I found this particularly amusing. Really a great example of how out of touch with reality the people running things are:

Saturday, June 17, 2006
The Nation More Equal Than Others
What ho! Zemblan patriot G.V.G. was kind enough to forward a highly amusing account of UN Ambassador John "Revoltin'" Bolton's recent visit to Oxford, and if the details are correct, we feel safe in saying that America's top diplomatic torpedo has not perspired so freely since the good old days at Plato's Retreat:

Facing an increasingly hostile group of law students in an Oxford seminar that had somehow gone dreadfully wrong, beads of sweat began to pop out on John Bolton's furrowed brow. Amidst a rising chorus of taunts, jeers, hisses and outright denunciations, Bolton was swiftly surrounded by his entourage of three American security agents and whisked out the door of the seminar room at Oriel College on Friday, the 9th of June.

Pursued by vocal recriminations from angry and frustrated American students who led the incisive questioning and the equally incisive jeering -- with taunts like, "You should be doing a better job!"

Bolton bolted. He turned sharply on his heel and took flight out the door and then fled down the mediaeval passageway and into the relative safety and calm of his bullet-proof diplomatic limousine. Bolton swiftly headed out of Oxford, rudely foregoing the well-established tradition of lingering to talk with interested members of the audience . . . .

Bolton began his broadside with an examination of the principle of 'sovereign equality,' whereby every nation has exactly the same voting rights as every other member of the General Assembly. He adopted an unsophisticated book-keeper's perspective, stating that the contributions made by the USA dwarfed those of many other nations. He argued unconvincingly that even those forty-seven members who paid the bare minimum had the same voting power in the General Assembly as America. This observation failed to impress the audience who were more than well aware of America's financial and economic superiority to the debt-ridden nations in the third world ­ a superiority accumulated through trade negotiations designed to extract capital from the poorest nations and transfer it to the wealthiest.

Bolton's panacea for the bureaucratic inefficiency was simple ­ a tax cut for the wealthiest nations. At its core, he implied that a group of sharp-eyed book-keepers backed by accountants, auditors and a hardened core of dues-collectors should run the United Nations along strict financial guidelines as if it were a private club with a dining room and golf course rather than the world's premiere organization mandated to prevent armed conflict between sovereign nations, foster economic development, enhance social equality and cultivate international law. If Bolton is aware of the principles defining the mission of the United Nations, he made no mention of them whatsoever. His sole focus was a totally transparent harangue on the disparity of dues, a tissue of an argument that would not have convinced a fifteen year old ­ much less Oxford law students.

Turning to his case for corruption, Bolton launched into a literal diatribe about the Oil for Food programme that he described as a substantial scandal. The background to this is important: led by Bolton, neoconservative critics of the UN attempted unsuccessfully to make a criminal case against Kofi Annan and members of his family through the Oil for Food investigation, but their efforts largely were wasted. The investigation did discover some relatively minor official corruption involving a paltry $150,000 paid to one individual. The largest amount of corruption appears to have come in the form of kickbacks and bribes to the government of Iraq by oil companies seeking cheap oil. Of the kickbacks paid to the government of Iraq, 52% came from the US in the form of bribes for cheap oil, a figure that is more than the rest of the planet of 190 nations combined. While a partisan Republican Senator, Norm Coleman of Minnesota, made allegations against one high profile figure, George Galloway a British MP, they have been refuted. The investigation is ongoing, but of 54 internal audits only one has been made public.
Bolton did not mention any of these details, nor did he provide any substantive evidence for his charge of serious levels of official corruption at the UN . . . .

In what was rapidly becoming his interrogation, a woman from America questioned Bolton about the need for a balanced approach where America would represent the best interests of the world at large rather than its own particular regional self-interest. At that point, Bolton fumbled. In a clumsy and misguided attempt to turn the tables on his adroit and incisive challengers, Bolton threw out a question of his own. He called for a show of hands of those in the audience who were British. Bolton then asked how many of them wanted the British Ambassador at the UN to represent the interests of Britain. Only one or two hands were raised. Then he asked to see a show of hands of those British subjects who wanted the British Ambassador at the UN to represent not only the interests of Britain but also the collective interests of the other members as well. At least a dozen hands went up into the air. Stunned, Bolton was dumbfounded and said rather witlessly, "I would have gotten a different result in America."

http://simbaud.blogspot.com/2006/06/nat ... thers.html

Bolton got PWNED!

GV, have you ever read Atlas Shrugged? This is excatly what Rand predicted would happen, starting with college students in Europe. The end of the modern world.

But Rand's belief was that recognition of mutual human experience and need was dangerous, and that captains of industry were the moral center of society BECAUSE they were captains of industry.

The first half of that book is great. The second half succumbs to Rand's eagerness to make her point. And her point is bunk.

Well, I haven't finished the book yet, so I wont judge it. Nor will I derail this thread. I just found it quite funny that a discounted book from 50 years ago could predict so well where our society was headed.

I find this reaction by these students to be disheartening. Maybe I wasn't educated correctly as I didnt go to Oxford and majored in Comp-Sci and Biochemistry, not Philosophy or International Policy. What possible long term good could come from nations acting against their own best interests? Are these kids so bathed in self-hatred and guilt that they will offer themselves (and therefore their countrymen and children) as sacrifices to some undefinable goal? I can understand why they don't like Bolton (or by extension, Bush). But why hurt yourself when by helping yourself, you can help all others?

See, I didn't find it amusing what Bolton did. I find it amusing what the super mature, sophisticated, liberal, free thinking, open minded children of Oxford did to Bolton. Oh yeah, you guys sure are open minded and tolerant.

Exactly-- the same people who purportedly adhere to an ideology of open-mindedness and diversity never extend that to diversity of thought.

To be fair though, these are probably just college age kids caught up in the temperamental radicalism that befalls so many college age activists, but at the same time, you would think that people at Oxford would be smarter than this. Honestly, I've never heard of students doing stuff like this when a liberal or progressive speaker comes to a college campus.

Bolton is an arrogant douche, he deserved a taste of his own medicine. He has absolutely zero respect for the international community and has no right to the position he holds. He embodies this country's worst attitudes at their finest. If anything, he should have been the big man and listened to what people had to say. The administration loves to dish it out but they can't take it.

With regards to Ayn Rand, she's a ferocious cunt I have to yet to hear any good things about her. "Starting with college students in Europe." College students in Europe have been stirring shit up for the last century. You're jumping to juvenile conclusions because some people are pissed about our country's idiot at the UN (and rightfully so). And just because people say that alternative views should be heard doesn't mean they have to tolerate jack shit. Last time I checked, John Bolton holds a lot more power than an angry group of Oxford students.

You're drawing parallels that a right-wing high school freshman who just read Atlas Shrugged would. Being informed is being bathed in self-hatred and guilt? How does that have any bearing on this situation what so ever? How do you have the right to speak for other people's thoughts?

And as far as Ayn Rand goes, basically she tells us that everyone has the right to be a selfish asshole. As far as I know, her philosophies have never been taken seriously since they were first published by other philosophers and scholars. Her criticisms of Kant and Hume have been nearly laughed out of the philosophical community.

See, it's shit likes this that makes my argument for me. You guys are just so absolutely blinded by your hatred of the Bush administration that you'll justify any behavior as long as it's in line with your views. If you're so into listening what other people have to say, why do you go all ad hominem on Bolton right out of the gate? Doing that on this message board seems like the equivalent of those students turning their backs or jeering him without giving him a chance to speak.

Look, I strongly disagree with you politically but I'm all for listening to what you have to say. You disagree with Bush and his policies? Fine, that's great, that's what America is all about, let's debate what's going on. But look, don't students who do stupid shit like this defeat their own cause. You say that he should have been the "big man" and listened to what they had to say, and I think he should have as well, but 99% of the time you see these conservative speakers go to colleges and people don't engage them in debate, they just jeer, throw shit, and turn their backs to them, but that's OK because you agree with their reasoning behind it.

Jesus, these are students at Oxford, I would expect a little more out of them than just essentially throwing a temper tantrum because they're not hearing what they want to. But you know what? This has become so common among "progressive" thinkers today that I'm not surprised. Like LW said, open minded my ass.

Now there's barely any truth to that. You hear it from the news media occasionally but the majority of students are willing to listen and people will openly challenge their views. I've seen it myself. People are really more civilized than you're making them out to be here, and its not the 1960s. And this is not common amongst progressive thinkers today, it has been going on since civilization first began.

In Bolton's case, he was a high-profile speaker who represents something people are passionately fighting against. I don't really care in the slightest if he was booed off stage. Once again, the administration has so far created circumstances that are nearly completely closed to debate, so it can be expected that they'll get a bit of it back. Its not the fucking "end of the modern world" or some stupid bullshit that Ayn Rand says.

And once again, I have to say that nobody has to tolerate anything really. I don't have to tolerate the views of people who express rampant homophobia because they are the ones who've created the situation where its become widely acceptable. When it is an uphill battle, people will do any number of things to get the attention they deserve.

I'd appreciate you not taking the words of g_v and attributing his views to ALL of "us guys" who hate the Bush administration.

Thanks.

Like bombing buses.

Glad to hear your opinions are derived only from the opinions of others.




So you don't see the parallels? Or you won't see the parallels? Or by belittling them you are avoiding addressing them?



I was wondering what would cause people to act against their own interests. I wasn't professing to think for these people. I am certainly not qualified for that. I thought I had made that clear, sorry if it was confusing. I was thinking only a person who feels guilty about something, or hates themselves would intentionally hurt themselves. Again, I apologize for my high school level analysis. Perhaps you could explain it to me?



Like..... say..... suicide bombing?

You're right, it was a poor choice of words, I definitely do not attribute that sentiment with everyone who hates Bush on this message board or anywhere else. Sorry about that man.

Well, yeah obviously. How else do they get these ideas? I have yet to hear someone trying to explain it. I haven't even seen an attempt, so at least I'm trying here. So where do they get the idea for suicide bombings, from the fucking Koran? Radical Islam fuels it. Catholicism and Christianity dictated from big palaces in Rome also fueled oppression and violence for over a thousand years. Did it justify violent revolution in return? Probably.



So what, you want me to read Atlas Shrugged then? I really don't have much desire to at all, its obscenely long and I've heard its terrible and not just in the objectivist philosophy she advocates. Conservatives hate it because she advocates atheism (which is actually fine by me), liberals hate it because she advocates rampant and uncontrolled capitalism. I'm only expressing a few criticisms I've heard (and from what I do understand the criticism is quite substatial), and yes, you are right in a sense that I don't really have the ability to form much of an opinion on it. No one has ever made that mistake before, especially on this forum.

from this account, it seems that the student participation was polite and orderly until Bolton made his "witless" statement.

i don't think it is appropriate to heckle a speaker like this, but he showed weakness and his less than appreciative audience pounced. if you want to be a politician, you have to be prepared for heckling and tough questions.

it seems to me that if he had been actually paying attention to the real world, he may not have gotten himself in that situation. the students were prepared with questions, why wasn't he prepared?

G_V, I would like you to write out a well thought out opinion of Mr. Bolton. I want to know why you are filled with so much virulent hate for him, as you are with Bush. Fill that opinion with reasons why you support the UN.

Meh, people heckle you when you're famous. Bolton didn't have to be a pussy about it. If he didn't want the job, Bush didn't have to back door him into the position.