[lpkmckenna]

Can someone explain this to me? Senate GOP kills disabilities treaty.

I just don't understand what's behind this. It wouldn't have required any change in American law. But it might have improved things for disabled people around the world.

Just tell me: what are the Republicans who voted against this thinking? I just wanna understand the thought process involved.

[Shaddim]

The one part that doesn't sit well with me is, if ratified, disabled children would need to be registered with a U.N. committee to make decisions regarding that child's quality of life. My child doesn't have disabilities, but if she did I'd be pissed off over registering and reporting about her to an int'l agency. She's my child and my responsibility. It's none of their damned business.

[Snow-i]

Can you please explain the purpose of this bill? What in the world would it have done for anyone?

Originally Posted by John Kerry

Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) explained the proposal simply "raises the [international] standard to our level without requiring us to go further."

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

The one part that doesn't sit well with me is, if ratified, disabled children would need to be registered with a U.N. committee to make decisions regarding that child's quality of life. My child doesn't have disabilities, but if she did I'd be pissed off over registering and reporting about her to an int'l agency. She's my child and my responsibility. It's none of their damned business.

Is even legally possible for UN shit to supersede US law? I'm assuming no.

---

Anyway, what I can suss out this morning:

The treaty was negotiated either by H.W. or W. Bush, suffered from bipartisan support including President Obama and Bob Dole. Opposition came from such luminaries as Rick Santorum and Senate Tea Party caucus.

You'll have to pardon me if I automatically assume the tea party is full of shit and overblowing things.

[raleur]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Is even legally possible for UN shit to supersede US law? I'm assuming no.

Your assumption is correct, if it's a UN resolution. Treaties, however, become US law once they are ratified by the senate. So in this case, we would be required to observe the treaty's provisions.

Some of the comments here need correction and clarification:

• First, the treaty doesn't have any provisions that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) doesn't already require, so Kerry's statement is essentially correct: signing it would be a signal that we expect other nations to live up to our standards.
• Second, if ratified, American adherence to the treaty would be monitored by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which has been operating since 1957, and was instrumental in the passage of the ADA.
• Third, the treaty does not require any US citizen to register with a UN committee "to make decisions regarding that child's quality of life." Such a committee does not exist. However, there is an optional side agreement that, if signed by a member nation, allows the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to consider civil rights complaints from individuals. The US did not sign the Optional Protocol.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You'll have to pardon me if I automatically assume the tea party is full of shit and overblowing things.

Yep. What else is new?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Is even legally possible for UN shit to supersede US law? I'm assuming no.

Resolutions, no. Treaties, yes.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

The one part that doesn't sit well with me is, if ratified, disabled children would need to be registered with a U.N. committee to make decisions regarding that child's quality of life.

I don't know much about this issue, but I'm extremely skeptical about this claim.

[raleur]

Read my response- it's not true.

[ironknee]

dummies

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Is even legally possible for UN shit to supersede US law? I'm assuming no.

When treaties are ratified by Congress, they become national law.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Can you please explain the purpose of this bill? What in the world would it have done for anyone?

It is supposed to further human rights for people with disabilities in the world, similar to, say, the Human Rights Convention.

[Shaddim]

If they're just ratifying a resolution, sure, no problem, the Repubs are blowing shit out of proportion. If it's a full-blown treaty, no thanks.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

If they're just ratifying a resolution, sure, no problem, the Repubs are blowing shit out of proportion. If it's a full-blown treaty, no thanks.

You still haven't explained why. As explained before, since US standards comply with or exceed the stipulations in the treaty, nothing would change. I don't get it.

[subego]

Is there anything we get out of this treaty?

If we're already doing what's in it, I'm not clear on the point. Can other countries not meet our (apparently "best in the world") practices unless we're in their club?

[raleur]

Originally Posted by subego 

Is there anything we get out of this treaty?

A little badly-needed prestige, the moral high ground- mostly rhetorical gains, but also something we can use in certain negotiations, such as trade and tariff discussions.

It costs us nothing to ratify it, so we get a useful lever in our dealings with other nations- for free.

[subego]

So, basically to show we're nice people.

But we're not.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Is there anything we get out of this treaty?
If we're already doing what's in it, I'm not clear on the point. Can other countries not meet our (apparently "best in the world") practices unless we're in their club?

Leadership by example.

Originally Posted by subego 

So, basically to show we're nice people.
But we're not.

We aren't? The why do our disabled already have these rights?

[subego]

We used to be nicer.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

We used to be nicer.

So, do you have anything more substantial?

[subego]

Somebody, and I won't name names, is very cranky today.

[The Final Dakar]

Damn, no white text.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

The sexual tension is palpable

[subego]

That's just gas.

[lpkmckenna]

I'm gonna go out on a limb: some Republicans are against this treaty because they hope to undermine and weaken the Americans with Disabilities Act sometime in the future, and this treaty will make that goal harder or impossible.

Anyone with me on this?

[Shaddim]

Why would they want to weaken the ADA?

This isn't complicated, there's no conspiracy. Most Right wing politicians in the US hate the UN and see it as a waste of resources, and they'll do whatever they can to give it the finger. It's just that simple.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Is there anything we get out of this treaty?
If we're already doing what's in it, I'm not clear on the point. Can other countries not meet our (apparently "best in the world") practices unless we're in their club?

It furthers the interests of the United States and their stance on the treatment of the disabled. Your reply makes it sound as if that was something unusual or uncommon.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Why would they want to weaken the ADA?

How would the treaty weaken the ADA?

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

This isn't complicated, there's no conspiracy. Most Right wing politicians in the US hate the UN and see it as a waste of resources, and they'll do whatever they can to give it the finger. It's just that simple.

First of all, being »anti-UN« is not a reason for opposing something. And secondly, that treaty was negotiated under the Bush administration, so it does have bipartisan support. The only reason it failed is because it couldn't garner a 2/3 majority in the senate (they were 4 or 5 votes short).

And even though being »anti-UN« is an explanation, it still doesn't say why you oppose the treaty.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Why would they want to weaken the ADA?

'Cause like, "free market," and stuff.

[Shaddim]

I still haven't heard a compelling argument explaining why we need to sign it.

How would the treaty weaken the ADA?

I didn't say anything about that.

[raleur]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Why would they want to weaken the ADA?
This isn't complicated, there's no conspiracy. Most Right wing politicians in the US hate the UN and see it as a waste of resources, and they'll do whatever they can to give it the finger. It's just that simple.

This, except it's only the far right that has it in for the UN. Plenty of older-style Republicans had no problems working with it- as evidenced by both Bush Presidents' support and Bob Dole's presence on the Senate floor during the vote.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

First of all, being »anti-UN« is not a reason for opposing something.

Until you understand that this is reason enough, you will always underestimate the motivations of the far right. For some people, the mere existence of the UN is an existential threat.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

And secondly, that treaty was negotiated under the Bush administration, so it does have bipartisan support. The only reason it failed is because it couldn't garner a 2/3 majority in the senate (they were 4 or 5 votes short).

It was negotiated in 2006, before the tea party took over the GOP in 2009-10.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

And even though being »anti-UN« is an explanation, it still doesn't say why you oppose the treaty.

That's a bit more interesting, if we get an answer. The current rationale goes like this: it's a threat to homeschooling and personal liberty because it hands sovereignty to the UN. Also, it has no teeth to enforce it, and does nothing for us because we already have those laws, so why bother?

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I still haven't heard a compelling argument explaining why we need to sign it.

Well, that's the trick, isn't it? Tell us what would suffice as compelling, and maybe we'll give it a shot.

[Shaddim]

Essentially, yes. If we have those laws, and our standards are more comprehensive, why do we need the treaty? Solidarity? Setting an example? Let someone else set the example for a while, I nominate Switzerland.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Setting an example?

This one, obviously. But you knew that already.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Let someone else set the example for a while, I nominate Switzerland.

So you're telling us that if there was a U.N. treaty based on Swiss standards, you would gladly have the U.S. sign it?

EDIT: I think it's noteworthy that this is all happening during the "lame duck" session, and it will come up again in the next session. And Republicans will sign off on it the second time around after being rightly mocked for refusing to sign the first time. Anyone who voted "no" the first time will be hounded by the press in the time leading up to the second vote, and they will enjoy a pronounced public shaming.

An interesting read: WashPo: Profiles in Moral Cowardice.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I still haven't heard a compelling argument explaining why we need to sign it.

You're evading the question: I've asked you for what reasons you're against ratifying the treaty?

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

How would the treaty weaken the ADA?

I didn't say anything about that.

Sure you have:

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Why would they want to weaken the ADA?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by raleur 

Until you understand that this is reason enough, you will always underestimate the motivations of the far right. For some people, the mere existence of the UN is an existential threat.

I understand that a disdain for the UN is an irrational justification (»I don't like you, so I don't even want to work with you.«), but that certainly is not a rational justification. Sort of like not wanting to cooperate with the Democrats on anything, even things you agree on.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

This one, obviously. But you knew that already.
So you're telling us that if there was a U.N. treaty based on Swiss standards, you would gladly have the U.S. sign it?
EDIT: I think it's noteworthy that this is all happening during the "lame duck" session, and it will come up again in the next session. And Republicans will sign off on it the second time around after being rightly mocked for refusing to sign the first time. Anyone who voted "no" the first time will be hounded by the press in the time leading up to the second vote, and they will enjoy a pronounced public shaming.
An interesting read: WashPo: Profiles in Moral Cowardice.

Hold it there, laughing boy, I said no such thing. I said the Swiss can be their example, why does the USA need to be involved in this at all? I'm tired of us being the "leaders of the free world", let someone else do it for a while, we can't afford it.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

You're evading the question: I've asked you for what reasons you're against ratifying the treaty?

Because our laws already cover it, and then some. What would be the point except to add another layer of bureaucracy?

Sure you have:

No I didn't, mckenna brought up the ADA.

I'm gonna go out on a limb: some Republicans are against this treaty because they hope to undermine and weaken the Americans with Disabilities Act sometime in the future, and this treaty will make that goal harder or impossible.

Anyone with me on this?

and then I asked him:

Why would they want to weaken the ADA?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I understand that a disdain for the UN is an irrational justification (»I don't like you, so I don't even want to work with you.«), but that certainly is not a rational justification. Sort of like not wanting to cooperate with the Democrats on anything, even things you agree on.

Some people very much dislike the idea of a one world government, and see that as the path leading there. I can't say I'm fond of the notion either.

[raleur]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I understand that a disdain for the UN is an irrational justification (»I don't like you, so I don't even want to work with you.«), but that certainly is not a rational justification. Sort of like not wanting to cooperate with the Democrats on anything, even things you agree on.

But that's just the point: as far as these people are concerned, it is entirely rational. That was the point of the article linked in this thread.

The "epistemic closure" he's talking about is a belief system that has its own principles and logic: the "one world government" argument is nothing more than a slippery slope argument based on paranoid fantasies- but you'll never convince them otherwise because the information and reasoning you would use all come from outside the system.

If the UN is morally evil or otherwise an existential threat, then not working with it is its own virtue. If you are convinced that your party knows the one true path, then compromise itself becomes a moral evil.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I'm tired of us being the "leaders of the free world", let someone else do it for a while, we can't afford it.

You make it sound like the US is fighting for the rights of the disabled like it is waging its war on terror: there is no cost attached to this bill, a ratification would just be a sign of support from the US.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Because our laws already cover it, and then some. What would be the point except to add another layer of bureaucracy?

Who said anything about additional bureaucracy? The US has not signed the additional agreement concerning registration.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

No I didn't, mckenna brought up the ADA.

You're right, I stand corrected.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Some people very much dislike the idea of a one world government, and see that as the path leading there. I can't say I'm fond of the notion either.

I don't get that vibe from the UN at all: it's meant to serve as a mediator between governments to settle conflicts and help governments when working towards common goals.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by raleur 

The "epistemic closure" he's talking about is a belief system that has its own principles and logic: the "one world government" argument is nothing more than a slippery slope argument based on paranoid fantasies- but you'll never convince them otherwise because the information and reasoning you would use all come from outside the system.

Religious considerations aside, the "one world government" makes great sense in terms of the premise that as a government gets further removed from the individuals it serves, it begins to serve those individuals less.

[subego]

It's not like I'm willing to go down in flames over this, but I get a vibe, from the top on down, this is theatre.

Everybody's arguing how this treaty isn't really binding, like pretty much everything the UN does. I don't see the point to it beyond everyone patting themselves on the back about how awesomely enlightened they are. Who cares? So what? You really need a ****ing treaty not to piss on disabled people?

Take it a step lower. The Republicans said they wouldn't allow any treaties to go through the lame duck session, and that's exactly what they're doing.

Why hold a vote you know won't pass? So you can go home and lie to your constituents about how you're actually doing work. "See? We tried to pass that treaty, but the big bad opposition stopped us". Of course the opposition goes home and touts how they're protecting you from the UN.

So, at the end, literally everybody has complimented themselves on how awesome they are, and not a single thing has changed.

Enjoy the show?

[raleur]

Originally Posted by subego 

It's not like I'm willing to go down in flames over this, but I get a vibe, from the top on down, this is theatre.

Of course it's theater, it's politics- but it's not merely theater.

Originally Posted by subego 

Take it a step lower. The Republicans said they wouldn't allow any treaties to go through the lame duck session, and that's exactly what they're doing. Why hold a vote you know won't pass?

You're right, some senators did pledge that they would pass no treaties during the lame duck session. But it's not true that everybody knew this treaty wouldn't pass: as this article shows, several of those same senators had pledged their support for the treaty, only to do a last minute about-face. So no, it wasn't mere theater: everyone expected the treaty to be ratified. I think this is what has drawn so much attention- the treaty was shockingly derailed at the last minute due to the cowardice of a handful of senators.

Besides, if it's theater, it's an extremely poor choice for the Republicans: they're taking a beating on this one.

In any case, "no treaties during the lame duck session" is a very poor principle to stand on when we consider the process by which treaties are ratified. The treaty had been officially received in May, was under consideration for months, and was approved (with Republicans supporting) by the Foreign Relations committee in July. In other words, everyone knew it was coming, everyone knew what it contained- there were no new developments that would have affected the treaty. In other words, "no treaties" is a cop-out.

[subego]

It doesn't matter if they're taking a beating from people their constituents don't listen to.

That article seems to indicate it was a shocking reversal to the lobbyists, but doesn't really address when the major Republican players in the senate knew.

I mean, it's not implausible this was a genuine surprise to these Republican players, but that's not normally how these things operate. I see it as far more likely there was a bunch of dickering over who gets to vote yes, and who has to risk becoming collateral damage. Despite the fact all the senators who voted no can count on making hay out of UN bashing, it's going to work better for some than others.

This is where McConnell earns his keep. He makes sure the people who take one for the team get something, and the ones who don't give something. He may have let this opportunity pass him by, but I'd be surprised.

[raleur]

Originally Posted by subego 

It doesn't matter if they're taking a beating from people their constituents don't listen to.

It doesn't matter to the teabaggers, but it does matter to their party. Besides repelling women and minorities, they've now alienated a core Republican constituency- veterans groups.

Originally Posted by subego 

That article seems to indicate it was a shocking reversal to the lobbyists, but doesn't really address when the major Republican players in the senate knew.

Not true: several of those who voted no were on the public record as supporting the treaty. The Republican leadership knew.

Originally Posted by subego 

I see it as far more likely there was a bunch of dickering over who gets to vote yes, and who has to risk becoming collateral damage. Despite the fact all the senators who voted no can count on making hay out of UN bashing, it's going to work better for some than others.

This is only "more likely" when you think conspiratorially, i.e. that Republicans as a whole did not support the treaty, and have spent the last eight months trying to find a way to weasel out of it. If that is indeed the case, then you must be willing to accept that Bob Dole, both Presidents Bush, and several other prominent Republicans were willing to make themselves look like fools.

You also ignore the point I make above, which is that it is damaging to the party as a whole, especially since it had the support of several prominent Republicans.

Moreover, when you consider the number of people distancing themselves from the teabaggers, it is literally ridiculous to think that the Republican leadership was willing to take such a damaging hit in order to satisfy the people who lost them the last election.

Originally Posted by subego 

This is where McConnell earns his keep. He makes sure the people who take one for the team get something, and the ones who don't give something. He may have let this opportunity pass him by, but I'd be surprised.

Yes, this is the explanation the Freepers and their ilk are passing around. Again, it requires a certain amount of conspiratorial thinking- and since I don't buy into that religion, I can't refute it.

[subego]

Well, that was condescending.

[raleur]

Sorry, but your argument left me few alternatives.

[subego]

And... I'm out.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

You make it sound like the US is fighting for the rights of the disabled like it is waging its war on terror: there is no cost attached to this bill, a ratification would just be a sign of support from the US.

I do? I was just talking in a general "We're the USA and leader of the "Free World" and we need to stick our nose into everything" kind of way. We need to stop doing that.

Who said anything about additional bureaucracy? The US has not signed the additional agreement concerning registration.

I don't really care. If we already handle this with domestic laws, I see no reason to jump in on this. Looks like a chance for more grandstanding and finger-wagging to me.

I don't get that vibe from the UN at all: it's meant to serve as a mediator between governments to settle conflicts and help governments when working towards common goals.

It seems we see this from different perspectives and likely won't agree.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

You make it sound like the US is fighting for the rights of the disabled like it is waging its war on terror: there is no cost attached to this bill, a ratification would just be a sign of support from the US.

I do? I was just talking in a general "We're the USA and leader of the "Free World" and we need to stick our nose into everything" kind of way. We need to stop doing that when it's not actually a productive action.

Look, it's spreading your own ~best-in-the-world human rights standards to other countries who badly need to raise their own standards. You're not telling people what religion to believe or what economic principles to use or something; it is unquestionable that better treatment of the disabled is a great thing for human kind.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I bet Sparta doesn't sign it

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I do? I was just talking in a general "We're the USA and leader of the "Free World" and we need to stick our nose into everything" kind of way. We need to stop doing that.

Again, nobody said anything about the US being a leader here. The US these days is rarely the driving force behind any progressive cause. In this instance, they were just asked to »show up«. This is not a sign of America's decline as world power, it's the reason.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I don't really care. If we already handle this with domestic laws, I see no reason to jump in on this. Looks like a chance for more grandstanding and finger-wagging to me.

You seem to forget what the treaty is about, and America doesn't »handle this with national law«. It's about proliferating common standards on how the disabled should be treated in other countries. If the worst indictment against the treaty is that it is mere cosmetics, that's a pretty weak one.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

It seems we see this from different perspectives and likely won't agree.

So you'll stop discussing it, because we have different opinions?

[subego]

Originally Posted by raleur 

Sorry, but your argument left me few alternatives.

You know, I said I was out, but I'm bothered by potentially missing an opportunity to have discussions with someone who's well informed and intelligent.

Are you interested in polite discussion with me? I've usually found someone who is condescending even before a person can defend their argument is not in it for polite discussion. However, I very well may be wrong, and we just have some crossed wires.

[raleur]

Originally Posted by subego 

You know, I said I was out, but I'm bothered by potentially missing an opportunity to have discussions with someone who's well informed and intelligent.

First of all, thank you for your generous words. I try to be those things, but fear I fail all too often.

Second, I should explain my comment a bit more- and I apologize in advance for the wall of text.

I wasn't merely out to flame you, I meant it sincerely. In my opinion, all of my professional and personal experience with ideology and rhetoric has taught me that too many discussions aren't worth having because no resolution is possible: the parties involved are too invested in what people around here call "bubbles"- ideologies, on both left and right, that are circular and closed.

If someone is outside that circle, but still wishes to engage the issue, their options when they meet such an argument are pretty much limited to scorn and ridicule. That's why I went after knifecarrier so hard: since he maintained his ignorant and hateful position, I could only pile on demonstrations of just how wrong he was.

To get back to what I wrote, I saw in your argument the same reasoning that I find on far-right blogs and discussion sites, and based on earlier comments, it seemed to me that you were well-versed in that rhetoric. So what I saw first and foremost in your arguments was the assumption that the UN was to be avoided on principle. Since I don't agree with that assumption, I can only see them as unfounded and irrational.

That's what I meant when I said you left me with few alternatives: if you feel that the UN presents a moral danger to our country, then I cannot have a rational discussion with you, I can only point out the irrationality I see in the argument.

But I admit that I might be wrong- I could have read too much into your arguments. If that is the case, then I apologize for not giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Which brings us back to your proposition: have we crossed wires? I don't know. If you do in fact believe that the UN is a moral danger, and US participation in it cannot bring any benefit, then no, we cannot have a decent discussion, and we'd be better off letting it drop. But If I've misjudged your position, then please correct my error.