FROM THE VATICAN

Some hope for Islam? "One country in sub-Saharan Africa is a living contradiction of the skeptics. Islam has been present there for almost a thousand years; 82 percent of its inhabitants are Muslim. They belong to the Sunni tradition, with a contingent that follows Wahhabi rigorism. They are extremely poor, with an average annual per capita income of 230 dollars, and poverty and freedom almost never go together. They belong to various tribes, which in many African countries is the root of incurable conflicts. And yet, democracy flourishes there. The country is Mali, between the Niger river and the Sahara desert"

Vatican backs GM crops to feed the poor: "a substantially pro-GMO position has already been taken up inside the Vatican. Such a position has been understood from coverage of the Nov. 2003 conference, particularly as seen in the March 20 2004 issue of "La Civilta Cattolica". "La Civilta Cattolica" coverage of the conference gave much space to explicating pro-GMO arguments rather than those opposed to them. We read in the magazine that The Holy See firmly hopes that "GMOs can be an opportunity to produce good things and foster social development for the poorest nations on earth which, based on Jesus Christ's example, the Church holds especially dear."

A dotty Catholic bishop in Sudan does at least know Muslims well so may have a good insight here: "The greatest punishment Arabs can inflict is oppression, a sense of falsity. If they can fool you, they do it with will all their might. They are proud of their ability to trick you, to behave like liars and compliment you. Al Turabi will take Bush for a ride, wherever and whenever he wants. And he could do much worse things. I, rather than being tricked and playing the fool, prefer being slapped in the face. Muslims fill you with fear, they keep you in a permanent state of uncertainty. It's a continuous psychological affliction, worse than torture."

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

ELSEWHERE

Another triumph of socialized medicine: British "National Health" hospitals are full of superbug bacteria (MRSA) that drugs cannot kill -- making such hospitals very dangerous places to go to if you are ill. But: "one is vastly safer in a private hospital. The danger of getting MRSA is, above all, a risk affecting patients of the NHS".

Blair talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk: "Tony Blair has often spoken of the need to overthrow, or at least recast, the "liberal consensus" which has dominated the politics and institutions of Great Britain since the 1960s. He was at it again last Monday, criticising the "1960s revolution" for not putting enough emphasis on the responsibilities which ought to be inseparable from rights".

A woman to be proud of: "Bleeding and bruised after being bashed and robbed, a security guard struggled to her feet and, in a lethal response, shot her attacker dead".

A typically arrogant Leftist mourns the fact that the pesky working people of Kansas are not voting for "their" party. George Will points out the elitist assumptions involved. See also here. That lots of pesky working class people insist on voting conservative has irked the Left for a long time. I did some academic research on the phenomenon over over 30 years ago -- in which I showed that working class conservatives had more normal attitudes than working-class Leftists.

Jeff Jacoby on Leftist haters: "A popular conceit of the left is that political hatred is a sickness of the right, one to which liberals are largely immune. "Just who are these Clinton haters," asked Time magazine in April 1994, "and why do they loathe Bill and Hillary with such passion?" It answered, in effect: That's just the way conservatives are. The article quoted historian Alan Brinkley: "Liberals tend to value tolerance highly, so there's a greater reluctance to destroy enemies than among the right." That was a whopper even in 1994, a year when Republican leader Newt Gingrich was routinely vilified as a McCarthyite and a racist. Ten years later, with a storm of Bush hatred raging among liberal Democrats, the notion that the left is too high-minded to savage its opponents is about as plausible as the claim that the moon landings were staged in Hollywood."

Enron caused the California blackouts! Yes. The Left are still trying to pass the buck for the bungling of their Democrat establishment. The real story of what happened is here

There is a stunning list here of Israel's scientific and technological achievements -- despite the unremitting attacks on them by one of the world's most parasitic people.

Bureaucrats are not your friend: "Eldred had barely driven his white-and-red camper into the parking lot of the Walden Pond Reservation and tacked up a handwritten sign reading 'Free Walden' when a state park ranger asked him to leave. Eldred said he was told he needed a permit to hand out copies of the book, free or not, and would be arrested if he continued."

Leftists are still either ignoring or apologizing for the horrors of Communist North Korea. Just as they did for Stalin's Russia. If anything could outrage anybody, North Korea would do it. The fact that the Left show zero outrage about North Korea shows that what outrage they do claim to feel is fake.

Comment from a reader on Orwell's article about different types of nationalism: "The American Left I see are nationalistic in their own ways. For instance they continously call the Right "fascists" and refer them to the "Christian Taliban". They call anyone who opposes their view as "inferior" and hate anyone who criticizes people like the Clintons or the Kennedys. So in some ways the American Left as well as the International Left are nationalists. Nationalism would also explain the anti-Americanism on the International Left as well as the American Left. If you would to ask a member of the International Left on what they view America, they would say they hate America, but always say their nation is better than America"

For more postings, see GREENIE WATCH and POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH. Mirror sites here and here

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

Puzzle 1: Leftists always say that human nature is fundamentally good and that people can be trusted. So why do they say that whilst at the same time wanting to regulate everybody to death and take as many decisions and choices out of the hands of the individual as they possibly can? Easy: They say that about human nature because, if it is true, then THEY are good at heart and can be trusted -- and, given their destructive deeds, they need all the propaganda help they can get in that regard.

Puzzle 2: Why do "postmodern" Leftists make the strange claim that everything ever written has to be interpreted in terms of how it serves power? Easy: Because everything THEY say is directed towards getting themselves power

Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.

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