Dear LEGO,

"Give them another kick for me, boys."

Way to reinforce a stereotype with that last post my friend.

I reckon it would be a long shot but if you haunt enough bars you might latch on to some crew doing a little interrogating, and if you were to keep applauding their work, buying them beers and leering at enough young women with them you might score an invitation to a session.

If they were feeling particularly friendly you might even get asked if you wanted a crack. Seeing your obvious hesitation they would show you the 'dirty little terrorist' handcuffed naked to a chair with a black hood secured over his head.

'He can't hurt you' they would say reassuringly 'and he can't even see you. Your anonymity is safe. We worked him over earlier, go ahead, give him one for the good guys.'

As you moved toward the man you would see him stiffen in fear, 'Wow, a scumbag terrorist scared of me' you would think and that would embolden you. Your first kick would be a quick dart in and out, ill aimed and fearful, but it would feel good. Then they would come thick and fast, powered by all your hate, screaming and swearing at the top of your lungs, aiming for the head, the genitals, the kidneys and the small of the back. The other interrogators would have to pull you away, trying not to notice the bulge in the front of your pants, and you would be laughing and hooting and wanting high fives. 

Hell you would sleep like a baby that night.

See digressions are easy but lazy so let's in the future try and stick to the topic.

Singer,

You've bought out the worst in your supporters again.

What's it like to know your rantings bring only the hoots and grunts of support from the worst cowardly ehibitionist racist mysognists among us?

What's that feel like?

Wow - 20 responses and only one - csteele - has even tried to argue I have got it wrong.

Why has UNESCO simply not given me csteele's explanation after I made my claim to UNESCO two months ago,patted me on the head and sent me on my way?

The answer is obvious - csteele has got it wrong.

If you look at the two articles csteele refers to - Articles II (2) and II (3)- you will see why UNESCO has fallen strangely silent

To get admitted as a member under article II (2) - the state needs a two thirds majority vote. There are 194 members in UNESCO and so a majority of 129 is needed. Palestine got 107.

To get admitted as an associate member under article II (3)- the applicant needs a two thirds majority of the members present and voting. Had Palestine applied for associate mebership the 107 votes would have been sufficient.

This constitutional blunder will cost UNESCO about $225 million in suspended American payments up to 2012-2013. Many UNESCO humanitarian programs will be abandoned or seriously curtailed. This horrendous fall out affects every member state of UNESCO.

The 87 States that voted against, abstained or simply did not turn up may have something to say once the illegality of the decision and UNESCO's cover up in failing to do anything when brought to its notice is exposed.

I feel very strongly about this abuse of process and the effect that will be felt all over the world.

I have started a petition to get UNESCO to review its decision. So far 600 people from 19 countries have signed it in the past eight days.

If you want to see American funding of 22% of UNESCO's annual budget restored - then I believe one way this can be achieved is for all of you, your family, friends and associates to mobilise and sign and circulate this petition which you can find at:

http://www.change.org/petitions/unesco-review-palestines-unconstitutional-membership

If you don't care if UNESCO curtails its projects world-wide - don't sign.

Simple choice for you inveterate writers.

*Sigh*

Dear David,

I am hardly wrong on this issue.

Article I (2) reads “states not members of the United Nations Organization may be admitted to membership of the Organization, upon recommendation of the Executive Board, by a two-thirds majority vote of the General Conference.”

It doesn't read 'absolute majority' or 'majority of the members present', it says quite specifically “ two-thirds majority vote”. Please note the word VOTE!

Article 1 (3) is even more specific. “Territories or groups of territories which are not responsible for the conduct of their international relations may be admitted as Associate Members by the General Conference by a two-thirds majority of Members present and voting”.

Please note the words 'present and VOTING'. The members have to be both present and voting, A two-thirds majority of those filling these criteria will pass the resolution.

By convention an abstention is usually a non-vote, not to be counted in any manner toward the result.

Perhaps the Wikipedia reference might help you understand.

There are two kinds of two-thirds majority: the simple or the absolute.

“An unqualified or simple two-thirds majority requires that the number of votes in favour must be at least twice the number of votes against. Abstaining votes or neutral votes are not considered in a simple two-thirds majority.”

“A absolute two-thirds majority requires that at least two-thirds of the entire membership of a body vote in favor.”

“In parliamentary procedure where a two-thirds majority is required, rather than speaking of a two-thirds majority the unambiguous phrases such as "two thirds of those present and voting", "two thirds of those present" (which has the effect of counting abstentions as votes against the proposal), or "two thirds of the entire membership" ("two thirds of those members duly elected and sworn" in American politics) are used.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-thirds_majority#Two-thirds_majority

Article I (2) refers to an “unqualified or simple two-thirds majority” that doesn't consider abstaining votes.

Article 1 (3) is represented by the unambiguous phrase "two thirds of those present and voting".

I really shouldn't have to be spelling this out for you.

Everybody stereotypes, csteel, because stereotypes are the way that people form concepts in their minds.

If I was to say that there was a bird sitting on your car, what would you visualise? A penguin or an ostrich? No, from the context of the situation you would form a stereotpe of what you think a "bird" is, in this case, a small feathered creature with a beak.

Claiming that sterotyping is wrong, just happens to be one of the most stupid concepts ever dreamed up by the anti everything drop kicks like you, who pretend that they have superior morals and intelligence than everybody else. People make stereotypes in order to think, csteel. Claiming that stereotyping is wrong, is exactly the same as saying that thinking is wrong.

Which pretty well sums up your mindset.

I was trained as a soldier to kill people, my dear csteel. I have never had to do it, but I think that I am one of the 1 in 6 men who can do it, and do it without without going to pieces afterward through Post Traumantic Stress disorder. People like me constitute the natural soldiers without which no society can survive.

It is probably a genetic inheritance. My father was in the 2/14th battalion who finished off every wounded Jap they captured on the Kokoda Track because it was a practical military necessity. He probably didn't like doing it, but he knew why it had to be done, he knew the fate of every Australian captured by the Japs, and he knew what was at stake.

Why you feel sorry for captured terrorist scumbags who want to mass murder your own women and children so that they can screw 72 virgins in heaven is beyond me. I think that such an attitude is taking your compulsive need to feel morally superior to everyone else a bit too far.

Dear LEGO,

I refuse to believe I was really that subtle but I will explain anyway. I was not making a case against stereotyping rather that your post served to fulfill the stereotype of the cowardly nature of racists.

I purposely had the victim hooded to preserve the anonymity you seemed so keen in preserving the last time we spoke.

Actually I think you did get it otherwise you wouldn't have responded with all that macho crap.

Yours really is a kind of attention deficit disorder. I get the sense you would happily drop a fart at a funeral because someone else was getting all the attention.

Look mate I get there are all kinds in this world and being aware there are people like you out there is probably useful, but you just need to dial it back. Doing some digging and strive to add some useful facts and arguments to topics rather than just bursting in and mouthing off because it quickly gets bloody tiresome.