Obama’s Ebola; Wall Street Journal a Wimp; Fake Feminist Figures

Old men in all ages have had a tendency to declare that the world is going to pot. I don’t think it is. I think it’s better than it was in the 20th century, in general. This does not prevent me from noticing unpleasant developments.

Ebola: Don’t try to understand; it’s obvious: President Obama is showing the world and especially American conservatives the proper use of an army, the moral projection of American power abroad. It’s only to save the lives of the poor. He will fall on his face as in everything he has attempted. At least, he will have done something finally to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to him five years ago by a bunch of senile old Scandinavians.

If I were in charge, I would throw money, a lot of money, at the problem knowing full well that much or most of it would land where it’s not intended. Between them, the most exposed countries, Liberia, Sierra-Leone, and Guinea have about 23 million people. Spending half a million dollar on each of their inhabitants would amount to a total expenditure of USD 12 billion. That’s chump change. Assuming that half the money stuck to officials’ fingers with no good consequences for health, we would still have USD 125,00 actually spent per inhabitant. That’s several times the less than $8,000 per year we spend on health in the US in normal times. (Advanced European countries spend a little over half of that amount.)

I would use a bidding process open to both private companies and national health systems. Most actual payments would be dependent on preset procedural achievements, such as 95% effective airport departure screenings, partly on preset performance goals involving a slowing down of the progress of the disease. I would not risk the life of a singly American military person except possibly in inspection roles. Even then, I would use only volunteers. I would give them combat pay.

Again, chump change; no coalition needed. America helps the world again!

The progress of political correctness is distressing especially where you least expect it. While the Islamic State was murdering, raping, torturing Arab civilians in its conquest of Syria and Iraq, the Wall Street Journal referred to its members as “militants” as if they were like people seriously opposed to smoking, for example. After it began beheading Americans and Brits on video, the Wall Street Journal allowed itself to switch to “extremists.”

People who slaughter masses of civilians deliberately to spread terror are not terrorists according to the WSJ. I guess you would have to do worse things.

Even the Wall Street Journal has become wimpy.

I had noticed earlier the disappearance from the WSJ of a common word:”foreign.” In the old days, when two Canadians had an affair, it was a foreign affair to Americans; nowadays, it’s an “international affair.” Makes no sense, of course. They are not doing it across the border, in most cases.  I mean, they are not doing with one leg in Canada and two or three legs in the US, for example. The old respected scholarly publication Foreign Affairs – which deals with the political affairs of countries other than the US – will have to change its name, like the Redskins. Of course, if it switches to “International Affairs,” it will be false advertising.

The descriptive word “foreign” is now a dirty word. Foreign food= dirty food. The hidden ethnocentrism here is delightful. I would not dare make up half this kind of feces.

Silliness in words isn’t just silliness; it impairs our ability to think clearly.
Conceptual clarity began when one of our cave ancestors added “Oomph” to the usual “Grumpt.” We are regressing.

The midterm election campaign airwaves are overflowing with the same familiar old false, dishonest statement, with the full complicity of academics who know better: “Women earn only 77 cents when men earn $1.” This proves job discrimination against women, of course, is the implication. It does not. As I have explained extensively on this blog (There is a Part Two; find it on this blog.). The figure does not (NOT) express unequal pay for equal work but unequal pay for UNequal work.

Feminists can’t stop lying*. Just like girls!

* I keep thinking that if your cause is just and factually supported, you don’t need to lie.  Old school stuff!


About Jacques Delacroix

I write short stories, current events comments, and sociopolitical essays, mostly in English, some in French. There are other people with the same first name and same last name on the Internet. I am the one who put up on Amazon in 2014: "I Used to Be French: an Immature Autobiography" and also: "Les pumas de grande-banlieue." To my knowledge, I am the only Jacques Delacroix with American and English scholarly publications. In a previous life, I was a teacher and a scholar in Organizational Theory and in the Sociology of Economic Development. (Go ahead, Google me!) I live in the People’s Green Socialist Republic of Santa Cruz, California.
This entry was posted in Current Events. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s