UN Voices Program

[magekillr]

Creative, brilliant new project by the United Nations launched in Australia. 7 pictures throughout major cities highlight untold, inspirational stories of the oppressed. Using a cell phone camera to take a picture of the mouth and texting it, photographic mobile technology matches the picture sent with the person, who calls the user back with his or her story.

 

 

 

Watch the video to understand this better. I think it's a great idea to raise awareness about different issues around the world:

 

 

 

http://www.vimeo.com/1854851

[Robert_de_Sable]

I want to know how much that costs.

 

For heaven's sake, of all the things to be spending money on... :roll:

[Zimbu]

This is why people hate the UN. They don't have the balls to stop religious zealots and their defamation of religion bs. They don't have the balls to say anything when big countries are suspected of human rights violations. They barely have the balls to "voice concern" when North Korea develops their new weapons. They will, however, use bucketloads of funds for hiring engineers with picture recognition software experience and plastering walls with sappy stories.

 

 

 

What the hell was the point here? Am I supposed to be amazed by software that is able to determine which one of the seven mouths it is? It's not 2004. Or am I supposed to be going "Aww, poor that person"? All I wanted to tell those people is that there is always tomorrow, there is always hope and there is always somebody who would kill to be in your shoes. So you can either get on with your life or refer to the suicide thread. It's not like the rest of us haven't had any problems in our lives and it's not like your drinking your own urine to avoid death by dehydration while waiting for the starvation to finish you off. The only really rough life story from the ones on the video was the one from the refugee who had lost his entire family, my own mother probably has a sadder personal history than the rest.

 

 

 

Well, at least the UN is finally doing something even if it's failing miserably when it comes to working for its stated aims.

[ElkNight]

Pretty interesting, but still a waste of time.

[Sly_Wizard]

Waste of time, imo. But the U.N. is good for supporting stuff this kinda' stuff (I.e., things which don't require any kind of force or military action), so this doesn't surprise me. It's more-or-less an "all talk and pretty much nothing else" organization.

[Robert_de_Sable]

This is why people hate the UN. They don't have the balls to stop religious zealots and their defamation of religion bs. They don't have the balls to say anything when big countries are suspected of human rights violations. They barely have the balls to "voice concern" when North Korea develops their new weapons. They will, however, use bucketloads of funds for hiring engineers with picture recognition software experience and plastering walls with sappy stories.

 

 

 

What the hell was the point here? Am I supposed to be amazed by software that is able to determine which one of the seven mouths it is? It's not 2004. Or am I supposed to be going "Aww, poor that person"? All I wanted to tell those people is that there is always tomorrow, there is always hope and there is always somebody who would kill to be in your shoes. So you can either get on with your life or refer to the suicide thread. It's not like the rest of us haven't had any problems in our lives and it's not like your drinking your own urine to avoid death by dehydration while waiting for the starvation to finish you off. The only really rough life story from the ones on the video was the one from the refugee who had lost his entire family, my own mother probably has a sadder personal history than the rest.

 

 

 

Well, at least the UN is finally doing something even if it's failing miserably when it comes to working for its stated aims.

 

=D> =D> =D>

 

WELL SAID.

[magekillr]

The UN can't do anything because of the supposed "freedom fighters" like the United States because they constantly abuse their vetoes.

[Robert_de_Sable]

Please, elaborate.

[1_man_army]

Please, elaborate.

 

 

 

Nobody can pass a resolution because nations (the US particularly) use their veto to block when it doesn't suit them, that is why the UN has no power. Aside from the USSR, nobody has used the veto as much as America.

[magekillr]

Please, elaborate.

 

 

 

http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa03.html

 

 

 

That's why the UN can't do anything, and why there needs to be reform. Ironically, the only way to reform it is through the UN Security Council, and you'd have every country that can veto...not use their veto. Who wants to give up that power? None of them.

 

 

 

It should take 3/5ths of the permanent members to veto, or as the Iranian President has said, reaffirm members because the world has changed since World War II. Germany should be a permanent member over France given their level of influence.

[mmmcannibalism]

Im glad the UN found a use for their funding, I know they have had a lot of trouble with the current lack of starvation, disease, and attacks on human rights that has recently sprung up.

[Housepig]

Well said.

 

 

 

Besides, what are they going to do about it? There are simply too many people in the world to provide them all with food, water, shelter, and a good quality of life. I hate the almost religious devotion to "human rights" some people have. These "rights" were laid down in a charter by a group of nations. That is no different than a government making a law to protect its people.

 

 

 

Even if they were actualy abided by (which they aren't), the concept of inviolable rules is seriously impeding to work done for the greater good. Who gave the UN power to declare people's "rights"? People need to face the facts: you have the "rights" those in power choose to give you.

[mmmcannibalism]

Well said.

 

 

 

Besides, what are they going to do about it? There are simply too many people in the world to provide them all with food, water, shelter, and a good quality of life. I hate the almost religious devotion to "human rights" some people have. These "rights" were laid down in a charter by a group of nations. That is no different than a government making a law to protect its people.

 

 

 

Even if they were actualy abided by (which they aren't), the concept of inviolable rules is seriously impeding to work done for the greater good. Who gave the UN power to declare people's "rights"? People need to face the facts: you have the "rights" those in power choose to give you.

 

 

 

use the funds to build a few small villages into stable communities, continue building small good communities until it begins to improve the entire area.

 

 

 

People give power to the government not the other way around. If the government gives people their rights, then the government is above the people. Human rights transcend government, law, and any other codes laid down by men.

[Housepig]

Well said.

 

 

 

Besides, what are they going to do about it? There are simply too many people in the world to provide them all with food, water, shelter, and a good quality of life. I hate the almost religious devotion to "human rights" some people have. These "rights" were laid down in a charter by a group of nations. That is no different than a government making a law to protect its people.

 

 

 

Even if they were actualy abided by (which they aren't), the concept of inviolable rules is seriously impeding to work done for the greater good. Who gave the UN power to declare people's "rights"? People need to face the facts: you have the "rights" those in power choose to give you.

 

 

 

use the funds to build a few small villages into stable communities, continue building small good communities until it begins to improve the entire area.

 

 

 

People give power to the government not the other way around. If the government gives people their rights, then the government is above the people. Human rights transcend government, law, and any other codes laid down by men.

 

 

 

If you mean that the rights come from God...that's a different question. If the UN so wished, they could abolish the Universal Decleration of Human Rights. Does that not prove that the government is above the people?

[mmmcannibalism]

Well said.

 

 

 

Besides, what are they going to do about it? There are simply too many people in the world to provide them all with food, water, shelter, and a good quality of life. I hate the almost religious devotion to "human rights" some people have. These "rights" were laid down in a charter by a group of nations. That is no different than a government making a law to protect its people.

 

 

 

Even if they were actualy abided by (which they aren't), the concept of inviolable rules is seriously impeding to work done for the greater good. Who gave the UN power to declare people's "rights"? People need to face the facts: you have the "rights" those in power choose to give you.

 

 

 

use the funds to build a few small villages into stable communities, continue building small good communities until it begins to improve the entire area.

 

 

 

People give power to the government not the other way around. If the government gives people their rights, then the government is above the people. Human rights transcend government, law, and any other codes laid down by men.

 

 

 

If you mean that the rights come from God...that's a different question. If the UN so wished, they could abolish the Universal Decleration of Human Rights. Does that not prove that the government is above the people?

 

 

 

I meant universal truth, not god. To say government has more power then its constituency means a totalitarian government is the best as it avoids influence from the lesser group.

[Housepig]

Well said.

 

 

 

Besides, what are they going to do about it? There are simply too many people in the world to provide them all with food, water, shelter, and a good quality of life. I hate the almost religious devotion to "human rights" some people have. These "rights" were laid down in a charter by a group of nations. That is no different than a government making a law to protect its people.

 

 

 

Even if they were actualy abided by (which they aren't), the concept of inviolable rules is seriously impeding to work done for the greater good. Who gave the UN power to declare people's "rights"? People need to face the facts: you have the "rights" those in power choose to give you.

 

 

 

use the funds to build a few small villages into stable communities, continue building small good communities until it begins to improve the entire area.

 

 

 

People give power to the government not the other way around. If the government gives people their rights, then the government is above the people. Human rights transcend government, law, and any other codes laid down by men.

 

 

 

If you mean that the rights come from God...that's a different question. If the UN so wished, they could abolish the Universal Decleration of Human Rights. Does that not prove that the government is above the people?

 

 

 

I meant universal truth, not god. To say government has more power then its constituency means a totalitarian government is the best as it avoids influence from the lesser group.

 

 

 

Well...it is--not that I'm advocating Fascism or anything that extreme. But I don't see how there can be "universal truth" without a God.