Inside the Asylum

Instapundit links to a story with one of his usual short comments: "Tough on Fiji, Soft on Iran" The point that both Reynolds and The Weekly Standard are trying to make is that the Obama regime is being a hypocrite in treating the military dictatorship in Fiji in a tough manner while they soft pedal in the other case. I only wish this were true. I posted on this matter earlier about the real Democrat stance on Fiji. It could be described as positively supportive of the military regime in Fiji. Here's what Democrat Eni Faleomavaega (member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Vice Chair of the Congressional Asia Pacific American Caucus, member of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, and member of the Congressional Oceans Caucus) had to say on the matter:

Australia and New Zealand were engaging in "nasty accusations" against Fiji and were "acting with a heavy hand" in trying to force elections... "I totally disagree with the nasty accusations that the leaders of New Zealand and Australia have made against Fiji … it makes no sense."

When Clinton was asked what she thought of his comments, she declined to agree or disagree. So let's give the Obama regime credit for a thoroughly consistent pathetically soft stance on oppressive regimes. Tough on Fiji? I wish.

We've already had the stink about the tire tax Obama imposed on Chinese imports, which seriously annoyed the Chinese. So what can he do for an encore? I know ... another tariff on Chinese goods at the request of his union backers.

The US Commerce Department has imposed anti-dumping tariffs of up to 99 percent on imports of Chinese tubular goods."

As could be expected, the Chinese are less than impressed.

The Chinese commerce ministry said that China "firmly opposes the abuse of protectionism and will take measures to seriously protect the interests of the domestic industry." It called the US tariffs "discriminatory" steps that would "have a serious impact on the Chinese steel industry's exports."

So who is happy about it?

United Steelworkers (USW) union hailed the move as "an overdue message for thousands of American laid off workers that trade laws are being enforced."

There's a surprise.

Seriously ... the Obama Regime are a pack of moronic amateurs. Obama is going to China in less than two weeks. Couldn't they have at least waited? I guess they think the Chinese will be overwhelmed by Obama's sparkling personality? Good luck with that.

[Update] But wait: there's more! It's even worse than I thought.

The U.S. Commerce Department said on Tuesday it would impose punitive tariffs ranging from 2.02 percent to 437.73 percent on imports of steel wire decking from China.

And the Chinese come right out and say it: The United States is acting the part of the hypocrite.

It is hardly a week after Washington pledged actions against trade and investment protectionism at the 20th China-U.S. Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT) talks in China's eastern city of Hangzhou. The United States vowed to refrain from any new trade protectionism measures at the event...
Trade protectionism is a poison, which, if not properly handled, will reverse the first signs of world economic recovery. The United States, as the world's major economy, should take the lead in advocating responsible trade policies. Recent protectionist moves in the United States are closely linked to its sluggish economic growth and domestic political tussles, but a strong leader should have the guts to be more far-sighted and deliver the pledge he or she has made.

So to summarize: the Chinese government controlled Xinhua news agency has just said that Barack Obama is irresponsible, weak, gutless, short-sighted, a liar, doesn't understand economics, and is putting the recovery at risk. Those inscrutable orientals. It's so hard to figure out what they're thinking.

Further to Egyptian action against Lebanese hottie Wehbe, now they're getting worked up about Beyonce.

"Why are you encouraging this insolent sex party?" lawmaker Hamdi Hassan from the opposition Muslim Brotherhood wrote in a letter to the government. "You are accused of disturbing social peace and stability, encouraging vice and debauchery."
Another Islamic lawmaker, Ali Laban, called for banning the "nudity concert."
A Facebook campaign against Beyonce's concert collected nearly 10,000 supporters.
But the war of words has not derailed the glitzy concert, due hundreds of miles south of Cairo in the luxury Red Sea resort of Port Ghalib.

They're certainly doing a good job of promoting the event. Event organiser Ahmed Beltagi said

"We should salute her instead of criticising her," he said of the diva.

It seems he's in favor of insolent nude sex party concerts.

Hey, those are his words.

Iran's Supreme Leader, spurning what he described as several personal overtures from US President Barack Obama, has warned that negotiating with the US was ''naive and perverted'' and said Iranian politicians should not be ''deceived'' into starting such talks.

I wonder what he thinks they would talk about? Really, it's quite hard to be both naive and perverted at the same time.

Of course Democrats who knew they were going to lose, were already trying their best to spin the defeats as "nothing to do with Obama." But come on ... you can't have it both ways. Obama went to both states to personally campaign for the two Democrat contenders. Either he was part of the race or he wasn't. So, let's see what foreign media is saying on the issue.

Obama suffers setback. Gulf News (Dubai)
Obama, Democrats tested in 2009 elections. Xinhua (China)
In blow to Barack Obama, Republicans win 2 US state races. Times of India (India)
Obama suffers major setback Guardian (Britain)
test of Obama's clout. Buenos Aires Herald (Argentina)

Hmmm... seems to be all about Obama, doesn't it?

The director of the Senegalese News Agency, Mamadou Koume, is in Beijing at the moment. He had some interesting things to say. In particular, this really struck me:

"In Africa, we have always cooperated with the West. We have not progressed much. We have received aid from the West and donations from International financial institutions, which was always accompanied by many conditionality and diktats, whereas China has decided to take her own route," Koume told Xinhua.

There's this too:

The West-controlled media "say bad things about China. I think some of them are driven by jealousy. This is because China has taken the first position and is very dynamic in her relations particularly with the African continent. The West is feeling jealousy because China has come to compete with them in Africa. And we, the African, feel like the forms of cooperation that is being done by the Chinese, will give us a lot of autonomy," Koume said.

The first thing to note is that there's no exaggeration in the statement that China is competing with the West for influence in Africa, and the sentiment expressed here that China is winning is entirely accurate. China now has more influence across the continent than any other nation or international organization. As Koume points out, many African countries love Chinese "aid" because it comes without preconditions. You want to spend it on a palace for the king (I mean "president") then you just go right ahead. A few crates of AK-47s? Heck, we'll sell 'em to you at a discount. That's the cynical western perspective (which has some validity).

Now let's look at it from another point of view. Koume is absolutely correct when he says that African cooperation with the West has done little for Africa. The West has poured billions of dollars into Africa with little to show for it. Doesn't that tend to suggest that the Western model of aid is fundamentally flawed? Western paternalism hasn't always been very useful either ... just consider malaria and the West's reluctance to let them use bucket-loads of DDT, even with the full knowledge that it would save far more lives and prevent far more suffering than any side-effects of the DDT itself. No, you can't use DDT because that would be a Bad Thing, and we can't let you do that! Of course it doesn't mean that Chinese aid is going to do any better, but it does mean that China is going to do a lot better in the new Great Game that's shaping up in Africa.

Who, in a recent article, described the model of the centralized economy as "flawed"? He also said the following:

The real achievement we can celebrate is the fact that the 20th century marked the end of totalitarian ideologies, in particular those that were based on utopian beliefs.

Well, judging by a lot of people in the Obama administration, I think he's being a bit optimistic there. There seem to be entirely too many people who think that there's a utopia to be achieved, if only the government can take over enough aspects of society.

So as not to misrepresent his views, I should point out that he's also not a fan of capitalism.

So, who is he? I'll put the answer in the comments, or you can follow the link to read the whole essay.

These guys loved him ... with 73% supporting him at the election. Why? I don't know. It should have been obvious even then that he wasn't their friend. I guess it was a case of "ask not what you can do for your country, ask what you can do for Obama". Anyway, now Obama's popularity is down to 57% which I still find pretty astounding. Why would anybody on Wall Street like him? Anyone care to bet how long it will take for the number to fall below 50%?

Follow the link to look at the letter. The first letter on each line, when read from top to bottom says "f*** you". Most Californian politicians certainly deserves it just as much as the national level pack of weasels.

"My goodness. What a coincidence," said Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear.

The particular individual who got the letter was San Francisco Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, who recently yelled out "you lie!" and worse to Arnie. Of course, it was inappropriate and terrible when a Republican did it to Obama, but just good clean fun when a Democrat did worse to a Republican governor.

Of the eight Ammiano bills sent to the governor's desk this year, Schwarzenegger vetoed six -- five of them after the Oct. 7 heckling incident. Mecke, Ammiano's spokesman, said the lawmaker wants to move on.

I'll bet he does. Now if only Arnie were a better governor.

The LA Times can't spend all its time covering for ACORN, so now it's doing what it can to cover for Obama's indecision on Afghanistan. In the Sunday edition, they ran (amongst other thing) a cartoon obviously meant to support a decision to not send extra troops, despite the fact that both the commander-in-chief ("listen to the generals!") and NATO allies ("don't be so unilateral!") think more troops are needed.

[Digression: The Europeans have known this all along, but (as usual) they were hoping to get out of actually doing anything about it, expecting the US to pick up the security bill ... but now that Obama is looking so weak at the knees they're trying to nudge Obama in the right direction by finally announcing they'll send extra troops.]

Anyway, the cartoon shows the skeletal remains of Alexander the Great, the British, the Russians, and finally a still living but unhappy Uncle Sam, caught in a spider's web that is Afghanistan. The British skeleton says to Uncle Sam, "more troops? Why didn't we think of that? Oh wait, we did." The message is clear. A shame the history doesn't align with the political message.

Let's take them one by one: Alexander the Great. A single campaign, which encountered many difficulties, nevertheless succeeded in planting Greek colonies in the region that would achieve independence and rule a successful kingdom in the region that lasted until about 125BC. The cartoon is wrong on two fronts: there was no issue of "extra troops" and the implied failure doesn't exist. The lesson of Alexander the Great is that you can go into the region and reshape it in your own image. Scratch one for the LA Times.

Then the British. Mostly, they didn't give a damn about Afghanistan, except to make sure the Russians couldn't use it to threaten their Indian Empire. Most British movements into the region were along the lines of "march in, kick heads, march out". I'm not exactly sure why the cartoonist thought it would be appropriate to have the words coming out of the mouth of the British skeleton. The times the British suffered real troubles in the region, it was mostly because of incompetent leadership. Again, this is a lesson Uncle Sam needs to learn, but the problem in this case doesn't seem to be with the generals and troops, but with the commander in chief in Washington. I'm reminded of the obituary of Brigadier Ted Hughes that appeared in the Daily Telegraph when he died aged 89, in 1987. He took part in the Third Afghan War, and wrote a memoir that was scathing of the British commanders. He wrote, "The Higher Command acted on the excellent principle that if you can't surprise the enemy it is better to surprise your own side than no one at all." Well, that certainly seems to describe the Obama Regime's approach to its own commanders (25 minutes on Air Force One for the general in command, with Obama doing most of the talking). After capturing Spin Baldak, the British forces improved its defenses and water supply, then marched off again leaving it back in the hands of their enemies. Again, that sure sounds like what Obama would like to do ... spend lots of time and effort to improve the infrastructure etc., so US troops can withdraw. As I said ... some good historical lessons, but not any that let Obama off the hook that justify not sending more troops.

Then the Russians. They were doing quite well until a certain power started arming the locals with things like stinger missiles. Without massive American assistance, the anti-Russian resistance would not have been nearly so successful. The Russian lesson is not that more troops won't solve the problem, but rather that you had better make sure that outside forces aren't providing massive aid for your enemies. A good lesson for the current situation, but not the one the cartoon seeks to make.

So even in a cartoon, the LA Times manages to continues its policy of being a) politically motivated b) factually incorrect and c) not worth the trouble of using it for more than scrap newsprint.

There's a new book out by Don Watson, the author of The Dictionary of Weasel Words. It's called Bendable Learnings. It's about government spin and the language of saying ... well, nothing much using big words.

The Tasmanian government defines outcomes as:". . .the benefits or other long-term changes that are sought from undertaking the project. They are achieved from the utilisation of the project outputs. Outcomes are linked with objectives, in that if the outcomes are achieved then the projects objective(s) have been met."

Edith Cowan University writes about student priorities policy as ". . .issues arising from the contributing feedback processes and are generally underlying causal issues being different from specific issues identified and addressed within the contributing feedback process".

I think the whole point of this kind of thing is either to a) make the obvious sound complicated, or b) to make obviously wrong things sound so complex that (they hope) no one will notice.

This seems to summarize the Obama Regime pretty well:

"This should not be a partisan issue," Obama said, urging bipartisan answers on a day largely devoted to raising campaign money for fellow Democrats. "The closer we get, the harder the opposition will fight."

Earlier in the story, there are some other priceless and almost cliche Obamantics:

President Barack Obama said Friday that opponents of his energy bill are disputing the evidence of global warming in a cynical ploy to undermine efforts to curb pollution and steer the nation to greener energy sources. Obama said some opponents "make cynical claims that contradict the overwhelming scientific evidence when it comes to climate change — claims whose only purpose is to defeat or delay the change that we know is necessary."

Firstly there are those vague nay-saying "opponents" ... he loves to use straw-men and nameless critics who he can then attack ... even if they don't actually exist. This time he's even more transparent than normal. Let's have the look at his straw-man position: opponents love pollution and hate things that are good for the environment. They oppose him because they are cynical, and they want to oppose necessary change. Oh, and don't forget the "scientific evidence" ... that is overwhelming despite the fact there hasn't been any global warming for a decade. Yes, I can feel the urge to go out and hug a chimney on a coal fired power plant, I want to swim in polluted waters, I want to dance in noxious gas clouds ... I love pollution because I'm cynical. I get off on opposing necessary changes. What other reason could I have for opposing the Dear Leader?

Time for someone to shout out, loud and clear, "you lie!" and this time, to direct it at Biden. Does anyone believe this?

Biden denied that the recent decision by the Obama administration to scrap the Bush administration's missile defense plan was a concession to Russia made to Europe's detriment. "They (those who hold such an opinion) are mistaken. The missile shield has nothing to do with Russia," said Biden.

On the other hand, given Europe's adoration of Obama and the recent decision to award him the Nobel Prize, I guess Biden has some justification for thinking that Europe is inhabited by fools and idiots.

This is what passes for progress in women's rights in the Middle East:

Kuwait's highest court has granted women the right to obtain a passport without their husband's approval.
The ruling is the latest gain for Kuwaiti women since they were granted the right to vote and compete in elections in 2005. Unlike in neighbouring Saudi Arabia, women in this small oil-rich ally of Washington can drive and travel without the permission of their fathers or husbands. Women activists still say they need equal access to government housing and the right to pass their citizenship to their children.

Yet somehow or other, Western feminists prefer to talk about "cultural relativity" and "respecting other countries" ... after all "these colors don't run (the world)" as a bumper sticker says, putting a liberal twist on a favorite conservative slogan. If only we had a Democrat in power, then all the world would embrace leftist ideals ... Oh wait...

I'm not sure which is worse: the fact that Anita Dunn can't pronounce the name of her favorite "political philosopher" Mao Zedong, or that a FOX News anchor makes an even worse hash job of it while running the Dunn video.

For contrast, here's a Chinese clip of Mao. They say his name in the first 10 seconds, and again at the 20 second mark, so don't worry that it's all in Chinese ... just listen for the name ... "Mao Zeh Dong" ... not the way Dunn or FOX says it.

It's not as if it's exactly hard to find the correct pronunciation, even without the help of a Chinese speaker. The internet really is a wonderful thing ...

The White House is getting all hot under the collar about Fox News, and in particular about Glenn Beck. Let's have a look how that's working out.

(Via Parenting Freedom. By the way, if anyone from Parenting Freedom reads this blog, I like the lead quote on your website: "Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?" Galatians 4:16)

If you've ever read or heard anything coming out of North Korea (and its mouth-piece KCNA), the following makes really rather startling reading:

If Koreans [are]... obsessed with the conception of confrontation, the north and the south will neither get reconciled nor united. If the situation is allowed to go on, the tension will escalate and invite even a national disaster in the end. Without eradicating the conception of confrontation is it impossible to improve the inter-Korean relations nor is it possible to achieve peace and the reunification of the country.

Firstly, it sounds remarkably rational, but secondly (speaking of socialist contradictions) it flies in the face of pretty much all North Korean rhetoric before this time. They're usually much more into this kind of thing:

the visitors expressed their resolution to wipe out to the last one the pernicious murderers, wolves in human shape, if they pounce upon the Korean people again.

There's even a random North Korean insult generator that is based entirely on real North Korean pronouncements, leading to such priceless gems as:

You arrogant bloodsucker, we will transform your country into a sea of fire!

So talk of moving away from confrontation is really something quite remarkable. In fact, I've noticed that KCNA has gotten a lot less heated in recent weeks, perhaps even months. There's been a change in North Korea, but what exactly that change is, it's hard to tell. They don't call it the Hermit Kingdom for nothing.

Time for another random website hit ... this time it is www.socialism.com. I guess it's about what you'd expect:

Today, in the midst of exhilarating upheaval against imperialism in Latin America, FSP [Freedom Socialist Party] has dived into study about Latin American issues and is working to develop connections with revolutionaries there, especially other Trotskyists. These are give-and-take relationships in which we are finding pronounced interest in our socialist feminist program and practice and are deepening our own political understanding. The FSP strives to integrate the lessons of Marxist history with an interventionist, creative approach to the present. Our staying power lies in a dialectical approach that aids in analyzing the contradictory real world, feminist dedication to the most oppressed, and optimism about the power of our class. We have confidence that our next years will be ones of growth both for the party and for the prospects for international socialist revolution.

I know, I know, it reads like a parody, but they appear to be serious. Still, they're not entirely in favor of the Obama Regime ... for example, you can sign a petition to oppose US support for the "coup" in Honduras. I kid you not. And speaking of the "contradictory real world" we can find a classic example at this website.

The FSP runs candidates on a provocative platform of much needed and achievable demands including community control of the police, legalization of drugs, employer-funded childcare, and taxing billionaires and millionaires to pay for social services.

Given the FSP's Marxist ideology there wouldn't actually be any billionaires or millionaires in their socialist utopia, and there wouldn't be any non governmental employers either. I'd love to see what a police department controlled by a community of FSP supporters would look like too ... but I wouldn't want to live anywhere near it! Come, see the contradiction inherent in the system! I bet they hate this clip. Hey, there's some lovely filth down here!