The stupid! It burns!

Friends, I was busy reading the “news”, as I so often do and I came across an article in the New York Times that talks about how Obama is trying to stop the UN from putting forward a resolution that refers to Israel’s illegal west bank settlements as “illegal”.

(Just as a side note those settlements are in violation of international law, which no one but Alan “mommy Chomsky keeps pwning me” Dershowitz and John “thats just my bone” Boehner denies)

The article was the USual NYT stuff: attempts at balance while leaning so far in America’s favour that it is almost parallel to the ground.

But then I came to a quote that convinced me that the New York Times (the  most prestigious news paper in the world) is either deliberately lying to people, or is smoking waaaaay too much crack.

Here is the quote:
“The new White House press secretary, Jay Carney, said Thursday that he would not say whether the United States would invoke its rarely used veto power in the Council.”

Rarely….rarely used…?

Why you no…

I froze. In fact I think part of my brain actually did freeze solid, in sheer terror.

The New York Times is the most prestigious news paper in the world. They wouldn’t lie about something like this. So there was only one other possibility…

I immediately became convinced that somehow, through some working of science or magick, that I had awoken in another world, twin to mine own. A world much like mine but a world where the United States HADN’T VETOED TWICE AS MANY RESOLUTIONS AS ANY OTHER COUNTRY YOU IDIOTS!

pfffffppPPPFFFFFffff!

I mean seriously? “Rarely used”? Are you people high?

Of course, as with most complex issues my violent reaction to this requires some explanation.

Before 1970 America didn’t veto anything (yay!), and Russia who was overwhelmingly, and quite rightly, despised by the rest of the UN vetoed damn near everything (boo!), earning itself the all-time veto record.

But after 1965 something interesting happens.

It’s amazing what you can learn if you look at the evidence and actually think.

After 1965 the USSR stops using its veto and America starts. Since then America has used its veto about 80 times. Outstripping the other major powers by orders of magnitude!

“Rarely used” indeed! For the past 40 years America has been the world leader in UN vetoes and when you look at the exact nature of the vetoes a disturbing pattern emerges.

Let’s just take a piece at random shall we?

This implies that if someone had suggested a resolution in favour of Nazis and against Human Rights, it would’ve passed!

So in 2 years the US vetoed 12 resolutions, and that’s not even all of them.

And if you think you’ve spotted a distinct trend of everyone in the world wanting Israel to stop oppressing people, and America letting them carry on with it then congratulations! You are now less ignorant than a large number of Americans.

In 2007 Time Magazine found that roughly 40% of Americans believed this. But to be fair a third of Egyptians thought it was Israel.

Some of the vetoes seem completely bizarre. In 2008 a resolution was proposed against the trade of illicit arms. This was opposed by America and no one else, because America makes millions in the arms trade.

In 2007 a resolution was passed recognizing that all human beings have a right to food. Every country in the world agreed with this resolution, but America vetoed it. This was presumably because it is against their fundamentalist free market “principles”.

So in other words America will defend your right to free speech, even after you’ve starved to death.

In fact when one goes down the list of vetoes one noticed that a lot of the time the only country that opposes the resolution is America. But since America is one of the permanent members of the security council if it says no, then the resolution can’t pass.

Noam Chomsky has also observed that when the US vetoes something it’s actually a double veto, because first the resolution doesn’t pass, and then the media is forbidden to report on it, so it passes out of history, unnoticed.

Viewed in this way the NYT article is completely understandable: they aren’t lying, they just have absolutely no idea what the hell they are talking about.

Then again, crack is a helluva drug.

-TTB

Ask the New York Times. They know…

[Standard Disclaimer: this post was entirely my own opinion and was not paid for in any way, directly or otherwise, by anyone or anything that stands to gain in any way from the ideas expressed herein.]

Related Posts: