Jeff Jarvis on his change of attitude about the East River rapids:

Now I used to think that the U.N. was a good and necessary thing (I still hope that view can be restored). I used to think that U.N.-haters tended to be survivalist nuts. But after our experience with the U.N. and Iraq, I note that my immediate and reflexive reaction to U.N. involvement in anything has changed.

Misunderstanding the usefulness of a multinational body is much like misunderstanding nation building - both concepts have been defined far too much by the United Nations. The latter I had mentally separated from America's post-World War II efforts, and did in fact applaud Bush when he ridiculed foreign policy as social work during the second debate. Needless to say, September 11th permanently changed my mind - especially when I realized that democratization didn't require the United Nations.

So, Jeff, do you want something like the U.N., but without the worst combinations of deference and officiousness we see today? Three easy steps: keep it ideologically consistent by booting out and keeping out the dictatorships; put an end to Article VI-busting, arbitrary mandates from unelected officials by shifting the organization's center of oversight gravity to the work of individual nations; balance national power with egalitarian principles through a sort of Connecticut Compromise, partially based on something useful like physical, international commitment. Make it a conduit for justice and good works, not an authority.

It may still end up a debating guild for stuffed shirts, but maybe without the assumed veto on sovereignty.