As IF Times

link Nick Clegg to denounce Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at UN | Politics | guardian.co.uk.

Good for Nick.  It is curious though that it is someone representing a foreign government and not the Americans directly making the speech denouncing the ravings of statesman Mahmoud in his recent charm offensive.  We all know that politics and diplomacy is all about thrust and parry, maneuvering and feinting.  What is said in public can be intended for very distinct audiences. 

It’s doubtful that what Ahmadinejad had to say would find many sympathizers in the U.S. except perhaps the  911 conspiracy crowd.  These are the same people who insist the moon landing took place on a Universal Studios soundstage, who think Elvis is alive and living at The Villages in Florida and that Stephen Colbert has talent.  

It’s possible that Mahmoud’s words were taken out of context when he says,

“…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…”

and

“…should the United States attack Iran over its nuclear program, it would become embroiled in a war that would make previous American conflicts pale in comparison…”

It’s more likely that these remarks were aimed at his brothers back in the ‘hood. After all, when you can come right into the bowels of the Great Satan, poke them in the eye and then have them pay and ensure your personal safety, that’s a big win for the home team.  It looks great on your resume and ensures that you will get people to listen to you back in Sandville.  You have to admire the guy for the deft play in the diplomacy field. 

Meanwhile, the Americans showed just how irascible they can be in the face of overt threats.  They walked out of the speech.  Boy, they sure showed him!  It’s one thing to pretend to be accepting of views of tyrants, dictators and other modern day Napoleons of small stature and belligerent egos, but when they basically spit in your  soup and dare you to do anything about it, there should be some indignant response from the aggrieved.  Why wouldn’t the highest representative of the U.S. government stand up forcefully and make a statement that in no uncertain terms excoriates the opinions of the Mahmouds of the world and make it clear that further aggravation will not be tolerated.  Instead of allowing him to come to New York to see a Broadway play, he can stay at home and shake his fists there. 

In this enlightened age of civility, I suppose it would be considered unsociable to set off some devices which would result in mushroom shaped clouds in his neighborhood.  Ok, we can accept that.  But at the very least, when the guy swaggers over here to rail and rant, let security be his own concern.  What do we care if he falls down an open manhole? Let him ride the subway and risk mugging like everyone else.  Given a choice, do U.S. citizens really want to surround our hero with police escorts and security bubbles? Given a choice, I think they’d prefer to listen to their own domestic unshaven nutbar, Michael Moore.  At least the people don’t have to pay for his security.

link Japan warns of extreme nationalism in China row.

What images pop into our heads when we see the word ‘extreme’ used to describe the players in any political conflict?  Are we talking fist pumping, belligerently chanting mobs or are we talking skirmishes amongst meek bureaucrats with bad comb-overs?  We hear this word applied to so many things today, it loses any meaning at all.  It’s like new and improved or hypo-allergenic, the label is useless.  Over the past year or so, the ‘extreme’ description has been particularly worn out in the political world.  For instance, it’s the standard label that’s employed  by liberals when characterizing conservatives.  The criticism of recently elected Republican candidates sponsored by the Tea Party in state primaries relied heavily on the depiction of  extreme.  What does that even mean?

If we’re talking about law and order and the candidate proposes lopping off the hands of thieves, of stoning adulterers, of caning miscreants, well I guess that could qualify as extreme.   If this same candidate proposes that certain social norms be adopted such as head to toe coverage by a drop cloth for all women, or the prohibition by women to drive, the banning of women from schooling or to be seen in daylight, well, some may think that’s extreme also.

Recently, Noam Chomsky, a notorious lefty who thinks that white lines on a black road constitutes racism, expressed his views on the rise of the ‘extreme’ right in America.  http://progreso-weekly.com/2/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1597:chomsky-warns-of-the-rise-of-the-extreme-right-in-the-us&catid=37:neighbors-to-the-south&Itemid=56

Our man apparently thinks that the opposition by the masses to wrongheaded and damaging government policies is extremism.  Of course, in the eyes of such as Chomsky, the very idea of having elections as a means of political expression is extreme.  It would be much more expedient to have the rulers issue dictates to the mouth breathing hoi polloi. 

Of course, it’s hard to argue the extreme positions of most conservative candidates for office.  They make easy targets with their deluded notions of self reliance and hard work: of balancing income column A with spending column B and of decreasing the influence of government in peoples’ daily lives.  There are even some conservatives that think laws should not be enforced according to race or ethnicity.  That’s just crazy talkin’!  Surely this is the beginnings of a new Weimar Republic.

Rand Paul, the republican candidate for Kentucky was labelled an extremist for this comment in reference to coal mining in some hills in part of that state,

“…I don´t think anybody will be missing a hill or two here and there…”

This of course is vinegar in the eyes of the environmentalists and so the Sierra Club”s Cathy Duvall, responded thusly,

“…We are working to get the word out that we can’t let these extremists run our government…”

And he probably doesn’t recycle either.

In California, the green nuts have curtailed the flow of water into one of the most fertile parts of that state, endangering people via reduced crop yields and bankruptcy of the farmers because of a small fish called the delta smelt.  It’s possible that allowing fish to take precedence over people may be seen by some as extreme, but I haven’t heard any dare to use that word here.

For the enlightenment of all conservatives, I wouldn’t be too worried about being labelled an extremist especially if it came from liberals.  I’d be more worried that they labelled you a moderate.