18 2 mins 10 yrs

The United Nations General Assembly had a moment of silence for the departed North Korean Dear Leader.  Tells you all you need to know about their moral force these days.  By the way, they didn’t have one for Havel.   

So I propose a Moment of Loudness instead, for those of us in the rest of the World who aren’t saddened to see the Dear Leader buy the farm at long last.  No particular words are needed, a simple laugh or chuckle will do. 

When I pass the UN tonight on my way to the train station I’ll flip them the bird and give Old Kim a Bronx shoutdown.  I’d moon the UN bastards too but there are too many Christmas tourists with video cameras on 42nd Street and I don’t intend to become a Youtube sensation.   Yeah, a moment of loudness seems the right send off for that old demon nutjob.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

18 thoughts on “A Moment of Loudness

  1. President Carter sent his personal condolences to the North Korean people and his best wishes for JR.

    He’s the perfect example of true Liberal Pestilence

  2. DeValera signing the condolence book for Hitler all over again.

    Oh, yeah the Korean Monarchy is right there with him on a pound for pound basis with the original” Austrian “, except that the deaths the Korean monarchy are responsible for are pretty much all ” their own ” people.

    Diplomacy? Yeah, right.

  3. I betcha if John Bolton was still the United States U.N. delegate he would have emitted a very loud fart during the minute of silence.

    Unfortunately, then he would have been accused of employing chemical and biological warfare.

  4. This is a silly post.

    Common sense alone should tell you that any mark of respect by the UNGA for KJI was simply a matter of protocol, a convention that such a vast array of differing and bickering nations have agreed whenever a leader of any one of them dies. It obviously has nothing to do with them genuinely feeling respect for him, or disrespect for “Havel”.

    All nonsense.

  5. It could have been worse Noel. They could have emulated the North Korean people and had a minute’s weeping and wailing and sobbing uncontrollably while pounding fists on the floor.. but I guess they will save that for when I die 🙂

  6. Noel – it is the elevation of protocol over moral sanity that the UN is repeatedly guilty of. I understand many delegations refused to participate which is nice to know.

  7. Mahons, an organisation like the UN can function only if protocol is absolutely neutral.

  8. Noel – Moral neutrality or moral relativism is why the UN does not function. It has institutionalized the corrupt ideal of moral neutrality which protects and bolsters (rather than expose and denounce) such evil regimes as North Korea. The UN provides an unearned moral legitimacy when it ignores reality and replaces its humanitarian origins with immoral neutral protocols. Farce becomes reality.

    A true international organization that promoted the welfare of all would not be morally blind in the face of evil for form’s sake.

  9. Some here play fast and loose with terms such as ” evil “. ( ie Britain is ” evil ” since they have an income tax )

    North Korea is truly evil. They have zero regard for the health and welfare and rights of their people. Zero. In addition to their history of provocation on the Korean peninsula and beyond it, their nuke proliferation footsie with Pakistan, etc.

    I’m not saying that the UN should declare a day of celebration on the bastard’s death. But this was the passing of a very bad man who -literally- starved his own people. The best he deserved was an ignoring of his transition to room temperature.

    If it is diplomacy to honor his death, then let’s put diplomacy itself in the dock.

  10. Mahons, perhaps, but that opens up a whole new area of debate.

    Basically, after WWII it was – I guess – assumed that a forum where leaders of nations can meet on an equal footing would help avoid major wars. At that time there were very few democracies, and so obviously this moral compromise was quite consciously made right from the start. People speaking for certain countries did not have the authority of their people to do so, and thus didn’t have the same moral status as spokesmen for democracies. No matter – democracies and decent people generally don’t go to war against each other anyway; drawing the others into the debate was the whole point of the exercise, and the moral difference simply had to be ignored.

    I think if this underlying approach prevented even one war, it would have been worth while, and I’m sure it prevented much more than one.

    It’s an approach – I mean the approach of making a compromise with what is clearly morally right in favour of a pragmatic solution – that is tried regularly in world politics, often with great success. And I can think of at least two cases where it met with your warm approval!

    If it works, a few minutes silence is well worth a few years of peace. This is the whole point of the UN, not showing the world who is good and who isn’t.

  11. Would the UN had observed silence at the passing of Hitler?

    Are there any limits of any kind as to who one might honor?

    If Idi Amin had died in office should we have honored him?

  12. “Would the UN had observed silence at the passing of Hitler?”

    No, because Nazi Germany was not, and could not have been, a member of any such organisation. It’s the country – or better the notion of the level debating field – that is being honoured with these gestures, not some jerk who died in a train.

    “If Idi Amin had died in office should we have honored him?”

    Well, if standing for a perfunctory 2 minutes is honouring him and if it served the cause of peace, then Yes.
    I dont know about UNGA procedures, but if they always do this 2-Min. stunt for every head of state who dies, but made a single exception for the NK guy, NK would most likely have withdrawn from the body, and the presence of NK in the UN is probably more good than bad.
    In many ways, the UN is like the cop psychologist talking friendly to the nutter with a gun and hostages. They probably all feel ridiculous, but it works.
    But if people want to run the risk of more wars for the sake of moral satisfaction, then by all means dissolve the UN.

  13. Noel – the risk to world security is in NOT condemning objective evil. The UN doesn’t have to put on a fake smile for every tyrant. Indeed, the purpose of the UN was not to act as if all nation’s behavior was acceptable, but to condemn those who acted against our common humanity. Like the Dear Leader.

Comments are closed.