Our opinions and advice to the world. Updated whenever we get around to it.

In The World Today

George Will has written a nice piece about the 'left' and its failure to deliver its message to Middle America:
An interesting addition to this canon is "What's the Matter With Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America." Its author, Thomas Frank, argues that his native Kansas -- like the nation, only more so -- votes self-destructively, meaning conservatively, because social issues such as abortion distract it from economic self-interest, as the left understands that.

Frank is a formidable controversialist -- imagine Michael Moore with a trained brain and an intellectual conscience. Frank has a coherent theory of contemporary politics and expresses it with a verve born of indignation. His carelessness about facts is mild by contemporary standards, or lack thereof, concerning the ethics of controversy.

He says "the pre-eminent question of our times" is why people misunderstand "their fundamental interests." But Frank ignores this question: Why does the left disparage what everyday people consider their fundamental interests?

He says the left has been battered by "the Great Backlash" of people of modest means against their obvious benefactor and wise definer of their interests, the Democratic Party. The cultural backlash has been, he believes, craftily manufactured by rich people with the only motives the left understands -- money motives. The aim of the rich is to manipulate people of modest means, making them angry about abortion and other social issues so that they will vote for Republicans who will cut taxes on the rich.
This has always been one of my major frustrations when arguing with 'lefties'. They can't seem to accept that perfectly sane people may disagree with their viewpoint of the world. If you disagree with them then you of course must be either mentally deficient, racist, etc...

It has pretty much gotten to the point that whenever I start to argue with a 'lefty' I just mock them and make jokes about every point they make. Cause lets be honest 1) they generally could care less about facts and/or history and 2) they are often the most humourless people you'll ever meet.

Also today the UN has ruled that Israel's barrier is illegal:
Reading the ruling, Court President Shi Jiuyong of China said the court was not convinced the barrier's construction was the only means to achieve Israel's aim of protecting its people from suicide attacks.

The construction of the wall created a fait accompli which could become permanent, it added.

"It would be tantamount to de facto annexation," Mr Shi said.
The irony in having someone appointed by China to head the court is a bit much. A comedian couldn't come up with this stuff. As well having Mr Shi being so concerned about 'de facto annexation' just adds to the whole song and dance. Tibet? Anyone? Is it the 'annexation' that is the problem to Mr Shi or the 'de facto' part?

And how exactly is the construction of the wall 'contrary' to international law? Law must be applied consistantly, if it isn't, then it isn't law that is being applied but instead political prejudices. The wall between US and Mexico? India and Bengladesh? The Balkan's is littered with towns with walls separating the inhabitants. Why aren't these 'contrary' to international law?

And check out J.J.'s work at Filibuster Cartoons. This take on John Kerry and John Edwards is mint.

Also as I mentioned yesterday France is opposing sanctions that have been proposed against Sudan. Via we now find out that France has the largest oil concession granted in the country. I can't say I'm totally surprised.

And you know I was planning to go downtown this weekend but I think I'm going to have to change my plans. I live in Ottawa and given all the 'no blood for oil' protestors expected downtown protesting at the French embassy driving will probably be a nightmare. Oh wait a minute that would make sense and the last thing most anti-war protestors want to do is make sense.

No need to worry then. The roads will be fine.

Update @ 2:18pm

Via Mader Blog we learn that Europe has it's own 'apartheid wall':
The fence is located in a Spanish enclave in northwestern Africa, the coastal city of Ceuta just across the Straits of Gibraltar from Spain. Unknown to most of the world, when Spain handed over most of northern Morocco to the newly independent kingdom in 1956, Spain retained Ceuta and Melilla (about 250 kilometers further east) - thus that the European Union is present in Africa as well. Poverty-stricken Moroccans attempting to cross into Ceuta, from where they will then be able to work anywhere in Europe because of the EU's no-checkpoints policy, are stopped in their tracks by the eight-meter-high, double layer fence. Funding for the fence, some 60 million Euros, came from European Union coffers.
Where is the outrage?

No comments: