“Melting Snowflakes”

The Washington Post wrote about some a bit over a week ago—maybe is one itself.  Citing Ben Rhodes, “a foreign policy aide to former president Barack Obama” on the Cuba situation:

“[P]ersonally, part of what makes it difficult [to accept] is that we were six years into the administration and spent a year and a half of exhaustive negotiations before announcing” the Cuba opening….

And the poor dear didn’t even get a participation ribbon.  He went on:

They seemed to do this in such a slipshod way. Years of work and painstaking negotiations are countered by what feels like very minimal work and thought.

Or, the Trump administration did things at the speed of business instead of the speed of bureaucratic politicians, and maybe his staff have been working this out since the election.

Wendy Cutler, former Acting Deputy US Trade Ambassador on Trump’s walking away from the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal:

I felt short of breath and like there was a dagger in my heart[.]

Frankly, I agree that Trump was wrong to walk away from the TPP, but dramatically overwrought?  No, I claim to be an adult.

She, too, had to go on about her (and others’, she claims) angst:

When I give speeches, a lot of Asian colleagues are stunned.  They cannot come to terms with how quickly this happened.

Yeah, there’s that speed of business, again.  And perhaps preparation that actually began before 20 Jan.

Kristin Tate, on a recent Fox & Friends segment, has the right of it:

It’s pathetic that The Washington Post would spend time and resources on a story about melting snowflakes while there are so many critical issues that are worthy of coverage[.]

Or, she’s being generous in the level of credit she gives the paper.  WaPo, after all, has remade itself as a tabloid, in the mold of the National Enquirer or the Globe; many of us no longer expect journalism out of this organization.

Vandalism

Terrorist vandalism.

Islamic State militants bombed the historic Nouri Grand Mosque in Mosul late Wednesday, Iraq’s military said, destroying the site where Islamic State’s leader first announced the creation of a self-declared caliphate straddling Iraq and Syria.

They did it purely out of petty, venal spite.  Blowing up the place served no useful purpose, not even in the twisted minds of these Daesh barbarians.

More Hateful Violence-Inciting Rhetoric from the Left

They just can’t let go, even after they’ve been shown, graphically, what their incitement to violence achieves.

“My advice would just be to Republicans who do cozy up to him—it’s like hugging a suicide bomber,” [MSNBC Political analyst Elise Jordan] said. “He blows you up in the process with him.”

Her problem with reality continued, as she insisted that Trump “wasted the country’s collective time speculating over the tapes’ existence.”  Never mind that the only ones wasting time in the speculation was the NLMSM: it was their editorial decision to obsess over an obvious trolling move.  No one made them.  And no one outside the “press” room cared.

Just Whose Side Are They On?

The New York City Council is at it this time.

A new bill would require the New York Police Department to disclose and describe all “surveillance technology,” which it defines as “equipment, software, or system capable of, or used or designed for, collecting, retaining, processing, or sharing audio, video, location, thermal, biometric, or similar information.” The cops would have to post this information online annually and respond to public comments.

Naturally, the ACLU thinks this is a good idea, too.

Yeah.  It is a good idea to tell criminals and terrorists just how they’re being identified and might be preempted.  Sure.

The Nub of the Thing

In a Deutsche Welle piece on the likelihood of Emmanuel Macron being able to reform French labor and pension law, is this statement by Julie Hamann, a political scientist with the German Council on Foreign Relations in Berlin.

The French have high expectations of the state, for it to fulfill its protective function with regard to social welfare.  As soon as reforms are announced that may lead to cuts in social services or labor market insecurity, this very quickly gives rise to very great and very emotional fears.

It doesn’t get any clearer than that.  The French people—French society—expects government to play the major role in doing for them; individual personal responsibility for a Frenchman’s own future is secondary and operable only within a Government provided framework.

Macron and his La République en Marche! party may well fail as resoundingly as did Alain Juppe, who had the major French labor union on his side 22 years ago but couldn’t do the deed, and as resoundingly as did Dominique de Villepin, whose plan already had passed through Parliament 11 years ago when he folded and canceled reforms similar to Macron’s.

Macron is a younger man, and his party is populated by newcomers still fired by their idealism and disdain, if not disgust, for the establishment.  But he will need to go directly against the forces of the people—the popular establishment of a sort—if he’s to succeed.

Macron will change the foundation of French social thinking with his proposals.  He and a sufficiency of his party must have the courage to lead in order to enact his proposals—and to face the consequences if his policies, rammed through and held to, do not lift the French economy into prosperity-generating dynamism.