Again, it's been a while since I've posted. It usually takes a "head explosion" to get me riled enough to come here, especially when the catalyst for said explosion does not offer a posting response. For the record, "head explosion" involves a cerebral event, not a....well, you know.
So, what's set me off is Andrew Sullivan's blog, The Daily Dish. In general, I find Sullivan to be Tory-esque in his thinking and hidebound to his beloved Oakeshott, or at least his understanding of Mr. Oakeshott. Now, I won't say I'm an expert on Oakeshott or any philosopher, but there is always a problem attempting to apply an Old World philosophy to the ongoing American experience. Something to be learned from everything, but to be looking for evidence of "your guy's" philosophy in practice leaves a lot out of the picture...like, "the humanity", for instance.
Well, Sullivan is off on his honeymoon, having taken advantage of Massachusetts' enlightened approach to marriage equality, and he has left his blog to...others. I don't know who any of them are, but I suppose they're Sullivan's buds in some way, shape or form.
Anyway, some kid named Jamie Kirchcik, after the appropriate ass kissing of the host blogger, speculates on the idea of killing Robert Mugabe. Despite my opposition to the death penalty, I don't think assassination of dangerous psychopaths, e.g. Hitler, fall into the "seamless fabric" theory of life. Kirchick points out that Mugabe's military is quite a deterrant to assassination and would probably continue his policies anyway, given their status under his regime.
What, IMHO, is gratuitous on his part is Kirchick's slap at the UN as "feckless". While the UN has, indeed, declared that Zimbabweans who've fled to South Africa do not have refugee status, Kirchick leaves out (although it can be found in his link to the Mail&Guardian) that South Africa itself does not consider Zimbabweans to be refugees. Is it feckless for the UN to demand that a sovereign nation set up refugee camps for those fleeing even a place like Zimbabwe? Kirchick conveniently leaves out this item from the Mail&Guardian article: "The UN said it would support South Africa in its initiatives, but a contingency plan had been made in anticipation of thousands of Zimbabweans fleeing their country's worsening political and economic situation" The president of South Africa is said to be working to mediate solutions to Zimbabwe's problems, out of enlightened self-interest, viz., an economically healthy Zimbabwe is good for South Africa. Mugabe's reign of terror is, of course, intolerable but it is likewise intolerant to hurl epithets at the UN for upholding South Africa's right to determine what will happen within its borders. Kirchick misses the bigger picture in that region. And his use of the "special status" of Palestinians extending to the grandchildren of those displaced by the creation of Israel - a UN sanctioned occurrence - is...typAIPACal. Oy. Fucking neo-cons in pseudo-liberal clothing.
So, what's set me off is Andrew Sullivan's blog, The Daily Dish. In general, I find Sullivan to be Tory-esque in his thinking and hidebound to his beloved Oakeshott, or at least his understanding of Mr. Oakeshott. Now, I won't say I'm an expert on Oakeshott or any philosopher, but there is always a problem attempting to apply an Old World philosophy to the ongoing American experience. Something to be learned from everything, but to be looking for evidence of "your guy's" philosophy in practice leaves a lot out of the picture...like, "the humanity", for instance.
Well, Sullivan is off on his honeymoon, having taken advantage of Massachusetts' enlightened approach to marriage equality, and he has left his blog to...others. I don't know who any of them are, but I suppose they're Sullivan's buds in some way, shape or form.
Anyway, some kid named Jamie Kirchcik, after the appropriate ass kissing of the host blogger, speculates on the idea of killing Robert Mugabe. Despite my opposition to the death penalty, I don't think assassination of dangerous psychopaths, e.g. Hitler, fall into the "seamless fabric" theory of life. Kirchick points out that Mugabe's military is quite a deterrant to assassination and would probably continue his policies anyway, given their status under his regime.
What, IMHO, is gratuitous on his part is Kirchick's slap at the UN as "feckless". While the UN has, indeed, declared that Zimbabweans who've fled to South Africa do not have refugee status, Kirchick leaves out (although it can be found in his link to the Mail&Guardian) that South Africa itself does not consider Zimbabweans to be refugees. Is it feckless for the UN to demand that a sovereign nation set up refugee camps for those fleeing even a place like Zimbabwe? Kirchick conveniently leaves out this item from the Mail&Guardian article: "The UN said it would support South Africa in its initiatives, but a contingency plan had been made in anticipation of thousands of Zimbabweans fleeing their country's worsening political and economic situation" The president of South Africa is said to be working to mediate solutions to Zimbabwe's problems, out of enlightened self-interest, viz., an economically healthy Zimbabwe is good for South Africa. Mugabe's reign of terror is, of course, intolerable but it is likewise intolerant to hurl epithets at the UN for upholding South Africa's right to determine what will happen within its borders. Kirchick misses the bigger picture in that region. And his use of the "special status" of Palestinians extending to the grandchildren of those displaced by the creation of Israel - a UN sanctioned occurrence - is...typAIPACal. Oy. Fucking neo-cons in pseudo-liberal clothing.
posted by mikekev58 at 11:31 AM
0 comments
