Tuesday, May 01, 2007

News In Brief (And The Usual Opinionated Commentary)

Not much going on right now. There is no one story dominating the headlines right now, so this is always a good time to do this periodic feature.


The Demonization Of Sarkozy Continues.

Ségolène Royal intensified a desperate final effort yesterday to tar Nicolas Sarkozy, her presidential opponent, as a dangerous tyrant whose election would threaten the peace of France.

Ms Royal, the left-wing candidate who is about four points behind the conservative Mr Sarkozy in polls, denounced her opponent for the “great violence” and “brutality” of a campaign that she maintained was frightening away voters.

It's interesting to see that anywhere there is a battle for the "heart and soul" of a nation, there will be negative campaigning. When desperation sets into a campaign, it gets worse when the election is only a few days away. In many ways, this election is being made out to be a referendum on America.


Prince Harry To Deploy (For Now).

The on again, off again relationship Harry has with Iraq, is on again.

I am opposed to it for this reason and this reason only: I believe that it will create a heightened state of danger for those that serve around him. He creates a higher value target, just by his presence. If he isn't there, interest is not created.

But beyond all of that, I think he has a death wish. He has to know that he will stand a chance of getting killed or kidnapped. Call it suicide by combat.


Newspapers Continue Circulation Decline.

If you are observant, you will note that the overwhelming majority of those papers showing a decline in circulation are liberal leaning (with many guilty of publishing some extremely irresponsible pieces over the past few years). Freedom of the press is guaranteed and should always be. But with that freedom, comes freedom of the individual to choose whether or not to buy. And with this data we can safely conclude that less are buying these days. As a result, the trend of heading south continues.


More:


Chavez Nationalizes Venezuelan Oil Industry.

What else is there to say here? As per textbook Marxist ideology, private industry puts up the capital, does the hard work necessary, and some Marxist seizes it, declaring it to be a government-owned entity from this point forward.

Latin America will suffer most by this move. American investors will not be apt to risk money in the underdeveloped continent, if there is an increased risk that someone will seize the fruits of that labor.

Mark it down, this will not help the plight of Latin Americans at all. Chavez and his cronies will run this into the ground, in five years.

8 comments:

Greg said...

Chavez. It's a sign of how crazy the world is that this guy is so popular these days. I actually disagree with you, LAS, that he's a true Marxist. He's really more of a nazi than a marxist. He hates jews and has teamed up with Ahmadinejad to deny the holocaust and call for the destruction of israel. He recently passed an "Enabling Act" that closely resembles the one Hitler passed on his rise to power. Even the name is the same. And I don't think Chavez wants to stop with his own country. I think he wants to spread his ideas and power beyond Venezuela. Watch him closely when Castro dies. He will be very active in helping to appoint a new oppresive dictator who agrees with him on everything.

Mark said...

Don't all soldiers understand that they are risking death and all the hazards of combat when they sign up? I like that Harry is rearing to go. A little balls and bravado for queen and country is good for britain.

And in my opionion, marxism and fascism are one and the same - just depends on what lies those in charge tell the people to get them to accept guns at their heads.

LASunsett said...

Greg,

//I actually disagree with you, LAS, that he's a true Marxist. He's really more of a nazi than a marxist.//

I agree with Mark, in that, there is a fine line between left and right extremes. The ideologies may be different, but the outcome is the same for the people that must endure either.

LASunsett said...

Mark,

//Don't all soldiers understand that they are risking death and all the hazards of combat when they sign up?//

Yes, or at least they should.

//I like that Harry is rearing to go. A little balls and bravado for queen and country is good for britain.//

I respect him for it, but I still think it is unfair for those that must serve at a heightened risk around him. This isn't just about Harry and what he wants or doesn't want.

Mustang said...

With my highest regard, LA . . . I must disagree with you regarding Prince Harry.

I disagree because I think you have based your opposition to having the Prince serving a military tour in Iraq on all the wrong assumptions. Prince Harryʼs service in Iraq demonstrates, correctly, that he is not willing to ask others to do something that he himself is not willing to do. This isnʼt about the possibility of dying in some conflict . . . it is about the privilege of serving oneʼs country as an officer, and leading men in combat. Prince Harryʼs service in Iraq is very much appropriate, especially in light of the possibility that he may one day become the British monarch.

Good leadership comes from three things: example, example, example. Now let me ad this final observation: There was a time when any viable candidate for President must have served his country in uniform. Not since George H. W. Bush has an American president previously distinguished himself in combat. In my view, anyone who sends others into the fog of war should at least have some idea what that entails.

Semper Fi

LASunsett said...

Mustang mi amigo,

I understand your point completely. I think it is admirable that he wants to go. I suppose if I knew for sure that the men (that will bear some added risk) were okay with it, I'd feel better about it. It may very well be that they are, but I do not know for sure.

But as much as you disagree with me on this, I bet you disagree even more on my musical choices, no? ;)

A.C. McCloud said...

Mustang's point is hard to argue against, but I'm going to give it a shot.

I think with any conventional war it's the most noble thing one could imagine. However, with the asymmetrical war we face in Iraq Harry's likely to be target one for a variety of terror squads. If they get him we're all in trouble, not only in Iraq but in Afghan, due to the bargaining power he'll offer. I don't trust the Brits not to deal.
Unless perhaps they can wrap him into a unit so tight that capture would be unlikely without a division or two, but is that possible?

It's harder to say what might result if they managed to kill him via suicide attack, but I know how that would play over here.

LASunsett said...

AC,

//I don't trust the Brits not to deal.//

As solid as they have been through all of this, I think you have a good point. I think the Brits are getting weary and would cave under pressure. And if Tony Blair is gone, who knows what kind of support they will be willing to lend? The new government may be questionable.