Tuesday, November 23, 2004
“Hegemony” And Other Fallacies Of The Moment
With all the claims of American “hyper-power” dominance, one certainly sees little actual subservience to such perceived power and authority.
Obviously, America doesn’t “tell France what to do” and it probably gleans no more successful leverage than other nations in seeking its way in world matters. No one in Europe is compelled to eat at McDonalds or watch American movies yet, the Left still seeks to convince us that some “bully” has been unleashed on the world promoting ideals they don’t like. Ironically, the true circumstance appears to be the opposite. It is the bureau-snobs of Europe who demand that America fall in line to the socialist view that dominates the old world (and don’t they throw a hissy-fit when America fails to kow tow to their own desire for dominance).
Europeans who despise American “hegemony” do so more out of a fear and awareness of their own weakness rather than a perception of America’s strength.
Maybe we should make them eat McDonald’s burgers, watch American movies, and join military coalitions…so they know what real hegemony is!
********************************
Kofi Annan and the insanity of international law
Ben Shapiro points out the obvious hypocrisies and dangers of another left-set euphemism; “international law”:
“Mr. Annan and his brethren do not rely on simple statements of moral equivalence. They back them up by citing international law. While Saddam Hussein slew thousands of his own people, supported terrorists throughout the Middle East, and routinely violated the terms of his 1991 cease-fire agreement, the United Nations did nothing except coquettishly lisp at him occasionally. Yet when America invaded Iraq with the help of over 30 countries, Annan denounced the action as “illegal.” His latest charade? He sent an angry letter to President Bush, Tony Blair, and Iyad Allawi complaining that the “threat or actual use of force not only risks deepening the sense of alienation … but would also reinforce perceptions … of a continued military occupation’ ”
********************************
The new Condi Rice attack scam is really pissing me off. She’s incredibly intelligent, qualified, and experienced. She’s even a “minority”-- a lefty favorite when a token choice tows the party line.
Neal Boortz expresses my own sympathies on the matter:
“If Dr. Rice had been nominated by a Democrat, we would be right in the middle of a weeks-long media swoon about how she is the smartest woman in the world, about how whatever Democrat that nominated her was a brave, principled leader, and on and on. But because George Bush nominated her, she is being portrayed as a lackey Bush loyalist that can't think for herself. Yet this is only the beginning.”
********************************
Are you now or have you ever been a member of an incompetent group of unproductive bureaucrats?
Clifford May makes some practical points regarding the weasel’s nests at the CIA and Department of State:
“Sure, these professionals should be encouraged to advise, question and offer alternative approaches. But when the President says, “Here's what I've decided,” the only responses are “Yes sir,” or “I quit.” ”
The left-media will spin this house-cleaning maneuver by the new appointed department heads, as another right wing extremist plot. Truth be told, both of these government agencies had been thoroughly infected with Chomskyism – highbrow intellectual hatred for U.S. interests.
********************************
Jonah Goldberg draws similar conclusions, asking the obvious; why should Bush be expected to appoint people to high post who disagree with him?:
“I guess I need to reread my "Federalist Papers." I thought that the separation of powers referred to the separation of the different branches of government - not separation of the president's political appointees. I didn't know that the president was obliged to appoint cabinet secretaries and agency heads who disagree with him on the very policies they've been asked to implement. The editors of the New York Times are actually aghast that Porter Goss has informed the bureaucracy that they are there to serve the commander-in-chief.
Look, I think it's good for the president to get differing points of view from his subordinates. But that's not what the gripers are really complaining about. If the issue were really the need for more dissenters in the administration, why isn't anyone demanding that Bush appoint people who think he's not hawkish enough? The obvious answer is that the gripers think the president is a fool for not appointing people who agree with them.”
********************************
A great cartoon which, indeed, "Sums it up" is posted from A Guy In Pajamas." The Democrats are loosin it.
********************************
Finally;
It’s occasionally useful to be reminded that the Terrorists of Iraq are the bad guys (shhhh! The New York Times doesn’t know this):
“Flyposters still litter the walls [in Fallujah] bearing all manner of decrees from insurgent commanders, to be heeded on pain of death. Amid the rubble of the main shopping street, one decree bearing the insurgents' insignia - two Kalashnikovs propped together - and dated November 1 gives vendors three days to remove nine market stalls from outside the city's library or face execution…The decree warns all women that they must cover up from head to toe outdoors, or face execution by the armed militants who controlled the streets.”
…mere “Insurgents opposed to the American occupation"...whatever...
Obviously, America doesn’t “tell France what to do” and it probably gleans no more successful leverage than other nations in seeking its way in world matters. No one in Europe is compelled to eat at McDonalds or watch American movies yet, the Left still seeks to convince us that some “bully” has been unleashed on the world promoting ideals they don’t like. Ironically, the true circumstance appears to be the opposite. It is the bureau-snobs of Europe who demand that America fall in line to the socialist view that dominates the old world (and don’t they throw a hissy-fit when America fails to kow tow to their own desire for dominance).
Europeans who despise American “hegemony” do so more out of a fear and awareness of their own weakness rather than a perception of America’s strength.
Maybe we should make them eat McDonald’s burgers, watch American movies, and join military coalitions…so they know what real hegemony is!
Kofi Annan and the insanity of international law
Ben Shapiro points out the obvious hypocrisies and dangers of another left-set euphemism; “international law”:
“Mr. Annan and his brethren do not rely on simple statements of moral equivalence. They back them up by citing international law. While Saddam Hussein slew thousands of his own people, supported terrorists throughout the Middle East, and routinely violated the terms of his 1991 cease-fire agreement, the United Nations did nothing except coquettishly lisp at him occasionally. Yet when America invaded Iraq with the help of over 30 countries, Annan denounced the action as “illegal.” His latest charade? He sent an angry letter to President Bush, Tony Blair, and Iyad Allawi complaining that the “threat or actual use of force not only risks deepening the sense of alienation … but would also reinforce perceptions … of a continued military occupation’ ”
The new Condi Rice attack scam is really pissing me off. She’s incredibly intelligent, qualified, and experienced. She’s even a “minority”-- a lefty favorite when a token choice tows the party line.
Neal Boortz expresses my own sympathies on the matter:
“If Dr. Rice had been nominated by a Democrat, we would be right in the middle of a weeks-long media swoon about how she is the smartest woman in the world, about how whatever Democrat that nominated her was a brave, principled leader, and on and on. But because George Bush nominated her, she is being portrayed as a lackey Bush loyalist that can't think for herself. Yet this is only the beginning.”
Are you now or have you ever been a member of an incompetent group of unproductive bureaucrats?
Clifford May makes some practical points regarding the weasel’s nests at the CIA and Department of State:
“Sure, these professionals should be encouraged to advise, question and offer alternative approaches. But when the President says, “Here's what I've decided,” the only responses are “Yes sir,” or “I quit.” ”
The left-media will spin this house-cleaning maneuver by the new appointed department heads, as another right wing extremist plot. Truth be told, both of these government agencies had been thoroughly infected with Chomskyism – highbrow intellectual hatred for U.S. interests.
Jonah Goldberg draws similar conclusions, asking the obvious; why should Bush be expected to appoint people to high post who disagree with him?:
“I guess I need to reread my "Federalist Papers." I thought that the separation of powers referred to the separation of the different branches of government - not separation of the president's political appointees. I didn't know that the president was obliged to appoint cabinet secretaries and agency heads who disagree with him on the very policies they've been asked to implement. The editors of the New York Times are actually aghast that Porter Goss has informed the bureaucracy that they are there to serve the commander-in-chief.
Look, I think it's good for the president to get differing points of view from his subordinates. But that's not what the gripers are really complaining about. If the issue were really the need for more dissenters in the administration, why isn't anyone demanding that Bush appoint people who think he's not hawkish enough? The obvious answer is that the gripers think the president is a fool for not appointing people who agree with them.”
A great cartoon which, indeed, "Sums it up" is posted from A Guy In Pajamas." The Democrats are loosin it.
Finally;
It’s occasionally useful to be reminded that the Terrorists of Iraq are the bad guys (shhhh! The New York Times doesn’t know this):
“Flyposters still litter the walls [in Fallujah] bearing all manner of decrees from insurgent commanders, to be heeded on pain of death. Amid the rubble of the main shopping street, one decree bearing the insurgents' insignia - two Kalashnikovs propped together - and dated November 1 gives vendors three days to remove nine market stalls from outside the city's library or face execution…The decree warns all women that they must cover up from head to toe outdoors, or face execution by the armed militants who controlled the streets.”
…mere “Insurgents opposed to the American occupation"...whatever...
