"You are old, Father William," the young man said,
And your hair has become very white;
And yet you incessantly stand on your head
Do you think at your age, it is right?"
"In my youth," Father William replied to his son,
"I feared it might injure the brain;
But, now that I'm perfectly sure I have none,
Why, I do it again and again."
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Friday, September 25, 2009
Whose Laws? Which Laws?
In a recent speech to the U.N., Obama urged the world to work with the U.S. to face the many challenges confronting the world. Global warming, starvation, genocide, and disease were among the scourges faced by the world's population mentioned by Obama. Amidst the global concerns and crises listed by Obama was his statement that Iran and North Korea should not be allowed to develop or possess nuclear weapons and that they should be held accountable under international law.
In regards to international law, the U.S. has historically been selective about which laws should be applied, which treaties are to be honored, under what circumstances, and to which nations. Weapons and tactics expressly outlawed by international laws and treaties have been overlooked and tolerated when employed by the U.S. and its allies. Treaties and conventions have frequently been ignored by the U.S., and other nations, when those treaties and laws proved inconvenient, or contrary to national interests. The cynical circumvention of international law practiced by the Bush administration to classify those captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan as "enemy combatants" rather than prisoners of war has yet to be recognized by the U.S. No one has been charged.
The legitimacy of law resides largely in its objectivity and universal application. To the extent that international law has rarely been applied objectively, and even more rarely universally, it lacks much of the normative power necessary to bind those subject to it and makes it more difficult for those laws to be viewed as legitimate. Because of this, any attempt by the U.S., or any other nation, to chide and condemn the actions of others under the obligations and duties imposed by international treaties and laws will, more often than not, be viewed as arbitrary and prejudiced by the nations being chastised. If the ban on the development and possession of nuclear weapons is to viewed as binding and actionable under international treaties and laws, the U.S. should begin by challenging those who have already violated those treaties and laws and not limit its ire to those who are only suspected of plotting to violate them.
The U.S. would be on surer ground if it made its demands and objections based on its real motives; national self interest. When the US. seeks to mask its self interest under the guise of "international law" it only adds to the cynicism with which "international law" is viewed by those nations which find themselves subject to it. When the U.S. declares its right to ignore or rescind treaties when those treaties prove inconvenient or contrary to national interests, it undermines the acceptance of treaties as binding. Perhaps if the U.S. declared its intent to recognize international law as binding on itself and its allies, and accept treaties as binding, whether they are convenient or not, it would have better standing in the world to insist on the compliance of others.
In regards to international law, the U.S. has historically been selective about which laws should be applied, which treaties are to be honored, under what circumstances, and to which nations. Weapons and tactics expressly outlawed by international laws and treaties have been overlooked and tolerated when employed by the U.S. and its allies. Treaties and conventions have frequently been ignored by the U.S., and other nations, when those treaties and laws proved inconvenient, or contrary to national interests. The cynical circumvention of international law practiced by the Bush administration to classify those captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan as "enemy combatants" rather than prisoners of war has yet to be recognized by the U.S. No one has been charged.
The legitimacy of law resides largely in its objectivity and universal application. To the extent that international law has rarely been applied objectively, and even more rarely universally, it lacks much of the normative power necessary to bind those subject to it and makes it more difficult for those laws to be viewed as legitimate. Because of this, any attempt by the U.S., or any other nation, to chide and condemn the actions of others under the obligations and duties imposed by international treaties and laws will, more often than not, be viewed as arbitrary and prejudiced by the nations being chastised. If the ban on the development and possession of nuclear weapons is to viewed as binding and actionable under international treaties and laws, the U.S. should begin by challenging those who have already violated those treaties and laws and not limit its ire to those who are only suspected of plotting to violate them.
The U.S. would be on surer ground if it made its demands and objections based on its real motives; national self interest. When the US. seeks to mask its self interest under the guise of "international law" it only adds to the cynicism with which "international law" is viewed by those nations which find themselves subject to it. When the U.S. declares its right to ignore or rescind treaties when those treaties prove inconvenient or contrary to national interests, it undermines the acceptance of treaties as binding. Perhaps if the U.S. declared its intent to recognize international law as binding on itself and its allies, and accept treaties as binding, whether they are convenient or not, it would have better standing in the world to insist on the compliance of others.
The Times They Are a Changin'
A federal court in Virginia recently threw out a $5 million verdict against anti-gay protesters who picketed the funeral for a dead marine in Maryland. Many were understandably upset at that ruling. Among the many who were upset at the offensive protest, were those who were more upset by the anti-gay message of the protesters, and the court ruling in their favor, rather than the hostility shown towards a young man who died serving his country.
Yet, despite the anger and frustration often on display at many rallies and protests, few have matched the deliberate offensiveness of the left. From the hateful protests against the Vietnam War (I can recall the "baby killer" signs) and the hostility displayed against those returning from that war, both dead and alive, to the orchestrated offensiveness often on display at Gay Pride rallies, the left is unmatched in it's attempts to shock the sensibilities and it's contempt for the public. Unlike the objectionable protest by the anti-gay protesters in Maryland however, the protests by the Vietnam and gay rights protesters were, and are, embraced by the left. The protest in Maryland was condemned by the right.
The offensiveness displayed towards those serving in Vietnam was greater than that displayed in Maryland because most who went were drafted, and so had no choice but to go and fight. However, despite the hostility, insensitivity, and down right cruelty of some of those protesting against veterans returning from Vietnam, both dead and alive, I cannot recall a single instance where protesters were sued for their actions.
As an American, I am angered by the offensiveness of such protests as occured in Maryland. As a conservative, I am troubled by the attempts to stifle them. It is well within the rights of people to take offense at the words and actions of others. But people should be wary of trying to prohibit those words and actions. As history has shown, the sides always change. You can never know whether, in the future, you will be the one protesting, or the one offended by the protests.
Yet, despite the anger and frustration often on display at many rallies and protests, few have matched the deliberate offensiveness of the left. From the hateful protests against the Vietnam War (I can recall the "baby killer" signs) and the hostility displayed against those returning from that war, both dead and alive, to the orchestrated offensiveness often on display at Gay Pride rallies, the left is unmatched in it's attempts to shock the sensibilities and it's contempt for the public. Unlike the objectionable protest by the anti-gay protesters in Maryland however, the protests by the Vietnam and gay rights protesters were, and are, embraced by the left. The protest in Maryland was condemned by the right.
The offensiveness displayed towards those serving in Vietnam was greater than that displayed in Maryland because most who went were drafted, and so had no choice but to go and fight. However, despite the hostility, insensitivity, and down right cruelty of some of those protesting against veterans returning from Vietnam, both dead and alive, I cannot recall a single instance where protesters were sued for their actions.
As an American, I am angered by the offensiveness of such protests as occured in Maryland. As a conservative, I am troubled by the attempts to stifle them. It is well within the rights of people to take offense at the words and actions of others. But people should be wary of trying to prohibit those words and actions. As history has shown, the sides always change. You can never know whether, in the future, you will be the one protesting, or the one offended by the protests.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Better Living Through Taxes
There was an editorial in the morning's newspaper pillorying soda manufacturers, fast food merchants, and other purveyors of obesity and ill health. Using an impressive array of statistics, the author details the cost of "junk" food on the nation's health and the determined attempts by the "junk" food industry to expand its markets; a surprisingly common business activity in capitalist societies.
As much as this is a criticism of the food industry, it is more a criticism of consumers. They are the ones who purchase these products after all. While it is sometimes acceptable to criticize consumers, it is much less risky politically to criticize industry. Using the usual slight of hand, the author proposes raising taxes on "junk food" to reduce its appeal to consumers.
After presenting a litany of the costs to our economy caused by "unchecked obesity" and general ill health due to poor diet, the author urges action be taken against the merchants of sloth and gluttony in the form of stiff taxes, such as those which were imposed upon tobacco companies. This is a poor comparison. Twinkies, Big Macs, and soda pop do not kill people. All are products that, used in moderation, are neither addictive nor a threat to health. The problem is that they are often not used in moderation.
The author would have us believe that the lack of moderation is due to the sinister designs and manipulations of the junk food industry and that consumers are merely sheep being led astray. This is simply another example of the condescension by the self styled elite toward the common man. The common man is simply too lazy, or too ignorant, to act in his own best interests. That is why the government must be so active in making sure the common man is supervised and looked after.
The citizen must be productive and healthy if he is to be of any use to the economy. And, after all, that is the proper purpose of the citizen. To live a lifestyle one might find pleasant, and eat food that one finds enjoyable, is selfish and unpatriotic.
As much as this is a criticism of the food industry, it is more a criticism of consumers. They are the ones who purchase these products after all. While it is sometimes acceptable to criticize consumers, it is much less risky politically to criticize industry. Using the usual slight of hand, the author proposes raising taxes on "junk food" to reduce its appeal to consumers.
After presenting a litany of the costs to our economy caused by "unchecked obesity" and general ill health due to poor diet, the author urges action be taken against the merchants of sloth and gluttony in the form of stiff taxes, such as those which were imposed upon tobacco companies. This is a poor comparison. Twinkies, Big Macs, and soda pop do not kill people. All are products that, used in moderation, are neither addictive nor a threat to health. The problem is that they are often not used in moderation.
The author would have us believe that the lack of moderation is due to the sinister designs and manipulations of the junk food industry and that consumers are merely sheep being led astray. This is simply another example of the condescension by the self styled elite toward the common man. The common man is simply too lazy, or too ignorant, to act in his own best interests. That is why the government must be so active in making sure the common man is supervised and looked after.
The citizen must be productive and healthy if he is to be of any use to the economy. And, after all, that is the proper purpose of the citizen. To live a lifestyle one might find pleasant, and eat food that one finds enjoyable, is selfish and unpatriotic.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Health Care Reform: I mean, Health Insurance Reform
I didn't watch the news talk shows yesterday, but I read about them this morning. Obama's tour of the news shows were predominantly concerned with his proposals for "health insurance reform." I should have been paying closer attention. It seems I missed the transformation of the debate over health care reform, into a debate over health insurance reform. This is a clever, and perhaps cynical move on the part of the administration. If the debate over health care can be made into one over the policies and profits of health insurance companies, Obama has a much better chance of winning the debate. In his attempt to allow the public to "put their whole arms around it," Obama has selected a much better target for which to rally the public. Everybody likes health care. Nobody likes health insurance companies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)