18 September 2006

Nobel, no more

The theme of last Sunday's Chicago Tribune seemed to be Peace. They ran a coverstory on Judy Mayotte, an aid worker cum-peacenik, who is helping create a master's degree in peace, leadership and development at the University of the Western Cape in South Africa. She is a board member of the Desmond Tutu Peace Foundation. I couldn't even stomach reading 1/3 of the story about her so I won't bore you with any more about the one legged Ms. Mayotte.

Then on page 3, I saw a story entitled Nobel cause for 3,000 youths. It is a rightwing blogger's dream. A thick vein of liberal platitudes awaited my expert eye and I was not disappointmented. I had to put on a bib to keep the Liberal Pabulum from staining my shirt.

Back on 25JUL06 I wrote about the current spate of nobel prize winners who have decided to air their political opinions and who, as a group, should be thoroughly derided and mocked for having such demented and uninformed attitudes. When Betty Williams stood up in front of school children and said that Bush should be killed, where was the compassion and the caring? The story in the Tribune is just another example of the leftist agenda at creating new-think. The article includes quotes from Nobel laureates, interviews with wide-eyed adolescents who are brimming with naivete. The Nobel elitists wax eloquent with such trite aphorisms as, "Bush is a man who says he prays a lot, but I think God covers up his ears when Bush prays," Adolfo Perez Esquivel, an Argentine human-rights leader, made that comment. He went on to say that he sent the president a letter in which he told Bush to "stop the craziness which is the war in Iraq."

I think it is crazy not to go after the people who want to cut your throat and chop off your head, n'est pas Adolfo?

The consortium of Nobel laureates is purported to be an attempt at bringing together 3,000 students from 31 countries world wide who will come up with a 10 year plan to tackle 10 challenges facing the world. Desmond Tutu called for people to "go for your dreams and reach for the stars and help God make this a more compassionate, a more caring, a more gentle world." Shouldn't he be addressing a group of Muslim clerics with this message? Where is Desmond Tutu when white settlers in South Africa, Tutu's backyard, are being murdered at about one per day? Where is the outrage? Where is the condemnation? You'll not hear any message of condemnation because Tutu and his ilk are too busy blaming Christians, the US, Israel and Bush for all of the world's ills. South African farmers now suffer the highest murder rate in the world -- 274 per 100,000. In a study commissioned by a leading South African bank, Nedbank, it was revealed that the Black attackers are "'deliberately targeting specific homesteads to kill the [White] Afrikaner victims': robbery was not the prime motivation, in fact in 85% of last year's farm attacks, nothing had been 'robbed.'"

This liberal gabFest (it should have been called LollaPo-Losers) of Nobel laureates and ignorant, naive schoolchildren has as much chance to change the world as you'd have trying to plow a field with a teaspoon. They're calling on countries with deep, longstanding conflicts to just talk about their issues. Don't they understand that, of course, every country attempts to resolve their conflicts amicably. That is why most countries have diplomats and a department of state. Even Bush gave Hussein multiple (12 I think) chances to let UN inspectors inside Iraq. The Iraqi dictator refused to talk to the Americans and continued to forestall the inspectors. People in the media forgot (conveniently) that Saddam Hussein had 18 months from the time that Bush said we were going into Iraq until we invaded, to do whatever he wanted with his WMDs. The fact is that you just cannot talk to some people and you certainly cannot talk your way out of a 300 year conflict. It is just painfully naive to think so.

The Tribune reporter and the interviewees all operate with one clear assumption: All you have to do with an enemy is talk to him. This patently false assumption, and one you adopt at your own risk, is a favorite of the Liberal elite.

This is the point at which you must differentiate between private policy and public policy. Private policy describes the codified system of do's and don'ts to which I, as a person, choose to live my life by. They are my core beliefs and principles. For example I may choose to eat tofu once per day, meditate, read Buddhist scripture, remain celibate, refrain from swearing, think illegal immigration is just fine and dandy, and wear wool sweaters. For me to have the audacity to make my person lifestyle choices mandatory, is akin to totalitarianism. Just because I choose to live my life a certain way doesn't mean that my way is the best.
That is the foundational problem with the Left; what they preach as a manner of living in private is what they think should be mandated throughout the land. They want to impose their beliefs on everyone - including those dual dimwitted notions of blanket equality and political correctness. That's why I echo Mark Levin's sentiments when I say we have to beat back the Left. The libtards are on a quest, a holy crusade. Their plan is not enlightenment, education or liberation; their plan is oppression. Totalitarianism is not their explicitly stated goal but it is implicit and a direct result of their public policies. Withi groups like the ACLU as their muscle, they're determined to convert western civilization into a homogenous state where human rights and jurisprudence are the two pillars of a Brave New World. What they're actually doing is creating a Wasteland

Here is no water but only rock

Rock and no water and the sandy road  

The road winding above among the mountains

Which are mountains of rock without water

If there were water we should stop and drink

Amongst the rock one cannot stop or think

Sweat is dry and feet are in the sand

If there were only water amongst the rock

 Dead mountain mouth of carious teeth that cannot spit

 Here one can neither stand nor lie nor sit

There is not even silence in the mountains

But dry sterile thunder without rain

There is not even solitude in the mountains

But red sullen faces sneer and snarl

From doors of mudcracked houses

~T.S. Eliot's The Wasteland 1922


As the Left doesn't understand, equality doesn't mean that we're all the same. Equality means we are equal under the law. It means we have equal opportunities to enjoy "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." It doesn't mean that if I interview for a job at Motorola, and I don't get hired, that I have a "right" to sue Motorola on some specious whim, in order to force the company to hire me, no matter how unqualified I am. The reason why the law and the legislature cannot be relied upon in these matters is that life is not a lab experiment - there are infinite permutations in every life event. They are not quantifiable. Suppose the interviewer, in my example, didn't like my attitude? Suppose I had an uncomfortable body odor and the interviewer knew that my mere presence in the deparment would be a distraction. Who says they have to hire me - the answer: my lawyer. Or better yet, the ACLU. So here comes Sydney Silverstein, carrying his ACLU clipboard, ready to file a lawsuit on my behalf and claiming that Motorola discriminates against people who smell bad thus establishing that Motorola's corporate environment is autodysomophobic and is creating a hostile work environment. Where are my millions?

Back to the Tribune article for a moment. Another favorite LibTard tool is to claim that human rights trump all other laws, practices and principles. Case in point: Irish LibTard Mairead Corrigan Maguire. Her statement says it all, "We must shout loudly against any national government that puts aside human rights in the name of national security."

She doesn't care if a few thousand of your fellow citizens get murdered, as long as we put aside our pesky national security procedures so that the feelings of some Islamic groups don't get hurt. Afterall we can't offend anyone, right? Thousands have been murdered in the name of Islam but none of these Nobel Laureates can say one negative thing about Islam. The real problem, as these WingNuts see it, is Guantanamo Bay, the "secret" CIA Prisons, FISA violations of surveillance, Israelis invading Lebanon to root out Hezbollah terrorists and, the ultimate cause of all of the worlds' strife and struggle: George Walker Bush.

Another not-so-bright bulb among the Nobel elite was Shirin Ebadi. She is quoted as saying, "I am very sorry about the sad enents of September 11, but I wish that the USA would have built one school in Afghanistan for each of the victims instead of going to war. We would have seen the number of terrorists decrease then in 10 years."

Tunnelvis

Shirin has obviously never built a school while armed Islamic militias were rolling around killing people. It tends to slow down the construction process.

What it comes down to is that the left loves to define everything with platitudes. Empty, vapid words which mean nothing. Go and read this Tribune article and you'll just shake your head in disgust. What drivel.

As Dennis Prager writes, "You have to wonder how anyone can utter, let alone believe, something so demonstrably wrong as "violence doesn't solve anything," or "an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind," or any other pacifist platitudes. These are the moral and intellectual equivalents of "the Earth is flat." In fact, it is easier to show that violence solves many evils than it is to show that the earth is round.

It was violence that destroyed Adolf Hitler and Nazism. Only violence. Not talk. Not negotiations. Not good will."

So what you get on the Left are empty words and totalitarianism. On the Right you get freedom, liberty and clarity.

2 comments:

coldtype said...

You facinate me. I didn't think it was possible to find anyone whose lack of depth could rival that of the SCC "brain trust". Keep blogging simple one.

Rue St. Michel said...

Is my "lack of depth" due to the fact that I don't give any credence to "world public opinion?"

You have to understand that America was created - nay, invented - out of an idea. The idea is based on freedoms. We are one of the few countries that cherish freedom - almost unlimited freedom. That is why gratuitously engaging "public opinion" as a compass for your political agenda is downright wrong for our domestic or foreign policies.
I believe that institutions of higher learning are warping our value system and attempting to actively overthrow our democratic foundations. I believe that placing legal discourse over moral core beliefs is tantamount to chaos. I believe that the Left is the largest threat we face today. Leftists have an agenda and are determined to undermine our security, laws and culture.
You'd probably say that I sound like McCarthy and I would say, "thanks!"
It turns out that much of what McCarthy was fighting was indeed not a fictional communist threat -- it was all too real.