[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I'm struggling with this a bit. What does "correct" mean? Does it mean it holds most closely to what the people under it want? Or does it mean it is best at delivering what the people "need" even if they don't think that's what they need? Or does it mean that the system no longer needs "tweaking" by legislators and we can finally close the doors of congress for good? Or something else?

It means I think people are stupid, and I don't trust them. They get stuff very wrong at times.

I mean this in the MiB way: a person can be smart, but people are stupid.

Ok so you think that people are not correct, then what is correct? What does correct mean?

[raleur]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'd say each thing has their strong suits.
OTOH, I think the larger in scope you get the more difficult it becomes to do properly.
I mean, I don't think it's a coincidence you have a lot of people supporting the treaty, and the fact the treaty will have no effect on our laws. Change that around and I think it would lose a whole lot of the support it currently enjoys.

On the whole, I agree. I think that the isolationist streak that the rational opponents follow is simply outdated- we're involved whether we like it or not, so why not uphold our standards whenever possible?

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

It's not a duel if only one of us is aware of what;s going on.

So, the element of surprise is all I have in my corner, and you want to take that too?

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Yeah, except we aren't. It came to a vote. Is there a reason to vote against it other than what appears to be principle?

If I were in the senate, I'd bow to pressure to vote for it, but I'd extract my pound of flesh by pissing and moaning about it the whole time. Kinda like now, but without the vote.

When the vote failed to pass, I'd tell anyone outside the country who has a problem with that they forfeit the right to say a goddamned thing until they pass laws better than ours. Let me know when you stop flapping your jaws and actually do something. You know, like we have. Without needing a ****ing pansy-ass treaty, I might add.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Ok so you think that people are not correct, then what is correct? What does correct mean?

If I had an answer for that I wouldn't be wasting my time here.

A good part of my search involves eliminating things which aren't correct.

This is a target-rich environment.

[Snow-i]

I'm still struggling with why this is even being considered. When you put it against the current problems our country faces, seems like an awfully big waste of time.

How about a bill that actually increases the benefits for our veterans struggling with PTSD and other combat related illnesses? Or one that aims to tackle the ballooning suicide rate for our veterans? Nope, just argue over bills that do absolute diddlysquat for US citizens then pat ourselves on the back for signing into law a treaty that aims to improve the lives of people that the law doesn't even apply to.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Ok so you think that people are not correct, then what is correct? What does correct mean?

If I had an answer for that I wouldn't be wasting my time here.

A good part of my search involves eliminating things which aren't correct.

This is a target-rich environment.

What's one thing that might be a clue that something is closer to correct?

Or...

What's one thing that the "granted by the people" system we have now has erred on (what's one government power that we granted but shouldn't have, or that we failed to grant but should)?

Or...

If our only hope is to wait for all-powerful aliens to come along and bestow the correct system on us, whether we like it or not, how could we know it isn't the system we already have? IOW, is this a case of "I'll know it when I see it," or is it a case of "I wouldn't even know it if I see it?"

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

So, the element of surprise is all I have in my corner, and you want to take that too?

Since you can't win a fair fight.

Originally Posted by subego 

If I were in the senate, I'd bow to pressure to vote for it, but I'd extract my pound of flesh by pissing and moaning about it the whole time. Kinda like now, but without the vote.

Pissing and moaning appears to be what you do best.

Originally Posted by subego 

IWhen the vote failed to pass, I'd tell anyone outside the country who has a problem with that they forfeit the right to say a goddamned thing until they pass laws better than ours. Let me know when you stop flapping your jaws and actually do something. You know, like we have. Without needing a ****ing pansy-ass treaty, I might add.

Does anyone outside the country have a real problem with us not passing it (Aside from failing to grasp why such a thing would be defeated)? I have to guess that the idea behind this is to provide a solid base of legislation which any country can adopt. This is somehow pansy-ass or are you just "joking" again or doing macho posturing? I understand some of the contempt of the UN for being ineffectual, but when passing this costs us literally nothing, I fail to see the problem with showing some leadership, solidarity, or consensus.

The people crying about this being a waste of time are the real pansies. I agree the government has better things to give it's attention to, but if you check the numbers, it's not like they're bumping things to address this – it's just doing nothing at all. That's not a reason to shoot this down. (Also, what better time to do address this than lame duck?)

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Since you can't win a fair fight.
Pissing and moaning appears to be what you do best.
Does anyone outside the country have a real problem with us not passing it (Aside from failing to grasp why such a thing would be defeated)? I have to guess that the idea behind this is to provide a solid base of legislation which any country can adopt. This is somehow pansy-ass or are you just "joking" again or doing macho posturing? I understand some of the contempt of the UN for being ineffectual, but when passing this costs us literally nothing, I fail to see the problem with showing some leadership, solidarity, or consensus.
The people crying about this being a waste of time are the real pansies. I agree the government has better things to give it's attention to, but if you check the numbers, it's not like they're bumping things to address this – it's just doing nothing at all. That's not a reason to shoot this down. (Also, what better time to do address this than lame duck?)

This comes off like you skipped the part where I said I'd vote for it.

I mean, you could be asking me my opinion on why other people behave this way, but it really reads like you think I'm behaving this way.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

This comes off like you skipped the part where I said I'd vote for it.

I mean, you could be asking me my opinion on why other people behave this way, but it really reads like you think I'm behaving this way.

I was addressing your condemnation of foreign agents before transitioning to a rant aimed at general opposition.

So yeah, it wasn't very clear. Sorry.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I'm still struggling with why this is even being considered. When you put it against the current problems our country faces, seems like an awfully big waste of time.
How about a bill that actually increases the benefits for our veterans struggling with PTSD and other combat related illnesses? Or one that aims to tackle the ballooning suicide rate for our veterans? Nope, just argue over bills that do absolute diddlysquat for US citizens then pat ourselves on the back for signing into law a treaty that aims to improve the lives of people that the law doesn't even apply to.

Indeed, it's just theater.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

but when passing this costs us literally nothing, I fail to see the problem with showing some leadership, solidarity, or consensus.

Just playing devil's advocate, suppose that instead of "disability treaty" we were talking about "America: **** Yeah" treaty, and it was to simply declare America to be leaders, have solidarity, and support consensus (the consensus that we are awesome). IOW another total waste of time with no hope of doing anything useful, yet costs us literally nothing. Now suppose we have real problems that will take real effort to solve, but instead of working on those the opposition reveals they've been focusing on the America: **** Yeah treaty. Can you see yourself rejecting it out of spite, as a message to the other side to get serious? I can.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Just playing devil's advocate, suppose that instead of "disability treaty" we were talking about "America: **** Yeah" treaty, and it was to simply declare America to be leaders, have solidarity, and support consensus (the consensus that we are awesome). IOW another total waste of time with no hope of doing anything useful, yet costs us literally nothing. Now suppose we have real problems that will take real effort to solve, but instead of working on those the opposition reveals they've been focusing on the America: **** Yeah treaty. Can you see yourself rejecting it out of spite, as a message to the other side to get serious? I can.

This disability treaty creates minimum standards (based on our own legislation), right? And once adopted by a country I assume they must enforce them, right? And was not drafted by current US legislators, right?

If the "America: **** Yeah" treaty will do literally nothing for any country adopting it, that's a bit different, ain't it?

Edit: Emotional knee-jerking isn't the most convincing argument, either.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I was addressing your condemnation of foreign agents before transitioning to a rant aimed at general opposition.
So yeah, it wasn't very clear. Sorry.

What confused me is your question about "pansy-ass" which is how I phrased it to the foreign agent.

To you I'd say it was stupid, or I'd question what's being accomplished by giving the treaty make-over to our legislation. I don't mean for us, I mean for everybody else. Just friggin Google it. We spend tax dollars so anyone with a computer can access any of our federal legislation 24/7 for free.

Like I said earlier in the thread, all any of this is going to do is let a bunch of politicians pat themselves on the back for how awesome they are. I'd rather they did actual stuff.

[subego]

And then the irony is, as senator, I want to buck the trend and not pat myself on the back for bullshit, but I cave anyway, out of fear of being thought of as some tin-foil hatted psycho.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

What confused me is your question about "pansy-ass" which is how I phrased it to the foreign agent.
To you I'd say it was stupid, or I'd question what's being accomplished by giving the treaty make-over to our legislation. I don't mean for us, I mean for everybody else. Just friggin Google it. We spend tax dollars so anyone with a computer can access any of our federal legislation 24/7 for free.

I wondered this myself, but I imagine the effect was two-fold; To create a world-wide standard (yes, I know, **** the world), and to streamline the process (instead of 50 governments trying to draft 50 different version, one is ready made).

Originally Posted by subego 

Like I said earlier in the thread, all any of this is going to do is let a bunch of politicians pat themselves on the back for how awesome they are. I'd rather they did actual stuff.

Maybe. I can't imagine that much time was wasted on this (Particularly in comparison to trying to repeal ACA 33 times). The irony being if this had passed I don't think anyone on either side would have given a **** either way (insane tea-party conspiracy theorists notwithstanding).

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Just playing devil's advocate, suppose that instead of "disability treaty" we were talking about "America: **** Yeah" treaty, and it was to simply declare America to be leaders, have solidarity, and support consensus (the consensus that we are awesome). IOW another total waste of time with no hope of doing anything useful, yet costs us literally nothing. Now suppose we have real problems that will take real effort to solve, but instead of working on those the opposition reveals they've been focusing on the America: **** Yeah treaty. Can you see yourself rejecting it out of spite, as a message to the other side to get serious? I can.

This disability treaty creates minimum standards (based on our own legislation), right? And once adopted by a country I assume they must enforce them, right? And was not drafted by current US legislators, right?

If the "America: **** Yeah" treaty will do literally nothing for any country adopting it, that's a bit different, ain't it?

Honestly, I don't know the answers to any of those questions, because after reading this thread and the linked article, no one has mentioned what actual good it's supposed to accomplish if we ratify it. The article mentioned that 126 other nations have already ratified it, and also mentioned that if ratified it wouldn't change anything here in the US, so it sounds to me like it's completely irrelevant. If we ratify it, is that supposed to change anything for the disabled in other countries, who BTW ratified it before us? How? It would be one thing if we needed to be first to sign, but given that we're last to sign, and it wouldn't affect us, and there's no effect left to have on other nations that hasn't already happened, I don't see the point of it.

Edit: Emotional knee-jerking isn't the most convincing argument, either.

I'm going to assume that's not directed at me, but I will point out that an offer of "free nothing" is not the most convincing either. Sure, it's free, but it's also nothing, so....

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I'm going to assume that's not directed at me, but I will point out that an offer of "free nothing" is not the most convincing either. Sure, it's free, but it's also nothing, so....

Can you see yourself rejecting it out of spite, as a message to the other side to get serious? I can.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I don't get your meaning

[The Final Dakar]

Rejecting out of spite. How is that not an emotional knee-jerk?

[Uncle Skeleton]

It's not a knee-jerk, it's a calculated message to get their priorities right. Is it a knee-jerk when a parent tells a child no dessert until they eat their vegetables? No, it's a classic communication tool.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I mean, maybe (probably) it is just an emotional knee-jerk, I'm just trying to put it in the best light because I'm bored and it seems like an interesting challenge

[raleur]

I mentioned this before, but it got lost in the shuffle:

From a realpolitik perspective, all ideology and such aside, signing the treaty gives the US another bargaining chip, especially for trade negotiations. The Most Favored Nation negotiations that used to take place with China are a good example- we would hold human rights violations over the PRC's head in order to gain concessions. Not signing the treaty, therefore, potentially hinders future negotiations.

As for the "waste of time" argument, one point: the dangers presented by a streamlined, "efficient" government are far more serious than those presented by an inefficient one. We should all be giving thanks every night that our government is so wasteful and inefficient.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by raleur 

I mentioned this before, but it got lost in the shuffle:

From a realpolitik perspective, all ideology and such aside, signing the treaty gives the US another bargaining chip, especially for trade negotiations. The Most Favored Nation negotiations that used to take place with China are a good example- we would hold human rights violations over the PRC's head in order to gain concessions. Not signing the treaty, therefore, potentially hinders future negotiations.

Can you spell this out for me? If China signs it and we don't, what exactly can we now not do compared with if China signs it and we also sign it?

As for the "waste of time" argument, one point: the dangers presented by a streamlined, "efficient" government are far more serious than those presented by an inefficient one. We should all be giving thanks every night that our government is so wasteful and inefficient.

The way you say it sounds like we want them working less hours so we can down-size. It's not about that, it's about them dropping the ball on big things while they're chasing small ones.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What's one thing that might be a clue that something is closer to correct?
Or...
What's one thing that the "granted by the people" system we have now has erred on (what's one government power that we granted but shouldn't have, or that we failed to grant but should)?
Or...
If our only hope is to wait for all-powerful aliens to come along and bestow the correct system on us, whether we like it or not, how could we know it isn't the system we already have? IOW, is this a case of "I'll know it when I see it," or is it a case of "I wouldn't even know it if I see it?"

Power which was granted but shouldn't have been: the governments ability to willy-nilly invade your privacy.

The prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure barely covers this, yet people often discuss how they have a "right to privacy".

That right doesn't exist as law, it only exists as precedent. And it exists as such because the Warren court was activist to hell and back to make it that way.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Since you can't win a fair fight.

Who cares when you're this good looking?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I'm still struggling with why this is even being considered. When you put it against the current problems our country faces, seems like an awfully big waste of time.

Because it puts pressure on OTHER countries to up their standards, while requiring exactly ZERO effort whatsoever from the United States, beyond a signature.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I'm still struggling with why this is even being considered. When you put it against the current problems our country faces, seems like an awfully big waste of time.

Because it puts pressure on OTHER countries to up their standards, while requiring exactly ZERO effort whatsoever from the United States, beyond a signature.

But the other countries already signed it. What further pressure is necessary after that?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Because it puts pressure on OTHER countries to up their standards, while requiring exactly ZERO effort whatsoever from the United States, beyond a signature.

I hear the UN put pressure on us to sign this treaty.

How'd that work out?

[subego]

Originally Posted by raleur 

Yeah, I figured you were somewhere in that mix. I'm especially glad you admit that there are issues with libertarian theory- hardcore Libertarians are very difficult to talk to. If you haven't seen it, check out this article from a right-wing perspective. Having been to plenty of academic conferences, I've seen hardcore Marxists in action, and I think Locke is spot on in his comparison.

The Soviet Union isn't Communism... it's Imperialism!

Yeah, I've had that conversation too.

Excellent article. There used to be a comedy duo whose act was (of all things) about the political differences between an old-fashioned Democrat and a Libertarian.

The best line of the whole act was when the Democrat called Libertarians "anarchists with credit cards".

Unsurprisingly, the Libertarian didn't really get the point of that comment. I know the guy personally. Really, he didn't get it.

Where libertarianism has great value to me is as an excellent starting point. I'll most certainly agree most people who find value in it do so because they consider it a starting and an end point. That gets ugly quick IME.

Originally Posted by raleur 

What, no guesses?
I teach philosophy at a local extension of the UT system. As you might imagine, it doesn't exactly bring in boatloads of money, which is why I keep the consulting business on the side.

Very cool. We need more of those here.

[subego]

At the risk of doing exactly what is being accused in the article, I've called myself a "bleeding heart libertarian". I was a Democrat when I was younger (like lots of people), and while I've abandoned the party, I haven't abandoned most of the goals.

Goals supersede philosophy to me. If my philosophy has to be altered or dropped completely to reach a desired end, then so be it.

I've noted others tend to take the opposite tack. They're too invested in having been "right".

[raleur]

Originally Posted by subego 

At the risk of doing exactly what is being accused in the article, I've called myself a "bleeding heart libertarian". I was a Democrat when I was younger (like lots of people), and while I've abandoned the party, I haven't abandoned most of the goals.

It's funny- you could say I've come from the opposite direction: a Young Republican in college, I taught for years at a very right-wing university, and all of my political jobs were for Republicans (except for the time I managed my Libertarian friend's campaign). I had to stop about 4-5 years ago, when I (and the candidates I liked to work for) realized that our idea of conservatism was no longer welcome.

Originally Posted by subego 

Goals supersede philosophy to me. If my philosophy has to be altered or dropped completely to reach a desired end, then so be it.

I think a lot of it comes down to what we might call psychology or emotions: I've noticed that the people who cling most fiercely to ideology tend to have personal issues of some sort or another. Having principles to stand on is generally a good thing, but making those principles the only thing that matters is very much another.

Originally Posted by subego 

I've noted others tend to take the opposite tack. They're too invested in having been "right".

This is an idea that I've been thinking about for quite a while- it seems to be growing. I wonder if the Internet isn't responsible for a lot of the problem.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I'm still struggling with why this is even being considered. When you put it against the current problems our country faces, seems like an awfully big waste of time.

Because it puts pressure on OTHER countries to up their standards, while requiring exactly ZERO effort whatsoever from the United States, beyond a signature.

But the other countries already signed it. What further pressure is necessary after that?

So you're saying the American hegemony is definitely over, and its actions or inactions no longer carry any weight in the world?

(Unless they're throwing bombs, of course)

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I'm still struggling with why this is even being considered. When you put it against the current problems our country faces, seems like an awfully big waste of time.

Because it puts pressure on OTHER countries to up their standards, while requiring exactly ZERO effort whatsoever from the United States, beyond a signature.

But the other countries already signed it. What further pressure is necessary after that?

So you're saying the American hegemony is definitely over, and its actions or inactions no longer carry any weight in the world?

(Unless they're throwing bombs, of course)

No. If other countries had not already signed it, then I would agree with you. I would be arguing that I'm not surprised they won't sign, not if we won't also. But that's not true, because they already signed it. That battle is won, we were somehow lucky enough to have won it before we even decided whether we wanted to enter it, and you're trying to make us feel bad for not continuing to fight it after it's over. That's the part I don't understand.

[raleur]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

So you're saying the American hegemony is definitely over, and its actions or inactions no longer carry any weight in the world?
(Unless they're throwing bombs, of course)

I think that for a lot on the far right, it's exactly the opposite: our hegemony rests solely on our power to do what we want in order to serve our own interests.

From this point-of-view, handing any kind of authority to the UN represents a weakening of that hegemony and an unnecessary limitation of our power.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No. If other countries had not already signed it, then I would agree with you. I would be arguing that I'm not surprised they won't sign, not if we won't also. But that's not true, because they already signed it. That battle is won, we were somehow lucky enough to have won it before we even decided whether we wanted to enter it, and you're trying to make us feel bad for not continuing to fight it after it's over. That's the part I don't understand.

A treaty is the BEGINNING, not the end.

But yeah, I agree that this really isn't a big deal.

No point in smacking it down either, and inviting collective forehead-slapping across the globe.

Unless you're a Republican who wants to sell it as some sort of victory against domination by furriners and UN agents (see Shaddim's comments earlier for proof that it's working).
THAT is what leaves the foul taste of Stupid and political opportunism.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by raleur 

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

So you're saying the American hegemony is definitely over, and its actions or inactions no longer carry any weight in the world?
(Unless they're throwing bombs, of course)

I think that for a lot on the far right, it's exactly the opposite: our hegemony rests solely on our power to do what we want in order to serve our own interests.

From this point-of-view, handing any kind of authority to the UN represents a weakening of that hegemony and an unnecessary limitation of our power.

Except that in this case, it is an extension of US values into the UN.

You're making sense, though.

It's just that the self-portrayal of the United States since the Eisenhower days, and the entire reason why the United States WAS so highly regarded and respected, was that it served as a beacon of freedom and integrity, human rights, and the moral higher ground, i.e. an example to others.

The Vietnam War did much to destroy that, but the subsequent counter-cultural movement remedied a lot in the eyes of the rest of the world.

What you describe was obviously the predominant attitude of the Bush years, and yet you STILL have Americans sitting there confused and wondering why they're hated. That's what I don't get. There's a serious disconnect somewhere in there.

The rest of the world just sees a nation that doesn't even bother to pay the pro forma lip service, just the bare diplomatic respect that would at least signal acknowledgement of a World Out There.

It's okay to be self-serving and looking out for your own interests — everybody needs to be — , but if you don't even bother being POLITE about it, don't be surprised if people would rather you just **** off.

[The Final Dakar]

Apology Tour, spheric, APOLOGY TOUR

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No. If other countries had not already signed it, then I would agree with you. I would be arguing that I'm not surprised they won't sign, not if we won't also. But that's not true, because they already signed it. That battle is won, we were somehow lucky enough to have won it before we even decided whether we wanted to enter it, and you're trying to make us feel bad for not continuing to fight it after it's over. That's the part I don't understand.

A treaty is the BEGINNING, not the end.

What comes after? And whatever it is, how does us signing it affect that?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No. If other countries had not already signed it, then I would agree with you. I would be arguing that I'm not surprised they won't sign, not if we won't also. But that's not true, because they already signed it. That battle is won, we were somehow lucky enough to have won it before we even decided whether we wanted to enter it, and you're trying to make us feel bad for not continuing to fight it after it's over. That's the part I don't understand.

A treaty is the BEGINNING, not the end.

What comes after? And whatever it is, how does us signing it affect that?

Does "showing commitment" mean anything to you? You know, like I wrote in my post up above, the bit about being an example?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No. If other countries had not already signed it, then I would agree with you. I would be arguing that I'm not surprised they won't sign, not if we won't also. But that's not true, because they already signed it. That battle is won, we were somehow lucky enough to have won it before we even decided whether we wanted to enter it, and you're trying to make us feel bad for not continuing to fight it after it's over. That's the part I don't understand.

A treaty is the BEGINNING, not the end.

What comes after? And whatever it is, how does us signing it affect that?

Does "showing commitment" mean anything to you? You know, like I wrote in my post up above, the bit about being an example?

Just spell it out for me please, I'm not getting it.

[raleur]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

What you describe was obviously the predominant attitude of the Bush years, and yet you STILL have Americans sitting there confused and wondering why they're hated. That's what I don't get. There's a serious disconnect somewhere in there.

I'm not sure there are that many- at least if we're talking about the few who actually pay attention to this sort of thing– who are so confused. In my opinion, that's where the disconnect happens- the majority of Americans don't pay attention to international affairs at all, and since we have this astonishing sense of entitlement, we're profoundly confused when we meet people who don't share it.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No. If other countries had not already signed it, then I would agree with you. I would be arguing that I'm not surprised they won't sign, not if we won't also. But that's not true, because they already signed it. That battle is won, we were somehow lucky enough to have won it before we even decided whether we wanted to enter it, and you're trying to make us feel bad for not continuing to fight it after it's over. That's the part I don't understand.

A treaty is the BEGINNING, not the end.

What comes after? And whatever it is, how does us signing it affect that?

Does "showing commitment" mean anything to you? You know, like I wrote in my post up above, the bit about being an example?

I don't see anything about being 127th to sign a treaty, which its supporters are quick to proclaim "will change nothing" because we were already abiding by it, constitutes being an example. More importantly, I can't imagine any scenario where China for example, having signed the treaty would later back out just because the US neglected to sign it yet still obeys the terms of it (yet they would not back out if we had signed it). If as Dakar insinuated, this treaty was not created by the US, then presumably the party that did create it, and got 125 other nations to sign it, would be perfectly capable of enforcing it without our help. Or if they do need our help, we would be no less inclined to participate in enforcement as per our participation in the UN, whether we had ourselves signed it or not. That enforcement coming in the form of shame or threat or whatever other means are at our disposal. If you can describe such a scenario, that would help you communicate your message.

[ironknee]

I think they think only liberals get (yes get) disabilities

or they just hate the fact there's a black man as president.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

I think they think only liberals get (yes get) disabilities
or they just hate the fact there's a black man as president.

[Shaddim]

For real. I've been impressed with the intelligent, high quality discourse in this thread, and then there was... that.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No. If other countries had not already signed it, then I would agree with you. I would be arguing that I'm not surprised they won't sign, not if we won't also. But that's not true, because they already signed it. That battle is won, we were somehow lucky enough to have won it before we even decided whether we wanted to enter it, and you're trying to make us feel bad for not continuing to fight it after it's over. That's the part I don't understand.

A treaty is the BEGINNING, not the end.

What comes after? And whatever it is, how does us signing it affect that?

Does "showing commitment" mean anything to you? You know, like I wrote in my post up above, the bit about being an example?

Just spell it out for me please, I'm not getting it.

Diplomacy. It's a lot smoother getting stuff you want if people respect what you stand for. Which you achieve by setting an example for others.
Historically, this has been important. But I guess since the east/west blocs have dissolved, it's everyone for himself, and the US has no reason to give a shit anymore.

So guess I'm lamenting the passing of a bygone era, a bit.

Don't mind me, I'll just sit here pondering these framed pictures of Willy Brandt and JFK...

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Spheric Harlot" url="/t/495545/senate-gop-kills-disabilities-treaty/100#post_4206391]It's just that the self-portrayal of the United States since the Eisenhower days, and the entire reason why the United States WAS so highly regarded and respected, was that it served as a beacon of freedom and integrity, human rights, and the moral higher ground, i.e. an example to others. [/quote]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Diplomacy. It's a lot smoother getting stuff you want if people respect what you stand for. Which you achieve by setting an example for others.
Historically, this has been important. But I guess since the east/west blocs have dissolved, it's everyone for himself, and the US has no reason to give a shit anymore.

So guess I'm lamenting the passing of a bygone era, a bit.

Don't mind me, I'll just sit here pondering these framed pictures of Willy Brandt and JFK...

This is an important point that most Americans don't think is important at all - at least the ones I've talked to about it.

They don't seem to understand how things have changed, internationally, over the last 30 or 40 years. In my view, the difference in perspective between people of my parent's generation (baby boomers or older) and the generation Y or younger crowd is startling.

My parents thing the USA is a great nation. Like, "leader of the free world" great, "shining light" sort of great - what's good for America is plenty good for the rest of the world. If you lived outside the USA and weren't happy where you lived, your first goal in life was to make it to America.

The young generation? Not so much, in my opinion. They no longer think the US is the same sort of shining light. What's good for the US is no longer necessarily good for the world. In fact a lot of the younger generation in my experience seem to blame the US for many of the world's problems (rightly or wrongly) - something that would have been unheard of 3 or 4 decades ago. The sheen, so to speak, has come off.

A lot of Americans I talk to seem to immediately discount this. But I do think there is something to it: people from abroad no longer consider you to be undisputed leaders. And if you think that should not mean anything at all, then I'm not so sure I agree with you.

[subego]

I don't really disagree with you, but I feel comfortable directly attributing much of that decline to Bush 43, and our unmeasured response to 9/11.

I wouldn't say it's impossible to climb our way out of that trough.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What's one thing that might be a clue that something is closer to correct?
Or...
What's one thing that the "granted by the people" system we have now has erred on (what's one government power that we granted but shouldn't have, or that we failed to grant but should)?
Or...
If our only hope is to wait for all-powerful aliens to come along and bestow the correct system on us, whether we like it or not, how could we know it isn't the system we already have? IOW, is this a case of "I'll know it when I see it," or is it a case of "I wouldn't even know it if I see it?"

Power which was granted but shouldn't have been: the governments ability to willy-nilly invade your privacy.

The prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure barely covers this, yet people often discuss how they have a "right to privacy".

That right doesn't exist as law, it only exists as precedent. And it exists as such because the Warren court was activist to hell and back to make it that way.

When was this power explicitly granted to government by the people? Or are you referring to implicit acceptance by failing to object after it started happening?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Spheric Harlot" url="/t/495545/senate-gop-kills-disabilities-treaty/100#post_4206391]It's just that the self-portrayal of the United States since the Eisenhower days, and the entire reason why the United States WAS so highly regarded and respected, was that it served as a beacon of freedom and integrity, human rights, and the moral higher ground, i.e. an example to others.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Diplomacy. It's a lot smoother getting stuff you want if people respect what you stand for. Which you achieve by setting an example for others.
Historically, this has been important. But I guess since the east/west blocs have dissolved, it's everyone for himself, and the US has no reason to give a shit anymore.

So guess I'm lamenting the passing of a bygone era, a bit.

Don't mind me, I'll just sit here pondering these framed pictures of Willy Brandt and JFK...

This is an important point that most Americans don't think is important at all - at least the ones I've talked to about it.

They don't seem to understand how things have changed, internationally, over the last 30 or 40 years. In my view, the difference in perspective between people of my parent's generation (baby boomers or older) and the generation Y or younger crowd is startling.

My parents thing the USA is a great nation. Like, "leader of the free world" great, "shining light" sort of great - what's good for America is plenty good for the rest of the world. If you lived outside the USA and weren't happy where you lived, your first goal in life was to make it to America.

The young generation? Not so much, in my opinion. They no longer think the US is the same sort of shining light. What's good for the US is no longer necessarily good for the world. In fact a lot of the younger generation in my experience seem to blame the US for many of the world's problems (rightly or wrongly) - something that would have been unheard of 3 or 4 decades ago. The sheen, so to speak, has come off.

A lot of Americans I talk to seem to immediately discount this. But I do think there is something to it: people from abroad no longer consider you to be undisputed leaders. And if you think that should not mean anything at all, then I'm not so sure I agree with you.[/quote]

Ok so now Spheric was mocking me for suggesting that American hegemony is over, and Shortcut is mocking me/americans for suggesting it's not. Which one of you is wrong?

Also, you both are giving pie in the sky principled reasons for how this treaty can help us (basically just an investment in the political currency bank). Which is basically the same reason I suggested for opposing it, sticking the our own local principles of having priorities and not goofing off when there's work to be done (that we're currently failing to do). Can either of you give a good reason why your principles are better than mine?

/devil's advocate