Around the Globe

We've found a little market that sells rice pastas in forms DeBoles and Tinkyada have never dreamed of making. It's the East Asia Market in Huntsville, and their selection is mind-numbing. But it feels wrong to be buying rice imported from China when so many of their own people cannot get enough to eat, and we have rice growing all over Arkansas. There's a disconnect in the process, and it doesn't feel good. I'm not sure yet how this plays out (though after doing some digging, I have my suspicions) - are we helping an export industry that is, somehow, improving the quality of life for those in the fields, or are we gnoshing on flat noodles and rice sticks that have been lovingly harvested by a child who will not see a full bowl of the stuff for her day's labor? There is little to no information that I've been able to find on the companies, but I plan to keep looking before we shop there again.

Oh, I heard something disturbing on the radio today: someone hypothesizing that McCain may be hoping the Republicans will lose seats in Congress, with the possibility arising from that move that the Republican Party will interpret it as a cry from the People (sadly, yes, with a capital P) that it's time to come more to the left, giving him an actual shot at the White House. This scares me for many reasons, not the least of which is that it's a possibility. But if the GOP does interpret a loss in that manner, that's just piss-poor data interpretation. If Republicans lose their seats, it'll have more to do with the fact that it's getting more and more difficult to tell a difference between the two lately - they all seem to want to control more of our industries, our philosophies, and our lives, down to our our children and our diets -- and take more of our money to fund the takeover. The other concern is that "President McCain" is about as appealing a thought to me as reviving Lenin for round two.

Then, KathyJo posted a bit and linked to this lovely blurb on the UN Charter - they're going after our children! Joy. I've left politics alone on the blog, but I'm going to have to hash this one out. First, I must go on the record as saying, "Yeah, what she said," regarding KathyJo's comments. Our children will be raised with the values and ideals that We (the Royal we, Zorak and I) hold dear. Not Kofi Annan's values and ideals. Not those of the Chinese government, the Sudanese government, or even the United States government. We have a hard enough time keeping the Federal government out of our homes, let alone having to deal with International Oversight and ideals-compliance. No, thank you.

Hornblower posted her thoughts on the issue, from the perspective of one who holds the UN near and dear. She and I probably have not once agreed on anything political, but we've never had a problem discussing it, and I love that. I love hearing her side of things, and her compassion for those in third-world countries who are suffering horribly comes through beautifully in her post. And that, wonderfully enough, is one area in which we do agree: nobody ought to suffer the atrocities that some countries have heaped upon their people. Where we differ is in how best to help.

We aren't talking about People Who Care vs. People Who Don't Care, although, sadly, that's how the flow charts are often drawn up. Putting the United States under the jurisdiction of the UN is not going to do the trick for third-world countries. There are already issues concerning real, actual, tangible situations wherein the US has been/is being pressured to alter its own domestic policy and law of the land to conform to the values and laws of other UN-affiliated nations with which we do not agree. For the US to sign this charter, we would further subjugate ourselves to a coalition that has little respect for the values that we DO hold dear. It's not so much about the children, in this case, as it is about the precedent set. Precedents can be dangerous things. Also, she noted that "it's not about US", and goes on to list the places it is about. But then, I must ask, if it's not about us, then why must we agree to abide by it? If it's not something we need looked into by the UN, why the insistence that we agree to let the UN come look into US, OUR homes, OUR children? If it's about them, then go ask them if the UN can come have a look-see.

However, what I'd like to know is why the UN? Why can't this humanitarian work be accomplished without asking us to put ourselves under a planetary tribunal, complete with oversight? Grass Roots movements (true grassroots - from the people, up, not from the Bureaucracy, down) have traditionally had the strongest, most long-lasting impact. These issues would best be addressed by volunteer organizations and philanthropic groups, bolstered by the invitation and support of the people within the countries, themselves.

One of the biggest obstacles to so-called good Federal government that we see so often in the United States is that of a disparity of understanding. People in Lower Manhattan have no idea what would work for the neighborhoods in Chula Vista, CA, and vice versa. There's too much incongruity in the cultures, values, ideals, and communities for governing and regulation of one over the other to be effectual. This is why government on the smallest possible level is the most efficient, expedient, and least intrusive means. Now, that is within one country, an industrialized country, a relatively well-blended country. Imagine the diametrical perspective of Canada, the US, or India in trying to tell the countries in Africa, Western Europe, or Asia just how things ought to be done. It would result in frustration and offense, no matter what. Now, add a subjugation of authority to these groups over each other and you have a recipe for trouble, for political bullying, for corruption, and squandering of resources. (All of which we have seen come to fruition in the UN, by the way.) No, these changes need to be made from within - with the support and encouragement of those countries which have the resources to do so, but not by putting those resourced countries under the Jurisdiciton of an International Tribunal, subject to Charters which would trump our own Constitution. No.

This isn't a boogey man we're concerned about. This isn't shadows on the wall from the moonlight outside. This is a deeper and much more broad-based issue, with regard primarily to sovereignty and accountability. We are United States Citizens, not subjects of the world, nor Members of the UN. America has always been a generous country, a country filled with citizens who are willing to offer aid at the drop of a hat, willing and ready to teach, guide, and build. All one needs to do is ask. But to ask us to give up those things that make us uniquely and beautifully American is asking the wrong thing from the wrong people.

As always, kiss those babies!
~Dy