All Warm and Fuzzy Inside

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, AND FOR THESE ENDS to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples, HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.

Now doesn't that just give you the most wonderful, fuzzy feeling feeling inside? Knowing that hey, while your country may be completely sold out and belong to someone else (along with $500,000,000 of our lovely monopoly money annually), that you're helping to further 'peace' and 'justice' and 'freedom' with your tax money?

And...that you're furthering the broader goals of all humanity.

And...that force will only be exerted in the most trying of circumstances- or, as they put it, in the 'common interest'. (Now, I wonder, just what is the 'common interest?' Would exertion of force be justified if they were to lose $500 million annually?)

Sometimes I just have to wonder what in the world some people were thinking.

Korea, Nukes, & the UN

HELP!! North Korea is going to get us...or maybe not. I mean, considering their nukes aren't even that powerful. At least, not substantially more powerful than they were two years ago.

Besides, who cares if anybody has nukes?

So what if they decide they want to have weapons that could wipe out the entire world?

North Korea is a sovereign nation (my, what a concept), and we have no business telling them what they can and cannot do in their own country.

Am I a bit scared they have nukes? Yes. Do I think nukes are bad? Um...maybe. Do I think America and/or the UN should be forcing them to give their nukes up? No.

I understand that NKorea had a treaty with several other countries to get rid of their nuclear program.

But why do we care? Why should anyone care? So they decided to get rid of the stupid treaty (which was probably a bad idea in the first place), and go their own way. So?

Let me tell all of the wonderful 'peace' people out there- I am not adverse to peace. However, I find it hard to believe that Obama is for peace- despite his pressure to get rid of nukes- when he's pushed yet another war in Afghanistan. Yeah, that's real peace-lovin'!

Let's just let every country have nukes. If one country actually sets one off, that country will be in trouble. If everybody had nukes, we wouldn't have to worry about nukes, because each country would be too afraid to set them off, for fear of the repurcussions.

'Nuff said.

Coercion and the UN

A new finding shows that the CIA and the Pentagon were preparing to use 'harsh coercive techniques' to find out information eight months before the Justice Department lawyers (who aren't in charge of finding out everything about the enemy) had gone through all the red tape needed to authorize 'harsh coercive techniques'.


And what, exactly, are 'harsh coercive techniques'? Well, basically torture. What does torture make you think of? For me, it brings up images of dark dungeons, medieval devices, and screams echoing down a stone corridor, sort of like in some movie.


But anyway- that's not what 'torture' the CIA/Pentagon have been using. They've been using things like sleep deprivation, music playing (such torture!!), and water boarding.


Sorry, but I don't think that not being allowed to sleep is all that terrible. It may not be very pleasant, but it's much nicer than what the opposition would do to our soldiers if caught.


Sorry, but I find that having water dumped over my head or not getting to go to sleep as preferable to, oh, being tied behind a car and dragged. Just a little, teeny, itsy little bit.


As a final note- and this really got me steamed- what business does EUROPE have holding the UNITED STATES accountable for what she or her soldiers do? Oh yeah. The UN. The organization that has stripped us of our sovereignty. Because, dontcha' know, we have to be accountable to the rest of the world.

Why?

I have no idea, but Washington thinks it's a great idea.

So now, if any of the people accused of 'torture' try to go overseas, they may very well be detained and thrown in jail! If that's just not...wonderful enough for you.

Sometimes, I think the world needs....

A good, swift kick in the rear. Or the head. Depending on if you want to kick them out or wake them up. Or both.

There we go.

"Rights of the Child"

I've been hearing quite a bit about this lately. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is a proposed bill, I guess I could call it, to establish the 'rights of the child'. What exactly are these 'rights'?

"It spells out the basic human rights that children everywhere have: the right to survival; to develop to the fullest; to protection from harmful influences, abuse and exploitation; and to participate fully in family, cultural and social life. The four core principles of the Convention are non-discrimination; devotion to the best interests of the child; the right to life, survival and development; and respect for the views of the child."

Now I want to know. If 'respect' for my views is one of the aims...and then they outlaw taking me to church (a 'harmful influence', y'know), then I decide that church is good for me...does that mean that they'll respect my views?

Probably not. I can almost guarantee they won't.

What also concerns me is this little...gem from their website:

"States parties to the Convention are obliged to develop and undertake all actions and policies in the light of the best interests of the child."

Uh-huh. And exactly who, pray tell, is going to decide what is in my 'best interests'? Uh...I'd rather not have some government employee deciding what my best interests are. Thank you, and goodbye.

You know what, here's the deal. This doesn't sound like something to establish my 'rights'. This sounds like something to take away the rights of my parents, and put them firmly in the hands of some impersonal government employee.

Let me give you a few more jewels to ponder:

"Children are neither the possessions of parents nor of the state, nor are they mere people-in-the-making; they have equal status as members of the human family."
Wow. I didn't know, y'know, that I was actually an adult. Does that mean I can drive?!

"Children's views are rarely heard and rarely considered in the political process."
Naw, really? I had no idea. You know, I think there might be a good reason...oh yeah. We don't vote. Most of us don't care.

You know, the more I contemplate this, the more it makes me mad. This is stupid. I am not an adult, hence I have no real rights. I am nothing but a child. As much as I don't like that, it's true. Childhood is about preparing for your future rights- life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That is all.