ON THE WEEKEND of April 14-15, 2007, delegates from the National Union of Journalists of Great Britain voted to boycott Israeli goods in a viciously-worded motion at their annual delegates' conference in Birmingham. The eminent journalist and MP Michael Gove has resigned from the union as a result. Adding insult to injury, the British media reported in recent days that the union had passed the motion in order to "show solidarity with Palestinian journalists in relation to the kidnap of BBC correspondent Alan Johnston." Did we hear that right?
The NUJ motion against Israel was excerpted in this clip from the Jerusalem Post:
. . . By a vote of 66 to 54, the annual delegates' meeting . . . called for "a boycott of Israeli goods similar to those boycotts in the struggles against apartheid South Africa led by trade unions, and [for] the [Trades Union Congress] to demand sanctions be imposed on Israel by the British government." The boycott motion was the third clause of a larger anti-Israel resolution proposed by the union's South Yorkshire branch that condemned Israel's "savage, pre-planned attack on Lebanon" last summer and the "slaughter of civilians in Gaza" in recent years.
The motion condemning Israel's "savage" treatment of Palestinian civilians after "the defeat of its army" by Hezbollah passed by an even larger margin than the boycott.
According to the Israeli media, the Daily Telegraph's Washington correspondent, Toby Harnden, characterized the vote as "inane, ineffectual, counterproductive and insulting to the intelligence."
The Jerusalem Post also reported that Yahoo Europe news director Lloyd Shepherd had joked that he now looked "forward to similar boycotts of Saudi oil (for abuse of women and human rights), Turkish desserts (limits to freedom of speech) and, of course, the immediate replacement of all stationery in the NUJ's offices which has been made or assembled in China."
I am a member of the NUJ and have avoided their meetings like the plague for the past four years for two reasons: 1) the tone of the meetings is always aggressively anti-Zionist and anti-American, and when I have been unwell I've found this exacerbated my illness; 2) journalists' work issues are often barely discussed because of the inordinate amount of time devoted to denouncing Israel's apartheid and condemning America's imperialist genocides.
Last week I decided to attend my branch meeting despite feeling under the weather. I was stunned by the motion about Israel and voiced my displeasure. I also raised with the chairman the issue of the anti-American rhetoric that permeates NUJ proceedings and publications but received only a furious rebuke from him about "America bombing the shit out of Afghanistan and Iraq."
At least one member at my NUJ branch observed that the vote had coincided with Israel's Holocaust Memorial Day. And I was touched that the members insisted on taking me out after the meeting and apologizing for the chairman's behavior, but this did not lessen the blow from my union--which is supposed to represent impartiality in the media--passing this reprehensible and ill-informed motion against Israel. The credibility of the NUJ has been irreparably damaged, and the ignorance of the facts on the ground by the union's Chair, Jeremy Dear, is inexcusable. It is a dark day for British journalism.
At this point, it is vital to note coverage by the NUJ magazine, and by the British media in general, of the issue of American friendly fire incidents in Iraq and Afghanistan, the nature of which led True Crime Blog UK to accuse the lot of jumping on the "'let's hate America' bandwagon."
In the True Crime essay, decorated with a Union Jack, the writer provides a comprehensive report on the recent decision by the Oxfordshire coroner ruling the death of Lance Corporal of Horse Matty Hull an unlawful killing, the culprits being the 190th Squadron of the United States Air Force Air National Guard. The event was a tragedy, and, in a video of the strike that was widely shown on American television, one could hear the anguish, tears, and remorse of the pilots, whose commander in the air was Gus Kohntopp, an A-10 Thunderbolt fighter pilot with the Idaho Air National Guard.
What bothers me, and what irks True Crime UK, is the excessive zeal with which the British media have been reporting this story and that of ITN reporter Terry Lloyd, also killed by American forces in the middle of a fierce firefight during the opening days of the invasion.
Take, for example, the March 29 edition of the BBC's Thursday night news review hosted by Andrew Neil. He allowed Charles Glass, a former hostage of Hezbollah, to get in a dig at the Americans who, he claimed, had never been brought to justice by their own authorities for friendly fire killings of British servicemen. In fact, there had, as the British papers acknowledged, been a Pentagon inquiry long ago into the Hull killing.
What has struck observers of the coverage of the friendly fire death of both reporter Lloyd and soldier Hull has been the aggressive way the story has been reported to the British public, as if both men had been killed by the Taliban or some other terrorist group. In both the Lloyd and Hull cases, the families and solicitors have sought the nearest microphones and cameras to condemn the 'trigger-happy' and 'cowboy' American troops and airmen. The Oxfordshire coroner had complained about the lack of transparency from both the British Ministry of Defense and the Pentagon--but what was that video I kept seeing on television over and over again? Where would it have come from?
Friendly fire has been a sad by-product of war since the ancient days of the Battle of Barnet. In the heat of conflict, mistakes are made. But the amount of coverage of these two incidents, and the hatred that the various players have shown towards the Americans at fault, have been disturbing. Whenever the lawyers have emerged from the courthouse, they talk about the American service personnel as if they had summarily executed these two men.
Kohntopp flew 27 combat missions in support of Coalition forces involved in Operation Iraqi Freedom. He called the deployment, "the epitome of my career," was awarded the Bronze Star for his performance during the operation, and was later promoted to colonel.
On March 28, 2003, two 190th Squadron A10 Thunderbolt aircraft flew a mission to destroy artillery and rocket launchers from Iraq's 6th Armored Division 25 miles north of Basra. During the mission, the two A-10 aircraft mistakenly attacked a patrol of four FV 107 Scimitar armored vehicles from D Squadron of the Blues and Royals of the Household Cavalry that were supporting the 16th Air Assault Brigade in Operation Telic. The air attack killed Matty Hull and five of his squadron were injured.
The True Crime site says "there is an America-bashing slant to some of the press attention . . . " and adds, "I once worked with someone who was passionate about fighting racism . . . but she thought nothing of claiming that all Americans were complete and utter idiots . . . she totally failed to see how prejudiced, how racist, her own anti-American views were."
Carrying on, the True Crime blog discusses the most grotesque exploitation yet of the Matty Hull case by the British media: a visit by ITN to the hometown of pilot Gus Kohntopp. The British film team camped out in the village and accosted a few locals who seemed completely bewildered by the intrusion. One woman just burst into tears when the British reporter began pressing her about the alleged wrongdoing of Col. Kohntopp.
Meanwhile, Kohntopp is reported to have gone into hiding. The widow of Matty Hull has offered, in a huge tabloid headline, "My Mercy for Matty's Killers." Mrs. Hull says she does not want to punish the "U.S. Criminals" (another blazing headline), but that this should be a lesson for other pilots about the enormity of what they are doing in the sky.
What is so disturbing about the coverage of this case is the fact that, had it been in reverse, it is likely the American press would have shown every possible caution and restraint in dealing with its close ally. It is simply impossible to imagine any major television network, or for that matter the family of a loved one, hammering away about 'cowboy' and 'trigger happy' Britons.
As this article goes to print, the British National Union of Journalists' magazine has circulated to its membership a proposal that the killing of journalists be made a crime under international law. Throughout the coverage of the Terry Lloyd incident, the British media have been brutal. The latest news story is the 'outing' of the soldiers who killed Lloyd. The Shadow Foreign Secretary, William Hague, wants to see the soldiers brought to justice. (The Tories used to be pro-American, but those days now seem a pleasant memory.) Yes, he was in a makeshift ambulance, but, in the heat of what was a fierce confrontation, did Lloyd and his camera team, who had decided not to be embedded with the military, seriously think the platoons were going to stop and say, 'Oh, do pass so we might resume the battle?'
Members of the National Union of Journalists UK have this week received a magazine in which an article entitled "New Moves to Nail Killers of Terry Lloyd" tells us that the British television broadcaster ITN revealed the names of sixteen soldiers in the Red Platoon of Delta Company of the U.S. Marine Corps, but the American authorities refuse to confirm the names. The feature further details the efforts being made by the Metropolitan Police's war crimes unit to visit the United States to interview the soldiers.
The NUJ's broadcasting organizer, Paul McLaughlin, was quoted as saying "we seek to bring Terry Lloyd's killers to justice. The U.S. has shown contempt for the British justice system." The article goes on to say that various international media freedom groups and unions, along with the International Federation of Journalists, support the NUJ, whose ultimate goal is to have all sixteen soldiers extradited to Britain for trial.
I simply cannot imagine the National Press Club lobbying to have British soldiers extradited to the United States due to a tragic error in the heat of battle in which, say, an American broadcaster had been killed.
There has been considerable derision in the press about the lack of experience of those reservist pilots deployed to Iraq from places like Idaho and Wyoming. In the past fortnight, unfortunate images of Prince Harry exiting night clubs in the wee hours have made their way into the newspapers. He is about to deploy to Iraq. Should he be with his regiment preparing for his mission? Will he be any more battle-ready than Gus Kohntopp?
Now, in the United States, the controversy about the friendly fire death of former football star Pat Tillman is in the news once more. There is talk of senior military officials being implicated in a cover-up of the incident. He was awarded the Silver Star, but this is now being interpreted as a ploy by the Pentagon to cover up the true nature of his death.
One difference, though, between this and the British cases: the American media are covering the story with dignity and with respect for all concerned--no one is talking of putting Tillman's comrades on trial for his death.
If America had gone in to liberate the 15 Royal Marines and sailors held in Iran, and in the unlikely event tragedy had resulted, given the present anti-American climate in the British media the next chapter would have been charges of war crimes against brave American men in uniform performing the most dreaded job on earth.
Anti-American and anti-Israeli feeling runs high in Britain every day. The disproportionate hostility to the Americans responsible for the deaths of Matty Hull and Terry Lloyd bring a new dimension to America-hatred in the British Isles. That the journalists' union wants to boycott Israel and see prosecutions for American soldiers in the thick of battle puts journalistic objectivity at a new low.
#3
Only the left wing papers are anti Israel or US.Most people on the street fall in to two categories A]They think the poor old Paelos are being bullied by the Israelis mostly out of ignorance/apathy and not knowing what Hamas stands for!!!!!
B]People like me who study the middle east and are aware that giving Gaza back gave them an opportunity to improve their lives and prove to the world they wanted peace/progress but instead chose violence and anarchy!!!!
Unfortnately A is the majority as most are uninterested/ignorant about Gaza/West Bank!!!!
Posted by: Paul ||
05/17/2007 12:13 Comments ||
Top||
#4
RWV: Why should the British journalists be any more competent or less prejudiced than Americans?
What I find amusing is that American journalists and many leftists share the views of their British journalist counterparts about Americans.
#5
What I remembere reading a couple of years ago (here, I think) was an opinion that journalists were the new "Inquisition", searching for perfection with religious fervor. I guess this means that servants of the state (military and police, for example)are heald to extraordinary high standards - perfection. The same thing with western democracies - be perfect or die.
Seems like that what we're up against.
Posted by: Bobby ||
05/17/2007 13:04 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I have a Doctorate of "Journalistic Jihad" and the Brits win hands down in the anti-USA dept.
They are *self avowed Haters of Bush and anyone, anything, any hint @ Americana.
/*self avowed.. had a commie professor who hated that term. ;-)
#7
On a semi-related note on the BBC via Instapundit:
SCIENTOLOGY: A uniter, not a divider! At least, they managed to get Johnathan Pearce to sympathize with a BBC reporter. No small feat, that. And an amusing line from the comments: "It seemed to me that on one side you had representatives of a fanatical cult trying to foist its views on the rest of the world and on the other... the Church of Scientology."
#8
As this article goes to print, the British National Union of Journalists' magazine has circulated to its membership a proposal that the killing of journalists be made a crime under international law.
Funny. I think it should be made an obligation.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
05/17/2007 15:37 Comments ||
Top||
#10
If any of these putrid farks wish to come to my humble rural burg I will glad to bless them with a baseball bat suppository. I would gladly do so for any "Pressman" getting his mug in my face however.
The unfolding story of the Republican presidential race has become a maddening maze of uncomfortable choices for the Republican Party's increasingly fractured conservative base. Each of the front-runners hold positions on bedrock issues that most conservatives agree with 90 percent of the time, but all of them also have something else in their background or record that is a deal-breaker.
Arizona Sen. John McCain, the hawkish champion of the Iraq war and anti-pork barrel crusader, hits all the right buttons on issue after issue, until you get to the party's core economic issue of tax cuts. He opposed all of the Bush tax reduction bills, making him a political pariah among the party's dominant economic conservatives.
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, on the other hand, has a record of tax cuts and slashing the city's bureaucracy, fighting crime, and leading a besieged city out of the abyss of September 11, 2001, in a career that has made his name synonymous with executive leadership. But Mr. Giuliani is out of step with the GOP's long-held position on abortion, gun controls, gay marriage and other social issues that triggers opposition to his candidacy from the party's social conservatives.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has cloaked himself in the mantle of Ronald Reagan, vowing to carrying on the tax cut revolution and slay costly Big Government with his veto pen. But he is a late convert to the pro-life agenda, raising persistent questions about the sincerity of his newly-held positions.
Nowhere is the conservative angst over its choices in 2008 more amply demonstrated than with former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, the star of the "Law and Order" TV drama. Mr. Thompson, who has yet to say whether he will be a candidate, has all the attributes that diehard conservatives can love: hawkish on defense, tough on spending, a Reagan tax-cutter to the core, and good on social issues.
But there are disturbing parts in his record, too, that bother many if not most conservatives, especially his support of the McCain-Feingold bill that prohibits issue advocacy groups from running TV or radio ads to express their opposition or support in the midst of an election.
On this issue, Mr. Thompson was joined at the hip with Mr. McCain, despite the bill's questionable constitutionality that is now being litigated in the courts. It strikes at the heart of one of our most precious freedoms -- the freedom to advocate and promote one's beliefs in the marketplace of public opinion. Dubbed the "incumbent protection act," this law strikes at the very rights of all advocacy groups, especially the social and religious conservatives, that were in many ways one of Mr. McCain's key targets, the people he called "agents of intolerance."
The other disturbing part of Thompson's record is what else he did in the Senate: virtually nothing. He led no great crusades, nor did he win any medals for leadership. In fact, when he was called to lead the investigation into illegal campaign contributions from China to President Bill Clinton's 1996 campaign, Mr. Thompson was rolled by the Democrats. Instead of tenaciously digging into the Chinagate scandal, following the money trail wherever it led, Mr. Thompson caved into Democratic demands for a strict time limit on the probe which ended prematurely, with little to show for it. So much for his leadership abilities.
All of this has turned the GOP's presidential sweepstakes into a wide open horse race where the dominant but deeply divided conservative wing is no longer in full control of the party's nominating process.
The most recent manifestation of the party's political balkanization can be seen in the primary calendar battles that I reported in a recent column. Florida Republicans, thumbing their nose at party rules, have moved next year's primary to Jan. 29, ahead of all but four states, knowing that it will result in penalties that would cut the state's 112-member convention delegation in half, reducing its conservative clout in choosing the nominee.
But this is a trade-off that the megastate's GOP officials and Republican Gov. Charlie Crist are willing to make in exchange for becoming the kingmaker in next year's primary contests. "Although the convention is important, whoever wins Florida on Jan. 29 will move into the Feb. 5 super primary day with great momentum and resources," Republican state chairman Jim Greer told me.
But Messrs. Crist, Greer and other state party leaders have another political card up their sleeve that they hope will win them a waiver from the Republican National Committee's primary rules. "There is some discussion that the nominee of our party could instruct the RNC to not impose the rule. I've heard nothing official, but it is behind-the-scenes discussion," Mr. Greer confided. "It would be of interest to see if that is a possibility."
Would the winner of the Florida primary -- where Mr. Giuliani is the clear front-runner -- promise state party leaders such a reprieve to gain the full winner-take-all delegate bonanza if it would put him over the top?
In an election cycle where it seems all the traditional party alliances and rules are being turned upside down, inside out, anything is now possible.
On paper, the appointment of three-star Gen. Douglas E. Lute as White House "war czar" - after five retired four-stars turned down the job - makes perfect sense. It's about time somebody took charge. The reality is something else: The whoppingly mislabeled "czar" will have neither the authority to force departments and agencies to do what they were supposed to do all along, nor the vital power of the purse. He'll have to rely on persuasion. In D.C., that's a joke.
Lord knows, the administration needs a grown-up to make its brats do their homework, to ensure that our commanders and troops get the support they need and to look ahead instead of forever scrambling to fix yesterday's goofs. But the problem with past "czars" has been that they were handed big missions and zero clout. Despite the hoopla surrounding their appointments, they were little more than nags in the government kitchen. At most, they provided the illusion that a problem was taken seriously.
I worked for the most effective "czar" of the past half-century. As director of the Office for National Drug Control Policy, retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey did a remarkable job of getting the government's cats and dogs (and not a few monkeys) to work together for the common good. But the major players could blow off even McCaffrey. The general could beat our nation's deadly enemies, but not the Washington bureaucracy. (To his credit, McCaffrey never used the term "drug czar" himself; an American patriot, he found "czar" repulsive.)
The fundamental issue is this: How much authority will the war czar have? If the usual pattern prevails, the feudal domains on the Potomac will nod politely when he speaks, but ignore him when their parochial interests are threatened. continued at link
#3
Amer has, or should have, more than enuff "War Czar(s)" already - its called CENTCOM(S), the USDOD, + the NATIONAL COMMAND AUTHORITY. Dubya's only "PLAN B" is to just seal off the entire nations and vital areas of IRAQ-AFGHANISTAN while still using US-Allied mil assets to surround and intimidate Moud - a major or primary prob wid this is that the fighting power of Radical Islam is left mostly intact "as is" andor "where is" [where US milfors are NOT NOR WILL BE THANX TO NPE POLITIX]], wid high potential for "more than now". BASIC MISSION OF "WAR CZAR" > HOLD THE LINE IN ME UNTIL MOUD = RADICAL IRAN IMPLODES OR DOES SOMETHING MIL STUPID.
* "Big missions ... zero clout ... little more than nags ... ilusion that a problem was taken seriously" > IOW, A PCorrect DIVERSION-PATSY, at best a POWERLESS FIGUREHEAD THAT EVERYONE WANTS TO CONTROL=DENY BUT NO ONE WANTS TO SEE SUCCEED.
One of the most frustrating aspects of the recent barrage of Kassam rockets on Sderot for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is that although he knows exactly what is behind it, that knowledge doesn't help determine how to respond.
It is clear to most that these attacks are an outgrowth of the Hamas-Fatah fighting in Gaza over the last few days. They are an attempt to provoke a massive Israeli response that would both unite the Palestinians against a common enemy, and divert international attention from the chaos in Gaza.
But knowing this doesn't make the policy choices available to the government any easier.
Hamas declared a unilateral cease-fire with Fatah to go into effect at 8 p.m. on Wednesday, but at the same time announced that the Kassam attacks would continue. Fortunately, these are Paleos
The transparency of that move is painfully obvious. The Palestinians will stop killing each other, and will provoke an Israeli response that will inevitably lead to more Palestinian casualties.
The television camera lens will then shift from showing Palestinian victims of Palestinian violence to showing Palestinian victims of Israeli violence. The whole narrative will change, and the world media will go from dealing with Gaza's fast descent into anarchy to Israel's "disproportionate" response to the firing of primitive "projectiles." Little will be said of the fear and trembling in Sderot, because that will pale in comparison to the death of dozens of Palestinians over the last few days.
If Israel responds to the Hamas provocation, which it will, it will be walking into a Hamas trap. It will be following the Hamas-written script exactly, doing precisely what Khaled Mashaal wants it to do.
Olmert knows that, his eyes are wide open. Yet, he has no real choice, and therein lies the crux of his dilemma.
Olmert cannot fail to respond. He cannot allow a situation to continue where one of the country's cities is under a barrage of rockets without the IDF responding forcefully. His domestic audience won't tolerate it. Olmert knows full well that in the current climate, Israelis want to feel that the government is taking steps to protect its citizens.
So Israel will take military action, and in so doing will paradoxically also be doing Hamas's bidding. Israel will deliver a punishing blow to Hamas, there will inevitably be collateral damage, and Hamas's goals will have been achieved. But there is little else that Olmert can do. Knowledge of the problem, at least in this case, doesn't make solving it any easier.
#1
As such, violence replaces peace in yet another sad chapter of the United States' failed global counter-terrorism policy.
Bullshit! Written by some MNLF hack. The MNLF and MILF have harbored the ASG, they have planned and attacked Phil troops on a regular basis. The Phil government needs to remove the key leaders to restore peace in the area. I say happy hunting.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
05/17/2007 10:23 Comments ||
Top||
Last month, Iran's president announced that the country had begun enriching uranium on an industrial scale, a pronouncement tantamount to declaring that Iran had become a full-fledged nuclear power. Skeptics, however, questioned Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's claim, suggesting that he was exaggerating or bluffing, hoping to head off more UN sanctions by portraying Iran's nuclear program as a fait accompli. There was plenty of time, some analysts suggested, to stop Iran from joining the nuclear club. The subtext: There's no need to panic. Let's just keep talking and talking ...
Looks like Ahmadinejad wasn't bluffing.
Iran appears to have solved most of its technological problems and is beginning to enrich uranium on a far larger scale than before. Tehran may well have passed the critical point, at which its scientists have mastered the technological feat of keeping thousands of delicate centrifuges spinning at terrific speeds. If so, that means all the assumptions about when Iran might be capable of enriching enough uranium to build a bomb would need to be recalculated. Tehran's ability to build a bomb -- estimated by various intelligence officials to be five to 10 years off -- is likely to be moved up.
Here's the math: International inspectors reportedly found that Iran has about 1,300 centrifuges running. If the Iranians can sustain that progress, their next milestone comes when they've got 3,000 running. At that point, nuclear experts said, Iran would be able to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a bomb within nine months or so.
"We believe they pretty much have the knowledge about how to enrich," International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei told The New York Times. "From now on, it is simply a question of perfecting that knowledge. People will not like to hear it, but that's a fact."
No, we don't like to hear it. But the sooner that fact is acknowledged, the sooner the Security Council can drop the pretense that the slow ratcheting of sanctions will force the Iranians to freeze their enrichment efforts. Incremental pressure won't budge Iran. The only sanctions with even the faintest hope of stopping the Iranians are also the ones that would require the greatest international cooperation and cause the most economic pain worldwide.
Embargoing Iran's oil exports, for instance, would stagger Iran's already shaky economy. But the embargo would likely spring huge leaks even as pump prices rocketed. The other sensitive Iranian target: gasoline. Iran has huge oil reserves but it lacks sufficient refinery capacity and must import more than a third of its gasoline, mainly from Europe and India. A gas embargo could devastate much of the country's industry, if it were enforced. Such dramatic measures could also backfire, rallying support for the ruling mullahs.
The next UN Security Council deadline for Iran to ignore falls next week. Then come discussions among world powers of new sanctions.
The list of options is narrowing. Here's the key: Any new sanctions must be based on the notion that Ahmadinejad is telling the truth. He's said, over and over again, Iran has no intention of halting its program. Is that negotiable? The only way to find out is to significantly crank up the price that Iran pays for defiance.
The next warning of Tehran's intentions may be the same one delivered by the North Koreans: The eviction of international inspectors. Then, Iran will be free to do what Pyongyang did: Build a bomb and threaten the world.
#2
Here's the math: International inspectors reportedly found that Iran has about 1,300 centrifuges running. If the Iranians can sustain that progress, their next milestone comes when they've got 3,000 running. At that point, nuclear experts said, Iran would be able to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a bomb within nine months or so.
The only silver lining here is, as with Islam's usual overreaching of itself, Ahmadinejad simply could not delay startup of the other thousand plus centrifuges until after our next presidential election. Instead he has ramped up production at maximum speed and given Bush the perfect rationale for bombing the crap out of Iran as a farewell gesture when he leaves office.
#3
TOPIX.NET > IRAN NEWS > Dubya has reportedly warned that the USA + Brit will, via the UNO, proceed to the next step and impose harsh sanctions on Iran iff Iran fails to rein in its nuc progs. After Dubya spoke, an Iranian spokeman in response said Iran will proceed wid its 3000 centrifuges installation. PROBLEM > the Iranian spokeman indic that Iran will install its planned 3000 centrifuges while NOT making it clear whether its 1600 [not 1300?]centrifuges already in operation are PART OF THE 3000, OR SEPARATE/EXCLUSIVE FROM THE 3000 i.e. 4,300-4,600 total???
#4
9-11/WOT > WAR FOR ANTI-US OWG-SWO = WAR AGX AMERICA, etc. It doesn't matter to anti-US agendists whether MOUD was "bluffing" or not, as THE BURDEN IS ON THE USA, AND ONLY THE USA, TO PROVE MOUD WAS "BLUFFING" vz TELLING THE TRUTH. WOT > the USA DESERVES TO BE DESTROYED = the USA WANTS/DESIRES TO BE DESTROYED.
What do leftist, mostly secular elites share with medieval sinners?
They feel bad that the way they live sometimes doesnt quite match their professed dogma.
Many in the medieval church were criticized by internal reformers and the public at large for their controversial granting of penance, especially to the wealthy and influential. Clergy increasingly offered absolution of sins by ordering the guilty to confess. Better yet, sometimes the well-heeled sinners were told to pay money to the church, or to do good works that could then be banked to offset their bad.
Of course, critics of the practice argued that serial confessions simply encouraged serial sinning. The calculating sinner would do good things in one place to offset his premeditated bad in another. The corruption surrounding these cynical penances and indulgences helped anger Martin Luther and cause the Reformation.
Maybe it was inevitable that the old practice of paid absolution would appeal to elite baby boomers a class and generation that always seems to want it both ways by compartmentalizing their lives. The only difference is that the new sinners are not so worried about Gods wrath as they are about their reputation among their judgmental liberal gods.
Take the idea of carbon offsets made popular by Al Gore. If well-meaning environmentalist activists and celebrities either cannot or will not give up their private jets or huge energy-hungry houses, they can still find a way to excuse their illiberal consumption.
Instead of the local parish priest, green companies exist to take confession and tabulate environmental sins. Then they offer the offenders a way out of feeling bad while continuing their conspicuous consumption. . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
05/17/2007 10:18 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I'd like to see bumper stickers that say, This SUV is a carbon offset for Al Gore's jet.
Or...We The Little People should go without so Al Gore can go first class.
#2
Use them for tipping. Works just great for me...
Posted by: Al Gore ||
05/17/2007 11:07 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Take the idea of carbon offsets made popular by Al Gore. If well-meaning environmentalist activists and celebrities either cannot or will not give up their private jets or huge energy-hungry houses, they can still find a way to excuse their illiberal consumption.
Carbon credits = a feel-good invention for it to be OK to be a hypocrite.
#6
OFFSETS > the future OWG + COMMIE-SOCIALIST WORLD ORDER need reasons to engage in Cold War-style, Commie-style, Global COMPLAN/GOSPLAN-style, BUDGET WRITE-OFFS. i.e. iff we pretend we don't have any debts, we don't. Conversely, iff the State pretends it has $$$, it does. YOU SEE WHAT HAPPENS, MORIARTY, WHAT PENNY/COIN HATRED DOTH BRINGS UNTO THE WELD.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Maybe it was inevitable that the old practice of paid absolution would appeal to elite baby boomers a class and generation that always seems to want it both ways by compartmentalizing their lives. The only difference is that the new sinners are not so worried about Gods wrath as they are about their reputation among their judgmental liberal gods.
