Interesting stuff out there
Bookworm on Feb 03 2007 at 6:10 pm | Filed under: Uncategorized
I have a mailbox full of emails pointing out interesting articles. Because weekends are heavy-duty family time, making blogging difficult, I don’t have the time to give each of these articles its due. However, I did want to make sure to pass on to you a few wonderful finds. These first three came to me courtesy of regular commentor Danny Lemieux:
Here’s an op-ed discussing the fact that, while Tony Blair is an admirable man in so many ways, the Britain he’ll leave behind shows the truth of the saying that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
At Gates of Vienna, Baron Bodissey reprints in its entirety a Paul Weston article questioning the sanity of modern liberals. More to the point, he argues that classic liberalism (of the type in which I’ve believed my entire adult life), has been supplanted by a PC Liberalism that has much more in common with totalitarianism than the classic ideal. I consider this a must read article so, please, read it!
John McWhorter optimistically thinks that, while PC whites may still be mired in stereotypes that infantilize blacks, blacks themselves are broadening their views about race in America, and doing so in positive ways. This last article ties in nicely with a Burt Prelutsky article about black-on-black racism in America. (h/t Kevin.)
del.icio.us
digg it
Email This Post To A Friend
8 Responses to “Interesting stuff out there”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
(of the type in which I’ve believed my entire adult life)
*gasp* you, a liberal? Im. Poss. iBle.
I never would have guessed.
If I was on the Left, that is, for forgeries are always blinded by the genuine article.
Blair was very charismatic in urging Bush to go to the UN for awhile.
Can’t exactly say that I feel I owe him any gratitude for that.
Wasn’t the only guy, but perhaps the most influential.
Btw, another must read article.
The apparently sincere commitment to help Iraqis vanished the moment Saddam invaded Kuwait in August 1990 and became America’s enemy. At the time, I didn’t think about where the left was going. I could denounce the hypocrisy of a West which made excuses for Saddam one minute and called him a ‘new Hitler’ the next, but I didn’t dwell on the equal and opposite hypocrisy of a left which called Saddam a ‘new Hitler’ one minute and excused him the next. All liberals and leftists remained good people in my mind. Asking hard questions about any of them risked giving aid and comfort to the Conservative enemy and disturbing my own certainties. I would have gone on anti-war demonstrations when the fighting began in 1991, but the sight of Arabs walking around London with badges saying ‘Free Kuwait’ stopped me. When they asked why it was right to allow Saddam to keep Kuwaitis as his subjects, a part of me conceded that they had a point.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1995096,00.html
hattip here
http://www.operationdoubles.com/zoo-blog/2007/02/left-has-become-right.html
Excellent link, YM. I liked how he characterized the Leftwing end-game with typical British understatement: “They went berserk”. Uff da! A keeper, that one.
It just goes to show, Danny, that it is very hard for Europeans, Brits included, to burn through the utter clap trap propaganda about the United States. The author of the UK post was able to see it by dispelling the illusion of his local politics, but even he could not directly counter Abu Ghraib or understand the limitations Bush acquired when he went to the UN, that pit of manipulative devils and demons.
It is why if Book wants some analysis on Blair, she gets a British perspective. Brits getting their views on America from other Brits and their BBC… not a good idea.
Everyone has our specializations and local concerns. Politics is local. But the internet is not.
The connection I believe people need to make about Bush/Blair manipulations is that Blair is different from Bush. So when you combine the two, you get a rather weird result. You get the result of Bush going to the UN, when Bush would normally have just invaded after a direct ultimatum (Ala Afghanistan remember).
By inviting the UN close to the heart of America and close to his heart, Bush set himself up for a fall. Not just after 2003 May, but during the lead up to the war, by englobening himself and his plan in utter darkness and despair (the UN).
You cannot expect to touch such rotting iniquity and get away with it without lesions, disease, and decay.
So hence the WMDs. Because if Bush went to the UN and talked about overthrowing dictators, all the Dictators In the Fracking UN would make his plans “poof” as they say. Hell, France stabbed Bush in the back cause Bush thought France (being a democracy) would help in the overthrowing of Saddam. Puff, there goes the magic dragon, haha.
By attempting to appease “world opinion”, all Bush got was a kick upside the arse and the head. Blair obviously went for world opinion cause… well he is Labour and he is Blair. The speaker and conversationist. If Blair was handling things at the UN, things would be much better because at least he understands how to manipulate things, well, if you will. Even if you dont’ agree with his policies, certainly you must respect his skill and ability.
But Bush… Bush doesn’t know how to manipulate anyone, nor does he wish to. And he went to the UN… the den of manipulative crack masters.
That is a great article, very eye-opening. Some so-called liberals should be strapped down and forced to listen to it being read to them; because most would be incapable due to fear of the truth.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
never debate moonbat thoughts
truth eventually wins
one on one they will fold
.