Saturday, June 25, 2005
It incidents like this
It's incidents like this that make the carpet bombing of the entire middle east, even the so called "moderate" nations seem so attractive, even to me. I'm while not a Wiccan I do find their creed of "Do what thou will so long as it shall harm no other." to be a very reasonable, and attainable goal. People who run about killing their daughters, their adult daughters, for shaming the family name by either refusing to marry, or 'worse' marrying outside their faith, disgust me to the point where I'm glad I don't have to worry about wishing ill, or encouraging ill of people like this.
Maher Shakirat summoned three of his sisters to discuss a family uproar after one of them, Rudaina, was thrown out by her husband for an alleged affair. Maher listened to Rudaina's denials, and her sisters' pleas that they were not covering up the affair. Then he forced the three women to drink bleach before strangling Rudaina, who was eight months pregnant. The other sisters tried to flee but Maher caught and strangled Amani, 20. The third, Leila, escaped but was badly injured by the bleach.
Friday, June 24, 2005
UN Sec Council
I'm unastonished to find a good bit of the Spectrum in agreement with me. What I did find surprising is that apparently some of the nice Congress Critters agree as well. We do need to either break the UN down to the bedrock and rebuild it, or simply leave it. Unfortunately, neither of those things is going to happen anytime soon. We do pay in dues twenty-two percent of the UN's general budget, which is by far a larger share than any other nation. Sadly, the Security Council is simply to important to ignore, after the vaccination and educational suborganizations of the UN, it maybe the only part worth paying attention to. So who do I pick for the role? Japan has to be considered a strong favorite. However much it would antagonize China, they do make vast contributions to the UN, and are stable country with a much better human rights history than places like Mexico, Iran, China or Zimbabwe. India doesn't appear to do much outside their borders and I don't see that changing. Brazil is another possibility, but again, they don't do much and don't have an economic pot to piss in. What I'd like to see is a seat with veto powers that rotated between a few nations, specifically: Turkey, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Canada, Israel, and perhaps one or two others every 18 months. I really hold very little respect for most of the UN's activities, but this is one of the slots we can't ignore.
Thursday, June 23, 2005
A mild correction
Oh dear gentle beings,
While I agree in almost every particular with what has been written. Which is why I have not posted my own post calling for the demolition of the UN building through the use of the newly found expansion of emminent domain. I'm sure somone in the private sector would be willing to put a shopping mall in Manhattan. I however must rebuke you in not doing some very very basic research. China is a PERMANENT member of the Security council.
Your most truly,
Caohaoim
While I agree in almost every particular with what has been written. Which is why I have not posted my own post calling for the demolition of the UN building through the use of the newly found expansion of emminent domain. I'm sure somone in the private sector would be willing to put a shopping mall in Manhattan. I however must rebuke you in not doing some very very basic research. China is a PERMANENT member of the Security council.
Your most truly,
Caohaoim
S.O.S. - D.D.
Who, if anyone, deserves a seat on the UN Security Council?
I think I have a better question. What does it matter?
The United Nations has become increasingly irrelevant. At the end of the Cold War, the common anti-UN fear was of the dreaded One World Government. Now the complaint is simple graft and corruption, not unlike a local coucilman stealing money from the municiple coffers. Wherever there is a large and powerful organization there is ambition and greed. Representative systems are meant to function on the balance of competing "enlightened" self-interest. The representaive are supposed to act in the interests of the districts, states/provinces or nations they stand for. As with most such assemblies today, the members of the UN self-interest is neighter enlightened or national in character.
What purpose would it serve to add another chair to the council? This body only holds a nation to its treaty obligations if there's no monetary draw back for the ambassadors in the chairs. What good would it do to expand the circle of permanent members? Yet another potential veto? Could we make this body less effective?
Perhaps one could assume the question meant "Which nation would make the Security Council more effective, if it were added?" Then my counter question becomes "More effective for whom?" More effective for America? I can't think of anyone who isn't generally against American interests, one of the major reasons the US tends to walk apart from the UN. If such a member could be found and such a balance shift made, how would it be different from the state of things now? American unilateralism with the UN seal of approval?
I aknowledge the possibility that I'm not giving the UN enough credit. It could be better, or more threatening than I think. It might have the potential to become something imortant in the future. I realize that the UN has more impact beyond the borders of my country. In the end, I just don't care.
There are enough fires to worry over at home. I can't spare much thought for the UN. In the spirit of the original question, however, I will name my number one choice for a spot on the SC.
The Principality of Liechtenstein.
Why? Why not?
I think I have a better question. What does it matter?
The United Nations has become increasingly irrelevant. At the end of the Cold War, the common anti-UN fear was of the dreaded One World Government. Now the complaint is simple graft and corruption, not unlike a local coucilman stealing money from the municiple coffers. Wherever there is a large and powerful organization there is ambition and greed. Representative systems are meant to function on the balance of competing "enlightened" self-interest. The representaive are supposed to act in the interests of the districts, states/provinces or nations they stand for. As with most such assemblies today, the members of the UN self-interest is neighter enlightened or national in character.
What purpose would it serve to add another chair to the council? This body only holds a nation to its treaty obligations if there's no monetary draw back for the ambassadors in the chairs. What good would it do to expand the circle of permanent members? Yet another potential veto? Could we make this body less effective?
Perhaps one could assume the question meant "Which nation would make the Security Council more effective, if it were added?" Then my counter question becomes "More effective for whom?" More effective for America? I can't think of anyone who isn't generally against American interests, one of the major reasons the US tends to walk apart from the UN. If such a member could be found and such a balance shift made, how would it be different from the state of things now? American unilateralism with the UN seal of approval?
I aknowledge the possibility that I'm not giving the UN enough credit. It could be better, or more threatening than I think. It might have the potential to become something imortant in the future. I realize that the UN has more impact beyond the borders of my country. In the end, I just don't care.
There are enough fires to worry over at home. I can't spare much thought for the UN. In the spirit of the original question, however, I will name my number one choice for a spot on the SC.
The Principality of Liechtenstein.
Why? Why not?
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
UN Security Council
I will make this short because I dont want to bog down everyone in facts and rhetoric. I think a case could be made for China, Japan, and India to all join the security council, alot of people hold inhibitions about these countries, mainly China, but I think the time has come when we need to recognize that over a third of the worlds population...almost a half!!!...is in these three countries...we need to recognize that and acknowledge their need for participation in events that directly affect them.
The Chinese human rights record needs a great deal of improvement, numerous problems exist not limited to religious persecution by the government, agressively inforced 1 child rule (forcing abortions), and stranglehold on the media. One could also question Russia and their media but that is another story. Once these problems are addressed then China can take the next step towards participation on a larger platform.
The Chinese human rights record needs a great deal of improvement, numerous problems exist not limited to religious persecution by the government, agressively inforced 1 child rule (forcing abortions), and stranglehold on the media. One could also question Russia and their media but that is another story. Once these problems are addressed then China can take the next step towards participation on a larger platform.
UN Security Council
What can I say, bring on the cheerios.
In all honesty, I think that the current members of the UN Security Council should be removed and replaced by Zimbabwe, Sudan, Cuba and North Korea. No, I am not being facetious. I am, however, willing to consider any proposal that leads to the destruction (real or defacto) of the UN as a global organization.
My reasoning is simple.
First, I do not think that UN serves any useful purpose. Even the best-case scenario involves a country surrendering some of its sovereignty. Nations can talk to each other without the red tape (and endless debates and resolutions) of the UN.
Second, the UN's current structure is incompatible with peace, let alone simple morals. There is literally no mechanism for the UN to differentiate between free countries and those ruled by dictators. Any organization lacking this ability is incapable of correct action (and inaction), as the UN has shown time and again, and so is not worth time, money or even the occasional drifting thought.
Since the UN is worse than useless, it should be disbanded (I do not believe that a sufficiently radical overhaul is a realistic possibility). Short of an actual dissolution of the UN, I would settle for its defacto destruction by making its flaws so painfully obvious that no one would take them seriously...hence, my selections for the new Security Council.
In all honesty, I think that the current members of the UN Security Council should be removed and replaced by Zimbabwe, Sudan, Cuba and North Korea. No, I am not being facetious. I am, however, willing to consider any proposal that leads to the destruction (real or defacto) of the UN as a global organization.
My reasoning is simple.
First, I do not think that UN serves any useful purpose. Even the best-case scenario involves a country surrendering some of its sovereignty. Nations can talk to each other without the red tape (and endless debates and resolutions) of the UN.
Second, the UN's current structure is incompatible with peace, let alone simple morals. There is literally no mechanism for the UN to differentiate between free countries and those ruled by dictators. Any organization lacking this ability is incapable of correct action (and inaction), as the UN has shown time and again, and so is not worth time, money or even the occasional drifting thought.
Since the UN is worse than useless, it should be disbanded (I do not believe that a sufficiently radical overhaul is a realistic possibility). Short of an actual dissolution of the UN, I would settle for its defacto destruction by making its flaws so painfully obvious that no one would take them seriously...hence, my selections for the new Security Council.
Monday, June 20, 2005
Question of the Week.
Who, if anyone deserves a future seat on the UN security council.
Anyone who makes a case for Zimbabwe, Sudan, Cuba, or North Korea will be raped with cheerios and then committed for life to a mental health facility.
Anyone who makes a case for Zimbabwe, Sudan, Cuba, or North Korea will be raped with cheerios and then committed for life to a mental health facility.
Sunday, June 19, 2005
Funding The Arts
Should the government fund arts programs, museums, and similar programs? And of course, why?
No...depending on what, exactly, The CO meant by the question.
In terms of school curricula, yes. If we are going to fund public education (which I'm not convinced we should) then we should provide a complete education that includes the arts, sciences and 'everything else'. However, if the question was addressed to non-academic arts only (e.g., museums and such) then no, I do not think that the government should be funding them.
Before everyone jumps down my throat, consider this. While some attempt to define objective criteria for judging the quality/significance of art, the very nature of artistic expression makes it necessarily highly subjective. So, in deciding which art is 'good' and which is 'not good' someone must make a value judgment. While I, of course, fully support individuals making such decisions with their own money, I sure as you-know-what do not condone some government bureaucratic making a value judgment with my money.
This is yet another example of a position I will defend to the bitter end because I think that the discourse of what is within our government's power needs to be recalibrated. Take a look at the Constitution of the United States of America and show me where it grants the government the power to take money from one person and give it to another. (Hint: If you're not up for wasting your time you can take my word...there is no such power enumerated in the Constitution).
I will end with a final question for you to ponder: If the government stopped funding art, museums, etc., do you believe that we would not have museums?
---
The CO's response.
No...depending on what, exactly, The CO meant by the question.
In terms of school curricula, yes. If we are going to fund public education (which I'm not convinced we should) then we should provide a complete education that includes the arts, sciences and 'everything else'. However, if the question was addressed to non-academic arts only (e.g., museums and such) then no, I do not think that the government should be funding them.
Before everyone jumps down my throat, consider this. While some attempt to define objective criteria for judging the quality/significance of art, the very nature of artistic expression makes it necessarily highly subjective. So, in deciding which art is 'good' and which is 'not good' someone must make a value judgment. While I, of course, fully support individuals making such decisions with their own money, I sure as you-know-what do not condone some government bureaucratic making a value judgment with my money.
This is yet another example of a position I will defend to the bitter end because I think that the discourse of what is within our government's power needs to be recalibrated. Take a look at the Constitution of the United States of America and show me where it grants the government the power to take money from one person and give it to another. (Hint: If you're not up for wasting your time you can take my word...there is no such power enumerated in the Constitution).
I will end with a final question for you to ponder: If the government stopped funding art, museums, etc., do you believe that we would not have museums?
---
The CO's response.
