Yeah, they shoulda used nukes

I haven't yet bribed Steel enough for him to tell me where he finds this stuff, but don't worry, I'm working on it.

It seems the UN, specifically that arm dedicated to the welfare of little children everywhere, UNICEF, has produced a film guaranteed to warm and gladden the hearts of people everywhere.

They bomb the blue right off of the Smurfs.  That's right—they bomb the Smurf village, "leaving behind dead and dying Smurfs in a scene reminiscent of an Hieronymus Bosch painting."

The video is part of a public education campaign on the ravages of war.

The short film pulls no punches. It opens with the Smurfs dancing, hand-in-hand, around a campfire and singing the Smurf song. Bluebirds flutter past and rabbits gambol around their familiar village of mushroom- shaped houses until, without warning, bombs begin to rain from the sky.

Tiny Smurfs scatter and run in vain from the whistling bombs, before being felled by blast waves and fiery explosions. The final scene shows a scorched and tattered Baby Smurf sobbing inconsolably, surrounded by prone Smurfs.

The final frame bears the message: "Don't let war affect the lives of children..."

If any kids saw this movie, seeing that it's about, you know, Smurfs, then it's too late, guys.  I'd say it's already affected them.  Sheesh.

But that's not the best part.  It wasn't graphic enough for the UN.

"We wanted something that was real war - Smurfs losing arms, or a Smurf losing a head -but they said no."

Real blood and gore—yeah, that's the ticket.  I assume "they" were Joseph Barbera and whoever else helps him run Cartoon Network Studios, seeing that William Hanna left us in 2001.  I guess they have, like, standards or something.  Killjoys.

I'm with Steel—I think they should have nuked the Little Blue Menaces™, especially that whiny-voiced Smurfette, running and hollering "Papa Smurf!  Papa Sm...(poof!)" as they all vaporize into wispy blue puffs with white hats in the face of unimaginable heat, leaving behind only charred blue shadows on the ground.  Then, whoever survives gets...well, that can wait for the sequel.  Don't want to give it all away, now.

What I really wanted to find, to go with this, was Mean Mr. Mustard's hilarious "United Nations Man," wielder of the "steel resolution," but alas, it seems to have faded from the internet over the last couple of years.  Unless someone archived the image, it may be gone forever (sniff).  Too bad—it was a classic.

But back in the early 90s I wrote this (long before I was on the net, of course):

President Saddam
Chased 'em and shot 'em
Beating his Kurds to whey.
Along came the U.N.
And sat down beside him
And said, "What a mean thing to do!  If you don't stop we'll...we'll just...pass
     another resolution.  So go ahead, make our day!"

Don't mess with the UN, folks.  They're a tough bunch.  If you do something they don't like, they just might make a Smurf movie about you, too.

UPDATE:  Mark from Cutting Edge of Ecstacy wonders if this isn't why UN helmets are "Smurf blue."

Comments

[Rob]

Oh, the humanity!

[Obi-Wan]

Humanity? Humanity?? Those little blue...blue...(struggling to find an adequate word that isn't profanity)...they're not human. They're vermin. Nuke 'em all, I say. Use DDT. Agent Blue. Dioxin. Whatever. Just as long as I never have to listen to that stupid song again.

[MarkT]

Interesting. I would have thought that their message, 'war is bad', was fairly common knowledge. I guess Unicef wanted to make sure. but they're 'doing it for the children' after all. Another triumph of rhetoric over reason. And it's billed as the 'first adult-only episode of the Smurfs'. Wouldn't that make it pornographic? It would be called just that if the exact same cartoon was commissioned for exactly the same purpose - but by the NRA. Smurf Snuff Porn. Does the cartoon include a scene of a Smurf suicide bomber blowing up a busload of civilians? Does it show the Smurf Government deciding that war, and the killing of their children, is worth it to protect their own avarice and to keep from having the torture and murder of their own citizens from being exposed? Does it show the ammo dump hidden beneath the cute little mushroom shaped Smurf houses? I doubt it, and I wouldn't be real surprised if the bombs being dropped were painted red, white and blue. If the idea is to explain the horrors of war, give us something more serious than Ghoulardi on steroids. Otherwise, I'd have to agree with you and Steel - It takes a village of Smurfs to make a fine military target. I'm glad Unicef's got enough money to pay for pornographic propaganda cartoons. They won't miss my donations. And now I wonder if it's really a coincidence that UN helmets are the same shade of 'Smurf Blue'.

[Steel]

I say crucify Barney and arrest the Teletubbies for war crimes too!

[Rob]

That picture of the baby-smurf crying surrounded by chaos is vaguely familiar... like that Life picture (I think) of the baby crying (in the exact same pose) after the US napalmed a Vietnamese village... No, no secret message there..

[Obi-Wan]

Heh. The Force is with Rob today. Good call, my young padawan.

MarkT,

Does it show the Smurf Government deciding that war, and the killing of their children, is worth it to protect their own avarice and to keep from having the torture and murder of their own citizens from being exposed? Does it show the ammo dump hidden beneath the cute little mushroom shaped Smurf houses? I doubt it, and I wouldn't be real surprised if the bombs being dropped were painted red, white and blue.

Of course. War is condemned only when it's US interests at stake, and always from an anti-US perspective. This is the UN we're talking about, you know.

[Rob]

My daughter's piano teacher was a "cell leader" for the local John Birch Society. ;-) he lent me a large box filled with books on the history of the CFR (scarry group kinda, especially when you see their roll book) and lots and lots of books and videos on the UN. Those 'Birchers were a little far right for my tastes (being a radical moderate, afterall) but they made some good points. One of their sworn objectives is to get the US out of the UN. Can't say I disagree with that. UNICEF's charter reads like a New World Order(tm) diy handbook.

[Phoenix]

I've already made my case about this at Steel's, so I don't mind wandering a bit off-topic. It is Obi's blog, after all. arr arrr ar... :)

Rob. What is a 'radical moderate'?

[Rob]

Oh, I don't know... just something I made up to sound different. Something to sound "oxymoronic". Don't know where I pigen-hole politically. Traditionally I've been a conservative democrat, but the party has drifted off way to the left. The republican party has drifted left enough that I'm falling under the edge of that party. All this in spite of the fact that the media calls me a "Radical Christian Conservative" When will the madness end? So I made up a silly name. Maybe someday I'll run for President as a Radical Moderate under the Blogacratic party?

[Phoenix]

I like that you made up a name for your political proclivities. I've always wondered how someone could claim to be a 'dyed-in-the-wool' republican or democrat. I just cannot imagine giving my mind over to the complete ideology of either party. I'm a LIBRARITARIAN. That's a cross between liberterian, traditionalist, and someone who spends a huge amount of their life in libraries reading stuff to help clear the fog. I like aspects of both parties, but for sure, because I am quite traditional, I lean way more towards the conservative base. What I dislike is extremism of any sort. Anyway, I like that you are a radical moderate. :) That appeals to me because of the word play.

[Rob]

My dad claims to be a Staunch Lifelong Card-carrying Democrat. In the next breath be brings up the fact that he's never actually voted for a Democratic candidate since he doesn't like their positions. Pretty weird coming from a Californian. But I repeat myself. :-)

[Phoenix]

You make my point: "staunch life-long card-carrying Democrat'...... To me, anyone saying that is a lemming.

Nietzsche said, "Morality is herd instinct in the individual." I would say the same about a 'staunch lifelong card-carrying anything'. I do not understand people who give up their right to think.

[Rob]

Well, for precisely the reason Obi is so dejected over his influence on the government. As an individual the likelyhood of his protest to cause any real change in the government is pretty close to zero. If he persuades a few thousand of us to send tea bags to our representatives then his influence increases along with a net decrease in our individuality. In effect, we trade our thoughts on the matter in for our influence. If he persuades millions then his power has dramaticly increases along with a dramatic decrease in our say in the matter. As long as Obi remains true to the cause our loss of individuality nets us an overall gain in influence.

This all seems pretty basic.. I hope I'm not insulting you. Then again, I did manage to sneak algebraic ratios in on the sly. :-}

[Phoenix]

Rob,

You didn't insult me at all. I have to disagree with your premise, though. Because one joins in with a cause - say, Obi's call for tea bags - does not mean he has abrogated his right to free thought. He has simply made a choice. In no way is it relinquishing any facet of our individualism to try to affect change as long as it is change we believe in. To not 'join' in for a collective cause because we fear losing our individualism is more like giving up our individualism and freedom of choice. Our existence does not define us: we are defined by our actions and thoughts. I am not going to live a life of anguish thinking I have sacrificed myself to another's cause. Far from it. I will revel in the fact that the choice to join and to become part of a larger whole validates my individuality and freedom of choice. The only way I can become diminished is if I allow it to happen.

And you can stuff your algebra. :)

[Obi-Wan]

Phoenix: You make my point: "staunch life-long card-carrying Democrat'...... To me, anyone saying that is a lemming.

Nietzsche said, "Morality is herd instinct in the individual." I would say the same about a 'staunch lifelong card-carrying anything'. I do not understand people who give up their right to think.

Rob: In the next breath be brings up the fact that he's never actually voted for a Democratic candidate since he doesn't like their positions.

I don't know Rob's father or his family, but in a lot of cases, people will claim "lifelong" party membership for reasons of tradition, family, etc.

It seems to me that the fact that he actually votes anti-Democratic—because of candidates' actual positions—indicates that he is the very opposite of a "lemming" and has hardly given up his "right to think."

Rob,

In effect, we trade our thoughts on the matter in for our influence. If he persuades millions then his power has dramaticly increases along with a dramatic decrease in our say in the matter. As long as Obi remains true to the cause our loss of individuality nets us an overall gain in influence.

Are you saying that to the extent that someone participates in a "mass campaign" like the tea-bag thing he forfeits his individuality?

I guess I sort of see your point, but I've never before thought of it that way, and I'm not sure how comfortable I am with that explanation.

I'm a little confused by your last comment, I guess, and re-reading it doesn't seem to help. Can't I see a campaign, note that I agree with it, and participate because of my individual beliefs and not in spite of them? (Perhaps I've misunderstood your point entirely, though.)

In addition, I may theoretically persuade "millions" (in my dreams) to participate, but ironically, I am also also a participant following someone else's lead, Eric, who in turn got the idea from a commenter. Does that cast me as one exercising my influence, or forfeiting my individuality?

Now I'm gettin' a headache... ;o)

[Rob]

Gotta go to sleep now.. I'll dig into this later. I did ponder while shopping tonight what would be the opposite of "Radical Moderate". Seems like it would be "Conservative Extremist" :-)

[Obi-Wan]

How about "Temperate Extremist?" Either way it's an oxymoron... ;o)

[Rob]

Ok, think of it this way. Imagine if you will you live on a large perfectly flat surface. There exists a huge metal ball. You decide one day to move that ball in a certain specific direction. By yourself you can manage to move the ball eventually, but very very slowly. Now a few friends show up. They help you move it and indeed, the pace picks up. You now have the ball moving in the general direction you want, but in exchange for help you gave up the right to choose the specific direction that ball is rolling. Add a few thousand more people and now moving the ball is easy, but it only moves in the general direction the crowd wants it. Still, you all feel that this is "a good thing". You have traded the ability to move the ball precisely where you want it for the ability of the crowd to move it generally where you all want it quickly. From an external perspective, there was a loss of rights for a gain of power.

Now, from your perspective you "joined the movement" and "got the ball rolling" and you contributed. ;-) The more the crowd comes in one accord the more power it has. But that means the surrender of your personal thoughts on the matter. Nothing is more impotent than a group who all want the same goal but want to do it their way. Or to sum it up. Let In be Influence, Id be identity and C be crowd
In = C/Id To maximise In you need to minimize Id or make C really really huge.
Joke for Obi.. I've heard that to figure the "group IQ" of any group is the same formula for Parallel Resistance.... ;-}

[Phoenix]

Rob,

Your oxymorons don't work. Here's why: "Moderate" is the noun. "Radical" is the adjective describing that noun. You have to keep the noun the same, but you can change the adjective to find the opposite. Pretend you have a flat surface with a ball in the center of it. It is a moderate ball because it likes being right in the middle and it is quite resistant to movement in any direction. An extremist from the left comes along and tries to roll the ball, but he can get no purchase on movement. A few more lefty extremists come along and try to help rolling the ball...but no go.... it's not budging. Pretty soon, a gang of right-wing extremists come along and try to move the ball. Of course, they want to move the ball to the right, whereas the lefties want to move the ball to the left. It doesn't work for the righties, their efforts to get the ball rolling are in vain. So, they all, both righties and lefties, stand around scratching their heads and one comes up with the bright idea to join forces and all try to move the ball....anywhere, it doesn't matter which direction as long as they can get it rolling. So, oooomph, push, shove, they finally get the ball rolling with their collective efforts to just get the thing done. Gone are any desires to move right or left; they just each want to know they can DO it. The ball rolls and rolls and everyone high-fives and cheers and feels a sense of accomplishment. As their celebratory gyrations calm, the ball settles itself right back where it was in the first place. The righties and lefties all look at one another and scratch their heads. Finally, one of the gang says: "You know, that was pretty radical, man. Did you see how we all worked together when we set aside our mindsets of which direction the ball SHOULD go? How radical is that, dudes?!"

A new political movement is founded.

Now, to address your example of sacrificing individualism for the sake of a group? No way. Absolutely, NO WAY. We do not exist in a vacuum. And, once again, the only way one gives up his right to think, his individualism, is if he allows it to happen.

[Rob]

I wish I was smart enough to figure out if you're makeing fun of me.. :-)
I dunno. I think I'm right. Either that or I read waaay too much Ayn Rand in college... (I read Atlas Shrugged. That was way too much all on it's own) ;-)

[Obi-Wan]

Whoa. So now Forward Biased has advanced to the point of using equations to describe socio-political cases, and debating said cases with thought-experiments.

Golly. I feel so...so, elitist. Heh.

First, Rob:

In your illustration, from my perspective, I haven't given up any influence, since I believe that I agree with the general direction that the ball is rolling, and indeed, if we did not at least generally agree on that direction, the ball wouldn't be moving so easily (although a Giant watching the whole episode unfold sees not thousands of individuals in agreement, but one mass of humanity acting as one organism, sort of like ants dragging food back to the colony). The sensation of retaining individual influence is largely an illusion, but at least that illusion prevents a large-scale insurrection by individuals who feel disenfranchised.

As for your joke, it's a good one, although I now feel badly for all readers who have no idea what we're talking about, especially Type-N (mathematically challenged) people like Phoenix (and no, I'm not making fun of you, Phoenix, just describing the situation by your own words). However, Rob, in my opinion the expression in the denominator should be squared in the case of the intelligence of crowds. Heh.

(The formula for resistances in parallel, in the simplifying case of all resistances being equal, if Rt = total resistance, Ri = individual resistors, and Nr = number of resistors, Rt = (Ri/Nr).

Phoenix, this simply means that if two resistors are so connected, the original resistance drops to half; if three, then it's one-third; if four, then one-fourth, and so on. By now, of course, any humor that might have existed in that joke is long gone. ;o) )

Phoenix,

Your thought experiment works great as long as we can assume that

Gone are any desires to move right or left; they just each want to know they can DO it. The ball rolls and rolls and everyone high-fives and cheers and feels a sense of accomplishment.

I wonder how realistic that is, but if it is true, then great things can be accomplished—but did you not notice that the participants voluntarily gave up their original individual desires for control over direction? This has the same effect as Rob's illustration; the participants have given up influence in exchange for effectiveness, although it was a voluntary disenfranchisement, on an individual level, for the common good.

Now, to address your example of sacrificing individualism for the sake of a group? No way. Absolutely, NO WAY. We do not exist in a vacuum. And, once again, the only way one gives up his right to think, his individualism, is if he allows it to happen.

I doubt that the individuals in your illustration would say that they had given up anything, since it was voluntary (they "allowed it to happen" as you said). But if they do not give up that individual control, their efforts are, as you noted, in vain.

Heck, we could debate this forever (and you're right, Phoenix, it is kinda fun), but I have the feeling we may have just lost a few dozen readers over this. Maybe not.

[Phoenix]

Rob,

No, I wasn't making fun of you. I was using your 'joke' as a platform to show that one can become a member of a whole without losing his individuality. I didn't know it was a 'joke', though. So, were you making fun of me? It seems that way from Obi's worried response.

You didn't read enough Ayn Rand in college. Where is the debate? One does not give up his individualism unless he allows it. That seems fairly simple to me. I do not need anyone's permission to exist or to think. Here is Ayn Rand's take on it: "I need no warrant for my being, and no word of sanction upon my being. I am the warrant and the sanction."

I'll balance my point out about voluntarily 'joining' a collective effort for the good of all with something you said, and I will add another dimension to it: "I doubt that the individuals in your illustration would say that they had given up anything, since it was voluntary (they "allowed it to happen" as you said). But if they do not give up that individual control, their efforts are, as you noted, in vain."

The individuals did not give up their individuality by a collective effort for the common good. We are members of a 'tribe', a civilization, a culture that only works when we all connect and put individual differences aside for the sake of the whole. We do not exist in a vacuum. But in no way do our efforts to maintain our security in our 'tribe' take away from our individualism. We have freedom of thought. It is that way and always will be that way - unless we succumb to propaganda and give over to thought-control. 1984.

Disenfranchisement is not the issue here. It is all about choice. Do you think an individual who has given up his individualism, freedom of thought, has a choice? No.

Now, if we all stood firm and refused, on the basis of 'saving' our individualism, to help others for the sake of the whole, then we'd all be disenfranchised by our own choice. We'd all be miserable, frightened humans sitting fearfully but proudly chained to our individualism. Progress would come to a standstill. Innovation would cease to exist. Might as well go back to living in caves. It is what is so great about our country and its people that we can be a part of the whole, work for it, and yet maintain our individualism and freedom of choice.

Obi - how would we lose readers over this? Am I missing something here? Is Rob really being snarky with his mathematical games and trying to make me look stupid. Good luck. :} For sure he will succeed at that, but then I have a wide view, and I will be fine.

[Phoenix]

In my comment above, I meant to address Obi immediately after the sentence: "You didn't read enough Ayn Rand in college." I'm not used to thinking about having to parse out my thoughts by using <.P> each time I want to redirect my attention.....

[Obi-Wan]

Obi - how would we lose readers over this? Am I missing something here?

I don't really think we will, certainly not in the short run, unless we started doing that sort of thing all the time. I was referring to the somewhat esoteric turn this thread has taken, and there are probably a lot of people who either can't follow what the heck we're discussing, or don't care to. But no, I wasn't really serious.

Is Rob really being snarky with his mathematical games and trying to make me look stupid.

I'm actually the wrong one to ask, but my impression is that he's not. I don't want to take the chance of offending you by suggesting that you might be a tad too sensitive about your math-challengedness, but oops, it's too late now...heh heh...(that's just a friendly suggestion, not criticism, and I may well be wrong).

And I certainly don't think he's trying to make anyone, least of all you, look stupid. But you can fully expect him to make an occasional comment poking fun at me, because I do the same thing. That doesn't mean he's trying to make me look stupid, though (I can accomplish that feat quite well on my own, without any help).

I have a wide view, and I will be fine.

Be assured that I have no doubt about that. If you can survive the things you told us about a few comments ago, you can certainly survive Rob and I.

[Rob]

Yeah, I wasn't trying to make fun of anyone. My model was serious though I threw a joke in there at the end cause it seemed appropriate "ball rolling". I still cringe when I read that. :-}

I termed it in math just to show you that math is everwhere and you actually do understand it (though in this case don't agree with the conclusion).

And keep in mind I'm describing all this "from an external perspective". Much the same way the Theory of Relativity" has alot of paradoxes if not taken from an external perspective. ie, sit in a chair outside at night and watch the start. Now spin the chair all around and the start seem to be in motion. From your perspective the most distant start (hundreds of miles away, thousands even ;-) appear to be running a circle around the universe at waaaay above the speed of light. Relatively speaking (groan) your perspective doesn't matter. The perspective of the universe doesn't matter. The "laws of physics" are beyond all that. It's from that (for lack of a better word) cosmic perspective that we are policed on the laws of physics. Things can appear to break those laws from our perspective but in all cases our perspective will be wrong because it's sometimes impossible to tell if someone is spinning our chair.