As most of you know, I also blog over at BlackFive.net under the name “McQ”. It’s my “military outlet” and I love both the opportunity and the access to the milblog community it affords me. One of the things most encouraging about that particular blog venue is the community it entails. People with skin in the game – through service or being related to someone who has or is serving or members of support groups (Soldier’s Angels or the USO) who serve the troops.
Compared to the political game that I keep mostly at home here, it’s a pretty mellow place. There are a few times when authors pop off about things which rankle them, but mostly it’s about our warriors, our veterans and what we can do as a group – a community – to make life better for them. Many excellent organizations have spun out of the BlackFive effort. The Warrior Legacy Foundation for one. Cooking for the Troops for another. This is all evident to anyone who knows the site and actually reads it regularly and knows its founder, Matt Burden.
So it came as a bit of a surprise when BlackFive came under what I can only call an unfounded and scurrilous attack by two blogging nobodies who couldn’t shine Matt Burden’s boots, much less fill them. One of the yahoos called, of all things, for an “intervention”.
What the hell is that? Obviously something the one author, a Harvard PhD with no skin in the military game, learned in those pussified but hallowed halls – or from watching too much Oprah.
Well, I ‘m ready for an intervention, right now. And yes, I will be going ad hominem in this post because when a group with whom I’m proud to be associated is characterized as “[t]hese erstwhile mullahs of the American Taliban”, I consider that ban to be by the boards and those to be fighting words. And they deserve every bit of what I plan on saying.
The impetus for this “intervention” was a post by one of the BF authors, Crush. He was obviously a bit miffed that day. The supposed offending part is as follows:
The IMF suggests our national debt will surpass 100% of our gross domestic product in 2015.
Also states that our debt began sharply increasing in 2006. Wasn’t that when our beloved Democrats took over both houses of Congress?
At some point we must begin to ask ourselves – what is treason? The federal government has done more damage to this country than if the Soviet Union had invaded during the Cold War. Now if we captured members of the Red Army, there would be military tribunals and they would be shot. I am NOT advocating such treatment for our elected officials. However, we should realize the gravity of the situation our nation finds itself thanks to their lust for power.
Is the destruction of our republic somehow more palatable if it is perpetrated by domestic enemies rather than foreign ones?
Anyone ready to go out and kill cops and blow up federal buildings? Yeah, me neither. That’s pretty normal fare in the political blogosphere. But this nancy-boy “Havad” grad shown standing on the deck of an aircraft carrier (obviously in port as other civilians are seen on deck as well) decides it is one of many calls to violence that have emanated from BF and is sure that BF is in some way is responsible for the violence that recently happened in Arkansas. Seriously:
This weekend, as the nation mourns the loss of two dedicated law enforcement officers–shot at the hands of anti-government extremists (one suspect served in the Army Reserves), I want to take a minute to address certain milblogs and anti-government rhetoric.
We milbloggers have a responsibility to be good stewards of civic behavior. Anti-government rhetoric, “wink-wink” anti-government incitement and calls for violence must not find a place in America’s milblog community.
Please join me in calling out those milbloggers who traffic in anti-American rhetoric.
A) who the hell is “we”, assclown? The fact that this yahoo writes about the military doesn’t make him a milblogger anymore than Obama’s ability to read from a teleprompter makes him a great orator. It makes him precisely what he is – someone with no skin in the game who writes about the military, not a milblogger. But more importantly …
B) show me the “incitement to violence” in Crush’s post. Hint: A capitalized “NOT” is a key clue.
C) since when is dissent “anti-American”?
D) how dare he try to tie the death of two law enforcement officers to BlackFive by implication and then talk about “being good stewards of civic behavior”?
E) demonstrate, with examples, a pattern of “anti-government” rhetoric that any fair observer would consider to be an “incitement to violence” against said government from BlackFive.
Of course I expect no response to those challenges and will most likely get none.
But that’s not the half of it. He calls Burden out and calls him a coward (as he does Crush) because Matt doesn’t censor his authors (how “anti-American”). He makes claims that have no basis in fact (most of us call those “lies”) and he tars the whole of the authors there with inflammatory rhetoric like this:
And now, two law enforcement officers are dead. Egged on by the violent anti-government rhetoric sites like Blackfive spew every single day.
Blackfive’s anti-government rhetoric speaks for itself.
A lot of good veterans serve in law enforcement and in other non-elected governmental roles. Today, two are dead, two are wounded. And with sites like Blackfive.net helping, more and more law enforcement and government workers are going to die at the hands of guys misguided by net-based calls to anti-government violence.
I’m worried that guys who find community and strength in Blackfive.net’s stock-and-trade of anti-government rhetoric will act upon what they read…
I’ve read some excruciatingly asinine and groundless commentary in my life, but this is the pinnacle. In fact, it is damn close to libel.
I wonder – when confronted with those questions above – if he’d be fine with me calling him a coward if he doesn’t respond or I don’t find his responses acceptable to me?
He concludes with:
We, as milbloggers and patriots, can’t afford to ignore this talk. We can’t continue dismissing this unpatriotic behavior as insignificant exuberance.
It is time for veterans, service members, interested law enforcement officers, milbloggers and others to express their concern when they see anti-government, pro-violence behavior on milblogs.
If we–the responsible people–don’t do anything now, how will we feel when a vet in government service (or one of us, even) is killed by a vet who consumed too much of the stuff blackfive.net produces? Intervene. Join me.
Cheerleaders for uncivic behavior must be called on the carpet now, today, before somebody translates this misguided rhetoric into action.
Irresponsible. Childish. Misinformed. Absurd. Full of lies and false implication. It is impossible to succinctly characterize this fool’s rant. Scholarly and dispassionate, however, wouldn’t be words I’d choose to describe it in any way.
Have you ever seen someone stretch so hard to try and make a point? In fact, his rhetoric is nothing more that the usual frothing of the extreme left trying to make a case for a “violent right” complete with pictures of the destroyed Murrah building in Oklahoma City. What’s hilarious is this pinhead doesn’t even understand the unintentional irony of his concluding statement – after attacking Burden and Crush, calling them cowards, tarring the whole BF crew with the phrase “American Taliban”, claims of incitement to violence and attempting to link us all to the death of the two law enforcement officers in Arkansas, this dipwad talks about “uncivic behavior” and “misguided rhetoric”.
How many have chosen to join you in your intervention, Skippy?
To quote the only PhD I respect, Bugs Bunny – “what a maroon”.
The other who attacked the blog is named David Axe. His post isn’t worth much more than this: I spent four days with David Axe aboard the USS Kearsarge. My experience with him boils down to this – if there are two versions to a certain event – always, always, ALWAYS go with the other guy’s version.
[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!
Apparently deaf to the people and under the political thumb of unions, Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) has introduced legislation that would provide another $165 billion in bailouts for troubled union pension funds. In essence, the bill would use the existing Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp behind union pensions as well at an initial cost of $165 billion. In reality it would be an open ended bailout.
Of course the problem with the union pension funds is the unions have managed them and, even in the good times, managed them poorly:
As FOX Business Network’s Gerri Willis reported Monday, these pensions are in bad shape; as of 2006, well before the market dropped and recession began, only 6% of these funds were doing well.
Of course, bailing out these pension funds is the wrong thing to do for any numbers of reasons. First, of course, is the government has no business taking from taxpayers to prop up entities which have mismanaged their assets. In a free society, the “freedom to fail” is as much a part of that society as the freedom to succeed. We shouldn’t be in the business of trying to prevent bad consequences that result from bad or poor behavior and management (although the precedent has been set with the auto bailouts).
Secondly, this is an internal union problem – not a problem for the taxpayers. Union members should be dealing with management that has so badly managed their retirement assets, not the rest of us. Where was the membership when it became clear, much earlier than now, that this sort of problem existed and was getting worse?
It isn’t clear that this legislation will get anywhere (it shouldn’t), but it speaks to a mindset existent among politicians that is the target of many voters this year. The Casey’s of the Congress are who need to go. And I’d feel the same way if it was a GOP legislator trying to save some corporation from the results of its poor decisions.
The idea of government, via the taxpayers, is there to backstop every downturn resulting from poor private decisions and management is an idea which we need to forever banish from out thinking.
As an aside, President Obama has declared there would be no more bailouts. But this is a union we’re talking about here. Let’s see if he sticks by his guns or whether we ought to give his declaration as much credence as we would if he said he was never going to use a teleprompter again.
[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!
Last Sunday, while you were enjoying the day off and the mild weather with your family, SEIU thugs were in the process of trying to intimidate the family of a Bank of America executive. They did it without the press (well, they had a friendly HuffPo blogger there to whom I’m not going to link) and they showed up without notice. They, the 500+, did it strictly to intimidate the executive (a “we know where you live” type of demonstration). This, apparently, is the new tactic of the thugocracy. Unfortunately for the SEIU, Nina Easton of Fortune happened to be the bank exec’s next door neighbor and she writes about it. She also snapped this pic:
As it turns out, the only occupant of the home at the time was a terrified 14 year old boy, the bank executive’s son, who locked himself in the bathroom. The rest of the family apparently was at the Little League game of a younger son.
While the executive, Greg Baer, is the deputy general council for corporate law at BoA and based in DC, it’s unclear what the SEIU and the Chicago based group called “National Political Action” targeted his house other than it was convenient. Why not BoA headquarters or some other BoA institution? Because, as Nina Easton says, this was an attempt at nothing more – nothing more – than pure intimidation. 14 school bus loads – 500 people – on your porch banging on your door and terrifying your family.
There’s some irony here. The Baer family is not exactly the scripted “evil Republican corporate capitalist” family that thug organization like the SEIU like to portray as the enemy of “the people”.
A lifelong Democrat, Baer worked for the Clinton Treasury Department, and his wife, Shirley Sagawa, author of the book The American Way to Change and a former adviser to Hillary Clinton, is a prominent national service advocate.
This is and always will be unacceptable behavior from any group. But it seems to be something the SEIU and other unions have decided is fair play. Easton sums it up nicely:
In the 1990s, the Baers’ former bosses, Bill and Hillary Clinton, denounced the “politics of personal destruction.” Today politicians and their voters of all stripes grieve the ugly bitterness that permeates our policy debates. Now, with populist rage providing a useful cover, it appears we’ve crossed into a new era: The politics of personal intimidation.
It is an “era” which needs to be nipped in the bud now. If ever there was a group displaying fascistic tendencies, it is the SEIU and the groups like National Political Action with which it is associated. This is unacceptable behavior and we need to let the SEIU know it and know it now. Politics is a rough and tumble game – we all know that. But keep families out of it.
Action like the SEIU and NPA took last Sunday were the tactics of thugs. And and unless and until those tactics are abandoned and an apology issued to the family the union attempted to terrorize, they’ll continue to be referred to as thugs.
[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!
MA governor Deval Patrick, a crony of Barack Obama’s, has decided that Republican opposition to what Obama’s agenda borders on the criminal:
Patrick said that even “on my worst day, when I’m most frustrated about folks who seem to rooting for failure,” he doesn’t face anything like the opposition faced by the president.
“It seems like child’s play compared to what is going on in Washington, where it is almost at the level of sedition, it feels to like me,” Patrick said.
Funny how that’s always a problem when the opposition party opposes the party in power.
When asked afterward if he thought the opposition truly bordered on sedition, he said:
“That was a rhetorical flourish,” Patrick said.
Or, in flyover country language – “no, that was BS”. But then, we in flyover country knew that when he said it.
[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!
Peter Daou has a piece in the Huffington Post discussing the on-going oil spill disaster and asking:
Where is the outrage? Where are the millions marching in the streets, where is the round-the-clock roadblock coverage tracking every moment of the crisis, every effort to plug the leak, every desperate attempt to mitigate the damage?
Where is the White House? Where are Republicans? Where are Democrats? Where is the left? Where is the right? Where is the “fierce urgency of now?”
Where’s Geraldo Rivera on a boat in the Gulf holding up an oily pelican and weeping in his whiskers? Where’s CNN and MSNBC covering every drop of oil gushing from the blown casing with ominous sounding music and an intro that says “Oil Catastrophe, Day 36 of the underwater BP disaster”?
And, where is the government? Of course they’re right where I figured they’d be, but then I don’t have the faith in the magic competence of government that others do seem to have.
Look, I’m on record being displeased with the response of BP specifically and the oil industry in general. I’ve been clear that I think what is going on now is a result of a lack of planning and testing a “go-to-hell” plan that addressed a deep water blowout. And because of that we continue into day whatever of oil gushing from a broken riser and polluting the Gulf of Mexico. There’s no way to play that down. There’s no way to “spin” that. Because of a failure to anticipate this sort of problem and be prepared to mitigate the results, we have anywhere for 5,000+ barrels a day pumping out into the waters of the Gulf.
But that said, where is the government? Well, lucky us, they’re setting up a commission. No, really. A commission.
US President Barack Obama signed an executive order on May 21 creating an independent commission to investigate the Gulf of Mexico crude oil spill and offshore exploration and production. He named former US Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and former US Environmental Protection Agency Administrator William K. Reilly as its co-chairmen.
“While there are a number of ongoing investigations, including an independent review by the National Academy of Engineering, the purpose of this commission is to consider both the root causes of the disaster and offer options on what safety and environmental precautions we need to take to prevent a similar disaster from happening again,” the president said on May 22 in his weekly radio address.
Meanwhile, in the Gulf, oil continues to spew, wetlands and marshes are endangered and the EPA is yelling about the toxicity of the dispersant – like the oil will be good for sea life. And Ken Salazar is making noises about “pushing BP out of the way.”
And then what?
Even Daou has picked up on the problem:
Leadership is virtually non-existent. Blaming BP for being greedy and destructive is the least we should do, not the only thing we do. We need to turn the tide once and for all against those whose ideological rigidity is ravaging the planet.
Of course, he and I differ on his plan of action, but we certainly agree on his contention that “leadership is virtually non-existent”. As it has been for 16 month. Instead we’ve gotten staged anger and finger pointing and blame shifting from the President and, mostly, other than the Coast Guard, almost nothing in terms of a reasonable and expected government response to the disaster. Daou is, rightfully I think, very unhappy with the response:
Lawmakers can say that the law mandates BP take responsibility for clean-up and costs; federal officials can list all the things they’re doing to fix the problem; President Obama can launch as many fact-finding commissions as he sees fit. But we shouldn’t be impressed that they are doing what we elected them to do – it’s their job to deal with emergencies promptly and effectively. Far more is called for in this uniquely cataclysmic circumstance: a level of outrage, alarm, intensity and focus worthy of the size and scope of the spill.
But he, and I, are not seeing it. As James Carville said, the administration is treating it as almost an annoyance, keeping them from other things they’d rather be doing.
Daou too believes that to be evident in the administration’s response:
The administration seems miffed and mystified that it is being criticized. After all, it can reel off dozens of swift actions taken in the aftermath of the spill. The White House’s defenders want the spotlight aimed exclusively at BP. But this is a situation where body language and words are just as important as actions. Scheduling an ‘angry’ presidential news conference weeks after oil started gushing into the Gulf waters is exactly the wrong thing to do. Authentic anger isn’t something you turn on for the cameras and leak to the press the previous day.
But this isn’t something new, although it appears that elements of the left are just now catching on to the act – and the lack of leadership. Daou wants to blame all of this on “Green-haters” who’ve managed, apparently, to desensitize politicians and the public to the dangers of those who would rape and destroy the planet. And he’s using this disaster to, as he says, “rise in righteous anger” in order to “salvage and protect our earth”.
It certainly seems he’s angry, and he aims at the usual suspects, but it is interesting to see his inclusion of the Obama administration as part of the problem instead of being part of the solution.
Daou is finally reduced to an emotional appeal after producing his list of those who are responsible for this travesty. Two of the bullets could have come from any green talking point list and were essentially boilerplate nonsense one-over-the-world generalizations. But three of them caught my attention:
# Democratic leaders have been blindsided by this spill, having just come out in favor of offshore drilling to appease Republicans.
# The press and punditry are busy chasing the story du jour.
# Defenders of the administration are loathe to critique it, out of a sense of loyalty.
The first has some substance to it, but it wasn’t “Democratic leaders” who came out in favor of offshore drilling (something I still support – but with the mother of all go-to-hell plans in place first), it was Barack Obama.
And that brings us perfectly to numbers 2 and 3. The reason 2 is occurring is because the media is as much a part of 3 as anyone.
Daou’s overwrought and overstated conclusion give an idea of the depth of damage the non-response may be doing to the Obama administration (remember Carville’s words) among the “green left”:
This isn’t Katrina II, it’s worse. As the oil keeps gushing and the damage keeps growing, we are squandering a rare chance to turn the tide against those whose laziness and greed and ignorance is imperiling every living thing on our wonderful and beautiful – and wounded – planet.
My guess is it will be worse unless BP has some success killing that thing tomorrow. But even then, you still have a huge battle for containment and clean up. Huge.
And where is government?
[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!
Or at least they won’t be given much of an incentive to do so if they provide health care:
A study by the National Center for Policy Analysis shows that tax credits in the new healthcare law could negatively impact small-business hiring decisions.
The new law provides a 50 percent tax credit to companies offering health coverage that have fewer than 10 workers who, on average, earn $25,000 a year. The tax credit is reduced as more employees are added to the payroll.
The NCPA study finds the reduction in tax relief to be a cost concern for companies looking to hire additional workers, but operate on slim profit margin yet still provide employee health coverage.
A couple of points – A) the tax credit is temporary (until 2016), and, only covers a small part of the cost of hiring an employee. However, B) it is a available to all small companies with 25 employees or less already offering health insurance. The stated purpose of the tax credit is to encourage those small businesses who fit the template (10 or fewer workers averaging about $25k a year, up to 25) to continue to provide health care and encourage those who aren’t to do so. But it provides the tax credit on a sliding scale, and that scale discourages hiring at the scale breaks:
Using insurance premium cost projections supplied by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the study states that the credit reaches its optimal point at 13 workers, with relief peaking at $36,400 for qualifying business.
After the 13th worker the economics surrounding the credit change, the study says.
For employers with 15 workers, taking on an additional hire will reduce the credit by $1,400. For a company looking to expand from 20 to 21 workers, the credit will shrink by $3,733. And businesses will take a $5,600 reduction on the credit when hiring the 25th worker.
The credit phases out for companies with at least 26 employees.
If the company is already at 13, it most likely won’t hire 14, or 15. If it is at 20, it’s most likely not going to hire 21. And 26 is most likely out of the question.
Bill Rys, tax counsel at the National Federation of Independent Businesses, told The Hill that while demand is the primary driver for hiring decisions, costs related to new hires is a key factor.
“To the extent that a tax credit is related to the benefits that you’re paying your employees, it is going to be a factor in determining what is the cost of the employee,” he said. “The fact that you’re losing a portion of the credit because you brought in a new employee is going to have to factor into the cost of who you’re hiring.”
So there is a negative incentive – at least as long as the tax credit exists – to hire people if it will lessen the tax credit. Instead:
“If a business can make a decision to substitute capital for labor – say, contract the procedure out or automate it – I believe [losing the tax credit] will play an important part in the reluctance to hire,” Villarreal said, adding, “It’s puzzling that we have this perverse incentive not to have businesses grow by not encouraging them to hire additional workers.”
UPDATE: Even more good news as companies read through the legislation and discover little hidden nuggets of penalty and cost. For instance:
About one-third of employers subject to major requirements of the new health care law may face tax penalties because they offer health insurance that could be considered unaffordable to some employees, a new study says.
It seems the law deems insurance that is unaffordable by a family to be an insurance cost that is more than 9.5% of their household income. Of course, few if any companies know the “household income” of their employees. That’s because, mostly, it’s none of their business. But also because it may be comprised of a second or third income, dividend, disability or even retirement income.
But, if it is over 9.5% of that household income, companies can be fined up to $3,000 per employee. Of course they won’t know that until and unless the employee files for a federal tax credit because he or she has determined their insurance cost is over 9.5% of their household income (is that gross or AGI?):
If an employer’s health plan is deemed unaffordable, the worker may qualify for a federal tax credit, or subsidy, to buy coverage in a new state-based marketplace known as an insurance exchange. A person claiming a credit must disclose income information to the exchange. The exchange will then notify employers if any of their workers qualify for subsidies.
Along with notifying the employer of this info, I suppose the “exchange” will also notify the appropriate government agency that is responsible for levying the fine.
Wow – no incentive there to just drop coverage for everyone, is there?
What a monstrosity the Democrats have brought upon us.
[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!
Despite all the assurances by politicians that “things are turning around” and that while “we still have a long way to go”, we’ve “survived the disaster”, I’m not at all sure that’s true. Nor are a number of other people, to include Hale Stewart at FiveThirtyEight. He does an extensive analysis of why unemployment had “unexpectedly” stalled out after showing signs of recovery. He accompanies his analysis with a number of charts that demonstrate his point, but in essence his finding supports what we talked about last night on the podcast – the decline of the euro:
So, the central issue is a decreasing euro, which has led to an increasing dollar, which in turn has led to decreasing commodity prices. Recent reserve tightening issues in China have added downward pressure to commodity prices, which adds further evidence to the argument the US is facing an increased possibility of deflation.
That and a decrease leading economic indicators lead him to caution us that we may see a lack of further economic growth in the next 3 – 6 months unless a few things happen:
1.) A decrease in initial unemployment claims below the 450,000 level. In addition, the economy needs to keep up its current pace of job creation. Last month we had a great employment report. That needs to be repeated in the next report.
2.) The euro needs to stabilize. The European Union has proposed a massive $1 trillion dollar package, which was announced several weeks ago. However, the euro has continued to drop since that announcement. Markets are now concerned that austerity programs will hurt overall economic growth.
3.) Commodity prices need to rebound. An across the board drop in commodity prices indicates the markets think decreased demand is an issue going forward. An increase in commodity prices will indicate demand is picking up.
Keep your eye on number 2, because if the euro doesn’t stabilize the chances of 1 and 3 happening aren’t good. And that brings us to the second part of the story. Europe. It is there our fate lies at the moment. And it is a fragile thing:
If the trouble starts — and it remains an “if” — the trigger may well be obscure to the concerns of most Americans: a missed budget projection by the Spanish government, the failure of Greece to hit a deficit-reduction target, a drop in Ireland’s economic output.
But the knife-edge psychology currently governing global markets has put the future of the U.S. economic recovery in the hands of politicians in an assortment of European capitals. If one or more fail to make the expected progress on cutting budgets, restructuring economies or boosting growth, it could drain confidence in a broad and unsettling way. Credit markets worldwide could lock up and throw the global economy back into recession.
For the average American, that seemingly distant sequence of events could translate into another hit on the 401(k) plan, a lost factory shift if exports to Europe decline and another shock to the banking system that might make it harder to borrow.
“If what happened in Greece were to happen in a large country, it could fundamentally mark our times,” Angelos Pangratis, head of the European Union delegation to the United States, said Friday after a panel discussion on the crisis in Greece sponsored by the Greater Washington Board of Trade.
If you’re in the US that is not something you want to read. We’re talking, of course, of the possibility of a double dip recession with the second recession most likely more devastating than the first.
The writers of the Washington Post piece cited above don’t feel the “worst-case scenario” is a high probability noting that European countries have pledged hundreds of billions of dollars to fix the economic problems. And they repeat the assurance that the US economy “has been strengthening through the year” to include adding jobs and with higher consumer spending and better industrial output.
But, as FiveThirtyEight notes, that’s not at all what the leading economic indicators promise will continue. Manufacturer’s orders and supplier deliveries have dropped. Commodity prices have continued to slide (indicating demand has dropped) and building permits are way down. None of those promise that the economy is strengthening.
The Post goes on to paint Europe’s travail is at least temporary good news for the US. But I don’t see it – certainly not in the numbers Stewart cites. In fact I see it as more whistling past the grave yard. As they mention in their opening paragraphs, this all depends on a number of things going right among a group of European nations at financial risk for not doing what they should have been doing for years. My confidence in the ability of “the experts” to successfully negotiate the financial and economic mine field – given their history – is not at all as great as the Post’s. And, I’d further note, that while everyone is assuring everyone else that they have this crisis in hand, they’re winging it, having never done or had to do anything like this to the scale they’re now involved. The law of unintended consequences is sitting in waiting salivating at the possibilities this crisis presents.
Bottom line – keep your eye on the Euro and hope like hell the Europeans can pull off what they have to do to keep us out of a double-dip recession.
[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!
I always love it when entertainers suddenly awaken and decide they must get involved in saving the planet.
This time it is Jeremy Irons. He’s decided there are just too many people on our little blue globe. Our lot’s numbers are “unsustainable”, although he’s pretty convinced some “big outbreak of something” will most likely happen because, you know, “the world always takes care of itself”. Of course, because Mother Gaia is a living breathing thinking world.
What he wants to do is make a film (naturally) which will be like Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”. A “documentary about sustainability and waste disposal in the vein of Michael Moore – but “not as silly”. Of course.
Irons describes himself as “deeply socialist” and is also concerned about world hunger. In a stirring and deeply touching (/sarc) call to action, Irons says on the website 1billionhungry.org:
“People around the world suffer hunger — 1 billion. Now that’s bad, worse than bad, that’s crazy! We’ve got to get mad. I want you to get mad. I want you to get up right now, stick your head out of the window and yell, ‘I’m mad as hell’.”
Original, edgy, a real difference maker. Of course it remains to be seen if Irons understands that the reason 1 billion are hungry has little to do with resources and much to do with politics.
Irons announced his new endeavor from one of his 7 houses:
The ultimate solution, he says, is for us all to live less decadently — growing our own food and recycling instead of replacing goods: “People must drop their standard of living [so] the wealth can be spread about. There’s a long way to go.”
James Delingpole shakes his head at the usual hypocrisy:
And just as soon as you show us the way by flogging at least six of your houses, foregoing air travel, subsisting on berries, wild garlic and road kill, and dressing in polyester cast offs from your local charity shop, we’ll take you more seriously still.
Exactly. Delingpole wonders:
Could it be that “sustainability” is a concept one only truly understands when one has grown so incredibly rich that one is able to shelter from the consequences of one’s eco-fanaticism in the seclusion and comfort of one’s many agreeable homes?
Apparently. Delingpole points out that the UK’s new enviroment minister, Chris Huhne has that number of homes. And we know that Al Gore, the Pince of Wales and Zac Goldsmith aren’t far behind. And how knows how many Michael Moore has.
[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!
It begins with a quote from President Obama’s West Point commencement speech:
Mr. Obama all but declared victory in Iraq, crediting the military but not Mr. Bush, who sent more troops in 2007. “A lesser Army might have seen its spirit broken,” Mr. Obama said. “But the American military is more resilient than that. Our troops adapted, they persisted, they partnered with coalition and Iraqi counterparts, and through their competence and creativity and courage, we are poised to end our combat mission in Iraq this summer.”
It ends with our quote of the day from one of my favorite milbloggers, Greyhawk of the Mudville Gazette:
Speaking for myself only, you’re welcome. Ignoring who – besides the troops – does or doesn’t get the credit, it absolutely was a bitch to fight an enemy overseas while a lot of sh*tbags in our own Congress kept saying they had won.
And, of course, one of the “s-bags” in question was the speaker at the West Point commencement.
[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!