Victory for Palestine! (And Assad Sitting Pretty)

Brief comments about the new Palestinian status at the UN:

1 The UN cannot award legitimacy to anything because it possesses no legitimacy itself. The General Assembly includes tin-pot dictators, blood-thirsty, small-time fascists, and other kinds of despots. Once a cannibal had his envoy there. (I know I am repeating myself on this last point.) The composition of its Human Rights Council is so shameful, I don’t want to repeat it. Its Commission on Women includes Iran (which does not stone to death all promiscuous women, only some.) The UN Security Council can be paralyzed at the whim of one of two successful gangster regimes.

If the UN began celebrating motherhood, it would soon become a despised phenomenon.

2 This is addressed mostly to my Zionist friends (Jews and Christians, and those who are neither) and to Israelis who might happen to read this.

Why should the Palestinians, or anyone at all, ask for their neighbor’s permission to create or proclaim a state? Are you out of your minds?

3 This is addressed to my Palestinian friends and to other Arabs who might be interested. I have currently between zero and two Palestinian friends depending on what I wrote on this blog in the preceding days. I have trouble finding any other Arabs who care about Palestine at all.

You are dancing in the streets because of some irrelevant UN decision? What are you going to do when a real, lasting peace is finally signed with your powerful and democratic neighbor, dance naked in the streets?

As I write, President Assad is sitting pretty in his luxurious apartment in Manhattan. His enemies, who have promised to hang him from a lamp-post, are in control of all of Long Island. His air force is bombing Brooklyn.

About Jacques Delacroix

I write short stories, current events comments, and sociopolitical essays, mostly in English, some in French. There are other people with the same first name and same last name on the Internet. I am the one who put up on Amazon in 2014: "I Used to Be French: an Immature Autobiography" and also: "Les pumas de grande-banlieue." To my knowledge, I am the only Jacques Delacroix with American and English scholarly publications. In a previous life, I was a teacher and a scholar in Organizational Theory and in the Sociology of Economic Development. (Go ahead, Google me!) I live in the People’s Green Socialist Republic of Santa Cruz, California.
This entry was posted in Current Events. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Victory for Palestine! (And Assad Sitting Pretty)

  1. Terry Amburgey says:

    “The UN cannot award legitimacy to anything because it possesses no legitimacy itself.”

    Interesting. I didn’t know that you had the power & authority to decree what does and doesn’t have legitimacy. Is this a self granted power ala the president of Egypt?

    • Terry: Every matter of legitimacy is a matter of personal judgment, in the end. Everybody can judge for himself, of course. I just remind folks periodically about the reality of the UN.

      Is it true or not that Iran is on the Commission on Women? ( I may not have exactly the name of the commission exactly right but the thing is completely clear.)

      I am wrong to call Russia and China Mafia-run societies?

      Is it true that a cannibal had an envoy at the UN for a while? (Try: “Jean-Bedel Bokassa.”)

      Is it the case that none of these assertions has anything to do with legitimacy?

      Try to answer. Don’t go and whine in a corner.

      • Terry Amburgey says:

        The US congress can be paralyzed at the whim of a successful gangster regimes [teapublicans]. The important point is that every matter of legitimacy is a matter of personal judgment. You and your coterie of wingnuts decry the UN but millions [billions?] of people worldwide think it’s a good thing.

        “Is it the case that none of these assertions has anything to do with legitimacy?”.

        That’s an easy one. Yes, it is the case that none of these assertions has anything to do with legitimacy.

  2. Terry Amburgey says:

    “After the Second World War, the French Committee of National Liberation was late to be recognized by the US as the government of France, and so the country was initially excluded from the conferences that aimed at creating the new organization. Charles de Gaulle criticized the UN, famously calling it a machin (“contraption”), and was not convinced that a global security alliance would help maintain world peace, preferring direct defence treaties between countries.”

    Now I understand your hostility to the UN. You’re a Gaullist. It also explains your willingness to decree powers to yourself. I don’t know why I didn’t see it before. I’m tempted to suggest that you add your conversion to Gaullism to your biography but it would only displace valuable salacious content.

    • Terry: Back to World War Two ( I was there.) The US hesitation in recognizing De Gaulle’s provisional government then was sound although it was wrong in the end.

      “Gaullist” is not an insult.
      Quick history lesson: Under the circumstances, Europe in ruins and Stalin’s powerful Red Army next door, thousands of armed Communists around, Gaullism was easily the lesser of several evils. De Gaulle himself was an exceptionally brave man and extremely intelligent. (His two-volume memoirs are a masterpiece of modern French writing – nearly as great as Obama’s for English. I am sorry, that was a low blow; I am ashamed.)

      Prof Terry: Educating you is an endless task. It will probably be on my list of “to do” things when I die

      Please, don’t tell me you are an expert on Gaullism; you live in Canada for God’s sake!

      PS I was never a Gaullist because De Gaulle was a resolute statist.

      I have nothing to add about the UN. It’s much worse than anything De Gaulle predicted.

    • Welcome. My Bruce burden is tiny as compared to the endless task of educating Prof Amburgey so he does not inadvertently convey malarkey to his students.

      • Bruce says:

        It’s amazing how progressives defend absolute tyrants. What an insane demonstration of tolerance and acceptance of their alternative methods of doing business. Prof Amburgy calls “teapublicans” gangsters, I suppose to put them on par with the likes of Assad. Hard to imagine, unless you recognize the mental disorder that political correctness expresses. Last time I checked the Tea Party Republicans were not preparing to deploy chemical weapons. If the expensive and dangerous farce that is the United Nations had a poster child it would have to be Idi Amin. Heck, most of the people in the world might even admire him, he was once an excellent athlete (boxer). Do you think if he were he alive today he might have a chance to win the Illinois Congressional seat vacated by Jessie Jackson Jr.? Most of the people in the world don’t know what liberty tastes like you can’t trust their judgement on the merits of the UN.

  3. Terry Amburgey says:

    “Most of the people in the world don’t know what liberty tastes like you can’t trust their judgement on the merits of the UN.”

    There you have it; the opinions of a few teapublicans outweighs the opinions of millions elsewhere. Who cares what the wogs think anyway eh?

    “It’s amazing how progressives defend absolute tyrants.” Find the text where I defend tyrants. Until then feel free to stifle yourself [as your hero Archie Bunker would say].

    “Hard to imagine, unless you recognize the mental disorder that political correctness expresses.”

    That’s a hoot. Teapublicans pontificating on mental disorders, the ultimate constructors of alternate realities and conspiracy theories that put schizophrenics to shame. Time to put on your tinfoil hat.

    • “… the opinions of a few teapublicans outweighs the opinions of millions elsewhere.”

      Many of whom are massacred if they dare have an opinion (See Syria).

      But, if it comes to it: Yes

      And in 1776, a few hundred of thousands of provincials, many dressed in animal skins, were right against the whole world.

  4. Terry: I am becoming more and more curious about your hatred of “Teapublicans.” What have they done exactly besides struggling for few and smaller taxes (like the Founding Fathers)? Who are they aside from me and my wife, Krishna, a “woman of color”?

    You rage reminds me of my brother who lives in a lovely tiny town near a river in western France. He is the mildest, friendliest guy you could meet. He was born without my thirst for blood. (Remember that siblings have only 50% of their genes in common.) Well, my brother hates …hikers with a blind passionate rage. It’s hard to see why; he is unable to explain his hatred. It could be that he is fat but, that’s too simple. I suspect he dislikes intensely the way they dress. Everything else may flow from there..

    I agree with you on one thing: Political correctness is not a mental illness. It’s just ordinary mental cowardice and mindlessness.

    • Terry Amburgey says:

      “Terry: I am becoming more and more curious about your hatred of “Teapublicans.”
      I’t s complicated so I’ll do the ‘cliff notes’ version. I was a moderate republican for decades. Then the neo-cons came along with foreign policy insanity while the christian evangelicals poisoned the well on social policy. But there was at least some hope until the tea party whackos added fiscal insanity to the mix.
      On the one hand there’s the Democrats with all of the silliness that you know so well. On the other hand there’s a toxic mix of birthers, bigots, climate science conspiracy theorists, creationists, misogynists, chicken-hawks. The tea party. All the moderate republicans have been driven out as RINOs. My hatred comes from being driven to the democrats as the far lesser of 2 evils.
      My hope right now is that the libertarians will form the core of a new political party from the cinders of the republicans after they finish imploding.

  5. Terry: Interesting but, my wife ( a “woman of color”) and I are none of the above and we don’t know any Teapublicans who are any of the above, and what we read reflects none of the above. Even what we listen to (hold on to the arm of your wheelchair) does not reflect any of the above, not even Rush Limbaugh. Either we are blind and deaf or we are frankly stupid.

    Fiscal conservatism was the doctrine of the Founding Fathers. It’s that simple.

    • Terry Amburgey says:

      “Either we are blind and deaf or we are frankly stupid.”

      Lol. How’s your eyesight lately? BTW, I only have your word that Krishna is a woman of color. You very wisely never allowed her to meet me.

      • I added “woman of color” to blind-side you. Ah, ah! My wife is from India, nice cafe- au- lait color. My adopted children are from India too, a shade darker.(W e couldn’t afford lighter). My grandchild is dark also (long story). Sometimes, they all get together and riot against me in the living -room shouting, “Down with racial oppression!” Then they set fire to their bedroom to teach me a lesson.

        Your litany of “Teapublican” horrors is too long for me to deal with. Here are two.

        1 I know Barack OBama was born in Hawaii. His Hawaii birth cetrificate is on his website. It looks exactly like my daughter’s California birth certificate. My daughter was born in….India!

        2 Climate change is the process by which the North Pole ice melts while Antartica’s ice cover keeps growing. Belief in climate change is not a conspiracy. It’s a religious cult second only to the late Dr Moon’s Universal Church. Its Grand Poopah is Nobel Prize winner Algore in Wonderland. (I am am sorry I mentioend Al. That was a low blow!)

  6. Bruce says:

    I have never doubted that Prof Amburgey means well. In fact, I have no doubt that were he given an FBI polygraph that he would pass on any question concerning his intentions. I think he goes wild when he feels his view of the world is challenged. It’s easy to recognize, just watch for name calling. It’s difficult for him to imagine that a group of citizens could come together under the banner of the Tea Party and care about America enough to try and return to our founding principles. He is by no means alone, in fact old school Republican moderate John Boehner shares this opinion. He recently did a little tea party cleansing in the House. Progressives tend to look no further than intentions to justify their feelings. I also kind of question Prof Amburgy’s sincerity a little. It’s kind of like, “well I used be a Republican until the wing nuts took it over”. As if there is not an abundance of crazy Democrats out there today. If he in fact thinks he’s been abandoned by the GOP I’m with him. My spider senses tell me otherwise. I’m sure he’s a very smart man, maybe he just enjoys playing devil’s advocate. Maybe he’s lost and needs to be brought into the light. We can’t give up on him.
    What our country needs desperately are results based on facts. The facts prove that big government wealth redistribution is damaging. The feeling is that we need to help the less advantaged among us. The fact is that class size has little to do with academic achievement, the feeling is that more teachers (especially with a union representing them) will yield better education. It’s a fact that crime hurts people, classifying offences against select minority groups as hate crimes with harsher penalties makes some feel better about things somehow. Despite being in a post-racial period, affirmative action still feels good, especially if you’re in a position to capitalize on this institutionalized discrimination based on race or gender. Discrimination based on a persons skin color instead of job performance in a business does not in fact help the business, unless of course, you take into account the punishment government agencies impose for not making your diversity numbers. You are going to feel good about diversity, or else. Even my beloved US Navy has falled prey. The Navy is now a global force for good. When I had the honor of serving our mission was to kill people and destroy their stuff when called upon to do so. The fact is we still need to be able to do this, but we’re trying to feel better about having to be able to do it. The facts vs. feelings is what separates conservatives from liberals. Obviously feelings are not all bad. I have suspended judgement plenty of times on a personal level because I’m human. That’s not how a government should be run. It’s not how a successful business is run. I think it’s easier to feel than to reason. It has become easier to be dependent on government that free. There’s also a lot of money to be made when you have other people’s money to spread around. Political correctness makes progressives feel good, and they want to feel good at all costs. Apparently, judging from the last presidential most Americans would rather feel good than face the facts. I want my entitlements now and let someone else worry about paying for them. Finally, look at how progressives attack the whole notion of virtue, as if it’s a monster from another planet. It makes them feel better about themselves and it’s easier to mock people who possess it than it is to strive to live it. It also demonstrates another leading indicator that you’re dealing with a liberal, the double standard. Eliot Spitzer gets rewarded for his antics with a TV show. It’s hard to understand the all out assault on virtue by the left, but it worked on Mitt Romney.

    • Good analysis. You forget one thing, Bruce: The proximate environment. American faculty clubs are poisonous environments. Few individuals have what it takes to avoid the slow, inexorable poisoning of simple intelligence that takes place there. I did when I was an academic by simply not socializing with most of my colleagues, I did not even enter the faculty club for the last fifteen years of my career.

      Terry teaches in Toronto. I am assuming that Canadian faculty clubs are the same (in my heart, I suspect they are worse).

      It’s difficult to be chaste when you live in a whore-house. It’s especially difficult if the whores have convinced themselves that they are doing it for the greater glory of God!

      Terry has the big merit of being willing to argue, even if to throw insults. Many academic liberals would not because are deeply convinced that people like you and me either have room temperature IQs or that they are mentally ill.

      One big reason I continue the significant effort involved in this blog is to be a thorn in their side as a conservative whose IQ is close to normal and his insanity under good control much of the time.

      I sometimes worry that Terry will pop a vessel when reading me because a part of him knows deep down that I am so right. I will never forgive myself if this happens.

      PLease, take care of yourself, Terry; we need you!

      • Terry Amburgey says:

        “I am assuming that Canadian faculty clubs are the same (in my heart, I suspect they are worse).”

        Could be. The only time I’ve ever been in a faculty club was when I was a doctoral student. Glenn Carroll scammed a lunch for us with Herbert Simon.

        “PLease, take care of yourself, Terry; we need you!”

        Yes you do, much more than you realize 🙂

      • You are that old!

        Not going to faculty clubs is undeniably a virtue. It does not protect you completely from the poisonous environment of universities. Nevertheless, I have flattering things to say . It will be for another time.

        For the record (such as it is): I was nervous before the election. I thought, with nearly all liberal ordinary media commentators, that it was going to be a close election. It was. Read Delacroix.

    • Terry Amburgey says:

      “The facts vs. feelings is what separates conservatives from liberals.” I agree 100%. If teapublicans were to deal with facts rather than the alternate realities they construct to make themselves feel better things would be much better. Were you and Jacques surprised on election night? I wasn’t. Instead of listening to the ‘Unskewed Polls’ types the teapublicans concocted to feel better, I followed the statistics nerds like Nate Silver and the Princeton Election Consortium.

      “It’s hard to understand the all out assault on virtue by the left, but it worked on Mitt Romney.”

      If you really want to talk about virtue, you’d be better off talking about William Bennett and his Book of Virtues than an empty suit like Romney.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s