Help us find Annie
What liberals call "thinking"
I had two comments left this morning by an apparently liberal visitor. It's heartening to know I can still arouse their ire.
About my open message to UN "ambassadors," this reader said, "Ignorant, pissed-off man." That's the leftoid tactic: deliver an insult first thing off the bat. What bothers me the most about the political discourse of the past decade is a lack of respect; on both sides of the aisle, I must note. It has become insufficient to disagree respectfully with an adversary: one must now attack that adversary's qualifications, and his very right to an opinion differing from one's own.
"Pissed-off" is in a universe of its own. This popular neologism stands in the stead of a whole range of reactions including dissatisfaction, disaffection, disappointment, disdain, anger, repugnance, disapproval, lack-of-understanding, and the idea that something seems irrational, to name just the first few that come to mind.
To be both ignorant and pissed-off is to occupy a state of being less than human, apparently.
The commenter asks what might have enraged me about the UN? In the interest of saving bandwidth, I'll mention only one item: Kofi Annan maintained a personal bodyguard presence, and had them armed with Uzis. Neither the guards nor their weapons were mentioned to Federal authorities, who might have looked askance at the unregistered Class 3 firearms. Nor were the firearms registered with the state and city of New York. To refresh your memory, New York State has virtually banned firearms ownership since passing the Sullivan Act in 1937. Gun ownership and possession in the five boroughs is even more tightly restricted. Not that you would notice, given the amount of crime in Gotham committed using firearms. In the case of Annan's bodyguards, BATF said nothing, Albany said nothing, and Bloomberg, although rabidly anti-self-defense, said nothing.
But the point of my invitation-to-leave should have been obvious to anyone. "Ambassadors" come to the UN and live lavishly, even compared against the average New Yorker. Compared to the average person in their native countries, these "ambassadors" live like royalty. They enjoy diplomatic immunity against the common laws of the city, state and country in which they live so highly. The institution at which they "work" is largely supported by the USA. And in spite of all this, they have the temerity to criticize us and make demands.
***
The same reader commented on What would Paris and Montreal Do? Aside from having mis-read the piece (the remark confused Quebec City with Paris), the commenter admitted that most Parisians speak better English than he. (I will resist the temptation to comment upon that.) Finally, he admonished me for quoting the Washington Times, denouncing it as a less-than-credible news source. Truth of the matter is, I cannot vouch for the credibility of anything I have not witnessed personally. What I do know with some certainty is that the Washington Times is one of the few daily papers in the USA that does not take its cues, editorially, from the New York Times. And since enough has been said and written lately about that paper, my work here is finished.
-30-