Mother Jones confirmed that “Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), who made his substantial fortune by suing military contractors and later lambasted them as a lawmmaker, was indeed evacuated from Niger by personnel working for Xe Services (the private security empire formally known as Blackwater), his spokesman confirms.” David Schulman of Mother Jones “asked Jurkowski whether the experience had changed Grayson’s thinking on the use of private military firms. Jurkowski replied:
“The Congressman does not deny that there is admirable work being done by some employees of private contractors. However, he stands by his criticism of companies who have been found to cheat the American people, defraud our government, and unnecessarily risk the lives of members of our military, all in the name of making a profit.”
This recalls the experience of pacifist Norman Kember who traveled to Iraq in 2006 in order to protest the war. Kember was kidnapped by terrorists and later rescued by the British SAS. After being publicly criticized for refusing to thank his rescuers, Kember said “I do not believe that a lasting peace is achieved by armed force, but I pay tribute to their courage and thank those who played a part in my rescue.” His rescue was achieved despite the fact that CPT, the pacifist organization to whom Kember belonged, refused to supply any information which could help the SAS find him.
The morality of accepting help from a morally rejected source has been widely discussed as part of the ethics of accepting “tainted money”. Some universities, for exampled wanted to refuse money which may have been earned from corporate investments in South Africa. The problem was that some of these companies were “progressive” in all except their unfortunate investments in SA. Was it possible to discriminate between the monies donors earned from approved activities versus those earned from rejected methods of doing business?
The contagion of filthy lucre is difficult to contain. Slate says that because Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim now owns a large part of the NYT, the Gray Lady now finds itself unable to criticize his actions in Mexico. Describing a controversy involving Slim in Mexico, James Ledbetter writes:
Under any other circumstances, the business section of the Times would be expected to cover it, as the Journal and Bloomberg have. Yet as of Saturday midday, I cannot find a single mention of any aspect of this case, anywhere in the physical New York Times, or on its Web site–not even a blog post or a wire story. Perhaps as the lawsuit moves on, the Times will be compelled to cover it. But for the moment, it certainly appears that Carlos Slim’s investment has bought the silence of one of the world’s most important newspapers.
So do Carlos Slim’s investments in the NYT make the paper itself unacceptable? Should you refuse to accept news from it because it is owned by someone you don’t approve of? What about love? Is it poisoned by being fed from overly commercial springs? Dr. Helen advised a woman whose date paid for their dinner with coupons not to be so judgmental. “I went out for dinner with this guy, and it was great — we got along well, and there was a definite spark. But when it came time to pay, he pulled out a coupon. I’m hardly a princess, but that totally killed it for me. Am I being too hard on him?” The cuisine was acceptable, but it was the way the check was paid that seemed just wrong. Is Grayson being too hard on the men who saved his hide? And doubtless Kember would have preferred to have been rescued by the intervention of some anti-American jihadi guru. But should it completely ruin his life that it was the SAS who kept him from being beheaded?
We live in a world where we want to be saved, donated to and treated out but only in a manner that is “just so”. Maybe it’s a tribute to the way things work that it sometimes happens that way. Is it a case of never looking a gift horse in the mouth or to beware of Greeks bearing gifts?
embedded by Embedded Video
YouTube Direkt
Would you refuse to be saved by information obtained through waterboarding?
Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5
I think that the rescuers should return both of them to their prior circumstance. What ingrates.
How about having the humility to think that it’s not all about you? That others have sacrificed and given that to which you had no claim, and you should freely acknowledge the gift as a pure act?
“Is it a case of never looking a gift horse in the mouth or to beware of Greeks bearing gifts?”
I think both are true.
‘Gift’ is not something to be taken lightly.
Spin
It is a matter of how one balances empirical results and abstract theories.
The mistake that is most commonly made is, “That snake did not bite or kill me, therefore it is PROVEN that it is not poisonous”.
No.
If the snake were not poisonous, it might not bite or kill you, the evidence is *consistent* with this belief in non-dangerousness. It is NOT a proof.
So, when you ARE bitten by a snake and nearly die, you can still state, “Well, *that* one was the exception.” Well, in theory, it *might* have been, but that is not the inference to the most likely conclusion.
This reminds one of the hysterical global warmists, who believe that since global warming might be compatible with cooler weather (or warmer weather or unchanged weather), then any and all weather PROVES THEIR POINT. Well, NO IT DOES NOT.
But, truthfully, the matter is mildly subtle, in theory. The most *likely* conclusion is *not* necessarily correct.
Still, Las Vegas has built some very large hotels and casinos, on the losings of those who didn’t get these logics right.
It is hard to believe that any Congressman could be more despicable than John Murtha.
Alan Grayson easily fits the bill. Unfortunately there are others e.g., Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, ……
Who were the nutjobs who sent worthy human beings to rescue the worthless CPTer when his organization refused to co-operate? The way to rid the world of muddled thinkers is to not get in their way when they are self-destructing.
Sadly, if the SAS was given the job, they will do it and do it damned well; with or without anyone’s help. It is in their nature, and they will obey orders without fail.
However, Xe is a private corporation, and unless they are on retainer in this case they have the right to refuse. In the totally farcial situation where I was involved in their business side [No way I would even dream of being on their operational side. I survived 28 years wearing a badge. It took its physical toll and I could not even fantasize about being up to their level of badassery.]; I would keep a list of those for whom it would not be a bad idea if they got up close and personal with the wrong side of the bad guys. The plane that pulled him out could have been “down for maintenance”, and the contract declined.
I may not be up to their level, as noted above; but that does not mean that I am a nice person.
Subotai Bahadur
‘We live in a world where we want to be saved, donated to and treated out but only in a manner that is “just so”.’
NO!
I just want to be left the Hell alone! Don’t bother me, I won’t bother you. I don’t expect anything from anyone.
I’m hopeful that I’ll be treated the way I will try to treat others, but I don’t take it for granted.
Let’s agree to cooperate on those things we can agree on.
On other things, do what you want so long as it doesn’t negatively impact me or mine.
When people start trying to do things for me, for my own good, we end up with warning labels on everything, and thousands of extra dollars spent on each car for airbags that don’t do anything if you remember to wear a seatbelt, the war on drugs, and nationalized healthcare.
The world would be a better place if people took care of themselves and their kin, minded their own business, got their just deserts, and stopped expecting anyone else to do things for them unless they’re friends with a reciprocal agreement, or are being paid.
That hippie peacenik should have ended up as a gory message to likeminded fools.
The congress-weasel who ignores the CIA and State Dept. about security concerns and / or doesn’t cooperate with their bodyguards deserves to die.
I wonder who paid the Xe operatives to retreave that varmints worthless hide? Could it be the U.S. taxpayer? Can we deduct the cost of the operation from his pay?
As for hipocrites among our politicians, chattering classes, and intelligencia, it’s one reason they’re all scornfully derided by so many people who have a personal sense of honor.
How can you tell a politician, journalist, or intellectual is spouting crap? Their lips are moving.
reminds me of a discussion on fiscal policy i observed. one commenter noted” we’re so rich we can afford to be stupid”. the foolishness that the victory of 1945 has allowed has just about run it’s course.reality will soon reassert itself and actions will once again have consequences.when the pax americana ends things will become interesting(in the Chinese meaning).
Alan Grayson and Norman Kember were and are distinctly ungrateful for being rescued from certain death by people of whom they disapprove. I believe that next time there should be no next time.
If Saul of Tarsus had saved their arses
Would that acceptable be
Or would they squirm and remain firm
To ideology
If Robin Hood before them stood
And nocked his stout longbow
Would they then cry I’d sooner die
Than brutish force to show
Methinks that when such as these men
With arrogance unbound
Believe when they fall in harm’s way
That they must then be found
By folks with whom they have no room
To pass the time of day
It’s time say I to let them die
And leave them where they lay
Wretchard: Would you refuse to be saved by information obtained through waterboarding?
For that matter, as a juror in a torture case would you be willing to convict and send to prison someone who may have saved you, or any number of your countrymen, by obtaining said information through said waterboarding? Or even by far harsher means?
Regarding Carlos Slim and the NYTimes, Diana West has written about a similar situation with Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, the second-largest shareholder of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., Fox News’ parent company.
http://townhall.com/columnists/DianaWest/2010/02/04/foxs_fairly_imbalanced_pro-muslim_influence
#11 Joshua
Speaking only for myself, I would not convict. And I would do my best to convince fellow members of the jury to do the same.
I think that would be a case of jury nullification.
If we were to refuse help except from sources which meet our moral approval we should have very little help indeed. During World War 2, the arch anti-Communist Winston Churchill made an alliance with Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Unin to fight Hitler. So if you want to get on a moral high horse be strong enough to do without help.
One of the unappreciated luxuries which a power with a large margin of strength can indulge in is the ability to be high minded and magnanimous. Unilateral self-weakening and high mindedness are mutually exclusive. They are contradictory. Cutting the margins down the bare minimum, with just enough energy, just enough military insurance, just enough savings will eventually put one in a position of one day being forced over the edge. And on the day when you are fighting for survival every corner will be cut, every pretense of high mindedness will be ruthlessly thrust aside and no consideration whatsoever will be shown to the foe.
Grayson can sue military contractors because his life doesn’t depend on it, except of course, when it does.
Unilateral self-weakening and high mindedness are mutually exclusive.
I don’t follow.
Isn’t this exactly what we are doing to ourselves now? Or do we even know which of these two (or both) we are doing, with the ROE in Afghanistan?
Isn’t “proportional response” all about doing both? Or is it your claim that even the attempt is automagically so virtuous that it always wins?
Wretchard, you are absolutely spot on.
Blackwater does not exactly have the greatest reputation “on the ground” but most that I’ve known from Blackwater (which does State Department security) and other private security contractors are consumate professionals, devoted to their mission, and SCARY proficient.
Soldiers and contractors alike face hazy moral choices each and every day in a combat zone. Each are fallible human beings that must make and execute life and death decisions, often within a split second. Oh yeah, and they have to live with those decisions, and their results, for the rest of their lives. Who would presume to be their judge?
What really galls me is that the critics who make such a show of high morality are the same ones who absolutely lack the moral courage to face those situations for themselves. Why does anyone give them any measure of legitimacy?
If so tasked, I would perform the mission, get their worthless hides out of harm’s way, and be fully prepared to lay down my life to do so. Duty demands nothing less. But God help them if I ever ran into one of said individuals in a dark alley somewhere….
God bless the Rough Men!
I probably expressed myself poorly but the gist of it is that that the bigger the dominance of one party, the greater the ability of that party to impose self-restrictions. Once the main threat is past it can afford to treat enemy combatants more like common criminals. The danger is treating them like common criminals while they are still potent. That creates the risk that if they inflict mass casualties, public policy will switch over to extreme severity. People are apt to forget they are liberals once they are existentially threatened.
Wretchard said in 17: “People are apt to forget they are liberals once they are existentially threatened.”
I would add two words:
“People are apt to forget they are liberals once they realize they are existentially threatened.”
However, he stands by his criticism of companies who have been found to cheat the American people, defraud our government, and unnecessarily risk the lives of members of our military, all in the name of making a profit.
The Democratic Party of Congressman Grayson sought to impose one of the greatest military defeats in US history in Iraq, scheduled for the end of March, 2008. The Democrats planned a military rout for our departure from Iraq. What else could result from making the time table both hasty and public — while blaming the US military for every death? So we see that associating with the incompetent, corrupt, inept and worse is not a problem for Congressman Grayson. It is making a profit that gives him the shrieks.
And now that a huge power grab is in full swing down there in Washington, he don’t mind at all. Greed and lust for power on the part of politicians is okey-dokey, fine with him. This is especially true now that the Big Boss Congress-crats will soon approve the profits (and take the biggest cut) of every major enterprise in the nation — while bossing them around and putting the scare on their CEOs. Is Congress-crat Grayson in on the Washington money and power grab? You betcha.
So do Carlos Slim’s investments in the NYT make the paper itself unacceptable?
Yes. More liberals ought to realize that.
Seriously, the most damning defect within the New York Times is its combination of self-righteousness and hypocrisy, of moral outrage and collusion. One defect common in editors from the monopoly press is that they think their power gives them the right to lecture the rest of humanity on how we ought to behave, and this hectoring is brought to the point of ridiculous caricature in the columns of Thomas Friedman.
It should be hardly a surprise that the Gray Lady has become Carlo’s Slim’s lady of the evening. It’s not much different from how the Denver Post behaved during the Teapot Dome Scandal, proclaiming itself as a defender of the people one day and shutting up the next once Harry Sinclair sent the hush money.
For that matter, one also ought to be suspicious of Saudi influence at News Corporation, which owns Fox News and the Wall Street Journal.
Yes, I still occasionally read the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. Over twenty years ago, I listened to both Radio South Africa and Radio Havana. This doesn’t mean I trust any of them; I’ve learned to be very distrustful of the press in general. They often get it wrong, sometimes on purpose.
I’ve written something I really need to apologize for. I apologize to ladies of the evening for comparing them to the New York Times.
Why we might as well expect Fox, the New York Post or the Wall Street Journal to criticize Saudi Arabia! What horror might come next?
It would have been impossible to disobey the order to attempt the rescue but that does not mean he could not have gotten hit by a stray bullet. Good thing for him their honor is not for sale the way his was.
OFF TOPIC TO LARSEN! OFF TOPIC TO LARSEN!
(All others not excluded.) Especially any Legal Eagle who wants to join in.
Get your Guidon and Bugle Ready, Buddy. Need some cavalry here.
Check out *hillblogger3.blogspot.com*. Read all postings and familarize yourself with content and comments. Pay particular attention to the “prosecute Cheney” one. Then do your thing.
Hostess there is from PI, now married to Anglo-French former sub commander and arms dealer. Good woman but a bit autoproctological as to our culture. Kin you help me out here? Might want to invite MC to the fray as well. Merci Beaucoup!
BC now returned to usual line of commentary.
Tom Holsinger:
Alwaleed bin Talal is said to own about 7% of News Corporation and is also a major donor to Harvard University.
I think the American press is too soft on Saudi Arabia and is altogether too prone to accept Saudi propaganda (often in the form of Associated Press articles) at face value.
If you think I am suspicious that Fox, the New York Post, or the Wall Street Journal may eventually advance an agenda that is tacitly pro-Saudi, you are absolutely correct. I think most of our press is corrupt, and I doubt that the Murdoch empire is any exception.
7. Subotai Bahadur:
“I may not be up to their level, as noted above; but that does not mean that I am a nice person.”
That may be true, sir, but somehow I rather wager that you are a person on whose side I would much rather be.
…and no, that’s not a proposal.
Wretchard, your comments re #17 are what I have long thought. In fact, I find it inevitable.
But more to the point, the end result will not be a return to the status quo ante. A Britain after WWI, did not return to genteel Victorian politics or reserve. A Britain even harder pressed in WWII hurriedly built nukes.
We are inevitably going to lose millions of Americans to Islamic nukes. This has already been set. And with the “diversity” cast being part of it, to the point that Casey mourns threats to diversity but not 14 dead at Fort Hood, and the Akaka Bill allowing separate and unequal treatment of people in Hawaii based on bloodlines, the inevitable ending is clear to see.
The America that comes to pass “AFTER” will not be the one we live in now “BEFORE.” It will be based on the majority population, with better position and spending and social control for them, and worse for everyone else. With likely a Curtis LeMay solution for external threats.
Heck, look at how the “Epic Bearded Man” became an internet sensation. Most of that being who he was, and who he fought.
Carlos Slim made his fortune in Mexican telecommunications. That is a notoriously corrupt industry in the 3rd World. Political connections often mean more than technical expertise and efficiency. His last big venture that I heard of was the now liquidated CompUSA. There may be a certain perverse logic in his approval of the NYT’s efforts to turn America into a place just like the 100 or so countries that dominate the UN. If he does for the Times and information retailing what he did for electronics retailing the firm won’t be around to criticize. Since they are all bits or bytes on a connection of tubes the industries are the same anyway. The connections between Newscorp, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal and China are of concern. No one should get emotional though at the realization that Fox is a business like any other.
We do need help all humans do, in sorting through the available data and separating the chaff of bias leading to error. That does not mean that all biased information is untrue. If someone has an interest in telling you the truth they may. Sponsored news is a problem if it distorts and prevents you from seeing other issues with a free mind but on a given subject the honestly acknowledged lobbyist may be a good source.
Few people have the time to sift the unlit warehouses in bad neighborhoods that line the information super highway. We hope that we can judge the visitors to this space as on balance a good investment of our time to consider the information delivered and to offer small contributions. No one can rest from the need to constantly test information for credibility even as the pressure to accept something as adequate and move on is great.
Some rely on the NY Times to be their filter. Some of us at one time spent 15 to 30 minutes every day looking at Little Green Footballs. Some people test stories, or subjects with a known moral or subjective standard, often religious, to determine if the topics are worth the cost of caring about the truth. We are all mortal and time moves in one direction. We can’t verify everything for ourselves. To attempt to is a sign of madness.
For a man like Mr Kember who has adopted “Pacifism” as his yardstick contrary information will not be processed. He has it automatically routed to his kill file. Any contradiction will result in the “No true Scotsman” defense. Congressman Grayson is a more familiar and therefor more comfortable breed of hypocrite. We all know how to deal with the politically contemptible even if we are uncomfortable with similar religious manifestations.
The image that creeps into my mind is that of a damsel in distress who is drowning in the lake. When the old fisherman in his decrepit boat comes to save her she is outraged that he who saved her was not a handsome prince in a yacht.
Everyone is entitled to their fantasies. (mine center around the cheerleaders for the Dallas Cowboys) No one is entitled to expect others to regard their fantasies as being objective reality. 2 + 2 always equals 4. No amount of wishful thinking can make it otherwise.
“Some of us at one time spent 15 to 30 minutes every day looking at Little Green Footballs.” Yes, and thank God those days are over!
Wretchard @ 14 – As I’ve remarked more than once here at Belmont Club, in the spring of 1939 Great Britain could muster just one and a half battle-ready tank divisions to send to France. Stalin, realizing that British sea and airpower wouldn’t do much to help the USSR in the event of war with Nazi Germany, and realizing that the French would sit behind the Maginot Line, drew his conclusion and cut a deal with Hitler. Was that right or justifiable by any standard of morality? No. But it is what one would expect from Stalin. And if America hadn’t allied with Stalin and sent him 200,000 trucks to blitzkrieg the Germans in 1944-45, FDR wouldn’t look like such a genius war leader to Americans, liberal or conservative, for conquering half of Europe with 1/25th the losses of the Soviets and far fewer casulties than the British.
Re: other comments on The Wall Street Journal, NYT and Slim – I’ve long been suspicious of the incessant Russia bashing at the WSJ and WaPost, and wondered if the 1980s strategy of using cheap Mideast oil to bankrupt the USSR somehow kept going, zombie-like, long after the Cold War supposedly ended (see 1998 oil price and Russian banking system collapse).
The constant refrain about ‘Putinism’ while treating the Chinese (Murdoch’s squeeze Wendy Deng) with kid gloves has become disgusting to me. If the U.S. government were $2 trillion in debt to Moscow rather than Beijing, would we hear all that? I think you know the answer.
“If you think I am suspicious that Fox, the New York Post, or the Wall Street Journal may eventually advance an agenda that is tacitly pro-Saudi, you are absolutely correct.” Does encouraging Israel and the U.S. to bomb Iran and resist ‘Shi’a extremism’ from Pakistan to eastern Saudi Arabia fit in the category of pro-Saudi propaganda? Qui bono?
This is why I’m no longer welcome in the conservative ‘club’. The Weekly Standard and National Review are not permitted to ask such questions, just like they have been willing to criticize George Soros’ domestic political lobbying but NEVER his activities abroad, even the insider information that led him to make his spectacular bet against the Pound. There are no-go zones for the American media too, guys, and when you start digging too deep you end up in Alex Jones land.
tcobb @29 said “Everyone is entitled to their fantasies. (mine center around the cheerleaders for the Dallas Cowboys) No one is entitled to expect others to regard their fantasies as being objective reality. 2 + 2 always equals 4. No amount of wishful thinking can make it otherwise.”
tcobb, I’m guessing you are not a subscriber to the Atlanta Progressive News. But just in case you are, it’s important to see the post below that I copied for you from NRO’s “Corner” blog.
****
All Is Illusion [John Derbyshire]
This is a gem. A chap named Jonathan Springston, senior staff writer at Atlanta Progressive News was let go. Why? He believed in reality. In APN’s own words: “At a very fundamental, core level, Springston did not share our vision for a news publication with a progressive perspective. He held on to the notion that there was an objective reality that could be reported objectively, despite the fact that that was not our editorial policy at Atlanta Progressive News. It just wasn’t the right fit.”
http://bit.ly/aot3vV
****
So on the off chance that you do subscribe, I’m betting you want to cancel now…unless of course, the APN is planning a cover story (or better yet an undercover story) about those cheerleaders you mentioned!
And I wonder, how would Mr. Springston’s attitude toward objective reality endear him to the NYTimes, should he aspire to work at such a place?
he stands by his criticism of
companiespeople who have been found to cheat the American people, defraud our government, and unnecessarily risk the lives of members of our military, all in the name of making a profitWouldn’t that include about 90% of the members of Congress and 100% of the public sector unions?
4. Josh:
Still, Las Vegas has built some very large hotels and casinos, on the losings of those who didn’t get these logics right.
……
I was in Vegas last week for a water conference. (Even with the snow this winter Lake Meade and Lake Powell water levels will drop. So Vegas is is about two years away from the first of some major water reductions.)
Vegas makes a lot of money on conferences. The gambling part looks like its made mostly on the backs of women ages 35-75 who work the slot machines day and night. My guess is that 1-5-10-20 years ago all of them 1000 dollars and they have since pumped 20-200 thousand dollars and more looking for the second 1000 dollars.
The son of one of Hamas’ founders served as a top informant for Israel for more than a decade, providing top-secret intelligence that helped prevent dozens of suicide bombings and other attacks against Israelis, a newspaper reported Wednesday. Breitbart
Explains why his father never ate a Hellfire.
The Hamas informant became a Christian. That’s why you don’t kill them all. Sharia is not heaven on earth, or maybe not even as good as Detroit, for everybody that identifies as a Muslim.
The big failure of the Western response to Islamism is the lack of will in calling out all the Muslim countries for persecuting Christians and other faiths. Given the opportunity to embrace a worldview that valued the individual as something other than another one of Allah’s dragoons maybe Islam would disappear in several generations.
I suspect they know it too because the penalty for apostasy in Islamoworld is murder by neighbor.
The BBC’s defense correspondent has a book out documenting the SAS exploits in Iraq, including the rescue of Kember. (maybe I read that here on a previous thread).
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Task-Force-Black-Mark-Urban/dp/1408702649/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267111268&sr=1-1
Off topic:
The State Department has issued a statement regarding the Falklands:
““We are aware not only of the current situation but also of the history, but
our position remains one of neutrality,” a State Department spokesman told
The Times. “The US recognises de facto UK administration of the islands but
takes no position on the sovereignty claims of either party.” From REDSTATE.
I’m sure Alan Grayson would approve. Buraq has done it again. Why back up a long time loyal ally of America when you can help a friend of Hugo Chavez?
Charles @ 33: Vegas has been trying for thirty years to transition to being a conference center, or a family entertainment center. But it has not worked. That is not how they make money, except as the conference brings in gamblers. Neither do they build those immense hotels just to run slot machines. Nor to serve buffet breakfasts and 79 cent shrimp cocktails. All of that is just backdrop so a few “whales” will fly in, and lose enough money to pay for the infrastructure. At least, that’s what I’ve read.
I’m curious whether the Indian casinos in California and around the country, have the same economics.
I used to go to Vegas for Comdex, and other smaller conferences. The town *hated* Comdex. Techies didn’t gamble much, hogged all the hotel rooms and kept out even the standard gamblers.
Now there’s something of a civilian economy there, based on low state taxes – thanks to gambling.
Mr X
n the spring of 1939 Great Britain could muster just one and a half battle-ready tank divisions to send to France. Stalin, realizing that British sea and airpower wouldn’t do much to help the USSR in the event of war with Nazi Germany, and realizing that the French would sit behind the Maginot Line, drew his conclusion and cut a deal with Hitler
“100 000 Morts Oublies ; La Bataille De France 10 Mai-25 Juin 1940″
http://www.chapitre.com/CHAPITRE/fr/BOOK/richardot-jean-pierre/100-000-morts-oublies-la-bataille-de-france-10-mai-25-juin-1940,22133465.aspx
so not all the French soldiers sit behind the Maginot line
Britain’s well-trained expeditionary force in France was beaten just as quickly and thoroughly as the French, and saved itself only by abandoning its French allies and fleeing across the Channel.
Second, the forts of France’s Maginot Line were not tactically outflanked, as myth has it. The Germans struck NW of the Line’s end, through the Belgian/French Ardennes Forest, a route anticipated by the French Army which held war games there in 1939. The immobile French field army failed, not the Maginot Line. It may have been too costly, tied down too many men, and came to symbolize France’s defensive attitude, but the Great Wall of France fulfilled its designated mission.
The Line was intended to only defend the coal and steel industries of Alsace and Lorraine, which it did.
The Germans concluded an attack on the Line would be too costly, and opted for a different route – through Belgium.
http://www.ericmargolis.com/political_commentaries/getting-to-the-truth-about-world-war-ii.aspx
uh, Stalin wasn’t prepeared for the war, and didn’t start the hostilities, besides the battle fields were a massacre for the soviet troops (especially when they were mostly composed by asian republics’ soldiers), its only when he realised that the nazi troops could have entered into Moscaw, that he “wake up”
There would be a positive sea-change in the ranks of the informed if people treated their consumption of news product as seriously as they do their purchase of toaster ovens and espresso machines.
Chas & Josh,
Casinos make ALL their profit off the winnings – nothing on the losings, all of which go to offset any winnings – at a discount to actual odds.
A simple example…put $1 on each number at the roulette table (1-36 + 0&00) = $38. You win everytime = $35. So, 3/38ths is the house take on the winnings every spin where there is a winner.
Techies don’t gamble much, because they understand the house odds, But, they are really good at poker, which is a game of skill. Check out the Top 50 money winners on tour and see how many have advanced science/math degrees.
It’s not just Vegas. Most all casino operators. Hate for the techies might extend to well before Comdex, which was just their opportunity to show it openly.
It was the “techies” who figured out some of the weaknesses in the processes, costing the house dearly both to stop and to fix it.
- roulette See Eudaemonic Pie by Thomas Bass about the exploits of Doyle Farmer – father of chaos theory (a non-level wheel favors one quadrant)
- card-counting in blackjack (killing the single deck shoe and continuing to plague multi-deck games – see movie “21″ about the MIT team). Imagine how p*ssed the operators were to learn 8 years in that their system was vulnerable to math whizzes.
- Plus 3+ cases where the PROMs in slots were rigged to payout for a specific sequence of bets.
No love lost, but we earned it.
Grayson and Kember, once safe at home, probably thought the appearance of too much gratitude, much less any reassessment of their previous views, might reflect poorly on their personal integrity. True believers pride themselves on holding fast to the cause no matter what happens – in a way, the entire notion of political correctness arises from a need to rationalize conflicting interests inherent in the real world and subsume them into what Leftists like to think is the philosophy of the greater good. Crazy as it may sound, these men (pardon the expression) were probably more afraid of being ostracized and condemned as traitors by the Left than anything else. As I’ve noted here before, Hannah Arendt has written about the tendency of heretics within totalitarian movements to go to the stake proclaiming their political bona fides.
(That’s not a defense, btw – I think their behavior is contemptible and stupid – just an observation.)
Ah bonjour Marie Claude, somehow I knew Mr. X’s post would draw your attention. And, having toured (well, trespassed is more accurate) many of the remaining forts and outposts of the Maginot Line, as well as the older fortresses at Verdun, I would agree with the Wehrmacht’s conclusion that the ligne was not to be trifled with…unfortunately, the French Army had lost (or never developed) its ability to maneuver after WWI and was determined to defend France along its border rather than simply respond with great force to whatever spearhead invaded their homeland. I still remember Churchill’s question to the General Gamelin after the breakthrough at Sedan – “Où est la masse de manoeuvre?” – only to find out, sadly, there was none since every poilu was piled onto a front line extending from the Swiss border to the English Channel. Along those lines, I was once interviewed by a French radio station after I wandered out of a Maginot Line fortress near Bitche – it was very impromptu and they were excited to find an American in the area shortly after 9/11. They asked me my impression of the fort and I told them in my lousy French that it was an impressive edifice, but nothing beats a maneuverable military force that can ride to sound of the guns rather than hope to be attacked at their strongest position. Nonetheless, once more the French Army was badly led and it was their poilus that paid the price…c’est dommage.
“Would you refuse to be saved by information obtained through waterboarding?”
FYI:
“Coalition for Clarity” blog
http://coalitionforclarity.blogspot.com/
the gist of it is that that the bigger the dominance of one party, the greater the ability of that party to impose self-restrictions
The dominance of the Democratic party in domestic politics does not seem to be restricting the ability of Congressman Grayson to have his cake and eat it too. Xe is bad, Xe is defendant. Xe is my ticket out of an African civil war. Xe is still bad, and will be defendant again.
Or Mr. Kember. War is bad. I am kidnapped and threatened with death. SAS troopers who go through hell I cannot imagine just to wear their unit patch save my life, but they are still involved in an evil enterprise and therefore suspect whenever they’re not saving my particular life.
Self-restriction? Where? They certainly are not restricted in terms of the contradictions they must confront and those they are permitted, through the skill, effort and risk of others, to avoid.
geoffgo @ 42: card-counting in one-deck blackjack is an old game – and really works!
That Eudaemonic Pie stuff, I doubt.
Poker is fine, but it’s very hard for even the best player to win at a casino table that takes a percentage out of each hand. As a player, you have to be able to fleece the yahoos faster than the casino is fleecing you. Doesn’t work against even roughly competent opponents.
Great, I hear Obama is busy knocking high deductible plans as “not providing basic care”.
I have one of those plans. It saves me $10,000 in premiums every year. I can buy a LOT of basic care with $10,000.
The insurance company is happy because they don’t have to spend $50 processing a $20 claim. The doctor is happy enough to give me a discount over the insurance company rates. Just where is the problem?
Obama, you are an IDJIOT.
–
Rush is liking the health care summit, because Obama is looking like a fool (with his pants on the ground).
That’s what transparency is all about.
Josh @39:
I was told that the event each year that Vegas cabbies, etc. most look forward to is the National Finals Rodeo in December. All those folks from fly-over country know how to say please and thank-you – and especially how to tip.
The favorite time/event for the Vegas poker pros? Spring break.
What is really stupid is elevation of some assessment of observable state of things – which can be plainly wrong or simply change in the course of time – to status of pseudo-religious conviction or moral principle. Empirical truth must stay empirical, subject to re-evaluation. Let us leave absolutes to proper realms of religion and moral, where they belong.
Ammo Guy
On the maginot line, I made a post with a few odd pics of Mickey
and a German specialistof the Maginot line linked his nic to his site, interesting
http://mysoupis.blogspot.com/2006/08/la-ligne-maginot-1930-1935.html
The Maginot line is great. My father and the rest of his pals in the 82AB Div walked across it on their way to Berlin! His lot would not have much to say to the likes of Grayson or Kember.
Marie Claude,
“The Line was intended to only defend the coal and steel industries of Alsace and Lorraine, which it did.”
Don’t see how you can say that – if they ran around it and grabbed Alsace Lorraine from the rear, that’s not what I would call a successful defense.
In the summer of 2001 a law firm filed suit against the USA on behalf of the people who were taken to Auschwitz in WWII under the assertion the US military had not bombed the rail lines leading to the camp and thus was to some degree culpable for what happened there.
Aside from the fact that the USAAF could not have bombed the rail lines leading to the camp until it was too late to do any good, and aside from the larger issues over culpability for another nation’s actions – would we assume from the lawsuit that the members of that law firm, either employees or full partners, would have volunteered to fly that mission?
Indeed, considering that it would have meant that innocents would have been killed, would the inmates of Auschwitz themselves been willing to have flown that mission?
#45,
Well, this gets us closer to the heart of the matter. Besides the usual platitudes against violence, while completely disconnected from the real world of consequence… I found this sidebar on clarity’s blog of interest because it illuminates the clarity blog’s premises:
Veritatis Splendor on Torture
“Reason attests that there are … acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum)…”there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object”.
The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: “Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide…”
“Veritatis Splendor, Pope John Paul II”
“Homicide’ in its broadest definition is the taking of someone else’s life.
(hom·i·cide n. 1. The killing of one person by another.)
Justification aside, certainly war is conducted with the premeditated intention to, as needed, take someone else’s life. And being killed in war is certainly ‘hostile’ to one’s life. As whether justified or not, you are just as dead.
Therefore, by the Catholic Church’s reasoning, no violent response is justified and pacifism/surrender the only morally acceptable response to aggression.
That is a formula for suicide and a perfect example of Burke’s “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
Pope John Paul’s reasoning is a direct extension of “Just War Theory and Doctrine” which in turn extends from Augustine of Hippo and St. Thomas Aquinas attempts to reconcile justification of war with Jesus’ instruction to “turn the other cheek”.
I also find it of passing interest that for the condition of ‘clarity’ to exist, one must be intellectually honest. A condition that requires the willingness to face the consequences of one’s reasoning. Any bets on either Clarity’s or the Church’s willingness to face the inherent, real-world consequence of their philosophical reasoning?
That is the first I have heard that the Catholic church embraces pacifism, and I strongly suspect that either the quote is taken out of context or “homicide” is translated wrong. Any Catholics willing to comment?
Also, Just War in Augustine and Aquinas allowed for a pretty broad interpretation – Only legitimate authorities can wage war, it must be waged for righteous motives, and must right a wrong or prevent an injustice. I.e, private citizens can’t go to war on their own hook, and war can’t be naked aggression or waged for profit. That is it. Nothing about having to wait until attacked, use “proportional force,” etc. Considerations of humanity should still apply, of course, but I far as I can tell they understood that war is necessarily nasty.
exhelodrvr
consider that this sentence was a quote (from the 2nd link)
now, I find it accurate too, in that sense that since Germany was aiming to invade France it was always trough one or two bridges across the Rhein, situated in north or Metz, and or of Strasburg, that Alsace Lorraine belonged to Germany since the 1870 war, and thus that the new border between France and Germany was between Alsace Lorraine and Champagne Ardennes, that because Alsace Lorraine being in Germany during WW1, these two provinces weren’t destroyed, nor harmed like the eastern provinces of the France happened to be. Since France recovered these 2 lost provinces, and that they were the most industrillased ones, the french government didn’t want that they will become the battle fields if a new war with Germany would occur, therefore the gehant fortifications of the Maginot line.
sorry, Metz is on Moselle (not on Rhein)
GF,
No intent to mislead. If the quote is inaccurate then Clarity’s blog is remiss. Here it is in its entirety, I merely redacted the words that I thought might ‘muddy’ the point I was making. Judge for yourself. I’m italicizing the words I used.
“Veritatis Splendor on Torture
Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature “incapable of being ordered” to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image.
These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances.
Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that “there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object”.
The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: “Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator”.
Veritatis Splendor, Pope John Paul II”
The Church clearly objects to torture and basically any indignity visited upon another and in the context of peacetime, other than self-defense, I have little if any quarrel with the Church’s assertions.
Of the offenses listed, I chose homicide because war cannot be conducted without death and if faced with an aggressor willing to kill, the refusal to respond in kind necessarily results in surrender and/or suicide.
As for my assertion that the Church’s acceptance of John Paul’s reasoning necessarily means that only pacifism and or surrender are now the sole, morally acceptable responses to violent, murderous aggression, I find the following premises to be conclusive of that assertion;
The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: “Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide
These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances.
Regardless of the Church’s willingness to recognize the implications of their reasoning, they clearly state that homicide is one of the acts which is intrinsically evil and that this is so regardless and ‘quite apart’ from one’s “ulterior intentions and circumstances”. Note that nothing is said of war as an exception, nor given the categorical condemnation of violence, can there be an exception. I’m asserting this to be a recent extension of Just War Doctrine and that evidently, the Church hasn’t faced up to exactly what they are asserting.
MC,
The INTENT was to completely defend all of France – Alsace-Lorraine just happened to be on the front line.
GB,
I think I see what you were getting at. However, I think that “homicide” should be understood to mean “murder,” not killing of humans in general. I am not a Catholic, much less a scholar of Catholic theology, but I think that killing done in a just war would not be considered “hostile to life itself,” as ultimately a just war aims at preserving innocent life.
I am a rascally Presbyterian, so what the Pope thinks really doesn’t inform my own thinking much. I am, however, a fan of the Just War theory, as I understand it. That encyclical sounds like it was primarily a response to Utilitarianism – arguing that there are some actions which are wrong, regardless of the good they might do – the problem is that war by its nature always is a choice of choosing the lesser evil. I think most people, regardless of religious affiliation, can agree that there are times when one must choose the greatest good of the greatest number, but are leery of the idea that anything can be justified. The question is where to draw the line, and Just War theory is an attempt to resolve that. Given that Augustine essentially argued that killing could be done as an act of love, I have trouble seeing how pacifism could be considered an extension of Just War theory -pacifism is a rejection of Just War theory, I believe.
Update: It looks like you added somethings since I started writing. I agree that it does sound like the Papacy is condemning all taking of human life, but believe that it contradicts other teachings and cannot be taken as teh final word on what they believe. they certainly have not taught pacifism in the past.
#61,
I agree, the Church is contradicting itself and being made up of men how could that be otherwise? I’m a lapsed Catholic so perhaps a bit more familiar with Church teachings but do not mean to limit my observations solely to Catholic teachings.
That is because those teachings extend far beyond the Church, affecting as they do, fundamental philosophical premises of the West in confronting Islamic radicalism, totalitarian regimes and monomaniacal dictatorships.
Just War Theory does make a distinction between murder and killing in war, and it is an attempt to limit war’s brutalities and ‘humanize’ war.
I am not however, a fan of ‘Just War Doctrine’ because I believe, at least parts of it, to be dangerously unrealistic, which is not to say that war should not have common-sense limitations.
See: Just War Theory” vs. American Self-Defense
American war policy, has been for decades and is being conducted according to Just War Theory. It is taught at West Point. And it is fundamental to liberal’s views on war.
That alone, makes it of great importance.
Marie Claude, thank you for the correction on the 100,000 French soldiers who did resist to death in 1940.
Yes Stalin was unprepared for war, having massacred his generals. The point was neither France nor Britain held much weight in Stalin’s pre-Molotov-Ribbentropp deliberations, though the French were far more eager for an alliance than Chamberlain, since they were the ones facing the prospect of invasion for the third time in 70 years, and Dunkirk has only been made noble by the fact that some there lived to fight another day. Had Britain accomodated Hitler it would be a completely different story.
I think that the US Government pays enough money to these contractors to receive honest reports from them about incidents. If the contractors shoot up a lot of automobiles and busses in an intersection and kill and wound a lot of innocent people, then why should the US Government have to accept a bullshit report that the contractors were shooting back at terrorists?
Are there some fine-print clauses in these contracts that require the US Government to accept bullshit reports in the course of the service we pay for? It seems to me that after any such incident happens, then the contracting company should tell us what really happened.
Is that too much to ask?
Hi Wretchard,
On a slightly different topic, all pacifists are hypocrites or confused.
We live under a government which by definition is violent. It uses the stages of violence: police, courts, jails, executioner to enforce the rules we live by. People, including pacifists, argue all the time about what those rules should be. Right now, we are arguing over whether those rules should create “free health care”.
Pacifists would never join the police force. They are morally above that. But they would call the police. And they do vote for politicians that give police their violent power.
In some fantasy world, pacifists think that violent confrontation between two governments is somehow different, and less moral, than the normal violence of law enforcement. Such a belief is just nuts.
Many of them must have been conned into believing it. But I can’t believe that somewhere down the line was a thinker who came up with the whole idea as a nefarious plot of some sort. And current pacifists live with it not knowing (or maybe knowing) its origins.
James
Mr X
though the French were far more eager for an alliance than Chamberlain, since they were the ones facing the prospect of invasion for the third time in 70 years
tout faux:
LA GOUVERNANTE ANGLAISE” (HITLER).
Hitler souligne avec cette expression polémique, combien la liberté française en matière de politique étrangère s’exerce dans un espace restreint par les données géopolitiques et militaires du moment qui débouchent sur une nécessité unique : l’alliance anglaise. L’annonce de Daladier devant ses ministres en 1938 est à ce propos éclairante : “pas un Français ne peut accepter de lancer son pays contre l’Allemagne et l’Italie sans être au moins sûr de l’aide immédiate de l’Angleterre”. Les responsables français , devant un tel enjeu, celui de la survie de la nation ont d’une part trop conscience des faiblesses du pays , et d’autre part se souviennent trop qu’en 1914-1918 la France n’a pu vaincre qu’avec l’appui anglo-saxon pour accepter de prendre le risque de se trouver sans allié. D’où la politique de suivisme et d’alignement sur l’appeasement britannique.
L’alliance franco-anglaise a constamment fonctionné sur un pied d’inégalité. Face à une France divisée, consciente de ses faiblesses et par là condamnée à une subordination plus ou moins résignée, c’est à l’Angleterre que reviennent la prééminence, les initiatives et le pouvoir de décision . On connaît l’amère boutade de Daladier: “Pourquoi la Grande -Bretagne fait elle les frais d’une ambassade à Paris ? Elle en a une qui ne lui coûte rien : au Quai d’Orsay.” Chaque fois le gouvernement français mis devant le fait accompli a dû suivre son allié dans les options que celui-ci avait prises .
Hitler emphasizes this controversial phrase, how much freedom in French foreign policy is exercised in an area restricted by geopolitical and military time that lead to need unique English alliance. The announcement of Daladier to his ministers in 1938 in this regard is illuminating: “no French can not agree to launch his country against Germany and Italy without being sure of at least the immediate assistance of England” . French officials, in front of such a challenge, the survival of the nation, have a share, being too aware of the weaknesses, and also remember too that in 1914-1918 France couldn’t win the war without the Anglo-Saxon support and didn’t want to take the risk of staying without allies. Hence the policy of subservience and alignment with the British appeasement.
The Franco-British alliance has consistently worked on an unequal footing. Facing a divided France, aware of his weaknesses and thus condemned to a subordinate more or less resigned to England’s back that the rule, initiatives and decision-making power were left to Britain. We know the bitter joke of Daladier: “Why Britain spends so much in an embassy in Paris? there is one that costs nothing: the Quai d’Orsay” Whenever the French government faced with a fait accompli, it had to follow its ally in the option that it had taken.
http://lamelin.com/histoire/munich2.htm
and from “the secrets of the federal reserve”:
During the 1930’s, until the outbreak of World War II, the Schroders poured money into the Anglo-German Fellowship, with the result that Hitler was convinced he had a large pro-German fifth column in England composed of many prominent politicians and financiers. The two divergent political groups in the 1930’s in England were the War Party, led by Winston Churchill, who furiously demanded that England go to war against Germany, and the Appeasement Party, led by Neville Chamberlain. After Munich, Hitler believed the Chamberlain group to be the dominant party in England, and Churchill a minor rabble-rouser. Because of his own financial backers, the Schroders, were sponsoring the Appeasement Party, Hitler believed there would be no war. He did not suspect that the backers of the Appeasement Party, now that Chamberlain had served his purpose in duping Hitler, would cast Chamberlain aside and make Churchill the Prime Minister. It was not only Chamberlain, but also Hitler, who came away from Munich believing that it would be “Peace in our time.”
The success of the Schroders in duping Hitler into this belief explains several of the most puzzling questions of World War II. Why did Hitler allow the British Army to decamp from Dunkirk and return home, when he could have wiped them out? Against the frantic advice of his generals, who wished to deliver the coup de grace to the English Army, Hitler held back because he did not wish to alienate his supposed vast following in England. For the same reason, he refused to invade England during a period when he had military superiority, believing that it would not be necessary, as the Anglo-German Fellowship group was ready to make peace with him. The Rudolf Hess flight to England was an attempt to confirm that the Schroder group was ready to make peace and form a common bond against the Soviets. Rudolf Hess continues to languish in prison today, many years after the war, because he would, if released,
http://www.barefootsworld.net/fs_m_ch_07.html
RWE#54 – i’ll take a stab at that;
” would we assume from the lawsuit that the members of that law firm, either employees or full partners, would have volunteered to fly that mission? ”
no
” considering that it would have meant that innocents would have been killed, would the inmates of Auschwitz themselves been willing to have flown that mission?
yes
(Deleted by poster)
Maginot Line original concept was to go to the Channel, but too costly. Manstein’s Sichelschnitt cut off the mobile elements of FR and Brit armies at their pivot point as they advanced into Belgium to the Dyle Line. If FR and Brits had chosen not to protect western Belgium and stay on the border, Manstein’s plan would have just punched the air and a FR counterattack such as DeGaulle would have pushed for would have taken them in flank. Most FR troops fought well, failure was bad strategy and moral collapse of civil and top military (Weygand) at the crucial moment. FR Army was virtually leaderless for about 2 days, by the time the top guys recovered their wits, Rommel was almost to the Channel, and it was too late.
Still an open question why Hitler stopped the panzers at Dunkirk. 100K French escaped Dunkirk along with 200K Brits, it’s not as if the Brits just left all the FR behind.
Waterboarding is not torture by any rational definition—it is an old fraternity hazing trick, for God’s sake. I have read where George Marshall was waterboarded under those circumstances at VMI. It is an effective interrogation technique but it does not cause pain, it does not damage hard or soft tissue, it produces no lasting injuries. I have ZERO patience for people who call it torture as if it’s the rack or thumbscrews or inserting a glass rod in the urethra and shattering it (a WW2 Japanese specialty). Those who call it torture just don’t like the idea of effective interrogation of unwilling suspects.
Marty, yes 100K French managed to reach UK, but they hadn’t priority,
in that video, you’ll see a Brit sergent saying “The Brits, right, The French, left”, and only embarked at the end. I think that the Brits were more numerous)
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4jra0_extrait-week-end-à-zuydcoote_shortfilms
The great danger lies not in the lack of reporting on a story, but in fabrication of “fact”. I don’t care that the gray lady does not report on certain items, I don’t read the output of the gray lady and don’t hold them in high regard.
I do care about the intentional misrepresentation of facts, ie the Rachel Corrie affair, or Paleiwood, or numerous attempts to distort what occurred in Lebanon (remember the man in the blue helmet?) or what distortions daily have passed as news in Palestine for the last forty years up to and including the UN’s Goldstone report. What is the track record for Blackwater v nearly every allegation against it?
I guess that is where that concept of “reality” meets the pavement and concepts of progressives meet nirvana, sorry grunge fans, I guess Kirt Cobain’s story makes for a poor analogy. Or does it?
Democratic institutions demand a free and unfettered press. But today the outlets of news choices can be limited by access rights or lack of access to servers. But even where software choices limits access, news can generally reaches across via some other means. It is only when we fail to communicate that lies are allowed to stand.