Nerf-Coated World

Hans, Sweden, and the rest of "Old Europe" have this little problem: they are fading into irrelevance, like 18th C. Spain. I don't worry about what they say, you shouldn't either, and at some point or another even the fabulists working at the New York Times will understand: Americans do not care whether Old Europe approves of us.

And the UN comes more and more to resemble the Holy Roman Empire: that entity was not holy, Roman nor an empire, and the UN mostly does not contain real nations, and they clearly are not United.

Posted by: Jeff P. at June 11, 2003 02:13 PM

Good stuff. It's nice to have an occasional reminder as to why my grampa decided to come to America. Makes me want to call him and say thanks.

Em

Posted by: Eric Meyer at June 11, 2003 02:50 PM

I had a weird dream. A bunch of people the other side of a big ditch were looking at me... they were looking down their noses at me. Strange looking it was. So strange I had to look for myself. I looked in the water only to discover they were looking up my nose at me. Short people, very small people, they were. I turned and walked away... and went back to work.

Posted by: Bill at June 11, 2003 03:15 PM

When I first read that part of the interview, it was so obtuse that I thought it had to be a bad translation.

Posted by: T. Hartin at June 11, 2003 03:16 PM

Are you illiterate? I mean really. Hans Blix specifically said the US doesn't like the UN because it does have power, while Europeans believe it has no power.

Your explanation for the US's distaste for the UN is incompatible with Hans Blix's explanation for the US's distaste, and could not be an underlying motive.

Nearly every square inch of Manhattan island is dedicated to one purpose -- a distinctly American purpose -- and that one purpose alone: PRODUCTIVE WORK. If you're going to park your cars in its garages and use up space in its buildings, you'd by god better be doing something worth the space you're taking up. In the real world, you'd be evicted in a month for living that kind of life, and yes, we the American people resent that.

Wow, I had no idea that every inch of central park was dedicated to PRODUCTIVE WORK. Hopefully soon they'll be closing down battery park, the metropolitan museum, times square and all the other places in NYC that do not contribute to PRODUCTIVE WORK. It will make manhatten a much more enjoyable place to live, I'm sure.

I'm also glad to know you can be evicted based on how much PRODUCTIVE WORK, and even better PRODUCTIVE WORK is defined as work towards the geopolitical goals of neo-con wankers, as opposed to, say, coordinating aid support for tens of millions of people world wide. Totally useless things like that.

Oh, and thanks for having the courage to speak for all Americans. After all we are all exactly the same, and thus clearly exactly like you.

Posted by: WinstonSmith at June 11, 2003 03:28 PM

Yes, Winston, we DO mean PRODUCTIVE WORK. The UN's glorious record in providing aid and preventing starvation in Rwanda, the Congo, and every other place where tinpot dictators coincidentally protected by the UN from Evil Western Developed World Capitalists speaks for itself. For last month's award-winning triumph, check out the PRC veto of WHA observer status for SARS-afflicted (because of the excellent epidemic management in the PRC) Taiwan.

And you know what? Without us evil US capitalists to eternally foot the bill for the anti-American ravings at the UN, a lot more people would starve or be butchered by the aforementioned tinpot dictators that the UN embraces to chair its "human rights" organizations.

But those kinds of considerations mean nothing to the parasite NGO classes.

Posted by: Doyen at June 11, 2003 03:58 PM

Why would a guy calling himself Winston Smith be for big bureaucratic undemocratic government, run by unelected elitist professional bureaucrats who slobber over socialism because it keeps the masses poor and stupid, keeps them in power, and makes them rich. These people are why I will fight for, and practice, my 2nd amendment rights vigorously until the day I die.

This would make Orwell vomit.

Posted by: D2D at June 11, 2003 04:21 PM

Amen, Doyen!
And, by the way, Paleo-Cons have even less use for the UN.

Posted by: Al at June 11, 2003 04:40 PM

I enjoyed the post.

Yes, much of Manhattan is devoted to residential housing, parks, museums, and simply to transportation. But all of the above are intended to be used by and towards a "productive public".

I suppose if you are stuck-in-the-mud Leftie who fell in love with the UN (when did THAT happen?) you can simply find the fault in the argument and ignore the rest and pat your self on the back as you pad off in yer berkinstocks to trade a bag of pot for another issue of Village Voice.

But I enjoyed the post.

I consider myself a Liberal. But I cant stand an organization that allows dictatorships to thwart democracies. I have no use for an organization that puts slaving states and terrorism sposors on its human rights, poverty, and non-proliferation committees.

And the world would need a lot less of those aid organizations if the UN faught tinpot dictators around the world. Some of the worst hunger isnt caused by war or natural disaster, but by the policies of tyrants. Mugabee starves his people on purpose, as does Kim Jong Il.

Similarly much of the third world is in debt to the first because their dictators went into debt buying weapons, cars, yaghts, and summer homes from Europe and the US. Forgiving their debt would be a fine thing to do if they are NOW democracies, but if not, then you ENCOURAGE tyrants to put their countries in hawk.

If the UN would limit voting to democratic members and would keep autocracies off its committees, we tax paying and voting Americans might have more stomach for them.

Until then, I think they are a waste of real estate.

Posted by: sblafren at June 11, 2003 04:59 PM

I must be illiterate, too, because I have no idea what Winston's talking about in his first two sentences. Matt makes it pretty clear that he thinks Blix's opinions about Americans vs. Europeans are wrong. Why does disagreeing with Hans Blix make you illiterate?

Posted by: Merrijane at June 11, 2003 05:07 PM

"The genius who "failed" to find Hussein's WMD programs" made me laugh.

That must make Bush and Rumsfeld clairvoyant since they are obviously having so much success.

I think the important thing for you -cons to remember from that transcript is that Blix admitted that the "Allies" leaned on his people to write damning reports on Iraq. Just remember that one when impeachment time comes.

And stop using "Americans" like you own the word. You are not any more American than me or any of the PRODUCTIVE people I work with, and you certainly do not speak for us.

Posted by: Dantana at June 11, 2003 06:17 PM

Taking a deep breath. Exhaling. OK. I’m much better. Alpha waves bumpin’ and heart reset at normal rhythm.

I shouldn’t read about these things because like others have already mentioned, the old Europeans are irrelevant and becoming more so everyday. Functionaries like Blix adore “process” and will use it to avoid confronting anything slightly controversial or difficult. Their morality is the morality of a nihilistic, anti-religious, socialist system that despises free market capitalism, is jealous of American power and influence and resents the fact that the only reason that they can even entertain their fantastical notions of a world ruled by diplomacy and niceness is because American cities had Soviet warheads pointed at them for the greater part of the mid to late 20th century. They have been able to ignore reality because we have paid for their protection. I’ve lived in Europe. It’s a pretty place, sort of like a museum. However, like a museum it is the setting for a dead or dying culture, consumed by its own socialist fantasies.

And Dantana, no one is trying to “own” the word American. Your paranoia is apparent and I understand how you can be frustrated that socialism, “Leftism”, nihilism and blame-America-first are gasping their last breaths.

Trust me, no freedom loving conservative or Liberal would dare speak for a leftist or anyone resembling one. However, I suggest finding someone to speak for you and all of your PRODUCTIVE friends, because the last time I checked you weren’t exactly gaining adherents to your ideology of desperation and intolerance.

Hooray for the good guys! Too bad for the socialists.

Posted by: Patrick at June 11, 2003 06:51 PM

For last month's award-winning triumph, check out the PRC veto of WHA observer status for SARS-afflicted (because of the excellent epidemic management in the PRC) Taiwan.

If it wasn't for the any-member veto power in the security counsel, there would be some pretty heavy sanctions on Israel right now. How would you feel about that?

In any event, China's playing politics with SARS and the WHO is absolutely disgusting. If it were up to me the US would leave the WHO in protest. It was China's bungling that caused the SARS problem to become so widespread in the first place.

I must be illiterate, too, because I have no idea what Winston's talking about in his first two sentences. Matt makes it pretty clear that he thinks Blix's opinions about Americans vs. Europeans are wrong. Why does disagreeing with Hans Blix make you illiterate?


Blix said that the Europeans think of the U.N as " the U.N. is a lot of talk at dinners and fluffy stuff" Blix said that the US thinks of "alien power". However, Matt said that the underlying reason the US dislikes the UN is because it sees the UN in the same way that Europeans see it only the have a different attitude about it. The two positions are contradictory.

Imagine that I did not like a car because I thought it was too slow, and you thought it was an ugly color. Then you said something like "I don't like this car, it's ugly." And then you said something like "Don't you get it, jerk, it's too slow because it's only got four cylinders!"

Posted by: Winston Smith at June 11, 2003 07:55 PM

Why would a guy calling himself Winston Smith be for big bureaucratic undemocratic government, run by unselected elitist professional bureaucrats who slobber over socialism because it keeps the masses poor and stupid, keeps them in power, and makes them rich. These people are why I will fight for, and practice, my 2nd amendment rights vigorously until the day I die.

This would make Orwell vomit.

What would make Orwell vomit? The UN? The fact that I defended Hans Blix? Do you even know anything about him other then that he wrote 1984? Have you even read 1984? What the hell does the U.N have to do with your second amendment rights?

And what the hell with conservatives needlessly widening the debate? I defend Hans Blix therefore I'm a Birkenstock wearing stoner UN loving village voice reading socialist who wants to take away your guns.

I mean seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?

And also, the UN is not a government. I don't really know why you think it is.

Posted by: Winston Smith? at June 11, 2003 08:17 PM

Winston, you aren't illiterate you just lack the mental acuity to understand an arguement. Your car analogy makes no sense, whatever. What a maroon!
There is nothing contradictory in matt's statement. You are, frankly, a stupid troll lacking in imagination and critical thinking. An 'alien power' can still consist of people who actually don't do anything. They have only as much 'power' as we care to give them. The UN does not further the causes they purport to support, they just suckle at the teat of the world's taxpayers while spouting their good intentions let's-all-love-another rhetoric. The 2nd Amendment statement a poster made earlier... you don't get that?? That's to keep pinheads like you from stripping us of our rights as God's creatures. You'd usurp our COnstitution to give the UN control over our lives. Hell, let's enact a monarchy. King Livermoron I, I love it!
I view the U.N. as an 'alien power' that really does nothing of value to me, my nation or the cause of democracy. I wish that they would sink into the East River. Nothing contradictory there.

You think the UN is a government??!? Well, the most accurate statement you've made is "then I don't know what it is". Whom does it govern? What laws have they enacted? Without the consent of the USA, where is their executive power?
.
Your car is slow.
And you are ugly.
Nice use of an Anglo-saxism, btw.

Posted by: Livermoron at June 11, 2003 08:41 PM

Oh before you rant about my misquoting you...
You didn't quite say what I put in quotation marks. I am sure you don't "know what [he] thinks it is". In fact I am pretty sure you don't know much at all.
Say hello to you PRODUCTIVE friends.

Posted by: livermoron at June 11, 2003 08:46 PM

This year Taiwan applied for membership in the W.H.O. and was again rejected, despite changing the application to be for mere associate status (same as Tokelau, pop. 1400 has) and as "Taiwan Health Authority."

But don't worry, during the meeting the Chinese said they are taking care of Taiwan. Immediately after the meeting the Taiwanese media asked how exactly they were taking care of 23 million Taiwanese. One of the Chinese delegation turned around at the camera and actually snarled "Who cares about you!" Chinese: Shei Li Ni Men.

This is now running in a loop as part fo the pro-independence party advertisment to have a referendum on WHO membership next year.

For the record, both the USA and Japan supported Taiwan's bid this year, with the USA actually speaking publicly at the WHO meeting in favor. Japan was a silent supporter. Europe. while actively opposing Taiwan's bid last year, this year did not opposed but did not favor.

In any event, the USA sent expert teams from the CDC to assist Taiwan. One team member even contracted SARS. I don't recall a single French team on the ground here in Taiwan.

What is more damning is that in 1998, 78 children died of enterovirus because Taiwan did not have access to the WHO.

If you are interested in Taiwan issues, you can read the English language newspaper (left wing and pro-indpendence) the Taipei Times. www.taipeitimes.com

Posted by: Aaron at June 11, 2003 09:22 PM

Winston Smith,

I suspect you and I would disagree about many things political, but you are the single intelligent person here.

Posted by: osasha at June 11, 2003 10:52 PM

There have been numerous resolutions against Israel, and it has flouted every one of them. Though I personally would like to see Israel reigned in, this just goes to show the UN's increased irrelevence.

Blix may say that Americans see the UN as an alien power, but he is completely wrong about that. Americans just see it as a useless and pointless waste of money and time. The reason for this is the "dinners and fluffy stuff", which is all the UN does (as opposed to actually getting stuff done). Europeans tend to appreciate idiotic diplomacy and process more than Americans.

Americans, as has already been mentioned, also object to the unfair, undemocratic, and illiberal sway held at the UN by dictatorships and the like.

Posted by: Pio at June 11, 2003 11:35 PM

So, Blix is a condescending incompetent, and his tongue is a polyp. I can go with that.

Europeans equate corruption with sophistication and have therefore become ineffective and irrelevant. I can go with that too.

The UN is full of Europeans and European-think. Now there's a problem. What to do, what to do? There should be a better use for prime real-estate than housing a den of thieves and backstabbers. Maybe a new google-plex?

Posted by: publicserf at June 12, 2003 12:37 AM

If the UN were only a debating society I might not be so much against it. It provides a (relatively) cheap way for places like Tuvalu to keep up with what is going on elsewhere and express their own opinions with at least a hope of being heard.

It is when the UN claims to act that it fails miserably. It is simply not set up or funded to do work in the real world, and its claims of vast experience and competence are laughable. Yes, some of its subsiiaries like WHO and UNICEF do much good work despite this - but they also make sizeable messes for which they are not held accountable. Real governments get in trouble when they goof, not awards.

Posted by: John Anderson at June 12, 2003 04:31 AM

Pio - Tell me of ONE, just one, UN SC resolution that calls on Israel to do anything unilaterally.

But i am glad you brought Israel up - if you want to understand everything that is wrong with the UN, just take a look at how Israel (the only ME democracy) is treated by this disgusting, anti American, anti semitic, anti capitalist organization.

I personally would love to see the UN turned into middle income housing and see all those "diplomat" parking spots given back to the citizens of NYC.

Posted by: hen at June 12, 2003 08:13 AM

"If it wasn't for the any-member veto power in the security counsel, there would be some pretty heavy sanctions on Israel right now."

Heh. No, there wouldn't. Without the Security Council veto, there would have been an end to the noxious charade that is the UN long ago, with all of the real powers pulling out to preserve and pursue their national interests and only the wanking whining poseurs who need the UN to enhance their feeble 'legitimacy' hanging around to 'debate' meaningless fluff. Only they'd be gone, too, once the gravy train was downsized and any hint of real work to be done arose.

"How would you feel about that?"

I'd feel downright *fabulous*.

Posted by: CElkins at June 12, 2003 08:43 AM

Glad to see that there are still good liberals like sblafren who think clearly enough not to buy into the anti-American gobbledygook that passes for reasoned debate on the left so often these days. We need a vigorous debate between conservatives and liberals, but with reps from both sides who aren't so ideological that they make hideous excuses for excrable fascist oppressors like Saddam Hussein (or right-wing death squads in Latin American). The UN does do some good relief work and the WHO was pretty effective in the SARS epidemic. Let's look at the actual track record of UN "peacekeepers":

Rwanda--genocide
Bosnia--ethnic cleansing ("mini-genocide")
Kosovo--ditto
Cambodia--decidedly mixed record
Bunia--slaughter in the making with a pathetic
French and Guatemalan force sent only to save face. It's not very effective to announce that
you won't be disarming anyone before you even get to the trouble spot, and that you'll be ending your intervention no later than 30 September 2003! If I were a militiaman I'm be trembling in terror the same way Saddam trembled at the tough words of Blix. Or, you could simply wait three months before you start slaughtering people.
East Timor--semi-success, but only because Australia backed up the UN with credible threat of force.

And if you think the U.S. reconstruction effort sucks, imagine if the U.N. was handling it. It would be six months before any U.N. rep was actually in Baghdad--don't want to compromise any bureaucrats' safety! Better to do something imperfectly and be willing to adjust en route (US in Iraq) that be fatally unwilling to do anything at all. I'm sure all those families with members in mass graves (of children!) are so angry with gas lines and looting that they want the monster back in power. Even complaining under Saddam was an offence punishable by death or imprisonment. Oh, and getting your tongue cut out for saying something critical of the powers that be or getting your ears removed for telling a joke.

Posted by: DCalto at June 12, 2003 10:54 AM

Winston, Osasha, etc.
did any of you ever take a reading comprehension test? from Winston, "Are you illiterate? I mean really. Hans Blix specifically said the US doesn't like the UN because it does have power, while Europeans believe it has no power."

Blix says, "There are people in this administration who say they don't care if the U.N. sinks under the East River, and other crude things," he continued, adding that some in Washington viewed the international organization as an "alien power, even if it does hold considerable influence within it."

That does not mean that USA thinks UN has power -- it means that Blix does not understand why USA dislikes the US even though *USA* has a significant amount of power within the UN. As far as he is concerned USA should revere the UN because via its influence on the UN, USA could wield power in the world. This is opposed to people in D.C. who thinks USA wields its own power, and does not need UN as a proxy.

Blix goes on to say, "Such feelings don't exist in Europe, where people say that the U.N. is a lot of talk at dinners and fluffy stuff,"

Here he agrees that both Europe and USA see UN as an impotent costly behemoth, except that Europe is content to let USA pay for the privilege of hosting it, while some people in USA are not too thrilled about having a supra-national organization telling them what to do.

It clear, Winston, that you have a problem with how UN is organized. It is clearly unfair that the stupid veto rule prevents people from showing outrage at Israel's actions. It is not like they can declare war on it, or something. Wait a second -- they did, 4 times. But they would not gang up on it just to improve the odds -- wait again -- they did, 4 times. But if they lose, Israel should give up its gains because that's what countries who *win* wars do -- oops it gave Sinai back twice, and it even had oil.
UN charter has very weak checks & balances system, and the veto vote of the permanenet Security Council member is the only real check on the 1-country 1-vote rule of the General Assembly. GA could vote tomorrow to pass a resolution to expropriate all means of production from Europe as reparation for its colonial past. I am sure France will not use its veto because it would not be good to disagree with a completely rediculous, biased, and skewed pseudo-democracy that is GA.

Posted by: Con Tendem at June 12, 2003 10:59 AM

Nietzsche would have hated the UN and that's enough for me.

And to Winston, your liberal indignation was amusing me at first until you had to start swearing. Personally, I curse like a longshoreman, but never when I want people to take me seriously in a debate. Oh, and before you spout any more about all the good deeds the UN is doing 'round the world, take a look at some of its current major accomplishments, foremost being the way it's handling Kosovo.

Posted by: El Bob at June 12, 2003 11:26 AM

I have the latest news to all UN haters: UN was set up with an active prticipation of US government on US territory at great expense to US taxpayers in 1940-s. US government is not going to pull out of UN or cancel subsidies to it in any foreseeable future. Apparently, US government finds UN useful for something.

As to "productive" use of Manhattan real estate, I bet there are all types of long corporate meetings going on in NYC all the time, and whether they are more "productive" than UN debates, it's a toss at best. Those who would disagree with me on that, probably never saw a Dilbert cartoon.

Posted by: osasha at June 12, 2003 12:12 PM

to: Con Tendem

I help you to understand basic UN SC veto mechanics: it is double-edge sword that cuts both ways. Thanks to it Israel is protected, because US will be sure to veto any serious anti-Israel measures. Also due to it PRC can play games with SARS inspections. Members of UN SC were given this vote as a great privilege to be used unconditionally. There is a great power to do good and evil granted to those who can use it. Praising good vetoes and swearing at bad vetoes is useless. For example, it is useless to abuse France because they threatened to use their veto power on Iraq: they have the right to use veto any way they like, this right was bestowed on them at creation of UN, and they don't owe anybody any excuse or explanation in how they use it. If these principles are violated, veto power will fade away, for good and ill.

Your passion in defence of Israel is commendable, but you need to clarify your thinking.

Posted by: osasha at June 12, 2003 12:46 PM

to: El Bob

Can you please explain how did you arrive at the conclusion that "Nietzsche would have hated UN".

Posted by: osasha at June 12, 2003 12:48 PM

Simple: the UN is a tool for the weaker nations of the world to lord some sort of power over the stronger. The weak banding together to limit the strong is a concept Nietzsche opposed. Given, there's really not a lot of power vested in the UN GA to wave around and thanks be that the stronger nations had the forethought to create the SC to keep things from getting out of hand. The UN is fine as a tool to enhance and further diplomacy but it's completely objectionable when there's an attempt to use it as some sort of international governing body.

Posted by: El Bob at June 13, 2003 01:14 AM

Thank you.

Posted by: osasha at June 13, 2003 01:20 AM