Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Obama and the Hopium Trade Goes International

Seriously, this is the man besting Obama.
Ideals are important. Some people like to discard them because ideals are largely unrealistic, but the notion of a Utopian society serves a purpose none-the-less. We must have a standard by which we measure what humanity has achieved in the way of improving the human condition. Striving towards a just society without a clear standard of what constitutes the best of all worlds would be like attempting to measure a child's growth in height without knowing how tall the child was when he was first able to stand.

Some people use ideals to come as close as possible to realizing it, while others simply delude themselves and ignore reality. I've said this before: most people cannot emotionally handle the fact that this world is an incredibly shitty place. So in order to reduce their own personal distress about the sad state of humanity, they ignore reality and instead focus on the symptoms rather than the causes.

Enter President Obama and the Hopium Trade. The president addressed the United Nations General Assembly today, and he talked about how international law must be enforced or else it will become a joke. News flash, Mr. President: It's already a joke. In his address, Obama skirts 3 big problems that undermine international law.

Thing 1: Technically, international law only applies to nations who agree to the laws themselves.

America has used this against the UN in the past, upholding certain ideas of international law while categorically rejecting others. We were not actually supposed to invade Iraq in 2003 because the UNSC told us we couldn't. Look how well that turned out. Just as well, North Korea continues to thwart international law banning them from pursuing nuclear weapons. Assad has shown that he clearly could not give a single shit, let alone two shits, about the international ban on the use of chemical weapons.

Of course, the offending nation always defends itself with the notion of sovereignty, regardless of how barbaric their actions may be. And so long as nations are allowed to use sovereignty to justify gross violations of human rights, international law will continue to be meaningless.

Thing 2: International law is arbitrarily enforced.

This sort of goes hand-in-hand with Thing 1. The world did not step in to stop Apartheid, yet the US was chomping at the bit to put an end to Saddam Hussein's reign of terror. Obama ignored congressional disapproval of getting involved in Libya and helped topple Gadhaffi, but no one will touch North Korea with a 100 foot pole. Sure, Gadhaffi was both brutal and insane, but the situation in North Korea is truly hellish. If you don't believe that, then just google search North Korea's idea of "Three Generations of Punishment."

Until international law is applied evenly in every case of severe human rights violations, it will contiue to be a joke.

Thing 3: The UN Security Council is nothing but an international stage for major world leaders to undermine each other.

Mr. President: if you want international law to mean something, then why don't you bring up the fact that the UNSC veto essentially ruins everything? Yes, there needs to be a voice of reason, but when that "voice of reason," is the likes of China and Vladimir Putin, the process needs to be examined. Essentially, the members of the UNSC have the power to stop the UN from doing anything, at any time, for any reason, regardless of the magnitude of the violation.

Putin doesn't care about things like "human rights." Hell, one can argue that he doesn't even truly care about Russia. All he cares about is continuing his reign as the unofficial king of Russia, and as of late he will do anything to undermine the US.

So if the president truly wishes for the UN to improve, then he needs to call a spade a spade, and he needs to drop the delusion that international law can function in its current form. His address was just more talk of "hope and change," and we all know how far those promises go.

Saturday, September 21, 2013

American Critical Thinking: Critically Retarded

I recently wrote an article for Yahoo about the house bill that was passed today. For those who don't know, the House sent a bill to the Senate that will fund the government to avoid a shut down, but would simultaneously defund the Affordable Care Act (or Obamacare, if you will).
The gist of my article: this is another game of chicken; the bill is a massive waste of time because it will never, ever pass the senate so long as the ACA provision remains; and the GOP doesn't really give a shit if the government shuts down because it doesn't affect THEIR paychecks.
So my suggestion was to take the provision out so that honest, hard-working Americans would not have to pay the price associated with government shut down, and to fight the Obamacare battle another day. I thought that I would receive support, because in my mind I was advocating for REAL solutions, not more ideological grandstanding.
Boy was I wrong.
Let me share with you some of the comments I received on this article.
"Jack Camwell acts as if this is the first time Politicians put themselves ahead of what needs to be done. Why does he not comment on things like ways Congress can cut costs - i.e. their own salaries and extremely large staffs. Fraudulent programs that waste money in their own districts so they can get voters and their businesses make money. Why does the President want to continue to over spend and put us in further debt without a real plan?? Camwell is an Obama supporter and can blame congress and the GOP for everything, and no even mention the President and his plan"
"Expect nothing less from an Ohio moonbat.
Not only should Obamascamcare be defunded, it needs to be taken apart piece by piece and buried in a landfill with all the other garbage.
That's a fact Jack"
(My Commentary: That actually made me chuckle a bit)
"a true "conservative" doesn't talk out of both sides of his mouth, unlike Jack Camwell." 
"Note to Jack Camwell : Just get in line behind the rest of the commie #$%$ and you can lick Obamenajads' sac too !"
"yahoo contributor network why not be honest and call it what it is Obama stooge network"
These comments were particularly confusing to me because so many commenters accused me of being an Obama supporter. I re-read my article. I am fairly certain that I was emphatic about the idea that getting rid of Obamacare is probably a good idea, and that politicians need to sit down and have a real conversation about the potential negative effects of Obamacare. But one guy says that I'm just talking out of both sides of my mouth. Apparently, I'm not a "true conservative." The first comment I have quoted attributes some naiivte to my article that simply is not there.
That first comment also goes on to say that I blame the GOP and congress for everything. I find that interesting seeing as how everyone should blame Congress, not the president, for failing to perform its most basic function. The only explanation I can come up with is that most people who read the article only paid attention to the part where I said that this bill is a bad idea, and somehow they extrapolated that I am a supporter of both Obamacare and President Obama. This is because most Americans lack the capacity to critically think.
It's no wonder the same asshat politicians keep getting re-elected: there are plenty of morons who cannot think beyond their feelings, and who are dumb enough to continue to cast their votes for the very people cheating them. Somehow, when I say that "repealing Obamacare is a noble goal," these people interpret that as "I love Obamacare and Obama." I'm not bothered that these people disagree with me. What bothers me is that they gleaned an impression that was completely contrary to what I actually said.
It's sad, but this is the country we live in.

Tuesday, September 10, 2013

Winbus: Apparently People Like What I Said about Syria

So I was asked to be a part of Huffington Post's live news stream.  Unfortunately, I didn't realize that's what the email was all about, so I didn't respond to it until it was too late.

After that, I did a web search, and I discovered that I have been quoted in a few different places accross the web.  Here's some links.

Apparently the line "it seems like 2003 all over again," caught on somewhat.  I don't know how people feel about the Huffington Post, but I'm going to keep up with this and see how it pans out.  Could be that they just want my perspective because I'm a veteran, but who knows.

At the very least, it felt pretty great to have been asked.