July 20, 2004
Sterilization Now: Redux
Coercive population control as a goal of the radical left has crept up too in Justin Case's excellent essay on Paul Ehrlich, Estimated Prophet.
Eric suggested I include the rest of my exchange with the person who spammed me in an effort to replace the $34 million with private contributions, so that shall follow. But I think the outcry is just plain silly in light of what the U.S. government already does for the cause:
The United States is the largest donor of bilateral assistance to help improve the health of women and children and is providing more than $1.8 billion this year through a U.S. Agency for International Development fund, department spokesman Richard Boucher said. This, he said, includes $429 million for reproductive health, including family planning.
Excerpted from the Washington Post article linked above.
Now on to the exchange.
In the previous post on the subject, and in the comments, I included the exchange prompted by the original well-meaning spam, and finally I sent a blanket response to the original list which asked them to consider the fact before buying into the hype.
Her response to my broadcast response:
I know you think you are doing me a favor by enlightening me. I thought I was doing that when I sent out my e-mail and that is fine. Thanks for the links. I will take a look at this stuff when I have time. I couldn't help but notice that in this last e-mail you not only replied to me but you replied to everyone I sent my e-mail out to. I request that in the future when you send stuff like this out to me in response to an e-mail that I sent to you, that you ONLY send your response to me and not MY mailing list. Feel free to take these references to YOUR sphere of influence but not mine. As much as I may or may not be interested in what you have to write or show me, I know that the people on my mailing list have no time or interest in reading about this stuff when it is referred to them by a total stranger. This is especially so because the way you present the information comes off as being really arrogant and being preached to by an arrogant stranger is worse than being preached to by just a stranger. At least in my e-mail I stated my opinion and just asked them to check out the link, not to agree with me.
My response to that:
I think it's funny that you fail to see the contradiction in your reply. You accuse me of being arrogant yet you talk about ownership of an audience and spheres of incluence.
And her enlightened response:
You're preaching again... and you say that you are not the preacher here. Do me a favor and never waste my time again. I'll do you the same favor. Now fuck off please.
The bottom line seems to be what Rush Limbaugh said many years ago about his efforts to support an AIDS charity. His money was refused because, as he put it, some money isn't wanted. While this may on the surface seem a very different thing the heart of the issue is the same. It's not the $429 million allotted in the U.S.-directed plan that they care about, but rather the $34 million refused the U.N. To the radical left the U.S. government is evil, or at best disingenuous, while the U.N. is the infallible humanitarian organziation par excellence.
These are the same people who demand that the President seek and conform to U.N. judgment, while supporting a candidate who asks that the President do what he is already doing: to put pressure on the U.N. to respond to the genocidal campaign of the Arab majority in Sudan.
I've already mentioned Darfur, and noted that the U.S. ambassador walked out in protest of the U.N.'s actions, and his comments bear repeating:
On May 4, American ambassador Sichan Siv, walking out of the U.N. Human Rights Commission in disgust after it had re-elected Sudan to membership, said to The New York Sun, "The least we should be able to do is not elect a country to the only global body charged specifically with protecting human rights, at the precise time when tens of thousands of its citizens are being murdered or being left to die of starvation." It's "Never Again" again.
My message to the well-meaning leftists is that the U.N. is not what you think it is, and you can't have it both ways. You can't demand that we subvert ourselves to this body while demanding that we pressure it to change. It is not infallible here, and a total failure there: it is simply a mess that needs cleaning.
posted by Dennis on 07.20.04 at 11:42 AM
Search the Site
Classics To Go
See more archives here
Old (Blogspot) archives
Why you might get more of what you try to stop
A knee sock jihad might be premature at this time
People Are Not Rational
No Biorobots For Japan
The Thorium Solution
Radiation Detector From A Digital Camera
This war of attrition is driving me bananas!
Attacking Christianity is one thing, but must they butcher geometry?
Are there trashy distinctions in freedom of expression?