Some Chicago Boyz know each other from student days at the University of Chicago. Others are Chicago boys in spirit. The blog name is also intended as a good-humored gesture of admiration for distinguished Chicago School economists and fellow travelers.
James R. Rummel Has anyone read this? Here’s the money shot.
During a state visit to China, French Premier Raffarin threw support behind a law allowing China to attack Taiwan and continued to push for a lift of the EU arms embargo.
(emphasis added)
You know, I’m seriously thinking about how we should support a Taiwanese invasion of France.
(Hat tip to The Therapy Sessions.)
The Eurofighter Typhoon was supposed to be a state-of-the-art air superiority fighter plane. Developed as a cooperative effort between the aerospace industries of several European countries, it was envisioned as a project to meet the unique conditions and needs of European military forces and doctrine while keeping costs manageable. This was a good idea, maybe even admirable.
I’ve written a few posts about the Eurofighter over the years. The short answer is that it’s a waste of money.
Oh, don’t get me wrong. The plane is capable enough, and there’s no denying that it would perform its combat role if called upon. But it’s apparent that the performance of the Eurofighter is startlingly similar to an American F-16 while having a sticker price 8 times that of the US warplane.
European defense budgets have eroded so much that the powers-that-be decided to sell off the first run of Eurofighters at greatly reduced prices in order to generate some badly needed cash. This is sort of like selling the new family car at a loss in order to make the payments.
Unfortunately, even that isn’t working out as planned. Jane’s Defence reports that Singapore has formally announced that they won’t consider the plane for purchase. In other words, don’t let the door hit you in the backside.
I’m waiting to see which aircraft Singapore decides to buy. If it’s old Soviet designs then the blow to European prestige is going to be pretty significant.
Last year I was approached by a woman at work. She was looking to take the training course needed to apply for a CCW license, but she was out of money. She knew that I ran a charity where I would offer the training for free to victims of violent crime, and she was sure that I would help.
She told me that she was embroiled in a very nasty divorce. Her husband was abusive, violent, out of control. She had eventually taken one beating too much, so she had packed up her kids and moved in to a house she was renting. Sure, the courts had issued a restraining order, but anyone in the self defense trade will tell you that those don’t do much if the perp gets a belly full of beer and decides that they don’t care if they go to jail. Arming yourself against trouble is the only way to stop it sometimes. Her oldest daughter was old enough to be legally considered an adult, so she wanted the training for both of them.
Alarm bells were going off in my mind as she sang me her song of woe. I’ve been doing this for a long time, and I’ve helped hundreds of people who were in trouble. The problem was that she just wasn’t hitting the right notes.
Blog goddess Natalie Solent has written two posts that I’d like to bring to your attention, but I’m only going to discuss them in one. (What a bargain! And we pass the savings on to you!)
The first post is a fisking of a British textbook used in a Religious Studies course. Natalie tears into the material with gusto, since the author of the textbook blames the inequality of living standards between developing nations and industrialized countries on world trade and a lack of foreign aid. NATO also adds to the problem by acting as the world’s police force.
Got that? World trade creates poverty. Mean nations who happen to be rich won’t give their wealth away to those who deserve it. And NATO screws everyone over by trying to keep genocide and regional conflicts from flaring up.
If this is what they’re teaching the youth in the UK then I weep for the Commonwealth. I’m also wondering why some Socialists are writing a textbook on religion, since I thought they hated that sort of thing.
Click on the link and read the post. It’s very good, and Natalie does a very good job of pointing out the absurdity of it all. But that’s not what’s really puzzling me.
Bob wrote a post last week, wondering if the term “Islamofascist” is really correct when applied to our current enemy.
The most topical objection is when Bob correctly points out that the main problem with using this term to indicate radical Islam is due to the fact that religion is subordinated to the state in Fascist regimes. This is exactly the opposite condition when talking about Islamofascists.
This doesn’t hold much water with me. While the above was true 70 years ago, the term has since evolved to include any repressive regime with strong central control that brutally oppresses dissent. This certainly describes our enemies to a “T”.
There are other objections as well. Bob remarks that Fascist states are traditionally centered on strong national pride, and it’s not unusual for an element of racism to be present. (“We are the master race!” sort of thing.) Considering the extreme reaction that radical Islam has towards any other religion, even other Islamic sects, I would have to say that it sure looks the same to me. Any differences are cosmetic at best.
So is the label correct? Are our enemies truly Fascists?
I’d have to say that it’s close enough for government work.