Wednesday, September 26, 2007
"Why'd You Say Burma?" "Panicked."
by Ken Houghton
Oh, right; I forgot. We don't need to be gracious or courteous in the eyes of the rest of the world, especially when we're "implor[ing] the United Nations on Tuesday to recommit itself to restoring human decency by liberating oppressed people and ending famine and disease."
Maybe it's time to take a few more shots that make the Iranian president look intelligent, instead of showing him for what he is:
Watching The Daily Show: does the Bush administration still not acknowledge that Burma became Myanmar, in the eyes of the United Nations, nineteen years ago?
Oh, right; I forgot. We don't need to be gracious or courteous in the eyes of the rest of the world, especially when we're "implor[ing] the United Nations on Tuesday to recommit itself to restoring human decency by liberating oppressed people and ending famine and disease."
Maybe it's time to take a few more shots that make the Iranian president look intelligent, instead of showing him for what he is:
Labels: Columbia University, Politics
Comments:
<< Home
I'm not sure how historically familiar you are with this issue -- certainly it's quite possible you're far more so than I am -- but I'm unconvinced that the case that the SLORC of that Country had the unreserved right to change the country's and capital's name is entirely clear.
Neither does UN acknowledgement mean to me that something is clearly right. I approve of many things the hands of the UN do, as well as disapprove of yet others, but the "eyes of the United Nations" are not an unabashed, unreserved moral mandate, in my view, either. YMMV.
This doesn't have anything to do with the Bush administration, since the Clinton administration took an identical position, so far as I know.
Since according to all reports, the freedom movement regards the name change as just as illegitimate as the rest of the ruling junta and their decisions, I'm unclear why we should follow the preferences of the junta, over theirs.
Could you explain, please?
I don't understand why you're making this about the Bush Administration, since this has been U.S. and British policy since 1989: were you objecting to this under President Clinton? If not, why not?
Separately, not having cable tv, I'm unclear what The Daily Show has to do with this? As you say, it's a nineteen-year-old issue, and it's not as if it's remotely new to the news.
Neither does UN acknowledgement mean to me that something is clearly right. I approve of many things the hands of the UN do, as well as disapprove of yet others, but the "eyes of the United Nations" are not an unabashed, unreserved moral mandate, in my view, either. YMMV.
This doesn't have anything to do with the Bush administration, since the Clinton administration took an identical position, so far as I know.
Since according to all reports, the freedom movement regards the name change as just as illegitimate as the rest of the ruling junta and their decisions, I'm unclear why we should follow the preferences of the junta, over theirs.
Could you explain, please?
I don't understand why you're making this about the Bush Administration, since this has been U.S. and British policy since 1989: were you objecting to this under President Clinton? If not, why not?
Separately, not having cable tv, I'm unclear what The Daily Show has to do with this? As you say, it's a nineteen-year-old issue, and it's not as if it's remotely new to the news.
I can't really get worked up over the Burma name change one way or another -- though de-colonial "rebranding" does seem to be a leading indicator for becoming a failed state.
The reference to the Ahmadinejad interview seems more on point. You might think that a "very religious" GWB might have more awareness of log in your eye/mote in someone else's to go on about Burma/Myanmar while we're presiding over the Mess O'Potamia.
Post a Comment
The reference to the Ahmadinejad interview seems more on point. You might think that a "very religious" GWB might have more awareness of log in your eye/mote in someone else's to go on about Burma/Myanmar while we're presiding over the Mess O'Potamia.
<< Home
