OT: Rating the President

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Wanderer:
Like a lot of people, I don't want a war, but if we do invade, I want it to be under the auspices of the UN. Acting alone could cause more problems than it solves - to strain the analogy past breaking point, we don't want the pair of policemen (who initially don't get on but by the end of the film have formed a Lasting bond) to have their badges taken off them and told they're off the case, leaving one to mutter "I'm getting too old for this s**t" and the other to become suicidally paranoid .

Try as I might, I just can't picture Kofi Annan as the grizzeled veteran police lieutenant popping antacids and shouting obcenities at his hotshot detective team.

Geoschmo

[Krsqk]

So then I suppose the UN needs to follow up military action against Iraq with military action against Isreal? As another person pointed out, they've been glibly ignoring numerous UN resolutions for years. Or perhaps one can establish one's authority through non-military means, hmm?

The UN has two different chapters in its charter regarding resolutions: Chapter V and Chapter VI. Chapter VI resolutions are binding. They require enforcement when breached. The resolutions on Iraq have all been Chapter VI resolutions. Chapter V resolutions are non-binding. They are equivalent to saying, "We think you should _______, but we aren't going to enforce that." The majority (if not all) of the resolutions RE: Israel have been Chapter V resolutions. No one seems to be mentioning that difference (especially Arafat and Hussein). If the UN really wants someone to do something, they should 1) pass a Chapter VI resolution, and 2) actually enforce it when it broken. "If you do that again, I'm going to tell you what's going to happen if you do that again after I talk about what I should tell you I'll tell you if it happens again..."

RE: the English thingy: It was a joke. That's why it had a . Maybe it needed another smiley.

[ February 03, 2003, 18:49: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

[E. Albright]

Originally posted by Krsqk:
The UN has two different chapters in its charter regarding resolutions: Chapter V and Chapter VI. Chapter VI resolutions are binding. They require enforcement when breached. The resolutions on Iraq have all been Chapter VI resolutions. Chapter V resolutions are non-binding. They are equivalent to saying, "We think you should _______, but we aren't going to enforce that." The majority (if not all) of the resolutions RE: Israel have been Chapter V resolutions. No one seems to be mentioning that difference (especially Arafat and Hussein). If the UN really wants someone to do something, they should 1) pass a Chapter VI resolution, and 2) actually enforce it when it broken.

Your numbers are off. Taking a quick look at the UN Charter, we can note that the relevant Chapters are IV and V. And let's see what they say re: resolutions:

Article 14
Subject to the provisions of Article 12, the General Assembly may recommend measures for the peaceful adjustment of any situation, regardless of origin, which it deems likely to impair the general welfare or friendly relations among nations, including situations resulting from a violation of the provisions of the present Charter setting forth the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.

Article 25
The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.

One must note something you've failed to mention: the difference is General Assembly v. Security Council decisions. And actually, plenty of people (outside of the mainstream American media, anyway) have commented on the fact that the GA passes resolutions against Israel, but the SC never seems to. See, there's a very simple reason for this: to pass a SC resolution against Israel, the US veto would have to be evaded. And that's NOT gonna happen. This does bring up another interesting double standard, however. The media made noise Last fall about how the French or Russian veto threats that were stalling the proposal of anti-Iraqi SC resolutions represented naught but special-interest efforts to benefit a client state. Now, why doesn't the (US mainstream) media talk mention the obvious parallel to a lack of pro-Palestinien SC resolutions?

(Aside from the fact that the mainstream US media prefers to forget that the Palestiniens exist, of course...)

[Edit: script cleanup, typos]

[ February 04, 2003, 10:57: Message edited by: E. Albright ]

[Krsqk]

Originally posted by E. Albright:
Your numbers are off. Taking a quick look at the UN Charter, we can note that the relevant Chapters are IV and V.

Oops. *prepares to be sued*

One must note something you've failed to mention: the difference is General Assembly v. Security Council decisions. And actually, plenty of people (outside of the mainstream American media, anyway) have commented on the fact that the GA passes resolutions against Israel, but the SC never seems to. See, there's a very simple reason for this: to pass a SC resolution against Israel, the US veto would have to be evaded. And that's NOT gonna happen.

1) You don't win if you don't try; 2) You're not going to get a country to pass a SC resolution demanding things unacceptable to its ally. Great Britain's not going to demand that we return Hawaii to the natives, either, although there's a movement for that.

This does bring up another interesting double standard, however. The media made noise Last fall about how the French or Russian veto threats that were stalling the proposal of anti-Iraqi SC resolutions represented naught but special-interest efforts to benefit a client state. Now, why doesn't the (US mainstream) media talk mention the obvious parallel to a lack of pro-Palestinien SC resolutions? (Aside from the fact that the mainstream US media prefers to forget that the Palestiniens exist, of course...)

I'm not a mind-reader, but it's not for any supposed symapthy for the Israelis on the part of the media. They lean more toward headlines like "Israelis Attack Settlement; 25 Palestinian Children Die." Then, near the end of the article, they bury a half-sentence or so stating that the intended target was the group of gunmen hiding in the middle of the children. I can't seem to find too many articles which "forget" the existence of the Palestinians. The NY Times, for example, seems quite aware of them. The AP and Reuters articles printed in the Orlando Sentinel and its parent, the Chicago Tribune, are also frequently pro-Palestinian.

This brings up a point which always irks me. Papers always defend themselves against claims of bias by pointing to their editorials. No one's complaining of bias on the opinion page; it's the slant of the news that matters. It's like a cattle farmer claiming to run a zoo because he keeps a dog on his porch. "See? We don't just have cows!"

[ February 04, 2003, 15:44: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

[E. Albright]

All right, from my perspective the OT: RtP thread is right back where it was before the Crunch. We've people with radically different outlooks squabling about what it is to be biased, with no hope of reaching a consensus. On the other hand, things have advanced beyond that point, 'cause I seem to recall having made some lofty statements claiming I wouldn't "throw gas on the fire" or somesuch. So...

E. Albright,

Recalling his resolution of 30 January 2003 to cease and desist in the posting of argumentantive replies to the OT: Rating the President thread,

Recognizing his failure to abide by his 30 January 2003 resolution,

Taking note that he really has better things to do with his time,

Reaffirming the potential discourtesy involved in argumentative political discussion,

Reaffirming also the futility of arguing about subjective perceptions of subjectivity,

Recognizing the need to not waste Shrapnel server space on wildly off-topic debate,

1. Decides to unilaterally withdraw from the OT: Rating the President thread;
2. Urges other Members to refrain from doing likewise;
3. Urges all Members to remain seized of the subjectivity of bias perception in the meanwhile;
4. Decides to shut up and be done with it.
   

[Wardad]

EVEN MORE ON TOPIC:

WASHINGTON (AP) - A Bush administration overhaul of decades-old labor regulations could force many Americans to work longer hours without overtime pay.

STORY: http://news.findlaw.com/ap_stories/a...64503_065.html

On the Net:

Overtime exemptions fact sheet: http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/whd/whdfs17.htm

Overtime requirements fact sheet: http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/whd/whdfs23.htm

*** SO NOW HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT BUSH? ***
*** Don't worry, Australia or Canada is not so bad. ***

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's odd, I can not connect with WWW.DOL.GOV from the coporate server???
OOPS, gotta go, my phone is ringing.....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ February 04, 2003, 19:09: Message edited by: Wardad ]

[rextorres]

With the deficit budget currently proposed by the resident thing are kind of scary. The fed will eventually need to raise interest rates to prevent inflation. Unfortunately - the proposals put out are counting on growth to make up for the deficit which raising interest rates will have hamper.

Something is going to have to give. I still don't understand how some people in this forum can endorse W's Voodoo economics.