Clever word games used by unelected judges to exercise power they don’t have

Shorter Levin: “Liberals corrupt conservatives.”

Niiiice.

.

Craig was straight as an arrow until the Homosexual Conspiracy infiltrated his mind. Honest! (But that’s what he gets for forgetting to wear his tinfoil hat.)

I’m disappointed there was no mention of:

1. The Clenis
2. Ward Churchill
3. Smoke added to Reuters photos
4. Michael Moore’s fatness
5. Al Gore’s electric bill
6. Al Gore’s fatness
7. How national socialism contains the word “socialism”!11!!1!

“Pled?”
I hear cops and even lawyers say that all the time. I sometimes have to catch myself before I say it.

That’s really a triumph of “staying on message.”

“Pled” is well established, at least in American usage, especially in legal speech and writing. Less popular than “pleaded” but not an error. “Pled guilty” gets about 1.5 million Google hits to “pleaded guilty”‘s 1.9 million.

But if you google with “not guilty” it’s a different story:
“pleaded not guilty”: 1.26 million
“pled not guilty” 106,000
This looks like a real timesaver for the criminal justice system. If you pled, you’re guilty.

Dan Simon:

“his comparison of the UN with the KKK is perfectly appropriate. It’s dominated by large, powerful voting blocs whose member governments have morals that are no better than the KKK’s.”

Because they’re all about White Power, right? Wait, that’s not true — the problem’s precisely because they’re _against_ whites. Or is it because they’re about torture and mass murder? Wait, that’s not true either — torture is perfectly OK, as long as the total amount of torture is less than whatever government was in place before the US came in.

Ah, I know! The major problem with the UN, and the major difference between the UN/KKK and the US, is that _the UN hates US Republicans!_ QED.

I forget the details of the dumpster-diving discussion that flared up in aught 4 (or something like that). Is it dumpster-diving if the guy writes for NRO, sells books, has a radio show, and runs an entity that calls itself a “foundation”?

I’m surprised that guy can tie his own shoes, but maybe it’s an act and he’s just decided to ride first class on the angry right wing gravy train.

there’s a specter haunting America. The specter of liberalism…

“It’s dominated by large, powerful voting blocs whose member governments have morals that are no better than the KKK’s.”

Because they’re all about White Power, right?”

“Morals no better than the KKK’s” doesn’t mean the same thing as “Morals that are identically the same as the KKK’s”. I’m finding it hard to figure out how anybody could dispute this statement, given the human rights records of some UN members, such as China.

so because of the awfulness of governments of some UN member states like china, therefore the UN is like the KKK?

No, mere membership isn’t the problem. The problem is that the UN is dominated, and its agenda controlled, by such states.

Checking out Levin’s own words:

“They’ve got people in that U.N. that are torturers, mass-murderers, anti-Semites, anti-Americans, anti-freedom, and we’re supposed to keep conferring our decisions to them.”

Yeah, somehow whether people are “anti-Semites”(*) and “anti-Americans”(**) is integral to whether their morals are down there along with the KKK. If you’re merely anti-Arab, if you merely want to turn the Islamic world into a huge parking lot, then you’re not a KKK-like monster but a towering hero of righteousness.

(*) = “anti-Zionists”?
(**) = “anti-Republicans”? Unless Kerry doesn’t count as an American

Dan Simon, so you agree that the morals of the Bush administration are indeed no better than those of the KKK? Or are you just dodging my question?

(Then again, Levin already makes it perfectly clear that whether one’s a KKK-esque monster is partly defined by whether one’s a Bush supporter.)

Okay, then—if it doesn’t bother you in the least that the UN is largely controlled by a coalition of the world’s cruelest, most violently repressive dictatorships, perhaps we can agree to despise it if I point out that it’s occasionally at least slightly influenced by the Bush administration?

interesting examples being given here (china, the US), given that you consider things turn on the UN being “largely controlled” by repressive states. in my view, the US has much greater control at the UN than most countries, and a level of control equivalent to china, given the permanent seat on the security council and right of veto each enjoy. the security council is undeniably the most important and powerful UN organ.

but this is all beside the point. for all sorts of obvious reasons, the comparison between the UN and the KKK is just silly. most importantly, the UN is an inclusive organisation, the KKK an exclusive one. any nation-state can and indeed is encouraged to join the UN, regardless of the religion, race or political persuasions of the citizens and government of that state. by contrast, the KKK exists for the purpose of excluding people. quite apart from the racism, the very reason (the second incarnation of) it came into existance was to deny membership and hence privileges to blacks, catholics and jews.

also the obvious stuff: the UN is comprised of states, the KKK of people; the UN is an international organisation, the KKK a national one etc etc.

Dan Simon:

“Of course not — the very idea is simply laughable.”

Then again, in what sense are the morals of the Bush administration any better than those of the KKK? You’re just laughing the question away without addressing it.

= = =

“most importantly, the UN is an inclusive organisation, the KKK an exclusive one.”

This is a Stalinist fact, and must be ignored. Ignore ignore ignore. Wait a minute, did we even discuss this at all? What were we discussing? Were we even discussing anything? Pollack? What Pollack?

Ah, China. Hopefully capitalism (aka ‘democracy’) will triumph there soon, big corporations and the super-rich will be able to control the government directly. And then they will, no doubt, join other civilized societies in lynching Islamofascist savages.

There are about 120 democracies out of 192 UN member states.

If you take the word of Freedom House, who exclude democracies which aren’t wholly capitalist, then that’s 89 ‘fully free’ democracies.

So ‘fully free’ democracies make up a plurality, and nearly a majority, of UN members; ‘fully free’ or ‘partially free’ democracies make up an overwhelming majority.

Out of countries with SC vetoes, three are ‘fully free’ democracies, one is ‘partially free’ and one is China.

That sounds to me like an organisation where liberal democracy is in the ascendancy, no?

That sounds to me like an organisation where liberal democracy is in the ascendancy, no?

If liberal democracies united to combat the various blocs of dictatorships, they probably could dominate the UN. Unfortunately, for lots of reasons, many democratic countries are happy to side with the undemocratic blocs on any number of issues.

For one thing, democracies tend to have less at stake at the UN, being generally richer and more stable, and therefore less dependent on UN-supplied services. For another, their positions at the UN tend to be influenced domestically by those with the greatest enthusiasm for the UN–that is, by those who are most comfortable giving a significant say in world affairs to brutal dictatorships. For another, the corrupt club of bureaucratic insiders has co-opted plenty of representatives of democratic countries, enticing them to go along with the status quo (and to advise their home countries to do the same) in return for present and future perks. One could go on and on.

But don’t take my word for it–have a look at the actual operations of organizations such as the UN Human Rights Council. Does anyone seriously believe it’s not dominated by non-democratic countries, and operated so as to minimize the danger that non-democratic countries will be held accountable for their human rights violations?

This may be a bit subtle for you, Uncle Kvetch, but I advanced no analogy. Dan did, I merely pointed out that Bi’s attack on that analogy was, from a logical standpoint, rather lacking. This does not constitute an endorsement of the original analogy.

In fact, I think it’s a bit too much to say the UN is “dominated” by factions as evil as the KKK. “Unduly influenced by”, to be sure, maybe even “fatally compromised by”, but not “dominated”.

And I can’t resist pointing out this tidbit:

“many democratic countries are happy to side with the undemocratic blocs on any number of issues.”

Oh, so Dan Simon thinks it’s not about siding with principles or facts, it’s about siding with _people_. The question isn’t “are you for or against democracy?” or “are you for or against habeas corpus?”, but “are you for or against the Bush administration?” Makes perfect sense now, doesn’t it?

Dan Simon says: “—the very real, non-laughable venality of the UN.”
venality —
# prostitution of talents or offices or services for reward
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

# Venality is the quality of being for sale, especially when one should act justly instead. This is usually classed as a vice, not a virtue.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venality

Sounds more like the Bush Administration, rather than either the U.N. or the KKK.

Mea culpa. Brett did not make the original analogy, he merely defended it.

So, this Ahmadinejad character: worse than Hitler, or worse than Pol Pot, or worse than Hitler and Pol Pot combined?

Well, Dan, your problem is that you don’t have a point here, you have a rant.

What exactly governments are rife with corruption, repression, racism, and other ills? Why do you believe they’re rife with all these terrible things any more than the governments you like? See, it’s not necessarily obvious to everybody, you need to work harder to convince people.

See, if, for example, I call you “near as bad as the KKK”, you’re not required “to refute my point”, you can simply dismiss it, because, you see, it’s not really a point, it’s an insult.

Dan Simon:

“I haven’t even discussed Republicans or the Bush administration”

Yeah, what you did was to try very hard to talk as if the US Republicans don’t exist. But they do, and you know that. And you also _know_ that they suck, and many of the ‘comparisons’ between the UN and the KKK can be fruitfully applied to the Republican party, and _you don’t want to confront this inconvenient fact_ — and that’s why you have to squirm and waffle.

Just to add on to what I said:

“try very hard to talk as if the US Republicans don’t exist”

…and yet, at the same time, try very hard to suggest that the Right Thing for UN member states to do is to agree with everything the Republicans say, to “side with” them.

Referring to the Republicans without actually referring to them — truly a stroke of doublethink genius. Now I wonder, do they have some sort of Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler Training School over there?

Brett now:

Not even that, technically; I merely pointed out that a specific attack on it made no sense.

Brett then:

I’m finding it hard to figure out how anybody could dispute this statement, given the human rights records of some UN members, such as China.

That was you defending Dan’s statement, Brett. Suck it up and own your shit for a change.

Pathetic.

Here’s the link, Brett, could you point to the document you’re referring to, please.