A Speech On the United Nations

Note: Speech given in November 2011

To classify the actions of the UN as fatally flawed would suddenly render those words airy and meaningless. Hopefully, most of us are already aware of the headline corruption of the UN, from Oil-for-Food to rampant abuse in the Congo, the coddling of rogue regimes to its shameless human rights laurels to despots.  This goes beyond the talking points.

We cannot simply shake our heads at the UN’s obvious faults, nor dismiss its transgressions as non-indicative of the body as a whole. As serious as these charges may be, these shortcomings of the UN are not outliers: They are an outgrowth of its total institutional failure.

Leaving the United Nations is not a legitimate course for the United States to take. What is imperative for the US role in the United Nations is a proactive, multifaceted policy of reform necessitated by the many failings of the UN.

The UN has long served as a haven for authoritarian regimes to shelter themselves from accusations of human rights abuses. It is devoid of any qualifications for its members, which has allowed for countries with deplorable records on human rights, such as Libya and Iran, to join the Council without but the meekest protest.

While the UN Charter has a strong focus on civil and political rights as barometers of freedom, the UN today would rather bide its time creating new rights, new norms, and new demands for a global governance structure to deal with the contrived new assault on rights. The continued promotion of economic, social, cultural rights over the most basic of political and economic freedoms creates a crude moral equivalence, where the right to leisure time is now equitable to the rights of life, liberty, and property. In this lack of hierarchy, both Ireland and Iran have equally imperfect records. It fails to grasp the uncontested connection between political freedom and human rights, preferring instead to pay lip service to new rights that do not jeopardize authoritarianism.

One need only ask the Kashmiris, the Cypriots, the Kurds, or dozens of others to show its complete failure in conflict resolution. Ironically, the UN often incentivizes conflict by providing an excuse to continue disengagement, as that would then mandate more UN funds.

With these failures in mind, the US must present bold, stark reforms to the UN that preserve American interest and investment. The US must strongly encourage the UN to move to a system of voluntary funding. By assessment, the US foots a quarter of both the GA and peacekeeping budgets, and helplessly watches while its investments are mismanaged and abused. Since the UN budget can be ratified by a 2/3 vote, the 128 countries that pay less than 1% of the UN bill can as a bloc decide 99% of its budget.

Voluntary contributions would create a powerful market incentive for programs to achieve their goals and keep their budgets. After all, a bureaucracy that does not pinch the purse of its members is not easily removed. Many UN-affiliated groups, like the UN Joint Program on HIV/AIDS already implement this system.

The US should both seek strong levels of reform in the HRC as well as consider the creation of an alternative human rights body. Without any requirement from its members, the HRC will continue to be a hypocritical and ineffective organization.  The alternative group would break the false monopoly of the UN as a propagator of human rights by actually having standards for membership, including a proven track record of human rights.

The US should consider using its large contribution as a bargaining chip in seeking these reforms. Bipartisan, rational attempts at this in the past have been successful in attaining some successes, and should be vigorously pursued.

The overarching failures of the UN call for the US to play a role in which it seeks stringent and meaningful reform while retaining its commitment to the UN as a treaty body, not an organ of global governance. 

Sketches From An Occupation

Note: Originally written November 2011

Unbeknownst to almost none of you, I’ve been partaking in a Grand Tour of sorts within the Occupy movement. I have counter-protested the group during its (hopeful) height several weeks ago, walked in its marches as a faux sympathizer, and most recently attended the Michael Moore rally. Below are some sketches:

340 PM: If the Occupy movement organized its rallies like its Thunderdome/general camping area, it would be even more disorganized. Rotted vegetables, mingled with the moderating smell of baked beans, hummus, cheese, and donated food items from local businesses permeate the area.

342 PM: There is no permanent police presence to speak of.

347 PM: Woof.

350 PM: An Occupier begins yelling obscenities and thrashing about in the crowd. “Where the f—king f—k is my sweater? Who the f—k took my sweater, it has all my s—t in it! My smokes, my piece, my lighter… I will smash the f—k up anyone I see with it.” Isn’t the notion of private property a foundation of an economic system…like capitalism, perhaps? Irony fail.

353 PM: Brunette Occupier comments on my nearly-finished cigar in my teeth. “Isn’t that kind of fat cat bankster?” I explained how cigars are one of the most organic products in the world. I think she got a new perspective on the issue.

357 PM: Protestor sign: “He once owned dozens [slaves]. Now he owns millions of us.” Why the hell does that banker look like a 1940s propaganda cartoon of a Japanese person?

358 PM: There are dozens of educators here.

403 PM: Moore hasn’t shown up yet. Talked to several protesters about the clashes with cops on Saturday, gaining a few compliments from my USSR jacket.

406 PM: Human microphone. Aged man with a regrettable necktie starts talking about how bankers and investment types steal billions. The crowd is with him all the way. He ends by saying, “And that’s why we need a death penalty for white collar crime.” The echoes shrink considerably, nervous chuckles replacing their enthusiasm. God, I love Leftists.

408 PM: Patagonia count = 13 and growing.

409 PM: Several Occupiers are crowing over the general strike in Oakland. Doesn’t forcibly closing a major port to commerce adversely affect the 99% as much as it does the 1%?

411 PM: No sign of Moore. An “Occupy Denver” bus rolls by every 4 minutes or so, dragging a trailer with odd caricatures. On the tops of pikes are the heads of Bush, Cheney, and what I assume is a token Je-, I mean, neocon. Main structure has a guillotine. Headline says “Bushwhacker: The People’s Court is the Last Resort.” Bus garners cheers at each interval.

413 PM: Roll-your-own cigarette offered by twenty-something protestor as we chatted about the future of Occupy. Probably an Am Spirit blend, quite nice for an RYO.

416 PM: Talked about Bolivaran socialism, Chiapas, and the Red Army Faction with a group of about ten anarchist/leftist types. Maybe they’ll gain some inspiration.

417 PM: Explained my new family history, that my grandpa fought with the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, my uncle with the Sandinistas, and my mother at Seattle WTO. They hadn’t heard of any of these things. Sigh.

420 PM: Yep.

421 PM: One guy starts explaining to his friends the (in)famous ‘Crossfire’ exchange with Jon Stewart, ending with, “And that’s when I realized the political genius that is Jon Stewart.”

422 PM: Spoke with a (yes) Communist. Talked about his trips to Moscow and Cuba in the early 1980s, as well as his thoughts on Obama. The feeling of betrayal that so much of the Left feels towards the POTUS is quite saddening. I’ve compared it to a battered woman who sticks by her man, thinking that if she only loves him more, he won’t keep (politically) beating her.

423 PM: That Communist had one sick road bike.

426 PM: One of the leaders of food service at Thunderdome walks through the crowd to hand a sandwich to a man with a veterans’ cap on. Veteran gets offended that he would warrant preferential treatment.

430 PM: A human microphone is forming. Some of the freeverse poetry, seemingly drug-induced, is really quite poetic and touching.

431 PM: Why is it that leftists don’t have a problem heavily swearing around children?

432 PM: Anarchists start chanting about destroying the system. In other news…

433 PM: Where the hell is Michael Moore? #Occupy Country Buffet.

440 PM: Woman with a younger child turns back to face me and says, “You look SO familiar.” After we exchanged introductions, she stated again, “Jesus, you look so dang familiar. But I guess that’s because we’re all Americans, right?”  One of the brighter moments.

446 PM: Cute twenty-something is handing out pamphlets on how to help lessen confrontations with the police. Actions include a human microphone of “Shhh…” when tensions arise.

449 PM: Moore still isn’t here.

454 PM: Crowd starts to move back for Moore’s arrival.  I bump into a man in fatigues with a keffiyeh, complete with outline of Palestine as both Israel and the Territories. Ouch.

502 PM: Moore enters the crowd. The circle formed around him sat down, and the few who stood up in the front were promptly chastised via bullhorn.

503 PM: Several hecklers begin hammering Moore over his net worth ($50 mil), deriding him as part of the 1%.

504 PM: -shouted- “Michael Moore is a capitalist!”

506 PM: Moore rambles on. My section of protesters is very laudatory.

509 PM: Moore compares the Occupy movement to the civil rights movement, complete with references to police dogs and general brutality.

515 PM: Speech becomes more and more predictable. Crowd dissipates after his speech.

Threesome Si, Cigar No

Note: Originally written July 2011

of you who know me recall that while I have a penchant for anti-licentious jeremiads, I am hardly the embodiment of Pat Robertson (thank God). However, there are certain cultural instances that…well, get my goat, if you will forgive the philistine idiom.

In the last few decades, we have seen in children and young adult films a sharp decrease in tobacco usage on screen. In fact, several companies with under-18 oriented audiences, including Disney, have banned tobacco outright from ever gracing their films.

Gone are the days of Cruella DeVil’s inseparable cheroot twittling in her fingers, the Indian chief calumet, and most regrettably, Cap’n Hook’s magnificent double-cigar holder. Roger no longer angrily puffs away at his pipe. And to the chagrin of the ‘alternative medicine’ crowd, no more will the hookah-smoking caterpillar give poor Alice the call.

Now of course these moves are not without reason. Smoking, as anyone who has engaged at all in American society knows, is harmful, especially in excess and habit.  But I would like to simply point out a growing hypocrisy, not only in the world of childrens film, but in society at large as well.

Not a day goes by without another minor social outcry, albeit usually meek, concerning yet another sexual boundary pushed in the under-18 market. Or one could merely flip through channels one evening to see the cultural inundation that a free and active sex life as a teen is without consequence.  

Yet for the producer, introducing sexual topics to a more malleable audience is not met with ignominy; indeed, it is more often than not seen as a demonstration of expression or openness. Sections of the culture deride the “neo-Puritanism” of the Religious Right, condescendingly pooh-poohing any concerns that displays of frank sexuality among teens may contribute to poor sexual choices being made.

And, by golly, there’s the rub. While adamant in the belief that tobacco usage must cease in films because it contributes to teen smoking, the dominant culture resists with sound and fury that the “pornification” over-sexualization of a culture that creeps into lower and lower age demographics could possibly have an adverse affect.

The new mantra is as such. Children and young adults, under the siren song of Big Tobacco, must be whisked from its clutches through ommision and editing of classic films. However, in terms of sexuality, children and teens will be edified by more frank and casual displays, and are fully capable of understanding the risks (if any, mind you) of rank license.

This hypocrisy highlights yet another chapter in a culture whose moral compass is increasingly not defined by integrity and individual empowerment sans objectification, but by the berserkir anti-tobacco moralisms of acultural elite.

Survival of the Faux Leftist

Note: Originally written May 2011

There is perhaps no field in American academia more contemptibly critical of American foreign policy than Latin American Studies. Admittedly, historical US actions in the region have not been without fault, and there is ample room for criticism. However, there is a consistent aspersion against American values, economic systems, and political beliefs on an unrivaled scale.

Ironically, Leftists in the class, consisting of everyone save myself and a few others, cede American exceptionalism, American evangelistic zeal for capitalism, and other right-wing historical precepts The difference is that they use them as pejoratives.  I digress.

Nuance is a cherished goal, especially when one is right-of-center at the university, but no ideologue, Right or Left, can remain long without betraying at least the most basic of his political tenets. Having exposed my inner ______ [insert fascist, neocon, Nazi, un-American, etc.] for weeks, I decided to speak and act like a Leftist during Thursday’s class. My normal erudition in defense of (gasp) capitalism, Americanism, and (gasp gasp) anti-Communism would be channeled towards a critique of American Empire, derision towards neoliberal economic policies, and extolling the beneficence of leftist groups in Latin America.

 Surprisingly, my initial comments were bought wholesale by both professor and classmates. Students eagerly leap-frogged my Leftist (albeit somewhat nuanced) commentary, conscripting arguments and nodding their heads in emphatic agreement when I beat the drumrolls of the Left in rhythm.  Smiles abounded, dissent was all but nonexistent, and the professor, to his credit, attempted a devil’s advocate defense of basic capitalism that (surprise!) was summarily rejected.

 I began to contemplate. There is an onus that, for many, dooms the Leftist to disillusion. For many on the hard Left, the dreams of social democracy, Marxian freedom, and social justice have been dashed into thin air by the continued triumph of ideas deemed heretical by the intelligentsia for decades. Caught between a hatred for the ‘American ideal’ and the undeniable (economic) successes of freer markets and freer people in the world in state growth, they are resigned to miserably criticizing other tenets not involving economic growth. They succumb to a fait accompli defense of their principles, such as decrying the loss of “culture” and economic “security”, nipping the heels of free enterprise like the lap dog of some cosmopolitan.

To paraphrase an undeniably brilliant professor on campus, while the various crises of capitalism engender “breaking out the champagne” among the disillusioned standard-bearers and scions of the New Left, capitalism and the American way begrudgingly (to the Left) prove resilient. But I digress again.

 Try as I might to hide my thoughts after forty-five minutes of the charade, I soon drew the ire of one student who had finished a “truth-to-power” polemic against NAFTA and corporations:

“You seem to have something to say; what do you think?”

“Oh, I agree wholeheartedly…(laughter) (pause) Screw it, I can’t do this anymore. I’m done acting like a Leftist.”

(Professor with sincere suprise) “Wait, you mean all your earlier comments weren’t sincere?”

“Oh, absolutely not.” (laughter) (Professor looks despondent) 

“If you can articulate the other side so well, why don’t you lend it any credence?”

“Because I’m Right.”

To my Rightist friends of all stripes, I hope this little vignette brightens your day. To my friends on the Left, please know that my criticism and joshing is never an ad hominem against you or your intelligence. There is a rigidity in academia that is a hindrance to a true “marketplace of ideas”, and it is the duty of every free-thinking individual, Right or Left, to be critical of the standard lines. Be intellectual in your provocations, pragmatic in your discussions, and principled in your conclusions.

Activist's Eye for the Apathetic Guy

Note: Originally written Oct. 2010

Troubled at how often you find yourself utterly ignorant when it comes to political issues? Understandably, it’s hardly on your radar during college if it’s not your major; after all, who has time for bantering about policy when more important issues (Nordstrom’s or Saks, Jerusalem’s or Maggiano’s, cond-wait, I have restraint) swamp you every solitary day? You know from your high school experience that everyone who is remotely intelligent is a liberal, but knowing from facts and logic what you believe is so overrated. 

Never fear! I, your trusty leftist analyst, will give you the tools necessary to make yourself sound like a normal, intellectually average progressive without ever having to do any independent thinking or research. Impossible, you say? With this five ye---err, five-step plan of terms, I’ll take you from political ignorance to political ignorance-mashed-up-and-repackaged-as-intelligence in no time!

1. Occupation: Never mind the fact that war, for some unknown reason, usually involves this term, use this word as a pretext to term every military action as criminal enterprises, regardless of rationale. If any movement, especially any taking up arms against the Great Sa-I mean, America, support it by self-critically claiming that democratic society must be in the wrong.
a. Recommended phrases: “Like, the US Occupation of Iraq, and like, killing civilians and stuff…” “The Israelis are occupying Palestinian land! Occupation is a crime!”

2. Diversity: Sprinkling your non-fragment sentences with this word makes you the paragon of tolerance. Be cautious not to extend your defense of terrible ideas like conservatism, the Religious Right, or traditional marriage advocates; use this word only for the beneficence of NAMBLA or child-marriage advocates in the Arabian peninsula. Focus on race as a primary indicator of diversity; never, never assume that diversity could be more than just the color of one’s skin.
a. Recommended phrases: “I think that…diversity just leads to all of us just understanding each other and coming together, like, community, you know?” “We need to be encouraging more diversity and stuff.”

3. Oil: In the world of your professors, oil flows like healing waters from the neocon (see #4) Fountain of Youth and splatters all over us. This word is best coupled with words like “Bush” or “Cheney” to reach a desired effect of showing every red-state American to be an imperialistic resource-hungry fascist. 
a. Recommended phrases: “I feel that the only reason we went into Iraq was because of oil, like Halliburton and, and America’s need for oil to furnish our, like 15 cars. “No blood for Oil!”

4. Neocon: This is a trump card in your hands. Going back and actually studying the history of the term “neoconservative” as it was initially used would find that it initially meant Reagan-era converts to conservatism, but remember, all that is unnecessary. Label any person to the right of Howard Zinn as a neocon; let your face scrunch up on the first syllable as a testament to your hatred (NEEEocons). Listen to your professors, and equate this word with any member of the Right. If you are an “anti-Zionist” leftie, using neocon as a euphemism for “Jew warmonger” works as well. 
a. Recommended phrases: “I feel that…the neocons in the Bush administration, um, took us to war, and like, holy war, and stuff.” “Like, weren’t neocons, like, pushing us to war?”

5. Corporations: Be it global poverty, terrorism, or that migraine you had last Thursday morning, corporations are the perfect scapegoat, a word to show your prof that you are an erudite “Hello, my name is Speak-Truth-to-Power” progressive. Be sure to use a hushed, almost esoteric tone when you whisper it; cast away all your inhibitions, forget that most of your clothing and products come from these dastardly villains of global capitalism, and shriek with righteous indignation at the wicked corporations.
a. Recommended Phrases: “The corporations run our world, they like keep poor countries poor and stuff while we buy their clothes.” “Corporations have, like, way too much power, man.”

With these tools, you can now learn the art of combining these terms to make your points sound even more like t a single-digit IQ bastardization of a Korbel prof; for example, combining corporations with oil, or occupation with neocons, can make your Birkenstock cheer in jubilation (“Please, please wash me now?”). And don’t hesitate to bring in more words, like “hate”, “teabagger”, or “fascist” into your Bay Area vocabulary. Now go, go forth and show your professors, your school, your Nation (magazine, of course) that you too, can be a beacon of hope for worldwide progressivism.