The Greenies have ruined our planet....

Two "N words":

NUCLEAR and NADER

ADDED: see my earlier “Greens have caused climate change”

(1) Nuclear

I can remember back in the sixties when we were going to build hundreds of nuclear power stations around the world. Even Australia, my country, would have done so.  But that didn't happen. It didn't happen largely because of Greenpeace's war of scaremongering about nuclear in which Nader was complicit.

Nuclear was then, and remains to this day, the most economic, the most reliable and the most clean way to generate the sorts of power the earth needs. It is most important as reliable caseload power for the times that the wind doesn’t blow, the sun doesn’t shine.

Instead, because of Greenpeace, we don't have anything like the number of plants we need ( 4,000 vs the 440 we have would make all the world’s electricity production carbon neutral). As a result we've relied much more on fossil fuels which we all hate -- yes, we agree with Greenpeace there. And as a result we've blown right past the 395 ppm of CO2 which is said to be some kind of red line which we should not have passed.

All due to Greenies.

(2) Ralph Nader

Nader was the third party candidate in the 2000 US election, running for the Green Party.  He took part even though many Democrats warned that he could take votes from Al Gore.  He denied that he did. But he did.  It's undeniable that the votes he won took the election from Gore.  (Here is the link to the spreadsheet that I did on the election results).

George W Bush won the Presidency by 271 to 266 Electoral votes.

In Florida, Bush "won" the popular vote by 537 votes (2,912,792 vs 2,912 253), which gave him Florida's 25 Electoral Votes.  (put aside the whole drama of hanging chads, etc).  Nader took 97,488 votes in Florida.  Had Nader not participated, the majority of these votes would have gone to Gore. Estimates are that about 80s% of otherwise Nader voters would have voted for Gore.
It actually needed  only 538 of Nader voters to turn up and vote for Gore, or 0.55% of Nader voters. If 80% of Nader voters had turned up to vote, Gore would have won Florida by over 77,000 votes.  And so, Florida's 25 electoral votes would have gone to Gore.

Gore would have won by 291 Electoral Votes to 246.  A win by 45 Electoral votes, far higher than Bush's slim 5 votes.

There's also the Nader votes in New Hampshire. Net result...

There's simply no doubt that many otherwise-Nader voters would have turned up to vote for Gore, had Nader not been there. As a result, Gore would have won the Electoral college vote (the only one which counts) by 295 vs 242, or an Electoral Vote win by 53. Gore would have won the election.
So: Nader's claim (to this day), that his vote didn't spoil Gore's chance at the presidency, is simply nonsense.

So what if Gore had won the presidency?  Well, there's 9/11.  Gore said at the time that he would have sent Special Forces into Pakistan and Afghanistan to search for Osama bin-Ladin. I can remember him saying that, at the time.  And this would have been a far wiser thing to have done. Not the attack on Iraq and then the attack on Afghanistan.  Let the Special Forces handle it, as they did in the end anyway. 

That may well have meant less chaos in the Middle East than we have now. (though I don't blame all the chaos on the US. They bear plenty of responsibility themselves -- eg, Tunisia and the beginning of the "Arab Spring", Syria made chaos on its own, etc).

So, there's part one of the Greenies' responsibility for their part in the destruction of the world: for Nader, let's recall, ran as a Green Party member.

Because Nader so Bush.  Because Bush so Iraq war.  Because Iraq war so Middle-east chaos.

The ex-Muslim and Muslim LGBTs at the Pride march

To: PRIDE in London:

I'm following this issue from Hong Kong and find your position not valid.

You really ought to support Muslim and ex-Muslims LGBTs.  If they say that certain mosques in London are homophobic, it's because they are (and murderously so).  If they say that Islam hates gays, it's because it does. (and here . Read up on Islam, if you don't believe me).

Anti LGBT views need to be called out and faced everywhere, not just in our comfortable secular christian society (where "Jesus is gay" posters go unremarked).

You can have your Pride, by all means.  But how about your Spine?

Show it, by announcing that they will be welcome at the next Pride march, and saying so, right now.

Pf, etc

Romaissaa the hijabi moaner

I first came across this young triggered Muslima , Romaissaa Benzizoune, in the New York Times, in this article:
The Muslim Prom Queen and Me.  Just the usual muslim victimhood story, I thought. O woe is me, being oppressed by the horrid west.
It turns out she has form:
Romaissaa Benzizoune is the worst roommate in America — by guest blogger Lulu

And even earlier she was moaning, when she went into the sea in a "burkini".  Note that the good folks, the readers of the NYT, mostly tolerant urban lefties, tear her apart. She didn't need to wear such a ridiculous piece of swimwear, and if she did, then don't moan about how uncomfortable it is, and how people look at you.

At Sea in My Burkini  
Just more Muslim victimhood.

China’s ageing solar panels are going to be a big environmental problem | South China Morning Post

I didn't know this about solar panels.
That they have a useful life of only about 20 years and that the costs of trashing them has not been factored into solar power costings.
By contrast a nuclear power station has a useful life around 80 years and the handling of waste is something that's mentioned every time we talk of nuclear power and, moreover - despite the scaremongering by greenies - has been solved.
The commenters on this article suggest that in time the waste solar panel issue will be solved. Which it may well be. It's still a cost that I've not seen commonly factored in to solar power costings.

Disappointing moments in evolution

I'm particularly close to example three here... as a daily wearer of crocs.
Via Jerry Coyne's estimable Why Evolution is True website (don't call it a Blog - says Jerry - though I don't know why).
Reminds me of this famous Gary Larson cartoon:

Young Iranian girl gives passionate defence of why she shouldn't have to wear a hijab | The Independent

The girl pictured in the video has remained anonymous  Screengrab

More on brave Muslim women in Muslim countries decrying the hijab. While trendy Lefties and so-called feminists in the west are fetishising the hijab. Way to go girls!
LATER: Canada celebrates (!) the hijab. Imagine if it were Christian women pushing the Nun's veil for all women...

Muslim terror condemnations just so much obfuscation

LETTER TO SCMP:

I guess we all know of the non-apology apology: "I'm sorry if you feel offended". How about the non-condemnatory condemnation?  This is what we've been hearing from a phalanx of Islamic apologists in your pages recently. Syed Ridwan Elahi is just the latest in this genre ("Muslim voices against terror drowned out", July 30). 

They all claim that they have been condemning terrorism. So why are we "misguided" non-Muslims still complaining?

Well, because these so-called condemnations are not really condemnations at all: terrorism is by people "with Muslim names" (i.e. they're not real Muslims). Or the terrorists have "distorted" Islam's message (i.e. It has nothing to do with Islam). Or terrorism is the fault of the West (i.e. because of "our wars of terror in the Middle East").  

What I'd like to see is some real honesty from these representatives of Islam, not obfuscation, obscurantism and deflection. 

Some brave Muslims - but too few - have addressed this issue front on: selected Koranic doctrines mandate the terrorising and killing of infidels. Many more Muslims - especially those in leadership positions - need to face up to these doctrines and neutralise them. The same as has been done with the Bible. 

No one imagines this will be easy. But the process can't begin until it's acknowledged. 

Until then no amount of non-condemnation condemnation is going to cut the ice. 

Pf, etc
Elahi's letter >>

Canada: Sold to the Highest Foreign Bidder

Shabnam Assadolahi, brave defender of women's rights in
Islam majority countries

Shabnam Assadolahi (she above) be a good woman and leftie women should love her. Look at what she does be:

Shabnam Assadollahi, born in Iran and now residing in Ottawa, Canada, is a human rights advocate who has worked helping newcomers and refugees resettle in Canada, and as a broadcaster, writer and public speaker, primarily on the Iran. She also advocates for the emancipation of women and minority religious communities worldwide.

Now: just today I hear via good ol' Auntie Beebs that some women in Turkey  are protesting against moves to restrict their clothing choices even further: "further" given the extent to which they've already been restricted, hijabized, niqabized and burkaized.  The call of these brace protesting women is something like "keep your hands off our clothes". 

I wonder if their feminist sisters in the west will come to their support. Actually I wonder not. They won't. Because their support of Islam trumps their support of women. And their support for Islam why is that? Because Islam be poor and downtrodden. And brown. That trumps feminism in any totem pole of oppression.

So, we have here in reported by Assadolahi in the Gatestone Institute  the insane, the sickmaking celebration of the hijab in Canada. 

Trudeau marches along the road to the destruction of western civilisation. He's already said "Canada has no identity". Proudly, one must note. 

Leading Voices of Islam in America reveal bigotry| Clarion Project

Voices of authoritative Islamic scholars in America, in the Clarion Project.
Some are even known as "moderate". They clearly spell out the Islamic views on what Islam supports because Islamic doctrine supports it and because the prophet (PBUH) supports it.
In these three clips, Islamic scholars show how normative Islam supports:

• Female Genital Mutilation
• Slavery
• Subjugation of women

For most on the Left simply pointing this out will be labelled "Islamophobia".
We need to understand that it's "another culture", they will say, and all cultures are deserving of equal respect.
Not (says I).

Whatever happened to the new atheists.

Sam gets excoriated. Chomsky lionised.  The opposite of what should be

The horrid Noam Chomsky gets a mention here.  He of the "six degrees of Chomsky" fame, as put out by Gaad Saad.  Find any problem in the world and then trace the six links to make it the fault of America.  Usually only needs one or two.
Here we see an analysis of why the left breaks Islamic.  Or at least, if not an analysis, a look at, a drive by....
They, the crazy left, the far left, the ctrl-left, the regressive left, fear to "get applause from the wrong side", is one clear explanation.  You don't want to be applauded, for critiquing Islam, by the right.
In "Whatever happened to the new atheists" in the National Review

But more attention is needed to the specific nature of the Left’s double standard when it comes to Islam. Why must ardent secularists from the Islamic world like Ayaan Hirsi Ali — the type of people the Left looks to for inspiration in the history of Western secularism — be deemed bigots, while Sharia-supporting conspiracy theorists like Linda Sarsour are cherished? Why has criticizing Islam caused the New Atheists to cross a red line in the progressive imagination? These positions make no sense if one thinks of the Left as seriously secular, convinced of the need to end the reign of superstition. But American liberals profess neither the passionate skepticism of David Hume nor the honest, urgent atheism of Nietzsche. They prefer to embrace a shallow, culture-war atheism instead. This culture-war atheism provides “evidence,” quick and easy, to support the proposition that America is split into two camps: the intelligent, sophisticated, urbane, righteous liberals and the idiotic, gullible, backward, bigoted conservatives. The former are atheists and the latter are believers, flattering one side and bludgeoning the other. In fact, it is this type of thinking that made progressives fall in love with the New Atheists in the first place.

London Pride: Don't Deny Ex-Muslims Our Struggle | Clarion Project

Queers, faggots, blasphemers, apostates... kill!!

Gay Muslim and ex-Muslims get called Islamophobic! For calling out the murderous homophobia of Islamic countries and of some mosques in Britain. (At the sound Clarion Project)
In 14 Muslim majority countries homosexuality is punishable by death: beheading, stoning or -- as in Iran -- by being hanged off a crane.
This is a very good article by a gay ex-Muslim who attended the recent Pride march in London.
He points out, by the way, that apostasy and blasphemy are also punishable by death in those same countries. And some on the U.K. Left are bowing to that bit of sharia law in the U.K. Well meaning, perhaps (though likely not), but dangerously ignorant.

Malaysia Welcomes Hamas, Brotherhood: Report | Clarion Project

Refuge in Malaysian islands if the  Muz Brotherhood comes in to M'sia

Wow this is not good news for us here in this part of the world:

 Malaysia has offered to be the new home for Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas officials who may be bowing out of Qatar to alleviate Qatar's crisis with the Gulf and Arab states.

Malaysia has often held up as an example of a "moderate Muslim" country, one where Islam and democracy can coexist. That's always been a dubious proposition -- it's an openly racist country (the Bumiputra policy, racist ID cards policy), and it's becoming more Islamified, a trend across the world. 

But allowing in -- inviting! -- Muslim Brotherhood dudes and Hamas loonies will only make all this much worse. And there's 92-year old ex PM, Mohammad Mahathir looming back -- he the openly Jew hater. 

Not good!

On the place of western civilisation | Dennis Prager vs Bret Stephens.

It woz western civ wot built this.

Bret Stephens transferred a few months ago from the Wall Street Journal, where he was the house liberal, to the New York Times where he's the house conservative. A kind of centrist in other words. 

I've enjoyed his columns over the years, thoughtful and clearly written. But here he loses the argument to Dennis Prager, I think. Just too much cultural relativism that's scared  to say that some cultures are indeed superior to others. A culture that values freedom of thought, freedom of faith, equal rights for all genders and minorities is superior to one that provides none of these rights.  

But post-modernism has made that statement a taboo for good lefties. Especially those of the Regressive Left or Ctrl-Left.   

Al-Aqsa Mosque Conflict: Palestinian Leaders Manufacture Senseless Violence | National Review

Palestinian youth attack Israelis who are defending their right to pray....

Just now on BBC World Service Radio, the anchor was trying hard not to reveal to listeners her bias, her clear hatred of Israel and the recent increased security at the Temple Mount, in response to the killing of Israeli soldiers there.

But, as this article at the National Review notes:

The current spate of violence started last week, when Palestinian terrorists smuggled guns into the Temple Mount. The guns were then used to murder two Israeli-Arab police officers guarding one of the entrances to the al-Aqsa mosque. Afterward, the attackers ran back to the Temple Mount plaza to engage in an open gun battle. (This was all the more shocking since the Temple Mount, home to al-Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock, is considered the third-holiest site for Muslims and the holiest site for Jews.)

In response, the Israelis temporarily closed the Temple Mount for a police investigation. The site was later re-opened with metal detectors and security cameras installed at its entrances. That Israeli response — not the Palestinian smuggling of weapons, not the Palestinian attack, not the shooting that followed — was then deemed an outrageous desecration of the holy site by Palestinians and their leaders. [my emphasis]

And then, just to spur the violence a touch more, these votaries of the "religion of peace" recommend:

Abbas's Fatah party told its followers to "Set out for the al-Aqsa Mosque" on Facebook, initiating riots and clashes with Israeli police. Videos, however, showed large crowds of Palestinians chanting slogans against President Abbas, who is widely perceived as weak. Eager to fight that perception, Fatah's Revolutionary Council, chaired by Abbas, escalated the situation by declaring Wednesday a "day of rage," calling for mass demonstrations at al-Aqsa and throughout the suburbs of Jerusalem. Abbas has since placed responsibility for the resulting violence on the Israeli government, of course.

Remember, these are the Palestinian "moderates." 

More of the "anything Israel does is wrong-criminal, anything the Palestinians do is correct-justified" narrative.

Article follows below the fold:

"Many Muslims and mosques victims of attacks in the West" | I annotate Adeel Malik's moaning

The annotated version of the above article, linked to earlier (20 July). 

My comments indented. 

ADEEL MALIK LETTER:

In her letter ("Why Muslims must speak out against attacks", July 11) Marian Schneps says, "Muslims bear the brunt of terror in Muslim-majority countries in the Middle East, not in France, Britain or America", but conveniently leaves out important facts.

The terror visited upon Muslims in the Middle East is a result of the mismanaged and illegal invasion of Iraq, jointly led by Britain and America, a war that spawned Islamic State (IS). 

The invasion was certainly stupid. Rather as if the US, after the attack on Pearl Harbour, had invaded Mexico. "Illegal"? That's questionable. "Spawned Islamic State"? Saddam Hussein was already working in an ISIS precursor, the Faith Brigades. 

And the very fact that chaos ensued after the allied invasion of Iraq shows up the sectarianism of these groups who's religiously-based hate of each other had only been kept in check by brutal dictatorships. 

Also, all three countries cited above have for decades sold weapons to dictators in the Middle East, including Bashar al-Assad, who will probably have a stronger grip on power with the impending collapse of IS.

Support dictators and keep the peace? Or overthrow dictators and create chaos? US can't win!

What citizens in the West (including Muslims citizens there) are currently dealing with are sparks from the bonfire the West is no doubt responsible for igniting. 

No it's not. The so-called Arab Spring was sparked by a Tunisian stall holder self immolation in protest at overbearing government. 

Meanwhile, in France, Britain and America , where Ms. Schneps claims Muslim citizens "do not bear the brunt of terror", Muslims have to live with this terrifying fear.

What "terrifying fear" do Muslims have to live with in the West? Governments, liberal media and Left of centre Islam apologists regularly speak out for the rights of Muslims. The speak out against Islamophobia (which would be better themed "anti Muslim bigotry, for the term "Islamophobia" is used by islamists to silence valid criticism of the tenets, the ideas, of Islam). Given the rash of terrorist incidents in recent years in the name of Islam, its the tolerance of Europe and the west, not its bigotry that's on display. 

The Muslim headscarf acts as a lightning rod for attacking Muslim women, and well over 1,000 mosques across the West have experienced at least one incident of vandalism. These have included – Molotov cocktails and small explosive devices being thrown within the mosque's compound; arson attacks resulting in mosques being burned to the ground; and armed demonstrators picketing mosques as well as threatening letters and phone calls. There have also been threats of violence against Muslims in the West, who are loyal citizens of the countries where they live. These attacks have happened – according to statistics compiled by Tell MAMA (Measuring Anti-Muslim Attacks) and other civil rights groups – due to unabated one-sided rhetoric exacerbating Islamophobia.

Some attacks on mosques have been by Muslims aiming to blame them on "Islamophobia". 

TellMAMA got its funding from the U.K. Government stopped because it was exaggerating attacks by including nasty words on Twitter. *Everyone* gets attacked on Twitter! Attacks on hijabis are not on. But neither is the fetishising of the hijab. 

"Islamophobia" is a bogus term coined by islamists to stop even valid criticism of the *idea* of Islam. 

Your correspondent points out there is a "distinct trend of terror committed in the name of Islam in countries that are majority Christian". However, she overlooks how the key proponents in the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and in the war on terror are the US, Britain and France. They are also the primary supply source of weapons for the conflicts in Syria and Yemen. The US, Britain and France are predominantly Christian countries.

Therefore, it would be dishonest to claim this is a war between Islam and Christianity. Instead, it is very much about dirty politics and power, with religion used as a front.

This is false moral equivalence. There is a difference between armed forces trying to avoid civilian casualties while going after the perpetrators of violence who specifically aim at civilians. 

Adeel Malik, chairman, Muslim Council of Hong Kong

LATER: And then, letter from Marian Schneps, Wanchai:

"Many Muslims and mosques victims of attacks in the West”, Letters 19 July

LETTER TO SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST:

Adeel Malik's letter is a litany of victimhood.("Many Muslims and mosques victims of attacks in the West", Letters 19 July).  Malik, chairman of the Muslim Council of Hong Kong, wants us to believe that all the ills of the world are the fault of the West. From the mess in the Middle East to Islamophobia none has anything to do with Islam. 

Many people buy this narrative. I don't. But it's not my aim to dispute it in these pages. 

Rather, I'd like to ask chairman Malik if he has read the recent startling report in the New York Times about his coreligionists in Hong Kong who have become recruiters for the Islamic State. That's right: some Indonesian helpers are finding their life in Hong Kong "too lonely and meaningless".  So what else to do but become a recruiter for ISIS? (Note that Filipinas, with exactly the same pressures, don't default to recruiting for violence). 

The Times article suggests that Islamic bodies in Hong Kong -- the Muslim Council of Hong Kong for example -- step in to turn these young women away from their incipient terrorism. 

I wonder if Mr Malik is aware of this situation and if so has his organisation done anything about it?

Or will they not, and then claim that a future terrorist attack on Hong Kong is the fault of the West?

Pf

Many Muslims and mosques victims of attacks in the West | South China Morning Post

Here is the link is to yesterday's letter in the South China Morning Post by Adeel Malik, chairman of the Muslim Council of Hong Kong, that I referred to in the post immediately below. 

The Post is definitely "breaking bad" in favour of islam apologists. It "owes" us on the other side of the issue rather more space!

MALIK's LETTER:

In her letter ("Why Muslims must speak out against attacks", July 11) Marian Schneps says, "Muslims bear the brunt of terror in Muslim-majority countries in the Middle East, not in France, Britain or America", but conveniently leaves out important facts.

The terror visited upon Muslims in the Middle East is a result of the mismanaged and illegal invasion of Iraq, jointly led by Britain and America, a war that spawned Islamic State (IS). Also, all three countries cited above have for decades sold weapons to dictators in the Middle East, including Bashar al-Assad, who will probably have a stronger grip on power with the impending collapse of IS.

What citizens in the West (including Muslims citizens there) are currently dealing with are sparks from the bonfire the West is no doubt responsible for igniting. Meanwhile, in France, Britain and America , where Ms. Schneps claims Muslim citizens "do not bear the brunt of terror", Muslims have to live with this terrifying fear.

The Muslim headscarf acts as a lightning rod for attacking Muslim women, and well over 1,000 mosques across the West have experienced at least one incident of vandalism. These have included – Molotov cocktails and small explosive devices being thrown within the mosque's compound; arson attacks resulting in mosques being burned to the ground; and armed demonstrators picketing mosques as well as threatening letters and phone calls. There have also been threats of violence against Muslims in the West, who are loyal citizens of the countries where they live. These attacks have happened – according to statistics compiled by Tell MAMA (Measuring Anti-Muslim Attacks) and other civil rights groups – due to unabated one-sided rhetoric exacerbating Islamophobia.

Your correspondent points out there is a "distinct trend of terror committed in the name of Islam in countries that are majority Christian". However, she overlooks how the key proponents in the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and in the war on terror are the US, Britain and France. They are also the primary supply source of weapons for the conflicts in Syria and Yemen. The US, Britain and France are predominantly Christian countries.

Therefore, it would be dishonest to claim this is a war between Islam and Christianity. Instead, it is very much about dirty politics and power, with religion used as a front.

Adeel Malik, chairman, Muslim Council of Hong Kong

Migrant Maids and Nannies for Jihad - NYTimes.com

Hong Kong maids, aka "helpers" relaxing on their Sunday off.

Jihadi maids in our Hong Kong! In the New York Times.
Note the reasons they give for turning jihadi -- alienation and feelings of emptiness. Why, one wonders, don't the Filipina maids here in Hong Kong also turn violent? They have the same pressures after all. Could it be that the ideology of Islam gives the Indonesian hijabi maids that little extra fillip? That little extra Koranic push to incite the killing of infidels? To suggest this is, of course, Islamophobic.
Letter to that imam who wrote in to the South China Morning Post yesterday comin' up!

Carrie = Maggie? Probably not, more’s the pity

Carrie Lam

So now we have our new CEO, Carrie Lam, and while she's a woman, she's probably not a Margaret Thatcher, which was the fear of the likes of Keith McNab.
Below is my correspondence with said McNab, via the pages of the South China Morning Post:

Letter to South China Morning Post:

************

Dear SCMP:

Keith McNab is “filled with horror” that a leader in the style of the late Margaret Thatcher might become CEO of Hong Kong. (“City does not need divisive Thatcher clone”, Letters, 3 February 2017)*.

As an Australian who spent three years in Britain in the seventies please allow me to comment on his criticism of Thatcher.

First, he says she was the “worst or most hated prime minister in the last 100 years”. 

Not true. In 2004 the most extensive survey of previous UK prime ministers placed Thatcher at 4^th out of 20 as the most effective, after Clement Atlee, Winston Churchill and David Lloyd George. [Reference]

Second, he says her policies led to “mass unemployment”.  Indeed her shake up of the economy led to immediate unemployment, but by the end of her term, unemployment was back to normal levels.  And these were employed in better jobs than lung choking coal mining.

Perhaps McNab forgets that in the seventies’ Britain the union stranglehold on the workforce, especially of the miners, led to regular strikes, high unemployment and crippling inflation. [After: and the Three Day Work Week]. 

Third, he says selling of council housing led to a “social housing crisis”.  In fact, the sale of council houses to tenants (“the right to buy”), had been Labour Party policy.  Thatcher took up the policy and accelerated it.  It was hugely popular. Michael Heseltine said: "no single piece of legislation has enabled the transfer of so much capital wealth from the state to the people." [Reference]. The “crisis” McNab refers to is that there was not as much council housing built to replace that sold.  But that was due to Labour Party insistence that proceeds from sales not be used for building new public housing.  Thatcher had wanted more built.

Fourth: the poll tax.  I agree with McNab.  This was certainly an own goal by Thatcher.  It was late in her stewardship, a clear misjudgment which she quickly corrected. It doesn’t detract from her overall legacy.

Finally: McNab calls for a leader that can “unite the people”. This may seem to be unarguable.  But it’s part of human nature and the nature of politics that division is the norm.  Mao Tse-tung said “one divides into two”.  That’s why we have Conservative-Labour,  Republican-Democrat,  Liberal-Labor (in my own country).  A call for “unity” sounds nice and uncontroversial, but is impossible.

Maggie Thatcher’s speechwriter said that she carried the following quote from President Lincoln in her handbag:

·      You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

·      You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

·      You cannot help the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer.

[Reference]

I would certainly be happy to have a CEO of Hong Kong that hewed to those principles.

PF

 McNab's letter:

(*) City does not need divisive Thatcher clone

Mark Peaker wants to see Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor or John Tsang Chun-wah govern Hong Kong with the passion of Margaret Thatcher, and describes her as the UK’s greatest post-war leader (“Thatcher took a broken UK and fixed it”, January 20).

Such an outlandish statement cannot go unanswered. Thatcher is regularly voted as either the worst or the most-hated prime minister of the last 100 years and she divided the nation as never before nor since.

Her economic policies cost two million jobs and resulted in mass unemployment. Her housing policies, including selling off council houses, precipitated a social housing crisis from which the UK has never recovered. Her introduction of the poll tax resulted in some of the worst rioting ever seen in ­England. It was withdrawn by the next Conservative prime minister after Thatcher was forced out by her own party.

The idea that Hong Kong should have a leader in the style of Thatcher fills me with horror. More than anything, Hong Kong needs a leader who will unite the people, not divide them in the way that Thatcher did in the UK.

Keith McNab, Sai Kung

I've Worked with Refugees for Decades. Europe's Afghan Crime Wave Is Mind-Boggling. | The National Interest

Goodness me. A long, thoughtful and frankly alarming article, from a woman who knows whereof she speaks. Well worth the close read, and then wonder how Europe can continue on its current path or try to avert its own decline.
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/ive-worked-refugees-decades-europes-afghan-crime-wave-mind-21506?page=show


Sent from my iPhone

Believe me, terrorism is more than a ‘nuisance’

They haven't -- or haven't yet-- run my letter, but did one similar:

https://www.ft.com/content/a7bbaf82-6661-11e7-8526-7b38dcaef614

Sent from my iPhone

Israel’s Secret Arab Allies - NYTimes.com

Hmmm. Interesting summary of the good trends for Israel, the only truly democratic country in the region. Note especially the increasingly close links with the Palestinian Authority. Could this be a de facto solution, slowly slowly towards true independence and self rule by the West Bank?

TEL AVIV — United States and Israeli officials seem convinced that a regional peace agreement between Israel and the Arab world may be in the offing. On his recent trip to the Middle East, President Trump said that a "new level of partnership is possible and will happen — one that will bring greater safety to this region, greater security to the United States and greater prosperity to the world." The main stumbling block remains the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, an emotive issue that still carries strategic weight in Arab capitals. Yet the president isn't completely wrong. Across the Middle East these days, often away from the headlines, Israel finds itself deeply involved in Arab wars.

This law might explain why a Russian lawyer wanted to meet with Trump - The Washington Post

Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya Moscow, Russia November 8

Of all the hoopla about the Russian lawyer Ms Veselnitskaya -- was she or wasn't she a rep of the Russian government -- this article by Ann Applebaum gives a new and interesting perspective.
There's a bunch of oligarchs in Russia that are really, really pissed off with the Obama sanctions.

"A clash of civilisations or community". Martin Wolf | Financial Times, 12 July 2017

Letter to the Financial Times:

Martin Wolf says "Terrorism is just a nuisance". In contrast, Soviet Communism was "an existential threat". ("A clash of civilisations or community", 12 July 2017)

Certainly the Soviet Union was a clear and present danger. In the Cold War it was a clearly defined entity within clearly defined borders with a clearly defined government and nuclear-armed forces. Nothing like today's terrorists, in other words. We should note however that there were no terrorist acts on the West by Soviet forces, so the degree of threat is not necessarily defined by its terrorist acts. 

Thus the Islamist threat to the West now is not -- or not just -- from terrorist acts. There I agree with Mr. Wolf.  But I don't agree that that makes the threat simply "a nuisance". The real threat is from those in Islam who want to impose its ideology on the world. The Islamic threat may not be a monolith. But it does have cross-border organisations. The Organisation of the Islamic Conference, for example, brings together 57 Islamic countries, a formidable group within the United Nations, promoting inter alia Islamic blasphemy laws. The Islamic Declaration on Human Rights was specifically formulated to counter the UN's Universal Declaration and states explicitly that human rights must be subservient to Sharia law. 

And let's not forget the many polls of Muslim attitudes, in Islamic countries and in the West alike, that reveal troubling levels of intolerance across the board from the treatment of sexual minorities and women to punishments for blasphemy and apostasy. 

It may be that we don't have a single monolithic enemy like the Soviet Union of yore. But this threat to the West may be all the more dangerous for that. Its very disparity may fool many in the West to discount it as being "just a nuisance", like the Martin Wolfs of the world. 

It's not just a nuisance. It's just that it's not clear and present.  Present, yes, but strategically unclear.

Peter Forsythe
etc

Robert Spencer: Pope Francis, Defender of Islam

The Marxist Pope

I've written before about Bergoglio, the crypto-Marxist apologist for Islamic mass murder.

What a shocking pope to have in these dangerous times. 

Jihadwatch has a good summary of his crimes and misdemeanors. 

Pope Francis received a noteworthy honor last week when Ahmed al-Tayeb, the Grand Imam of Cairo's al-Azhar, thanked him for his "defense of Islam against the accusation of violence and terrorism."

Has any other Pope of Rome in the history of Christianity ever been heralded as a "defender of Islam"?

Of course not. But the Catholic Church has come a long way since the days of Pope Callixtus III, who vowed in 1455 to "exalt the true Faith, and to extirpate the diabolical sect of the reprobate and faithless Mahomet in the East."

Trump l'oeil

How delicious.
This is a 1989 Doonesbury cartoon.  Note the "Trump l'oeil" in the last panel.  I'm guessing that this is the first use of this clever play on words  - referencing of course the term trompe l'oeil.  Things that seem to be things, but are not. For example, murals that fool us into thinking that there's a window there, when it's just the painting of a window.
Banksy does many clever trompe l'oeils (trompes l'oeil?)
Thus Trump l'oeil.  Trump has fooled us -- or fooled enough Americans -- into thinking he is things that he's not.  For example:

• That he's a great businessman when he's not.
• That he's a great negotiator when he's not.
• That he's a great philanthropist when he's not.
• That he had the largest inauguration crowds when he didn't.
• That he "tells it like it is" when he doesn't.
• That he loves women when he's a misogynist.
• That he can "repeal and replace Obamacare", when he doesn't know the first thing about Health Care.
• That he made great achievements in his first 100 days when they were the "worst on record".
• That he's the president of the United States when he's not.  Scrub that one -- Trump l'oily one is, he really is, the President of the United States.  The ultimate trick on all of us from the tsunami of all that slickery from the oleaginous Donald.

Canada Passes 'Blasphemy' Bill To Silence Critics Of Islam | Zero Hedge

Wow; somehow I missed this on my travels. ("Canada passes "blasphemy" bill to silence critics of Islam" from ZeroHedge.com)
Canada has passed a motion for legislation to outlaw "Islamophobia" a bogus term coined by Islamists to silence critics and nowhere defined in the legislation.
This is where Australia's controversial 18C hate speech legislation could head if we're not careful.
Shame on Trudeau. Shame on their Liberal party, which is clearly not small-L liberal at all.
This law will render mute any criticism of an *idea*, that of Islam. What of the many clear and present shortcomings of that idea? Its misogyny, its homophobia, its sectarianism, its anti-semitism, its supremacism? These now can't be addressed and criticised for fear of being tossed in jail.
Shame on Canada.
Meantime Trudeau's government has given a huge financial gift to Ohmar Kadri, a Muslim boy fighter who was jailed for having killed a Canadian soldier: a killing that was proven and never denied by Kadri.
It's all a bit murky, but one can't help feeling his pay-off is because of Trudeau's leftie western guilt and its flip side: obeisance to Islam, the same obeisance shown in his latest Islamophobia legislation.
Shame shame on Canada.

City Slicker vs. Country Bumpkin: Who Has a Smaller Carbon Footprint?

Remember I said that I thought studies showed the greenhouse gas emissions per capita of people in cities were less than those of people in the country? But I couldn't remember the study.
Here is one, reported in LiveScience, that was done in 2009 and backed up by 20 or 30 follow-up studies, so says the article.
In short, and on average, city dwellers do indeed emit fewer carbon dioxide emissions per person than country folk.

Recipe for Disaster: Immigration Without Assimilation | Clarion Project

From Shabnam Assadolahi, who fled the theocracy in Iran and wonders why the West is following Islamist lines. ("Recipe for Disaster", Clarion Project)

Many countries in the West are seeking to accommodate radical Islamism following the flow of Middle Eastern immigrants to Europe and the North America in the name of multiculturalism and cultural relativism.This sentiment is expressed, for example, in events such as Hijab Solidarity Day , celebrated widely in the West, attempts to enshrine Islamic (sharia) law into the British legal system and passing what almost amounts to a blasphemy law in Canada (Motion M-103).This trend in the West is problematic. Under Islamic law, in some countries, thieves face the punishment of having their hand and leg severed; females who commit "adultery" face death by stoning, beheading or hanging. Homosexuality is a crime punishable by death.Are these cultural values morally equivalent to Western values? In Islamic countries ruled by sharia law, limits are placed on equality of women, such as prohibitions against driving, employment and education.Is female genital mutilation, which is practiced bymany Muslim-majority countries — a morally equivalent value? We will soon see when the FGM case in Michigan goes to trial. Lawyers in the case have said that the doctor accused of cutting girls will claim freedom of religion as her defense.In Iran, the country from which I escaped, women have resisted over the past 39 years this barbaric legal framework that is incompatible with modern values and basic human rights. Yet, some of these very same sharia laws are slowly being incorporated in the West in the name of multiculturalism.