31 January 2005
Liberal Hypocrisy Again.
A comment here from SD Politics citing the Minneapolis Star Tribune saying that under no circumstances is it worth spending any American lives for anything other than direct defense in case of an attack - certainly NOT worth it just to bring democracy to ANYONE.
Several thoughts come to mind - for one, I have to wonder what they said about the Haitian intervention of Pres. Bubba, to say nothing of the Bosnian action. Also, since no liberal would say that it is justifiable to let the world starve, or to fail to render aid to disaster areas, etc. we must be forced to conclude that they have concern for material wants, but no concern for human rights at all is intrinsically dehumanizing - lowering man to nothing but physical existance - anything beyond that is apparently irrelevant and unimportant - certainly not worth taking any trouble about.
Finally, as SDP notes, it is horribly narcissistic and racist - "You aren't good enough to deserve to have any help to have the same freedoms as we do in America"...the 180 degree opposite of Bush's 2nd Inaugural. It evokes a memory of something an editor of the (London) Times said (about 100 or so years back) determined to be criteria for front page coverage of a disaster: it was important if it involved "1000 wogs, 50 frogs, or one Englishman". Ab ugly attitude then, and even more so now coming from the side of those who most vociferously proclaim their concern for the welfare of others.
It occurs to me that the header on this post may well be a redundancy.
Several thoughts come to mind - for one, I have to wonder what they said about the Haitian intervention of Pres. Bubba, to say nothing of the Bosnian action. Also, since no liberal would say that it is justifiable to let the world starve, or to fail to render aid to disaster areas, etc. we must be forced to conclude that they have concern for material wants, but no concern for human rights at all is intrinsically dehumanizing - lowering man to nothing but physical existance - anything beyond that is apparently irrelevant and unimportant - certainly not worth taking any trouble about.
Finally, as SDP notes, it is horribly narcissistic and racist - "You aren't good enough to deserve to have any help to have the same freedoms as we do in America"...the 180 degree opposite of Bush's 2nd Inaugural. It evokes a memory of something an editor of the (London) Times said (about 100 or so years back) determined to be criteria for front page coverage of a disaster: it was important if it involved "1000 wogs, 50 frogs, or one Englishman". Ab ugly attitude then, and even more so now coming from the side of those who most vociferously proclaim their concern for the welfare of others.
It occurs to me that the header on this post may well be a redundancy.
