Eco-hippies weep for fallen trees. “I want you to know, trees, that we care.”
Emotional Hippies – Crying Over Dead Trees – Watch more free videos
Hand me the gun. No, the bigger one.
(h/t, Clazy.)
Eco-hippies weep for fallen trees. “I want you to know, trees, that we care.”
Emotional Hippies – Crying Over Dead Trees – Watch more free videos
Hand me the gun. No, the bigger one.
(h/t, Clazy.)
Arabella Weir, whose leftist credentials have previously been noted, today shares her wisdom on parenting and education:
Weir’s definition of a “good, responsible citizen” will become apparent in due course.
Some might think of that as where ideology collides with actual parenting.
Actually, Ms Weir attended the hardly-rough-and-tumble Camden School for Girls, a voluntary aided school, whose alumnae include Emma Thompson and Eva Germaine Rimington Taylor. Arabella is, lest we forget, the daughter of former British ambassador Sir Michael Weir and not short of a bob.
State schooling is, one might suppose, entirely free of disabling and alienating effects, being as it is so ideologically sound.
Here, the “right thing to do” has a sacrificial air and seems to mean trading educational opportunity – say, in terms of motivation, class size and a culture of learning – for an approved and “representative” social mix, i.e. one which involves mingling conspicuously with those deemed “disadvantaged”. Thus one’s leftist credentials can be seen by passers-by. Is this really about doing the right thing? Or is it just a matter of admiring one’s own socialist credibility?
For shame. Parents must make sacrifices, you hear? Not for their own children, of course, or for their peace of mind, but for the Greater Good.
Norman Geras spots some cultural cringing at The Observer:
“America and Britain talk about human rights and democracy as if their benefits are self-evident and universal. But when it suits their strategic aims, in Latin America, Central Asia or the Middle East, they collaborate with brutal dictatorships.”
OK, so you should practise what you preach. But can’t you also preach what you practise if you do practise it? America and Britain do have a certain record they can point to as democracies. And the benefits of human rights and democracy are universal, aren’t they? Or did The Observer change its spots and retreat from its attachment to liberalism?
“American and European interests will not be served by military grandstanding and asserting the moral superiority of their political systems.”
Hmmm… I thought democratic political systems were superior. I thought The Observer might think this too.
Indeed. The rest.
Oliver Kamm casts an eye over diarist and anti-war campaigner Tony Benn.
According to Benn, there are “five questions we should ask any powerful person: ‘What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you use it? To whom are you accountable? How do we get rid of you?’”
This is what he in fact asked Saddam Hussein, a powerful person whom he interviewed shortly before the Iraq War:
“I have 10 grandchildren and in my family there is English, Scottish, American, French, Irish, Jewish, Indian, Muslim blood, and for me politics is about their future, their survival. And I wonder whether you could say something yourself directly through this interview to the peace movement of the world that might help to advance the cause they have in mind?”
The five questions didn’t come up. Presumably Saddam was too powerful to be troubled with them.
More.
Busy today, but two items caught my eye:
You’d think the media would delve into this relationship a little. If John McCain kicked off his political career at the house of, say, a bomber of abortion clinics, you probably would have heard about it by now.
And,
What fascinates me is how light the baggage is when one travels from violent radicalism to liberalism. Chicago activist Sam Ackerman told Politico’s reporter that Ayers “is one of my heroes in life.” Cass Sunstein, a first-rank liberal intellectual, said, “I feel very uncomfortable with their past, but neither of them is thought of as horrible types now – so far as most of us know, they are legitimate members of the community.” Why, exactly, can Ayers and Dohrn be seen as “legitimate members of the community”? How is it that they get prestigious university jobs when even the whisper of neocon tendencies is toxic in academia?
Related: The youthful indiscretions of Peter Tatchell.
Update and video at Hot Air.
Recent Comments