U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
May 26, 2007 05:17 PM UTC
132 Comments
Many of you may have noticed that I’m not a patriot: I consider patriotism to be form of nationalism, and nationalism to be a political ideology whose utility is on the decline. A humanist can support the nation to the extent that the nation supports the interests of humanity, but cannot place the interests of the nation above those of humanity. So I can’t, in good faith, pledge allegiance to this flag, because there are times when this flag represents conflicts with the interests to which my allegiance is truly pledged.
Let’s be perfectly clear: That doesn’t mean that I wish ill on the people of the United States, or am opposed to their interests. We all belong to global humanity, and I place no one above or below anyone else. The fate and welfare of the southeast asian rice farmer is no more nor less important than the fate and welfare of the door-to-door salesman in Oklahoma. I just can’t find the logic in differentiating between the value of the two.
Of course, there is a natural, and perhaps justifiable, differentiation between those we know (and love) and those we don’t. I care more about the fate of those emotionally close to me than the fate of those emotionally remote, perhaps because we simply have a limited capacity, and to invest the same degree of emotion universally would result either in a complete nervous breakdown, or the dilution of concern for both those near and far to the vanishing point. But since I don’t personally know everyone in the United States, I have a choice of where and how to draw my lines. I can either extend some portion of my “tribal” prejudice in favor of those I know and love to those who happen to be citizens of this particular political entity, or I can distribute the residual equally among all those whom I don’t know, or don’t love.
But here’s the conundrum: I do feel compassion for those who have sacrificed their lives in defense of their country (this and other countries), some under circumstances in which doing so truly was part of an honorable cause, and some under circumstances in which doing so was an unfortunate exploitation of their patriotism in prosecution of a dishonorable cause. I just don’t know how those who think as I do can pay the respects and give the honor due without incidentally reinforcing the ideology which I would like to help diminish. It often strikes me as a second exploitation of those dead heroes. I don’t want to wave any flags this weekend, but I do want to acknowledge sacrifice for often selfless reasons.
So, here’s to selflessness: May more of us aspire to it, and may it increasingly more often be exercised in the interests of humanity, and increasingly less often in the predatory interests of one tribe.
…rooting for everyone, or no one, to win each competition.
🙂
–thanks for your thoughtful post
Who cares where they’re from?
After all, the young men who fought valiently for Nazi Germany deserve the same honor and compassion of which I speak now, but don’t, I think, deserve “thanks,” exactly, because the cause for which they fought was not one for which I am grateful. It’s a different way of looking at it, I know, but not one I am willing to relinquish.
First, you deny your rabid globalism and then, you offer a veritable paean to it? Love your intellectual consistency and candor, Yev.
We gather together in those societies we call countries as a pragmatic and utterly necessary defense against the predatory nature of our species. And while it surely would be nice to live in the kind of Star Trek fantasy-land you envision, that work isn’t likely to even be fairly begun in our lifetimes — if at all. The one seeming constant in the universe is man’s inhumanity to his fellow man; until that changes, we will have need for these mutual defense pacts.
The problem comes when the pacts break down like they did in Buchenwald, or when they aren’t strong enough to fend off the aggression of others (e.g., Iraq, Rwanda, the Sudan). And if you did away with the nation-state, there would be no way for the individual person to protect and vindicate his rights and liberties. For what good is the theoretical right of access to the courts to vindicate your “rights under law” if a court can shut its door to you for any or no reason at all? Ask Dred Scott that one. For that matter, ask me.
The men and women of our armed forces gave their lives for an ideal: that, in the words of Samuel Adams, this country would, if necessary, remain the last asylum for freedom of free thought and expression on this Earth. That they have failed in this charge — and that we have become a nation ruled not by laws, but by the caprice of men — in no wise diminishes their sacrifice. And it may someday fall upon us to pledge our sacred honor to our fellows and “water the tree of liberty.” That is what it is supposed to mean to be an American. Samuel Adams also observed that
You are free to advocate an acid-inspired, Pollyanna-ish, John Lennon view of the world, and we are free to regard it with scorn and derision.
Rio, I’m disappointed. I’m not sure who “we” are, but IMHO, if humanity doesn’t aspire towards a greater good, a greater way or living together, a GREATER Republic with greater leaders and….a people with greater understanding, awareness…..more like Lennon….we’re fucked.
I’ll follow Yev wherever he wants to go. Wherever he IS, he’ll be welcome open armed as a comrade….. a fellow human being…and a friend.
As a friend, let go the “scorn and derision”…..is doesn’t look good on you.
You said “Comrade.” Well, comrade, you just gave away the game to the fascists. Wait till Papa Joe hears about this.
🙂
That was beautiful, man! I’m all choked up! 🙂
Rwanda. The Sudan. The intifada. Bosnia. Kampuchea. Iraq. Tragically, I could go on just about forever. Sir Robin, do you see any objective indication that as a species, mankind has learned anything of value from the ovens of Bergen-Belsen?
Try as I might, I honestly don’t.
Have you seen my post on the caging scandal? It’s all a part of the same elephant. The sum of history is an indelicate dance between those who seek to dominate others, and those who wish to be of from others’ domination. Sadly, where we stand is invariably a function of where we sit. And yes, that includes Yev. If his life and livelihood were threatened by illegal immigration, it is fair to say that he would suddenly find a reason to oppose it.
The one constant throughout history is man’s inhumanity to man.
I here turn (as I often do) to the wisdom of Ronald Reagan — and yes, like many of you, I used to think of that concept as an oxymoron. When dealing with the question of the Soviet Union’s compliance with treaties (like America, they were famous for signing treaties and promptly ignoring them), he said, “Trust, but verify.”
We thought of Ronnie RayGun as a loose cannon (“the bombing starts in five minutes”); he viewed himself as “a well-armed dove.” He said that as a Party, our position should be that “on the world scene we’re going to do whatever is necessary to insure that we can retain this free system of ours; in other words, we will maintain a defensive posture that is sufficient to deter aggression.” This is also an extension of the views of the Framers: None can be trusted with power, and the only conceivable assurance we have of preservation of our freedom is through the ability to use lethal force to defend it. Think “mutually assured destruction.”
Mexico is a surprisingly wealthy country: its people would enjoy a decent standard of living, but for a staggering GINI score of 55. The same is true of much of Latin America, and a few (e.g., Hugo Chavez) are doing something about it. We do that corner of the world a grave injustice if we permit our own country to become more like Mexico and China (their GINI is up to 47, and ours is now a positively feudal 44, in large part due to wage depression precipitated by illegal immigration and tax policies favoring accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few. And this is happening throughout the world: Remarkably, wages in India have actually dropped. The egalitarian society dreamed of by Yev (and arguably, is a common dream of all) is further away than it ever was, because we in the West have served as a the safety valve for tin-horned dictators throughout the world.
In the final analysis, I don’t know how you expect to get to this blissful “John Lennon society” without either radically changing human nature or substantially enhancing enforcement of existing jus cogens international law. I despair of the former, and I am profoundly disappointed in your commitment to the latter. America doesn’t even respect international law; how can anyone reasonably expect satraps of the Sudan to do so?
Sure, what Yev wants is a laudable goal. But wishing alone isn’t going to make it happen, and anyone who maintains that it is probably deserves to have “scorn and derision” heaped upon him.
are precisely the arguments in favor of striving to create some degree of global governance. The past century has seen the first tentative steps, weak and disappointing in the short term, but enormous in comparison to all that had come before. Woodrow Wilson literally sacrificed his life to a dream similar to the one I express; FDR and Churchill, undoubtedly two of the greatest statesmen of the 20th century, worked hard even in the final stages of WWII to strengthen the progress in that direction. But they all, undoubtedly, lack the wisdom you so clearly possess.
“Trust but verify” simply means that systems of mutual commitment don’t function in the absence of effective enforcement mechanisms, a fact that is as true within a defined polity as between defined polities.
Here’s a very simple, self-evident logical truth for you: There is no fundamental difference between global confederation and national or regional confederation. Both occur on large enough scales so as to require similar social institutional challenges. Both are responses to the demands of shared dangers and shared opportunities. Both follow from the logic of human history: People, in pursuit of their interests, sloppily and imperfectly trend, over long periods of time, toward highly rational social arrangements which produce the forms of cooperation necessary to best serve their interests. Those forms all require investments in enforcement: None are based on blind trust.
Levels of political organization often respond to changes in technology. The nation-state superceded feudal arrangements in Europe when canon render castles obsolete. In the age of rapid global communications and transportation, a global economy, global environmental challenges, and even global interests in mutual defense against extra-national, diffuse military threats (i.e., terrorism), the technological and circumstantial requirements for a shift toward a global political arrangement are all clearly in place.
It may, in fact, be no coincidence that the major military challenge of the day is not the traditional one between established nation-states: Rather, it far more closely resembles a global-policing challenge. The rise of terrorism is one precursor of the next stage of human political history: Global political cohesion challenged by extra-governmental military threats, much as organized crime has challenged established political entities.
Certainly the difference in scale of confederation creates a corresponding difference in the magnitude of the challenge: The United States formed as a federation of culturally similar states. The European Union less so, but far more so than the world as a whole. That cultural diversity is far more salient an issue than the irrelevant (to this discussion) littany of crimes against humanity you cite as reasons why global confederation is impossible.
In fact, THE ARGUMENTS YOU CITE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CHALLENGES OF GLOBAL CONFEDERATION!!!
Your style of argumentation is a marvel: You passionately invoke material that has a large emotional content, but that often has absolutely no relevance to the discussion at hand. If your “arguments” were correct, then there would be no political cohesion on any level anywhere in the world! At most, the political landscape would consist of small bands of people engaged in mutual defense against all of the horrors of the world that you cite. But, somehow, in spite of these “inescapable truths” of yours, large-scale political entities have indeed formed. And if political entities of the scale that is currently in vogue were able to form amidst all of the attrocities of the world, what about those attrocities recommends against a scale one step larger? Quite the contrary, those attrocities are one of the most poignant arguments in favor of taking that next step.
That’s the problem with “global governance.” Stage a military coup, have all of your enemies killed and oppress your people and… here you go – your own vote at the United Nations.
do not delimite the possibilities for tomorrow.
I did not specify the form or process, just the goal. And, yes, of course it is part of the goal that the Sudan [or some successor political entity(ies) that include(s) that geographic area], in a context of enforced international laws which effectively prohibit what is occuring in the Sudan currently.
Once again (*groan!*), I have never said that a global federalism is imminent, or that we are on its doorstep, or that the U.N. is the vehicle by which it should occur. All I’ve said, and what I now repeat, is that it is the ideal toward which my aspirations for the political future of the world are directed, and toward which I would be happy to strive. No littany of how we are not there yet, or almost there yet, etc., etc., changes either the integrity of my priorities, or the long term efficacy of keeping long-term goals in mind.
In a well designed federal government, there is a more complex relationship between the federal government, the “member” governments, and the individuals who are citizens of both, than the weak form currently in place in the U.N. Citizens of Colorado, for instance, are not just represented in the United States federal government by the government of Colorado, but also directly, and are not subject only to the government of Colorado, but also to the federal government. The United States system is not a bad model to strive for on a larger scale.
But, of course, it would be folly to ignore matters of immediate concern, set in the context of the current reality. I opine about matters within that context, and how currently existing political structures might most effectively utilize currently available tools. And while doing so, I keep in mind long term goals as well as immediate ones.
The defense of nationalism can not be legitimated by the difficulties of internationalism, any more than the historical defenses of tribalism, provincialism, and political disintegration could be legitimated by the challenges that historical unifications have faced. Underneath those arguments lies the force of ideological habit, the whispers of childhoods (and adulthoods) laden with political indoctrination, the emotional content that the social institutions of a political entity strive to embue in their citizens. Such emotional content is useful to the extent that it either helps to overcome lower-level collective action problems (i.e., disintegration), or to the extent that it helps to diminish higher-level overcontrol (i.e., imperialism). It is conterproductive, however, to the extent that it forms an obstacle to resolving higher-level collective action problems (i.e., globalization), or to impose the will of the more powerful upon weaker sovereign states who are not represented in any way in the decision making process which affects them (i.e., hegemony).
It’s really that simple.
Military dictators do not stage coups in order to gain a seat at the UN. They do it in order to gain control of the resources of the state. So the existance of global governance does not provide an incentive for such coups.
The fact that such governments have a seat at the UN, or even on the security council, does not pose any significant problems for other states: Other states would, under any circumstances, have to deal with a government that represented some set of interests in the country that they rule, whether the interests of a small ruling elite or the interests of a large electorate. In fact, it is at least as often more in the interests of other countries to deal with a small ruling elite than to deal with a truly representative democracy. Our cozy relationship with Saudi Arabia is the archtypical example. So the existance of global governance does not make such coups any more troublesome for the rest of the world than they would be in the absence of global governance.
Lastly, and most importantly, given the existance of such regimes in the world, people who suffer under them definately fare better the stronger are the institutions of global governance which can interfere with the abuses they are suffering. Even the unbearably weak UN is preferable to nothing, and I strongly suspect that the majority of people in Darfur, if asked whether they prefer for a strengthening or weakeneing of global governanace, would emphatically choose the former. So the existance of global governance, at the least, does not exaccerbate the problems of victims of criminal regimes, and at most helps to alleviate those problems.
Global governance does not incite such coups, does not make such coups more problematic for the rest of the world, and does not make such coups more problematic for the victims of them. Rather, global governance provides a tool that would otherwise not exist with which to address such crimes against humanity.
In sum, the Sudan is an argument in favor of global governance, not an argument against it.
that it creates the perfect vehicle for the next Hitler to arise, as we know he surely will. The last Hitler faced fierce resistance, some of which we honor today. Where will the great countervailing force come from, should your dream of a global government come to fruition?
The basic dynamics of human organization, conflict, and struggle would still exist. If a Hitler arose in the United States today (yeah, yeah, I know…), then that brutal dictator would be in control of the most powerful military in the world. If a Hitler arose in a globally confederated world, then that brutal dictator would be in charge of the most powerful military in the world.
The nations of the world, especially the most powerful ones, would never agree to any form of global federation that fundamentally reduced their relative strength in the geopolitical landscape. Just as Virginia refused to join any federation that did not recognize her relative size and political power, neither would the nation-states of today (or tomorrow). If the right to bear arms was a requisite for the formation of the American federal government, to ensure, in effect, that the states would have the means to oppose the rise of a Hitler (in the form of an individual or a government), then it would certainly be a requisite for any federated world government. The opposition would be organized and arm, just as it was in 1939.
what you want is what we already have. There is a World Court at the Hague, and a series of covenants defining the rights and duties of signatory nations. Enforcement would remain the most problematic aspect of this arrangement, as the Virginias of the modern confederation can still credibly tell the rest of the world to “pound sand.”
is to move from the Articles of Confederation stage to the Constitutional stage. One works, the other doesn’t.
…between local and regional confederations and a global one, which mysteriously seems to escape you. Local confederations are created for mutual protection; unless we are confronted by a Cylon or Klingon Empire, there’s no “them” we need to defend ourselves against. I’ve said more on this point elsewhere and as such, will not repeat myself.
You say: People, in pursuit of their interests, sloppily and imperfectly trend, over long periods of time, toward highly rational social arrangements which produce the forms of cooperation necessary to best serve their interests. Those forms all require investments in enforcement: None are based on blind trust.
That concept seems to evaded the notice of your good friend Cuervo — who is so busy worshiping at the feet of Queen Mary of Mullarkey that he doesn’t see the wisdom of imposing some meaningful form of accountability. The realist in me sees a global system only magnifying the problems we see in our own regional confederation, but without benefits making the confederation necessary and therefore “rational.”
are *usually* created for mutual protection against outside threats -that didn’t escape me; I had considered addressing it, but can’t address every issue in every post. However, the key ingredient isn’t mutual protection against outside threats, but simply the benefits of cooperation, whatever they are. The most pressing in a fragmented world, and therefore the first to motivate confederation, tend to be mutual defense.
However, there are exceptions. The European Union formed as a mutual defense against INTERNAL warfare. It was the wars of European states against European states that the European Coal and Steel Community formed to prevent in the 1950s, and the continuing unification has been motivated by the economic benefits of unification. NATO was the organization for mutual defense, not the EU.
You write: Your style of argumentation is a marvel: You passionately invoke material that has a large emotional content, but that often has absolutely no relevance to the discussion at hand. If your “arguments” were correct, then there would be no political cohesion on any level anywhere in the world! At most, the political landscape would consist of small bands of people engaged in mutual defense against all of the horrors of the world that you cite.
That you choose not to see the relevance does not mean that it is not there. Every political confederation — including the decision to create a town or village — must be evaluated on its own merits. If the benefits of the proposed arrangement outweigh the costs, the rational person would enter into it. If not, then s/he will not.
It is difficult to perceive the need for global government, where the potential downside can be truly enormous, and treaties containing mutual enforcement provisions can serve every bit as well. An alternative model defending human rights without creating a global bureaucracy is found in the First (or Second — I can’t recall which off-hand) Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which entitles citizens of a signatory nation to sue the nation itself for redress in a neutral international court. Of course, America only signs human rights treaties, as opposed to actually respecting and (horrors!) enforcing them, but the average Ivan in Sarajevo has more rights than we do as Americans. Granted, it does little to stop atrocities like Darfur, but you seem inclined to think that garden-variety institutional viciousness will not be eradicated in any event, and after Iraq, I am forced to agree that we don’t have the collective will to stop it.
(As an aside, “terrorism” has been around for centuries, if not millenia. Irgun was a terrorist organization, as was the Provisional IRA. Sun-Tzu talked tactics, and Chairman Mao followed his teachings to the letter. Terrorism has become more necessary because the bad guys waterboard, and have Stinger missiles.)
It’s “the articles of confederation syndrome” all over again: sovereign states that want to have some cooperative agreement but don’t want to give it any teeth. It simply doesn’t work. All current international pacts are simply too weak to perform effectively the functions for which they are intended.
the prospects of global confederation are, I have never once, in any post, made any speculation on the matter. I have only stated that that is the ideal toward which I strive.
Straw man, anyone? Your obvious attempt to worm out of your fauz pas aims at a target that isn’t there: Nothing in my post suggests that I am “wishing alone” for globalization. Rather, I am discussing a goal, which would inform policy preferences, and discussing it in the historical context which suggests that it is the logical conclusion of the geo-political progression of the world.
I denied having as my goal the destruction of our nation. There’s a difference. That a Virginia federalist in 1787, for instance, had as her goal the constitution of a federated nation does not mean that she had as her goal the destruction of the state of Virginia. As promised (to the rest of the blog), I will refrain from further comment, as tempting as it may be.
…and the “rule of law” for which it is supposed to stand. If our law can be disregarded whenever it becomes inconvenient, the inevitable result is anarchy.
I am deathly curious as to how you propose to create some sort of enforcement mechanism for this blissful new world order of yours, when nation-states and their corporate sponsors have no intention of adhering to bare minima of human rights law.
If I may be permitted to mention my own situation, this is not a theoretical question for me. I have tried to have the rule of jus cogens international law (the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) enforced in our own courts, to no avail. I have a petition before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (the body of the petition is at http://home.earthlin… if anyone cares), but as Prof. Ved Nanda (one of America’s foremost experts in international human rights law) told me recently (without knowing the particulars of my case, as I did not divulge them), “they won’t do anything” (for as is well-known, that body is feckless and toothless).
My question to you is this: If the nation-states won’t do it (and you won’t insist that they do), and the international community won’t do it (even Tancredo is ahead of the lot of you on the Sudan), how do you expect individual rights to be protected in this new world order of yours?
developed countries today. The world is a work in progress, and it took a transnational historical transformation (The Enlightenment) for human rights to become a value pursued by some nations. That aspect of the process I advocate and focus on originated in Europe, and those countries most “European” in culture are farthest along in embracing it. But other, non-European countries, by a variety of mechanisms, are indeed slowly drawn toward those aspects of the European political-cultural matrix that were most central to the Enlightenment. Japan was a military feudalism up until World War II, and is now a fully-functional “Western” Democracy. Much of the rest of Southeast Asia shares a similar trend. When Russia and China had their communist revolutions, they were embracing a European political-economic philosophy, and both have since moved (albeit imperfectly) in the direction of capitalism. It would surprise no one to see (or not see) increasing democratic and human-rights sensitive regimes in either of those countries: Those are developments that are certainly within the range of possibility. Change, even dramatic change, is the one constant of human history.
We have seen again in the “caging” scandal that if you control the prosecutor, the courts, and the media, the law is scarcely more than a trivial inconvenience.
We already have international courts, capable of adjudicating disputes involving state-sponsored terrorism as against that state’s own citizens. I myself have attempted to avail myself of such remedies. But they are feckless and toothless, and as we have seen from the example of our own state court system, there is no assurance that a more robust system would be any less inclined to abuse the power with which it has been vested.
Power minus accountability equals tyranny. This is a constant of human existence, which you must address in order to render your dream of a global confederation viable.
Who subtracted accountability from the equation? Since my operating assumption is that all individuals and organizations of individuals are pursuing their self-interest, it is obviously an integral part of all political challenges to create institutions which not only align the interests of constituents with one and other, but also align the interests of representatives with constituents. Democracy is one formidable, but incomplete, way to do that: The people you represent get to throw you out if they don’t feel you have been representing their interests. Democracy is certainly still a work-in-progress, but whether it is a work-in-progress on one level or on a larger level is something for us (i.e., humanity) to collectively determine.
Not to mention that the current global political order, in which the most powerful states simply exercie their global will without regard for the wishes of the citizens of the weaker states who either benefit or suffer from their policies, is certainly a situation of “power minus accountability!” The majority of Iraqis consider us unwanted invaders, and the majority of people in the world agree. The Iraqis would vote us out in a second. We are responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens, sometimes (perhaps often) simply as an expression of the arbitrary brutality that occurs when young men are placed in violent circumstances with a license to kill. We kidnap, inprison, and torture people from other countries on wisps of evidense, many of whom are completely innocent. And this is the world order you defend to prevent the tyrrany of power without accountability??!!
A higher degree of federal global governance is precisely what is required to hold the hegemonic powers of this world accountable to the people who are affected by the exercise of their power. As is, global power is accountable only to domestic will, and thus, per your formula, tyrrany is an inevitable result.
…your posts are always good for some (unintended) humor. One grandiloquent clunker after another just rolls off your tongue and through your keyboard.
…for his often rambling and often rococo manifestos?
We all know the answer, hypocrite.
Come out from under the sink, you little cockroach … reveal who you really are and the dog you really have in this hunt.
have received many complements. But, more to the point, why don’t YOU reveal your identity? I have already revealed mine. I post under my own name (backwards, as most people on the blog know), and take responsibility for my words. How can you call anyone a hypocrite, and then accuse them of hiding behind anonymity on this blog??!!
Besides, it’s not hypocricy to respect well-reasoned, well-expressed arguments, and to hold in contempt poorly reasoned, poorly composed, pretentious, and silly “manifestos.” It’s just good taste. 🙂
Polysyllabic words don’t offend me. Rather, what works my nerves is your terribly awkward use of bombastic language in your effort to sound like you know what you’re talking about.
But, then again, it’s also rather amusing.
As for my super-top-secret, tell-you-and-I-must-kill-you identity, haven’t you figured it out yet, son?
Rio,….I…..am…..your…..father!
The mystery of where I got it from is now solved. 🙂
For the same reason that Virgians were less likely to come to the aid of North Carolinians under the Articles of Confederation than under the Constitution: As members of a single polity rather than separate polities, they both have the overarching apparatus which considers weighs their various interests on equal footing, and they gradually come to identify with the formerly-other polity as members of their own. Were the Citizens of New England or California more likely to consider the devastation of Katrina or the genocide in Darfur as their proper and inescapable responsibility? The former, of course, because Katrina occured *within their nation.* When the world becomes one nation, everything will occur within our shared nation.
based on a completely cynical view of human beings as “utility maximizing” actors (i.e., “selfish slobs”). The tension between conflict and cooperation in pursuit of such personal utility maximization is at the root of this mathematical analysis of human existance. There are many selfish goals that are satisfied only through cooperation, even while conflict persists in each actor’s attempt to get a larger piece of the benefits of that cooperation. Thus, international treaties and trade agreements. Your argument would as easily apply to the anti-federalists of 1987 America as it does to the anti-globalists of 21st century Earth. Just as the “Leviathan” in some form or another was Hobbes’ solution to the “war of all against all” on a limitied geographic scale, some form of governance is the necessary solution to any geographic entity in which people face a combination of shared opportunities and shared dangers. There is nothing Poly-anna-esque in my analysis: It starts, in fact, from the safe assumption that all human beings act in their own self-interest, since to the degree that that assumption is inaccurate, it will not undermine the utility of assuming it. Starting from that assumption, a smart analysist asks, “then how do we align disparate self-interests to satisfy collective interests?” That is what laws and markets and norms and ideologies do, and what they evolve to do. Why would it be logical for a tribe to overcome its internal collective action problems to the mutual benefit of its members, and logical for a state to overcome it’s internal collective action problems to the mutual benefit of its members, and logical for a nation to overcome its internal collective action problems to the mutual benefit of its members, but not be logical for a world to overcome its internal collective action problems to the mutual benefit of its members? Is it only on a global scale that the hard realities you have identified exist, and not within tribes, or within states, or within nations?
The logical conclusion of human beings’ efforts to organize themselves into societies which overcome the collective action problems which serve as obstacles to the maximization of their individual self-interests is global federalism. That does not mean the end of local organization, or local political entities: Rather, it means a distribution of power in which local issues are dealt with locally, and global issues are dealt with globally. It does not mean the destruction of the nation, but rather the participation of the nation in a larger and superceding political process, just as it means the recognition of the nation of the rights of localities to the degree of local autonomy that does not undermine the integrity of the larger political unit.
I don’t know how you guys feel, but for me, this discussion is refreshing. You can’t have this one over beers down at the country club, where pretty much everyone is a Republican. Patton’s maxim that “if everyone agrees, no one is thinking” applies in spades.
The US Constitution is a remarkable feat in game theory. The antifederalist “Brutus” explains:
The fundamental flaw that I see in your analysis is that not infrequently, the interests of a smaller group of people in the domination of others is at obvious cross-purpose with the interest of the rest of us in preventing that domination. And sometimes, they get the upper hand.
Let us say that you are the judge in the case of Harry Cohn v. The Third Reich. Mr. Cohn is an involuntary resident of Buchenwald, who filed a habeas petition coming before your Court. You are, of course, a man who is inclined to act in your own self-interest. How do you rule under the following set of facts:
How do you rule, Judge Yev, and why? Anyone? Remember, the only constraint on your decision is the assumption we all accept as an axiom: that you will act in your own self-interest.
ever will be, a perfect world, without tragic suffering, injustice, and institutionalized viciousness. Since the scenario you’ve created has no relevance to the discussion at hand, and time is a limited resource, I decline the invitiation.
It has central relevance to this discussion … and I rather suspect that you know it. I’m challenging an assumption that you cherish, almost to the point of being an article of faith: that it is necessarily in our interest to join in your scheme of global government. As addressing my hypo would materially weaken your position, I can understand why you would be highly motivated to decline.
If we accept as axiomatic that rational people invariably act in accordance with what they perceive to be their self-interest (Dale Carnegie extends this to acts of charity and selflessness, and offers a compelling argument for it), we must acknowledge that in some situations, self-interest leads inexorably to tyranny.
I have to ask that inordinately crass question: “What’s in it for me?” Or, to put it perhaps more ARTfully, why should we “squander our resistance for a pocket-full of mumbles such as promises?”
Our forefathers banded together into the American federation for the same reason all societies do: for mutual protection. The British Empire posed a clear and present danger, and they made the rational decision to band together into what we now know as America. They all harbored well-founded fears that the federation could be every bit as perilous as the British menace, but they cut the deal anyway, because it was on balance a win.
Today, America is the “big dog.” If we were to be attacked, the attacker would not survive it, even if humanity were not to survive in the process. Tonga, Chad, and the Maldives don’t exactly have anything we need on that score, and we’d be giving up an awful lot to get it. No deal. Rational game theory, Yev.
And what assurance do we have that the awesome power of this new confederation of yours would not be trained upon us, to our detriment? Without some meaningful system of checks and balances, you’re sending an engraved invitation to the first global Hitler. Once the foundations are laid, as they were in Nazi Germany, the self-interest of whence you speak would lead to the perpetuation of tyranny — which is the point of my hypothetical.
You have stated in another part of this thread: “Trust but verify” simply means that systems of mutual commitment don’t function in the absence of effective enforcement mechanisms. But this basic principle isn’t limited to treaties, as all forms of government are “systems of mutual commitment.” And what reasonable assurance do we have that power cannot be abused in the global government you propose? Your friends on this blog (especially, Cuervo) have labeled my plan to hold judges personally accountable for misconduct on the bench as “dangerous.” If the model of our judiciary is a portent as to what is to come under your federation, it is an immediate deal-killer.
In the old world order, “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of [our basic rights as men], it [was] the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” But as our own Civil War demonstrated, that “right” was mostly illusory; once you opt-in on the deal and cede military and economic enforcement power to the larger federation, there’s no going back.
Finally, if the global federation offers me no more of a remedy than I have today as against “suffering, injustice, and institutionalized viciousness,” there’s no up-side to the deal for me personally. Hell, I can’t even get some of you to acknowledge my basic rights as a man and that they have been violated; how can I trust your global government to enforce those rights under law, without some meaningful system of accountability? Remember that it has to do more than exist on paper — as we have seen from the Bush-bots’ “caging scandal” and the inaction of Mitch Morrissey, the raw discretion not to prosecute constitutes an unfettered license to sanction state-sponsored terrorism. That you do not care enough about this threat — even though in refusing to do so, you create a precedent that can reach you — to do something about it shows how little we can trust your global government.
Will your plan stop war? Of course not! We’ll still have war (in the form of terrorism), but we won’t have a nuclear umbrella protecting us from abject tyranny and oppression. Unless and until you can address these points head-on, yours will have to remain but a John Lennon hash-pipe-dream.
which has expired. You have not leveled a single argument that I have not fully and adequately addressed. You refered to my straw man arguments in one post, and, as usual, the misdirectional criticisms you level are precisely the actual defects you embody. Your arguments are simply laden with straw men, refuting each argument with a barrage of irrelevant, decontextualized, “counterexamples.” It’s like arguing against the mere existance of courts because they sometimes convict innocent people. The defects of any system do not argue against the existence of the system, just in favor of refining the system to eliminate or diminish those defects.
Fortunately, you’re not my audience. I am not foolish enough to believe that you can be convinced of anything. Consider your conviction that you speak for a multitude, when not one member of that multitude seems to be willing to vindicate your belief. No amount of counter-factual evidence, and superior logic, will ever budge you. That’s precisely why your arguments are so weak: They do not incorporate counter-arguments into their structure. They are expressions of blind faith cloaked in the tattered robes of faux-intellectual discourse.
But I am confident that readers, whether convinced of my conclusions or not, recognize the cogency and integrity of my arguments. Every critique you have leveled has been utterly dismantled. Just as when you declare that all international confederations are mutual defense pacts, I obliged by providing an example of one that is not, I have disposed of each and every one of your arguments in a similarly definitive manner.
There are too many better ways to spend my time than to keep going around in circles with you. No one can accuse me of not having indulged your vapid arguments to a very extensive degree. But now it’s time to join the ranks of the rest (most or all) of the people on this blog, and to simply ignore you.
Let’s try to make this simple for you. There are two and only two potential subspecies of global government: one with teeth, and one without. We already have the one without — the U.N. — which isn’t working. We won’t get the one with, because as you pointed out yourself, no country that matters is going to cede enough of their sovereignty to do any good. Besides, as I explained with respect to America, we really don’t face the kind of threat that would justify voluntary relinquishment of a substantial portion of our sovereignty.
You’ve already acknowledged the fatal problem dooming this otherwise idyllic scheme of yours to failure: You have to have a system of personal accountability to make the system work. Thomas Jefferson explained why our “federation” was ultimately doomed to failure: no accountability for judges. The same essential critique applies here.
You’ve stated your position; I’ve stated mine. While we can all wistfully imagine a perfect world, mankind is betraying no indication that as a species, we are prepared to evolve in any useful and/or drastic way in the foreseeable future. The devil is in the details, and I don’t think that anyone in America, if s/he is properly informed of what you seek — reducing the masses to a mean serfdom and standard of living bordering on subsistence through unfettered immigration, and inevitable ecological degradation on an incalculable scale — is going to find your plan desirable. Even you know this, which is why you have to obscure it in layer upon layer of dank obfuscation.
I could be wrong; it’s not like I haven’t been before. But I rather suspect that I’m right on this one. At the end of the day, your grandiose vision offers nothing of substance that would colorably benefit all but a few Americans.
You’ve obviously missed the point of my argument.
“as you pointed out yourself, no country that matters is going to cede enough of their sovereignty to do any good”
Since I made that comment drawing a comparison to the formation of the United States from the sovereign states that emerged from the American Revolution, you obviously missed the point of that one as well.
“we really don’t face the kind of threat that would justify voluntary relinquishment of a substantial portion of our sovereignty”
Again, you’re using the values of tribalism to argue against intertribalism. While I think you’re wrong in the particular (that the U.S. won’t gain more than it would lose), I think you’re wrong to measure the question according to American interests alone.
“Thomas Jefferson explained why our “federation” was ultimately doomed to failure: no accountability for judges. The same essential critique applies here.”
By the logic of the above argument, no political experiments of any kind should ever be undertaken, and none, past, present, or future, are of any value.
“You’re a legend in your own mind, Yev”
There’s a bit of an “I’m rubber, your glue” element to that comment, so let’s put it to the test:
Why don’t we ask the members of the blog to referree this debate? I’ll let you make any rules you wish: They can either take into consideration or disregard our mutual flaming. If you choose to ask them to take the flaming into consideration, you can instruct them to either take into consideration only positively -the best, most “effective” flames being scored to the advantage of the flamer- or only negatively -any flame being scored against the flamer- or both together. We can ask them to review the debate and judge the relative merits of the arguments made, whether judging them according to the logical structure of the argument, the eloquence of the argument, or the rhetorical power of the argument. You can pick which, if any, of these dimensions you would like to ask the judges to emphasize.
We can start a diary introducing the competition, and asking bloggers to review the debate as it has unfolded on this thread. If you wish, you can ask them to consider other threads as well. Or you can ask them to consider only this thread.
The only limitation I would place on the parameters is that it can’t simply be *exclusively* an opinion poll regarding the topic of the debate: I knowingly and proudly am arguing an unpopular position. We have to ask the other bloggers to judge the arguments, not the conclusion. If you want, we can *include* an opinion poll with the judgement of the debate, though I believe the outcome will of course be in favor of nationalism. It is, quite simply, a secular religion, and not one that is dislodged by logic or the values of humanism alone.
You can open the diary inviting people to judge, or you can leave it to me to do so, whichever you think is to your best advantage. I am absolutely confident that you will lose the judgement according to any of these sets of rules, by any possible criteria. And *I* am willing to put my confidense to the test.
Are you?
speaks volumes. After such prolific, though incompetent, argumentation, the moment I suggest that we put our respective arguments to the test of “peer review,” even offering to let you both pick the peers doing the review and design the parameters by which the review will be done, we hear not a peep from you.
That’s okay. We all understand…, completely. ‘Nuff said.
Let me anticipate your explanation for not accepting: You’re above such petty school-yard challenges, and won’t stoop to my level. You WILL recruit imaginary others to shore up your own flimsy position, respond to a perfectly civil post by me at the beginning of this thread with flames such as “scorn” and “derision” (shared by the imaginary others, who, when invited to announce themselves and didn’t, became the justices of the Supreme Court of The United States, who, we are expected to believe, were the “WE” to which you referred, your membership on the high court of the land being a part of your anonymity), engage in every childish flame you can think of thereafter, accuse others who find you distasteful of having some secret agenda (as if anyone would bother having a “secret agenda” against you!), etc., etc., etc., but you ARE above allowing your infantile posturings to be put to any kind of objective test. Wow, now THAT’S impressive!!!
that makes one of us.
What we have now are nuclear weapons in the hands of individual nation-states, with no global accountability for their use. Again, you argue that are possession of disproportionate power to pursue our particular national interests is a wedge against Tyrrany (and contradictorily argue that our foreign adventures are illegal), when it is precisely a vehicle of tyrrany. You argue that the problem with global governance is a loss in accountability, when it’s purpose is precisly to impose accountability where none now exists. Your arguments are simpl nonsensical.
This is a fundamental flaw in your reasoning, not in my analysis. The great value of game theory is that it transcends the “popular” zero-sum model that apparently informs you with a more realistic non-zero-sum model. The interests of the smaller dominant group are not merely “at cross-purposes” with the interests of those dominated, as is the obvious conventional wisdom, and is also an obvious example of zero-sum logic, but rather the interests of the smaller dominant group and the interests of those dominated are in some ways at cross-purposes, and in some ways coincidental. In fact, one analysis of the rise of democracy and capitalism is that it was in the interests of the ruling elite! By securing property rights and protecting the private benefits of personal initiative, a regime greatly expands it’s tax base, and enriches itself far more effectively than if it merely took whatever it wanted whenever it wanted it. There are many similar phenomena, both in political history and in the history of management-labor relations over the past century.
I share that cynical belief that people and nations act in their self interest and are utility maximizing actors. The world is not a collection of individuals who aspire to be Jesus, Mother Teresa or Gandi, but more a collection of Ken Lays and Joe Nacchios.
War is an extension of politics with a gun. Lots of folks die in those conflicts: (1) bystanders and innocent people (e.g., civilians who got in the way or lived in the wrong city); (2) combatants who did not share the political views or the “beef” that may have given rise to armed conflict (e.g., draftees or soliders who joined the army for economic reasons); and, (3) combatants who did believe in the cause.
War also creates free riders and externalities. The biggest free rider are the folks who stay home and let others fight for them. It’s easy to sit safely home and rattle sabers if you, personally, don’t have to saddle up and ride into combat.
If you accept the fact that people and nations will inevitably act in their own self interest, there will be people and nations who mean harm to you and your neighbors. Preventing that harm is the central role of a “just” military IMHO.
The trick, of course, is: (1) preventing one’s military from becoming an arm of unjust, self-interest seeking politics (e.g., using military to beat up on non-threats or as an arm of nationalist expansion); and (2) being able to turn off the emotion that accompanies war and stop conflicts. (2) is probably harder than (1), because (2) requires that the nation take a deep breath and try to understand and forgive their enemies (more like Jesus than most people and nations are capable of). (2) is also fed by the free riders who rattle sabers from the safety of their home knowing they will never have to fight.
“Welcome to the jungle, we got fun and games.
You learn to live like an animal, in the jungle where we play.”
Any rational system has to presume that man will live down to his basest instincts.
adequately effective social institutions are necessary at all levels at which human interdependence exists. Since geograhy is increasingly less of a barrier to interdependence, there is no geographic scale on which such insttutions remain unnecessary.
You claim a fellowship for which I have yet to see any evidence. Who are the others who form the remainder of the “we” to which you refer? Please, come forward and announce yourselves!
Your opening post states my sentiments exactly.
I can honor the dead while disdaining policies and pathologies that make war so frequent. But we must be vigilant to ourselves and make sure we are not honoring the conflicts that created these obligations to honor.
I honor my friend David Paul Wernet who went to Viet Nam and came back still. In high school, not an enemy in the entire place. In Viet Nam, our government supplied them.
I honor my friend Stanford Ryan Broadway, an innocent black kid from South Bend who came back in body, but with innocence MIA. He tried to escape himself with drugs and alcohol, but grace finally overtook him and he is now at peace with the men he killed, the girl he saw raped by his buddies and shot with a round up her vagina. I knows that he is not considered to be dead, but the war killed him anyway.
regarding my post about honoring without necessarily condoning, not regarding Little Trickle’s post about how “we” regard my analyses with derision, right?
… on this subject. Yev’s opening post summarizes very eloquently the way I feel towards global humanity, the Iraq War, Memorial Day weekend and against ill-fated nationalism. (However, I didn’t had the time this past weekend to contribute (unfortunately, Parsing, I wasn’t enjoying the weather and a glass of wine as you’ve exhorted and I would’ve liked but, rather, was working on hobby car project all weekend!)) My agreement with Yev is founded, in part, on my experiences with nationalism as a member of the Texas A&M Corps of Cadets and later as a member of the Army.
Much as I agree with Rio on his views of unaccountable power (tyranny), I know he’ll take issue with me over this perspective. I am not anti-American and I am certainly disinterested in handing ourselves over to a “one world government” if, for no other reason, than my distrust of politicians, distrust of the intrinisic nature of man, or the past performance (ineffectiveness) of international governments or international tribunals. Like Yev, I’m become older, wiser and more disillusioned with flag-waving and its empty promises. I wonder why (for what good cause) any of our sons and daughters, husbands and wives and fathers and mothers have died in Iraq. And I wonder why some of us have had to pool money together to send body armor and other provisions to our troops who, allegedly, are in the most prosperous, powerful military on earth. And I wonder why, it takes a news story (20/20 or 60 Minutes or Newsweek or whoever) to expose and cause an official inquiry regarding injured soldiers (amputees; those with head injuries) who returned and were not properly cared for. I’m disturbed that some high percentage (40%, if memory serves) of my fellow soldiers reported in a recent ethics survey that they had participated in an unwarranted act of violence towards an Iraqi citizen and higher still thought nothing of it, even if they had not participated).
I have an eighteen-month old daughter –when I think of how many such young children have died, or are being killed today, in our raids or their bombings in Iraq (or Dresden, or London or Nagasaki), I realize that those children –be they Sudanese, Viet Namese, Japanse, Iraqi, Afgani– are no different (no less) than mine. They speak the same language as mine (noises of glee; noises of discontent, hungry, etc.) My heart breaks for each and all of them, `though I know neither their names nor their dying, blood gurgling moments nor their parents’ grief. I know not the pain of an Iraqi three-year-old (thousands of them, now), who was told by his or her mother that papa will not be coming home tonight –or tomorrow night, or ever.
I’ll add this –I can reflect through rose-coloured glass, with sentimentality and nostalgia, at the musings of my own heroes (Alexander Hamilton and Abe Lincoln) and I can even apply those ideals in my daily life, dealings with others, or objectives for government reform but, the current state of affairs seems to invoke the “mootness doctrine” as to any argument of “watering the tree of liberty” abroad. As more eloquently described by Gerry Spence in From Freedom to Slavery: The Rebirth of Tyranny in America (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993) at 5-6, we no longer live in a country idealized by the lofty platitudes of Thomas Jefferson. I wish for those ideals as much as, perhaps, Yev does for peace. However, that young America is gone and, I wonder, if it even existed. In Hamilton’s time, even, he lamented at the existence of slavery and direction the country was going and was willing to go to his death over his differences with Thomas Jefferson and, later, Aaron Burr. Such dischord should remind us that there never was a time of attainment of those ideals.
Today, it seems, those ideals have been replaced by anger at Mexican immigration, preoccupation with American Idol, on-demand abortion, obesity (as a proximate result of plenty and lack of self-control) and opportunistic litigiousness.
…and that the vast majority out there would agree with me.
While no one would argue that your goals are not laudable, the problem is in how we expect to get there. While we agree that self-interest is a constant, we disagree upon the equilibrium it creates. You have an interest in dominating me, and vice versa; we have an interest in remaining free from the other’s domination. These factors — which Lyndon LaRouche described accurately as “Athens and Sparta” — are at cross-purposes.
Without some form of enforcement, “law” is meaningless; unless you have the right to retaliate for the evil you do unto me — a right even recognized by Aristotle — you will not respect my rights when they conflict with your self-interest.
as it is domestically in all political entities. Again, that is an irrelevant observation. The notion that enforcement is best performed in the ABSENCE of a superordinate government, rather than in the presence of such a government, is utterly absurd.
And your confidence that others “will” agree with you is precisely the convenient fiction of yours I have been addressing these past several days. In the real world that the rest of us intersubjectively share, no one has yet voiced that position. No one has announced their membership in your use of the first person plural pronoun (though two have explicity announced their non-membership). No loyal students are stepping up onto their desks shouting “Oh Captain, My Captain!” No slave-soldiers shackled on the field of battle, conquering their Roman conquerors with the spirit of their devotion to their defeated leader, are crying out in unison “I am Chorro-Chico!” Not one, single person, of all the posters on this blog, has thus far been willing to legitimate your pretense that you represent some multitude in your particular critique of my analysis.
But you’re confident people WILL agree with you. Good for you.
To bad you don’t leaven that confidense with sensitivity to how people actually respond to you. I’ve looked back at your recent posts: Few people ever respond to them at all, and of those who do, the responses are overwhelmingly negative. But self-delusion wears an armor that no projectile of hard evidence can ever pierce.
You consistently rely on the strategies of those who lack strong arguments, probably unconsciously. Since your arguments don’t prevail on their own merits, you invoke imaginary supporters who agree with you. Since reason isn’t on your side, you, with an almost random disregard for relevance, start slapping at every emotional button you can find, with a particular fondness for finding a way to recruit the most provocative attrocities of the 20th century to magcally prove whatever point of view you are favoring at the moment. (If I were so inclined, it might be an interesting study in human psychology to analyze the artifices by which you connect such attrocities to completely unrelated issues.) And thus you remain undaunted by such trivialities as logic and evidence, which simply do not support your arguments.
this debate is being had on the national scale, most notably in SCOTUS between Scalia and Breyer. Whether they would be found at a liberal site like ColoPols or a more conservative site like Townhall.com is beside the point.
As for your abusive ad hominems, they demonstrate the vast reservoir of confidence that you have in your own views, and that you are blind to the fundamental irrationality of your own position. Yours is a crusade; libenter homines id quod volant credunt.
Just because various positions on the same general theme are being argued elsewhere does not mean that your particular position, argued in your particular way, is among those arguments. In any case, The Supreme Court is not, precisely, arguing the merits of global governance: They know that that is not within their jurisdiction, and they are not a political philosophy club. Their jurisdiction is U.S. law, and we are not having an argument whose central theme is U.S. law.
Even if they were discussing the question of the value of global governance, I can speculate with confidense that no Supreme Court justice would be willing to cite your arguments as “persuasive authority” to stand alongside their own.
It’s pretty clear that when you used the word “we,” you were referring to fellow bloggers, none of whom materialized. And it’s less to your humiliation if that were the case. If not, then apparantly you consider yourself a Supreme Court Justice: Otherwise, how can you justify using the first person plural pronoun in reference to supposed Supreme Court deliberations, as you now claim to have done? Your silly little delusions and pretensions offer an endless source of amusement.
Obviously, I can do this all day every day: You and your arguments are as easy to tear apart as a string of paper dolls. But the entertainment value of doing so is rapidly diminishing.
The debate I speak of is whether international law has any impact on our law. “Global governance” is a continuum, from the recognition that there is a body of jus cogens law that all countries are obliged to respect, to the creation of your global state.
From where I sit, you couldn’t argue your way out of a paper bag; I remain as unimpressed by your bloviation as you are of my views. I further note for the record that you have yet to present a coherent refutation of my main point: That there is no incentive for us to sacrifice our sovereignty to subscribe to your Lennon-esque hash-pipe-dream.
Are you denying that there is a substantial portion of our citizenry — mostly, in the Republican Party — that has grave reservations concerning the utility of global governance?
I don’t expect that they should post here, given the nature of this blog and the leanings of its denizens. You are wont to assume every fact you need to enable you to reach your foreordained conclusions; whether the facts are as you say is often little more than a minor inconvenience to you.
If we can’t have a discussion of this topic without the usual USENET snippiness, we can’t. Whatever.
to motivate me to dismantle the person as well as his ideas. It started, as you may recall, with your antisemitism, which evaporated my (originally explicit) forgiveness of your grating style. If you were less pretensious, your arguments would be moderately interesting. For instance, your argument about the threat of a “Hitler” taking over a global government is not a bad one, in and of itself. I don’t think it prevails, just because the material distribution of power wouldn’t change much in a global federation from the current situation. A federal world goverment might have military capabilities comparable to those of the United States today, the only difference being accountability and legitimacy in its use in global affairs. In fact, since a global government would create a global free-trade regime, the distribution of wealth, and thus power, would be greater than it is today, and the world beyond the global government would have greater, not lesser, resources with which to confront a world dictator. Also, there would be more layers of checks and balances to prevent it from happening in the first place. But it was both relevant, and thought-provoking, unlike much of what you write.
But even when you ocassionally write something relatively intelligent or thought-provoking, that aspect of your contribution is simply overwhelmed by other aspects, including your inability or unwillingness to actually weigh the relative merits of the arguments presented. It’s like being in a prize-fight against someone who both flails frantically while receiving blow after blow and, at the same time, keeps declaring himself the undisputed champion. Unlike in a prize-fight, however, there are no literal TKOs in a debate (though I have delivered plenty of figurative TKOs in this debate): All matches are determined by “decision.” Without a formally designated panel to declare the decision, there’s simply nothing to stop the flailing clown from continuing to declare himself the winner. And that’s why this debate has no natural end.
In a world in which one of the most persistant and important challenges a person faces is the necessity to deal with truly irritating others, I have to admit, I do not consider this a successful interaction from my point of view. To continue to attempt to have a rational debate with you was a waste of time; to be sucked into a flame war with you was both a waste of effort and a lapse in good form.
Now, that was a relatively civil, completely sincere, and, IMHO, eloquently accurate account of this interaction. And, since I have exhausted whatever emotional charge you catalyzed which has caused me to waste so much time on this exchange, I’ll let you get in as many last words as you want.
I am reminded of a cold November afternoon in the South Stands, watching our beloved Broncos take on da hated Raiders. The remarkable band of liquored-up lawyers and bankers were absolutely certain that the Broncos never held, but da Raiders committed at least one personal foul on every play.
Al Gore recently observed: American democracy is now in danger-not from any one set of ideas, but from unprecedented changes in the environment within which ideas either live and spread, or wither and die. I do not mean the physical environment; I mean what is called the public sphere, or the marketplace of ideas.
It is simply no longer possible to ignore the strangeness of our public discourse.
I am often stricken with amazement as to how the dittoheads lap up the ridiculous ruminations of Rush or the Coultergeist. They willingly hear what they wish, as do you.
Cuervo has had a bug up his ass about me since the moment I showed up — for reasons that would probably become clear if he was candid about his real interest. The perception of “who won” is quite likely to be a function of where you stood before the debate started.
In the final analysis, your scheme of global governance is self-refuting: If it is but a minor change from what we have today, it won’t have the requisite authority to be effective and if a more radical change is required, none of the major players would (by your own admission!) cede enough of their sovereignty to ever make it happen. Given that problem — which I pointed out, but you have yet to solve — if you wish to believe you have vanquished me, you are at liberty to think that you vanquished me; I care not a whit.
you argued that I hadn’t addressed your central contention to my original post: How would a global government serve the interests of Americans better than the current system? If you look back at my original post, the emphasis was that I consider myself a citizen of global humanity first and foremost, and that I measure institutions by how well they serve that “polity” to which I feel allegiance. In other words, I had explicitly stated that defense of the particular interests of Americans was not the measure of success as far as I’m concerned, but rather the advancement of the interests of humanity. How, then, is your question relevant to my post? You mentioned “straw man arguments,” but, as is your wont, you were slinging accusations of engaging in precisely the form of disingenuous and misdirectional argumentation that is your custom.
I’ll “sweeten the pot” for the challenge I made elsewhere in this thread, to submit our debate to the judgement of others: Pick any blog you like, seeking the one populated by people as like-minded to yourself as possible, and follow the same parameters (all designed to give you as much opportunity as possible to win): You will still lose. And I’m still willing to submit that certainty to the test. What more can you ask for?
The “legend in (his) own mind” is the one afraid of accept such an accomodating challenge.
“moi aussi,” “methinks.” Oy Vey!
I addressed that above: All institutional arrangements, when they are instituted, reflect the distribution of power of the actors engaged in the negotiations. That does not mean that they don’t give up their sovereignty (or some part thereof); it just means that they make sure that the new institutional arrangements recognize what they could have gained by force if they had retained the status quo system rather than integrating with other sovereign units. The formation of the United States under the Constitution was the example I gave, even when “by (my) own admission” I discussed this factor. In other words, it is by no means a “deal-breaker” to effective confederation. As the new institutional arrangement deepens, the original reflection of raw power embedded in it may soften, or change entirely. A good example is the United Nations, which institutionalized the power of the most powerful states at the time of its formation. While that power remains institutionalized (primarily in the form of the permanent members of the security council), the weaker states have certainly found the U.N. to be a formidable vehicle for advancing their interests.
By the way, to feign the high ground of indifference with comments such as “I care not a whit,” you need at the very least to be able to project the illusion of credibility. Given the number, content, and form of your posts, no such illusion of credibility exists. People tend to learn these things once they emerge from adolescence. Adolescents (or, more often, pre-adolescents), lacking the maturity to pull off such subtle social maneuvors, throw back their heads, sniff indignantly, and announce, with transparent insincerity, “You can think whatever you like. I don’t care what you think!” Most adults learn a bit more subtlety, or, at least, when they’ve already blown any chance of pulling that one off. Most adults.
The conspicuous lack of support (or even response) you receive, and the equally conspicuous disgust you provoke, can all be explained away as…
A) A huge (right-wing, left-wing, religious, godless, nationalist, globalist, feminist, chauvinist, reactionary, radical, judicial, criminal…) conspiracy against you.
B) You’re a misunderstood genius.
C) You had a troubled childhood
D) You’re an annoying, pretentious, bigoted, small-minded intellectual midget.
Take your time, and don’t forget to fill in the bubble completely!
(Even you have a chance of getting this one right….)
I feel like a sadistic kid with a magnifying glass…. The difference, of course, is that this bug deserves it.
….our own little man of La Mancha is probably helping to build a giant windmill or something.
the Don is a far more likeable character. Even “The Donald” is a far more likeable character! Hell, I’d be hard pressed to find anyone who isn’t. Joey Buttofucco? No, still more likeable. Jim Bakker? No. Jim Jones? No. Elmer Gantry? No. it’s a tough one.
the Don is a far more likeable character. Even “The Donald” is a far more likeable character! Hell, I’d be hard pressed to find anyone who isn’t. Joey Buttofucco? No, still more likeable. Jim Bakker? No. Jim Jones? No. Elmer Gantry? No. it’s a tough one.
that he disappeared immediately after I challenged him to put our respective arguments to a public test? What a remarkable coincidence….
After instigating this flame war, both on the blog as a whole (with your uncivil and bigoted response to my perfectly civil post about “gunny bob’s” suggestion for tracking muslims), and on this thread (with your uncivil response to my perfectly civil post about humanism v.nationalism), you have the gaul to try to claim the moral high ground regarding “the strangeness of discourse”! What a piece of…work you are!
I didn’t mean to suggest that he has a Celt in his possession!
are unable to unearth anyone willing to be included in the “we,” and then, when I reveal the fact, accuse me of making an ass of myself by making convenient assumptions!!!!!!!! res ipsa locutor (to mock your pretentious use of latin): No commentary necessary.
you’ve crawled back under whatever rock you slithered out from, I’d say it’s clear to both -or all- of us who the ass is.
“portion of our citizenry — mostly, in the Republican Party — that has grave reservations”
As I noted elsewhere, your use of “we” defended your assertion that “we” view my analysis with scorn and derision, not that “we” have grave reservations concerning global governance. Perhaps that’s the type of distinction that simply slides through the gaps in the flacid net of your mind, but to most of us it is a rather substantial one.
Though I can’t recall the last time I have ever exercised the presumption to speak for others, in light of how this exchange has evolved, it seems fitting here: I think it’s clear that WE think you’re an obnoxious idiot (if not all, then damn near to it).
You mistake the annoyance you personally provoke with fanaticism over an idea. I’m simply here discussing political philosophy, no part of which I am crusading over. You, on the other hand, try to invent a podium for yourself with such self-contradictory gems of absurd oratory as “For me, America was not just a country, it was a dream…,” “America is dead, the rigor mortis just hasn’t set in yer…,” “…your goal of destroying our nation-state…,” and something on this thread about not being proud to be an American. So, America is a dream, it’s dead, you’re not proud of it, and I’m trying to destroy it. Whew!
defending your artificial use of “we,” don’t I believe that their are people, on less liberal blogs, who oppose surrendering national sovereignty to global federalism? Of course I do, and, in fact, am sure that the majority of bloggers on this blog hold that position. It is the conventional position, and nearly universally held in the United States, which is strongly nationalistic. That does not mean that they agree with you that a well-reasoned and politely-presented argument to the contrary should be received with “derision and scorn,” as you not only claimed for yourself, but generously claimed for them as well. That’s where you part company with reasonable people who politely disagree, and that’s why you’re a parriah.
Oh, but how you lament the incivility of public discourse, and the snippiness of internet discourse! You, one of the most eggregious offenders on this blog!!! Incredible, simply incredible!!
And yet they haven’t, and they don’t. You remind me of the cultists whose leader predicted that the world would end on a given day, and that only those who prayed with him would be spared. The members of the cult prayed together, and the designated day came and went. When the world was not wiped out, they cried, “See! That’s proof of what we’ve been saying: Our prayers were so strong that they saved humanity!”
The loud absence of evidense does not phase you any more than it phased them: You see what you presuppose, no matter what logic and evidence indicate.
I whip these off far too fast!
Thank you to each and every man and women who – as a proud citizen of our Republic, the United States of America – helped to preserve, protect, and defend the freedom we all share. In the words of the old cliche… freedom is not free.
God bless our soldiers in harms way. May you come home soon to a grateful nation.
The ancient Jews were savvy enough to note that before a fall, there is pride. Pride leads to wars, reaction instead of reflection.
I’m amazed at those who ignore that teaching in Proverbs and yet call themselve Bible believing Christians. The same ones with “Power of Pride” stickers on their bumpers, no doubt.
I’d rather myself a humble citizen, like Ben Franklin and most of the founding fathers were. Humility keeps your eyes open and puts others first. When one (person, nation) puts other first, amazing things happen for all.
…to be proud of being an American. National pride is different than personal humility. I whole-heartedly agree that we should put the interests of others ahead of ourselves.
In my overseas travels (and especially, since the invasion of Iraq), I have often found myself being expected to defend our country’s actions and increasingly, I find to my chagrin that I can no longer do so in good conscience. It would be like a German having to defend the Reich.
Lawyers in countries like Australia and New Zealand sit with mouths agape when I describe our odious practice of issuing unpublished opinions, as it is an affront to the rule of law and common law principles. Our electoral process has become a sham and, thanks to the BBC, they know more about what is going on here than most of us do. And the war crimes of the Bush Administration are staggering to the rest of the world, which fears us more than respects us.
As an ideal, America is comatose … even if rigor mortis has not as yet set in.
Pride of individuals and pride of a tribe/nation is exactly the same and leads to exactly the same ends. It’s like our egos, a solid, healthy one is good. But the ego that is cocky and needs to prove itself is dangerous, just like pride.
I’ve never known anyone from any nation that wasn’t proud of their country, for whatever reason. We can’t all be “the best”, which is what false pride implies.
I’ll add fuel to the fire and say that pride blinds us to the need to change. Without change to meet new conditions, the fall will be close behind.
…to be proud of being an American. National pride is different than personal humility. I whole-heartedly agree that we should put the interests of others ahead of ourselves.
In light of that marvelously altruistic statement, I note with “scorn and derision” the remarkable hostility that we in the “anti-court” crowd have faced from you for our insistence that our courts actually follow the law and treat all citizens with the respect they deserve as citizens.
The short definition of a Christian is one whose word is meant for preaching, and not keeping. It is easy to be an altruist when it doesn’t cost you anything; I have yet to see any of you pony up a single plugged nickel. Your hypocrisy speaks so profoundly that your altruism is lost.
The negative reaction you receive from all quarters is not based on your alleged insistence that our courts follow the law and treat all citizens with respect. Rather, it is based on your ludicrous presentation of yourself and your arguments….and the frivolous claims that you consistently assert in order to exact your revenge on the courts because they won’t allow you to practice law.
Your absurd posturing does a great disservice to the cause that you claim to champion (court reform)….not that you would care about that, given that your true goal is simply petty revenge against the court system that rightly recognized your serious shortcomings.
One positive thing about you, I must say again, is your capacity to make me laugh. Laughter is good for the soul.
You don’t have a problem with a judge deciding an appeal in which he has a personal financial interest, which was given to another court by virtue of statute?
You don’t have a problem with that judge willfully defying the hidebound edicts of a superior court (SCOTUS)?
You have some serious shortcomings, especially in the areas of intellectual consistency, candor, and reasoning capacity. You are incapable of arguing with me on the merits, and have shown this over and over and over again.
That is why every court has rejected them as the frivolous (and barely comprehensible) wailing of a spoiled child who’s been denied a cookie. Really, let the cookie go, dear little’one. You’ll feel better after a nice nap.
Good choice for the first photo.
To all my high school pals who were drafted and never came home – I miss you.
To all my family and friends that went and came back damaged in body and mind – thank you, your sacrifice is never forgotten.
To my friends and family in Iraq now – we will bring you home as soon as humanely possible – and get you justice for the misuse of your lives.
God Bless the men and women who have always answered the call.
God grant us the grace and vision to end this war and bring our families and friends home.
We anticipate a black future for America. Instead of remaining united states, it shall end up separated states.” So said Osama bin Laden to ABC News in 1998. That’s the aim of Al Qaeda, our main enemy in Iraq. If their goal of nuclear strikes on US cities is achieved, political collapse for America as we know it may not be an empty threat.
The Aztlan radical movement in Mexico and the American southwest also envisions separating these United States by its own strategy of demographic and cultural subversion. And if the surrender of sovereignty packaged in the Kennedy-McCain immigration bill succeeds, Aztlan might turn out to be no fantasy either.
What’s this have to do with Memorial (earlier Decoration) Day? The holiday originally honored half a million Americans who died in the 1861-1865 war to keep these states united. Decorating their graves gratefully at the end of May each year was the custom. The day now recognizes our fallen fighters in all wars back to the founding.
Desecration of their sacrifice, and annulment of all our nation stands for, will result if you and I in this generation fail our trust as Americans and let disaster overtake this land of liberty. This Memorial Day must be not only a time to look back in gratitude, but also a time of renewed commitment for us to protect what they handed down to us.
Genuinely one of the best and brightest. Truly a joy to be one of his instructors.
Marine Pfc. Andrew G. Riedel
19, of Northglenn, Colo.; .; assigned to 1st Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment, 3rd Marine Division, III Marine Expeditionary Force, Marine Corps Base Hawaii; killed Oct 30 2004 by enemy action in Anbar province, Iraq.
http://www.militaryc…
Greg Johnson, born 8/16/1948 and a resident of Pueblo, Colorado. Pueblo Centennial Class of 1966. Died 3/30/1968 in Kontum South Vietnam as a result of enemy action.
The 29 Marines and 1 Naval medic who died in the helocopter crash on the 1/26/05 were from the Kaneohe Marine base – near where I grew up and where my parents live. It’s a gigantic loss for the community.
(The Marine base opened it’s gates the Sunday after so people could stop by and there has been a never-ending stream of people bringing flowers to place at the base memorial. My mom says it is an incredible show of support for the soldiers and it has meant a lot to the Marines and their families.)
It’s been tough for a lot of people!
It was a rough week last week for the people of Jane Harman’s district in CA. One of those people she represented was this man:
TORRANCE, Calif. (AP) Schoolmates remembered Pfc. Joseph Anzack Jr. as a gentle jock Thursday, hours after Army officials confirmed the 20-year-old’s body was found during an exhaustive search for him and two other soldiers ambushed in Iraq.
Friends at South High School observed a moment of silence and described him as a “pumped up” athlete who made them laugh and comforted them when they needed it.
“You’d be sad and sitting there by yourself, and he’d come up to you and just talk to you, and say, ‘Hey, how’s your day? Are you OK?”‘ childhood friend Erika Esquivel said.
Anzack, who graduated two years ago, should be honored for “his service to America and for representing South High and Torrance so proudly and so well,” Principal Scott McDowell told students in a second-period classroom announcement.
Outside, the front steps became a makeshift shrine of flowers, flags and balloons, marked with a sign reading: “You’re our HERO.” The soldier’s Web page was also flooded with condolences.
Anzack, an Army gunner, vanished with two other soldiers May 12 when their combat team was ambushed about 20 miles outside of Baghdad. The attack, subsequently claimed by al-Qaida, killed four other Americans and an Iraqi.
Anzack’s family had held out hope for the past 11 days. They had already endured a rumor weeks earlier that he was dead, then said Army officials told them Wednesday that a body found floating in the Euphrates River was his. The military confirmed Thursday that Anzack had been shot in the head, and his body dumped.
………………………….
The war mongers will…it appears….never have the ability to touch into the pain and suffering this miserable war….Bush….and his Republican enablers have caused. VOTE FOR PEACE/CONSERVATION AND HEALTH.
I’ll take this Memorial Day to memorialize all who work for PEACE and BROTHERSISTERHOOD!
What a disrepectful ASSHOLE you are.
Respect his memory.
He died a SOLDIER.
Take three deep breaths. Re-read the post if necessary. Stick to the subject matter.
Now there, did SR besmirch the name of PFC Anzac? No, he didn’t.
His complaint was with the institutions and powers that sent him there. They are the warmongers. (Yes, some soldiers are, but that’s not the issue here.)
Being a “SOLDIER” does not automatically equate to respect. Again, lockstep thinking. What about all the soldiers we fought from Japan and Germany? What about soldiers that bring disgrace on our nation? (See my earlier posting about the rape and murder of a civilian that my friend witnessed.)
Now this will justifiably set you off: I find it difficult to honor any soldier who has enlisted since the end of the Iraq War – yes, the end of the war – and has chosen to participate in the occupation and subjugation of the Iraqi people.
It isn’t amazing that 61% of Americans think the US should never have invaded Iraq. [Courtesy NYT/CBS.]
What is amazing is that 35% still think it was a good idea.
WHO ON THIS SITE ARE A PART OF THE 35%? let’s get it on!
The very fact you are allowed to spew whatever you want is because of soldiers who die to preserve your liberty; it’s Memorial Day… maybe you should reflect on that truth for a minute.
http://operationyell…
I don’t enjoy the most basic of rights: the right to have my “rights” enforced in a court of law. From where I’m sitting, they died in vain.
Perhaps you would listen to President Reagan, who understood the indefeasible connection between human rights and freedom, that all human rights are individual in character, and the often vast gulf between a politician’s words and his deeds. As he noted, our Founding Fathers held that each individual has certain rights so basic and fundamental to his dignity as a human being that no government may violate them, and that we as citizens have a right to expect our courts to enforce them. “They proclaim the belief — and represent a specific means of enforcing the belief — that the individual comes first, [and] that the Government is the servant of the people, and not the other way around.” Ronald Reagan, Speech (to the National Strategy Forum), May 4, 1988. But he rightly observes that in the real world, many do not enjoy these rights: Some governments “make elaborate claims that citizens under their rule enjoy human rights,” … but “[e]ven if words look good on paper, the absence of structural safeguards against abuse of power means they can be taken away as easily as they are allowed.” Ronald Reagan, Speech (Proclamation of Human Rights Day), Dec. 10, 1987.
Welcome to modern-day America, where, like the old Soviet Union, we only sign human rights treaties … as opposed to implementing and enforcing them.
“Shut it” and “You are allowed to spew whatever you want” is rather contridictory, but the main reason I’m responding is that your response really has nothing to do with his post.
Of course, authoritarians can’t stand it when people don’t march in cadence, think for themselves, or otherwise become different. SR pointed out what the support is and is not for the war and begged for response to this fact.
Instead of responding, you tell him to “Shut it” and then tell him to be grateful for his liberties.
Wow.
Unfortunately, this seems to be the base level to which our national debate has devolved.
“Liberty” must mean, at the very least, the right to speak my thoughts without fear of retaliation (direct or indirect) by officious bureaucrats. As I have been retaliated against for my exercise of this right, I have no “liberty” to be grateful for.
And some of you would have me shut up.
All of the soldiers who fought and died for our freedom – Sir Robin is exercising that so dearly won freedom. In that sense he is making a true memorial to their sacrifice.
So, to the families of those soldiers who died “to preserve liberty” are you going to now say “not for those who disagree with GOP pundit”?
I am a veteran from a very long line of veterans. A number of my relatives have served in Iraq for multiple tours. Many of my relatives made, and make, the military a career. With some of them and with my peers while on active duty we talked about why we enlisted during Viet Nam and why older ones enlisted in Spanish-American War, WWI, WWII, Korea and Iraq/Afghanistan. Upon examining whether we were doing this for our freedoms and looking at the past we HAD to conclude that few conflicts really had to do with freedom. We enlist and fight for an ideal. In reality that “ideal” is often not true. In Iraq, and very clearly in Cuba and the Phillipines in 1898, our liberties were not threatened and they still are not in Iraq. These young men and women and these middle-aged men and women are NOT there for our freedom but for an ideal and that deserves respect and memorials.
We have clearly missed several opportunities to avoid Iraq or to leave. Before we were there… after Saddam was out of power… after Saddam was executed… any of these would have been an appropriate time to leave. And, now.
Honoring the soldiers who died for our country. This isn’t the day to stand up and shout about warmongers, impeachment, how America is broken. You have 364 days in the year to do so, but not today.
Today is our soldiers’ day. Many of us have never faced the terror of having to kill an enemy. Most of us have never been shot on a battlefield. IMHO, those who rail against the war today dramatically miss the point of what it means to honor our soldiers.
You and I are lucky to live in this country. People risk their lives everyday to come here and taste a fraction of what we have. Our military is the best in the world, the most diciplined, the most loyal and the most brave. I’ve never served and never will but my heartfelt gratitude goes out to all my friends, relatives and ancestors who have put their lives on the line so that my family can live in this great country.
Thank you.
I live in a country that doesn’t respect my basic rights as a human being, and doesn’t afford me any reasonable mechanism for vindicating them. Remind me again: Why should I consider myself “lucky?”
I rail against the Iraq war because it is roughly analogous to Hitler’s invasion of Poland. What’s more, to suggest that we did this to secure the blessings of liberty for the people of Iraq is a especial affront to me, as this would mean that our selected leaders (ours is a now fascist system, without free, fair, auditable, and transparent elections) squandered half a trillion dollars of our money to secure for others that which I do not currently enjoy.
Still, we can honor those of our brethren who gave the last measure of their devotion to preserve this ideal of liberty … even though, in the final analysis, they failed utterly.
is the freedom of speech, which you seem to be enjoying through endless postings on this site.
To even ask what is great about this country, on Memorial Day no less?! Jeez Rio, are you that bitter you can’t be a lawyer that you think you live in a third world facist state bent on destroying your life by removing your basic rights as a human being?
To suggest that the US is Germany invading Poland – have you no sense of honor for those before you who died for our country? You and I may disagree on where our country is headed but saying that Americans from the Revolutionary War to today have failed because we currently have a poor example of a President in the White House, personally I find disgusting, short sighted, ignorant and insulting.
Enjoy your freedoms, whether you believe they exist or not. You’re the kind of guy who needs to have the last word, so feel free. I’m going to a BBQ with a vetran friend of mine. Maybe I’ll tell him about you, see what he thinks of the guy who honors our soldiers on Memorial Day by saying they failed.
As to our living under a fascist regime, that is an objective analysis of the facts, not performed by me. Characteristics common to fascist states are painfully evident in our country (see http://www.oldameric…). This has exactly nothing to do with the question of the propriety of the denial of my application for a law license.
As for our being a Third World banana republic, we are the world’s leading exporter of raw materials and the world’s largest importer of finished goods. We have the largest trade deficit in recorded history, and are financing it with the profligate printing of ‘funny money’. Again, this has exactly nothing to do with the question of the propriety of the denial of my application for a law license.
Like most fascist regimes, we have a government that barely pays lip service to the rule of law, in no small part due to the fact that they are above and beyond it. Every federal prosecution of significance is politically motivated, and if you own the prosecutor, you are not accountable to the law. That is the lesson of the US Attorney firing/caging scandal, which again has exactly nothing to do with the question of the propriety of the denial of my application for a law license.
When the government can punish you, either directly or indirectly, because it doesn’t like the content of your speech, you don’t have “freedom of speech.” This has been done to me, which is why I say that I don’t have it. But this time, this has everything to do with the denial of my application for a law license. I was clearly singled out for persecution on account of my protected speech — and as was the case with dissidents in the old Soviet Union, they attempted to abuse psychiatry to facilitate their goal. The fact that “the law” protected me did not matter, because no one in this government respects the law any more.
If I cannot vindicate my rights in a court of law, I don’t have them. What part of that do you not understand, CAR? I can’t rely on my government to protect me from the crimes committed against me by my government. It is not so much about “bitterness” as it is a candid analysis of the facts as they are.
Yes, I see our illegal invasion of Iraq as closely analogous to Nazi Germany’s invasion of Poland. As was the case with Poland, Iraq posed no credible threat to our interests, and had vastly inferior weapons. The pretext for their invasion was transparently fabricated, and so was ours. 9/11 was our own Reichstag Fire, used by our unscrupulous leaders to coax the people to support a war that was in not in the public interest. When one fails to learn from history, one is doomed to repeat it.
City Council in Denver Predictions:
Newitt 67%
Watters 33%
almost all of Conners supporters will vote for Nevitt
Lopez 52%
Phillips 48%
it’ll be closer than expected
Bailey 61%
Madison 39%
The Gallagher machine wins another one
Most who serve and have served in our armed forces do so, and have done so, honorably and with great courage and often in great sacrifice. Our service men and women are not empowered to make public or foreign policy, however, as it is their duty to answer-to and serve their Commander in Chief. It is not their position to question his decisions or policies in any official capacity at least.
That is our responsibility through our elected members of Congress and to sit silently by, even on Memorial Day, is to bring dishonor upon ourselves not our troops. It is not within our power to dishonor those who serve or have seved in our military forces, however, we do bring dishonor upon ourselves when we blindly follow and not question this Administration’s foreign and domenstic policies.
President John F. Kennedy once stated that “an error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it”, and our involvement in Iraq is the greatest mistake in foreign policy in the history of this Republic in my opinion. So I will continue to oppose this Administration and iterate “American, love it or change it!”
I understand that to undertake this argument on Memorial weekend, as others have also done here, is to offend the sensibilities of some individuals but it does make sense to do so. We will not rest until the senseless murder of American troops and innocent citizens in Iraq has ended.
For better or worse, the Nuremburg trials told ordinary soldiers that they could not hide behind “I was ordered to do so.” Presumably, that means our soldiers are to be held to the same high standard. It is my understanding that somewhere along the route of basic and subsequent training that they are taught that they don’t have to obey an illegal order. In the specifics, I don’t know what that means (killing unarmed civilians?) but I think I can make a fair presumption.
While our soldiers cannot make public policy, they can morally and legally refuse to enforce policies that are illegal or unconstitutional at the core.
I have spent the last 6 days scanning family photographs for my pending stock photo agency. ( http://www.vphotoestate.com ) I’ve about 1400 images with many more to go. Many are of my father’s years in the Coast Guard in WWII as a Photographer’s Mate in the north Atlantic and the Pacific oceans.
The only battle ones were shot by other men and my father came into their possession. He joined the LST USS Samuel Chase after its Eurpean invasions at Normandy and Anzio. It was on the way to partake in the invasion of Japan when my father was aboard.
I’m sure glad that he never got to take those photos.
This from tomorrows NYT:
The Iraq war, which for years has drawn militants from around the world, is beginning to export fighters and the tactics they have honed in the insurgency to neighboring countries and beyond,” The New York Times reports.
According to the report, experts now say that the experience that Jihadists are currently gaining in Iraq will become far more problematic than the training Muslim radicals received in Afghanistan’s terrorist camps.
According to a report written by former State Department intelligence analyst Dennies Pluchinsky, “…battle-hardened militants from Iraq posed a greater threat to the West than extremists who trained in Afghanistan because Iraq had become a laboratory for urban guerrilla tactics.”
The madness is spreading.
Whose hands I can never shake.
Who I cannot buy a drink for in gratitude.
Who felt the need to serve a dream that they would never see.
Whose names I can never learn and remember, for the list is far too long.
Who left behind loved ones, to serve the nations need.
For members of my family who served and have now left us.
For those I served with and have lost touch with over the years.
The words “Thank You” cannot do justice.
But it is all we have to offer those who have gone on.
Steve, judging by the headers, you and your lapdog Cuervo have certainly have had a lot to say.
You sound like a man who knows that he has lost the argument, and needs to break our agreement to cease debate.
Sorry that I haven’t have the time to read and respond to your latest pearls of wisdom.
Damn, I thought silence was your most cogent response thus far. Oh well, I guess it was inevitable that you would open your mouth and ruin any appearance of sanity. Take care to use a #2 pencil when completing Yev’s quiz. We don’t want you to fail yet another examination on account of mental deficiency. Don’t rush yourself for Heaven’s sake!
You sound like a man who knows he has the lost the debate, because you have refuted everything that rio has said and now, at 11.30, you have yet to respond to rio’s post. So, obviously, you have broken debate, and as such rio has rightly declared victory and refused to respond to you anymore.
I cant help but laugh at your arrogance, rio.
After that back and forth and back and forth, the logic flying, the drama, the retorts, the…oh, never mind.
Yev, you have more patience than I. I’m impressed you replied as often as you did to the rio de palabras vacias. You’re a better man than me. Or maybe you were holding your nose while typing.
‘Pearls of wisdom’…heh, pearls before swine, more like it.