The U.N. is ridiculous, seriously ridiculous

[metadigital]

If, by promoting the dispossessed and providing them with a voice, the UNDP achieves less violence, then I think that perfectly fulfills their mandates (including the over-aching UN mandate).

[SteveThaiBinh]

I'm not that familiar with the UNDP, and I've not seen anything on the UNDP website that couldn't be made to support your or my interpretation of its role. But I know that UNDP is a development agency, and the development agencies in general are doing the kinds of things that I'm talking about.

 

This is taken from UNDP's section on civil society:

Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) can play a critical role in developing the social and political capacities of the poor, increasing their effectiveness in influencing governance institutions and making the latter more responsive to their needs.  UNDP includes as a criterion of support to CSOs, a demonstrated understanding of the social, cultural, political and economic circumstances that shape the lives of the poor. UNDP helps identified CSOs pursue a variety of measures designed to help the poor get their voices heard and reduce their political exclusion.

I think this implies the kind of thing I'm talking about, though I'll agree the language is vague, probably intentionally so in order to give local UNDP officers some discretion in how they apply it in different contexts.

If you pay for a message to be broadcast without doing the exact same thing for the otherside (why not give the gaza settlers mugs then?) then you effectively promote that view. Logo or not.

The point is that UNDP is pro-poor, and is giving money in order to give a voice to the poor. The settlers are not poor (by most definitions), and the state of Israel is certainly not, so UNDP doesn't work there.

Mugs with potentially hostile slogans on them are not the best route to a stable democracy nor are they a wise way to spend the worlds money.

Most things are potentially hostile. A mug saying 'The Palestinians have a right to a state' would be seen as hostile by some in Israel. For the UNDP to reject to slogan which expressed a desire for a Palestinian Jerusalum would have been to undermine its neutrality more, and certainly its credibility when it says it wants to promote freedom of speech in Palestine.

I think the message on the mugs will only take the focus away from a stable democracy and shift it to land, which has clearly led to terrorism and violence. That is not UNDP place.

The message on the mugs is chosen by the people of Palestine to express their own views. We are entitled to disagree with it, but arguably what the UNDP has done is allowed them to express their view in a way that their poverty would otherwise have prevented them from doing. That's good for democracy.

 

I'm specifically not defending the use of the logo, and I think the UNDP does deserve some criticism for that and should certainly review its procedures for monitoring how its funds are used. See, I'm not 'ruthlessly' defending the UN, Mothman.

[kumquatq3]

I'm not that familiar with the UNDP, and I've not seen anything on the UNDP website that couldn't be made to support your or my interpretation of its role.

 

Ok, I'm prepared to agree to disagree.

 

Or you win via perseverance

 

See, I'm not 'ruthlessly' defending the UN, Mothman.

 

well, you did send me an email that said "UN or Die" "

[SteveThaiBinh]

Ok, I'm prepared to agree to disagree.

well, you did send me an email that said "UN or Die"  " 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And you chose wisely, my friend.

[Commissar]

A lot of it has to do simply with anti-American hypocrasy.  Many people repeatedly condemn the U.S. for its actions, no matter what they be, while ruthlessly defending the U.N. and never once condemning it.  With all the scandal they're facing (Oil-for-food, the workers in Africa), they've done a great job in undermining themselves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What about those of us who condemn the US when it behaves badly as well as condemning the UN when it too behaves badly?

 

This is one of those things I've never understood about party politics as we have them. It's perfectly acceptable to disagree with people on your particular side of the political spectrum; indeed, it's often necessary if you want to maintain any credibility.

 

People who say that Bush did the right thing by freezing for seven minutes after being informed of the WTC attacks, for example.

 

Or people who suggest that Clinton lying under oath was no big thing, and not an impeachable offense.

 

I just don't get why people fall into line so easily on things like that. Why they swallow the Kool-Aid, as Bill Maher put it.

[metadigital]

I blame spin.

 

In the age of the soundbite, if an advocate can be quoted with a criticism emitting from their lips, then that's repeated on a loop ad infinitum. Consequently, free speech is stiffled ...

[Walsingham]

I may be comppletely wrong on this, so enjoy shooting me down if it's the case, but...

 

1) The UN has passed resolutions condemning Israeli occupation of both areas.

 

2) If it can pass a resolution that says 'get the hell out' surely it can make coffee mugs which say the same.

[213374U]

Uh... so why the hell is anyone still paying attention to the UN?

[Cantousent]

Nice discussion. While the term Retarded is inherently offensive to some folks, the UN is not a member of these fora. I

[213374U]

Nice discussion.  While the term Retarded is inherently offensive to some folks, the UN is not a member of these fora.  I

[taks]

People who say that Bush did the right thing by freezing for seven minutes after being informed of the WTC attacks, for example.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

oh there's a good one... one that has so many similar incidences for comparison, it's almost silly that you even mention it. no, wait, it is silly. about as silly as calling bush dumber than kerry... i still chuckle.

 

taks

[taks]

There are many problems with the UN, but I hope we don

[Laozi]

People who say that Bush did the right thing by freezing for seven minutes after being informed of the WTC attacks, for example.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

oh there's a good one... one that has so many similar incidences for comparison, i't almost silly that you even mention it. no, wait, it is silly. about as silly as calling bush dumber than kerry...

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

You read this whole thread and that is the thing you choose to comment on?

 

 

Theres a whole big world out there, you know outside of George Bush's pants

[213374U]

the UN is a communist scourge, founded by communists, run by career communists and led by UNELECTED communists.  good thing it is...

"Everyone knows that their ultimate objective

is to corrupt our precious bodily fluids."

[Cantousent]

It seems an unusually large portion of our board population has seen Dr. Strangelove.

 

Notice that the UN was completely powerless in that film also.

[Laozi]

Well boys, I reckon this is it: nuclear combat, toe to toe with the Russkies.

[EnderAndrew]

I may be comppletely wrong on this, so enjoy shooting me down if it's the case, but...

 

1) The UN has passed resolutions condemning Israeli occupation of both areas.

 

2) If it can pass a resolution that says 'get the hell out' surely it can make coffee mugs which say the same.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The UN hasn't said they should get out Jerusalem. The UN wants them to revert to pre-1967 borders.

 

This was still irresponsible.

 

The US also gives "relief" money to Palestine each year. Bush asked that they show us they are spending the money on relief and not terrorism, and the UN ripped Bush for suggesting in any way that we would stop giving relief money to Palestine, and told Palestine they didn't have to show where they were spending US dollars.

 

This demonstrates a trend by the UN to willfully disregard where such funds go.

[Commissar]

People who say that Bush did the right thing by freezing for seven minutes after being informed of the WTC attacks, for example.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

oh there's a good one... one that has so many similar incidences for comparison, it's almost silly that you even mention it. no, wait, it is silly. about as silly as calling bush dumber than kerry... i still chuckle.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Chuckle all you want. Trust me, we're laughing just as much whenever those folks on the right suggest that Bush has anything of an intellect.

 

But you're kind of proving my point. Prior to the actual attacks, if you'd done a poll of the American populace, I bet even the Republicans would've said that when a president is informed the country's under attack, the right thing to do is...something. Something other than sit there. Now that we've seen how things actually went, most of the folks on the right twist themselves into pretty little partisan pretzels trying to defend this. If Kerry had done it, I'd have called him on it. If Clinton had done it, I'd have called him on it. If George Washington or Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln had done it, I'd have called them on it.

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Partisanship gets in the way of reason. No one can honestly believe that this was the proper thing to do, but nobody wants to admit it because it has an air of letting down the side. Why not just say, "Yeah, that was a bad move, but we've recovered from it and I like what he's doing now." But no. Everything has to be morally impeccable, which is rarely how actual reality goes. Crazy.

 

Anyway, I like the UN, but changes definitely need to be made, both in terms of reforming the actual institution and the way America interacts with it.

[EnderAndrew]

This is exactly what I'm talking about.  Partisanship gets in the way of reason.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I couldn't agree more. I think partisan politics is destroying this country. No one cares about admitting mistakes, or doing what is right. Everything is about supporting your party line no matter what, and spinning things to make the other party look bad.

 

If the other party is going to pass legislation that will help this country, you better ruin it before they get a political victory!

[Commissar]

This is exactly what I'm talking about.  Partisanship gets in the way of reason.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I couldn't agree more. I think partisan politics is destroying this country. No one cares about admitting mistakes, or doing what is right. Everything is about supporting your party line no matter what, and spinning things to make the other party look bad.

 

If the other party is going to pass legislation that will help this country, you better ruin it before they get a political victory!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We've found something we can agree on.

[EnderAndrew]

2 years ago, I recall Bush was pushing a bill to lower the cost of medications for senior citizens. With an election coming up, Democrats were fighting the thing to keep Bush from having an apparent victory.

 

Finally Ted Kennedy spoke up and said the whole thing was stupid, because all the bill did was help people. He called for people to stop fighting for one day and try to pass legislation that did some good in the world.

 

I wonder why we can't see more of that.

[Lucius]

People who say that Bush did the right thing by freezing for seven minutes after being informed of the WTC attacks, for example.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

oh there's a good one... one that has so many similar incidences for comparison, i't almost silly that you even mention it. no, wait, it is silly. about as silly as calling bush dumber than kerry...

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

You read this whole thread and that is the thing you choose to comment on?

 

 

Theres a whole big world out there, you know outside of George Bush's pants

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think he does.

 

BTW. What mod was it that said Taks had a lot good stuff to contribute with? LOL

 

As for myself, can't do much, mods are exceptionally slow to give me my 'powers' back.

[metadigital]

Because the system is inherently combatative. Winner takes all. Being in opposition relegates politicians of equal merit to just being the naysayers of whatever the government decides. Which is quite wrong.

 

I can understand where the party system came from, and what it is trying to achieve, but I think it fails as a cogent form of government. Coherent, yes. Effecacious, yes. But then, Hitler got the trains to run on time ...

 

What I'm saying is there needs to be more "conscience" voting. Why this term even exists demonstrates the biggest flaw in Western democracies.

[Cantousent]

I'm the one who said taks is a great member of the community. Of course, I must think that you are also, Lucius, else I wouldn't sign off on all your posts.

 

Some of you might notice that I've changed the word "retarded" to "ridiculous" in the title. I did so because, after reviewing the guidelines, it seems to me that retarded might be an innately offensive term, even if it is leveled at no particular member of these fora. as always, I endeavor to find the least offensive word that best conveys the original meaning.

[Cantousent]

This is exactly what I'm talking about.  Partisanship gets in the way of reason.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I couldn't agree more. I think partisan politics is destroying this country. No one cares about admitting mistakes, or doing what is right. Everything is about supporting your party line no matter what, and spinning things to make the other party look bad.

 

If the other party is going to pass legislation that will help this country, you better ruin it before they get a political victory!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We've found something we can agree on.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Huzzah, and there was much rejoicing!

 

Although I don't know that taking stock of a situation for seven minutes constitutes doing nothing.