I think you'd have a hard time showing that the politicians that criticize the UN are the corrupt ones. In fact, they seem to be among the most up-front and honest. The ones that love to pile one bureaucracy on another seem the most corrupt. Of course, that's just my observation, and it's just as unprovable as yours, I suppose.
If your bank robbery were to somehow correct a systemic injustice, sure. I take it you would have prosecuted those that conducted lunch-counter sit-ins? You would have thrown the uppity protesters that used a white drinking fountain in jail? Sometimes the only way to deal with corrupt authority is to tell it to go screw itself. In this case, though, it's an organization without authority. Hopefully it'll start to figure out that that it needs to behave more objectively before the US simply withdraws completely.
That is a pretty damn hilarious rule. It's the sort of thing that prompts howls of, "Are you f@)#ing serious?" from anyone that hears it. Anyway, I agree-- it's one of those "anything to criticize the US" matters. Oh, well.
I didn't, and those organizations have become so hostile to some of the member nations that it's about time to start telling them to go screw themselves. Beyond that, the only remaining option is to withdraw, which also wouldn't break my heart.
Good. They should use it. Just like every other nation uses their powers in their own self-interest. Why should any nation bow to the UN against their own interest? They shouldn't. The UN exists to server, not to rule. It has precisely no authority.
I really don't see the problem. Member nations are autonomous. Any compliance with demands from the World Court, the UN or the WTO is strictly voluntary for any nation. Their real authority is precisely whatever the member nations decide. That's not just for the US-- it's for any member nation of any such organization. Orders from the UN and similar groups really just don't matter unless they can back them up-- and they can't. I prefer it that way, honestly. The UN and WTO are a bit too socialistic for my tastes, but that's just me.
Maybe I just missed it, but I'm not seeing anywhere that Verio has stated their reasons for shutting down the site. Have they done so and I just missed it? I'm not sure that this is a clear case of censorship, and I admit that I'm a little skeptical when someone starts screaming "censorship". But I also get skeptical when someone claims that information flow is completely unimpeded, so maybe I'm just an all-around skeptical bastard. Anyway, silence on the part of a host is not conclusive, since some simply won't reveal customer information, which includes TOS violations.
Anyway, my question is just as I asked... has Verio stated their reasons for doing this?
Slashdot Mirror
I think you'd have a hard time showing that the politicians that criticize the UN are the corrupt ones. In fact, they seem to be among the most up-front and honest. The ones that love to pile one bureaucracy on another seem the most corrupt. Of course, that's just my observation, and it's just as unprovable as yours, I suppose.
If your bank robbery were to somehow correct a systemic injustice, sure. I take it you would have prosecuted those that conducted lunch-counter sit-ins? You would have thrown the uppity protesters that used a white drinking fountain in jail? Sometimes the only way to deal with corrupt authority is to tell it to go screw itself. In this case, though, it's an organization without authority. Hopefully it'll start to figure out that that it needs to behave more objectively before the US simply withdraws completely.
That is a pretty damn hilarious rule. It's the sort of thing that prompts howls of, "Are you f@)#ing serious?" from anyone that hears it. Anyway, I agree-- it's one of those "anything to criticize the US" matters. Oh, well.
I didn't, and those organizations have become so hostile to some of the member nations that it's about time to start telling them to go screw themselves. Beyond that, the only remaining option is to withdraw, which also wouldn't break my heart.
Good. They should use it. Just like every other nation uses their powers in their own self-interest. Why should any nation bow to the UN against their own interest? They shouldn't. The UN exists to server, not to rule. It has precisely no authority.
I really don't see the problem. Member nations are autonomous. Any compliance with demands from the World Court, the UN or the WTO is strictly voluntary for any nation. Their real authority is precisely whatever the member nations decide. That's not just for the US-- it's for any member nation of any such organization. Orders from the UN and similar groups really just don't matter unless they can back them up-- and they can't. I prefer it that way, honestly. The UN and WTO are a bit too socialistic for my tastes, but that's just me.
Maybe I just missed it, but I'm not seeing anywhere that Verio has stated their reasons for shutting down the site. Have they done so and I just missed it? I'm not sure that this is a clear case of censorship, and I admit that I'm a little skeptical when someone starts screaming "censorship". But I also get skeptical when someone claims that information flow is completely unimpeded, so maybe I'm just an all-around skeptical bastard. Anyway, silence on the part of a host is not conclusive, since some simply won't reveal customer information, which includes TOS violations.
Anyway, my question is just as I asked... has Verio stated their reasons for doing this?