04 February 2004

Isn't the whole point to take from the rich and give to the masses?


The Left is remarkably nonchalant about these new terrors. When nuclear weapons were an elite club of five relatively sane world powers, the Left was convinced the planet was about to go ka-boom any minute, and the handful of us who survived would be walking in a nuclear winter wonderland. Now anyone with a few thousand bucks and an unlisted number in Islamabad in his Rolodex can get a nuke, and the Left couldn’t care less.

Mark Steyn

Posted by orbital at 5:02 PM | View 0 TrackBacks | Trackback URL


[source, source]

After September 11th, the UN Security Council formed a panel to investigate the funding of terrorist organizations, and ways in which the international community could cooperate to halt those organizations’ streams of finance. The panel was founded, under the leadership of a British diplomat named Michael Chandler. It released a report saying that the international community was not doing enough to combat Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

So what did the UN do? Well, of course, it dissolved his commission and fired Mr Chandler.

Wow! I didn’t realize that anyone could get fired from the UN.

Posted by orbital at 2:09 PM | View 0 TrackBacks | Trackback URL

Pour some sugar on me


Another thing that is particularly galling about sugar protectionism is that if there is a U.S. industry undeserving of trade protection, this is it. If it were not bad enough that American sugar prices are typically 2-3 times global prices, the federal government is also spending millions to clean up Big Sugar’s mess. Specifically, the sugar industry has done more to destroy the Florida Everglades than any other entity (with the possible exception of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, but they were often doing things to help sugar production). Now, the federal government is financing a massive Everglades restoration project to undo the damage. So we pay twice — as consumers in higher sugar prices, and as taxpayers in funding the restoration.

We couldn’t even get rid of the mohair subisidy, although that at least isn’t as expensive or ecologically damaging.

Posted by orbital at 11:46 AM | View 0 TrackBacks | Trackback URL

When you can't win on the facts...

[source, source]

Welcome to Kushnerworld - Pulitzer Prize-winning “Angels in America” Kushnerworld - where heterosexuals are repressed homosexuals trapped in loveless relationships, gays are generally noble and capable of spiritual enlightenment, religion is soul-suffocating bunkum, and Republicans occupy a moral plane similar to that of the Nazis. “You’re nice. I can’t believe you voted for Reagan,” Louis tells Joe, the repressed Mormon gay man in “Angels.”

The men and women who glean their news from NPR and the Guardian newspaper are always startled to learn that 48 million Americans voted for Reagan. Many of them must be the same yahoos and rubes who - gosh - voted for George Bush in 2000.

The author sums up my view on this exactly:

I wish only that the sponsors wouldn’t tout their production as “controversial.” There is nothing controversial about pandering to an audience’s bigotry and narrow-mindedness.

Oh yes, the deadly danger of producing a play mocking Laura Bush in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The only controversy will be whether it it’s OK to portray Laura Bush as having any redeeming qualities.

Posted by orbital at 11:39 AM | View 0 TrackBacks | Trackback URL

The BBC learns an important lesson

[source, source]

The BBC has apologised over a Jeremy Paxman interview which ended with the walk-out of the police chief he was questioning. […]

Mr Westwood complained to the BBC that the interview had been “edited misleadingly” and gave the impression he was trying to avoid answering difficult questions. […]

In its programme complaints report, the BBC said: “On the question of editing, the Director-General concluded that it had been wrong to show the Chief Constable removing his earpiece and terminating the interview in response to the final question without showing more fully his earlier answers to the same question. He has apologised to the Chief Constable for this error.

“The Director of News was informed of the Director-General’s findings, and the Editor of Newsnight has briefed his team to ensure that the lessons arising from the complaint are learned.

The BBC had to learn from this that it shouldn’t make misleadingly false edits in a pre-recorded interview? That explains a lot.

Posted by orbital at 7:36 AM | View 0 TrackBacks | Trackback URL