As IF Times

link Liberal Frankensteins – Victor Davis Hanson – National Review Online.

In my opinion, one of the best, succinct summaries of the malaise that affects free societies in our time.  Hanson points out the various big fibs and spurious policies that have been circulating since the end of World War 2.  Wrong headed policies that were pursued with the ‘best of intentions’ have grotesquely morphed into the cancer like manifestations of liberal thought threatening the very survival of free society today.  Unlike Al Gore’s version of how it’s all going to end, this article clearly illustrates the various prongs of stupidity that are surely pointing to the demise of free people.

At the root is the hijacking of the education system, which has veered sharply away from teachings of core values and absolute results to political brainwashing and elusive conclusions and questionable sensitivities.  This is one of the best lines from the article:

“…Modern university education has achieved the dubious result of turning out a self-described sensitive, caring mind that has never been more ignorant of the past and the present…”

While there are certainly voices that point out the insanity of what’s happened, they are vastly outnumbered by the endless cacophony of the delusional left.  Life so closely parallels George Orwell’s Animal Farm, that you can use the book as a roadmap for a glimpse of Christmases future.  It’s as if the people who gained the most from social and economic policies of the past 50 years are the people most likely to pursue policies that are the exact opposite of what brought success to them.  Paradoxically, the more obvious the failures of these policies are, the more ardently they are pursued and defended.  Unfortunately, those that make the most noise tend to get the most attention, regardless of how inane their viewpoints.   This is expected to appeal to young people, since their minds are susceptible to information of all kinds and they have yet to measure what’s told to them against the realities of genuine experience.  But how then to explain the ongoing ignorance of the older generation, those who should have passed the naive phase of their lives towards a more reasoned view of how things work?  Somehow, many in this group of aging hippies have never grown up.  There are many that have been allowed to live their lives in an extended adolescence.

As I have opined previously, there must be a self destruct gene that takes hold once a certain level of affluence is achieved.  If so, that’s sad.  It’s doubly sad when these people achieve positions of power and are then able to take others down with them.  They then bring their dubious logic and naive sentiments to impact public policy.  They somehow work their way to become political leaders and teachers or even worse, get a job on MSNBC.  The fact is, big political and social issues are not that interesting to young people.  Most are more consumed about their next Iphone than the next President.  For many, there is no direct link between what happens to them and what is happening on the big world stage.  They don’t have to worry about the big picture because things have always been benign for them.  It will be a severe shock when the adults stop paying the bills.

link BBC News – Profile: Ban Ki-moon.

This all sounds warm and fuzzy, but what is it exactly that the head of the U.N. does?  Not to just to pick on Mr. Ban, but let’s include  the professional tsk tskers before him, Kofi Annan, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, etc. etc., all the way back to  U Thant.  Viewed outside of the circle of the political jet set, what accomplishments do these people actually achieve?  More importantly, how do they get appointed to these cushy jobs? 

We would have to assume that the number one priority of this person and in fact the  founding reason for the U.N.’s existence lies with the standard answer given by beauty contestants for decades; that is world peace.  By this measure, the results are spotty and certainly debatable.  Founded in 1945 after World War 2, the U.N. was ostensibly set up to prevent the outbreak of another world scale military conflict through diplomatic means.  On the surface, this kind of worked, but perhaps only because after World War 2, the only nation that wasn’t obliterated was the United States.  In fact, through the rebuilding process of its wartime enemies Germany and Japan, the Americans helped move the world into a period of 60 years of general prosperity accompanied by a somewhat  uneven peace.  Conflicts such as the Vietnam War, the Korean War, Kosovo etc., were arguably policing conflicts rather than world scale hostilities.  It was the U.N. that helped with the creation of Israel in 1948, ironically, the source of much of world conflict today. 

It’s certainly debatable whether or not the U.N. has had any real efficacy if not for their main asset of American financing, resources and of course military arsenal.  Paradoxically, the U.S. is consistently at odds with the rest of the members of the U.N. on many world issues.  Given a chance, all and sundry banana republic nations condemn the U.S. for one thing or another.   Just as the Democrats in the U.S. like to pin all that ails the nation on George Bush, so does the rest of the world assign blame to the Americans for all of the world’s woes.   This, despite the collection of shady and comic book caricatures of tin pot dictators that populate the U.N.’s committees.   Most recently, Mohmar Khadaffi, he of bombing his own people fame, was the Chair of the U.N.’s human rights council and in fact created the eponymous Khadaffi prize for excellence in that field.   You can’t make that one up.

So, getting back to Mr. Ban. What unique qualifications does this guy have that he is unopposed and unanimously acclaimed for another term in office?  If you read the article, he is exalted for his efforts on Global Warming during his first term.   Hmm.  So world peace is not among his accomplishments, but ‘awareness’ of global warming is.  Call me cynical, but I suspect there’s more money in the global warming racket than there is in quelling dictators.  If only he didn’t have to share a stage with that media hog Al Gore.

In addition, it’s not as if he even has to learn anything new for his job.  It’s likely that there exists a manual of epithets and catchphrases that he can choose from in which to create rousing speeches, all applicable to any circumstance:

“We must act now to avert an imminent crisis”

“Time is running out to avert a humanitarian crisis”

“The world must come together to avert this crisis”

“The world cannot stand idly by while this crisis unfolds”

Crisis of course is the key word, without which there would be no implied urgency.   On the other hand, saving the world is a tough job.  Hope he’s up to it.