Click on WORD or PDF For full content
Mark Steyn on the “oldest hatred.”
In Toronto, anti-Israel demonstrators yell “You are the brothers of pigs!,” and a protester complains to his interviewer that “Hitler didn’t do a good job.”
In Fort Lauderdale, Palestinian supporters sneer at Jews, “You need a big oven, that’s what you need!”
In Amsterdam, the crowd shouts, “Hamas, Hamas! Jews to the gas!”
In Paris, the state-owned TV network France-2 broadcasts film of dozens of dead Palestinians killed in an Israeli air raid on New Year’s Day. The channel subsequently admits that, in fact, the footage is not from Jan. 1, 2009, but from 2005, and, while the corpses are certainly Palestinian, they were killed when a truck loaded with Hamas explosives detonated prematurely while leaving the Jabaliya refugee camp in another of those unfortunate work-related accidents to which Gaza is sadly prone. Conceding that the Palestinians supposedly killed by Israel were, alas, killed by Hamas, France-2 says the footage was broadcast “accidentally.”
In Toulouse, a synagogue is firebombed; in Bordeaux, two kosher butchers are attacked; at the Auber RER train station, a Jewish man is savagely assaulted by 20 youths taunting, “Palestine will kill the Jews”; in Villiers-le-Bel, a Jewish schoolgirl is brutally beaten by a gang jeering, “Jews must die.”
In Helsingborg, Sweden …
David Harsanyi writes on the protest that asked for “Death of all Juice.”
In our nation, even twisted extremists are welcome to express their opinions.
Take, for instance, the young Muslim woman in Florida who used her constitutional right to tell Jews to “go back to the oven!” last week. Or the more befuddled protester in New York who brandished a sign that read, “Death to all Juice.” (And I thought we Jews ran the country. Clearly, someone is sleeping on the job.)
These rare but revolting displays of hate do offer the “Juice” a valuable reminder that a secure Jewish state in Israel is a historic imperative.
Nevertheless, it is distressing to hear the large number of supposedly peace- loving critics of Israel in essence defend Hamas, one of the most virulently un-intellectual, illiberal, bellicose, misogynistic, hateful and violent brands of religious fanaticism on Earth. …
Guardian, UK Op-Ed on the fears of London’s Jews.
… In August 2001, I turned 21 and my parents gave me a Star of David necklace. Then a month later, the world changed and my mother, with remarkable foresight, began her campaign to rescind the gift, begging me to take it off because she was frightened it would make me a target in the wake of mounting evidence that fanatical Islamism was tightening its grip on the country. My argument was always the same – when I am no longer safe being identifiably Jewish on the tube, I don’t want to live in England.
Now it’s happening and I am devastated. …
Andy McCarthy Corner post notes a good LA Times piece on Eric Holder’s part in the pardoning of FALN terrorists.
Thomas Sowell takes up the case of Scooter Libby.
John Tierney posts again on John Holdren, Obama’s science advisor. If you want to know more about the Simons v. Ehrlich/Holdren wager, Tierney wrote about it in the NY Times Magazine December 2, 1990. Click here for the link.
My post on John P. Holdren’s appointment as presidential science advisor prompted complaints that I was making too much of Dr. Holdren’s loss of a bet to the economist Julian Simon about the price of some metals. But that bet wasn’t just about metals. It was about a fundamental view of how adaptable and innovative humans are, and whether a rich modern society is “sustainable.” Dr. Holdren and his collaborator, Paul Ehrlich, were the pessimists.
Dr. Ehrlich made the best-seller lists in the 1960s with apocalyptic visions of imminent international famines, food riots in America and catastrophic shortages of natural resources because humans were exceeding the planet’s carrying capacity. (JC’s comment lists some of his failed prophecies.) In 1971, he and Dr. Holdren wrote an essay wrote warning that if “population control measures are not initiated immediately and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come.”
They declared that “present technology is inadequate to the task of maintaining the world’s burgeoning billions, even under the most optimistic assumptions,” and warned of shortages of food and water that would have to be overcome in the next two decades for humans to “be to be granted the privilege of confronting such dilemmas as the exhaustion of mineral resources and physical space later.” …
Are government statistics reliable? Think for a minute. Who created them? Of course they are unreliable. Real Clear Markets has the story.
… Probably the best place to start is the alleged trade deficit given that it’s arguably the least understood economic statistic. It should be said plainly that there is no such thing as a trade deficit. It is a myth. For one, countries don’t trade; instead people trade. When we consider it in that light we must conclude that rather than deficits, individuals are constantly exchanging what they deem personal surplus for something they don’t have but want.
The best way to look at trade is to view it in an individual context. As individuals we run trade deficits with our landlords, our grocery stores, and restaurants we frequent. But are we in deficit? Hardly. We’re able to maintain those supposed deficits in trade thanks to the work we engage in elsewhere. In the end all trade balances due to the basic truth that we can’t buy from anyone unless someone’s purchased something from us of equal value first.
The question then becomes why the government produces statistics suggesting we’re in “deficit” on a monthly basis? The answer lies in what they define as “trade.” When Americans buy shoes, socks and shirts that are made in China, those purchases accrue to the deficit. Conversely, the Chinese are big purchasers of our equities, land and debt. None of those purchases count in the alleged “trade” balance because they are “capital” assets. But we export opportunities to invest in our generally booming economy in exchange for goods that are not in our economic interest to make.
The reality is that trade deficits are a sign of economic health. And while GDP figures are highly misleading (more on that later), periods when our GDP has grown the most have regularly correlated with rising trade “deficits.” …
Borowitz reports Obama has refused to reveal the size of his package.
Scrappleface and News Biscuit are here too.