Free Markets, Free People

reaction

Credit rating downgrade fallout

First among the reactions globally was that of China:

China bluntly criticized the United States after the S&P ratings cut to AA-plus, saying Washington had only itself to blame and calling for a new stable global reserve currency.

"The U.S. government has to come to terms with the painful fact that the good old days when it could just borrow its way out of messes of its own making are finally gone," China’s official Xinhua news agency said in a commentary.

[…]

Xinhua scorned the United States for a "debt addiction" and "short sighted" political wrangling. China, it said, "has every right now to demand the United States address its structural debt problems and ensure the safety of China’s dollar assets."

"International supervision over the issue of U.S. dollars should be introduced and a new, stable and secured global reserve currency may also be an option to avert a catastrophe caused by any single country," Xinhua said.

If you think it is bad now, consider our predicament if the dollar was to be replaced as the new global reserve currency.  However it is ironic to be lectured by the Chinese on economic matters given their ideological bent.  Communists telling Capitalists (pseudo anyway) how they should conduct their business. 

France, on the other hand is expressing faith in the US’s ability to get its house in order, as is Poland’s Prime Minister:

France’s Baroin said France had faith in the United States to get out of this "difficult period." Friday’s U.S. unemployment numbers were better than expected and so things were heading in the right direction, he said.

"One should not dramatis, one needs to remain cool-headed, one should look at the fundamentals," he told France’s iTele.

"There is no need for panic," Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said. "We will see in August, and maybe more intensively in September what the effects for the world economy will be."

Of course, with the huge problems in Europe, both France and Poland are inclined to play down the significance of a US downgrade.  And  more interesting than what will happen later this month or next may be what happens on Monday, the first day global markets will mark their reaction to the US credit downgrade:

Because the S&P move was expected, the impact on markets may be modest when they reopen on Monday. But the ratings cut may have a long-term impact for U.S. standing in the world, the dollar’s status and the global financial system.

"The consequence will be far reaching," said Ciaran O’Hagan, fixed income strategist at Societe Generale in Paris.

"It will weigh on secure assets. The bigger reaction will be on risky assets, including equities and on agencies (Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae) and states backed directly by the federal government."

But he added: "U.S. Treasuries will remain a benchmark. This is a ship which takes a long time to turn around."

Norbert Barthle, a budget expert for German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservatives, said the downgrade would certainly provoke further turbulence in markets.

Everything mentioned is very important to the future of the US economy and its financial health.  Unfortunately most of it is negative.  In the next few months we’ll see how this shakes out, but at this point, even the optimists are pessimistic.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

Europe’s reaction to the death of bin Laden – predictable

Allahpundit provides a roundup of quotes out of Europe concerning the celebration here of the death of Osama bin Laden.  As you might expect, the latent anti-Americanism isn’t so latent anymore and the incident of bin Laden’s death provides the superior Euros a chance to do a little self-serving moral preening.  For instance:

“At a press conference at Lambeth Palace, The Daily Telegraph asked [the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan] Williams whether he thought the US had been right to kill bin Laden.

“After declining to respond initially, he later replied: ‘I think the killing of an unarmed man is always going to leave a very uncomfortable feeling, because it doesn’t look as if justice is seen to be done in those circumstances.’”

Really?  It doesn’t?  How does one define “justice” then?  Certainly Europe doesn’t think “death” is justice regardless of how monstrous the deed is.  Kill 3,000 people in NY plus Khobar Towers, two African Embassies and the USS Cole?  Oh, and those subway deaths in London?  Those deeds obviously don’t justify what just happened.

Nope -  we should have caught him, tried him (and given him an international platform to spew his hate) and then locked him up?  How’s that anymore justice than what happened?  We have a mad dog on tape bragging about being the man responsible for all those deaths.  We have intel that says he was going to kill more (attacking trains in the US on the 10th anniversary of 9/11).  If ever justice was served anywhere, it was served on the night of May 1st in a compound in Pakistan.  And no, I’m not uncomfortable in the least about that.  Someone needs to remind the Archbishop that “justice” isn’t a process, it’s a result.

Next come those who would like to ignore the elephant in the room and those celebrations simply won’t let them do it:

“Nicolas Demorand, editor of the left-leaning French daily Libération, on Tuesday bemoaned the ‘toxic rhetoric’ of the campaign against terrorism. From that rhetoric, he wrote, stems ‘this base, uncomfortable joy, unprecedented in a democracy, that blew yesterday over the streets of New York.’

“Even the editor of the centrist weekly L’Express, Christophe Barbier, cautioned, ‘To victory one must not add provocation.’ He added: ‘To desecrate the cadaver or the memory of Bin Laden is to revive him. To cry one’s joy in the streets of our cities is to ape the turbaned barbarians who danced the night of Sept. 11. It is to tell them the ghastly competition continues between them and us.’”

Someone get a clue bat for Barbier will you?  The “ghastly competition” does continue.  Because they initiated it and haven’t said “uncle” yet.   And it will continue until the murderous organization that has killed thousands over the years – primarily Muslims, btw – is destroyed, root and branch.  Sniffing at the celebrations and calling them an “aping” of the barbarians is to use an equivalence that indicates moral cowardice that would welcome submission before resistance. 

Finally, perhaps the most ironic condemnation comes from the country that was on the wrong side of two world wars, one of which required the civilized world rid itself of a monster that country put into power:

“The fashionable critique of Obama and the U.S. achieved its purest form on ARD Television, Germany’s equivalent of the BBC, where commentator Jörg Schoenenborn pompously observed that nothing good could come from Obama’s Bush-like breach of international law. ‘Al Qaeda will seek revenge,’ he asserts, ‘so, is the world any safer? No.’ Yet Americans dance in the streets, which Scheonenborn attributed to something essential, and essentially primitive, in the American character. The USA is, after all, ‘quite a foreign land to me. What kind of country celebrates an execution in such a way?’

I’ll take “primitive” over “barbaric”, “anti-Semitic”, and “murderous” any day.  And no, Germany, you haven’t lived down your reputation yet. Not enough to take this sort of a position.

Of course AQ will seek revenge.  But as mentioned above, they planned to attack anyway.  So should we just sit back and let it happen?  Would a few thousand more deaths have soothed your conscience enough to have you condone aggressive and justified action against the murderer?  Or would it still have been considered a “primitive” action driven by blood lust?  Instead, obviously, we should just roll over and allow these murderers to have their way.  Apparently, that’s the European way.

There’s even more irony in this reaction though:

“[N]ow many of Obama’s erstwhile Euro-fans are feeling a twinge of buyer’s remorse. By ordering a covert raid on Pakistan that resulted in Osama bin Laden’s death at the hands of Navy SEALs, Obama has earned the kind of condemnation [from] Europe’s cognoscenti once reserved for his predecessor, George W. Bush…

I’m waiting for the first mention of “cowboy” to come floating across the Atlantic.  It does make the point though that as long as you’re submissive and not aggressive in pursuing the best interests of the US, Euro’s will sort of, kind of pretend to like you.  And we’ve all seen what that will buy.  I wonder when the first calls for Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize to be withdrawn will begin?

I think Jonathan Tobin at Commentary best summarizes the reasons for Europe’s false and snobby self-righteousness:

It’s true that European snobbery is silly. But the factors underlying the Euro unwillingness to treat the battle with Islamist terrorism as a fight to the death are anything but a laughing matter. As Erlanger notes, the Europeans are genuinely afraid of the Islamic world, something that may have a great deal to do with the growing and increasingly assertive Muslim populations in Western European countries.

But the disdain for American joy about bin Laden’s death goes deeper than mere snobbery or concerns about local Muslims. It’s not just that Western European intellectuals don’t like the United States—they never have—but their unwillingness to countenance aggressive Western self-defense against Islamist terror is a function of their loss of belief in Western civilization itself. Many on the continent seem to have lost any sense that their countries and way of life as well as their faith is something worth defending. When it comes down to it that, and not the faux sophistication of Euro elites, is the difference between America and Europe these days.

For all of our problems and divisions, most Americans still believe in their country. All too many of our friends across the pond have lost faith in theirs. And that crisis in confidence, not good taste, is why Americans and not Europeans are celebrating the death of bin Laden.

It is a form of capitulation.  If they can successfully continue to delude themselves into inaction by condemning our methods while draping themselves in false moral outrage, they can safely ignore the threat, even as it continues to build and subvert their own cultures.  They don’t want to fight.  They’ve already given up.  All they want now is a way to justify their craven surrender.  And that damn America keeps doing things that make that more and more difficult to do.

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

Three reactions in the Arab press to the Times Square bombing attempt

First from “our friend” Egypt’s Al-Masaa which is the evening edition of the Egyptian government Al-Gumhouriyya.  They want to know what all the fuss is about:

“The huge fuss that the U.S. has been making since it announced the exposure of the attempted car bombing in Times Square… is truly outrageous. The U.S. has brought many charges against [the suspected perpetrator], including [involvement in] global terrorism and use of weapons of mass destruction.

“The U.S. seems to have forgotten that it is the world’s number one terrorist. If a couple of propane tanks, some fertilizer, and some fireworks count as WMDs, what do we call the terrible weapons employed by the U.S. in its attacks on the peoples of the world? …Since the Americans occupied the Iraqi city of Falluja in 2004 using phosphorus and depleted uranium bombs, there have been frequent cases of [women who] miscarry [because] their baby is  deformed…”

Yeah, so there, we deserve it, by George.  And by the way:

“And of course it was some country other [than the U.S.] that used WMDs against the Vietnamese people during the years of [its] occupation [there]. Three million Vietnamese are still suffering from the effects of those weapons, and deformed children are still being born there…”

Of course.  As an aside, Arab journalism isn’t noted particularly for having any foundation in truth telling, but it sure can be inflammatory.  Suffice it to say, though, this “journalist” is a bit obsessed with deformed babies and children.  Unless, of course, they might be walking through Times Square at the wrong time.  Then – no biggie.

Saudi Arabia may surprise you just a little.  This is from an editorial the Saudi daily Al-Riyadh:

“Even if the investigations have not yet uncovered which [group] Shahzad, who tried to explode a car [bomb] in Times Square, belonged to, this New York incident is one instance of insane delirium. Even if the [police] never get a lead on this attack, its ramifications for the entire Muslim world are deadly. This is because we are incapable of restraining the emotion of the [Western] peoples when they see sights that harm them – even if the U.S. administration headed by [U.S. President Barack] Obama is closer and more open to the Muslim world [than the previous U.S. administration]. Moreover, this attack has become a motive for criticizing Obama for his efforts at rapprochement with the Muslims.

“Another problem is that the ramifications of this affair will ignite enmity towards the Muslims and Islam worldwide…

So Obama is our friend, Western people are reactionaries and stuff like this will “ignite enmity towards Muslims and Islam worldwide.”  Well duh.  How often do you have to be attacked by people of a particular religion who cite their religion as the reason for the attack (among others) before you begin holding a little enmity toward those who are a part of it?

The editorial then offers a little bit of reality for the terrorists:

“Terrorism will exist as long as it has repositories of human and material supplies, and as long as there are forces, and perhaps even countries and organizations, that support [it]. [These elements should know] that even if [their] adversary is harmed [by terrorists,] he is [still] stronger and has greater capabilities to hunt them down and to start a war [against them]. This happens whenever a superpower [targeted by terrorism] needs to defend its national security.”

And, of course, that will happen as long as terrorists continue to attack it and its interests.  Human Nature 101.  But nice to see the point acknowledged.  Then perhaps the best paragraph in the editorial:

The Muslim world, including all its governments, institutions, and regimes, must condemn this [Times Square] incident – not out of sycophancy towards the U.S., but because our religion vehemently opposes such actions. Furthermore, if we deal with these events wisely and in accordance with our own interests, in order to protect the reputation of our religion and our collective conduct, this will prove to others that we are a society that hunts down terrorism of any kind whatsoever. It is not enough to reject terror on the grounds that the terrorists harm more Muslims than non-Muslims – because the principle [of opposing terror] is the same, whether [the target is] a foreign country, an Islamic country, or members of other religions.

[…]

In order to persuade the other nations [not to equate] Islam with the actions of the terrorists, we must prove that we are share the responsibility [for fighting terrorism], along with all the countries of the world and their peoples.”

Well said – and a welcome change.

Meanwhile, perhaps the most strange of the three comes from an Iraqi columnist living in the US and writing for www.elaph.com. He explains that most Muslims in the US have no feeling of loyalty to it and actually harbor feelings of hostility toward it instead.  He makes the argument that the US is too easy on suspected and potential terrorists and that in order to avoid future attack, the US needs to do a little “infringing” on Muslim human rights:

“America is home to about seven million Muslims. Most of them, even if they are not terrorists, do harbor hostility towards the U.S. and feel no loyalty to it. As an Arab and Muslim, [I tell you] that it is difficult to find a Muslim who loves America; those [who do] constitute a tiny minority among all those millions.

“The rationale and need to defend American security and protect [American] lives make it necessary to make sacrifices and infringe on the [existing] laws and charters of human rights. The Muslims must be subjected to the principle of collective suspicion. Individuals whose presence [in the country] causes concern or who have a potential to cause problems must be monitored, pursued and placed in preventive detention, which is not subject to time restrictions or require [the presentation of] evidence. They must [even] be stripped of their citizenship and deported.

He obviously supports profiling and Joe Lieberman’s “strip them of their citizenship” approach.  I know a lot of folks that share his vision of how to treat those like himself.

So there it is – a look at how some Arabs in the press view the Times Square bombing – the good, the bad and the ugly.

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!