Magic Statistics

Last year the people of France voted Non on the proposed European Union Constitution, but for the potentates of the EU, that was a mere annoyance.  At the just-completed EU summit, all 25 member nations agreed to implement a provision of the defeated constitution by forming a pan-European counter-terrorism force.  British Eurosceptics are up in arms.

Last night, Eurosceptics reacted with outrage. Chris Heaton-Harris, the Tory Euro-MP, said: "This is another example of the Soviet-style regime which rides roughshod over democratic votes in France and the Netherlands.

In both countries voters said No to the constitution and, specifically, No to a continent-wide anti-terror force.

London Telegraph Europe Correspondent David Rennie, who covered the summit, reports that, during France’s turn in the EU presidency in late 2008, a revised constitutional document will be prepared.

Will that give France a whip hand over the next text? Can we expect M le Président Sarkozy or Mme la Présidente Royale to demand a treaty that placates the most bone-in-the-nose, free trade-phobic instincts of the French No camp? Will José Bové, the MacDonalds-destroying French anti-globalisation leader be writing labour laws for the whole of the EU?

Maybe . . .

French leftists voted Non, they say, because last year’s constitutional text was too favourable to globalisation, neo-liberal political philosophy, free-market economic policies, national sovereignty, fiscal responsibility—in a word, too English.  Next time around, the emphasis will be on “social Europe”.

[I]n much of Europe, the term "social" is used to convey a broad ideological credo involving most, or some, of the following things: more, not less Europe, including more power for the European Parliament; confrontation with the United States; more power for trade unions and workers, and curbs on the powers of employers; a regulated market; legal protections for the high-wage jobs of Old Europe, including state subsidies for ailing companies and the public sector; formal obstacles to competition from the low-wage, lightly regulated, low-taxation economies of eastern and central Europe; more harmonisation of tax rates and working practices across the EU, and ideally a European minimum wage.

The Euro socialists are hallucinating again.

In the UK, only on the far-left fringes of Old Labour will that agenda find even a modicum of support.  Full implementation of that laundry list of incentive-destroying measures would drive into the ground what’s left of the faltering European economy.  Hyperbole it may be, but Mr Heaton-Harris’s reference to the “Soviet-style regime” in Brussels is understandable.

So, what’s the big picture at The Episcopal Church's General Convention 2006?  Here are two perspectives that would seem to be at odds with each other.

First up, Giles Goddard and Philip Chester, in today’s InclusiveChurch Letter from the General Convention 2006, posted at Thinking Anglicans:

The atmosphere of the Convention may be cruelly deceptive; we could be completely wrong. But the quality of discussion and debate here, the powerful recognition of the Episcopal Church as part of the Anglican Communion, the acknowledgement of mutual and shared responsibilities, makes us cautiously optimistic that by the time the delegates and bishops disperse next Wednesday, the future for Anglicanism will be a great deal brighter than it was last week.

And then there’s this assessment from Ruth Gledhill, Times of London religion correspondent.

Split now inevitable, saving miracle

First it was John Sentamu, then Rowan Williams in a message read by Sentamu, then Tom Wright. Now the Bishop of Rochester Dr Michael Nazir-Ali has caused a stir with a strong sermon at GenCon06. Yet as the final version of the key Windsor resolution shows, and as others also reveal, The Episcopal Church is bent on going its own way. The Church of England's most senior leaders have done their best to save their daughter church from schism. Sadly, their best, it seems, has not been enough.

Is it possible to have two more diametrically opposed views?

Wait a minute.  Maybe it is possible to reconcile those two assessments.  If Messrs Goddard and Chester think that the Episcopal Church represents the quintessence of Anglicanism, and that Episcopalians don't need the rest of the world’s Anglicans, then the two assessments could indeed be compatible.  Other than that, I can’t see it.

A new study published in Geophysical Research Letters finds that the sun contributed at least 46-49% of global warming observed during the 20th century.

The role of the sun in 20th-century global warming, according to [N.] Scafetta and [B.J.] West [the two researchers], has been vastly underestimated by the climate modeling community, with various energy balance models producing estimates of solar-induced warming over this period that are "two to ten times lower" than what they found.. Why is this so? The two researchers say "the models might be inadequate because of the difficulty of modeling climate in general and a lack of knowledge of climate sensitivity to solar variations in particular."

via Greenie Watch.

The ECUSA progressive bunch known as the Episcopal Peace Fellowship co-sponsored with the American Friends (Quaker) Service Committee a charming little anti-war exhibit called “Eyes Wide Open”.  The display consists of rows of army surplus combat boots, each festooned with a tag showing the name of an American soldier killed in Iraq.  The display of 2400 pairs of boots was laid out on the lawn in front of the Ohio State House in Columbus.

Apparently, the Christian peaceniks were not too selective in their choice of speakers.  For they invited Dr Ahman Al-Akhras, president of the Ohio branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).  Videoblogger ciaospirit caught up with Dr Al at the scene for an impromptu interview, posted at Zombietime in five parts.  (Scroll down the page for photos from the incoherent edifying display of army surplus boots.)

Dr Al thinks Islamic Sharia law is the bee's knees.  Binky, blogging from GenCon06, has a different take:

Sharia? Strict Islamic law. For everyone, it is hoped. Death to apostates, bags on the head for women, all the rest. That’s right.

So: the sincere Aging Hippie Quaker Oats Pacifist Collective teamed up with some likemindedly liberal folk– including Episcopalians– to present this event in Columbus. According to one well-informed observer, it is a “traveling exhibit exploiting the deaths of US soldiers to promote a far left pacifist agenda. They don’t bother getting permission from families before using names and photographs of fallen troops.” Sweet.

Of course, unlike the Islamic America that some groups want to live in (in which apostacy is a capital offense), there is currently Constitutionally-protected freedom of speech in the United States, so Big Al– like everybody else– has the freedom to say and believe pretty much any old thing.

The Anglican Angle

Unfortunately, this event was co-hosted by Anglican Christians, and strategically located to inform and affirm the views presented to other Anglican Christians, at GC2006. To have a militant muslim leader from a very polished but militant Islamist group like CAIR at such an event shows (1) mind-numbingly bad naivete; (2) an indifference/ hostility to America; (3) a dhimmified attitude, whereby we must bend the knee to an increasingly assertive militant Islam, in the name of Tolerance and Diversity and Inclusion, even though those same groups are not remotely interested in preserving Christianity, the West, the freedom of religion, speech, and the press (rights, reason, science, justice, objective morality, individualism, and productive achievement, etc.) on which democracies are founded.

Why would Episcopalians want to associate themselves with a representative of CAIR?  Do they even know whom they’re dealing with here?  As Binky puts it, “Don’t Western Anglicans look stupid enough, as it is?”

More on Dr Al’s obnoxious views here.

via CaNN’s GenCon06 blog.

Previous related posts:

• Leaving Islam is illegal in fifteen countries
• A truly crazy idea
• Canadian Muslims want laws against insults
• United Church of Canada embraces abject dhimmitude