Monday, January 31, 2005

 

Usual Suspects / Usual Nonsense

It appears that a professor from my alma mater has publicly voiced what every leftist member of the academy would like to say. University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill is actually confronting some opposition in regard to his questioning the innocence of victims killed on 9/11 in the World Trade Center towers. Churchill compared the victims of the terrorist act to Nazis, because they worked for "the mighty engine of profit.” What's really pathetic in this controversy is the lukewarm distancing from the issue that CU Interim Chancellor Phil Distefano expressed:

"I wish to make it clear that Professor Ward Churchill's views of the events of 9/11 are his own and do not represent the views of University of Colorado faculty, staff, students, administration or Regents. While I may [MAY!?] personally find his views offensive, I also must support his right as an American citizen to hold and express his views, no matter how repugnant, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution."

Soooo full of it. Does this academic bureau-clown actually believe that he'd be taking the same "pro-First Amendment" stand if a professor had said something like, "Gays 'deserve' to die from AIDS?" The hypocrisies of political correctness are phony to the core, and here we have a striking example.

I personally think this worthless Marxist trash receptacle (Prof. Churchill) should be sent to live in one of his beloved "worker's paradises," preferably North Korea. Thank god the reign of socialist dominance over America's college campus's will soon be coming to a close thanks to a new generation of students that can see through such nonsense.

*******************************

Iraqi's are finally getting to vote -- clearly, bad news to some left wing media outlets. The media research center notes the irony of those who will no doubt question the validity of the results when compared to their take on prior "elections."

******************************

The treatment of terrorists at America's Guantanamo facility in Cuba is always a favorite topic for the Left and their public relations apparatus in the international media. The evil and "far right" FOX NEWS channel (sarcasm intended) brings up a valid question (in an editorial piece). How does France deal with the "rights" of terrorists? Fair question -- interesting answer.

************************************


Some perspective can be gained when one realizes that the current excess in anti-Americanism isn't really all that new. In a book review of Barry and Judith Colp Rubin's book, "Hating America: A History," Richard B. Speed reveals some interesting facts regarding Europe’s long history of disdain for us low-life, uncultivated capitalist types. Even Der Fuhrer (Hitler) would have made a contemporary European proud:

"During the nineteenth century anti-Americanism was an intellectual orientation of both the conservative right which loathed the “masses,” and of the romantic left which simultaneously championed and feared the “dangerous classes.” With the Bolshevik Revolution anti-Americanism acquired a state sponsor. Hostility to capitalism merged with hostility to the United States in the torrent of propaganda sponsored by the Soviet Union throughout most of its history. Fascists on the right conflated anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism. Accordingly one Nazi propagandist commented, “Uncle Sam has been transformed into Uncle Shylock.” Hitler himself once asked a friend, “What is America, but millionaires, beauty queens, stupid records, and Hollywood?” Demonstrating that he had accepted Buffon’s degeneracy theory, Hitler told another friend, “Transfer [a German] to Miami and you make a degenerate out of him—in other words—an American."

*******************************

Since my own first hand impressions of the "People's Republic of China" were rather negative, I was glad to see that others don't think so well of the entrenched socialist/"market" state either. By all means,"Boycott Beijing 2008 Olympics."

******************************

On a similar note, regarding the entire edifice of Communism, a long (about nine pages) but very well written and concise overview of Communism's ugly legacy can be found here. What's particularly good about this essay is that it notes the numerous cases of sympathy shown to the brutal system by Western intellectuals and media clowns. I found the following particularly amazing:

" In Webster’s New College Dictionary, for example, Hitler and Mussolini are described as “dictators” while Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong’s, and Pol Pot are simply called “leaders.” Fidel Castro is given special status as “Cuban revolutionary premier.”

In the same dictionary, communism is defined as “a social system marked by the common ownership of the means of production and common sharing of labor and products.” There is no reference to firing squads, famines, gulags, killing fields, censorship, the denial of basic human rights."


I had to see what the mundane dictionary at work said and indeed, Hitler and Mussolini were accurately described as dictators but, mysteriously, communism's tyrants were mere leaders or "premiers."

Take a look at your own dictionary and check it out, then ask yourselves, "What is wrong with this picture?"

************************************

A good critique of the "Global Warming" issue can be found here.

The left has created a sacred cow that's difficult to challenge (media coverage of this topic is really skewed). Every school kid "knows" the world is coming to an end and the only solution is to redistribute global wealth (from the United States to other countries). Most "facts" regarding "global warming" are completely bogus and most people have been hooked into the scam. The authoritarian bureau-clowns are milking this sacred cow for all they can.

" What I have outlined today won't appear in the New York Times. Instead you'll read much about "consensus" and Kyoto and hand wringing by its editorial writers that unrestricted carbon dioxide emissions from the United States are harming the planet. You'll read nothing, of course, about how Kyoto-like policies harm Americans, especially the poor and minorities, causing higher energy prices, reduced economic growth, and fewer jobs. After all, that is the real purpose behind Kyoto, as Margot Wallstrom, the EU's environment minister, said in a revealing moment of candor. To her, Kyoto is about "leveling the playing field" for businesses worldwide-in other words, we can't compete, so let's use a feel-good treaty, based on shoddy science, fear, and alarmism, and which will have no perceptible impact on the environment (Chart #6), to restrict America's economic growth and prosperity. Unfortunately for Ms. Wallstrom and Kyoto's staunchest advocates, America was wise to the scheme, and it has rejected Kyoto and similar policies convincingly. Whatever Kyoto is about-to some, such as French President Jacques Chirac, it's about forming "an authentic global governance"-it's the wrong policy and it won't work, as many participants in Buenos Aires grudgingly conceded."

***********************************

I don't have time to "review" it, but I've just finished the audio version of John Stossel's, "Give Me a Break." Good book, an excellent well reasoned argument for the libertarian perspective. What I found particularly interesting was Stossel's comments regarding his being shunned by so many in his field after he came to realize that government itself was the ultimate cause of so many problems. Support for the free market doesn't get one many friends in the "News" industry. Those who have seen Stossel's television specials will recognize some of the interesting, funny, and bizarre circumstances he's confronted while exposing the absolutely ridiculous things done in the name of government "help" and social "fairness."

*********************************


Observation:
Fairly consistently you will notice that those who hate capitalism will hate the United States and those who hate the United States will hate capitalism...either way, the thing they hate most is a society of free individuals.

***********************************

Comments:
Why is it the political blogs that argue against global warming?

Why is it that the scientific sites support it?

Food for thought.
 
Actually there are many scientists who take issue with popular claims regarding global warming -- they don't get much "press." There is no scientific "consensus" on the causes or significance of glogal warming. An informed person -- scientist or otherwise -- knows that there were warmer periods in the Earth's climate long before the advent of industrialism. Political blogs address the issue because they recognize it to be a political issue. The Kyoto treaty and like crusades are nothing more than the usual sympathies to control advanced economies and "redistribute" their wealth through bureaucratic planning -- food for thought.

-- C.G.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?