I think the Gaza/Sri Lanka comparison makes more sense then the Darfur/Sri Lanka comparison. The UN guy may have been stonewalling with some line about body count not mattering, but even so there's a categorical difference between a govt killing 4 figures of civilians and 6 figures. There's also much more reason to believe that the Sudanese government (or its proxies) is actively targeting civilians compared to just being callous about collateral damage. The reasons for the UN treating the 3 events as it does seem obvious to me, so maybe I'm missing something. The ME countries act on behalf of Palestinians at the UN pretty regularly, and HAMAS is feeble relative to the LTTE. Darfur passed a tipping point where it couldn't be plausibly sold as collateral damage in the name of stability. I think looking at how the UN treated Sudan in 2003ish would probably be the closest comparison, and IIRC it wasn't making much of a deal of it yet. If I'm remembering that wrong then I'd be much more interested in the complex political answers you guys are coming up with. Thanks, dad!: There was a study a few years back about how

ok cool. i'd have to go with one or all of pinker's four reasons (one coined by our very own mr. wright! ...at least i think that's the same bob.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pink...r07_index.html

I wish you guys would stop mis-representing what is going on in Sri Lanka Shelling an area the size of Central park with several hundreds of thousands of refugees and only a few thousand are hurt.??? What a stupid claim. For the real story check http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/srilank/default.aspx which has followed the Sri Lankan conflict for at least 20 years. For a very useful map, see www.defence.lk/orbat/Default.asp If the government did not care about the civilians if could have overrun the "No Fire Zone" weeks ago. The Tamil Tigers are self-centered killers who deserve to lose. Their only hope now is dupes like Matthew and his buddies at the UN.

ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....i used to read SPage, too....then i realized there were real websites

I guess Matthew Lee is stupid too, right Pampl? Haha. Genocide... how stupid. http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showth...11234#poststop

Quoting Lyle: I guess Matthew Lee is stupid too, right Pampl? Haha. Genocide... how stupid.

http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showth...11234#poststop

He is if he called it genocide or called for physical intervention, which he didn't do. I don't know why you'd link to an instance of yourself transparently lying to try and make some point either.

Haha, I didn't lie cause I didn't call it a genocide. Samsan, activists, and some in the media have though. I never made a judgment call on whether or not it is a genocide. I used the the term as others have... but that doesn't mean that's what I meant to call it. You should be honest about that. Matthew Lee at least recognizes that there is an ethnic component to what is going which makes what is going on close to genocide, and is probably why Tamils are calling it such.

Quoting Lyle: Haha, I didn't lie cause I didn't call it a genocide.

Hmm

Quoting Lyle: I'm not make a like for like comparison as far as the actual events, but to the fact that another genocide of dark skinned peoples will go down with no such American intervention.

How honest you are.

Matthew Lee at least recognizes that there is an ethnic component to what is going which makes what is going on close to genocide, and is probably why Tamils are calling it such.

Wow, the Liberation Tigers of TAMIL Eelam have an ethnic component?? Next you'll figure out that so do the IRISH Republican Army and the PALESTINIAN Liberation Organization. Calling it "close to genocide" isn't any less stupid and contradicts your earlier lies about how you are just describing the way other people think of it.

When are you going to realize that my use of the word genocide was hyperbole? The point was to impress on people that despite Barack Obama and the Democrats being in charge, America still won't be helping every person of color who is suffering some kind of horrible hardship, be it genocide, almost genocide, or whatever.

Quoting Lyle: When are you going to realize that my use of the word genocide was hyperbole? The point was to impress on people that despite Barack Obama and the Democrats being in charge, America still won't be helping every person of color who is suffering some kind of horrible hardship, be it genocide, almost genocide, or whatever.

Have you noticed that posters who challenge you use your very words to make their points? Perhaps you could stick to allowing words to mean what consensus and the dictionary agree to? Your resorting to explaining away contradictions by claiming that you really meant something other than what can be read and understood is stale, if not disingenuous. This applies even if the benefit of doubt is extended in this particular, if typical case.

No, I don't cause I'm really stupid. Haha. The discussion we were having makes it clear what my point was and what I think about what is going in Sri Lanka. The thread wasn't even about genocide. Pampl brought it up as way to pooh pooh my substantive argument. He didn't like what I had to say so he focused on my use of the word genocide. I discussed with him what I meant by it and he still doesn't understand, i.e., I clarified what I meant by it. It was hyperbole meant to make a point about the Obama administration not helping more with what is going on. Also, if I'm stupid, Matthew Lee is stupid as well because he more or less pointed out what I pointed to Pampl, i.e., that the situation is in a broad sense similar to Dafur and that it understandable why some (not I or Matthew Lee) would think what is going on in Sri Lanka a genocide.

Quoting Lyle: No, I don't cause I'm really stupid. Haha.

The discussion we were having makes it clear what my point was and what I think about what is going in Sri Lanka. The thread wasn't even about genocide. Pampl brought it up as way to pooh pooh my substantive argument. He didn't like what I had to say so he focused on my use of the word genocide. I discussed with him what I meant by it and he still doesn't understand, i.e., I clarified what I meant by it. It was hyperbole meant to make a point about the Obama administration not helping more with what is going on.

Also, if I'm stupid, Matthew Lee is stupid as well because he more or less pointed out what I pointed to Pampl, i.e., that the situation is in a broad sense similar to Dafur and that it understandable why some (not I or Matthew Lee) would think what is going on in Sri Lanka a genocide.

Last edited by Lyle; Today at 07:26 PM. Reason: grammar... not stupidity.

You made my point. If you use your circuitous logic explanations in the first place, a lot of misunderstanding would be averted.
It's just friendly advice. I'm not trying

Quoting Lyle: When are you going to realize that my use of the word genocide was hyperbole? The point was to impress on people that despite Barack Obama and the Democrats being in charge, America still won't be helping every person of color who is suffering some kind of horrible hardship, be it genocide, almost genocide, or whatever.

Even if it's hyperbole it reflects a fundamentally retarded understanding of the situation. It would have only been moderately stupid if it had been a criticism of Obama not criticizing Gaza, but you've reached Down's syndrome levels here. You're talking about a situation where both sides represent 'people of color' and where an intervention (you used that word specifically so don't even try to lie it away) WOULDN'T help any people of color. Your "point" has nothing to do with the violence in Sri Lanka. You might as well have posted it in a thread about the stimulus, or Bristol breaking up with Levi, or anything else.

There's nothing retarded about it... there are Americans who think America's foreign policy is fundamentally racist. They actually think we don't intervene in places like Africa (e.g. Rwanda or Dafur) because we are racists. My use of the word of genocide and dark-skinned peoples was to highlight another situation where America will not seriously involve itself... and where the people aren't European. That's all. The situation in Sri Lanka is also not like Gaza because Gazans have their own government. Tamils are Sri Lankans. Gazans aren't Israelis.

This was an excellent and thoroughly entertaining diavlog that finally showcased what UN Plaza can be. Props to both Goldberg and Lee. UN Reform Starts with Ban Ki-moon's Removal

Baltimoron, How do you think Koreans view Ban Ki-moon? By political immaturity, do you mean Asia's historical lack of democracy?

How do you think Koreans view Ban Ki-moon?

At the time of Ban's nomination, across the board ideologically and regionally, South Koreans expressed pride. His name attracts media coverage for the UN regardless of the issue.

By political immaturity, do you mean Asia's historical lack of democracy?

One could make that argument for the entire continent, but I'm referring to the sociological phenomenon of East Asian business networks (guanxi in Chinese; jeong in Korean). I think there's an open argument whether these networks are inherently or accidentally corrupt. One can also argue that networks are responsible for East Asia's economic vitality, but problematic for its political development. I found an old WaPo report claiming Ban Ki-moon was using his office to appoint South Koreans to key posts. Ban replied to criticisms with the nuclear option of alleging racism, but figures do bear out concern. In Lee's article, he brings up Chey Tae-won, a convicted businessman. It's ironic he's working for Ban, because his sentence was reduced because the court deemed him essential for the national economy, a common reason when elite businessmen are convicted. I just find it hard Ban can divorce himself from South Korean

Interesting. Thanks for the response. I've spent a little bit of time in Hong Kong, China, and Taiwan. The big man/woman business organizations seem to have a lot of power. Korea, I've read, is particularly tied to its large business groups. Each country or city state has their own peculiar setup I guess. I don't see Ban Ki-moon resigning or being pushed out of office anytime soon. The United Nations isn't America, and the world has to accept how other countries do business I guess. The UN had an Austrian secretary-general who participated in genocide and Ki-moon, is at best, a run-of-the-mill Korean politician just operating how he has always operated.

The big man/woman business organizations seem to have a lot of power. Korea, I've read, is particularly tied to its large business groups. Each country or city state has their own peculiar setup I guess.

It's a debate between guanxi as a cultural legacy vs bad business model with political and administrative affects. The issues Lee raises are exactly those raised by these relationships. In a hierarchical society that accepts income inequality, to maintain family/clan cohesion, such a model might be acceptable. But, in democratic societies with a tradition of impersonal legal traditions and liberal capitalism, such inefficiencies are inconvenient. As we enter the Asian Age, if we are indeed doing that, westerners should decide whether to push back or embrace the implications presented by these networks. Evaluating Ban's leadership might be an opportunity to see what westerners are in for.

I think the West will push back actually. It will be interesting to see. They can be really sensitive to criticism. The Chinese in particular still see things from colonial perspective, i.e, that the West is out to get them. I remember stepping on some toes by saying that Taiwan was not a part of China, when I meant to say it wasn't a part of China politically. Asian nationalism makes me apprehensive I must say, but they have so many social issues (they're not immigrant countries yet) and political issues (nascent democracies or no democracy at all) that I think it will be awhile before there is a truly "Asian Age". I'm in a minority perhaps, but I think American hegemony is still nascent. Asia and other countries/regions just have too many social or political issues to work out that they won't be able to overwhelmingly assert themselves like the U.S. can, despite being economic powerhouses.

I hope Ban is not populating the UNSG and other offices with a mentality that he is justified. I think investigating just what Ban has done is a good test of Matthew Lee's skills, too. It's clear Goldberg will not be the one to do it.

Yep, thank God for the Matthew Lees of the world.

http://www.theonion.com/content/vide...urce=a-section

i've been thinking about the four possible theories Pinker provides in relation the the newest diavlog. isn't the true reason obviously the first one (central gov't)? look at the most messed up countries now a days and what do they have in common?: really crappy gov't. anyone disagree?

The brutal fact that's been conveniently ignored and not talked about is that the unfolding civillian casualties are caused purely by the LTTE (Tamil Tigers) forcibly holding and using them as a human shield, and have refused to heed any call by the UN or anyone else to release them. Similarly, the LTTE all along lied to and misled the UN about child soldiers and had the UN and its leftist leaning champions of human rights ignore the fact that they continued to recruit and use child soldiers for years. In all those years we saw various UN top officials breeze over any questions on child soldiering in Sri Lanka, making obviously false declarations that there is progress in that disrection, when the opposite was true.
Mattthew Lee's comments that the Sri Lankan government doesn't allow civillians to leave 'but are hell bent on getting this one guy' is an abject mis-representation of fact, again when the exact opposite is happening on the ground. Unlike his comments on 'who invented the suicide bomb is irrelevent', it is very relavant in this context, because Sri Lankans are on the war

Good post Rajiv, I tend to agree with you.