George, who has been helping out with the Hickory boys basketball team in the absence of a full-time coach, meets with new coach Norman Dale (Gene Hackman) on the new coach's first day with his charges:
Coach Norman Dale: First of all, let's be real friendly here, okay? My name is Norm. Secondly, your coaching days are over.
George: Look, mister, there's... two kinds of dumb, uh... guy that gets naked and runs out in the snow and barks at the moon, and, uh, guy who does the same thing in my living room. First one don't matter, the second one you're kinda forced to deal with.
In this case, Coach Dale is the good guy. Well, what if a guy who is the second kind of dumb is one of the "bad guys?"
UNITED NATIONS – The U.S. delegation walked out of the U.N. speech of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday after he said some in the world have speculated that Americans were behind the Sept. 11 terror attacks, staged in an attempt to assure Israel's survival.
He did not explain the logic of that statement that was made as he attacked the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Ahmadinejad has called for the destruction of Israel and is deeply at odds with the United States and European allies over its nuclear program and suspicions that it is designed to produce an atomic bomb. Iran says it is only working on technology for electricity generation.
The U.S. delegation left the hall after Ahmadinejad said there were three theories about the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks:
_That "powerful and complex terrorist group" penetrated U.S. intelligence and defenses.
_"That some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order also to save the Zionist regime. The majority of the American people as well as other nations and politicians agree with this view."
The Americans stood and walked out without listening to the third theory, that the attack was the work of "a terrorist group but the American government supported and took advantage of the situation."
The Americans did absolutely the right thing in walking out, although it could easily be argued that they never should have been there in the first place for Mad Mahmoud. It's not as if he hasn't been both provocative and detached from reality in his speeches before.
President Obama did address Iran's nuclear program in his speech to the General Assembly earlier today.
As part of our effort on non-proliferation, I offered the Islamic Republic of Iran an extended hand last year, and underscored that it has both rights and responsibilities as a member of the international community. I also said -- in this hall -- that Iran must be held accountable if it failed to meet those responsibilities. And that is what we have done.
Iran is the only party to the NPT that cannot demonstrate the peaceful intentions of its nuclear program, and those actions have consequences. Through U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929, we made it clear that international law is not an empty promise.
Now let me be clear once more: The United States and the international community seek a resolution to our differences with Iran, and the door remains open to diplomacy should Iran choose to walk through it. But the Iranian government must demonstrate a clear and credible commitment and confirm to the world the peaceful intent of its nuclear program.
And if they don't ... then what? UN Resolution 1929 extends sanctions, but Iran doesn't seem to think them all that tough. That was more a "get what you can get" negotiation rather than a "get what will make them behave" result. "Then what?" seems to be a rather open ended question, one that Ahmadinejad and Iran believe to be less than serious.
A photo from Reuters:
This isn't about climate change, anthropogenic global warming, impending ecological disaster or any other of the excuses usually cited. No, this is about world socialism, the governmentally-enforced mandatory transfer of large amounts of money from fully developed nations to underdeveloped nations.
And to get there, if the earth doesn't cooperate, requires this.
And of course Al Gore and the other profiteers want their cut.
I don't have transcripts or videos, so certainly I could be wrong. But I did listen to most of the speech of Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, who then introduced a taped message from President Obama, which I heard in it's entirety while driving back to my office this afternoon. I found it strange, eerie almost, as if everyone knew there was something missing. Did neither of them mention former President Ronald Reagan at all? I heard Mr. Obama mention President Kennedy. But no "shout outs" to Reagan?
CNN this afternoon? Nope.
The more extensive collection of stories in CNN's Autumn of Change? Not that I can tell, based on the links listed.
The NY Times does, though it does so more in the context of discussing the disagreement over who should get the lion's share of the credit.
While think it would have been a harmless and yet appropriate way for the current President to credit one of his predecessors from the other side of the aisle, and for once to set aside his hyper-partisan instincts, it is necessary really only to recognize that millions of Eastern Europeans freed from the oppression of communist governance was and is a good thing. Still, it should have happened.
In today's NY Times, U2's Bono writes in support of President Obama's "rebranding" of America, as worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize in and of itself. Note that, in reference to one of my rhetorical questions, he still doesn't cite any actual accomplishment.
There’s a sense in some quarters of these not-so-United States that Norway, Europe and the World haven’t a clue about the real President Obama; instead, they fixate on a fantasy version of the president, a projection of what they hope and wish he is, and what they wish America to be.
Well, I happen to be European, and I can project with the best of them. (ed: no kidding) So here’s why I think the virtual Obama is the real Obama, and why I think the man might deserve the hype. It starts with a quotation from a speech he gave at the United Nations last month:
“We will support the Millennium Development Goals, and approach next year’s summit with a global plan to make them a reality. And we will set our sights on the eradication of extreme poverty in our time.”
Bono then explains the Millenium Development Goals, basically to halve "extreme poverty" by 2015; the President says eradicate it. He then lists some of the President's other stated goals and pronounces them a "rebranding" of America about which "many" have spoken.
Many have spoken about the need for a rebranding of America. Rebrand, restart, reboot. In my view these 36 words, alongside the administration’s approach to fighting nuclear proliferation and climate change, improving relations in the Middle East and, by the way, creating jobs and providing health care at home, are rebranding in action.
By the way, I "provide health care at home" in my own orthopaedic practice. What he really means is nationalize healthcare, but he can't actually write what he means. "Many" really means many progressives and leftists. "Fighting nuclear proliferation" apparently means disarming America's nukes while allowing both Iran and North Korea to expand the nuclear club. And "creating jobs" means, if you're Mr. Obama, about 30,000 jobs in nine months. But I digress.
All of this is typical Euro-leftist pap, until Bono ventures forth with an incorrect interpretation of the "idea" of America.
These new steps — and those 36 words — remind the world that America is not just a country but an idea, a great idea about opportunity for all and responsibility to your fellow man.
Well, in Bono's defense Mr. Obama doesn't have the greatest understanding of the Constitution and it's relation to the American experiment either. See the full quote referencing "redistributive change" at the link. Andrew McCarthy elaborates.
True to form, Obama has twisted the most elementary points. First, the Framers viewed government as a necessary evil: required for a free people’s collective security but, if insufficiently checked, guaranteed to devour liberty. The purpose of the Constitution was not to make the positive case for government but for freedom. Freedom cannot exist without order, and thus implies some measure of government. But it is a limited government, vested with only the powers expressly enumerated. As the framers knew, a government that strays beyond those powers is necessarily treading on freedom’s territory. It is certain to erode the very “Blessings of Liberty” the Constitution was designed to secure.
Relatedly, the Constitution does state the positive case for government in its opening lines. Government is required to safeguard the rule of law and the national security. These injunctions are vital: there is no liberty without them.
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce;
Both Bono and Mr. Obama need to understand that the American idea is not "responsibility to your fellow man," but responsibility to protect the freedoms and liberties of your fellow man. Use of government authority for what are deemed by the few to be beneficial social goals is specifically what the Constitution, as per Madison, was designed to restrict. When the government, rather than protecting equality of freedom and opportunity, takes it upon itself to choose heroes and villains in society and to offer opinions on the just fruits of a citizen's labors then it oversteps, and lessens freedom for all. That part about responsibility to your fellow man comes from this nation's Christian underpinnings, and is an individual and not governmental responsibility.
By the way, if Bono and Mr. Obama are really interested in halving (or eradicating) poverty, they could do a lot better by throwing support behind democratic movements, and encouraging capitalism (Michael Moore's nonsense notwithstanding).
10/18/09 2042: Michael Barone notes that America is not that European, and that the more we learn about Mr. Obama and where he wants to take us, the less popular he and his policies are.
Barack Obama's European tendencies aren't in doubt. His policies on government spending, taxation, health care and carbon emissions would all tend to bring America in line with European norms, to a far greater degree than any other president of the last 40 years and probably any president ever.
And what of America's special place in the world? "I believe in American exceptionalism," Obama said on one of his trips to Europe, "just as I suspect that Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." In other words, not at all...
The late political scientist Seymour Martin Lipset, who wrote a book on American exceptionalism, long noted that Americans are more individualistic and less collectivist than Western Europeans (or Canadians). The election of a president who in many ways seeks to push America in a European direction seems to have increased rather than decreased those differences.
Why? My explanation is that until November 2008 Americans did not have any reason to contemplate what a more European approach would mean in real-life terms. Now, with Obama in the White House and a heavily Democratic Congress, they do. And they mostly don't like it.
Tha't all it takes to get awarded a Nobel Prize, apparently. That and a lot of wishful thinking and platitudes. Because he certainly hasn't done anything, as Saturday Night Live pointed out, to earn it.
And yet, there it is.
President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," the Norwegian Nobel Committee said, citing his outreach to the Muslim world and attempts to curb nuclear proliferation.
The stunning choice made President Obama the third sitting U.S. president to win the Nobel Peace Prize and shocked Nobel observers because Obama took office less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline. President Obama's name had been mentioned in speculation before the award but many Nobel watchers believed it was too early to award the president.
"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," the committee said. "His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population."
The committee said it attached special importance to President Obama's vision of, and work for, a world without nuclear weapons.
Or, if you prefer, the New York Times version. Even they can't figure it out.
So wishful thinking regarding nuclear weapons (recall that both North Korea and Iran have advanced their programs aggressively under his watch) and making America weaker are pluses in the eyes of the Nobel committee. That's the take home point for future presidents with Nobel aspirations.
How has he made America weaker? Recall that French President Nicholas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown were miffed that Mr. Obama, knowing at the time about Iran's secret bunkered nuclear facility, avoided addressing it at the UN, and instead giving his "most naive speech" yet. By tripling the annual debt to trillions a year for the foreseeable future, threatening both the American economy (and hey, we keep the world safe don't forget) and the dollar as a global currency. And by waffling on the war in Afghanistan, which he himself has pointed out is the "necessary" war, to the point that now we're splitting hairs between the Taliban - which, recall, oppresses women and kills gays - and Al Qaeda while wringing his hands over troop levels and having his minions besmirch the general he appointed.
When I first saw the headline, just based on those points, I thought it was some kind of a joke. It is, but it's an even bigger joke than I suspected. Nominations were due February 1, 2009, which means he was in office for 11 days prior to the deadline. He'd given one speech in Germany by then, and campaigned on promises he hasn't kept, including Guantanamo, and renditions. I guess the committee members are now part of the Obama cult of personality.
So remember, if you want the adulation of the Nobel committee, it's wishful thinking that'll get you there.
10/9/09 1230: Jules Crittenden:
It’s well established that the Nobel Peace Prize judges don’t require any actual peace (Jimmy Carter), any intention of fostering peace (Yasser Arafat) or even more than the stated desire to thwart a highly theoretical future conflict (Al Gore) as preconditions for bestowing the coveted prize. In fact, if you look at some of the prior nominees (Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin) you can see that rampant imperialistic war-mongering gets you in the game.
Times Online: "A mockery."
Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent. It was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel committee as a way of expressing European gratitude for an end to the Bush Administration
In other words, they gave him a Nobel for … being Hopenchange-y. And you thought Mark Halperin’s grade inflation was bad. This makes three times, incidentally, in just seven years that the committee’s turned the Peace Prize into a “f*** Bush” award by bestowing it on a liberal American Democrat.
Drew M. at Ace of Spades:
No reaction yet from another Nobel Peace Prize winner...the Dalai Lama. You know the guy Mr. Wonderful refuses to meet with to placate the peace loving Chinese government.
Well, doesn't keeping China's authoritarian regime placated promote peace?
10/9/09 0615: Okay, so if you count both the 20th and the 31st of January it's 12 days. But I didn't count the first because, really, what Democrat worked on the day of the inauguration? Come on. But, if you go for the 12 day count, then Tommy De Seno charts the actions that won.
From the Wall Street Journal's front page story about the success of German PM Angela Merkel's center-right coalition in the elections:
BERLIN -- A center-right alliance led by German Chancellor Angela Merkel was set for victory in Germany's national elections on Sunday, opening the door to modest tax cuts and labor-market changes that could help strengthen the fragile recovery in Germany's crisis-battered economy...
"For corporate Germany, this is a good signal," said Thorsten Polleit, economist at Barclays Capital in Frankfurt. "The FDP, which will feel very confident now, and much of the CDU will want to bring down government spending in order to cut income taxes."...
The center-right wants to cut income taxes and red tape holding back firms' investment and hiring, raising hopes among economists and business that Germany could improve its unsteady economic growth. But the perilous state of Germany's public finances, and public skepticism about free-market change, could limit a new government's scope for bold action.
So here's my question, as I ponder this story. There is a "fragile recovery in Germany's crisis-battered economy" currently, that would be "strengthened" by tax cuts and changes in labor red-tape. And the only concern is how hard those changes, that will strengthen Germany's economy, can be puched given the "perilous state of Germany's public finances."
Well, don't we have a "crisis-battered economy?" Don't we have a "perilous state" in our public finances? Why should the cure for our malady be the opposite? Instead, shouldn't Germany create huge new public spending programs, particularly for "shovel ready" projects and endless entitlements? Shouldn't they be raising taxes on the German "wealthy," ... wait, it's rescinding prior tax cuts, isn't it? Shouldn't they be doing more to "share the wealth?"
Oh, I see. Those solutions only work on this side of the Atlantic.
No, this isn't the start of a joke. Why do you ask?
9/24/09 0600: But seriously, folks. Over at PowerLine Paul notes the bended knee on which Mr. Obama addressed the assembly.
So here was the president of the United States doing everything but getting down on his hands and knees before the representatives of every wretched regime in the world to plead that the U.S. has turned over a new leaf and, in effect, become harmelss.
Does Obama believe that anything positive will come of this stomach-turning spectacle. Or does he just like to bask in the glow of applause for the proposition that the U.S. was a pretty rotten place until he assumed control[?]
Mr. Obama is guided by the preconceptions with which he matriculated at Occidental College, and those have not been altered by education, time or experience: that America is evil and imperialistic, has too many nukes and too much power, and way too much wealth. His narcissism leads him to the twin conclusions that he, and really only he, is capable of remedying the faults, and that the world will thank him for it.
That he is mistaken will never occur to him.
9/24/09 0915: Was it Mr. Obama's "most naive" speech ever?
Overall this was a staggeringly naïve speech by President Obama, with Woodstock-style utterances like “I will not waver in my pursuit of peace” or “the interests of peoples and nations are shared.” All that was missing was a conga of hippies dancing through the aisles with a rousing rendition of “Kumbaya”...
In fact human rights issues were strikingly downplayed in Obama’s address, which is not surprising since they are rarely on the radar screen of this administration. Nor did the words liberty or freedom feature prominently. This was a speech designed to appease opinion in a world body in which full democracies make up only a minority of its members.
Was this though Obama’s most naïve speech ever? It is a very strong candidate, but I think there is intense competition for that accolade. The president’s speeches in Cairo, Strasbourg and Prague would all vie for that title. Still, his address today will go down in history as one of the weakest major addresses by a US president on foreign policy in a generation, by a leader who seems embarrassed, even ashamed, by the power and greatness of his own country.
America's worst ex-president strikes again, this time in Columbia.
BOGOTA (AFP) – The United States knew about an abortive coup againstin 2002, and may even have taken part, former has told a Colombian newspaper.
"I think there is no doubt that in 2002, the United States had at the very least full knowledge about the coup, and could even have been directly involved," Carter said in an interview with El Tiempo published Sunday.
Given that he has neither evidence nor direct knowledge to support such an accusation, this is about as anti-American as an ex-president can get. Not that I had much respect for Mr. Carter before, given his anti-Israel, confirming crooked votes, impotent foreign policy, post-presidential meddling, economically illiterate credentials, this has driven him even further down the depth chart. He's becoming a caricature of himself.
Carter told El Tiempo that he believed Chavez was elected in a "fair" vote in 1999, had carried out necessary reforms forand ensured that "those who are traditionally excluded are able to get a larger share of the national wealth."
Did I say economically illiterate? Does the word "socialism" ring a bell?
... and then there are mistakes. This is a mistake.
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama Thursday shelved a Bush-era plan for an Eastern European missile-defense shield, saying a redesigned defensive system would be cheaper, quicker and more effective against the threat from Iranian missiles.
"After an extensive process, I have approved the unanimous recommendations of my secretary of defense and my joint chiefs of staff to strengthen America's defenses against ballistic-missile attack," Mr. Obama said in a morning address.
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell Thursday said the decision was made to better protect U.S. forces and allies in Europe from Iranian missile attacks.
The U.S. is basing its move on a determination that Iran's long-range-missile program hasn't progressed as rapidly as previously estimated, reducing the threat to the continental U.S. and major European capitals, according to current and former U.S. officials.
What if that assessment is wrong? What might the consequences be of being totally clueless about the Iranian (or other rogue nation) capabilities? Europe is none too happy, according to this story in The Telegraph.
The move would be a cause of celebration in Moscow but of real concern to Eastern European countries which have looked to Washington for support against their former imperial master Russia. The US has said the shield is to guard against attacks by rogue states, such as Iran
The former Czech prime minister, Mirek Topolanek, said: "This is not good news for the Czech state, for Czech freedom and independence. It puts us in a position wherein we are not firmly anchored in terms of partnership, security and alliance, and that's a certain threat."
The Polish deputy foreign minister, Andrzej Kremer, said that Warsaw had heard from different sources there were "serious chances" the anti-missile system would not be deployed
According to the story in The Telegraph, the move is being made in hopes of convincing Russia to assist in Afghanistan and to back additional sanctions against Iran. Those may be moved forward by this appeasement, but I wouldn't count on any more than token assistance in Afghanistan, and even with Iran that still leaves China as a veto threat in the Security Council. And that's assuming that sanctions would ever convince Iran to disarm their nuclear ambitions, which is doubtful.
Teddy Roosevelt popularized the aphorism, "speak softly and carry a big stick." Mr. Obama would do well to learn that lesson before a bigger problem develops. There's no success to be had with the first absent the second.
9/17/09 1250: Nile Gardiner writes:
This is bad news for all who care about the US commitment to the transatlantic alliance and the defence of Europe as well as the United States. It represents the appalling appeasement of Russian aggression and a willingness to sacrifice American allies on the altar of political expediency. A deal with the Russians to cancel missile defence installations sends a clear message that even Washington can be intimidated by the Russian bear.
What signal does this send to Ukraine, Georgia and a host of other former Soviet satellites who look to America and NATO for protection from their powerful neighbour? The impending cancellation of Third Site is a shameful abandonment of America’s friends in eastern and central Europe, and a slap in the face for those who actually believed a key agreement with Washington was worth the paper it was written on.
In an article - and we'll discuss the scary numbers in a moment - reviewing the extent of radical islamic thought among British Muslims, the TimesOnline prints the following from Anthony Glees, a professor of security and intelligence studies at Lees University:
“There is a wide cultural divide between Muslim and non-Muslim students. The solution is to stop talking about celebrating diversity and focus on integration and assimilation.”
The ideal of diversity is not to celebrate the fact that so many remain in their separate cultural cubicles, but that coming from many separate cultural cubicles the people are able to integrate so extraordinarily well into the office culture that as a group they function seamlessly and productively and the office is a happy one.
It's hard to imagine a happy office when people in one cubicle think it's okay to kill people in other cubicles.
ALMOST a third of British Muslim students believe killing in the name of Islam can be justified, according to a poll.
The study also found that two in five Muslims at university support the incorporation of Islamic sharia codes into British law.
The YouGov poll for the Centre for Social Cohesion (CSC) will raise concerns about the extent of campus radicalism. “Significant numbers appear to hold beliefs which contravene democratic values,” said Han-nah Stuart, one of the report’s authors. “These results are deeply embarrassing for those who have said there is no extremism in British universities.”
The other students recognize the problem.
The researchers found that 55% of non-Muslim students thought Islam was incompatible with democracy.
Contrary to the impression of those diversity celebrationists who seem to misunderstand the concept, assimilation and integration does not mean giving up all of your traditions and cultural heritage and forgetting your background. Rather, the idea is to embrace the necessary parts of your new culture so that you function (and are accepted fully) as one of it's members. These parts include at least these: language, law, and democratic/governmental principles. You may of course hold onto other cultural beliefs and traditions that are compatible with functioning in your new culture.
It also means, however, gaining an understanding that not all members of your new society come from your background and respecting their beliefs (i.e., religion). When you believe those things must be changed to match the culture you came from you have not assimilated. You hold yourself as superior to those whom you've joined. And you should probably leave that culture and return to where your beliefs are more widely accepted.
You've heard about the toy recalls, which gives the phrase "get the lead out" new meaning. Then there are the pre-programmed hard drives - pre-programmed with a trojan horse that sends your data to China. "What next," you may be asking yourself. Ready? Chinstraps.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -is recalling 235,000 football helmet chin straps after receiving reports of head and face injuries because the straps broke, the said on Tuesday.
The recalled football helmetwas made in China and was sold at sporting good stores throughout the United States from April 2006 through October 2007, the safety agency said.
Nike received 18 reports of the chin strap breaking and injuries that included two concussions, two facial cuts that required stitches and a broken nose, the safety agency said.
Gwendolyn will often chide me for resisting the lure of the lowest price available when I shop. I'm wary. What is it about the product that makes it so cheap? At least for quite a few products from China, now we know. There's a balance between quality and price that needs to be assessed, and the balance may not be readily apparent. Caveat emptor isn't just a slogan. These days it needs to be a way of life.
Of course, I've had my issues with Nike before.
11/14/07 0650: Here's another Chinese product with questionable quality and safety. I'm sorry, but that's just gross.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke at the UN today, and several sections of his ... speech, I guess, were strangely familiar. See if you can pick up the references. (A link to the pdf of the speech is here.)
"Unfortunately human rights are being extensively violated by certain powers, especially by those who pretend to be their exclusive advocates. Setting up secret prisons, abducting persons, trials and secret punishments without any regard to due process, extensive tapping of telephone conversations, intercepting private mail and frequent summons to police and security centers have become commonplace and prevalent. [ed: redundant] They prosecute scientists and historians for stating their opinions on important global issues."
That's right. Each and every tidbit gleaned from the NY Times! But wait, it gets better.
"Iraq was occupied under the pretext of overthrowing a dictator and the existence of weapons of mass destruction. The Iraqi dictator who had been supported by the same occupiers was disposed of, and no weapons of mass destruction were discovered, but the occupation continues under different excuses. No day passes without people being killed, wounded or displaced, and the occupiers not only refuse to be accountable and ashamed of their adventure, but speak in a report of a new market for their armaments...
Unfortunately we are witnessing the bitter truth that some powers do not value any nation or human beings, and the only things that matter to them are themselves, their political parties and groups. In their view, human rights are tantamount to profits for their companies and their friends."
Bingo. It's the Daily Kos/Democratic Underground/Anti-war left. No WMD! No Blood for Oil! Bushco! Try this one.
"While a major part of the natural environment in Asia, Africa and Latin America is being plundered by the political and economic domination of certain powers, the situation of poverty and deprivation is very alarming. Let me draw your attention to some data issued by the United Nations.
- Every day close to 800 million people go to bed hungry and 980 million suffer from absolute poverty ...
- The gap between the rich and the poor in some parts of the world has increased by forty times...
I believe this data clearly demonstrates the tragic situation dominating economic interations in the world."
He might as well have lamented the "two Earths." Any doubt as to who he means by "certain powers?"
Mr. Ahmadinejad showed his weakness at Columbia yesterday, despite the fact that he should never have been invited (thus making President Bollinger appear a buffoon as well**). The content of this speech may be simply opportunistic, but this opportunism demonstrates at least one thing. He knows from which group he might receive a friendly ear.
**An aside. If you follow the link to Taranto's 'Best of the Web' you'll find some refreshingly perceptive comments from the students who attended at Columbia.
France's no longer ruling socialists have done some psychoanalysis of the new leader, and it's amusing to say the least.
PARIS (Reuters) -'s Socialist party on Friday accused of suffering from "small man syndrome," saying this explained why the shorter-than-average president had proclaimed his reforms the biggest in decades.
The Socialists, who are still trying to recover from their double defeat in presidential and parliamentary elections earlier this year, have sharply criticized pension, social and civil service reforms Sarkozy announced this week.
Referring to Sarkozy's comments on Thursday that he was preparing "the biggest reform of the social model since the Liberation (of France)," Socialist spokesman Benoit Hamon said:
"In psychoanalysis, this is what you call the syndrome of the small man who considers that everything he does is bigger than anything that has ever happened," he told reporters.
"With Nicolas Sarkozy, all he does, all he touches, he considers it to be the greatest. In reality, we have never witnessed such a step backwards since the Liberation. On the social issue, as well as on immigration," Hamon said.
Just as in the United States, France's left seems to be incapable of considering a difference of political philosophy as anything less than either a personality disorder, rank stupidity, or the mark of evil. Let me give them a hint. There is plenty of thought on both sides of the political spectrum. Such derogatory labeling of your opponents, rather than demonstrating their flaws, demonstrates yours. If you can't attack the program, attack the messenger.