The Necropolitan Sentinel

chi per lungo silenzio parea fioco

Home » Posts tagged "Collins & McCann"

Roger L. Simon and Andrew Breitbart Not Participating in CPAC 2012

The American Conservative Union’s decision to prevent GOProud from participating in CPAC next year is already having ramifications within New Media and the conservative entertainment community. Roger L. Simon of Pajamas Media, and Andrew Breitbart of “the Bigs”/Breitbart.com, will not be attending CPAC 2012, specifically because of the ACU’s decision. There is no word yet on whether PJM or the Breitbart websites will decline to cover the conference, but it seems unlikely that either Simon’s or Breitbart’s operations will be supporting the conference as they have in the past—or giving CPAC nearly as much ink or airtime.

At least one Hollywood production company that has been a co-sponsor of the event is skipping it next year, as well.

Jeff Dunetz of the Yid with Lid blog is upset, and many other bloggers are confused. A tiny minority see this manuever as a sort of “back to basics” move—an attempt to take the conservative conference to its Christian roots. Yet none of the non-Christian organizations that are linked to CPAC (Muslims, Jews, etc.) have been forbidden to have a booth at the event.

There is some question as to whether Ann Coulter will attend next year. Some theorize that participating in a “boycott”—however informal—would be out of character, and that she is more likely to attend, but to blast the organizers for this seeming misstep. A self-proclaimed born-again Christian, Ms. Coulter has been a strong supporter of GOProud’s participation in CPAC.

The gay newspaper The Advocate points out that GOProud has at least two former ACU members on its Board of Directors; Breitbart is also part of that body. And over at Gay Patriot, the premier gay conservative blog, B. Daniel Blatt has some thoughts, along with an updated statement from GOProud.

It appears that all our pan-conservative strategizing next spring will have to take place via conference calls.

Rick Perry, States’ Rights, and How to Fight Abortion

Peter’s got a post up at his place denouncing Rick Perry’s invocation of the 10th Amendment as governing the legality of abortion on a state-by-state basis.

I agree with Peter that abortion is murder, and I agree that this is an issue that will weaken his hand with one-issue swing voters, but I’m going to play devil’s advocate and present the counter-argument, anyway.

The national approach to abortion is a mug’s game for conservatives. There’s an analogy to what we’ve seen with the gay marriage issue, and plebescites are routinely overturned by activist judges who see this inhumanity as a human rights issue.

At the national level, the best we can do is to attempt to keep taxpayer money from funding abortion. To be perfectly consistent, we’d then have to agree that there also ought to be a prohibition against capital punishment. And this is true even in the wake of the Kermit the Killer revelations in Pennsylvania, which quietly disappeared in the MSM.

In larger terms, Perry rather wisely doesn’t want the abortion issue to overshadow the gorilla in the room, which is the economy. With the successes of governors such as Walker and Kasich in balancing their own budgets, the question becomes, why doesn’t Washington, D.C. live by the same rules? A Balanced Budget Amendment need not originate in Congress; it could become a ballot issue in the states in the lead-up to 2012—with the proviso that Peter’s written of, that any raising of the debt ceiling must be backed by a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress. This should be framed as a petition for redress of wrongs suffered by the American people, as provided by the Constitution.

The effect, I think, on both the national and states levels would be to bolster the candidacies of conservative (as opposed to merely Republican) candidates.

They don’t need more studies. They do need a Balanced Budget Amendment. Quite frankly, we’re the ones who have the advantage on the ground this time.

“They’re demoralized; ride right through them.”

Norway Killer Also a Plagiarist

At The Jawa Report:

Norway mass murderer an equal opportunity plagiarist? So-called “manifesto” a cut-and-paste job

The 1500+ page “manifesto” that is alleged to have been written by Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik has the Left and their establishment media allies doing circle jerks and kept them busy for the past few days checking the “manifesto” for names from their enemies list. But it appears to be a complete cut-and-paste job rather than the culmination of years of extensive study by the killer as has been repeatedly claimed by the media (NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, etc.) and the killer himself (in the first few pages of the “manifesto”).

Even worse, if they had actually read his manifesto, rather than do a word search for targets taken from their enemies list, they would have discovered that most of this work is plagiarized and not his own work. Many of the links are already there. It’s looking like the only element that is really truly his is the journal portion.

Scott Shane of the New York Times actually used this manifesto to accuse the usual suspects of helping to shape the “anti-Muslim” worldview of the killer, despite the fact that authorities have not even confirmed it was actually compiled by Breivik. And so far no one has really explained why despite this supposed raging anti-Muslim hatred that he was driven by, not a single victim of Breivik’s killing spree was a Muslim (at least that I’ve seen reported so far). It is also interesting to note that Shane forgot to mention that the New York Times itself was cited as a source in the “manifesto”. Is the Old Gray Lady also to blame for these cold-blooded murders?!?! But I digress…

Having reviewed the first 800 pages of this work, it is clear that virtually all of those sections were plagiarized from other works. I have found the sources for first ~350 pages so far and am working on tracking down the rest (which I will post here as an update).

[Link to Coulter op-ed mine]

Typical of the coverage in the MSM is this bit from GlobalPost:

Breivik’s massacre has prompted calls in Europe for much greater scrutiny of extremism on the web. Germany’s Greens party leader, Cem Ozdemir*, blasted the lack of accountability on the internet, saying, “We need to do more to ensure security.” A police union leader in Germany, Klaus Jansen, told the Neue Osnabruecker Zeitung newspaper that an “alarm button” should be introduced for the internet that would enable people who came across dangerous content to report it quickly.

“Not everybody who goes on a far-right blog is going to go on a shooting rampage but certainly they are contributing to a wider culture of violence in the far right,” Goodwin said. “Some of the ideas that are exchanged on these sites contributed to the ideas that Breivik was using — the notion of a clash between cultures, the notion of an Islamic takeover of Europe, the need to take violent action.

[Boldface mine]

Never addressed in these narratives is the popularity of Mein Kampf in the Arab world, and more recently among *Turks.

Meanwhile, in the UK:

Islamic extremists have launched a poster campaign across the UK proclaiming areas where Sharia law enforcement zones have been set up.

Communities have been bombarded with the posters, which read: ‘You are entering a Sharia-controlled zone – Islamic rules enforced.’

The bright yellow messages daubed on bus stops and street lamps have already been seen across certain boroughs in London and order that in the ‘zone’ there should be ‘no gambling’, ‘no music or concerts’, ‘no porn or prostitution’, ‘no drugs or smoking’ and ‘no alcohol’.

Hate preacher Anjem Choudary has claimed responsibility for the scheme, saying he plans to flood specific Muslim and non-Muslim communities around the UK and ‘put the seeds down for an Islamic Emirate in the long term’.

Dr. Paul Crawford of the California University of Pennsylvania has this to say of the allusion to the Knights Templar:

Eight centuries later, Anders Behring Breivik, the man who confessed to last week’s bombing and shooting attacks that left 76 dead in Norway, alluded to two other “cells” of his network, which he referred to in a 1,500-page manifesto as a new “Knights Templar.” In the document, he describes being invited to join the group, which he said is dedicated to “anti-jihad” and claims members held meetings in London and the Baltics. Afterward, he said, the members vowed not to contact one another and to instead plan their “resistance” as individuals.

Halfway around the globe, in Morelia, Mexico, an organized crime group calling itself the Knights Templar has recently distributed 22-page booklets announcing its fight against poverty, tyranny and injustice. A copy obtained by The Associated Press depicts knights on horseback bearing lances and crosses, vowing an “ideological battle to defend the values of a society based on ethics.”

Crawford said Breivik and the Mexican crime syndicate blamed for murders and drug trafficking are “grossly abusing” the ideals and glamour of the original knights.

“A drug cartel in Mexico for goodness sake and a lone murderer in Norway are trying to appropriate a glamorous and admirable image to cloak the horror of their own deeds,” Crawford said. “In neither case would the original organization approve of what is being done and made of their memory.”

Police in Norway say they are convinced that Breivik acted alone. If that is the case, the entire narrative of cloak and dagger is fantasy cover for his murderous impulses, but that won’t stop leftists from blaming Melanie Phillips or Pam Geller for the carnage. Other potential culprits include violent online games:

Frank Waldschmidt, a German trauma and crisis psychologist, said there are many indications that Breivik was an isolated person who fuelled his own fantasies.

“The violent fantasies, the drawn-out planning, the intense preparation, the meticulous work on a long-cherished plan — all of that says to me that he’s classified as a lone perpetrator,” Waldschmidt said.

The danger, he added, is that the mass distribution of Breivik’s 1,500-page manifesto — which can be downloaded on the internet — posed the risk of elevating the killer in the minds of others.

He said the manifesto could “infect people who find themselves in a similar life situation to him.”

Extreme loners could regard Breivik’s massive tract as the possibility “to be something and to achieve something, and in their weak self-worth, build up a figure of action.”

Jeroen Rink, a Dutchman who befriended Breivik playing the online war games Call of Duty and the World of Warcraft, was one of the people who received Breivik’s manifesto just hours before he embarked on his attacks, according to Dutch daily De Telegraaf.

In his manifesto, Breivik writes about using a violent video game as a training tool.

“I just bought Modern Warfare 2, the game,” he wrote in the document. “It is probably the best military simulator out there and it’s one of the hottest. I see MW2 more as part of my training-simulation than anything else.”

What’s the proper response? Just off the top of my head, I’d say derision.

I can’t think of a more dismal writing genre than that of the manifesto. I’d rather read appliance repair manuals in Chinglish. It’s the ultimate in fascist communiques, telling you to shut up and take notes. Virtually all of the writers of manifesti have been pompous d-bags.

UPDATE: Forbes writer Abigail Esman rightly pointed out in an article that the manifesto contains positive references to Little Green Footballs. Charles rages that any such references were to posts by Fjordman, which is patently false. He also points out that he hasn’t posted anything that could be construed as anti-Islamist since 2007, though in his own smears he fails to note that Breivik began assembling his ideas and plans in 2000, well before many of the people that Charles blames were blogging.

There’s only one word for Charles: petarded.

UPDATEx2: Pfc Nasser Abdo, conscientious objector to warring against Muslims in Afghanistan, arrested with explosives in his car and, allegedly, intent to kill other US soldiers. This one appears to have had accomplices.

What brought him down? Like Wade Sanders, he was apparently doing research into child exploitation, wink-wink.

Landslide for . . . Whomever?

For some time I’ve felt that unless we nominate someone with a lot of baggage, our prospects were better next year than they have seemed—particularly while we’re still getting a lot of our information from the MSM.

National Journal takes an in-depth look at the poll numbers, pointing out that the President’s problems for 2012 go beyond his cratering approval numbers. After all, a Presidential election is not a national race: it’s won in the states.

And things are looking much bleaker—from the White House’s perspective—in some of the “battleground states” that Obama would have to win to stay in office:

President Obama’s job approval rating in the latest national polls has been in the danger zone, ranging from 42 percent (Gallup) to 47 percent (ABC News/Washington Post), with every survey showing him with higher unfavorables than favorables. Needless to say, it’s not a good place for a president to be, especially since his numbers have worsened over the past two months. . . .

Those polls are even more ominous for the president: In every reputable battleground state poll conducted over the past month, Obama’s support is weak. In most of them, he trails Republican front-runner Mitt Romney. For all the talk of a closely fought 2012 election, if Obama can’t turn around his fortunes in states such as Michigan and New Hampshire, next year’s presidential election could end up being a GOP landslide.

Take Ohio, a perennial battleground in which Obama has campaigned more than in any other state (outside of the D.C. metropolitan region). Fifty percent of Ohio voters now disapprove of his job performance, compared with 46 percent who approve, according to a Quinnipiac poll conducted from July 12-18.

Among Buckeye State independents, only 40 percent believe that Obama should be reelected, and 42 percent approve of his job performance. Against Romney, Obama leads 45 percent to 41 percent—well below the 50 percent comfort zone for an incumbent.

The news gets worse from there. In Michigan, a reliably Democratic state that Obama carried with 57 percent of the vote, an EPIC-MRA poll conducted July 9-11 finds him trailing Romney, 46 percent to 42 percent. Only 39 percent of respondents grade his job performance as “excellent” or good,” with 60 percent saying it is “fair” or “poor.” The state has an unemployment rate well above the national average, and the president’s approval has suffered as a result.

In Iowa, where Republican presidential contenders are getting in their early licks against the president, his approval has taken a hit. In a Mason-Dixon poll conducted for a liberal-leaning group, Romney held a lead of 42 percent to 39 percent over the president, with 19 percent undecided. Even hyper-conservative Rep. Michele Bachmann ran competitively against Obama in the Hawkeye State, trailing 47 percent to 42 percent.

The July Granite State Poll pegs the president’s approval at 46 percent among New Hampshire voters, with 49 percent disapproving. A separate robo-poll conducted this month by Democratic-aligned Public Policy Polling shows him trailing Romney in the state, 46 percent to 44 percent.

Polls are just a snapshot, and these illustrate that the sour economy has been taking its toll on the president’s popularity. There’s plenty of time left before November 2012, but the fundamentals—projections of long-term slow economic growth, a White House struggling to tailor a message on job creation, and an energized Republican base—don’t bode well. The president’s best hope is for a deeply polarizing Republican nominee, such as Bachmann, to emerge.

Obama’s performance so far on the debt-ceiling debate hasn’t improved his standing, either. Pundits may have graded the president a winner in the battle, but it wasn’t long ago that the White House was demanding a clean debt-ceiling increase from congressional Republicans. Now, it appears that whatever deal ends up being struck will be much closer to the GOP’s terms, with the president looking less consequential in the whole process.

Read the whole thing: the man is in trouble. We will still need to fight hard for this, and try to get someone decent nominated. But even with the worst possible candidate (which I happen to believe is Romney; YMMV, and probably does), this contest may be more winnable than many imagine.

In fact, to the degree that Obama is forced to own the economy he wrecked, the 1980 scenario begins to look more and more likely. There is, after all, plenty we didn’t know about Ronald Reagan back then. Yet the electorate felt at the time that it did know Jimmy Carter . . . who wound up with 49 electoral votes that year.

If we steer around the most treacherous of the reefs, things might look up in a big way in 2012. And if we do get an economically literate person into the White House in January of 2013, it will not be a moment too soon.

Does the Path to 2012 Go Through the Boehner Plan?

Well, I think it does. And I know that this is a hot issue—but I am really hung up on the message that this sends to the independent voters. People who aren’t following this very closely and won’t crunch the numbers.

If the President says he’ll veto a bill, but it lands on his desk with Boehner’s fingerprints on it—and it’s the only way to avoid the mess associated with failing to raise the ceiling, which is real—then he is exactly where we want him: he either signs it and looks like an idiot, or he doesn’t sign it, and thereby triggers all kinds of problems.

But if the bill doesn’t land on his desk, this will get presented as a repeat of the 1995 government shutdown crisis, which was a public relations disaster for the GOP.

Right now, Obama owns the economy. He wants to foist it off on the Republicans, and the critical thing is not to let him do that. It’s imperative not to give him an opening.

The stakes are too high right now; we can’t address any of the financial problems in the country without taking the White House and the Senate. And independents are running from this man in droves. We want to encourage that, not halt it.

Here’s Krauthammer:


As you flame me, please place this in the context of 2012; it isn’t enough to tell me that the cuts in the final version of Boehner’s bill are likely to be anemic. Tell me how failure to pass Boehner’s bill doesn’t get disseminated to independent voters as Republican stubbornness. Tell me how it doesn’t take us off the catbird seat we now enjoy for next year’s elections.

Tell me how it doesn’t weaken the best weapon we have against this President: the economy.

UPDATE: A reminder about why the Reid plan is not such a hot idea.

UPDATE 2: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports the Boehner bill, for what that is worth.

Also, the Ace of Spades debate—
Gabriel
Drew
More Gabriel
Final Drew

“I Quit. Thank You.”

We’ve talked about the Obama Administration’s war on energy, and how destructive it is: energy is the lifeblood of the economy, and the effect on jobs has been drastic and destructive.

But what we haven’t seen before is a large-scale desertion of enterprise by those who are tired of being demonized for their creativity. With the deck stacked against them, more and more job-creators are simply throwing in the towel.

And who can blame them? We’ve seen, for example, the villification of David and Charles Koch. The President, who avails himself of Air Force One whenever he pleases, likes to verbally assault corporations—especially those that own jets. Executives at GE have skated on the verbal abuse so far, but that may be due to the company’s ownership of MSNBC—or, perhaps, its coziness with the White House.

Energy companies shouldn’t have to prostitute themselves to the executive branch of the government merely to avoid being denounced from the bully pulpit. No organization should have to do that.

And this is where the Environmentalist-Executive Complex has taken us:

I was at a public hearing in an inner-city Birmingham neighborhood for various government officials to get public input on some local environmental issues. There are several hot topics, but one of the highest-profile disputes is over a proposal for a coal mine near a river that serves as a source of drinking water for parts of the Birmingham metro area. Mine operators and state environmental officials say the mine can be operated without threatening the water supply. Environmentalists claim it will be a threat.

I’m not going to take sides on that environmental issue, because I don’t know enough to stake out an informed opinion. (With most of the people I listened to today, facts didn’t seem to matter as much as emotional implications.) But Ronnie Bryant wasn’t there to talk about that particular mine. As a mine operator in a nearby area, he was attending the meeting to listen to what residents and government officials were saying. He listened to close to two hours of people trashing companies of all types, and blaming pollution for random cases of cancer in their families. Several speakers clearly believe that all of the cancer and other deaths they see in their families and communities must be caused by pollution. Why? Who knows? Maybe just because it makes for an emotional story to blame big bad business. It’s hard to say.

After Bryant listened to all of the business-bashing, he finally stood to speak. He sounded a little bit shellshocked, a little bit angry — and a lot frustrated.

My name’s Ronnie Bryant, and I’m a mine operator…. I’ve been issued a [state] permit in the recent past for [waste water] discharge, and after standing in this room today listening to the comments being made by the people…. [pause] Nearly every day without fail — I have a different perspective — men stream to these [mining] operations looking for work in Walker County. They can’t pay their mortgage. They can’t pay their car note. They can’t feed their families. They don’t have health insurance. And as I stand here today, I just … you know … what’s the use?

I got a permit to open up an underground coal mine that would employ probably 125 people. They’d be paid wages from $50,000 to $150,000 a year. We would consume probably $50 million to $60 million in consumables a year, putting more men to work. And my only idea today is to go home. What’s the use? I don’t know. I mean, I see these guys — I see them with tears in their eyes — looking for work. And if there’s so much opposition to these guys making a living, I feel like there’s no need in me putting out the effort to provide work for them. So as I stood against the wall here today, basically what I’ve decided is not to open the mine. I’m just quitting. Thank you.

I have no idea what Bryant will actually do. He might have made a quick emotional decision based on anger at feeling blamed for things that are frequently just normal health issues of life. He might reconsider and go ahead with his project.

The only thing I’m sure of is that what I saw today is a broken process and a sham. We all want a decent environment in which to live, but when various people at a public meeting — including federal officials and community members — talk about “environmental justice” and make it clear that their intent is to make it harder for businesses to operate, well, I can see why a businessman would decide to quit. I consider myself an environmentalist — because I want to live in a safe, secure, clean world — but what I saw isn’t reasonable concern for the environment as much as it’s an ideological agenda.

Yes, I know that this was a local incident, but the barriers being put up at the state and local level echo those that the Administration is erecting at the Federal level—from the off-shore “permitorium” that is so damaging the Gulf States to the foot-dragging on approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline to take Canadian crude to refineries in Texas—which would decrease our reliance on oil from unfriendly countries, and those whose extraction is done in environmentally problematic ways (e.g., Nigeria).

What this Administration and its allies on the left refuse to recognize is the degree to which people are suffering out here. The economy of Washington, D.C. has been booming over the past three years, but the rest of the country is enduring the pangs of the Second Great Depression.

And hope has been dying; the natural optimism of the American spirit is, at long last, fading.

The environmental extremists, and their allies in the White House, remain oblivious.

Because, you know . . . they have jobs.

Chairman of Obama’s Job Council to Create New Jobs…In China?

But, you know, at least they weren’t Green Jobs…Yet…From Boston.com :

General Electric Co.’s health care unit, the world’s biggest maker of medical imaging machines, is moving the headquarters of its 115-year-old X-ray business to Beijing.

The headquarters will move from Wisconsin amid a broader plan to invest about $2 billion across China, including opening six “customer innovation’’ and development centers.

The X-ray business, whose financial results aren’t reported separately by GE, will hire 65 new engineers and support staff at a new Chengdu facility, the company said. GE has hired “a large number’’ of engineers who are in training, LeGrand said. GE, based in Fairfield, Conn., also has a global research center in Shanghai.

If you recall, GE’s CEO, Jeff Immelt, is the Chairman of President Obama’s Job Council; a group committed to creating new jobs. But who knew they were talking about creating jobs overseas? Especially considering all of the Sturm-und-Drang one hears about “outsourcing jobs” coming from “Big Labor“, one of Obama’s vital constituencies, and indeed from the entire progressive left in general whenever the opportunity presents itself.

Look. I’ve been a free-trading free-market guy all my life; in my opinion any business can do business wherever they’d like. But really, above and beyond the irony of this story and its concomitant sweet, sweet, schadenfreude there are more important points to be made here.

First and foremost, Americans will not be getting these jobs. Good Jobs. High-tech, high paying jobs. The ones the transnational globalists always said we’d retain here, so it was OK to shop all of those nasty ol’ smokestack industry jobs to the developing nations. And what should be important to the DC politicians is that now they’ll be missing out on the tax revenue from these jobs and the associated supply chain activity. But wait, there’s more.

See, what most people don’t realize are the details of the Faustian bargain that must be made by any US businesses that wants to set up shop in China. In most cases they have to cede 51% of the ownership to a Chinese partner, so Hello, GE shareholders-any objections to this? But far worse is that they have to agree to transfer both the device’s operating technology and the expertise associated with manufacturing it to China as well; in other words they’re not allowed to just ship the parts there to be assembled, and import tech’s to service the units sold.

And really it’s the technology transfer, both electronic as well as industrial process related, the Chinese crave. That way they can be saved the taxing step of actually buying enough units to successfully reverse engineer the device, and associated process, themselves; just ask the Russians about the SU-27 and SU-33 military aircraft. For a while the Chinese built them under Ukrainian license, (which the Russians protested-they knew better), for a while, and then they simply stopped paying the license fee, renamed the airplanes, and that was all there is to that.

People may think this imaging technology to be a benign transfer at best; which, Bill Clinton thought the same about missile guidance technology transfer to China in the 90s. We can see today how that’s worked out for us

The same technology that allows for the 3-d imaging of babies in the womb, on a different scale, has applications underwater, which is all I’m going to say about that…

The Chinese are our “frienemies” at best. Their aggressive, mercantilistic, monetary policies have cost Americans untold numbers of jobs. We are indirectly paying for their defense expansion and modernization via our monthly trade deficit with them, which most months is equal in magnitude to the amount of money we send overseas to pay people who hate us for oil (we could be producing here). It’s bad enough we’re paying for their military build-up. Let’s not give them technology that may be useful in doing so to boot!

What do you think, kind reader?

[Cross posted at POWIP]

Norwegian Justice and Anders Breivik [David Zincavage]


Students at Yale and Harvard don’t get single rooms as nice as the rooms at Norway’s maximum security Halden Prison

If you’re planning to murder 76 people, be sure to do it in Norway. The maximum penalty in that enlightened Scandinavian country is theoretically 21 years.

However, as this Wikipedia article explains, convicted criminals customarily serve only a portion of their sentences.

The maximum determinate penalty is 21 years imprisonment, but only a small percentage of prisoners serve more than 14 years. Prisoners will typically get unsupervised parole for weekends etc. after serving ⅓ of their sentence (a maximum of 7 years) and can receive early release after serving ⅔ of their sentence (a maximum of 14 years). In 2008, to fulfill its requirements under the Rome Statute, Norway created a new maximal penalty of 30 years for crimes against humanity.

The maximum indeterminate penalty, called “containment” (Norwegian: forvaring), is also set at 21 years imprisonment, and the prisoner is required to serve at least 10 years before becoming eligible for parole. “Containment” is used when the prisoner is deemed a danger to society and there is a great chance of committing violent crimes in the future. If the prisoner is still considered dangerous after serving the original sentence, the prisoner can receive up to five years additional containment. If the additional time is served, and the offender is still considered dangerous, a prisoner can continue to receive up to five years additional containment, and this, in theory, could result in actual life imprisonment. However, the offender can be paroled or released at any time if it is determined that the offender is no longer a danger to society.

Someone who committed particularly sensational crimes, like Anders Behring Breivik, is likely to be confined in Norway’s recently opened (April 8th) Halden Prison .

Boasted to be the “most modern” prison in Europe, Halden has $1 million worth of art, private bathrooms and flatscreen televisions in every room, even unbarred windows offering a view, along with a gym, training room, chapel, library, family visiting unit, soccer field, its own school, and even a recording studio.

7-10 years of the good life in Resort Halden and a certain amount of dutiful expressions of repentance, regret, and conversion to liberal opinions and Anders Breivik could be a free man again. And he’d be only 39 to 42 years old.

In America even today, though we would dither about it for a few years, we would execute him. Before say 1965, for a killing spree on US soil, he would have been tried, sentenced, and executed by some means like hanging or electrocution within only a month or two of the date of the crime.

It seems impossible to avoid reflecting that Norway’s leftism-based inability to avenge its own victims, people murdered specifically as an expression of hostility to leftism, constitutes a bitterly ironical commentary on the same political and moral philosophy, and one, that I regret to note, works splendidly in supporting Breivik’s criticism .

Fast Company feature article.
Time Magazine Photogallery

Note from Dan: I’m generating credentials for David, but you can visit him at Never Yet Melted.