support babalú

Your donations help fund
our continued operation

do you babalú?

what they’re saying






recommended reading

babalú features

recent comments

  • Honey: Mine, too. Although I also like a couple of others, too.

  • TWFKAP: This is why he’s my first choice. Hands down.

  • Honey: Not everyone gets it wrong. Here is a press release from Don Adams of the Independence Foundation in PhiladelphiaL Hi Janet, Many...

  • Honey: Add to this that Tauck Tours and now I see Roads Scholars are taking people on tours (expensive for the primitive conditions...

  • asombra: Given Che’s views on the legal system, what kind of lawyer would hang his photo in his office?

search babalu

babalú archives

frequent topics

elsewhere on the net


When embargos and sanctions are “correct”: Yet another example of selective outrage


Yeah, go figure.  A foreign firm is about to be banned from doing business in the U.S. because the German Nazis swallowed it up and used its machinery for the most awful of all purposes.

Several powerful forces are lobbying against a French firm associated with the French National Railroads (SNCF)  because the Nazis used its parent company's trains to transport victims to extermination camps seventy years ago .

Thus far, there is no outcry: no shouts of "end this embargo!".... "this is wrong!"... or "forgive and forget!"..."let go of this already!"..."asking for compensation is selfish!"

Never mind that the Holocaust is one of the worst of all crimes in human history and that the scale of its horrors dwarfs that of many other crimes, including those committed by Nazi-wannabes like the Castro brothers.  The scale of the crimes is not the point here: the issue is the nature of the crimes and the nature of the ethical principles being invoked.

Call it selective outrage: only certain criminals deserve shunning.  It's a very small number.  Only two: Apartheid South Africa and Nazi Germany.  Everyone else gets a pass, and fat contracts.

If this sort of outrage were ethically correct --rather than politically correct -- there would be no foreign factories in China, no Wal-Mart, no Sochi Olympics, no Turkish towels, and no tourism in Castrogonia, Cambodia, or Viet Nam.

This selective outrage is itself an outrage.


Americans to ban French railway firm from bidding on multi-billion dollar contract because it was once commandeered by Nazis

France's state-owned railway is set to be banned from bidding for a £4 billion contract in the USA because of its role in the World War II Holocaust, it emerged today.

SNCF runs some of the fastest and most efficient lines in the world but has a dark history which saw it transport thousands of Jews to their deaths in German concentration camps.

Now senators in the US state of Maryland have proposed a bill which would make it illegal for the French to apply for prestige projects.
Keolis, a rail company which is majority-owned by SNCF, wants to bid for a £4 billion plus contract to build a 12 miles light railway in America over 35 years.

The proposed service would run between Montgomery and Prince George counties, but more than 50,000 locals have signed a petition opposing the involvement of SNCF.

Senator Joan Carter Conway told Le Monde: ‘The persistent refusal of SNCF to take responsibility for its role in the Holocaust remains an insult to its victims.’

She and other senators want SNCF to pay compensation to Holocaust survivors before they are allowed to do business in the states.

Continue reading HERE. 


2 comments to When embargos and sanctions are “correct”: Yet another example of selective outrage

  • "The scale of the crimes is not the point here: the issue is the nature of the crimes and the nature of the ethical principles being invoked." Exactly Carlos, the oft repeated mantra "never again" is worthless if selectively applied. The right to life, human rights, is every persons God given right and no person or entity has the right to deny them.

  • asombra

    This is classic. Needless to say, Castro, Inc., like other leftists horrors, is NOT expected, let alone required, to take responsibility for its crimes, and even mentioning compensation is totally unacceptable. As for insulting the victims, Castro, Inc. can do that as much and as often as it damn well pleases. After all, everyone else does.