about your sig (IRS has ruled that MS upgrades aren't considered gambling losses) -- are gambling losses really tax write-offs? can you please explain them (if they are.) Thanks.
It just seems ridiculous. Sounds like a perfect example of the power of different lobbies.
I don't know why they are still around. I'll leave that to someone else to answer -- don't even know hwat my opinion is (since i don't know the other argument)
But in terms of profiles -- you can switch back to the default once whatever file is locked gets unlocked. the easiest solution is a reboot, i guess. then you can switch back to the default profile and have your bookmarks.
at least that's been my experience. it has been a long time since it happened, though. maybe you can just delete the lock file, if there is one.
I read the story as this: a university has been studying possible abuses caused by the PATRIOT act but have had trouble finding any. do you slashdot readers have any examples, what with all of your legal experts and dedicated researchers, that GWU researchers just happened to miss? and if you don't, doesn't that mean that there are none and could never be any?
seems like a useless story. if it had just been a blurb about how they are having trouble finding examples, that would have been one thing. but then pretending like total non-experts should now be able to come to final conclusions about it is just ridiculus.
I know this is a little off topic, but I can't find the answer on google.
Is there a way to import OOo documents into MS office?
Is there a way to make a plugin for MS office that would allow this?
I think it would be great if MS office could have a pluggin that could read (and possibly write!) OOo documents. Then you could just have a note in your email containing OOo documents, "if you haven't updated your MS office installation, you should. Click here to allow it to access the files i've attached."
What would be even better is if MS automatically popped up a window saying you have to install a plugin to view the file.
I haven't used MS office (except when helping someone else) since 1997, so I don't know if this is possible. I think it would really help spread the acceptability of OOo documents though.
I think that the OOo document viewer is a good project, too. It is too bad people aren't working on it. If you could have it as a tiny download then it would serve the purpose of not being forced to convert your stuff into pdf or word. it would also be great if the viewer said, "export to word" and then opened up the file in word or WP.
just some thoughts. I'd appreciate some feedback even if you mod me down as OT. thanks!
Yes, I was, thank you very much. We twisted our wiskers and spoke pompously about how Microsoft hadn't given us a good enough cut. It might have cost each of us some money, but it felt so good to screw the f*ckers who wouldn't give us our cut!
what am i missing? i was expecting huge changes and polish between 1.x and 2.x. has there been a lot of under the hood work? will the polish come with 2.1.x like it did with 1.1.x?
some AC (possibly you) posted that i was a google-searching fraud. I replied this:
no -- i just happen to hate it when people call me a liar.
to speak about my seven years in china -- an article i wrote about the chengdu riots.
http://future.state.gov/where/stories/events/chi na _protests.html
just look at the "tansey" part of djtansey -- then search for "tansey" in that article. sorry -- but i'm for real.
you can email me (my email is listed) to see that my name is indeed the same name quoted on that state.gov page. or lookup my email on google to see that it is my name.
no -- i just happen to hate it when people call me a liar.
to speak about my seven years in china -- an article i wrote about the chengdu riots.
http://future.state.gov/where/stories/events/chi na _protests.html
you can email me (my email is listed) to see that my name is indeed the same name quoted on that state.gov page. just look at the "tansey" part of djtansey -- then search for "tansey" in that article. sorry -- but i'm for real.
Oh -- and a good bit of defense. look at my username -- "zhongguotong" is china-comrade (like i explain in my other post it is a term of endearment for foreigners who "get" china). "dalu" means mainland. so "dalutong" means mainland-comrade.
well, then, buddy, you're just wrong. To your first point -- only a fool thinks that the modern democracies in western europe are nascent and need governmental structures to hold themselves together.
and "democracy" ISN'T necessarily any better than dictatorship. if it only represents the majority and then impose their will on the minority then it IS a authoritarian government TO THAT MINORITY.
As for my credentials -- I taught English to Turkmen security guards at the peace corps office in Ashgabat, Turkmenistan.
i speak russian. siz po-ruskii? ya yeast manoga ruski druk.
and turkmen, men america-dan. if you need to know one line, now "halk, watan, turkmenbashi." "people, nation, turkmenbashi" turkmenbashi means "father of the turkmen." he has a gold status of himself that rotates with the sun. there is a local joke, does the statue rotate with the sun or does the sun rotate around the statue.
they have tremendous carpets. there is a fee that you have to pay to the government if you want to marry a turkmen woman. they have recently invalidated all foreign-earned higher degrees. they only have 9 years of school now, and the last two are studying the book "ruknama" -- it is supposed to be about turkmen pride but it is really a book on how to love turkmenbashi, the "president" (for life.) just two generations ago they were still nomatic. they have amazing ahalteke horses that look a little like camels and go long distances without water.
i know _a lot_ about turkmenistan. most of it you couldn't verify anyway... but if you want some turkmen photos just gimme an email address i can send them.
what else did i "falsely" claim... hmm...
china? i was in china when we bombed the chinese embassy in belgrade. i was in chengdu, in SW china. there were crazy riots. some estimates up to 100,000. they stormed the walls and burned-out the consul-generals house. they also used a bike rack to try to bash in the front door (it as glass, but fortunely reenforced glass.) i remember one sign read, "nato=neo-natzi." the consulate is on the south side of the city. i also speak chinese.
wo jiao tan dawei. wo zhu le dalu he taiwan. wo yigong daile qi nian. wo shi yiwei zhongguotong. zhongguo shi wode laojia. wo zui shihuan du luxun.
that means "i'm named tan dawei" (in china the last name is first) "i lived on the mainlain and in taiwan. in total i lived seven years. i am a comrade of the nation. (a term chinese give to foreigners who really "get" china) china is my hometown. my favorite author is luxun."
and what else... tel aviv? let's see... israel is a hard one to prove you went to. again, i have photos... otherwise everything else i could have just gotten off the internet. my apartment was on adam ha cohen and ben gurion. it was about 20 minutes (walking) from the beach. i used to like to walk along the beach past the embassy another 40 minutes to jaffa, the next town over (same administration as tel aviv though.) israel is interesting -- it is so tiny. it is like a 2 hour drive to the sea of galilee. i went up their once and stayed at a kibbutz -- kibbutz amiad. it is beautiful. jerusalem (the old city) is like walking into 300AD rome. very cool. and the notre dame (near the "new" gate and the jaffa gate) is only 65 bucks a night and it is a castle!!! very cool. let's see -- what else. you have to do ul pan to do the masters at tel aviv university (ul pan is the hebrew intensive program) but the masters program is in english... israel is interesting. jerusalem is quite religious, but tel aviv is very secular (porn-distributing DVD rental/buying machines.) and the military is everywhere. you see off-duty military personell walking on the streets with their guns with their clips not in. you get used to it. there was an explosion this past year near where my apartment was on ben gurion. you can probably look that up.
hmm.. what's left? cidcm certificate? that was the easiest. john davies and edy kuafman teach an intensive "multi-track diplomacy and conflict transformation" program. i took it and got a certificate.
That's a fine idea. It's got nothing to do with the UN, however. If it did, China, one of the most oppressive states in the world right now, would not have unlimited veto power over the Security Council.
China has unlimited veto power because in the U.N. countries are supposed to be EQUAL. And China's engagement in the U.N. is part of what makes the U.N. a worthwhile organization. If any country that is as much of a world power as China is isn't in the U.N. then the U.N. means nothing. Oh, and you obviously don't have a global perspective. I spent seven years in China. Most people don't feel, and aren't, opressed.
They United Nations actually does nothing at all to "support fledgling democracies."
If I am watching too much U.N. PR then you're not watching enough. The UNDP does tremendous amounts of work helping young democracies maintain themselves as democracies. I have seen this at work personally in central asia.
The UN does not mediate. In order to mediate, a person or body must have authority. The UN lacks authority. The idea behind the UN is to provide a forum for diplomacy. That's all.
You don't have to have authority (in the power-based sense I assumed you meant) to mediate. Divorce courts provide mediation. Those mediators have no power. They simply help the two parties engage in constructive negotiations and consensus building. And the forum for diplomacy it provides is important -- getting people to talk is half the battle.
Correct. And the previous point was dead wrong. Because the UN continues to refuse to do anything about Darfur. The UN refuses to even call it by its right name: Arab genocide of blacks.
Again you don't get it. The U.N. doesn't decide that it's genocide -- the member states do. We refused to call it genocide for a very long time. Just like we refused to allow any bills that called Rwanda a genocide to pass.
If the U.N. had its own force (read the Charter in full -- you obviously have not.) then it would not take the same amount of legislation to stop such genocides. But again -- I mentioned that the function the U.N. served best was the one that did not have it reacting to violent events forcefully. Since its founding the U.N. has helped resolve dozens of ethnic conflicts. It's not like it just sits around between the events we've noted: Rwanda, Yugoslavia and Darfur.
The UN is not sovereign, and it's not legitimate. It has no legal or moral authority to do anything at all. When you talk of giving a body like that power, you're basically talking about trying to establish global tyranny. Better to live free in an imperfect world than to cede our civil liberties to an unelected, unaccountable world government, yes? Surely you would agree with that.
Why is it not legitimate? Countries join the U.N. with the conditions that membership entails. That gives it legitimacy -- and authority. And it is not global tyranny -- it is like the Articles of Confederation where each sovereign state is allowed to make its own decisions. What giving it power would do is allow it to be more than a body that helps the world decide what they agree should (or shouldn't be allowed to) happen and then depends on each state to carry it out. The U.N. is a pretty conservative legislature. That means it tries to only pass what the _world_ wants. It also means that any power it had would only be authorized to act against what the vast majority of countries considered unacceptable. You might not like what the world decides -- but even most the world's people would rather protect their country's sovereignty than forfiet it so that you could decide what they should or shouldn't have. This method takes a lot longer to get to democracy and freedom but it makes it happen much more surely. WWIII wouldn't get there.
You are committing the fallacy of false equivalence. All other things being equal, of course countries can act unilaterally. That's all countries ever do! All action is inher
Um... Then what the hell is it for? To stop war and generally promote what can be considered the "global" will, as voted on by each member country. Again -- it promotes sovereignty. It is not a legislature for the worlds' people, but for the world's countries.
And no -- another world war would kill many more people. The idea in the U.N. is to halt extreme examples of repression while promoting the democratic norms necessary for democracy. As I said, conflict around the world is only a fraction of what it was in the past. And democracy has prospered largely thanks to the help of the U.N. After all, it is the U.N. that supports fledgling democracies.
Here's some reality for you -- unless you want violent conflict FOREVER you have to have a body like the U.N. to mediate. That comment of yours really scared me. Another WW? Sounds like pre-WWII Germany... nationalistic with a mission to "save" the world and clean it of its unworthy people...
Cough cough Darfur? The previous point had been about how a independent force would allow the U.N. to have succeed in situations like Darfur.
Here's the reality -- if you want things like Darfur not to happen then you have to give the U.N. more power. They are supposed to have a small independent force so that when things like Darfur happens and the U.N. security counsil decides something needs to happen then they have a force tha they can immediately send off. There is no, "who will do the dirty work" talk.
Nothing else will work. If you say countries should be allowed to go in unilaterally, then what was wrong with Iraq going into Kuwait? Or China invading Taiwan to "free" them from their "tyrannical" leaders? Nothing -- because without a U.N. to declare what military actions are just or not you get a world ruled by whichever thugs are the strongest.
And yes, it is a legislative body. Legislative bodies don't have to have the consent of those they govern. They don't have to be elected. There were legislative bodies long before there was democracy.
But that's besides the point. The U.N. represents STATES, not people. If they represented people then they would be the most intrusive government ever. The U.S. doesn't fulfill everything in the Human Rights Charter -- should the U.N. place sanctions on us? Or some poor country whose population has CHOSEN not to have a welfare state?
I think some of your problem is that you have a overly simple idea of what is good and bad, right and wrong. Democracy good? Not necessarily. You can have a "tyranny of the majority" where the majority religion/race/group oppresses the minority. And what does that usually lead to? The dominant party entrenching themselves through laws that make it difficult for them to be removed from office. Sort of like jerrymandering here in the U.S. BTW, it is reasons like these that the U.N. is the world's leading body for monitoring elections to make sure they are legit.
So then what should the U.N. promote of democracy is such a tricky thing? Hell, many academics would argue that any non proportional democracy is not legit anyway. Certainly not have a proportional democracy in a conflict ridden place is just begging for trouble. Why do you think almost no one has adopted our system of democracy?
I'd like to know, what is your background? What is your political party? What is your profession?
I might sound really critical, but I don't mean to be. I just think you need to research a lot of this stuff more than you have. Please feel free to respond to this -- I will happily carry on this discussion.
We have been the leading impetus for inaction because we refused to say genocide for a long time. Colin Powell finally did, against the administration, and then finally the administration followed suit.
first of all, the U.N. isn't a conscious body. it can't be incompetant. if it were, then you'd be claiming that the majority of its members were. that's a different issue.
the secretary general isn't a president. he isn't a CEO. the UN isn't a country or a company. all it is is a forum for all of the world's states to work together to deal with issues (with the original primary purpose to prevent a WWIII.)
Some of the problems the general assembly has agreed to solve has lead to the creation of different agencies. these agencies are remarkably effective. UNICEF is a good example.
most of the failures of the U.N. have been with "its" dealing with pressing current events. the thing is, the U.N is just a forum for discussion. it doesn't have a way to send off a force to stop genocide. member states have to do that. (note: the original charter provided for such a force. it was never created. we were one of its major opponents) so, because of it, it can't react quickly to events. just like the congress can't.
Your conclusion is that "Trying to pass the buck to the US, who is one of 188 member nations, and 1 of 5 veto-weilding security council members, doesn't do anyone any good. In fact, the main problem the UN has is that it's not accountable to anyone."
That doesn't follow logically. If anything, the conclusion should be that "the problem is that the UN doesn't have a force that it can deploy to stop such genocides without having to get each country to commit troops."
and about sudan -- we were the ones blocking the declaration of it as genocide until powell finally said something -- against the bush administration.
I think what he is saying is that the U.N. doesn't have the power to lead missions. They are just the forum for countries to decide how to act. In the original UN charter there was a article that was supposed to create a force that was under U.N. control so that it could respond quickly to things like those that happened in rwanda. that force was never formed.
The U.N. is not supposed to a body that promotes democracy. It never was supposed to be such. It was created so that there would be a forum for managing the world's conflicts so that we wouldn't have to have another world war. This requires that all states have a seat and are treated fairly. Once you drop that you are just begging for a coalition of "unacceptable" states to form and start another world war.
Conflict in the world (especially intra-state) has decreased DRAMATICALLY since the founding of the U.N. Interstate you might credit to the U.S. "winning" the cold war -- but intra-state, which makes up 90% of conflicts now and a little less than that 50 years ago), is largely credited to the U.N. and other international organizations.
Most of the failures of the U.N. people have noted have been due to the lack of power which you claim makes them tyrannical. Rwanda? We were able to veto any declarations of genocide (among others.) If the U.N. had had an independent force (as we _originally_ supported when the U.N. was founded) then such genocides wouldn't have happened. The U.N. works so slowly because it isn't a military -- it is a legislature body. It has to wait for the members to agree. Sort of like our Articles of Confederation. I would support the U.N. having more power (since there are "democratic" checks to stop a Secretary General from abusing power and there is a VERY strong focus on soveriegnty so that the U.N. _can't_ decide that one country isn't legitimate and attack it. if they could, then they could shut down as many of our allies as our enemies...)
This just isn't true -- the UN (under general daliare) saved tremendous amounts of people. they had a tiny force because the situation was not considered a genocide. why wasn't it? largely because the U.S. _refused_ to let the security counsil declare it as one.
Good book: We wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families good documentary: ghosts of rwanda another book: Shake Hands with the Devil : The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda (by gen. Dallaire)
Thank you very much. I get really annoyed by the kind of comments the grandparent make.
To talk on the other side, "they can't tell me whether there will be a terrorist attack tomorrow but somehow they know that we should be attacking Iraq to diminish the threat of terrorism?"
His new book also has the scientists/environmentalists as the bad guys and the corperate dudes as the good guys. I don't know if Crichton is really a balanced source...
The poster forgot to mention a couple things from the spreadfirefox.com story he copied.
One -- mozilla store has a 25% discount to commemorate 25 million downloads.
Two -- coinsforanything.com has made a cool firefox commemorative coin and has given 100 to spreadfirefox.com -- go to spreadfirefox.com to check it out.
I have the 1740 -- works like a charm with the 1710 driver. Have had it about a year. Got it for 150-50 mail in rebate. Worth the money. Of course toner isn't cheap. THe provided toner (which only says 1000 pages) provides approximately that. I have not purchased a regular replacement (3000 pages) and it seems to be living up to its word.
Slashdot Mirror
about your sig (IRS has ruled that MS upgrades aren't considered gambling losses) -- are gambling losses really tax write-offs? can you please explain them (if they are.) Thanks.
It just seems ridiculous. Sounds like a perfect example of the power of different lobbies.
Sounds reasonable to me. Just wish there was some button or dialog when it loaded and couldn't access your profile that could help you regain it.
I don't know why they are still around. I'll leave that to someone else to answer -- don't even know hwat my opinion is (since i don't know the other argument)
But in terms of profiles -- you can switch back to the default once whatever file is locked gets unlocked. the easiest solution is a reboot, i guess. then you can switch back to the default profile and have your bookmarks.
at least that's been my experience. it has been a long time since it happened, though. maybe you can just delete the lock file, if there is one.
just my mangled two cents.
I read the story as this: a university has been studying possible abuses caused by the PATRIOT act but have had trouble finding any. do you slashdot readers have any examples, what with all of your legal experts and dedicated researchers, that GWU researchers just happened to miss? and if you don't, doesn't that mean that there are none and could never be any?
seems like a useless story. if it had just been a blurb about how they are having trouble finding examples, that would have been one thing. but then pretending like total non-experts should now be able to come to final conclusions about it is just ridiculus.
I know this is a little off topic, but I can't find the answer on google.
Is there a way to import OOo documents into MS office?
Is there a way to make a plugin for MS office that would allow this?
I think it would be great if MS office could have a pluggin that could read (and possibly write!) OOo documents. Then you could just have a note in your email containing OOo documents, "if you haven't updated your MS office installation, you should. Click here to allow it to access the files i've attached."
What would be even better is if MS automatically popped up a window saying you have to install a plugin to view the file.
I haven't used MS office (except when helping someone else) since 1997, so I don't know if this is possible. I think it would really help spread the acceptability of OOo documents though.
I think that the OOo document viewer is a good project, too. It is too bad people aren't working on it. If you could have it as a tiny download then it would serve the purpose of not being forced to convert your stuff into pdf or word. it would also be great if the viewer said, "export to word" and then opened up the file in word or WP.
just some thoughts. I'd appreciate some feedback even if you mod me down as OT. thanks!
Yes, I was, thank you very much. We twisted our wiskers and spoke pompously about how Microsoft hadn't given us a good enough cut. It might have cost each of us some money, but it felt so good to screw the f*ckers who wouldn't give us our cut!
I also take issue with copy/paste in and out of OOo. I use Ubuntu and can't copy/paste stuff from evolution to OOo and back.
Also, there is no "save photo as" feature. It would be great to be able to right-click a photo in a document and say "save as."
what am i missing? i was expecting huge changes and polish between 1.x and 2.x. has there been a lot of under the hood work? will the polish come with 2.1.x like it did with 1.1.x?
some AC (possibly you) posted that i was a google-searching fraud. I replied this:
i na _protests.html
no -- i just happen to hate it when people call me a liar.
to speak about my seven years in china -- an article i wrote about the chengdu riots.
http://future.state.gov/where/stories/events/ch
just look at the "tansey" part of djtansey -- then search for "tansey" in that article. sorry -- but i'm for real.
you can email me (my email is listed) to see that my name is indeed the same name quoted on that state.gov page. or lookup my email on google to see that it is my name.
no -- i just happen to hate it when people call me a liar.
i na _protests.html
to speak about my seven years in china -- an article i wrote about the chengdu riots.
http://future.state.gov/where/stories/events/ch
you can email me (my email is listed) to see that my name is indeed the same name quoted on that state.gov page. just look at the "tansey" part of djtansey -- then search for "tansey" in that article. sorry -- but i'm for real.
Oh -- and a good bit of defense. look at my username -- "zhongguotong" is china-comrade (like i explain in my other post it is a term of endearment for foreigners who "get" china). "dalu" means mainland. so "dalutong" means mainland-comrade.
http://www.rcpt.to/lists/rlinetd/msg02200.html -- that's chinese.
look at
http://zhongwen.com/d/164/d106.htm -- scroll down to "dalu"
and
http://zhongwen.com/d/166/d80.htm -- scroll down to "tongzhi"
that is the "dalu" in "dalutong" and the same "tong" as "tongzhi"
believe me yet?
And also, I find it interesting that you don't ever seem to reply to some of my statements.
house of lords has been around since the 11th century, for instance.
the amount of intra-state violence that has decreased in the past 50 years.
things like that.
well, then, buddy, you're just wrong. To your first point -- only a fool thinks that the modern democracies in western europe are nascent and need governmental structures to hold themselves together.
and "democracy" ISN'T necessarily any better than dictatorship. if it only represents the majority and then impose their will on the minority then it IS a authoritarian government TO THAT MINORITY.
As for my credentials -- I taught English to Turkmen security guards at the peace corps office in Ashgabat, Turkmenistan.
i speak russian. siz po-ruskii? ya yeast manoga ruski druk.
and turkmen, men america-dan. if you need to know one line, now "halk, watan, turkmenbashi." "people, nation, turkmenbashi" turkmenbashi means "father of the turkmen." he has a gold status of himself that rotates with the sun. there is a local joke, does the statue rotate with the sun or does the sun rotate around the statue.
they have tremendous carpets. there is a fee that you have to pay to the government if you want to marry a turkmen woman. they have recently invalidated all foreign-earned higher degrees. they only have 9 years of school now, and the last two are studying the book "ruknama" -- it is supposed to be about turkmen pride but it is really a book on how to love turkmenbashi, the "president" (for life.) just two generations ago they were still nomatic. they have amazing ahalteke horses that look a little like camels and go long distances without water.
i know _a lot_ about turkmenistan. most of it you couldn't verify anyway... but if you want some turkmen photos just gimme an email address i can send them.
what else did i "falsely" claim... hmm...
china? i was in china when we bombed the chinese embassy in belgrade. i was in chengdu, in SW china. there were crazy riots. some estimates up to 100,000. they stormed the walls and burned-out the consul-generals house. they also used a bike rack to try to bash in the front door (it as glass, but fortunely reenforced glass.) i remember one sign read, "nato=neo-natzi." the consulate is on the south side of the city. i also speak chinese.
wo jiao tan dawei. wo zhu le dalu he taiwan. wo yigong daile qi nian. wo shi yiwei zhongguotong. zhongguo shi wode laojia. wo zui shihuan du luxun.
that means "i'm named tan dawei" (in china the last name is first) "i lived on the mainlain and in taiwan. in total i lived seven years. i am a comrade of the nation. (a term chinese give to foreigners who really "get" china) china is my hometown. my favorite author is luxun."
and what else... tel aviv? let's see... israel is a hard one to prove you went to. again, i have photos... otherwise everything else i could have just gotten off the internet. my apartment was on adam ha cohen and ben gurion. it was about 20 minutes (walking) from the beach. i used to like to walk along the beach past the embassy another 40 minutes to jaffa, the next town over (same administration as tel aviv though.) israel is interesting -- it is so tiny. it is like a 2 hour drive to the sea of galilee. i went up their once and stayed at a kibbutz -- kibbutz amiad. it is beautiful. jerusalem (the old city) is like walking into 300AD rome. very cool. and the notre dame (near the "new" gate and the jaffa gate) is only 65 bucks a night and it is a castle!!! very cool. let's see -- what else. you have to do ul pan to do the masters at tel aviv university (ul pan is the hebrew intensive program) but the masters program is in english... israel is interesting. jerusalem is quite religious, but tel aviv is very secular (porn-distributing DVD rental/buying machines.) and the military is everywhere. you see off-duty military personell walking on the streets with their guns with their clips not in. you get used to it. there was an explosion this past year near where my apartment was on ben gurion. you can probably look that up.
hmm.. what's left? cidcm certificate? that was the easiest. john davies and edy kuafman teach an intensive "multi-track diplomacy and conflict transformation" program. i took it and got a certificate.
so there is my background. what's yours again?
That's a fine idea. It's got nothing to do with the UN, however. If it did, China, one of the most oppressive states in the world right now, would not have unlimited veto power over the Security Council.
China has unlimited veto power because in the U.N. countries are supposed to be EQUAL. And China's engagement in the U.N. is part of what makes the U.N. a worthwhile organization. If any country that is as much of a world power as China is isn't in the U.N. then the U.N. means nothing. Oh, and you obviously don't have a global perspective. I spent seven years in China. Most people don't feel, and aren't, opressed.
They United Nations actually does nothing at all to "support fledgling democracies."
If I am watching too much U.N. PR then you're not watching enough. The UNDP does tremendous amounts of work helping young democracies maintain themselves as democracies. I have seen this at work personally in central asia.
The UN does not mediate. In order to mediate, a person or body must have authority. The UN lacks authority. The idea behind the UN is to provide a forum for diplomacy. That's all.
You don't have to have authority (in the power-based sense I assumed you meant) to mediate. Divorce courts provide mediation. Those mediators have no power. They simply help the two parties engage in constructive negotiations and consensus building. And the forum for diplomacy it provides is important -- getting people to talk is half the battle.
Correct. And the previous point was dead wrong. Because the UN continues to refuse to do anything about Darfur. The UN refuses to even call it by its right name: Arab genocide of blacks.
Again you don't get it. The U.N. doesn't decide that it's genocide -- the member states do. We refused to call it genocide for a very long time. Just like we refused to allow any bills that called Rwanda a genocide to pass.
If the U.N. had its own force (read the Charter in full -- you obviously have not.) then it would not take the same amount of legislation to stop such genocides. But again -- I mentioned that the function the U.N. served best was the one that did not have it reacting to violent events forcefully. Since its founding the U.N. has helped resolve dozens of ethnic conflicts. It's not like it just sits around between the events we've noted: Rwanda, Yugoslavia and Darfur.
The UN is not sovereign, and it's not legitimate. It has no legal or moral authority to do anything at all. When you talk of giving a body like that power, you're basically talking about trying to establish global tyranny. Better to live free in an imperfect world than to cede our civil liberties to an unelected, unaccountable world government, yes? Surely you would agree with that.
Why is it not legitimate? Countries join the U.N. with the conditions that membership entails. That gives it legitimacy -- and authority. And it is not global tyranny -- it is like the Articles of Confederation where each sovereign state is allowed to make its own decisions. What giving it power would do is allow it to be more than a body that helps the world decide what they agree should (or shouldn't be allowed to) happen and then depends on each state to carry it out. The U.N. is a pretty conservative legislature. That means it tries to only pass what the _world_ wants. It also means that any power it had would only be authorized to act against what the vast majority of countries considered unacceptable. You might not like what the world decides -- but even most the world's people would rather protect their country's sovereignty than forfiet it so that you could decide what they should or shouldn't have. This method takes a lot longer to get to democracy and freedom but it makes it happen much more surely. WWIII wouldn't get there.
You are committing the fallacy of false equivalence. All other things being equal, of course countries can act unilaterally. That's all countries ever do! All action is inher
Um... Then what the hell is it for? To stop war and generally promote what can be considered the "global" will, as voted on by each member country. Again -- it promotes sovereignty. It is not a legislature for the worlds' people, but for the world's countries.
And no -- another world war would kill many more people. The idea in the U.N. is to halt extreme examples of repression while promoting the democratic norms necessary for democracy. As I said, conflict around the world is only a fraction of what it was in the past. And democracy has prospered largely thanks to the help of the U.N. After all, it is the U.N. that supports fledgling democracies.
Here's some reality for you -- unless you want violent conflict FOREVER you have to have a body like the U.N. to mediate. That comment of yours really scared me. Another WW? Sounds like pre-WWII Germany... nationalistic with a mission to "save" the world and clean it of its unworthy people...
Cough cough Darfur? The previous point had been about how a independent force would allow the U.N. to have succeed in situations like Darfur.
Here's the reality -- if you want things like Darfur not to happen then you have to give the U.N. more power. They are supposed to have a small independent force so that when things like Darfur happens and the U.N. security counsil decides something needs to happen then they have a force tha they can immediately send off. There is no, "who will do the dirty work" talk.
Nothing else will work. If you say countries should be allowed to go in unilaterally, then what was wrong with Iraq going into Kuwait? Or China invading Taiwan to "free" them from their "tyrannical" leaders? Nothing -- because without a U.N. to declare what military actions are just or not you get a world ruled by whichever thugs are the strongest.
And yes, it is a legislative body. Legislative bodies don't have to have the consent of those they govern. They don't have to be elected. There were legislative bodies long before there was democracy.
But that's besides the point. The U.N. represents STATES, not people. If they represented people then they would be the most intrusive government ever. The U.S. doesn't fulfill everything in the Human Rights Charter -- should the U.N. place sanctions on us? Or some poor country whose population has CHOSEN not to have a welfare state?
I think some of your problem is that you have a overly simple idea of what is good and bad, right and wrong. Democracy good? Not necessarily. You can have a "tyranny of the majority" where the majority religion/race/group oppresses the minority. And what does that usually lead to? The dominant party entrenching themselves through laws that make it difficult for them to be removed from office. Sort of like jerrymandering here in the U.S. BTW, it is reasons like these that the U.N. is the world's leading body for monitoring elections to make sure they are legit.
So then what should the U.N. promote of democracy is such a tricky thing? Hell, many academics would argue that any non proportional democracy is not legit anyway. Certainly not have a proportional democracy in a conflict ridden place is just begging for trouble. Why do you think almost no one has adopted our system of democracy?
I'd like to know, what is your background? What is your political party? What is your profession?
I might sound really critical, but I don't mean to be. I just think you need to research a lot of this stuff more than you have. Please feel free to respond to this -- I will happily carry on this discussion.
We have been the leading impetus for inaction because we refused to say genocide for a long time. Colin Powell finally did, against the administration, and then finally the administration followed suit.
WTF?
first of all, the U.N. isn't a conscious body. it can't be incompetant. if it were, then you'd be claiming that the majority of its members were. that's a different issue.
the secretary general isn't a president. he isn't a CEO. the UN isn't a country or a company. all it is is a forum for all of the world's states to work together to deal with issues (with the original primary purpose to prevent a WWIII.)
Some of the problems the general assembly has agreed to solve has lead to the creation of different agencies. these agencies are remarkably effective. UNICEF is a good example.
most of the failures of the U.N. have been with "its" dealing with pressing current events. the thing is, the U.N is just a forum for discussion. it doesn't have a way to send off a force to stop genocide. member states have to do that. (note: the original charter provided for such a force. it was never created. we were one of its major opponents) so, because of it, it can't react quickly to events. just like the congress can't.
Your conclusion is that "Trying to pass the buck to the US, who is one of 188 member nations, and 1 of 5 veto-weilding security council members, doesn't do anyone any good. In fact, the main problem the UN has is that it's not accountable to anyone."
That doesn't follow logically. If anything, the conclusion should be that "the problem is that the UN doesn't have a force that it can deploy to stop such genocides without having to get each country to commit troops."
and about sudan -- we were the ones blocking the declaration of it as genocide until powell finally said something -- against the bush administration.
I think what he is saying is that the U.N. doesn't have the power to lead missions. They are just the forum for countries to decide how to act. In the original UN charter there was a article that was supposed to create a force that was under U.N. control so that it could respond quickly to things like those that happened in rwanda. that force was never formed.
Bull.
The U.N. is not supposed to a body that promotes democracy. It never was supposed to be such. It was created so that there would be a forum for managing the world's conflicts so that we wouldn't have to have another world war. This requires that all states have a seat and are treated fairly. Once you drop that you are just begging for a coalition of "unacceptable" states to form and start another world war.
Conflict in the world (especially intra-state) has decreased DRAMATICALLY since the founding of the U.N. Interstate you might credit to the U.S. "winning" the cold war -- but intra-state, which makes up 90% of conflicts now and a little less than that 50 years ago), is largely credited to the U.N. and other international organizations.
Most of the failures of the U.N. people have noted have been due to the lack of power which you claim makes them tyrannical. Rwanda? We were able to veto any declarations of genocide (among others.) If the U.N. had had an independent force (as we _originally_ supported when the U.N. was founded) then such genocides wouldn't have happened. The U.N. works so slowly because it isn't a military -- it is a legislature body. It has to wait for the members to agree. Sort of like our Articles of Confederation. I would support the U.N. having more power (since there are "democratic" checks to stop a Secretary General from abusing power and there is a VERY strong focus on soveriegnty so that the U.N. _can't_ decide that one country isn't legitimate and attack it. if they could, then they could shut down as many of our allies as our enemies...)
This just isn't true -- the UN (under general daliare) saved tremendous amounts of people. they had a tiny force because the situation was not considered a genocide. why wasn't it? largely because the U.S. _refused_ to let the security counsil declare it as one.
Good book: We wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families
good documentary: ghosts of rwanda
another book: Shake Hands with the Devil : The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda (by gen. Dallaire)
Thank you very much. I get really annoyed by the kind of comments the grandparent make.
To talk on the other side, "they can't tell me whether there will be a terrorist attack tomorrow but somehow they know that we should be attacking Iraq to diminish the threat of terrorism?"
His new book also has the scientists/environmentalists as the bad guys and the corperate dudes as the good guys. I don't know if Crichton is really a balanced source...
The poster forgot to mention a couple things from the spreadfirefox.com story he copied.
One -- mozilla store has a 25% discount to commemorate 25 million downloads.
Two -- coinsforanything.com has made a cool firefox commemorative coin and has given 100 to spreadfirefox.com -- go to spreadfirefox.com to check it out.
I have the 1740 -- works like a charm with the 1710 driver. Have had it about a year. Got it for 150-50 mail in rebate. Worth the money. Of course toner isn't cheap. THe provided toner (which only says 1000 pages) provides approximately that. I have not purchased a regular replacement (3000 pages) and it seems to be living up to its word.