When six British soldiers were killed in Afghanistan on Tuesday, British Prime Minister David Cameron called it a “desperately sad day” for Britain. Look: I support the troops and yield to no one in my desire to see whoever planted that roadside bomb hunted down. But this was a scarily “teddy bear on the sidewalk” comment. Surely Britons are resolute, not crushed, when soldiers die on active duty. Click here to read the rest.
Is Rick Santorum a threat, and if so, to which party, especially given his weak Wednesday debate? That's the $1 question. To read more click here.
On hearing that American soldiers had burned some Korans, Afghans erupted into randomly murderous rage. In the ensuing stone-throwing, tire- and flag-burning and infidel-denouncing by Friday some 14 people had been killed, mostly Muslim Afghans. What’s that about? Click here to read the rest.
Perhaps blogging about blogs seems a bit self-absorbed, self-referential, derivative or too many steps removed from real life, too cyber-unreal. Nevertheless I want to point to Mark Steyn's comment on National Review Online's "The Corner" yesterday, in which he discusses a significant story about yet another Obama administration staffing misadventure. He highlights that this story has been working its way through cyber-space while being scrupulously ignored by most of the mainstream media. As he pointedly notes, the technological woes of modern newspapers are very real, but there could certainly be more attention paid to relevant, important content even if it is about things liberals would rather not discuss.
Canada's soldiers have been asked to do so much for so long with so little that, the Ottawa Citizen reports, chief of the army land staff Andrew Leslie just told the Senate national security and defence committee that our entire army may have to take a year off to recuperate. Fine. Just make sure somebody tells the bad guys "Don't do anything until we get back."
The Ottawa Citizen notes that "Canada is being told it’s not doing enough in areas such as aboriginal rights, violence against women, poverty and racism by UN Human Rights Council delegates representing countries that allow torture, jail bloggers and amputate the limbs of criminals." The Council even noted criticisms by Iran, which is not a member, of our treatment of migrants, aboriginal women etc. And of course our government hurriedly groveled. Now I'm not saying Canada could not improve its record in some areas including free speech and property rights. But to be critiqued by the UNHRC, whose membership contains some pretty scurvy regimes, invites a classic retort from the golden age of rhetoric: Ah shaddap.
Is it not curious that Barack Obama, like Bill Clinton, should have a series of cabinet appointees in trouble over laws they didn't bother to obey? It seems paradoxical that those most eager to make rules for other people should be so casual about following rules themselves, especially when the new President campaigned so aggressively on improving ethics in Washington... unless of course they think they're a genuinely superior type of person liberated by their awesome responsibilities and talents from the tiresome, mundane moral standards that apply to ordinary folks.