Abortion isn't necessarily a women's rights issue, that's the point of contention. And of course it belongs in this thread. You can't simply pass it off as a "women's rights" issue, that's ridiculous.
The problem with this treaty (and, for the most part, all global treaties), is that they erase individual citizen's rights in favor of socialistic "we know what's best for you" global supervision.
In the United States, the citizen's are not granted rights by the Government; rather, the citizen's grant the Government certain powers. If the US Government signs a treaty like this (or like Kyoto, for example), it signs away that particular right of the citizen. The individual citizen's of the USA no longer grant powers to the Government, because the government is no longer in a position of authority.
In other words, if the US government signs the treaty, the US citizen's no longer have any way of protecting their rights; they've handed all of those rights over to a global organization which "knows what's best" for us.
"reproductive rights issues" (ie abortion rights) is an absolutely relevant line of questioning here. Why hasn't this thing passed? There's your answer. Plus, there are lots of other ways that this treaty would impair our sovereignty.
Unfortunately, SJO, it isn't so simple as "they're a buncha dumb right-wing men." This thing hasn't passed for a reason. Just because you don't see those reasons doesn't mean that they don't exist.
Common Scott. Clearly John Ashcroft and President Bush hate women from third world countries. If the Democrats had a shot at passing thi....uh...never mind.
[quote]Common Scott. Clearly John Ashcroft and President Bush hate women from third world countries.<hr></blockquote>
Never a truer word was spoken in jest?
Actually, I don't believe that those two actually *hate* women from 3rd world countries. But since a number of members of Bush's Cabinet (including John Ashcroft himself) cite Charles Murray and Richard Hernstein's "The Bell Curve" as one of their favorite or most influential/inspiring books, then I would imagine that they would probably view 3rd World women as a racially, morally and intellectually inferior variety of humans.
("The Bell Curve" has been denounced by the vast proportion of the scientific world with commentary such as 'racist claptrap', 'pseudoscience', and 'bad science with little or no valid foundation').
The U.N. has gone on plenty of peace-keeping missions. It's a wonderful club to beat our enemies over the head with.
And besides that, the U.N. legitimizes the U.S. as the essential leader of the free world. Without the U.N., our beloved nation wouldn't be as powerful as it is now.
<strong>And besides that, the U.N. legitimizes the U.S. as the essential leader of the free world. Without the U.N., our beloved nation wouldn't be as powerful as it is now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you have that backwards; without the US, the UN wouldn't be as powerful as it is now.
The problem with this treaty (and, for the most part, all global treaties), is that they erase individual citizen's rights in favor of socialistic "we know what's best for you" global supervision. In the United States, the citizen's are not granted rights by the Government; rather, the citizen's grant the Government certain powers.
If the US Government signs a treaty like this (or like Kyoto, for example), it signs away that particular right of the citizen. The individual citizen's of the USA no longer grant powers to the Government, because the government is no longer in a position of authority. In other words, if the US government signs the treaty, the US citizen's no longer have any way of protecting their rights; they've handed all of those rights over to a global organization which "knows what's best" for us.<hr></blockquote>
And yet the US goes rushing headlong to sign and hold international conventions, meetings and treaties to further the cause of global trade and the power of multinational private corporations, many of which are *NOT* even American owned. I suppose you think that signing international treaties when it comes to economic causes and further enrich the wealthiest global elites are just fine and dandy, but anything which smacks of simple human rights, or promotes environmental awareness is out of order because of the dreaded 'socialist' connotations?? You reckon we should abandon the Geneva Convention also? There's no economic advantage to abiding by it's rules also; if anything, it hinders US weapons manufacturers.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
And yet the US goes rushing headlong to sign and hold international conventions, meetings and treaties to further the cause of global trade and the power of multinational private corporations, many of which are *NOT* even American owned. I suppose you think that signing international treaties when it comes to economic causes and further enrich the wealthiest global elites are just fine and dandy, but anything which smacks of simple human rights, or promotes environmental awareness is out of order because of the dreaded 'socialist' connotations?? You reckon we should abandon the Geneva Convention also? There's no economic advantage to abiding by it's rules also; if anything, it hinders US weapons manufacturers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Predictable. You didn't particularly like what I said, but rather than refuting it, you simply attacked me. Bravo! Par for the course.
--
Believe it or not, "global trade" and "multinational private corporation" aren't the vile curse words you seem to think they are; they're the the reasons you have things like, say, food, a job, computers, and a home. Capitalism and rational self-interest are the cornerstones of true freedom and allow us to protect the little things like "human rights" which you don't seem to think I don't believe in.
The point I was trying to make in the post you appear to have only lighly skimmed was that any action which attempts to solve issues of human rights and a lack of freedom by removing ones freedom is inherently self-defeating. At best, all you're doing is exchanging short term benefits for slavery down the road.
do I believe my eyes: he is literally saying what I joked about "first we free the women then we enslave the world" <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
anyway
[quote] Believe it or not, "global trade" and "multinational private corporation" aren't the vile curse words you seem to think they are; they're the the reasons you have things like, say, food, a job, computers, and a home. Capitalism and rational self-interest are the cornerstones of true freedom and allow us to protect the little things like "human rights" which you don't seem to think I don't believe in<hr></blockquote> It may be hard for many of you to understand, but I think that many Liberals know this about capitalism: also, to throw in more supporting ideas held by myself (perhaps a 'liberal') about capitalism: it is the organic expression of otherwise undifinable human desires, wants and needs: as opposed to such miss-directed definitions of humanity like those which make Communism inherently flawed.
However, when Capitalism is unbounded by concern for the sort of issues that do not, and cannot fit into simple economic translation: cannot be measured by simple exchange value, commodity value there needs to be machanisms that balance the potential for economic tyrrany . . . . in the same way that Communism's catch all translation of values to its terms results in tyranny, the same could happen with the wholesale translation of every value in terms of Capital. Hence the notion of balance.
The will of people can, in many instances, be expressed through markets but there are other needs that do not translate into cash: hence there are infrastructural systems and regulations on the potential for the mass conversion of every value into cash.
I know... wordy as usual.... but think about rather than simply dismiss it.
With this in mind . . . signing this treaty has symbolic value... it does not obligate the US in any way (as far as I could discern).. . . it merely seems to say that we will not allow the devaluation of the humanity of 50% of our population based on restricted notions of what that humanity is, and, that we think that its a good idea for other countries to do so as well.
With this in mind . . . signing this treaty has symbolic value... it does not obligate the US in any way (as far as I could discern).. . . it merely seems to say that we will not allow the devaluation of the humanity of 50% of our population based on restricted notions of what that humanity is, and, that we think that its a good idea for other countries to do so as well.
[quote]I think you have that backwards; without the US, the UN wouldn't be as powerful as it is now.<hr></blockquote>
Both are true.
-----
SJO:
This isn't directed at me, but...
[quote]I suppose you think that signing international treaties when it comes to economic causes and further enrich the wealthiest global elites are just fine and dandy, but anything which smacks of simple human rights, or promotes environmental awareness is out of order because of the dreaded 'socialist' connotations?<hr></blockquote>
Economic things are actually important and the international treaties about them will have an actual impact on something.
You really end up alienating your audience by abandoning reason with such inanity.
"but anything that smacks of simple human rights"...
And what's with bringing socialism in here? You sound like Jerry Falwell bitching about queers, not realizing that his own fervor and ignorance is basically the same as those he is busy chastising.
Comments
In the United States, the citizen's are not granted rights by the Government; rather, the citizen's grant the Government certain powers. If the US Government signs a treaty like this (or like Kyoto, for example), it signs away that particular right of the citizen. The individual citizen's of the USA no longer grant powers to the Government, because the government is no longer in a position of authority.
In other words, if the US government signs the treaty, the US citizen's no longer have any way of protecting their rights; they've handed all of those rights over to a global organization which "knows what's best" for us.
And also:
"reproductive rights issues" (ie abortion rights) is an absolutely relevant line of questioning here. Why hasn't this thing passed? There's your answer. Plus, there are lots of other ways that this treaty would impair our sovereignty.
Unfortunately, SJO, it isn't so simple as "they're a buncha dumb right-wing men." This thing hasn't passed for a reason. Just because you don't see those reasons doesn't mean that they don't exist.
Never a truer word was spoken in jest?
Actually, I don't believe that those two actually *hate* women from 3rd world countries. But since a number of members of Bush's Cabinet (including John Ashcroft himself) cite Charles Murray and Richard Hernstein's "The Bell Curve" as one of their favorite or most influential/inspiring books, then I would imagine that they would probably view 3rd World women as a racially, morally and intellectually inferior variety of humans.
("The Bell Curve" has been denounced by the vast proportion of the scientific world with commentary such as 'racist claptrap', 'pseudoscience', and 'bad science with little or no valid foundation').
*tsk* *tsk* *tsk*
We should pull out of the UN and eject all those useless diplomats.
Because isolationism has always worked to preserve peace and prosperity in the past...
<hr></blockquote>
Pardon me but what peace and prosperity has the U.N. preserved?
[quote]Originally posted by sjpsu:
someone needs to post Roe v. Wade<hr></blockquote>
What does Roe have to do with an international treaty?
And besides that, the U.N. legitimizes the U.S. as the essential leader of the free world. Without the U.N., our beloved nation wouldn't be as powerful as it is now.
<strong>And besides that, the U.N. legitimizes the U.S. as the essential leader of the free world. Without the U.N., our beloved nation wouldn't be as powerful as it is now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you have that backwards; without the US, the UN wouldn't be as powerful as it is now.
The problem with this treaty (and, for the most part, all global treaties), is that they erase individual citizen's rights in favor of socialistic "we know what's best for you" global supervision. In the United States, the citizen's are not granted rights by the Government; rather, the citizen's grant the Government certain powers.
If the US Government signs a treaty like this (or like Kyoto, for example), it signs away that particular right of the citizen. The individual citizen's of the USA no longer grant powers to the Government, because the government is no longer in a position of authority. In other words, if the US government signs the treaty, the US citizen's no longer have any way of protecting their rights; they've handed all of those rights over to a global organization which "knows what's best" for us.<hr></blockquote>
And yet the US goes rushing headlong to sign and hold international conventions, meetings and treaties to further the cause of global trade and the power of multinational private corporations, many of which are *NOT* even American owned. I suppose you think that signing international treaties when it comes to economic causes and further enrich the wealthiest global elites are just fine and dandy, but anything which smacks of simple human rights, or promotes environmental awareness is out of order because of the dreaded 'socialist' connotations?? You reckon we should abandon the Geneva Convention also? There's no economic advantage to abiding by it's rules also; if anything, it hinders US weapons manufacturers.
<strong>
And yet the US goes rushing headlong to sign and hold international conventions, meetings and treaties to further the cause of global trade and the power of multinational private corporations, many of which are *NOT* even American owned. I suppose you think that signing international treaties when it comes to economic causes and further enrich the wealthiest global elites are just fine and dandy, but anything which smacks of simple human rights, or promotes environmental awareness is out of order because of the dreaded 'socialist' connotations?? You reckon we should abandon the Geneva Convention also? There's no economic advantage to abiding by it's rules also; if anything, it hinders US weapons manufacturers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Predictable.
--
Believe it or not, "global trade" and "multinational private corporation" aren't the vile curse words you seem to think they are; they're the the reasons you have things like, say, food, a job, computers, and a home. Capitalism and rational self-interest are the cornerstones of true freedom and allow us to protect the little things like "human rights" which you don't seem to think I don't believe in.
The point I was trying to make in the post you appear to have only lighly skimmed was that any action which attempts to solve issues of human rights and a lack of freedom by removing ones freedom is inherently self-defeating. At best, all you're doing is exchanging short term benefits for slavery down the road.
anyway
[quote] Believe it or not, "global trade" and "multinational private corporation" aren't the vile curse words you seem to think they are; they're the the reasons you have things like, say, food, a job, computers, and a home. Capitalism and rational self-interest are the cornerstones of true freedom and allow us to protect the little things like "human rights" which you don't seem to think I don't believe in<hr></blockquote> It may be hard for many of you to understand, but I think that many Liberals know this about capitalism: also, to throw in more supporting ideas held by myself (perhaps a 'liberal') about capitalism: it is the organic expression of otherwise undifinable human desires, wants and needs: as opposed to such miss-directed definitions of humanity like those which make Communism inherently flawed.
However, when Capitalism is unbounded by concern for the sort of issues that do not, and cannot fit into simple economic translation: cannot be measured by simple exchange value, commodity value there needs to be machanisms that balance the potential for economic tyrrany . . . . in the same way that Communism's catch all translation of values to its terms results in tyranny, the same could happen with the wholesale translation of every value in terms of Capital. Hence the notion of balance.
The will of people can, in many instances, be expressed through markets but there are other needs that do not translate into cash: hence there are infrastructural systems and regulations on the potential for the mass conversion of every value into cash.
I know... wordy as usual.... but think about rather than simply dismiss it.
With this in mind . . . signing this treaty has symbolic value... it does not obligate the US in any way (as far as I could discern).. . . it merely seems to say that we will not allow the devaluation of the humanity of 50% of our population based on restricted notions of what that humanity is, and, that we think that its a good idea for other countries to do so as well.
[
[ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
<strong>
With this in mind . . . signing this treaty has symbolic value... it does not obligate the US in any way (as far as I could discern).. . . it merely seems to say that we will not allow the devaluation of the humanity of 50% of our population based on restricted notions of what that humanity is, and, that we think that its a good idea for other countries to do so as well.
[ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: pfflam ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I kinda think that when we sign this thing, it obligates us to behave in a certain manner. Maybe that's just me.
[quote]I think you have that backwards; without the US, the UN wouldn't be as powerful as it is now.<hr></blockquote>
Both are true.
-----
SJO:
This isn't directed at me, but...
[quote]I suppose you think that signing international treaties when it comes to economic causes and further enrich the wealthiest global elites are just fine and dandy, but anything which smacks of simple human rights, or promotes environmental awareness is out of order because of the dreaded 'socialist' connotations?<hr></blockquote>
Economic things are actually important and the international treaties about them will have an actual impact on something.
You really end up alienating your audience by abandoning reason with such inanity.
"but anything that smacks of simple human rights"...
And what's with bringing socialism in here? You sound like Jerry Falwell bitching about queers, not realizing that his own fervor and ignorance is basically the same as those he is busy chastising.