It SEEMED Like a Good Idea
MSF in Haiti
Gonna lead off the week with a couple of unsurprising items.
Doctors without Borders. Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) officially – well known for going into areas sometimes that even troops don’t want to visit. Sometimes called out for helping folks we don’t necessarily want to help, but they have in many cases been a cause of good works.
But not always, and not any more in Gaza, according to someone with pretty deep knowledge of the organization. Meet Alain Destexhe, who both worked as a doctor for them in the 1980s and was their secretary-general (just call him their former HMIC) in the 1990s. His opinion is a bit more jaundiced:
We were defining ourselves as a neutral, impartial and humanitarian organization,” Destexhe told Fox News Digital. “I think now MSF in Gaza is really taking the side [of] Hamas and against Israel.
“Americans need to know that Doctors Without Borders is not anymore the organization that it was 15 or 20 years ago. It has become a biased, partial and militant organization.”
On Oct. 12, 2023, less than a week after Hamas carried out its brutal massacre and took more than 250 people hostage, MSF condemned the slaughter but also called for an end to Israel’s actions in Gaza, making no mention of the hostages.
Destexhe explained to Fox News Digital that much of MSF’s staff in the Gaza Strip are Palestinians, not foreign workers.
Earlier this year, MSF launched ads against the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a U.S.- and Israel-backed organization. MSF accused GHF of partaking in “systemized violence.”
This included the swift condemnation of a blast that occurred at Al-Ahli Hospital.
While it was later discovered that the explosion was caused by a Palestinian Islamic jihad rocket that misfired, MSF neither corrected nor deleted its condemnation, which is still available on X but has a community note.
“MSF is lying, MSF is partial, MS is biased and MSF are accomplices of Hamas,” Destexhe said. Fox News
Having to work with a group like Hamas because hey control the area is one thing, being their willing sycophant is totally another.
Today’s entry for schadenfreude is, to no one’s surprise, California. Remember how their air would smell of uniform farts, the skies would be clear and sunny blue, if they just quit driving their nasty petrochemically-fueled cars and relied on ‘green’ energy? Nope, no in the real world…
The upcoming closures by refining giants Phillips 66 and Valero Energy have triggered an about-face from Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and state regulators to try to keep the fuel complexes open after years of rules that cut into their bottom lines. It’s too late to save Phillips 66’s Los Angeles refinery, but there’s at least an inkling of hope to cut a deal to salvage Valero’s Benicia refinery just north of San Francisco. Losing both cuts off nearly 20% of the state’s refining capacity and makes California susceptible to potential shortages if there are disruptions to foreign, waterborne supplies.
While California is a leader in renewable power and electric vehicle adoption, it still relies on lots of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. California consumes almost 900,000 barrels of gasoline a day, down from a 2017 peak of nearly 1 million barrels daily. Refiners don’t want to invest in California because of expensive regulatory burdens in a declining market, but the refineries are closing more rapidly than demand is falling, putting the pinch on the state and its motorists.
And note that all that pain has achieved a reduction of only 10%, from 1,000,000 to 900,000 barrels a day.
And it didn’t help when Chevron’s huge El Segundo refinery outside of Los Angeles suffered an explosion on Oct. 2. The fire was put out a day later, primarily harming a large, jet fuel–producing unit.
In 40 years, the number of California refineries has plunged from 40 to 14 amid closures, consolidation, and expansions of the surviving facilities.
Looking at the numbers, California’s gasoline demand of 874,000 barrels a day is already overwhelming the state’s refining capacity that falls to 740,000 barrels daily after the Phillips 66 closure. Next year, capacity would dip to 668,000 barrels daily, well below consumption, according to Wood Mackenzie estimates. Fortune
Seems there is even talk of Newsom’s California paying to help keep some of the refineries open. Damn, it HURTS when you shoot yourself in the foot.
Category: "Teh Stoopid", Global Warming, Middle East
I feel bad for parts of Nevada and Arizona that rely on California for its gas
I’m curious to see how it affects our end of the state. Pretty sure Phoenix is screwed.
Was shocked when I talked yesterday to a buddy in Phoenix who had just filled his tank at an AF base (Luke?) for $3.34 a gallon. WalMart in Tyler has been under $2.50 for months.
$2.93 at my local Circle K.
Do you have to go through a mandatory 3 day waiting period before you shoot yourself in the foot?
California is the domestic version of Germany getting hooked on Russian energy then laughing at Trump pointing this out, then getting their gas cut when Russia invaded Ukraine, then suddenly wanting to (I mean finally reluctantly agreeing to) raise defense sending to 5 percent to counter the big bear they’d been placating.
WOW, what a gas reading about the Kaliforna gas situation.
But people keep voting Democrat.
The PDRK (peepuls demokratik repugnant of kaliphornya) created their own problems. If they keep getting bailed out, they will NEVER learn the lessons of a free economy vs state controlled chaos. Let them stew in their own juices. It’s pretty obvious the most expensive fuel prices in the country have yet to make them see the light. Perhaps adding another half of the cost might do it.
Anti-military Leftist dorks…
Sad. Always thought highly of Doctors without borders. Noble intentions and actions going to shit *snap*, just like that.
California: WARUM BIST DU SO DUMM?!?!?! California, still being driven into the ditch. In slow motion.
I looked into MSF when I retired. It was obvious, even back then, that they had a certain directional bent.
David, it’s “Doctors Without Borders.”
A literal translation from their official name in French: “Medecins Sans Frontieres.” (MSF)
“Sans” = French for “Not” or “Without.”
[I number that with “Things you would have learned in high school, if only you had been paying attention.”]
🙂
And yes, they do have a bad reputation for being full of themselves, do you remember when the US sent in a Spectre AC-130 gunship to hit he Taliban buildings in Afghanistan, and ended up shooting up a hospital run by Doctors Without Borders?
Kunduz hospital airstrike – Wikipedia
A major part of the problem is that MSF refuses to mark medical facilities with a Red Cross, as provided by the Geneva Conventions. People might think that the facility was being operated by the International Committee of the Red Cross (you know, those folks from Geneva, who also speak French) and make donations to “the other guys.”
Would YOU recognize the MSF logo?
I only recognize their logo because they were running all over Somalia in 1993.
I thought it was an intentional misrepresentation to highlight they aren’t abiding by the original spirit of their existence. But I could be wrong.
Would love to say that, but a) I am not that subtle but b) I am an incredibly sloppy typist.
How hard would it be to announce red and white chevrons as a protected marking? Or a blue cap D with reversed cap F like a brand?
Corrected in the article. If I was really saying ‘with borders’ I would have said ‘avec’, not ‘sans’.
Shhhhh, nobody let the greenie weenies find out!