Britain Discovers The Obvious, Unsuccessfully Tries To Understand Cause Of Problem

I almost forgot about this little article from the BBC, published on Thursday: Many UK cancer deaths 'premature'

Up to 15,000 people aged over 75 may be dying unnecessarily from cancer each year in the UK, according to research.

The North West Cancer Intelligence Service said their lives would be prolonged if UK cancer survival rates matched the best in Europe and the US....

Well, no fooling! Thank you, BBC, for pointing out the obvious. Cancer survival rates in America are vastly better than in Britain, and there is a very simple, two-word explanation why this is so: socialized medicine. America does not have socialized medicine; Britain does. With socialized medicine, healthcare has to be rationed, so to speak, because there aren't enough doctors for everyone. Therefore, if you're old, it's simply not cost-effective for the state to treat your health problems--hence, poor cancer survival rates.

The BBC doesn't seem to see this problem. Perhaps I ought to write them a letter and kindly inform them...

Independence For Republika Srpska!

The BBC has this gem today called Bosnia echoes to alarming rhetoric.

They may have disagreed about politics, but the group of 20-something friends who had gathered for an after-work drink were all certain about one thing - they were Serbs.

"My father is a Serb, my grandfather is a Serb, I am a Serb. This is my nationality," said Vladislav.

"If we are looking at a football game," added Bane, "Serbia against somebody else, we are fans of Serbia."

These would not have been particularly notable declarations of identity, save for one crucial fact.

We were speaking in Banja Luka, a city in Bosnia, and all these people were Bosnian citizens.

But that meant little to Ivana, a trainee architect: "Bosnia is an artificial and silly creation, we naturally belong with Serbs," she said.

Well, of course they identify with the Serbs. Culturally, they share the same values and heritage. Also, when your current fellow "citizens" (i.e. the Bosnian Muslims) were murdering you in the 1990s, that tends to not foster any common identity, to say the least.

The Republika Srpska parliament has issued a declaration, insisting that it has the right to make its own rules in certain key areas, like immigration and customs.

That move was vetoed this week by Bosnia's High Representative, the internationally-appointed figure who still has executive authority in the country.

But the resulting row has left many worried about the country's stability.

"The way the Serb politicians speak is getting more and more nationalistic," says Svetlana Cenic, a writer and newspaper columnist.

Ah yes, that infamous Serb nationalism. When Serbs stand up and say they're proud of being who they are, or even just stand up for themselves in general, this is labeled "nationalism" (and it's inherently implied that all nationalism is evil). Furthermore, since Serb nationalism is what was supposed to have sparked the wars in the Balkans in the 1990s (it actually didn't, but facts matter little to seasoned propagandists), this Serb nationalism is dangerous and evil and therefore must be squashed. But when Muslims in the Balkans make statements about implementing Islam into everyone's lives (like Alija Izetbegovic did in his Islamic Declaration), that isn't condemned at all.

Well, I have a solution for Bosnia: Republika Srpska should secede. Actually, I can't really take credit for that idea because according to the article, the Prime Minister of Republika Srpska Milorad Dodik has hinted at that very idea. I mean, it really is the perfect solution: the Serbs could govern their own country the way they like without having to be ruled by the very people who killed them in the 1990s. And without Republika Srpska, perhaps the unnatural state of Bosnia, which currently is comprised of three groups of people who, to put it mildly, don't get along, would disintegrate and could reform into a new country with more natural borders.

Obama's Cultural Heritage

L.E. Ikenga has an excellent article at American Thinker (thanks to Rush Limbaugh for mentioning it) about the implications of Barack Obama's admiration for his father.

Obama's father, she says, is what she calls an African Colonial. He was enraged about Africa's transformation under British rule but instead of trying to fix the problems and make life better for the people there, he embraced Marxism, a Western ideology.

Obama clearly identifies with his father, as evidenced by his book Dreams From My Father (which Ikenga calls "political propaganda"). Like the corrupt leaders of many African countries during British rule, Obama seeks to bring down America to the third-world level. From confiscating wealth to manipulating people using the media, Obama is no different than a European imperialist. And like any corrupt leader, getting rid of Obama won't be so easy when that time comes.

My summary is just that: a short outline of the article. I highly encourage you to go to American Thinker and read the entire thing.

Iran: Some Things Never Change

Or, Almost Everyone Is Wrong About Iran Except For Robert Spencer

Since pretty much every blogger who blogs about politics, international affairs, and the like has weighed in on the events in Iran, I figured I would as well.

In short, my view can be summarized as follows: the West's perception of Mousavi is dangerously wrong, the protesters are not trying to bring about some democratic revolution, and it's actually better for us (i.e. the West) that Ahmadinejad won.

The overall perception in the West is that Mousavi is a reformer (how that word reminds me of Gorbachev--I must have Russia on the brain) but, as Robert Spencer adroitly points out, this simply isn't true. He was a founder of Hizballah--that's enough to discredit him in my eyes.

Following this, I do not think the protesters are going to institute some kind of democracy. I do not think they even want democracy. They're simply protesting because their thug didn't win the election and they don't like that. If they really truly wanted to change the entire system, where were they when the candidates were chosen for election? There really is little difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi--they're both thuggish dictators. So why didn't these protesters protest when it turned out that two of the major candidates were basically Ahmadinejad I and Ahmadinejad II?

Finally, I think that this may have worked out quite well for the West. As I said previously, I don't see a major difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi. I don't think having Mousavi in power would bring any major changes to life in Iran for the Iranian people. What would be different would be the way Iran is treated. Since the West perceives Mousavi as a reformer, they would be more accommodating towards Iran, even as Iran continued to pose a threat to the free world. At least with Ahmadinejad, we know what we are facing because of prior experience with him.

These events in Iran are quite reminiscent of the 1979 revolution--and surprisingly enough, Britain is displaying an uncanny prescience, having actually learned something from history: they're not taking any chances with the families of British embassy staff--these families are being withdrawn from Iran (though for the time being the staff are staying). I suppose it would be asking too much to hope that Britain, and indeed all of Europe, look a bit further back in history to see the consequences of appeasing Hitler...

Book Review: 'Godfather of the Kremlin'

The late Russian general Aleksandr Lebed once said, "Berezovsky is the apotheosis of sleaziness on the state level: This representative of the small clique in power is not satisfied with stealing--he wants everybody to see that he is stealing with complete impunity." This quote exemplifies the major theme of Paul Klebnikov's excellent book Godfather of the Kremlin.

Godfather of the Kremlin is the essential book on modern Russia--specifically Russia in the 1990s. Klebnikov chronicles in this work, which started out as an article in Forbes magazine, the unsavory career of Boris Berezovsky. Berezovsky, he argues, is not the "democracy-loving human rights campaigner" that the West so badly wants him to be, but rather a crude, albeit clever gangster who acquired his wealth illegally, through shady business practices and even murder.

Two things made Berezovsky's success in the 1990s possible: the gangs present in the late era of the Soviet Union and the privatization reforms of the Yeltsin government. The gangs can be divided roughly into two groups: the Chechens and the Slavs. The Gorbachev government tolerated the presence of these gangs, even giving unofficial support to the Slavs. The Yeltsin government also tolerated the gangs. No effort was made to crack down on crime in the last years of the Soviet Union or the early years of the Russian Federation, thus creating an environment where criminality could flourish, even and especially at a state level.

The privatization reforms are one of the most lamentable policies of the Yeltsin government, according to Klebnikov. Privatization was carried out in the worst way possible: when assets of the state were auctioned off, they were allowed to accumulate in the hands of a very select group of people. To make matters even worse, this group of people, the oligarchs, were accountable to nobody, so they basically were above and beyond the law and could do whatever they liked.

And Boris Berezovsky did do whatever he liked. He started out doing business in the car industry, where his business practices were shady at best. He moved on to bigger and better things later, having relations with Mikhail Khodorkovsky's corrupt Bank Menatep and eventually owning a TV station that instrumental in getting the inept Boris Yeltsin reelected. He even held a government position at one point, and of course engaged in illegal activity in that capacity (Berezovsky had an Israeli passport despite the fact that it was illegal for Russian government officials to have foreign passports or citizenship).

Perhaps Berezovsky's greatest crime, especially in light of events since the publication of this book, was his financing of the Chechens. Berezovsky cooperated with the Chechens, paying ransom for people they captured and then finally openly financing them, as he does today to undermine Vladimir Putin.

This book was published in 2000 and needs to be updated--unfortunately, this will never happen. Paul Klebnikov was murdered on July 9, 2004. Perhaps one of the greatest injustices in life is that he, a decent and honest human being, is dead, while Berezovsky, the despicable criminal, has political asylum in England and lives comfortably in London with his illegally acquired wealth.

Photo credit.

Blog Template Update: Numbered Comments

Thanks to this excellent tutorial, comments on this blog are now numbered. (If you don't understand what I mean, look at a post with comments, for example, this one and notice how the comments now have numbers besides them.)

Be sure to stay tuned for two upcoming pieces: a book review of an excellent book that I call "essential on modern Russia" and the futuristic essay about what the United States and some of the world could look like in twenty years if we don't watch out.

Henry Allingham, World's Oldest Man

The BBC reports how one of their own, a World War I veteran, is now the oldest man in the world.

World War I veteran Henry Allingham is the world's oldest man following the death of a 113-year-old in Japan, Guinness World Records has confirmed.

Mr Allingham, one of only two surviving WWI veterans in the UK and the last surviving founder member of the RAF, was born on 6 June 1896.

He was born in Clapton, London, and now lives at St Dunstan's Centre for blind ex-service personnel near Brighton.

[...]

Mr Allingham, whose life has spanned three centuries and six monarchs, has five grandchildren, 12 great-grandchildren, 14 great-great grandchildren and one great-great-great grandchild.

Most of his family now live in the United States but his nephew Ronald Cator, 74, lives in Acle, Norfolk.

[...]

Mr Allingham is the sole survivor of the Battle of Jutland and has also published his life story.

The pictures accompanying the story are also worth looking at. The captions have some extra information that's not in the article, such as the fact that Allingham's father died when he was fourteen months old. I thought that was ironic, considering how long his son has lived.

When I saw the year of his birth (1896), the first thing I thought was how that was also the year that Nikita Khrushchev's first wife was born (it's not as random as you might think that I had Khrushchev on the mind--I'm currently reading a book about him). Unfortunately for her, she was not nearly as fortunate as Allingham--she died in 1921.

Anti-Jihadists Win Daily Prize

Robert reports how his team for Troopathon 2009, The Anti-Jihadists, of which I am a member, won the Daily Prize yesterday. Thanks to everyone who has ordered care packages--you can do so here to benefit Robert's team.

And if you don't order to benefit our team, that's fine too--because as Robert says, when you order care packages, it's the troops that win, not us.

Support Our Troops

I've just sent an email to join Robert Spencer's team, The Anti-Jihadists, for Troopathon 2009. Click on the graphic in the sidebar to send care packages that will be credited to The Anti-Jihadists (or click here).

Vote For Me

You may or may not have noticed the charming badge in my sidebar. I have been for Most Provocative Blog in the BlogLuxe Awards. If you like my blog, I'd really appreciate your vote. Head over to this page (or click on the purple badge in my sidebar) and click on the purple stripe that says "Most Provocative Blog". It should expand and show all the nominees. You can vote once a day for each category (so if you really love me, you can vote more than once...).

And while you're at it, consider voting for The Beet Goes On for Funniest Blog. The Beet Goes On is a hilarious and charming blog of an American woman living in Moscow (I'm wildly jealous of her--imagine how much my Russian language skills would improve if I were living in Russia).

Mladic Footage

Some interesting news from Bosnia today, courtesy of the BBC: Bosnian TV airs 'Mladic pictures'

Bosnia's Federation TV has broadcast what it says are videos of the fugitive former Bosnian Serb army chief, Ratko Mladic, filmed over the past 10 years.

One video allegedly showed Gen Mladic standing with two unidentified women during the winter of 2008.

He is wanted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia on war crimes charges in connection with the Bosnian civil war....

It's quite interesting, being that Mladic was Karadzic's general and the fact that Mladic's capture will help Serbia possibly join the EU. (I personally find it amusing that countries actually have to apply for EU membership--I mean, who would actually want to be a member of that horrible institution?)

Something I'd like to say Boris Tadic, the president of Serbia: please stop pandering to the EU. It undermines your country and makes you look very, very foolish.

By the way, I'm just dying to read this book about Mladic. It looks fascinating, does it not?

Stop Socialized Health Care

Socialized health care is, to put it bluntly, one of the stupidest ideas on the planet. It's basically the government intervening in yet another area where it shouldn't be, and it happens at an enormous cost in human life.

First, some excerpts from a Wall Street Journal article by Karl Rove:

It was a sobering breakfast with one of the smartest Republicans on Capitol Hill. We can fix a lot of bad stuff President Barack Obama might do, he told me. But if Mr. Obama signs into law a "public option," government-run insurance program as part of health-care reform we won't be able to undo the damage.

I'd go the Republican member of Congress one further: If Democrats enact a public-option health-insurance program, America is on the way to becoming a European-style welfare state. To prevent this from happening, there are five arguments Republicans must make.

[...]

In other words, the public option is just phony. It's a bait-and-switch tactic meant to reassure people that the president's goals are less radical than they are. Mr. Obama's real aim, as some candid Democrats admit, is a single-payer, government-run health-care system.

[...]

Defeating the public option should be a top priority for the GOP this year. Otherwise, our nation will be changed in damaging ways almost impossible to reverse.

I'd highly recommend reading the entire thing.

For people who are still not convinced, look at every single other developed country like the United States that does have socialized health care. Canada and England are two examples that come to mind, and the fact is that neither of these countries have really great medicine. I've heard loads of horror stories of what people have to go through to see a doctor. Do we really want that here?

Finally, I don't want the government mandating when I can or can't see a doctor. That's just ridiculous and plain stupid.

In Which I Meet Baron Bodissey

This past Saturday, my mom and I journeyed to a Secure Undisclosed Location. We've been doing sightseeing but on Sunday evening, we did something quite different: we met Baron Bodissey of Gates of Vienna for dinner. Our whole meeting was a success--it was so great to finally meet the Baron in person and we had a great time talking about politics, Europe, and the like.

I will be getting home on Sunday, so I'm not sure how much blogging I'll be able to do before then.

It's Over

In case it wasn't clear to us before yesterday, Obama's ridiculous speech in Cairo has fully confirmed that the United States' War on Terror is over. If you want to read the speech in its entirety, Robert Spencer has an excellent copy posted, complete with his comments throughout.

There were two overwhelming flaws in Obama's speech. The first was his displaying a grave and extremely dangerous misunderstanding of Islam. President Bush also misunderstood Islam, but not in quite the same way. He thought that Islam was a "religion of peace" and the terrorists were a minority who did not represent all of Islam. However, Bush did understand that the terrorists wanted us unequivocally dead and therefore we could not negotiate with them. Barack Hussein Obama does not even understand this: he thinks that it's all our fault that the terrorists hate us and therefore we can just talk to them and have peace. That's not just stupid, it's dangerously stupid.

The other apparent thing I noticed was his obsession with himself in the speech. Everything always had to be brought back to him because in his mind, he is the only person who matters. The rest of us are nothing to him--we are just things to be used on his continual quest for power. He does not care about us, nor will he ever. Everything he does is simply to make himself look good, no matter the cost to this country. (For more thoughts on this, see my essay published at the end of last year.)

Barack Obama is a threat to the security of this country and should be removed from office. I have believed this for months now, and his speech in Cairo has only confirmed this.

A Tribute To Paul Klebnikov

I first encountered Paul Klebnikov while reading Steve LeVine's Putin's Labyrinth. I was drawn to Klebnikov because of LeVine's description of him: he sounded like a kindred spirit to me, someone who understood Russia quite a bit better than the rabidly Russophobic Western media.

Klebnikov was born in New York, the descendant of White Russians who had fled the Russian Revolution. He was a native speaker of the Russian language. From an early age he had a fascination with all things Russia-related, which would eventually lead to him acquiring a Ph.D. in Russian history form the London School of Economics. He was hired by Forbes in 1989 and did a lot of reporting about the unscrupulous "businessmen" ("thugs" might be a more appropriate word) and their dubiously acquired wealth in the 1990s. Through his exposing of corruption of these so-called oligarchs, Klebnikov made many enemies who had lots of money, and therefore the means to eventually take revenge.

One of the most formidable enemies Klebnikov made was Boris Berezovsky, a mathematician-turned-businessman. Berezovsky was the subject of an article in 1996 called "Godfather of the Kremlin?" which was eventually turned into a book with expanded research under the title Godfather of the Kremlin: Boris Berezovsky and the Looting of Russia. In it, Klebnikov exposes Berezovsky (who currently resides in exile in England) as the low criminal he truly is, rather than the reborn "democracy-loving human rights campaigner" that he is often portrayed as.

Klebnikov was asked to become the first editor of Forbes Russia when it launched in April 2004. Three months later, on July 9, 2004, Klebnikov was shot as he left his office at night. He died when he reached the hospital. He was forty-one years old. Though no one knows for certain who murdered him, I'd personally put my money on the murder somehow being connected to Berezovsky.

The world lost a fine reporter and human being with Klebnikov's death. Steve Forbes himself wrote the obituary for Klebnikov in Forbes magazine. This heartfelt article at American Thinker, published a year after Klebnikov's death, is also worth reading.

Most of what was written about Klebnikov was laudatory, praising his journalistic abilities as well as his good personal qualities. But Boris Berezovsky, of course, in his usual sleazy fashion, said that Klebnikov was "not an honest journalist" who "taught me that even leading Western media lie." LeVine asserts that Klebnikov never truly understood Russia (an assertion that I do not agree with).

It seems to me that Paul Klebnikov has become forgotten in the almost five years following his death. He's a tad of an inconvenience for many people because of his harsh and rightful criticism of people who are often touted as heroes for their criticism of Vladimir Putin (i.e., Boris Berezovsky). And Klebnikov was not a Putin critic, so he will never be able to serve the Western media's agenda in the way that someone like Anna Politkovskaya can.

Klebnikov should not be allowed to be forgotten. During his short life, he accomplished a lot and we would do well to remember him so that he did not die in vain.

Photo credit.