This piece of politically-correct tripe was South Africa’s contribution to a UN waffle-fest on climate change recently:

Women and children are particularly vulnerable to the devastating effects of climate change. “For South Africa, the mainstreaming of gender and youth in climate policy, decision-making and implementation, is therefore a cross-cutting priority,” [ex-leader of an ex-party and now minister of flowers and tourist PR, Martinus “Kortbroek”] Van Schalkwyk said.

What pretentious newspeak. He wants “a balance between climate stabilisation and sustainable development” which at least admits that they’re contradictory goals. Personally, I don’t think we should be trying to mess with a chaotic climate system we don’t understand and which could kill us. Especially when we can use the prosperity for far more immediate, certain and substantial benefit — like saving productive lives lost to disease or malnutrition.

You may disagree, of course, and think climate change is a problem that demands top-priority action. But if so, are governments not the least likely to be effective agents in this cause?

Governments don’t develop technology. They don’t create the prosperity to pay for it. They are as far removed from the people who need the solutions as is possible. They have no material stake in the welfare of the people they claim to want to benefit most. What has half a century of foreign aid achieved? Politicians and their inter-governmental do-good organisations are like huge black holes that produce nothing, and even without blithe corruption and theft have an unquenchable thirst for other people’s money. Van Schalkwyk is unthinkingly regurgitating propaganda for governmental power and political central planning. There’s a big political power base propped up by all that tax money and well-intended charity.

And what’s this rubbish about women and children? Aren’t men vulnerable too? Aren’t they affected when women and children are threatened? Aren’t we supposed to be in this together, equal in worth, equal before the law, and equally dependent on a healthy, productive earth? Van Schalkwyk might mean well, but his politically correct platitude is only an offensive slur against men. James Taranto would sneer: “World ends, poor hardest hit”. Of course.

There’s a new legend in the making. It’s set near Dayr az-Zawr in north-eastern Syria, and features Sayeret Mat’kal, a special operations unit of the Israeli Defence Force. Not only did Israel destroy, on 6 September 2007, a suspected nuclear weapons project on which North Korea was allegedly collaborating, but it sent commandos in to seize firm evidence first.

The Times of London has the story, and a great story it is. (Via Limbic Nutrition.)

It’s been 40 years since the Six Day War, in which Israel amazed (and mostly delighted) the world by defeating the Arab enemies vowed to its destruction. This feat, pulled off against overwhelming numerical disadvantage and with only “even-handedness” from the US and ill-disguised condemnation from the UN to counter full Soviet support for the Arab armies, is what put Israel on the map for the watching world. This was followed up by snatching victory from the jaws of defeat 34 years ago and the astounding Entebbe Raid three years later. And it’s been fully 26 years since a daring raid on the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak entered the annals of military feats of the beleaguered state. Only then they didn’t have to get there on foot first.

Information remains sketchy about the Syrian operation. After the relative failure of last year’s attempt to eject the Iranian and Syrian-backed Hizbollah terrorist organisation from its entrenchment in the south of Lebanon, the details emerging from this assault suggest that the Israelis remain capable of defending their country, and aren’t ready to bow out of the fight against terrorism and unconventional weapons proliferation in the Middle East.

One commenter calls it “naked aggression”¹. This is typical of much of the modern world’s characterisation of any Israeli military action, no matter whether it’s defensive, retaliatory or placatory. I, for one, am looking forward to the book.

1. Update: it appears to have been deleted as at 26/9/2007 [↩]

There’s a new book out, called Microtrends: The Small Forces Behind Tomorrow’s Big Changes, by Mark Penn and E. Kinney Zalesne. Penn is a pollster for Hillary Clinton. The book is, a blurb on Amazon.com would have us know, “sound and cleverly written.” It will “undoubtedly appeal to marketing analysts and armchair sociologists, as well as fans of Megatrends and Malcolm Gladwell [author of The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference].”

Let’s leave aside for a moment the terribly annoying publisher’s habit of insisting on explanatory sub-titles, which can make a perfectly clever business book title filched from a perfectly decent British newspaper appear dull and obviously unoriginal.

One can only assume that the marketing analysts and armchair sociologists invited to write op-eds for the Wall Street Journal aren’t fans of Megatrends and Malcolm Gladwell. In a fairly dismissive review, with the derisive subtitle, “Experts try to predict the future without knowing the past”, Sam Schulman, the publishing director of The American, says that the observations in Microtrends aren’t exactly new, nor are they groundbreaking revelations, nor are the reasons behind them surprising. He concludes by stating the obvious:

Mr. Penn sees the future as a myriad of choices driven by individual tastes. And it may well be. But why are all these little trends possible? Because we live in a free society with a free economy, and our choices in coffee, sports and health care aren’t restricted by the government. Maybe that’s a trend he can share with his client Mrs. Clinton sometime.

I detest reading business books. Perhaps it is because the obvious needs pointing out to so many of their authors.