I don't know why I even bother posting on this, other than just to vent a little. Today was another shameful day at the poisonous well of incompetence, corruption, cowardice, anti-Americanism and Jew hatred, also known as the United Nations.Today, the august body of world diplomacy was treated to an address/comedy routine by the tinpot Venezuelan dictator, Hugo Chavez. Here's a portion of the transcript from Musing Minds (via Pajamas):
"I think that the first people who should read this book are our brothers and sisters in the United States because their threat is in their own house. The devil is right at home. The devil, the devil himself is right in the house. And the devil came here yesterday. Yesterday the devil came here. Right here. (crosses himself) Right here. And it smells of sulfur still today."Quote of the day from James Taranto at Best of the Web referring to Chavez' sulfur comment (via Wizbang):
"He who smelt it..."
Allah has video of the all the lowlights and summarizes:
"He praises Castro, recommends Chomsky’s book, and calls upon the world to grant him a seat on the UN Security Council so that he can help usher in the type of peace and prosperity for which the Arab and Latin American worlds are so well known and loved. It’s vaudeville, revolutionary style."Chavez's address is risible and would be easily dismissed--fodder for the dustbin of history--if not for his interest in forming and strengthening alliances with leaders of other oil-producing countries (e.g. Iran, Russia) who someday could disrupt oil supplies in order to coerce political concessions and/or exact economic punishment against America.
This guy is no stranger to political theater. Every public appearance is intended to stick a finger in the eye of the administration and to elevate his stature among America-haters around the globe. An article I included in this post makes the salient point relative to the unwarranted recognition provided by the platform at the UN.
"Participation in the UN confers on them an unearned moral legitimacy. That the leaders of such regimes are routinely invited to speak before the UN rewards them with an undeserved respectability."Indeed, Chavez's contemputuous comments were hailed by leftists in this country and around the world as sagacity in its purest form. Sadly, but not surprisingly, his adolescent tirade was greeted with snickering and applause from many of the "diplomats" in attendance. So, this is what passes for diplomacy today, huh? No, it is simply what we have come to expect from this moral sewer.
I guess it's a testament to our commitment to free speech that we allow these shameless kleptocrats--people for whom the demise of America is a wet dream--to spew their hatred and historical revisionism to a televised audience around the world. To think that America is by far the largest financial benefactor to this piece of crap adds insult to injury.
Well, that's my rant for today.
UPDATE:
It's very heartening today to see some Democrats criticize Chavez's remarks. Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-NY), no friend of the president's, reportedly said "You do not come into my country, my congressional district, and you do not condemn my president." Even House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) critcized Chavez's intemperate remarks.
10 comments:
Hey Lar,
Did you get this upset when Dubya came up with the "Axis of Evil" comment? I suspect not.
I did not get upset. But, that's because I believe repressive regimes, such as those which comprise the membership of the "Axis," which commit atrocities (e.g. Sadaam and Co. using WMD to wipe out an entire village, the Iranian mullahs being one of the world's biggest sponsors of terrorism, Kim Jung Mentally Il turning his country into a massive concentration campe, etc.), are evil.
Ever heard of moral equivalence, Tom?
Right. Right. Forgot about the flawless record of the US both at home and abroad, both today and in the past. Certainly doesn't warrant the term evil or devil. What was I thinking? The US is truly the nation we should be looking to as the moral compass, the shining beacon of all things good. Keep living in that bubble, Lar. Enjoy.
Actually, reading your comment again, it occurred to me that "moral equivalence" is a great term. Very fitting depiction of the three clowns lecturing on morality to the UN. They're all in about a "morally equivalent" position to do so.
I don't know anybody who makes the preposterous claim, as you suggest I have, that the U.S. is flawless. No nation could ever be, since they are all comprised of imperfect people. You have never read on this blog that U.S. policies are perfect, either domestically or abroad. So, in that respect, your comment is a red herring (of which you seem to have an unusually large supply).
You could reasonably have argued that there are degrees of deplorable behavior amongst nations, and that the U.S. has had its share of shameful moments for which it should be (and has been) criticized. But instead you suggest a moral equivalence between the U.S. and "Axis" countries, which is specious and a grotesque hyperbole.
The "U.S. = evil" canard propagted by so many America/Bush-haters is belied, in part, by the growing number of people from all over the world who are flocking to our shores. According to USCIS, 7.9 million immigrants came to the USA between 2000 and 2005, more than in any other 5-year period (wait...who was President during most of that time? Cue the Church Lady "Could it be..."). Why do so many try to get into this "hellole?" How do you explain the curious advantage the U.S. holds over the Worker's Paradise (DPRK) with respect to immigration?
Is your continual employment of moral equivalence the unintended consequence of a sincere attempt at trying to see all sides of an argument, or is it tactical perfidy intended to focus attention away from the transparent absurdity of your arguments? Either way, I don't care who you look to for your moral compass, just find someone with moral clarity who can fix it, because it's obviously broken.
Finally, I rather enjoy my bubble in sunny Southern California, as I'm sure you love the cramped quarters of your ideological igloo up there. Just do me a favor, next time you go ice fishing, try catching something besides red herrings.
Oh, Larry! Your buttons - they're large, red, candy-like buttons right there on the top for all the world to see! They're irresistable - impossible not to push - because it's so fun to see you puff up like a blowfish with barbs everywhere, little fins whirring around on either side and a giant republican elephant tatoo on the side. Simply too much!
Speaking of fish, let's dispense with the school of herrings, shall we? After all, they hail from temperate, shallow waters of the North Atlantic and Baltic seas, so if they're mucking about under the ice fishing holes in Canada, they need to be moving along home and they needn't tarry any longer!
First, my point on "moral equivalence" was simply that in the views of many, the US has done it's fair share of "evil" in foreign affairs and while you may not quite see it on the scale or level of the repressive regimes of the "axis", others in your own country and around the world certainly do - see Iraq For Sale and 911 Truth as examples.
Now don't go chasing a phantom red herring here by dismissing those sites as conspiratorial dreck rife with misinformation and incorrect facts because I'm not trying to support those sites. I'm simply pointing out that views, both friendly and unfriendly to US foreign policy, have "facts" that they use in support of their case for "evil". The truth is somewhere in between and "evil" and "devil," resultingly, are very relative terms.
So when you say that I "... suggest a moral equivalence between the U.S. and 'Axis' countries, which is specious and a grotesque hyperbole," I would argue that your critique of my views as specious (not so much grotesque, that's a matter of opinion), relies on Absolutism. We will never see eye to eye on this because, I believe evil, like all morality, is relative and you do not. It's not to say that I don't believe in right and wrong, but it is to say that I recognize that my view of what's right and wrong is coloured by my experience, environment, upbringing and spiritual beliefs. I see that as fact, where I think you would argue moral relativism to be reprehensible, indecisive and, undoubtedly 'left-wing', tripe. In either case, as "evil" or "grotesque" as you may think my view to be, it is my view that "evil" is relative.
So when I see George Bush, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez all standing at the front of the room more or less saying "No YOU'RE evil! No YOU are! YOU are!," I see it as a childish name-calling exercise that smacks of an unproductive hypocrisy and delusion. It serves no purpose and achieves nothing. Just state the fact that you find their actions morally reprehensible and intolerable(which does not necessarily equal evil) and move on to resolving the issues.
You might say "Well what difference does it make? He believes it's evil and if it's evil, then why not say so?!?" Because calling people "evil" only serves to divide groups, engage by-stander groups who might not have otherwise been involved and inspires more squabbling and name calling more than it does action. It certainly hasn't fixed anything. My wife teaches Junior Kindergarten and I suspect the acts on the UN floor rival anything she's seen in her classroom.
So now, to return to our friend the red herring, I don't think I did introduce him in my earlier comments because, contrary to what you've written, I didn't SAY that you said the US has no faults in foreign policy. I was just reminding you that they do and, because they do, they shouldn't stand at the front of the room and call others "evil". It's silly, antagonistic and unproductive. Such silly, antagonistic, and unproductive behaviour is best left to the likes of me as I post antagonistic, unproductive comments on your blog rather than leaders trying to deal with serious matters at an international counsel. Swim away, Red! Get away from the St. Lawrence and back to the temperate, shallow shores of the North Atlantic!
To conclude my point on the 'evil' remarks, I would say that despite Dubya's self-appointment to the morally superior champion of justice in the world, he should lay off the 'axis of evil' rant because it's counter productive. Equally, the leaders from Venezuela and Iran should pipe down because, even by their own moral compasses, they have no saintly records to crow about either. They should stop calling each other names and start playing nice.
While I don't think I introduced the red herrings, they seem to appear in schools to our exchanges. Hopefully I've chased a few away.
On the bubble/igloo remark. Yes, I'm sure you do live in a very spacious bubble that houses your spacious home and spacious vehicle(s) which are all demonstrative of your large, throbbing financial prowess. I'm sure it will never burst and you'll live merrily along in jolly old OC until a ripe old age. So, again, I say, "Enjoy!"
Oh .. and thank you, yes, I am content in my cramped accommodations, but it's a philosophical pup tent, not an idealogical igloo. Remember our distinctions between ideologies and philosophies. I still hold to the notion (perhaps as irrationally as Bush, Chavez and Ahmadinejad cling to their moral superiority) that I am evaluating things case by case rather than by idealogical recipe.
This may be hard for you to believe, but I actually rather enjoy when you state where you stand philosophically, even though I disagree with it. Often I find you hiding behind quotes of other people or web sites you "don't support," which you use in support of your arguments. Debating with someone like that is akin to chasing a phantom...or fishing for red herrings under the Canadian ice lakes.
What I appreciate about this comment is clarity. It's totally ok to diagree. I respect other points of view and, believe it or not, sometimes subscribe to certain aspects of them.
I'll give you an example from memeory (forgive if I don't get it exactly right): A while back you made a long comment disagreeing with me about the Iraq War and then went into what it was going to take to win it over the long haul. I regret that I didn't responde (way too busy at that moment in time), but I agreed with A LOT of what you said.
I'm glad you stated your belief that morality is relative. I believe that there is an Absolute Truth. I also believe that day-to-day life is often spent in gray areas. So, I'm not wholly unsympathetic to your belief, but at my core, I do not agree (not enough time to get into deep philosophical debate because I have to go to work).
But, when you quote some whacked-out web site, which you say you don't support, just to point out that others disagree (as if I didn't already know that), it muddles the debate. I like when you write with clarity about what YOU believe because it helps me understand YOU better.
I welcome respectful disagreement. But, more importantly, I encourage clarity.
Outta time. Got to go fill up my huge SUV and burn some more ozone on the way to my six-figure job. Have a nice day!
Forgive the typos (e.g. responde). I wrote this is a big hurry.
Hi Larry,
I actually do regularly tell you what I think, it just seems like you would rather I tell you something that fits the typical Republican or Democrat mould so you can get behind it or fire at it. It seems that unless I take a Democrat or Republican stand on something, you say I'm not saying anything at all and that I'm taking no stand. This harkens back to my initial points on the perils of ideology versus philosophy.
In fact, my rather forceful stand on this issue is that the politicians involved from all three nations are rather self-important and are doing a massive diservice to their own constituents and to the world by engaging in a playground pissing match over who's "evil" and who's a "devil". You seem to think George is in the right, or at least, more in the right, and I disagree. It's ridiculous and none of them is in the right. But hey, that's your ideologically derived opinion and you're welcome to it. Grind on, brother. Grind on.
As to my history of borrowing the opinions of others to make a point and not owning one myself, I again would argue that you don't seem to recognize something as opinion, or at least not an opinion of any import, unless it fits a Republican or a Democrat slant. I think I specifically pointed out my thoughts on how the US foreign policy is coming home to roost in an earlier comment (could well have been the one that you reference). I also told you that I think that now that the US has forged ahead into Iraq before finishing the job in Afghanastan, and, quite possibly before they had any reason to be in there at all, they've set themselves up for a long and sordid stay. Well, done!
As for these two particular sites, I do agree there are extremes aplenty in both sites, but I think there is definitely at least an iota of truth in both of them. There are some rather pointed and unsavoury relationships between Haliburton and the business of war on Iraq. I think to deny the coincidence of their rather profitable involvement in the war is to bury your head either firmly in the sand or firmly up a particular orifice on your body.
On the 911 front, I certainly agree it's ridiculous to think that the truth of the 911 story is a conspiracy in which the US government plotted the whole thing, but I don't think it's ridiculous to think that the US "leaks" information to a sensation-starved press to amp up the value of their being in Iraq when public opinion on the matter dips. That seems entirely believable and plausible in my mind. To think the government and military don't manipulate the media in this respect is to, again, have your head either firmly planted in the sand or up your orifice.
So while I think I have indeed offered ample of my own opinion in previous comments, I hope these points of opinion are more akin to what you're used to and provide you with more of a frame of reference from which to debate. I think the points above look a little bit more like the traditional Democratic nails you're used to hitting with your Republican hammer, so I imagine they'll fit the bill.
Oh ... I suppose while I'm at it, I might invite you to solidify your view of me as a lefty and a Democrat (as if you hadn't the day I first posted to your blog), by looking at two postings on my blog (postings 0009 and 0008). I hope all of these items provide you with a much more comforting paradigm from whence to debate. While you're at it, though, I encourage you to read the Post 0010 on Douglas Coupland's response to a question regarding his view of his own political affiliations. I think it more closely aligns with my own view on things.
I’m not bound by ideology as you suggest, and I certainly don’t need Democrat or Republican talking points to debate. In fact, part of the point of my most recent comment was to praise you for staking a clear position on morality. Your view is that "evil, like all morality, is relative." I think your assessment is self-refuting and, therefore, untenable. For if you believe in absolute terms that moral truth does not exist, then you are refuting your own position. If, on the other hand, you think truth is relative, then you have no logical grounds on which to refute people who adhere to the position that moral truth exists. FWIW, I don’t think a weighty philosophical debate of this nature can be adequately explored in the comments section. But, if you feel it’s necessary…
Now on to our friend, Mr. Herring, You wrote:
“contrary to what you've written, I didn't SAY that you said the US has no faults in foreign policy. I was just reminding you that they do…”
I don’t think an honest reading of your comment can support this assertion.
“Forgot about the flawless record of the US both at home and abroad, both today and in the past. Certainly doesn't warrant the term evil or devil. What was I thinking? The US is truly the nation we should be looking to as the moral compass, the shining beacon of all things good. Keep living in that bubble, Lar. Enjoy.”
The last two sentences clearly imply that I believe this preposterous claim. Is this “bubble” in which I purportedly live not a metaphor for belief? What else could be inferred from the context of that paragraph other than that I subscribe to the views that it puts forth? Why would I need “reminding” about something you think I don’t believe?
If you’ve read my blog over a period of time, you would know these claims are demonstrably false. This bad faith argumentation is not uncommon with you. You regularly set up straw men to knock down a point of view that you presumptuously assume I hold. Need more examples? How about this from the same comment:
“There are some rather pointed and unsavoury relationships between Haliburton and the business of war on Iraq. I think to deny the coincidence of their rather profitable involvement in the war is to bury your head either firmly in the sand or firmly up a particular orifice on your body.”
You cannot know whether I affirm or deny this “coincidence,” as you put it, since I’ve never written on the matter. Here’s another:
“To think the government and military don't manipulate the media in this respect is to, again, have your head either firmly planted in the sand or up your orifice.”
Once again, I’ve never made such a claim. You might rebut, “Well, I didn’t SAY you believe these things.” But, this is pedantry. The clear implication is that you are ascribing these beliefs to me (after all, it is MY head that is up MY orifice, not just some hypothetical nincompoop) and to state otherwise would be disingenuous.
Is it not presumptuous and supercilious to project on to me your beliefs about what I think without any supporting evidence, and then pontificate that because I hold these “beliefs” my head must be up my ass? It would be the same if I commented on your blog, "To deny that beating your wife is morally unjustifiable is to have your head up your orifice." Would any reasonable reading of this not lead you (or anybody else) to infer that I believe you actually think it’s ok to beat your wife? Yet this is the form of fallacious argumentation that you often engage in.
You conclude by writing “I hope these points of opinion are more akin to what you're used to.” No, Tom. I’m used to having a cordial conversation with respectful people that debate positions I’ve actually taken. On occasion your arguments have done that, and have been quite cogent. But, you fall into the fishing hole when you start making stuff up.
Post a Comment