What is Digg?Sponsored by wix.com
The Ultimate Flash Website Design Tool view!
wix.com - Design a stunning website in 10 easy steps.
279 Comments
- winter360, on 04/22/2009, -20/+95the NWO is a complete myth. its ***** spewed from people who are afraid to listen to what others in the world have to say. Thinking the UN is going to take over the world is laughable
- inactive, on 04/22/2009, -27/+81Join us, once again, for another thrilling episode of "When Paranoid Tinfoil Hat-Wearing Right Wing Fruitcakes Gibber and Froth"
- supernovasky, on 04/22/2009, -10/+46I'm an American.
I fully support engaging in the international community and progressing towards a goal that is greater than just bettering our own country.
We all live under the same sky, we see the same moon, we live together, we breathe the same air, and we are going to die together. How futile of an existence is it to proceed in a manner that furthers only self, how futile is it to fight over a pixel in a sea of vacuum, a pale blue dot, when we can serve the interests of humanity itself. - billricardi, on 04/22/2009, -14/+47Annnnd... yes, there it is. Where people could engage in the real points and counterpoints about Koh, instead the hyperbole flies! Some great examples:
"how can they call themselves Americans" - Oh yeah, pull that trump card of 'believe what I believe or you're un-American"!
"the evil and unsuccessful countries (Cuba, Vietnam, N Korea, etc)" - Mmmm, I LOVE the xenophobic angle here! And of course, invoke the word EVIL for extra bonus points, because different is EVIL! (Oh, did you fail to mention that of the hundreds of countries in the world, these either are or were at one time Nuclear powers? Damn, missed that chance!)
"one of The Messiah's advisers" - Remember kids, to hide YOUR rabid beliefs, make fun of OTHER PEOPLE'S rabid beliefs! Attack, attack, attack!
"the radical leftist Obama appointed" - Oh yeah, RADICAL Leftist. That's 60's code for Commie-Hippie Scum, by the way. Invoke that subtle commie-spiracy theory goodness!
"Ship the U.N. to Paris. Let the bloodsuckers drink France's blood" - When in doubt, cook up the Freedom Fries! - JaseFace, on 04/22/2009, -17/+49I am 100% in agreement with Koh.
- askantik, on 04/22/2009, -12/+44I've never heard of this guy before, but from what I've read just now in this article and on Wikipedia, I can't see why anyone would have a problem with him. Oh, wait. I forgot that some people are bigots and think America should never even listen to other nations, since we never do things wrong... Anyhow, all sarcasm aside, here's some snippets from the article that all sounded pretty awesome to me. Again, I've never heard of this guy until just now, so feel free to point out something that's bad about him, but this all sounded good to me (FTA):
But during the Bush administration, he was among the many academics who criticized the president for failing to uphold the Geneva Conventions and other treaties.
---
In writings, speeches, and interviews, Koh contends that helping forge international agreements, participating in the United Nations, and supporting international war crime tribunals are in the best interests of the United States.
---
He has been a strong advocate for international human rights, and has argued that American adoption of international norms - including bans on the death penalty and stricter controls on guns - would bring the nation more in line with other Western democracies.
---
Speaking with the Yale Daily News, Harold Koh said he strongly believes in rights for gays, lesbians, and transgender people, and the article noted his support of the ongoing ban of ROTC recruiters from the law school campus because of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy against homosexuals.
---
Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee in September, Koh told lawmakers that the Bush administration's "obsession" with secrecy and the war on terror led it to ignore the Constitution, bypass international treaties the United States helped create, turn a blind eye to human rights abuses, "and made us less safe and free."
At the same time, he contended, Bush's hardball antiterror tactics "yielded strikingly few [terrorism] convictions or proven security benefits, while costing millions . . . and devastating America's global reputation for commitment to the rule of law." - supernovasky, on 04/22/2009, -11/+41It doesn't matter though, globalism to me will never be a cuss word like it is to a few others here. I see globalism as the inevitable future of humanity. Countries get larger, consume resources, battle over supplies, and eventually conglomerate into larger countries. This is how human history has progressed, from individual hunter/gatherer tribes to huge collections of states and nations. Eventually, if we ever hope to achieve the end of war in this world, we will have to act in a unified manner, to take care of this planet we live on until we can leave it. Although it is taking us a long time to learn this lesson, nature will provide. Nature itself has learned this lesson through evolution... competing cells evolved multicellularity and acted for a common purpose, and I see the same happening to cellularized government and society.
This is my humble opinion, and I am sure many will disagree. Still, I know that I am not alone in this idea. - warpsmith, on 04/22/2009, -16/+46I love watching the freeper circle jerk unfold in the comments!
- elliotys, on 04/22/2009, -12/+40Call me a crazy-leftwing-progessive-secular-liberal, cause he has my support.
- supernovasky, on 04/22/2009, -16/+43Maybe because we are all living on the same planet earth, and as one people, working together instead of solely in our own personal interests may be not only in the best interest of America, but in humanity itself?
- Atario, on 04/22/2009, -10/+33And these things are bad how...?
- iateyourpie, on 04/21/2009, -25/+47Woah woah woah woah. One of Obama's appointees having opposition? Is that even possible?
- chase001, on 04/22/2009, -16/+35Bushco needs to be prosecuted here then sent off to the Hague. He is 100% right. We cannot gain our moral standing in the world until we do so.
- michaelrsa, on 04/22/2009, -2/+18Finally someone who sees it like I do.
Look back 200 years ago. People back then were nearly completely independent from the U.S. government because they could strike out a living of the their own by engaging in subsistence farming. Today our needs and wants aren't as simple. We want our internet access, we need clean water and electricity, so on and so forth. We are becoming increasingly dependent on government and industry to meet our demands. Where do you think this will end?
We can't go back to subsistence farming, we have become far to accustomed to our lifestyle and we are moving towards even more dependence.
Don't fight it, accept it for what it is. - winter360, on 04/22/2009, -9/+25The United Nations was founded by the United States and the west. North korea is sanctioned heavily by the UN and has little international support. Where do you get these insane ideas?
- kigabit, on 04/22/2009, -11/+27So. We should all accept that the world is inextricably tied together economically already. It seems that countries being tied together legally will be the next logical step towards a unified globe. In fact, this process is already happening, in part because of the economic realities of the world. Why do you think that, effectively, world drug policy mirrors US drug policy? Thus, world legal unification's foundations have been laid, by that and other international treaties and organizations like the Geneva Conventions and UN.
Now, given that we have such influence in global policies and are a model nation for new democracies, is it really so surprising and horrifying that Obama wants a man who has extensively studied the legal ties we have to other nations? I can see a concern about US sovereignty being threatened, but what it seems more like to me is that we are aligning with other nations in (relatively) minor ways so as to preserve and foster a more stable, sustainable and peaceful interaction with other countries. There is no reason to view changes in policy that resemble a more worldwide view of an issue as a weakening of our sovereignty. - fury420, on 04/22/2009, -9/+24I for one am surprised that there are so many Americans that believe their country does not need to respect its international treaty obligations, and use their "Constitution" as some blanket excuse for everything, even thought the constitution clearly mentions international treaties
- dougs55, on 04/22/2009, -6/+20I think if the Republican right wing tries too hard to paint this guy as un-American it could really backfire on them.
- winter360, on 04/22/2009, -2/+15the UN cant violate a nations national sovereignty. Ultimately that laws of the land lie with the nation not with the UN. Thats a fact of life at the UN so whatever resolutions are passed its up to the individual nation to decide if they want to follow. The united states has refused to adopt UN resolutions many times.
- spoon088, on 04/22/2009, -7/+19Right wingers haet international cooperation.
- inactive, on 04/22/2009, -11/+23I don't see anything wrong with those ideas.
- bduddy, on 04/22/2009, -11/+21Really? The EU has taken over the world? Why haven't I noticed yet?
- AgeofMastery, on 04/22/2009, -2/+12Here's a clue dude, Digg, (and the rest of the Internet), is INTERNATIONAL. Believe it or not, a large part of the world doesn't think the same as we do in the US.
- novenator, on 04/22/2009, -4/+14The right wing is simply attacking Koh in an effort to taint his image so that he will suddenly be a 'controversial' nominee if he is ever nominated for the Supreme Court, which he is well qualified for. This is transparently partisan political tactic.
- pintomp3, on 04/22/2009, -4/+14The two are not mutually exclusive. I don't think invading countries, torturing people, and building empire for the sake of corporations are part of the constitution, so following international law would not violate it.
- supernovasky, on 04/22/2009, -2/+12Exactly. Accept it, and play a role in SHAPING it.
- waydee, on 04/22/2009, -8/+18The man speaks sense - of course he's going to meet opposition from the right.
- 3szoom, on 04/22/2009, -6/+15It's interesting how righties think of gay marriage and abortion as a way to combat any type of argument to anything. GTFO you are irrelevant.
- jmbrill81, on 04/22/2009, -3/+12Do you guys even read the article? All of that stuff would be against international law.
- jmbrill81, on 04/22/2009, -3/+12Transnational corporations have done more to erode national sovereignty and borders than any other force. As long as there are differences between the laws of states, corporations will exploit these differences to meet their profit constraints. Embracing international law is the best option.
- Duskraven, on 04/22/2009, -2/+11I dont believe in the NWO conspiracy, but i do believe that if the UN became a stonger body for negotiations in the world, allot of wars could be avoided through co-operation
- o76923, on 04/22/2009, -6/+15If he was good enough for Reagan, shouldn't he be good enough for the ones who think he's god?
- Gudeldar, on 04/22/2009, -2/+11I consider myself a liberal and I'm pretty sure you're going too far...
We can conclude international treaties AND respect the Constitution, they are not mutually exclusive. - MaxxusFlamus, on 04/22/2009, -2/+11in theory- any international agreement we sign to-
INTERPOL, Geneva Conventions, Law of the Sea, international boundaries for international waters, all cut sovereignty. - supernovasky, on 04/22/2009, -7/+16There is no sacrificing our constitution to achieve an eventual unity in this world. By nature of governments themselves, ours will not live forever. We are mortal, so are our governments and institutions we set in place. However, by engaging with the international community and promoting unity and common good in the world, we Americans are leading the rest of the world into a state where humanity itself can prosper long after we're dead and gone.
- jmbrill81, on 04/22/2009, -8/+16READ THE ARTICLE!!! HE HAS SERVED IN REAGAN'S AND CLINTON'S ADMINISTRATIONS! ONE OF HIS BIGGEST SUPPORTERS IS KENNETH STARR? REMEMBER, THE SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR FOR THE "WHITEWATER SCANDAL?" ALL I AM ASKING YOU TO DO IS LEND YOURSELF A SINGLE SHRED OF CREDIBILITY!
- supernovasky, on 04/22/2009, -13/+21Here is a crazy thought... perhaps we Americans are going to have to put aside our sacred cows and learn to interact in a less frictional manner with the rest of the world someday. America will not live forever, no country does, but if we try now... we can ensure that humanity not only lives to a fuller potential, but also gains from the experience and experiment that is American society and government.
- Logrusmage, on 04/22/2009, -3/+11The international treatise that have elements we in the US would consider unconstitutional should never, I repeat, NEVER have been or be signed by the United States of America.
- quirkopatra, on 04/22/2009, -3/+11Was it logic or ego that made America great? I think it was both.
And I think it's still a great country. I just wish more Americans agreed with me. - X9001, on 04/22/2009, -6/+14Oh great, its a repeat
- supernovasky, on 04/22/2009, -7/+14Man, you use so many loaded buzzwords in that comment that I almost completely skipped over it. In truth, international organizations are not great evils, nor do they exist to punish the west. International organizations, especially with the right people at the helm, aim to better humanity over government, humanity over self, and I think that we should both strengthen these organizations and put the right leadership in charge of them.
- archiesteel, on 04/22/2009, -7/+14He does not think the Constitution is invalid.
But please carry on with the frothing. It is most entertaining. - AgeofMastery, on 04/22/2009, -5/+12Of course the NWO is real, well as real as pro wrestling gets
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(prof ... - bmankoff, on 04/22/2009, -7/+14Can anyone explain what is so bad about a "New World Order?" If we could help in the creation of a world government, then we could be more certain of ensuring that our ideals and what we consider to be basic human rights would be a part of the framework of that government. I honestly am not sure where I fall. Historically and theoretically, government works best when presiding over a small population. You can have more specific and intricate laws when you aren't trying to enforce them on such a large scale as a nation the size of the United States. Perhaps that is why states' rights are important. It seems like the kinds of laws in place at the federal level, at least for a nation as diverse in geography and population as the U.S., should be broad and address moral and ethical issues like murder and civil rights. Could this relationship not be extended to the nations of the world? As the states are to the federal government, so are the nations the world government. The powers allowed to the world government would be broader even than those given to federal governments. I can't say that I know how this would work (what specific powers would be best suited to a world government), or even if it would work at all.
I really am not a proponent of any one idea here, I'm just working out my own thoughts. I don't mean to inspire any hateful comments, but hopefully if you have any arguments and source citations that can really help me and others here to understand the negatives or positives of a world government, you will be willing to share them. I am rereading The Republic so I find all this government talk fascinating. - supernovasky, on 04/22/2009, -1/+8Michael, allow me to subtley nudge your worldview a little...
The constant interaction of our thoughts, ideas, and forcings create a collective consciousness. This is not that hard to believe if you look at examples of collective consciousness in our everyday lives. The mind is a form of collective consciousness arising from the brain and its neurons, with individual neurons secreting neurotransmitters, a process that carries information from one neuron to another. Likewise, ants to the same thing by secreting chemicals to one another when they bump into each other. These chemicals facilitate the transfer of information with the collective bits of information creating a "hive mind." The hive mind responds to changes in its environment by direct ants to do certain tasks, and the hive mind creates grand structures, air vents, nesting areas, and living spaces for its constituents.
Human beings are the same thing... but instead of chemicals, we secrete words to one another, creating the collective consciousness of humanity, society, cultures, and governments. Collective consciousness is being harnessed by us every day when we use social media sites, democracy, bittorrent, etc. Wikipedia is a great example of the power of a collective consciousness, where a sea of changes made by normal people creates an encyclopedia that is broader in scope and depth, and nearly as accurate as an encyclopedia written by an intelligent pannel of professors. I believe that galaxies, stars, and fields of cosmic dust do the same thing, secreting gravitational waves, forcing the matter to align itself into the most stable areas of existence, creating order from a sea of chaotic interactions.
Life is strange like that... it operates in a fashion that is against entropy. From a sea of chaotic changes, a road is created, bridges are created, the internet is created... all from the original primordial cosmic soup, all leading to what we experience today. Entropy weighs heavy on our shoulders, yet we still continue to try to fight against it. Who can say what will be more powerful when the universe is dying out... eons and eons of of the organization of intelligence and collective consciousness, or eons and eons of the breakdown and death of the universe...
But I know one this is for sure, I do not consider myself as primarily my individual mind. Rather, I see myself as American before I see myself as me, and I see myself as human before I see myself as American, and I see myself as a child of the universe before I see myself as human... and in that sense, these selves, these big minds will live far longer than my small mind. I am the water, not the locks, and even when my small mind is dead and gone, dying and leaving, I will not be sad, because I know that I will always live on as the sea of actions, regardless of where the current physical conglomeration of my elements ends up. - supernovasky, on 04/22/2009, -1/+7And yet we haven't destroyed ourselves yet. I think the next hundred years are going to be crucial in determining if we will or not.
God I love being alive right now :) - ryrocker, on 04/22/2009, -2/+8no buddy, it has not taken over the world...
but it has taken over europe...
everything has to get approved by the eu over there - supernovasky, on 04/22/2009, -7/+13Quite reactionary and short sited, thcobbs. North Korea, Iran, and Laos will all die too someday. The future of humanity, though, depends on us interacting with the world community in a positive manner and promoting our own ideals while respecting the ideals of others. Eventually, with both of our countries dead and gone, who knows what will be beyond us... but I do know that the steps we take will help determine exactly what that beyond will look like.
I will say this though, your quick use of countries that we both agree are not in the best interest of humanity does not frighten or shock me, because I realize that they are but a speck on a speck, a tiny piece of a tiny rock in space. Their voices will be heard, but if you honestly believe that the majority of the world will side with their values, you must not have faith in the truth and virtue of our own. Let our values be debated and discussed with the international community on their merit, not on our imagined self-importance.
You would do well to read a poem... Ozymandias. - richmomz, on 04/22/2009, -4/+10Wrong. Congress does not have the authority to nullify Constitutional law via international agreements and treaties.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 286 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is