Say Anything Blog

Orin Kerr at Volokh disagrees

UN fecklessness begins at the top.  Kofi Annan continually attempts to set up a moral equivalency between Hezbollah and Israel, with a strong preference for Hezbollah…

Disagreement doesn’t change the essential truth.

Robert108…The truth is. The UN is worthless!

Dunno, Z; they seem to be worth something to the slaveholders, terrorists and dictators around the world.  How big was that “Oil for Food” ripoff again?

Thanks for the Kerr link RBB. I’m not sure why people like David Kopel come up with such nonsense as it only serves to trivialise their side of the argument. Writing for his audience I suppose.

And then there is dumbya closest ally weighing in…

The UN created Israel, then turned around and began attempting to destroy it. How does that make the UN worth a single, greasy fuck?

RBB, MikeA,

Having read Professor Kerr’s rather smallish post, and all the accompanying comments, it seems to me that Kerr is not explicitly disagreeing with Professor Kopel’s assessment of United Nations’ guilt, but merely the fact that this one incident does not support Kopel’s blanket indictment of the UN.  The discussion of the difference between “accessory after the fact,” “facilitation,” “abetting,” and how different jurisdictions treat each of these distinctions is fascinating, but largely unhelpful to a layman.

Fact is, in roundly stating “Kerr disagrees” with not specifics, you, RBB, are making exactly the same mistake, the same sort of generalization, that Kerr accuses Kopel of making.

Interestingly enough, Kerr does not argue any of the facts presented by Professor Kopel, merely Kopel’s overly broad (in Kerr’s opinion) indictment as a result of those facts… in effect, acknowledging the truth of what is alleged about the UN “peacekeepers” and the Hezbollah terrorists that paid them.  Its rather like acknowledging that his client may be guilty of assault, loan-sharking, gambling, and running a criminal enterprise, but that doesn’t mean that a R.I.C.O. indictment is warranted.

Israeli girls write messages

Foreign Office minister Kim Howells has criticised Israel’s bombardment of Lebanon, while on a visit to Beirut.

He said Israel had not carried out “surgical strikes” and attacking the Lebanese nation was not the answer.

So, Kim Howells is either misinformed or a partisan liar.  Still no mention of the illegal and immoral Hez terrorists.  No problem there, I guess.

The UN created Israel, then turned around and began attempting to destroy it. How does that make the UN worth a single, greasy fuck?

THE UN did not create jews long oppressed around other places in the world create Israel, through their cunning and hard-work.

I remember fro my high school history class on rampant even here in the US anti-semetism was.  It was the rule before and during WWII, to the point accounts of Hitler’s horrendous actions were buried deep inside newspapers.

(I believe this was in great part to Christians been the dominant religion here in the US and influential Christian been wary of Jewdaism)

wikipedia always comes in handy:
history of Israel

What American thought of the Jews (the KKK still hates them)

We Americans hated the Jews:

In 1939 a Roper poll found that only thirty-nine percent of Americans felt that Jews should be treated like other people. Fifty-three percent believed that “Jews are different and should be restricted” and ten percent believed that Jews should be deported. [1] The United States’ tight immigration policies were not lifted during the Holocaust, news of which began to reach the United States in 1941 and 1942 and it has been estimated that 190 000 - 200 000 Jews could have been saved during the Second World War had it not been for bureaucratic obstacles to immigration deliberately created by Breckinridge Long and others.[2]

Rescue of the European Jewish population was not a priority for the US during the war, and the American Jewish community did not realize the severity of the Holocaust until late in the conflict. Even after the Holocaust, the US did not change its immigration policies until 1948.

Over 550,000 American Jews served in the US armed forces during World War II, or about 50% of all American Jewish males between 18 and 40.

 

The jews has overwhelmingly been a minority in most Western countries, which prior to WWII were highly hated and discriminate against. Yet dispite this Jews have been able to succed..some other aught to learn from that.

Jews have thrived for the main reason that they have used their intellect well, rather than dwelling on how much other hate them.

Bat One…I equate Kopel’s position with the idea that the actions of individual American soldiers imply a hidden official policy or agenda. I can’t say for certain that the UN doesn’t have an untoward relationship with Hez but I would certainly wager the milk money that it doesn’t.

So, Kim Howells is either misinformed or a partisan liar.

I doubt he’s misinformed since he was in Beirut and saw it for himself. It must be nice living in a world where the good guys never do bad things.

MikeA: Never made that generalization, but thanks for trying to put words in my mouth.  It’s the one-sided nature of the facts he chooses to discuss that I’m talking about.  It might also be an artifact of rbb’s usual cherry-picking to let others speak for him.  He never gives us the whole story, so I might be angry with the wrong person here.  Kim Howells might have told the whole truth, for all I know, but we only got the partisan agendized material from the leftie.  Wouldn’t surprise me.

MikeA: What on Earth does the corrupt and greedy UN have to do with the actions of individual US soldiers?  Are they in any way comparable, except in some deranged mind? I breathlessly await your answer.

I breathlessly await your answer.

Pleasuring your self again r?

this should be striking to hear,

Jews were often persecuted, and were not allowed to vote in some states until the late 19th Century. Anti-Jewish sentiment started around the time of the Civil War, when Jews were often blamed by each side for aiding the other, Ulysses Grant even issued an order (quickly rescinded by President Lincoln) of expulsion against Jews from the portions of Tennessee, Kentucky and Mississippi under his control. (See General Order No. 11)

Anti-Semitism continued to rise, and even to become normalized, through the late 1800s and first half of 1900s. It took primarily four forms: verbal or written criticisms of Jews that included the dissemination of vicious stereotypes; calls for law restricting Jewish immigration or influence; violence against individual Jews, and de facto social and economic discrimination. Jews were discriminated against in employment, access to residential and resort areas, membership in the clubs and organizations, and in tightened quotas on Jewish enrollment (numerus clausus) and teaching positions in colleges and universities.

Anti-Semitism in America reached its peak during the interwar period. The rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s, the anti-Semitic works of Henry Ford/strong> (that’s the guy who founded Fort Motor Company), and the radio speeches of Father Coughlin were emblematic of the virulent attacks on the Jewish community

Anti-Semitism in the United States has rarely turned into physical violence against Jews. Some more notable cases of such violence include the attack of Irish workers and police on the funeral procession of Rabbi Jacob Joseph in New York City in 1902, lynching of Leo Frank in 1915, assassination of Alan Berg in 1984, and the Crown Heights riots of 1991. Sometimes, during the race riots, as it was a case in Detroit in 1943, Jewish business were targeted for looting and burning.

Following the Second World War and the American Civil Rights Movement, anti-Jewish sentiment waned. One notable instance of institutionalized anti-Jewish sentiment during the 20th century, however, was the practice of redlining neighborhoods when considering FHA mortgage loans on the basis of a Jewish presence in the neighborhood. Later, American anti-Semitism underwent a modest revival in the late 20th century.

(source: wikipedia)

Europe didn’t fair any better when it comes to discriminating and hating the Jews

Jews have prevailed despite all of this, ..others should learn

No. MikeA is intelligent.

MikeA,

A worthy answer.  A distinction without a difference.  But then three quarters of the law and legal preceedings consist of exactly that.

As for your rhetorical wager, save your milk money.  I do not honestly have enough regard for the UN, or its honesty or its competence, to care much one way or the other what the UN’s position is on anything, or whether it is only remotely biased or flagrantly so.  As presently constituted, organized, and (mis-) managed, the UN is a totally corrupt, failed institution, which I would be perfectly willing to do without… once they’ve paid their damn parking fines.

r108 says

Never made that generalization, but thanks for trying to put words in my mouth.

I didn’t try to put words in your mouth.

and

It might also be an artifact of rbb’s usual cherry-picking to let others speak for him. He never gives us the whole story, so I might be angry with the wrong person here. Kim Howells might have told the whole truth, for all I know, but we only got the partisan agendized material from the leftie.

Could be although RBB did give you a link so you could listen to the Minister say it himself. Perhaps you could follow the link before you speak nastily of a fellow commenter.

and

What on Earth does the corrupt and greedy UN have to do with the actions of individual US soldiers? Are they in any way comparable, except in some deranged mind? I breathlessly await your answer.

Kopel’s proof of UN/Hez complicity is the action of some UN soldiers in Lebanon some 6 years ago. I reject this as evidence just as I would reject misdeeds by some individual American soldiers as evidence of some nefarious American policy. Feel free to breathe again.

If the subject is limited to UN complicity in aiding and abetting Islamist terrorists, instead of broader instances of corruption, incompetence, rape and sexual assault, trading relief supplies for sexual favors, particularly among children, dereliction of duty, and ignoring exactly those activities that the UN and its personnel were sworn to prevent or attend to, then please explain how all those Hezbollah fighters with all those Syrian rockets and missiles happen to be in southern Lebanon firing across the border, in clear violation of UNSCR 1559, in the first place?  How did all those tunnels get dug under the watchful eyes of all those 2000 blue helmets?  What exactly have those UN “peacekeepers” been doing for the past 6 years anyway?  Perhaps they aren’t really soldiets at all… but are some of those IAEA nuclear inspectors who did such a fine job in North Korea for 10 years of so.

In any event, when we are finished with UN complicity in Lebanon, perhaps we can turn a baleful, skeptic’s eye toward Gaza and the West Bank… starting here, and here, and here, for instance.

Um… no, Mike. It wasn’t the actions of those soldiers six years ago. It was the consequences of those actions: the willful and deliberate attempt to conceal what happened, involving denial, falsification of evidence, suppression of evidence, destruction of evidence, and a host of other offenses. The UN denied the soldiers’ roles, removed items from the kidnappers’ abandoned vehicles, lied about having videotape of the whole incident, and then only gave Israel a censored version of that tape—with any way of identifying the kidnappers.

They also didn’t complain about the kidnappers using UN-marked vehicles and UN uniforms to deceive the kidnapped victims.

And all—all—of it was done at the direct instructions of Kofi Annan.

It is a perfect parallel for Watergate. Nixon didn’t participate in the initial burglary. Hell, there’s a decent theory he didn’t even know about it before the fact. But it was his covering it up that eventually led to his downfall. In this case, Annan’s actions after the kidnapping serve as all the testimony any reasonable person could need to decide he is decidedly biased against Israel.

J.

One final note: the kidnapped soldiers were eventually killed, and their bodies exchanged for live Hezbollah prisoners. But we’ll never know if they might have been alive and if Israel could have rescued them had it not been for the UN’s obscene obstructionism, when it put covering its own ass ahead of their lives.

Jay,

Is that the same Kofi Annan who was formerly head of UN peacekeeping operations… the one who gave the order for all those Blue Helmets to “stand down” and return to barracks, while some 800,000 people, mostly women and children were slaughtered in Rawanda, many simply hacked to death with machetes?  That Kofi Annan?

MikeA: When you wrote this:  “It must be nice living in a world where the good guys never do bad things.”

You at least implied that I believed what you wrote, and that you were attributing that belief to me.  I have never said that the good guys never do bad things, so I reiterate that you were putting words in my mouth.

I have had such a bad experience with rbb’s links that I rarely follow them anymore. Nevertheless, I did follow this one, and found nothing new.  Howell failed to mention the Hez hiding behind civilians and refusing to let them leave, which is undoubtedly the major cause of civilian casualties, not Israeli imprecision or bad intention.  It is a very one-sided view, with the required condemnation for “disproportionate response”, which I consider idiotic.  It’s not a soccer game, after all.  In war, the winner makes the most disproportionate response.

As far as the other thing is concerned, about the soldiers, apparently I misunderstood, and stand corrected.

Bat One:

I’m not 100% certain, but the resemblance is remarkable.

J.

r108…just a little snark on my part. Feel free to ignore that one.

Jay Tea…thanks for the clarification. It clearly was a poor show by the UN.

Sorry, Mike, but “poor show” means, to me, that they tried to do the right thing. There’s not a single shred of evidence that at any point in the whole sorry mess that they thought of anything but themselves, and if that meant some Israelis had to die and their murderers went free, well, that’s just the price to be paid for preserving their sterling reputations and cushy jobs.

Under American law, they would be charged criminally with obstruction of justice, willful destruction of evidence, aiding and abetting fugitives, and accessories after the fact to kidnapping and murder. The actual soldiers could be charged with accessories before the fact.

I don’t think that can be sloughed off with a “poor show” remark.

J.

Oh, and I missed a word or two—the videotape the UN eventually turned over had the kidnappers’s faces digitally blurred, ruining any chances of identifying them. Because, you know, that might be considered “taking sides.”

Jay Tea…it was a disgraceful performance.

Again, Mike, I get the impression you’re minimizing the situation. It wasn’t “shameful” or “disgraceful”  or “poor,” it was appalling and criminal. As far as I’m concerned, until a full and thorough accounting is made, and the parties behind the coverup (which continues to this day—they STILL haven’t released the uncensored videotapes) have been made to pay for their malfeasance, Israel has absolutely NO reason to believe anything the UN says, to trust them in the least, or give them any credibility or credence or respect in the least.

J.

J…I could rend my garments if it would convince you that I find the episode horrible and the subsequent UN handling of it truly dispicable.

dd…the American government helped some Nazis relocate after WW2. If I follow your logic then I should conclude that the American government was in collusion with the Nazis. Fortunately I don’t so I don’t.

This comment from Mike astounds me.

It is amazing how, when confronted with something that runs contrary to their pre-conceived notions, people like Mike and Realityboob are willing to grasp at any contrary argument regardless of how weak or thin.

It’s almost like they’re saying “Oh whew, glad I don’t have to admit the right wing nutters are correct on this one.  I’ll just hold on to this one dumb argument and close my eyes and ears to everything else.”

Seriously, look at Mike to into minimization mode the minute evidence surfaces to implicate the UN in actively taking the side of Hezbollah, or at the very least allowing that terror group to attack Israel while simultaneously calling on Israel to not fight back.

It is this inability on the part of the left (as represented here by Mike and Realityboob) to condemn acts that are really and truly wrong that infuriates me.

I mean, the evidence indicating that the UN was pretty much actively helping Hezbollah is real and convincing, but let’s just forget about it and pretend that Israel can trust the UN to deal with the situation in Lebanon fairly, shall we?  Just like we are to forget the fact that UN workers rape refugees in Africa and the fact that high-ranking UN officials are being sent to jail for taking bribes from Saddam Hussein, among other people.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

the American government helped some Nazis relocate after WW2. If I follow your logic then I should conclude that the American government was in collusion with the Nazis. Fortunately I don’t so I don’t.

An absurd point.  If we were in collusion with the Nazis we never would have gotten into WWII.

The evidence presented above indicates a historical pattern of UN assistance (or at least looking the other way) with Hezbollah.  When you couple this with the UN’s constant condemnation of Israel for daring to fight back against Hezbollah you see just how corrupt and out of whack the world body has become.

Yet as long as the UN has apologists like Mike around I guess we can’t count on any change.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

The evidence presented above indicates a historical pattern of UN assistance (or at least looking the other way) with Hezbollah.

The evidence presented above supports the claim that Indian soldiers on duty as UN Peacekeepers allowed Hez to kidnap Israeli soldiers in exchange for bribes and that the UN has refused to come clean about it.

Rob can talk about my preconceived notions and dd can refer to my rose coloured glasses but the facts, as laid out by Kopel, are still the facts and leaps in logic are still just that.

dd…I honestly understand what you’re saying but I’m not sure what the point would be. I’m on record here as supporting the need for the UN, supporting most of its work and conceding and/or recognising that it is badly in need of reform if it going to play a useful role in the world. You identify American interests with the interests of the world at large and view the existence of a meaningful UN as a restriction on America pursuing its interest. My posting an article or two isn’t going to change your mind on that so I don’t.

I’m here precisely because I do disagree with what constitutes mainstream thought at SA. That’s why you find my input so negative…I don’t expect a meeting of the minds on many issues and I don’t waste your time or mine by clogging up the threads with outside scholarship. If you ever question where I stand on any given topic then just ask…I’m not hiding anything.

MikeA: To cut to the chase, I don’t understand why you support the UN at all, considering that it has not only failed in trying to create world peace, but actually seems to use its exalted position to perform truly disgusting criminal acts against helpless people.  What good is it?  It’s time to scrap the concept, IMO.  Good intentions going in, no value coming out, and lots of negative things as a result.

MikeA,

You are certainly well within your rights to avoid the generalizations about the United Nations’ dubious performance, and instead focus exclusively on the specifics of the incidents cited by the rest of us.  Just be sure to think twice the next time you are inclined to offer similarly critical generalizations about America’s current administration and policies.

Think twice… then duck.

Yes, the national leftie bureau of shifting standards.

docdave

mainstream thought at SA.
That’s a good one, Mike. What I see here at SA is a lot of independant thinkers who are anxious in determining the truth of things.

and magically come to adopt similar positions on most issues. If you are suggesting that there isn’t a dominant point of view or mainstream thinking at SA then I join Rob in his astounded state.

Bat One…I did offer my opinion of the specific example cited and I also ducked.

r108…nothing to say, I just wanted to include you in my response.

Mike A…Main stream thinking at Say Anything? This blog is all over the place. Many of us agree on certain subjects. BUT, there are several issues that the jury is still out. One of the beautiful things about SA is that we all are able to form our own oppinion. Personally, there are a few characters here, that sometimes I wish I could speak as eloquently as they do. On the subject of the UN? Well, most people who have a head on their shoulders, with eyes, and ears would be able to see how the UN is worthless. Great idea, BUT worthless!

I only speak for myself, Mike, when it comes to the UN. Not anyone else’s “stream” of thought or opinion. My personal expirence with the UN in 3 countries on 2 continents. Look at Africa and then attempt to defend the UN to me. Look at the Oil for Food program and attempt to defend the UN to me. Look at the malfeasance, graft, and outright corruption inside the UN and attempt to defend it to anyone, period. The UN has stood by and allowed Hizbullah to build extensive military works all thru southern Lebanon. They have stood by and watched as millions of people were murdered in numerous ways in several countries in Africa, Asia, and South America. And yet, you defend them. That is why people are not especially nice to you here at SA, not because we have a “stream” of thought. Wake up, Cannuck.

MikeA: Thanks for the mention.  You might assume that there is some “mainstream philosophy” here at SA, because many independent thinkers have arrived at the same conclusions independently.  When there is no collusion, such as a thought dictatorship like DK, that usually means that there is an underlying truth, rather than a conspiracy of some sort.  Just a thought.  In the case of the UN, their job performance speaks for itself, and only a hardcore partisan would ignore it, IMO.

TH9

That is why people are not especially nice to you here at SA, not because we have a “stream” of thought.

Au contraire…I have no complaints about my treatment here. I may be a contrarian in the SA context but I’m certainly no masochist.

r108

When there is no collusion, such as a thought dictatorship like DK, that usually means that there is an underlying truth, rather than a conspiracy of some sort.

I think that birds of a feather flock together…conservative opinions predominate at SA and liberal opinions predominate at DK. No big mystery there I wouldn’t think and certainly no conspiracy at work.

I never expected the fact that SA attracts conservative thinkers and American patriots of a certain persuasion to be so controversial but you fellows (and ZZ of course) never fail to surprise.

America helped Japan after the war too. We help everyone. It is what we do. That doesn’t mean we are in cahoots with their shenanigans…

MikeA: You somehow forgot to mention the UN’s dismal and criminal record of performance.  What do you make of that?  Is the utopian idea of the UN so appealing to you that, like Walter Duranty with the Soviet Union, you just ignore the realities?  Just curious.  For me, it’s not about ideology, it’s about whether something works or not.

MA. Your views of the UN reflect a common fault of the liberals.  You judge the group by their state intentions rather than the reality.

Certainly in my younger years I also thought of the UN as a “good thing”.  However as I became aware of what they actually do I obviously turned against them in my thinking.

You state that the UN needs reform?  On that we would agree except I am quite convinced that the needed reform will never happen for the simple reason that there is not the political will to make it happen.

The majority of the UN member-states are dictatorships.  We certainly couldn’t expect that these countries would support democratic reforms.  In fact the UN has devolved into a thugocracy where the UN exists to help the thugs stay in power.

What political force might change that?

Certainly you may be concerned that some of the humanitarian missions that the UN performs (which we pay for more than our share) would not happen.  That’s perhaps a valid concern.  However I think we’d find a way to do those chores better without the UN bureaucracy. 

I would recommend that we replace the UN with a coalition of free countries.

TW: It’s also worth mentioning that the UN is the source of power on the international scene for the thugocracy.  Without it, they would be backward countries with no prospects.  With it, they have clout, which is the last thing they should have.  The only “reform” the UN needs is for it to cease to exist, and an immediate cutoff of funding from the free world.

If not the source of their power it’s certainly the source of their legitimacy.

Here’s the deal: the world is still laboring under the delusion of Marxist ideology in that the source of world unrest is believed to be class struggle, and that the poorer nations need a big organization to lift them up and give them equal clout, then things will be better.  Since the original premise is false, the results have not followed through.  Instead, we see that backward nations are that way because they are ruled by social dictatorships, which prevent progress by their citizens, compounding the problem.  Giving them clout, then, has simply made small-time thugs into big-time thugs, with negative repercussions for everyone.  I rest my case.

Here’s the deal: the world is still laboring under the delusion of Marxist ideology in that the source of world unrest is believed to be class struggle, and that the poorer nations need a big organization to lift them up and give them equal clout, then things will be better.

Close, but not quite right, PART of the world is stupid enough to to labor under that delusion, there’s no shortage of very noisy useful idiots. They support it because they are failures at life who are too lazy or stupid or a combination of the two to succeed. The only way they can hope to be the equal of anyone decent is drag everyone decent down to their slimy level.

davedoc, I think that the United Nations, while being a “grand ideal” was flawed at the start for the same reasons why it can’t be reformed.

Dictatorships do not have higher priciples that you can appeal to.

How many Countries are apart of the UN? ...

The idea of the UN would be ideal, IF there were not so many kooks. Think of Sudan or Venezuala??? Those are just two!

Expanding the scope of Natoe (a little Dan Qwayle spelling) might be a nice group to start with.

Doc…How do countries like Sudan explain the starvation and devestating circumstances? How does Iran explain what’s his name (Amahdnejad) and his deafness to what the rest of the world thinks? Or do they have to explain? OR, does it even matter? It is as if the USA is expected to comply with all the rules. BUT, to heck with the rules for other countries? The Geneva convention and the human rights activist’s jump all over the USA. I haven’t noticed them going after other countries?

I think it is only right to mention that while I disagree with much of what Mike A says here, he has never failed to impress with his wit and his courtesy.  It’s one thing to be a contrarian of sorts.  It is quite another to be foul-mouthed pain in the ass, as most DU and DK khommenters tend to be.

One thing is for sure. The UN is good for Hezbollah. So, I guess the UN isn’t totally worthless??? NOT!

I agree! Mike A. is a great debater, a true gentleman, and a pleasure to disagree with.

Doc…Exactly!

Zsa Zsa,

The primary reasons that you hear groups such as HRW, and Amnesty International, and the UN, and all the other statist, leftwing NGO’s going after the US in particular is first because the US is the last bastion of individual liberty, individual rights, individual accomplishment, and individual worth, and as such we are, at the very basest level, their very worst enemy.  We are the antipathy of the very group think victimology they traffic in, and in the end, we scare them.

The second primary reason is a complex melding of success and guilt.  Individual dreams and aspirations, individual effort, and ultimately, individual achievement and success are what the US is all about, and the proof is the simple fact that no other country in the world has the immigration that we do.  More people from more places across the globe try to come here than anywhere else on the planet.  This is not nationalistic rah-rah razzle-dazzle, but simple fact, as obviously the demand far exceeds any reasonable supply.  Our immigation is admittedly out of control.  And for all our problems, all that success translates into a whole lot of wealth… way more wealth than any other nation.  And that’s where the guilt comes in.  For if the NGO’s can make Americans feel guilty enough, they believe that we will contribute more and more of our wealth to make that guilt go away.  What they don’t understand, and certainly don’t care to admit, is that we are also the most generous people on earth… a fact demonstrated over and over and over again.

In the end, Zsa Zsa, they are wary of our freedoms, jealous of our success, and arrogant enough to think that their lack of pecuniary motive entitles them to leadership and authority… as well as our financial support.

The evidence presented above supports the claim that Indian soldiers on duty as UN Peacekeepers allowed Hez to kidnap Israeli soldiers in exchange for bribes and that the UN has refused to come clean about it.

The fact that the UN has refused to come clean on this matter is not evidence for support of the world body’s support for Hezbollah?

How about the fact that Annan, after finally relenting and letting Israeli officials see the video tape of the incident, insisted that the faces of the Hezbollah kidnappers be edited out?  What does that count for?

Further, how does this incident fit into the UN’s larger stance on the Israeli/Hezbollah conflict?  Hezbollah fights using terror tactics and protects itself by putting citizens in harms way, yet routinely it is Israel that gets the majority of criticism from the UN.

But just keep your eyes shut Mike.  Keep minimizing the UN’s involvement in this.  Keep your fingers in your ears - la de da - while you maintain that Israel and America are the real problems in the world.

I mean, if we’d just stop fighting against the terrorists all our problems would go away right?

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

BW: Nice go, but no dice.  There are plenty of limousine liberals in this country that subscribe to the Marxist concept of foreign relations, like Barbra Streisand and her chums in Hollywood.  My take on that is that they didn’t do anything to be successful, in the sense of work; they had the right look, a good voice, or they were in the right place at the right time.  So, they feel guilty, and think those of us who have worked for our wealth should feel guilty, as well.  We don’t.

She works hard for the money
so hard for it honey.

You think records, TV , movies producer/director,
writer composer aren’t work?

href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbra_Streisand”> 40+ year careerhref=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbra_Streisand”> 40+ year career

Woof: I worked in the music business; it isn’t work, the way most of us understand it.  Early in her career, she wasn’t such a raging liberal.  Now, she just cashes the royalty checks.  Back in the seventies, I was talking with a record company exec, and he told me Bob Dylan collected over $100,000 a year just from The Times They Are A’Changin’.  Nice work.

Lots of work
She Knows how to turn a dollar.
Many artists are robbed.
Full disclosure; I find her singing wanting.

corrected link
40+ year career

WOOF

You are absolutely right.  Developing a talent, particularly a creative or artistic talent IS hard work, and a successful career in the entertainment field takes talent, determination, and more practice than most of us would be willing to spend at anything (except, maybe, sex).

On the other hand, a 40 year career, however successful, in the area of make believe and illusion, of sets and scripts, and storyboards, and special effects, of pretense and pretending, hardly qualifies one as an expert commentator on reality.

When one’s entire professional life, success, fame, fortune, and noteriety are all the result of a well developed talent or facility for make believe, fiction, and the unreality of Hollywood, however hard earned, it ought to give the rest of us pause to consider the source, before assuming that just because the individual is successful or famous, they know what they’re talking about.  Most likely, they don’t.

Woof: Again, that dog won’t hunt.  Musicians work when they want and how much they want.  If they wanted to punch a timeclock or be in an office 8-12 hours a day, they would be doing it.  Most entertainment types think they are smarter than the average bear, and that they are superior to you and me.  They tend to be irresponsible and drug-dependent, although not 100%.  They couldn’t behave the way they do in a regular job and stay employed.  For the most part, they are legends in their own mind.

I think part of the problem with celebrities and their political views (though certainly not all of it) isn’t really the fault of the celebrities themselves but rather of the “cult of celebrity” our media in this country has created.

If you’re someone like Kanye West or Barbara Streisand it’s hard not to think that your views on domestic or foreign policy matter more than the average person when your every utterance on the subject is the subject of no small amount of media frenzy.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Woof: “Many artists are robbed.”  Ah, yes, the “poor and oppressed” leftie mantra.  Many artists, I would say the majority, are overcompensated.  I remember the millionaire band Metallica whining about downloading, while they counted their millions.  I haven’t seen any musicians selling pencils on street corners as a result of file-sharing, either.

To be perfectly fair to Metallica, downloading music without paying for it does constitute theft of intellectual property.  Metallica (most notably Lars Ulrich, who was most outspoken on the subject) didn’t exactly handle the situation well from a PR standpoint, but they had a point.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

robert108, I’m not talking about those who are stupid enough to believe that they will be among the chosen few who will run things, the limolibs. Limolibs are elitists who wouldn’t wipe their feet on the likes of the useful idiots who comment in here. I’m talking about the majority of libs who are the true useful idiots, like WOOF and RBB.  Most of them couldn’t run a lemonade stand and hate the rich (again, like WOOF and RBB), except for rich liberals, who get a pass for pretending to care about the useful idiots. Limolibs are actually very small segment that seems much bigger due to their fame. They also do everything they can to avoid paying taxes while demanding that those of us who are successful but not to the point of having limos pay more taxes. The useful idiots actually fall for that crap (WOOF is defending her and her money above).

Rob: Depends on what you are talking about.  If I pay close to $20 for a music CD, I own it, and if I want to share it with whomever, that should be my right.  IMO, they can’t sell it to us, and then tell us what we can and cannot do with it.  Most “downloading” if file-sharing, btw.  I reiterate my comment about musicians selling pencils on streetcorners.

BW: True that.

I’m talking about the majority of libs who are the true useful idiots, like WOOF and RBB. Most of them couldn’t run a lemonade stand and hate the rich

Making shit up again, I see, huh winkie? I wouldn’t expect less. My employees and I are doing quite well, thank you very much.

(Funny you should mention Babs. I actually just turned down a job offer from her.)

(Funny you should mention Babs. I actually just turned down a job offer from her.)

Pimple Boy?

My only comment on the Hezbollah-UN axis is that it certainly does appear that there are senior UN officials who are very sympathetic to the Hezbollah cause.  That certainly seems to be the easiest interpretation of what is obviously a very asymmetric treatment of Israel versus the Hezbollah.

That said, can anybody point me to evidence of Kofi Annan’s involvement, such as that described by Jay Tea.

Depends on what you are talking about. If I pay close to $20 for a music CD, I own it, and if I want to share it with whomever, that should be my right.

Well, to a point.  File sharing on the massive scale which occurs on the internet is tantamount to redistribution.  Obviously, that’s illegal.

Would it be fair to an author to purchase a new book, scan it into your computer, and then distribute it as a PDF via the internet without the author’s permisssion?  I don’t think so.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

I would say that you don’t have a right to copy it.

Not that I’m completely pure on this point.

I agree with rob.

And so it seems, our Whistler.

Oh, that hurts

the truth is a cruel mistress

Just ask Michael Scanlon

or Bill Bennett…or Dick Morris

RBB, read what I said again you idiot.

Most of them couldn’t run a lemonade stand and hate the rich.

I certainly didn’t say you couldn’t. I seriously doubt you could, you can’t even friggin’ read but you may be able to operate a lemonade stand. I’m am truly sorry that I grouped you into the useful idiot category though, you are clearly too stupid to be of use to anyone.

Rob: “Well, to a point. File sharing on the massive scale which occurs on the internet is tantamount to redistribution. Obviously, that’s illegal.”

File sharing is passive.  There is no advertising or marketing involved, so it’s not “tantamount to redistribution” at all.  Also, file-sharing is not a profit-making enterprise.  You need a computer, a high-speed internet connection and software.  People who share files do it as a hobby, which is clearly no redistribution. 
The real problem here is with progress and ancient copyright law.  When we were talking about hard copies, in the form of books and paintings, sculpture and the like, a copy was a forgery.  That is not true with digital information.  We will get a new determination on this sometime soon, I predict, and it will be in favor of the file-sharers.  Of course, Dan Rather is still insisting that the memo was genuine, so who knows?

r108…interesting comments on file sharing. In the case of music files, I would have thought that the original creator is entitled to a royalty if use of the file does not create sales revenue. I do know from experience that it is the file provider that gets nailed rather than the file recipient.

I’ve “heard” of people downloading songs that they had already purchased on a different format (such as cassette tapes) to update their collection.  That certainly puts a different spin on it whether or not they were breaking any copyright law.  After all, at that point I could have, I mean they could have simply played the file into their computer and made their own MP3.

MikeA:  I think the heart of the matter is requiring royalties to be paid when no money changes hands or no public value is created(advertising, for instance).  I have always felt this was unconstitutional, and now, with the digital domain, it will get tested.  File sharing is strictly private behavior, and the govt should butt out.

r108…for example, are you saying that I could copy the current issue of Barron’s with all of the contents intact and hand it out for free? I would think that Barron’s might protest.

MikeA: I guess I wasn’t clear.  I am mainly talking about the sharing of music files. I’m sure you or someone else can come up with a fairly ridiculous example, but overall, I stand by my position.  In the Barron’s example, “hand it out” is the sticky point.  I don’t know that offering my files on a network is exactly the same as “handing it out”.
Here’s one for you: I buy the daily newspaper, read it at my favorite coffee shop, then leave it in the booth afterward.  Illegal file-sharing?  Technically, yes.  However, I, as the owner of that newspaper copy(having bought it), have the authority to dispose of it as I wish.  I think that is the primary issue here.  When you buy something, do you then own it?  If not, why not?

Will it come down to the enforcement of contracts?  The music companies can refuse to sell unless you agree to use that music for your personal use. 

Of course under that reasoning if you were to record a song that was on the air….they wouldn’t have a case against you.

Anyway I’m guessing that the Supreme Court isn’t going to agree with you 108.  On a different case they ruled 9-0 against Grokster.

TW: There has been the usual MSM propaganda campaign against “illegal downloading”(not sharing personal files, a more truthful description), and so the case against Grokster didn’t address the key issue, which I described in an earlier post.  I really think it comes down to who owns a digital file?
BTW, for those of you who think this is about art, you might be interested to know that if a musician is hired to play on a session, he or she is paid for the time, and nothing else, no matter how many copies that piece of music sells.  Interesting.

TW:  I would like to see the labels try that “contract” crap on the public.  I would predict a real upsurge in file sharing, with a corresponding drop in the sales of new CDs.  Any minor artist could boost sales by offering “contract-free” CDs, as well.  Don’t you just love the free market?

The good news is that I have pretty much settled as far as my music tastes. 

They’ll be a song out there now and then that I want, which I buy on Realplayer. 

That’s about it.

Now winkie, I know you are not that smart but what esle could these words of your posibly mean?

I’m talking about the majority of libs who are the true useful idiots, like WOOF and RBB. Most of them couldn’t run a lemonade stand and hate the rich (again, like WOOF and RBB)...

With that, the horse is dead and you’re a friggin’ idiot clearly too stupid to be of use to anyone.

Bullwinkles:

I think you hurt someone’s feelings.

TW, the stuff written here never hurts my feelings.
This is fun.

Unlike you, who is very useful to America’s enemies. You Go, Boob!

Why do you hate America H9?