Liberty is an inherently offensive lifestyle. Living in a free society guarantees that each one of us will see our most cherished principles and beliefs questioned and in some cases mocked. That psychic discomfort is the price we pay for basic civic peace. It's worth it. It's a pragmatic principle. Defend everyone else's rights, because if you don't there is no one to defend yours. -- MaxedOutMama

I don't just want gun rights... I want individual liberty, a culture of self-reliance....I want the whole bloody thing. -- Kim du Toit

The most glaring example of the cognitive dissonance on the left is the concept that human beings are inherently good, yet at the same time cannot be trusted with any kind of weapon, unless the magic fairy dust of government authority gets sprinkled upon them.-- Moshe Ben-David

The cult of the left believes that it is engaged in a great apocalyptic battle with corporations and industrialists for the ownership of the unthinking masses. Its acolytes see themselves as the individuals who have been "liberated" to think for themselves. They make choices. You however are just a member of the unthinking masses. You are not really a person, but only respond to the agendas of your corporate overlords. If you eat too much, it's because corporations make you eat. If you kill, it's because corporations encourage you to buy guns. You are not an individual. You are a social problem. -- Sultan Knish

All politics in this country now is just dress rehearsal for civil war. -- Billy Beck

Thursday, February 08, 2007

Quote of the Day.

Via David Hardy, from a Harvard Crimson op-ed you really ought to read the whole of:
Academia is inherently ill-equipped to deal with the realities of conflict, since it is based on the premise that disputes can be resolved through rational exchange of ideas. Yet violence, whether it happens to squirrels or Harvard undergraduates, is a strange animal. It is sudden, profound, and oblivious to logic and theory.
Change "Academia" to "Intellectuals" or "Bureaucrats" or, as David put it, "Elites," (or Thomas Sowell, "The Anointed,") and it goes a long way to explaining the Iraq Study Group's conclusion that we need to engage Syria and Iran in negotiations:
In order to foster such consensus, the United States should embark on a robust diplomatic effort to establish an international support structure intended to stabilize Iraq and ease tensions in other countries in the region. This support structure should include every country that has an interest in averting a chaotic Iraq, including all of Iraq’s neighbors—Iran and Syria among them. Despite the well-known differences between many of these countries, they all share an interest in avoiding the horrific consequences that would flow from a chaotic Iraq, particularly a humanitarian catastrophe and regional destabilization.
Doesn't that just drip with the belief that "disputes can be resolved through rational exchange of ideas" while completely ignoring the fact that these states are violent, and thus not interested in the stability of Iraq? In fact, that they find the instabilty in Iraq to their advantage?

Doesn't that one quote explain the urge to find out "why they hate us" - so we can exchange ideas rationally and resolve our dispute? Doesn't this explain Neville Chamberlain perfectly? Our media? The Left?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.