Eurotrash can be mind numbing in their alleged logic. They have been suckers for every half baked political belief for the last 150 years.

And they are impolite to boot!

Really, there's just so much a person can take.

Curtis was a lot more polite in his reply than I would have been. Picture 6' of pissed off Texas female reaching into Euro-trash's mouth so as to wrap his tongue around his own throat. Gettin' real tired of this stuff.

Little kids are in desperate need of help and these clowns spew stuff like that. Oh, yeah, gettin' real tired of it.

And somebody else's tongue I would like to play jump-rope with is that driver of those French journalists. Yeah, the one taking the U.S. Marines to court for getting him away from his terrorist buddies.

Maybe the families of the butchered Nepali workers could have 10 minutes alone with that guy? He might have a change in attitude.

Compassionate liberalism has no rules, offers no excuses, and is sufficient unto itself. A tsunami is as good a foil as any to display the larger vision of the compassionate liberal.

Sure hundreds of thousands of people have been killed and hundreds of hundreds of thousands more are at hazard from a natural disaster, but the greater disaster is an election whose outcome offends the sensibilities of millions of liberals and lefties and islamites and terrorists and journalists and celebrities and French. Who will repair the hurt in these folks lives? Well, they will. Only the compassionate liberal is empowered to assuage the hurt of a companion compassionate liberal. Where liberals huddle together, who would deny them their snide balm? Their mopes, their pouts, their hissy fits, their rants, their bland slams.

There will be plenty more natural disasters, but liberals will only have GWB to witlessly mock for a scant four years.

A little proportionality is in order here.

DGB

you crack me up, D

Hey you guys are keeping up with the UN relief follies over at http://diplomadic.blogspot.com/
are't you?

The stuff reported from the ground in the disaster zone would be funny beyond belief (if not for the tragedy). The best one is the UN officials trying to hold a press conference at the airport becoming annoyed becuase of the noise from the Aussie and US choppers flying in aid.

Beyond satire!

Yes, that's a really cool blog.

I've had way too much Kofi, though, and am really trying to cut down to one news item a week.

I find that my blood pressure goes up if I go over that limit.

;)

'Franz' shouldn't have said such things, of course. Then again, gloating about Europe's lack of aircraft carriers is somewhat misplaced and
inconsitent, for the same people doing so would be profoundly unhappy if Europe actually had them.

Remember, some time ago a lot of Americans (those commenting here very much included, I'm sure) went into conniptions because some European politicians spoke of the highly theoretical possibility of the EU becoming a counterweight to the US. Guess what, Europeans don't want the EU to become a superpower, for one Western superpower is quite enough. As a consequence we don't have the logistal capabilities to support carrier groups like yours, or to conduct effective relief efforts either.

I suppose that our resulting carrier envy is a bit hard for you to take sometimes, but it certainly is preferable to having to contend with another, rivalling superpower. So, count your blessings, take a Xanax and relax.

PS: Since America is the designated driver it would be appreciated if you concentrated more on the bloody road, and spent less time bickering with the passengers.

'Ralf',

Did you read the same post as I did? No 'gloating' about aircraft carriers was done. Odd how you read it that way... And, no, I can't think of any Americans who would be 'profoundly unhappy' if Europe had some viable aircraft carriers. On the contrary, the US taxpayer would be happy to see Europeans footing some of the bill for a change.

Have you ever heard of the Marshall Plan? The US, even way back then in the dark ages after the war, has always known that a competitive Europe is BENEFICIAL to America, not the contrary. Competition forces people and businesses to surpass themselves and remain inventive, not the contrary. What Zeropa (mostly France and Germany)wants is to be the dominant force. If the US were second fiddle instead of top dog, there would be a lot less posturing about a multi-polar world amongst European anti-Atlanticists.

As for Xanax... So NOT taking care of your own country's defense needs means that Americans should take a Xanax? In fact, Europeans can sleep safely because Americans still are willing to maintain a defense budget. What was your point exactly? Your confusion is confusing me...

As for your PS, 'Ralf', what in heaven's name are you going on about??????????????

Valerie,

first of all I have to apologize for the rather lame attempt at humor and my lack of clarity. I had merely meant to defuse the situation a bit.
As to the 'gloating': I hadn't merely meant the post ar Varifrank, but also a lot of those linking to them (visible via trackback). Of course a
competitive Europe would be good for Americ and the world, but that doesn't seem the majority view among a lot of bloggers and commenters. I have gotten used to the view (at LGF and other populkar blogs) that Europe is inherently inimical to America (if not even a mortal enemy) and that a militarily strong Europe would be a very bad thing. And of course I know about the Marshall plan.

It simply is the case that the prevailling view among bloggers towards trade and internatiuonal commerce seems to be zero-sum: 'Your gain is
my loss and your loss is my gain'. I try to convince them that this is ccompletely wrong, but mercantilist and protecionist views mostly are too
deeply entrenched. Again. I apologize for dragging this into your comment section, and in a rather oblique way at that.

The same goes for defense issues. And my 'PS' was meant to describe the situation: Europe isn't indeed doing enough for its own defense, and is letting America taking the lead; that's what I menat with the designated driver remark. A lot of the Americans I correspond with via their blogs
seem to prefer it that way. I guess it isn't a majority view among Americans in general, and that I had my self been led to believe otherwise by the people I talk to.

...that doesn't seem the majority view among a lot of bloggers and commenters. I have gotten used to the view (at LGF and other populkar blogs) that Europe is inherently inimical to America (if not even a mortal enemy) and that a militarily strong Europe would be a very bad thing.

E-nough!'s readers will correct me if I'm mistaken, I can't and don't read every blog out there, but it seems to me that you are misreading the situation! Yes, many Americans view France, in particular, and parts of Europe as anti-USA but I personally have not seen any major bloggers expressing the view that it's a good thing that Europe is so weak in terms of defense! The view IS, I believe, that since Europe refuses to play soldier seriously, it's a good thing that America is the sole superpower. This because we frankly believe, as do most of the world, that with America at the wheel, not much damage will be done as long as the USA remains in that position. If Russia were the sole superpower in today's world, for example, confidence in her judgement would surely not be so easily justified. (The recent debacle in Ukraine only confirms that idea.)

I try to convince them that this is ccompletely wrong, but mercantilist and protecionist views mostly are too
deeply entrenched.

Could I ask which bloggers hold this view? Give me a lonk to a post. Are you confusing the BLOG with a comment from a reader? Links, please.

Ralf,

You're either very mistaken or a liar. I hope that it is the former.

"I have gotten used to the view (at LGF and other populkar blogs) that Europe is inherently inimical to America (if not even a mortal enemy) and that a militarily strong Europe would be a very bad thing." - Ralf

America has no problem with France or any other Western European nation having as many warships as they wish. I've never heard any misgivings ever stated at LGF that America would fear a re-armed Europe or France. Actually the sentiment among Americans is that Europe should carry its own weight militarily. Most posters at LGF think that the French are perfidious, sneaky, back-stabbing, nasty, pseudo-sophisticated, cowardly little bastards, but LGFérs don't think that France is an aggressive threat to the USA or a "mortal enemy." Generally Americans do not view Europe as a military threat. American and LGFérs in particular are perturbed by the petty obstructionism by the socialist left of Europe in America''s efforts to fight a war on terror that is in the best interest of the entire world.

As far as the trade issues that you mentioned to my knowledge America is the biggest proponent and practiser of free trade on the planet.

"Generally Americans do not view Europe as a military threat."

And would not even if it became capable of being such.