European Union Court Addresses Hamster Problems

The European Union's highest court apparently has enough time on its hands to take up the critical issue of how France is treating wild hamsters.

The Court ... ruled Thursday that France had failed to protect the Great Hamster of Alsace, sometimes known as the European hamster, the last wild hamster species in Western Europe. If France does not adjust its agricultural and urbanization policies sufficiently to protect it, the court said, the government will be subject to fines of as much as $24.6 million.

Since hamsters, much like mice and other rodents, are pests that damage crops, French farmers used to kill them. Now, not only can't they kill them, but they have to grow food for them.

France “now must work to raise the population of hamsters up to 1,500,” which would be enough to preserve the species, he said, and the prefecture of Alsace “must stop some urbanization projects and restore” older agreements to grow certain cereals that hamsters eat.

You can't make this stuff up.

A Useful Reminder About the Nature of the Enemy

France confirmed today that Michel Germaneau was murdered in Mali by a local Al Qaeda affiliate. He wasn't a soldier, and intelligence agent, or some other arm of the French government. He was a 78 year-old "humanitarian volunteer." He was kidnapped purely because of his nationality, and murdered in retaliation for a failed rescue attempted.

These are the types of terrorists the U.S. is currently fighting -- people who think nothing of kidnapping & murdering harmless old humanitarian workers. It's something to bear in mind the next time some useful idiot bleats about such terrorists having "rights" under international law, or calls actions taken against them "war crimes."

The Power of Television

Back in September I wrote a post called, "Testing Torture." In it I suggested that waterboarding could be used to study the efficacy of torture as an interrogation technique -- given that people are willing to volunteer to be waterboarded. At the end, I jokingly suggested that it could even be done as a reality television show. Today I noticed an AFP story called, "Contestants turn torturers in French TV experiment." It doesn't study torture per se, but rather the power of television to influence behavior.

Game show contestants turn torturers in a new psychological experiment for French television, zapping a man with electricity until he cries for mercy -- then zapping him again until he seems to drop dead.

"The Game of Death" has all the trappings of a traditional television quiz show, with a roaring crowd and a glamorous and well-known hostess urging the players on under gaudy studio lights.

But the contestants did not know they were taking part in an experiment to find out whether television could push them to outrageous lengths, and which has prompted comparisons with the atrocities of Nazi Germany.

Eighty percent of participants obeyed instructions to shock the victim repeatedly until he appeared to die -- despite his screams and protests. Although some experts question the methodology, the study concludes that

"The questioners are ... in the grip of the authority of television," said Jean-Leon Beauvois, a psychologist who took part in the documentary. ... "When it decides to abuse its power, television can do anything to anybody," said Nick. "It has an absolutely terrifying power."

Cynical individual that I am, I am not particularly surprised by the results. When you look at the things people do to get on tv, or on reality shows, it's not hard to believe that contestants would be willing to torture and kill someone as part of a television program -- although it would be nice to think that the number of such people wouldn't be as high as eighty percent. 

France & Brazil Whining About U.S. Operations in Haiti

France and Brazil are complaining about U.S. control of Toussaint L'Ouverture airport in Haiti. As usual no good deed by the U.S. goes unpunished. In the chaos after the earthquake, the Haitian government formerly transferred control of the airport to the U.S., obviously recognizing that someone needed to take charge, and that the U.S. was in the best position to do so. But the French and Brazilians aren't happy because some of their aid flights have been diverted to the Dominican Republic. Never mind that the damaged airport has a low capacity, that flights have to be prioritized, and that unorganized relief efforts aren't going to do much good. They've chosen to take offense at U.S. leadership. The Brazilian reaction:

Brazil, which saw its leadership of the UN peacekeeping mission as a calling card of its burgeoning influence, was also indignant when three flights were not allowed to land. The foreign ministry reportedly asked Hillary Clinton to grant Brazil priority over chartered flights. Nelson Jobim, the defence minister, said Brazil would not relinquish command duties and suggested it, not Washington, would continue to lead UN forces.

Yeah, because Brazil's influence is just more important than actually getting relief efforts organized. Brazil has so much experience leading massive international relief efforts. I'm sure they'd be much better suited for leadership than the U.S. And then there are the French.

Paris complained the airport had become a US "annexe"

Instead of working with us, recognizing that the Haiti is right in our backyard, the French would rather whine, snivel and cause problems. I guess that's something you can always count on no matter what the situation.

French-bashing from the 12th Century

The Telegraph has an entertaining article up about a recently translated poem by Andrew de Coutances, an "Anglo-Norman cleric," writing between 1180 and 1194.  He describes the French as, among other things,

godless, arrogant and lazy dogs... cowardly...heretics and rapists

He also disparages their eating habits, greed and gluttony. Here's one noteworthy stanza from the translation,

The English went on the attack, 

And the French defended like cowards, 

They gave up at the first onset 

And shamefully ran away.

The next time you see someone refer to the French as "cheese-eating surrender monkeys," or use some other insult to the national character of France, just remember that it's part of a long tradition going back over 800 years.

France and "Suspected" Pirates

An article in today's Los Angeles Times further illustrates the impact of blind legalism on anti-piracy efforts. France has asked the Seychelles Islands to prosecute "suspected" pirates. Why the quotes around "suspected"?

This month, 11 suspected pirates were captured after they tried to attack French tuna boats. The Somalis were released shortly afterward due to a lack of evidence.

That makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? If they tried to attack tuna boats, that sure seems like not only evidence, but proof of piracy. So why were they released?

Bringing to justice suspected Somali pirates captured by international navies in the Indian Ocean has proven difficult as lawless Somalia cannot try them, while most European countries do not want to take in a suspected pirate who may then claim asylum.

Here the article again falsely refers to actual pirates as "suspected." These are individuals captured in the act of piracy.  They are not suspects in any sense, except in a narrow legal one.

Just as wars cannot be fought by lawyers, neither can piracy. It is no accident that all the naval power assembled against it seems to make little dent in the problem. Effective action against piracy is crippled by blind, legalistic idiocy. For centuries the penalty for being captured in an act of piracy was well-known: summary execution. Pirates were rightly seen as a type of vermin that plagued international shipping, and a threat to the commerce of all civilized nations. But today, not only do we not execute them, we pretend that they are suspects who need access to our legal systems, defense by lawyers -- at taxpayer expense -- and every other consideration, as if they were citizens of whatever country apprehends them.

If we are too squeamish and stupid to carry out well-justified summary executions -- which we are -- let's do the next best thing. Instead of capturing pirates in the act of attacking shipping, just kill them instead. That will remove all the self-inflicted legal problems. 

No Surprise in Iran

Wow, Iran has a secret nuclear facility. Who would have guessed? Anyone with the slightest clue has known for years that Iran is attempting to create the capability to produce nuclear weapons. Of course they are concealing aspects of their nuclear program for obvious reasons. Yet we've had to endure a parade of useful idiots telling us that maybe Iran really does just want peaceful nuclear power. We can talk to them. We can make a deal.  You know, all the other nonsense regularly put forth by the appeasement crowd. Will this new "revelation" finally convince them to abandon their naivete and wishful thinking? Will they wake up and understand that the regime in Tehran can't be trusted to abide by any agreement? Probably not. 

An article in the LA Times notes that during the presidential primaries, Hilary Clinton called Obama's position on Iran and other rogue states "irresponsible" & "naive," clear evidence that Clinton has been right at least once on foreign policy. The writer also points out the responses of Obama, Sarkozy, and Brown to the formerly secret nuclear facility. Here's Obama,

Obama warned that unless Iran acts immediately, punishment will be swift. "Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow," he said.

I'm sure that got a big laugh in Iran. Our enemies aren't scared of the president in the slightest -- and for good reason. Next up, Sarkozy.  

"everything must be put on the table," and that if by December Iran has not reformed, sanctions will be imposed.

No! Not sanctions! No doubt the mullahs are quaking in their robes. And then there is Gordon Brown.

"the international community must draw a line in the sand."

Translation: we are going to do what we do best -- talk.

No Burqas in France

French president Nicolas Sarkozy gave a speech today in which he said the following:  

“The issue of the burqa is not a religious issue, it is a question of freedom and of women’s dignity,” Mr. Sarkozy said. “The burqa is not a religious sign, it is a sign of the subjugation, of the submission of women.”

After Obama's pandering to Muslims in his Cairo speech, it's nice to see a western leader speak out against a degrading religious practice such as forcing women into burqas.  I can't imagine our president making such a clear statement, for fear of offending Muslims. Sarkozy reinforced his point by saying,

“I want to say solemnly that it [the burqa] will not be welcome on our territory.”

Many on the right are fond of bashing the French, but should give Sarkozy credit for having the nerve to speak so forcefully about what the New York Times calls, "one of the most hotly debated social issues in France." 

Homo Sapiens ate Neanderthals?

According to a new hypothesis, Homo Sapiens killed and ate Neanderthals in some cases.  Fernando Rozzi, of Paris's Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique said,

'Neanderthals met a violent end at our hands and in some cases we ate them.

'For years, people have tried to hide away from the evidence of cannibalism, but I think we have to accept it took place.'

He draws these conclusions based on Neanderthal jaw found in France, and a study by the Journal of Anthropological Sciences. Other scientists disagree and point out that one jawbone is hardly overwhelming evidence. But they recognize the scientific importance of the investigation, and that it adds to the evidence that "competition from modern humans probably contributed to Neanderthal extinction."