave when people are most vulnerable and your job is half done?

More news from yet another independent journalist Michael Totten, that you will never hear from the biased MSM. Ramadi in Anbar province was one of the worst places in Iraq and possibly on the planet. Literally the people of the entire city were terrorised and blown to bits by Al Quaeda simply for the benefit of the cameras of the Mainstream Media. Now that the surge is working and the city has been intelligently turned and the people are on the side of sanity things have cleaned up. No attacks in 81 days. The city is boring and the MSM is nowhere to be found.

Violence has declined so sharply in Ramadi that few journalists bother to visit these days. It’s “boring,” most say, and it’s hard to get a story out there – especially for daily news reporters who need fresh scoops every day. Unlike most journalists, I am not a slave to the daily news grind and took the time to embed with the Army and Marines in late summer.

…

“We have one Iraqi lieutenant here who speaks pretty good English,” Marine Lieutenant Jonathan Welch told me. “You should talk to him. He has a sarcastic sense of humor and a really interesting point of view.”

“That would be terrific,” I said. “Can you introduce me to him?”

He went to find the lieutenant, but came back with bad news.

“He won’t talk to you,” he said. “Apparently some reporters recently spent a few days with him and his men. They wrote an agenda-driven story with a few quotes yanked out of context. He said the story was a total lie and that he refuses to have anything to do with the media.”

I heard complaints of that sort about the media every day from American Soldiers and Marines, but this was the first time I had heard it, albeit indirectly, from an Arab Iraqi.

Totten’s report is worth reading. Unbiased reporting is hard to find and thanks to the internet, the power of blogs, and the power of individual private donation we have real reporting.

I was greeted by friendly Iraqis in the streets of Baghdad every day, but the atmosphere in Ramadi was different. I am not exaggerating in the least when I describe their attitude toward Americans as euphoric.

Grown Iraqi men hugged American Soldiers and Marines.

…

Ramadi has changed so drastically from the terrorist-infested pit that it was as recently as April 2007 that I could hardly believe what I saw was real. The sheer joy on the faces of these Iraqis was unmistakable. They weren’t sullen in the least, and it was pretty obvious that they were not just pretending to be friendly or going through the hospitality motions.

…

The Iraqis of Anbar Province turned against Al Qaeda and sided with the Americans in large part because Al Qaeda proved to be far more vicious than advertised. But it’s also because sustained contact with the American military – even in an explosively violent combat zone –convinced these Iraqis that Americans are very different people from what they had been led to believe. They finally figured out that the Americans truly want to help and are not there to oppress them or steal from them. And the Americans slowly learned how Iraqi culture works and how to blend in rather than barge in.

Finally this exerpt I found especially profound:

“We’re learning to use local conflict resolution strategies,” said Colonel John Charlton. “Living with Iraqis every day helps us understand local culture. We’ve actually become attached to these people on a personal level. We feel responsible for their safety. We’re concerned about what will happen to our Iraqi friends if we don’t succeed in this country.”

I heard quite a number of Soldiers and Marines express the same sentiment. Whether it’s true or it isn’t, and whether it’s supposed to be this way or not, sometimes I sensed they feel like they’re fighting for Iraqis more than they feel they are fighting for Americans.  

When one considers exactly how little most of the socialists on campus at either of my universities actually contributed to the lives of others, it is a tiny list indeed. In fact out of all the folks on this planet I meet, socialist are the most selfish people of all. I’ll say it out loud but many people feel the same way.

(This is how socialists truly feel. Greed Jealousy…)

Many socialists love to point to the evil United States health care system and smirk. Indeed there are entire organizations made up of socialists throwing boulders at the US that are somehow given credibility by the media. Harvard University has an entire department devoted to it.

Now there are several things wrong with the US health care system and as an employee of this Canadian one I can affirm that there are several things wrong with ours as well. So much so that I would rather have the US system.

The problem is that most socialists assume that public health care will be much cheaper in the US like they think it is elsewhere. The important point to remember is that public health care in the US isn’t very cheap at all for a variety of reasons. What people don’t realize is that the US has one of the largest social safety nets in the world, and with that comes rent seekers. Socialists will claim that the public system is better for example, because it is a monopsony but the problem with monopsony all you junior economists is that a monopsony is Pareto inefficient due to a decrease in optimal quantity purchased and that means waiting lists (notice how they love economic words when it suits them?).

(Creating disasters - the government has been doing it for millenia)

The main reason socialists love public health care is because they know they can get rich off of it. The idea of of more unions and bureaucrats makes them incredibly happy.

Lets do some quick goat calculations in today’s game:

“How many more bureaucrats could the US hire if the system was Public?”

Ok get out your calculators.  

• The US GDP : $13 ,244,550,000,000.00
• Percent spent on health care 15.3%, total spent $2,026,416,150,000.00
• Percent spent on public health care 44%, total $891,623,106,000.00
• Percent spent on private health care 56%, total $1,134,793,044,000.00
• Current population 302,280,000. People covered under both systems 253,915,200
• Percent of those covered by public system 27%, population covered 68,557,104
• Percent covered by private system 69%, 175,201,488 (There are a few percent covered by other systems)
• Cost of public system per person in system: $13,005.55
• Cost of private system per person in system: $6,477.07
• Cost of US system if it was fully public: $13,005.55 X 243,758,592 = $3,170,215,488,000.00

The increase in cost of a full Public System is $1,143,799,388,000.00.

(A graph for Captain Capitalism. Click to Enlarge)

Cost of a bureaucrat: $40,000.00.  Projected increased number of bureaucrats: 28 million!!!

And that, folks, is a lot of bureaucrats!

Just think how extra fun it will be to try and navigate your 80 year old parents through a system with 28 million more bureaucrats.

Oh and just so you know, if you have a heart attack, you want to have it in the US. You’re more likely to survive. Indeed, when you actually look at mortality and morbidity outcomes between Canada and the US in terms of things doctors can change, all that money may result in better outcomes. 

* Raw Data from OECD.

I won’t be getting much time to quality post, so probably only one really large post a month for a while as I am back to busy again. Occasionally I will put up a small post of interesting things seen in the sphere.

Anyhow some food for thought for those friends of mine out there who get out to my humble blog but don’t go see Small Dead Animals.

As spoken about earlier, eventually sane people get sick of freaks who like to blow up their kids. Iraq is changing. Now I’m not one who has GW Bush in his list of favorites (all you socialists out there don’t get too excited, I think Hillary Clinton is the worst thing that could ever happen to the US White House.)  Der Spiegel, more “left” than six week old leftovers, has an article about how Bush’s latest strategy - the Surge is actually working. It’s a good thing there exist intelligent Generals like Petraeus.

Ramadi is an irritating contradiction of almost everything the world thinks it knows about Iraq — it is proof that the US military is more successful than the world wants to believe. Ramadi demonstrates that large parts of Iraq — not just Anbar Province, but also many other rural areas along the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers — are essentially pacified today. This is news the world doesn’t hear: Ramadi, long a hotbed of unrest, a city that once formed the southwestern tip of the notorious “Sunni Triangle,” is now telling a different story, a story of Americans who came here as liberators, became hated occupiers and are now the protectors of Iraqi reconstruction.

Oh boy, more evidence that there are some serious things wrong with the climate data. Could it be that the measured change in temperature from the fifties is actually simply within the range of variance.

As an example from the summary, one station had five different locations during 1954–1983, with the locations as much as 41 km apart. Two other stations each had four different locations. At least half the stations had substantial moves (two other examples, of 25 km and 15 km, were given above). Moreover, several stations have histories that are inconsistent, making reliable analysis unattainable.

Update

Darrell points out an article by physicist Freeman Dyson. Yet another scientist becomes a heretic.

There are some potentially valid reasons to buy a Prius or some other hybrid, but saving the world from the hordes of evil CO2 isn’t one of them. But hey, most of the educated people out there aren’t suprised.

Once again yet another group has come out with a study showing that the vaunted Prius uses more energy over it’s lifetime than the gas guzzling Hummer. CNW Marketing Research has produced a “dust to dust” study demonstrating that overall the Prius has an energy-cost average of $3.25 per lifetime mile vs. the Hummer with one of $1.95. Mostly the added environmental damage is from the production of the Prius’ batteries and transport of said product. The other thing that CNW noticed is that people aren’t using the Prius that long before it’s thrown out, hence a lot of fossil fuels has gone into the production of a vehicle that isn’t being well used.

(For those of you who think that the only good carbon is dead carbon, the only thing that will bog a Hummer down is taxes.)

Now, like any economist or other scientist, I can state this as a certainty because I’ve done computer modelling: almost any conclusion can be reached by the construction of a model. (Tell that to the global warming gang). All one has to do is make sure that one adds the variables that will in theory support one’s hypothesis and make up excuses why to leave out the variables that will not. The debate on whether the hybrid is an environmental benefit or boondoggle will rage on and on.

My real suspicion is that if the Hummer and Prius are fairly close on the environmental scale of damage, and one can argue back and forth on this, the fuel efficient and economical cars like the Corolla and Civic must be much better than a Prius.

(Update) Looking at more evidence I’m likely still better off buying the conventional car for quite a while. Lave and MacLean conclude that the benefit from the Prius over the Corolla is negligible especially when considering the costs of production. Lave’s previous work has agreed with he CNW that indeed the production of hybrids results in higher environmental stress than conventional cars, and indeed have only tiny effects on ozone production and yet have increased environmental effects due to battery materials.

Of course Al Goreacle and the Suzuki will continue to push the hybrid on us, regardless, but won’t actually use them to get to their big-expensive speaking engagements.

Anyhow why am I going on about some old news? It only took our friendly Globe and Mail writer Neil Reynolds about two lines to twist this story into yet another anti-Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) story where of course it’s all Stephen Harper, Jim Flaherty, and probably George W Bush’s fault too if you look hard enough. (This is yet another one of those times where Dick “The Dick” Cheney may or may not be at fault, but let me remind you that the Laffer curve we discussed in this post earlier was his fault.) 

Now Neil Reynolds has a very interesting biography, been everything from an NDPer to a Libertarian, has run a variety of newspapers and is very vociferous on his outlook that small government, low taxes, and person freedom are the best way to go and on that I couldn’t agree more. However as he once said about working at the Toronto Star that he isn’t above going with the accepted way of things:

People know all newspapers have biases. Some people read us because they don’t agree with our bias. They get a provocative charge out of being told they’re wrong … I worked at the Toronto Star for eight years, and they were the biggest spinners of all. They had a written policy that ‘everything [Liberal finance minister] Walter Gordon does is front page news.’ I didn’t agree with Gordon, but I followed the policy anyways, with a clear conscience. Everyone knew it was a left-wing rag, and we called it PRAVDA, affectionately. But it was a great crusader, and the best-selling daily in the country.

And the way of things is CPC bashing. In his column he writes that Jim Flaherty was mistaken in giving tax breaks for fuel efficient cars and increased taxes on fuel guzzlers.

In his March budget, Mr. Flaherty made fuel efficiency - gas mileage alone - the sole basis for the environmental rating of new cars. He will reward high-mileage cars (with rebates from $1,000 to $2,000) and punish low-mileage cars (with surcharges from $1,000 to $4,000). The program could well be a phenomenal waste of energy. Junk it, Mr. Flaherty. It’s not fit for the road.

Now before all you socialist huggers out there get too excited and start waving placards about yet another frothing trashing of the CPC, lets not forget that Reynolds has a way of being facetious which doesn’t necessarily mean he’s on your side. In fact who really knows what he means, one of his previous suggestions has been to cut the GST on any new car since they are in general more fuel efficient. Probably because he reached the same conclusions I did.

However if there is one thing Reynolds admits to knowing is which way the bandwagon is headed and how to get on. So it’s likely his editors at the G&M were ecstatic with his implications regarding the CPC because the media will continue to lap up anything that windbags with no credibility like the Suzuki and Al Gore will say and yet neglect to do any real research of their own. 

For example, Stephane Dion can recycle some old wine glasses and to the media he’s the greenest guy since Kermit the Frog, yet Flaherty can implement some Suzuki Foundation suggestion and he’s the Genghis Khan of the Greenhouse Gas Horde.

Anyhow the real reason the Hybrid may be better for us all really has nothing to do with CO2. Instead it may, and this is a may, help reduce smog in cities that has been linked to respiratory and cardiovascular diseases in suseptible people as well as cancers. Even the evidence for this is still in some ways weak, but its out there and probably a lot more reliable and relevant than the media-hyped science on CO2. Yet can we get a peep out of them on this? When the CPC announced they were targeting smog as a health issue, the media was speechless. It was like watching an episode of the Simpsons when Homer is told the implications of something and he just blinks a couple times with a blank look on his face. Yet say the word Global Warming and they’ll lead the charge to Jerusalem.

(The War on Greenhouse Gasses is the New Crusade and Global Warming is the New Religion)

So if you’re going to drive a hybrid, it should be because you’re trying to save lil’ Johnny from yet another asthma episode and subsequently another visit to me. If you think you’re any better than the dude in the Hummer that just passed you, think again. You, my friend, are the one making the planet hotter.

Maybe.

Today’s Three points:

1) The fuel efficient cars are likely your best bet if you want to save the world.

2) No matter what the CPC does, according to the media it will always be wrong.

3) The Prius and other hybrids are a good idea in theory because they may reduce the harmful local effects of combustion engine emissions on lung and heart disease, not because they reduce CO2.

I have been a union shop steward in more than one union. I have been involved in unions, hung around enough unionists, and moreover now that I am occasionally forced to practice medicine, I have handed out more than my share of “get out of work for spurious medical reason” forms than I ever should.

(In truth, it was the free flow of capital, investment, property rights, capitalism and mercantilism that has done more for the common peasant then Karl Marx, Unions, government or any other pretender.)

In my honest opinion about 1 out of 50 grievances are valid. Maybe less. Quite honestly some people deserve a frigging boot to their lazy hides.

I’ll put it this way. I have no problem with people forming a monopoly in order to bargain for higher wages or changes in their workplace. BUT employers should be able to fire them all if they want to and hire new people. If your skills are worth something, employers won’t be so eager to fire you off. And honestly for the most part I have found employers reasonable people.

In fact unions are such a waste of time these days that they actively seek obscure issues to mobilize around because in reality they have nothing better to do. The great majority of people in a union are apathetic and therefore the union leadership gets taken over by busy-bodies who love raising stink and trying to be more important than they really are.

So in the end union leaders tend to be either one of two types. A busy-body of self importance or a thief who is trying to steal as much as he can from other member’s paychecks. Or both. The lackies who attend union meetings are the kind of people who fit into the above categories but aren’t quite able to clamber to the top of the dung heap yet. 

At a union meeting I once said that one way we could increase our employee’s wages is by lowering our union dues. I’ll tell you the blank stares of disbelief I received were worth it. Or the other time when our teacher’s union was trying to “make a bold statement in defence of Palestine and in condemnation of Israel” I said that there were quite a few members who were Jewish in our union and that perhaps we should consider only relavent issues pertaining to employer and workplace in order not to uneccesarily ostracize other members. Whew.

I kind of liked to imagine myself at that time as a sort of Deep Throat or Voice of Conciousness within the union. In reality I was probably just more of a big prick. But there is no more firm a believer than one who was once an anthiest.

I was once a socialist but when I saw the light, it was bright and it showed socialism for the dirty thing it is.

Socialism is racism, it’s modern day Nazism. It discriminates, condemns groups of people, sets societal norms, dictates to the media, controls and corrupts politicians, employers, and people. And it tells lies about utopia to hide its true objectives: putting power into the hands of a select group of people. Racism you ask? Is hiring people based on color anything but racism? Is keeping groups of people on aparthied like slabs of soil not racism?

One thing socialism does well, which parallels Nazism in an extraordinary manner (Read Hitler’s Scientists) is to infect Universities and chase out voices of reason by hiring those who fit their political standard. John Cornwell does a great job of showing that while not only did Hitler appoint politico hacks as Department heads, there were many Nazis and those of like mind within the universities already. The 1930’s were a different time in some ways. If you don’t think so, read Tommy Douglas’ Master’s thesis sometime. The one where he argues that poor people should be sterilized. Remember also that Nazism involved state control of production in ways similar to socialism, not capitalism like some socialists seem to want one to think.

When I first saw that the Britain’s University and College Union (UCU) enact a motion to boycot any Israeli university seminar, meeting, journal, and scientist/academic I though to myself wow boy that sure is myopic and typical of bored unions with nothing better to do but sit on their ivory tower jobs. But I forgot about it like most people tend to do.

So why is a university professor’s union doing this? Well to solve the problem with the Palestinians not having a country, naturally. Why is this myopic? Because the reason the Palestinians don’t have a country (they do have one) has a lot to do with it being their own fault lately, especially since the Palestinians receive more aid per capita than any other nation yet manage to elect stupid leaders like Arafat who steal most of this money and fund gangs of terrorist that kill their own people. Palestinians kill many more Palestinians than Israelis do. Under pressure from the United States Israel has made many accomodations and appears ready to make more. The Palestinians from the start have been the bouncing-ball plaything of the national goals of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia since Israel first clawed itself into a nation. An objective look quickly demonstrates who has hurt these people more. (Before the second intifada for which Arafat held a high degree of blame, a peace existed where 20 percent of Palestinians went to work in Israel daily and the Palestinian GNP grew at 5% a year).

My favorite part of Stephanie Gutmann’s book, “The Other War: Israelis Palestinians and the Struggle for Media Supremacy” in her chapter, Travels With Faraj were these lines which sum up pretty much the entire problem. She’s speaking with a common Palestinian shop owner, a nice guy who she describes as wanting a variety of things just like the rest of us.

The proprietor soon had a new, seemingly “saved up” question for the Westerner who had landed in his restaurant: “Why do the Americans hate the Palestinians?” he demanded.

“Our government doesn’t hate the Palestinians,” I said. “They support an independent state next to Israel. They send money to the Palestinians, millions a year. Why do you think they hate the Palestinians?”

“Because they do no kill Arafat,” he stated matter-of-factly. “They don’t like Saddam; they go get Saddam. So why not Arafat?”

Given the news accounts had recently been full of heads of state and such calling Arafat “the personification of the ideals of the Palestinian people,” I groped for the words for a few seconds, and then stated carefully: “I think… the Americans believe… that Arafat is your guy; that you elected him; that he speaks for you… ”

“He is a crook and a thief,” the proprietor interjected.

Anyhow, does the UCU expect that every Israeli is going to commit self immolation in order to resolve this issue because a bunch of university professors expect them to based upon their myopic view of things? Israel contributes much to scientific literature, and it’s a democratic country where each person gets one vote including the non Jews who become members of their parliament. It’s a Middle Eastern country most intellectual liberals should be proud of.

Well there’s nothing like insanity to fuel the flame of irrelevance. With a smug backhanded blow from the ammunition of the press release, my Queens University stated that they deplore the actions of the UCU.

is antithetical to the core value of academic freedom, which is cherished by Queen’s and other universities around the world.

Freedom of inquiry and expression carries with it responsibilities – to encourage open debate and dialogue, and to listen to and learn from the views of others. We must defend these freedoms of speech and inquiry even as we engage with those whose views may differ greatly from our own. Contemporary society calls for leadership that respects but can also bridge social, cultural, economic and geopolitical divides. I therefore denounce the actions of the UCU and absolutely reject its approach.

Those of us who devote ourselves to the learning and discovery that characterizes the academy must defend the freedom of individuals to study, teach and carry out research without fear of harassment, intimidation or discrimination.

Accordingly, I join with many of my colleagues in stating that, if the British UCU pursues its ill-advised course, we will have no choice but to add Queen’s University ­and many other universities around the world ­ to its boycott list. We are proud to align ourselves with those  who deplore the UCU’s unacceptable attack on the values and principles that define us.

Of course they say one thing. But do another. Queens wants to select more minority admissions so we can all pat ourselves on the back about how progressive we are. Like minorities cannot decide for themselves where they’d like to go in Canada so we have to tell them.

These socialists. If there is one thing that the Middle East has given to universities that the academics want to recognize, instead of the actual historic scientific contribution from the East, is the keffiyeh. These socialists all around the university wear the traditional male arabic headress around their necks in the form of a protest against anything western and in support of Palestine because, I suppose, Arafat wore one. What they don’t want to recognize is that western  culture stands for democracy, human rights, liberties, property rights, peace, tolerance, secularism etc. The only thing I think these gangs in Palestine stand for is terrorism, thievery, chauvanism, religious fanatacism, and indiscriminate death. They keep proving it. These Imams are so revered that if they issued a fatwah on how killing people is satanic, the Middle East would probably be as peaceful as downtown Mariposa. So why don’t they?

The worst thing is that the very gangs like Hamas that these UCU folks support, would in a minute turn on their supporters and cull them for being apostates.

(The woman in the top photo wears a keffiyeh “in support” of Palestine at a rally, meanwhile the guy holding the sign up at the bottom is saying what every socialist there is thinking. In reality the gangs they are supporting, like Hamas, are simply criminals who couldn’t give a damn about human rights. hat tip zombietime)

Spin spin spin spin….

This is probably better than Hillary Clinton’s 9/11 speech advocating taking out Hussein.

The Year is 1992. President is G. Bush Sr.

Hypocrite on stage is Al Gore. Aka Goreacle. (I remember when he used to be pro-free trade, how the mighty have fallen).

Spin spin spin spin spin spin….