Up late enough to catch Lileks' latest bleat and it's a doozy as usual. He lists the countries pro- and con- the disgusting anti-Israel resolution that was being discussed while a Hamas terrorist murdered 15 people in a nightclub. The thing that struck me while reading the list was not the camps into which the names fell, but the names themselves: Guyana, Mauritius, San Marino (!), Trinidad and Tobago, Djibouti, Sudan, Latvia, Tuvalu, Qatar. I mean, who in their right mind gives one teeny tiny little stuff what the hell Djibouti thinks about anything at all? I'm a fairly well-educated person, and I would be hard pressed to find Djibouti on a map if it didn't have 'Djibouti' written on it in big red letters. I live in Costa Rica. I love the place. Do I expect people in Slovenia to listen when the Costa Rican government says something? Of course not. It's 4 million or so people with a stable and humane democracy and a fairly high standard of living. But it's still only Costa Rica for God's sake. We don't even have an army here. This is the fundamental fallacy of the UN: the idea that if all the nations of the planet get round a table and have a big pow-wow, everything will be hunky-dory. Tuvalu? I've lived in bigger apartments than Tuvalu. I cannot conceive of any situation whatsoever in which the opinion of the UN representative of Tuvalu could be considered to be even marginally important. The whole place could slip beneath the waves tomorrow and the rest of the world would say, "Where? Oh yes. Ho hum. Shame. What about that Ozzy Osbourne, eh?" And that is how it should be. At least Israel has the gumption to stand up and in so many words tell the representative from some insignificant little pissant country like Burma (I refuse to call it 'Myanmar', anymore than I call Holland 'De Koninkrijk der Nederlanden') that he's talking nonsense.
Contact me: d a g g i l l i e s @ y a h o o . c o m