Is the U.S. the World's Policeman?

Doug:
Do you mean "world's police force"? I don't think that is a very good idea. Why would one country in the world be the police force for the entire world? Besides, I don't think we do a very good job of policing our own country, let alone others.

David:
Kids behave better, and there is less bullying, when the teacher is actually on the playground. In many instances, the US plays that role in the world. Just by being around, and maintaining a military presence, is often all that is needed.

Forming coalitions with like-minded countries is always the goal, but we alone have the resources and will to keep the peace. If Russia and China shared our goals of stabilizing the world, they would be welcomed partners, but they appear to want to dominate their regions of the world by military might. And, there are numerous, smaller actors who want to take over their neighbors through force.

Certainly, you wouldn't argue that the United Nations has proven to be able to prevent major wars or genocidal maniacs from acting with impunity. The UN is the model of ineffective bureaucracy (and corruption).

Doug:
You like lots of police, don't you? And you want the US to be a world police force? 

Not for me. I'd rather fix anything wrong with the UN and make a strong coalition of countries.

David: 
Let's back up for just a moment. Although they perform some similar roles, police are not the military or the armed forces.

Police keep the peace. They ensure people follow the laws, and when folks don't, the police  arrest them. And yes, I do like the police, and believe they have an incredibly dangerous and tough job to perform. Having more of them would have a calming effect on neighborhoods where crime is rampant.

The members of our military, on the other hand, are tasked with keeping our country safe from those that would do us harm. There are many countries in the world that are run by murderous, power-hungry dictators who want to take land and resources from their neighbors. Having our forces stationed around the globe, with an understanding we won't tolerate these despots invading other countries, also can have a calming effect. When we fought Iraq after they invaded Kuwait, Iran pulled back on its support of terrorist groups in the region for years. 

In the UN, every one of these dictators has the same vote that we have. And because of the rotating selection of leadership posts, a country that has been leading the world in human-rights violations one year, can find itself in charge of  the human-rights commission the next. Only at the UN does this make any sense.

Doug:
Well then, you answered your question: is the US the world's police force? No, because we send in military forces, rather than police forces. 

Your understanding of how the UN works is a bit wrong. None of these countries are members of the security council. So a vote by any of these dictators is not the same as a vote by the US. 

David:
Your understanding of the UN is a bit wrong. While there are certain issues and measures that have to be approved by the security council, which we are a member of, the vast majority of the work done at the UN is through hundreds of committees that are made up of member states. The committee heads are assigned on a rotating basis, and every country gets a vote. Most of the votes taken from the floor of the UN are also one-country-one-vote. Whenever things don't go the way of a member of the security council, they can move the item to the security council for a final approval. This is why Israel continues to get singled out for war crimes, despite the genocide and atrocities committed by numerous countries around the world (who just happen to hate Israel), that get a free pass.

Here's an article that also illustrates some of the problems within the UN itself, the model of bureaucracy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/17/world/accusations-of-sexual-abuse-against-united-nations-workers-are-cited.html?_r=0

However, it is also true the UN has an annual operating budget of around 6 billion dollars per year. Not 600 billion, not 60 billion, but six. (The number jumps to a total of 14 billion when you add peacekeeping to the bill.) That isn't really enough to accomplish any real action, and it doesn't give the UN any teeth to pose any real threat to anyone. I think I prefer it that way, and I think the major players in the world have made it that way on purpose. All talk, and little to threaten them.

Doug:
Agreed that the UN doesn't have enough money to do its job.

David: The question really is should we hold a role of preserving the peace around the world with our military (like a police force)? I think we can serve that purpose. And I think it serves our goals of protecting  the US, our economy,  as well as maintaining peace in the world. Russia and China certainly aren't going to fill that role.

Doug:
I don't think we can serve that purpose. A single agency will, of course, act in its own best interest, if it must. The solution, like any similar situation, is that we need a higher authority---one that doesn't have any other motives other than doing the right thing.


David:
So, you're finally read to turn things over to God? As long as man is running the show, greedy, selfish, power-hungry folks are likely to be in charge of whatever organization you put at the top of the heap. The more centralized the power, the more damage they'll do. But I'm happy to see you've decided there is a higher power and authority, and only God has no other motive than to do the right thing.

Doug:
Sure! Let's turn the authority over to the UN, give them some money, and you can pray that they'll do God's work.


David:
Well, at least we can agree that without divine intervention, individual countries will always act in their own best interest. The question remains how best to reign them in for a peaceful world.

The Scourge of Intolerance

David:
I find it sad that the groups in this country that scream "Tolerance!" the loudest, are often found to be the most intolerant. Atheists, and the gay community come to mind here. Democrats like Hillary who studied and practice the teachings of Saul Alinski come to mind as well. And since many people of that ilk run higher education, we've seen the rise of censorship in our colleges and universities.

Doug:
Perhaps those words don't mean what you think they mean. Whatever are you talking about? Let's talk about something specific, concrete, and preferably not something made-up on Fox News. What have you heard an atheist or a gay person say that you find intolerant?

David:
Just recently, one of our relatives (who is liberal) posted an amusing opinion piece on Facebook. The article noted that the decathlete-formerly-known-as Bruce Jenner shouldn't get awards for being a woman, as he/she didn't go through puberty, menstrual cycles, or a great many trials that make a woman a woman. Her FB wall just about melted with the hateful rants that came largely from gay friends. People who had known her for years (in person or through FB), and know that she clearly supports her homosexual friends,  threatened to shun her and unfriend her for her "outrageous" post. Even the slightest comment straying off the reservation will lead to a verbal assault.

As an experiment, post a notice at your college or in your syllabus (or just on FB) that you believe gay people are all going to hell. See what the response is to that statement.  I double….no….. I triple-dog-dare-you.

Doug:
Great, a nice example of intolerance. Maybe I should explain that to you: saying "gay people are going to hell" can be seen by many people as being an intolerant statement. Sure, you have the right to believe that statement, and even speak it in a public place (in the United States). But that does not mean that one cannot be outraged by such statements, and speak their mind against it.

So, yes, those that strive for a tolerant world do not tolerate intolerance very well. Do you find that ironic? I don't. But the problem people have is being able to differentiate tolerating "other behavior" from "intolerant behavior." Two gay people getting married doesn't affect you... that is "other behavior" from your perspective. Live and let live. Saying that two gay people shouldn't get married is intolerance. That is often seen as hateful (because it doesn't have anything to do with you). Odd that you see such an opinion as "amusing."

I don't blame anyone from unfriending "friends" that disagree with a core value from their own. But true friends can survive such differences, and even have fruitful conversations that can lead to someone changing their mind.

So, no, I won't be experimenting by throwing out hateful speech to see who reacts negatively. But try this in your own world: post a notice that you have decided to be more tolerant to a group (you pick the group). I suspect that you won't get much support from your "friends." See the difference?

David:
You see that you have just described someone's opinion that a transgender hasn't lived through the full experience of growing up as a woman to be "hate speech". Anything that you disagree with, no matter how small, is "hateful". No. It is a different opinion. And in this instance, the opinion of the writer was very slight. She supported Jenner, but pointed out that becoming a woman later in life misses the whole "experience".

Doug:
No, I said that the statement "gay people are all going to hell" is hateful. I don't think that you arguing with me is "hateful."

David:
When Hillary Clinton says that Christians need to change their core, religious beliefs, to accept abortion, should I consider that a different opinion, or by your definition, "hate speech"? I find your argument to be too convenient: "I am tolerant of those who disagree with me and have a different world-view. But when they speak, their speech is "intolerant", so I don't actually have to tolerate their opinions." You are either tolerant, or you are not. You claim that saying something that most Christians believe is "Hateful". I would argue that is their core belief. (I agree that if you posted it, your peer group would also call it "hate speech", and you would be shunned, because it is not college-approved, anti-religious language.)  You see, you are deciding the intentions of the other person. You are saying they are hateful, and intolerant, because you interpret the statement as intolerant. And you would condemn them based on your biases. That is intolerance.

Doug:
There is no college-approved, anti-religious rules. Most of my colleagues are religious! (Your imagination literally makes me laugh.) Being tolerant is when you are open-minded, "willing to accept feelings, habits, or beliefs that are different from your own; able to allow or accept something that is harmful, unpleasant, etc." The opposite is intolerance.

"But intolerance is part of my religion!" I think if you look a little harder, you'll find that intolerance is not part of your religion... that is something added by self-righteous zealots. Just guessing on that.

David:
Wow, talk about putting words in someone's mouth. Most Christians, and certainly most Muslims around the world believe that homosexuals will not enter heaven. Religions do have rules, and not everyone will go to heaven. Many will fall short of that goal. That doesn't mean that they can't have gay friends or care about their gay friends. But you claim that saying homosexuals will not get into heaven is "hateful" and "intolerant". Those are your words. So, you are saying  to have a religious belief that is held by the majority of religions of the world is intolerant hate speech. And you've also said that you don't have to tolerate anything that you feel is intolerant. That is circuitous logic. It also is intolerant. You are not following your own definition of tolerance that you just listed! But, perhaps your belief is that all of the major religions of the world need to change to fit your world-views. You have company with old Hillary. You were asking for an example of an Atheist being intolerant. Well, now we have one.

I'm sure your school has a policy against "hate speech", and I'm sure it is a policy that you fully support. The problem is you have declared religious views as "hate speech". So, following that trail of logic, you now have college-approved, anti-religious rules. Use your imagination to see how intolerant that is.

Doug:
Your imagining is way off. As far as I know, my school does not have a policy on hate speech. But I would suspect that any speech that made a student or group of students feel bad would be considered inappropriate. We are here to inspire and educate people, not berate them. Being tolerant to others seems like a good policy for any company or institution. It almost sounds like a religious rule, of a yellowish hue...

I think you will find that there are many religious people that believe that saying, out loud, for others to hear, that "gay people are all going to hell" is indeed hateful. Lots of god-fearing speak have moved from standard religious slogans into the who-cares category. At one point not that long ago, inter-racial marriages were the targets of those that speak God's mind. Dietary food restrictions are the word of God to many. Stoning adulterers was the rule of law at one point (still is in some places).

Now days, many religious folk don't feel the need to publically comment on un-Godly food consumption or un-Biblical punishments of adultery. Is that because of tolerance, or something less honorable? I don't care; the result is more tolerance to others. I predict that anything related to "gay stuff" will soon move into the who-cares category for a majority of US religious people, for whatever reason. I'll call it tolerance.

David:
It's true that many religious people feel that they cannot express their beliefs anymore, because of folks who now deem their beliefs to be "hateful". Religious expression is now the main target of progressives. Making a group of people fearful of expressing their thoughts or  beliefs does not seem to be a very tolerant position to take. I don't see you taking a "who-cares" attitude towards Christians and their beliefs. You are actually hostile. In the same way you might say Christians are hostile towards homosexuals. And religious beliefs are not subject to the whims of society. You seem to have a very fundamental misunderstanding of both religion and what it means to hold those beliefs. Sounds like another blog on the way…

I have never unfriended anyone for their opinions, and have encouraged many to debate issues. I do not believe any of the folks on my page would unfriend me if I supported any group (well, maybe the Nazis).

Doug:
There is your imagination again. Don't imagine, try it! You know, most of the "nazis" were just regular folk who didn't just vanish at the end of WWII, and didn't get sent to prison. I bet you could find some empathy for them. Now, what were we talking about?

David:
You're confusing "Germans" with "Nazis".  Most Germans did not know what the SS and Hitler were doing to the Jews. And many were afraid of their own Socialist government. That happens when the government is the only one who is armed, as our founding fathers knew too well.

Well, at least we can agree that neither of us is likely to use our postings or FB friends to experiment on. Or to be experimented on ourselves. Everyone can breathe a sigh of relief…

Doug:
...all thanks to the "scourge of intolerance."

In the News: Donald Trump

Doug:
Why is Donald Trump leading in many of the Republican polls? What is wrong with these Republicans?

David:
If Trump were a Democrat, he'd be leading those polls as well. Name recognition is the name of the game in these early months, and Trump has more of that than even Bush and Clinton. But after a short while, his antics will wear thin, and we'll all move on to more serious ideas.

I guarantee you that if Jon Stewart announced his candidacy tomorrow, he'd be leading the Democrat field by Monday.

Doug:
No way would a fool like Donald Trump lead any Democratic Party polls. There are certain things that they just won't tolerate, and being a loudmouth, slimy businessman, organized crime-connected, idiot pretty much ensures no support from Democrats.

I would consider voting for Jon Stewart, because he has good ideas and is consistent, not because of "name recognition." He would lead the polls by tomorrow afternoon. Our family went to the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear in DC in 2010. Stewart and Colbert are funny and thoughtful people.

But back to the question and reality: why are Republicans even considering Trump now? If it were just name recognition, why isn't Bush number one? Surely after 12 years of "President Bushes", that would have the highest name recognition of all. And didn't Trump's "antics" give him name recognition? Again, what is wrong with anyone that would vote for Trump?

David:
Slimy, crime-connected…..sounds a lot like the person leading the Democratic polls at the moment. And most Democrats (greater than 50% find her "untrustworthy") are still planning to vote for old Hillary. So much for what Democrats expect from their leaders.

Bush's name-recognition works against him. George finished up with two unpopular wars under his belt, and Jeb has a lot of work to establish himself as his own person. Hillary is still riding high on Bill's name, but she ain't Bill.  She certainly isn't funny or thoughtful. Perhaps calculating and manipulating describe her better. All of the scandals that Billy survived still linger, and every time Hillary opens her robot-like mouth, she reinforces all of the potential negatives and scandals that the Clinton name evokes.

Trump, and guys like Stewart, can say anything they want. They can say the things many are thinking, and stoke the anti-establishment feelings of the electorate. But in the end, while polling gives them some space to rant, few will actually cast their vote for them.

Glad to hear you would cast your presidential vote for a comedian who has no political or governing skills. I'm sure Putin and the Ayatollahs would enjoy his humorous banter. It is also telling that you would vote for him over Hillary or the other candidates. Still looking for a better choice in a field of losers?

Doug:Trump actually brags about his mob-connected deals. You still think that the Clintons committed some kind of property crime back in Arkansas? You aren't just beating a dead horse... there is nothing left but dust.

Being a comedian, or an actor (like Ronald Reagan), doesn't discount one's ability to be a fine politician. Good leaders surround themselves with smart people, listen to them, and then make decisions. I believe that many people could fill that role. Trump is not one of those people.

David:
Of course, Donald Trump is a billionaire. You don't get to be a billionaire by making bad decisions and surrounding yourself with morons. But he is not a politician. That is part of the reason people like what he's saying. He doesn't hedge everything he says behind a wall of carefully chosen, but meaningless, words. He's obviously not running his campaign from poll to poll, like many politicians these days. 

Hillary has changed her positions more than her pantsuits. If I were a Democrat, I'd be worried that the only real candidate for my team has almost 60% of voters saying she is not someone they trust. As an American, I find it a bit disheartening that a major political party just shrugs and seems to think that's OK.

I might remind you that General David Petraeus had his home raided by the FBI, was convicted of a crime, and is now on probation for having improperly-stored, classified information in his home. Hillary has an entire server (that she set up and used, against government rules) full of classified information. Two different inspectors general have referred her to the FBI and justice department. Do you think this partisan administration is going to treat her in the same manner? Will they even bother to investigate? Do you think this brand of justice is fair?

Doug:
The idea that is was "full of classified information" is incorrect. And the claim that she has been referred to the FBI is also wrong. The server she had was an email server. Do I think she will be treated in the same manner as Petraeus, who was having an affair with a reporter? No. And they are continuing to investigate. 

David:
She said she sent over all of the emails that were not private. Turned out that was not true. Then, she said none of the emails had classified information in them. The IGs sampled 40 emails, and found classified information in 4 of them. That's ten percent of the emails. And I doubt anyone in this administration will investigate anything relating to the Clintons.

Doug:
But, back to the topic at hand (do I get the idea that you keep changing the topic?): can you become a billionaire by making bad decisions and surrounding yourself with morons? Absolutely! Just look at Donald J. Trump. The trouble for Republicans is that some of his ideas are Republican ideas. Too bad for them that he is such an Ass Clown (a term I do not use lightly). But don't get me wrong: I hope/pray/cast* that he is the Republican nominee. 

*cast, as in "spell casting," which I consider equally effective as "hoping" and "praying."

David:
Actually, we are still on topic. I think the reason that guys like Trump, or Bernie Sanders, resonate with some voters, is that they are tired of Washington politicians who talk and talk, but don't actually say anything or outright lie to the public. Once they learn more of Trump's past, and his dealings (particularly with Democrats), he'll loose his shine. People want someone they can trust, and Trump gives the impression that he's telling it like it is. Bernie Sanders is a better example of someone who can capture the hopes of an electorate that hates Washington politics. But as soon as the media starts saying he's a Socialist (which he admits he is), he'll be done.

Doug:
I'm going to have to agree with you! 

"Baby parts! Get yer baby parts! On sale at Planned Parenthood!"

David:

Well, well.  It has certainly hit the fan, now.  Planned Parenthood making sure they don't damage the (sellable) goods when they crush a baby's head. Looks like someone's secrets are now out in the open. (Unlike Hillary's email server).

It's kind of hard to make the case you're serving the best interest of women, when you make no references to the welfare of women, but you do talk about making sure you get enough cash to get your Lamborghini.

Doug:

You must be referring to the hoax video that is out, right? I think that has largely been debunked. If you think you can get a "body part" for $30, then you don't know the going rate on the black market very well.

David:

Hmmm.  Hillary is "very disturbed" by the video. And the president of Planned Parenthood has apologized for the tone of her remarks. Seems like they wouldn't need to comment if the video was a "hoax".  But if you get all of your news from the Huffington Post, then you probably do think it's all a right-wing hoax.

Doug:

Well, then, I think we can both agree that the video has had its intended effect. Nothing else left to see here; move along.

David:

Yes, I can see that you, along with the rest of the pro-abortion community would rather just shout "War on Women", than actually discuss what is going on here. I note that Hillary (like a typical politician) initially said that the video was just an attempt by Republicans to "deny a woman's right to have an abortion". After the third video was released, she had modified that statement to,  “Planned Parenthood for more than a century has done a lot of really good work for women — cancer screenings, family planning, all kinds of health services. And this raises not questions about Planned Parenthood so much as it raises questions about the whole process, that is, not just involving Planned Parenthood, but many institutions in our country.” That's not quite the firm denial of the videos she first claimed. In fact, she seemed to say a whole lot, without actually saying anything. Now, she says that people have to "change their religious beliefs" so that more babies can have their heads crushed, but not their valuable human parts. Seriously?

When there is no defense, the best move is just to try to pretend like the video is false, and there is nothing real to discuss here. That seems to be your argument. Please, please, please, just move along...

Doug:

Ok, I guess I was wrong... there is something to discuss here, but doesn't seem to have much to do with the video. 

For the first time, I have to say that I find your term "pro-abortion community" truly hurtful. No one wants to have to have an abortion. Things happen, and many women have to decide between terrible alternatives. When you are 16 years old, having a baby can destroy your life. I know that that might not be a choice for you, but it is for many women, and it can save their lives in more than one way... many women that you know have had to make this choice. It isn't called "pro-choice" because of some Political Correct commandment... it is called that because that is what it is about... the choice to have to make this decision in terrible circumstances.

Once you have had an abortion, it seems that donating anything useful to help someone...anyone, is an easy choice. The video is a very well edited piece to make it look like Planned Parenthood sells body parts. But that isn't so. They do need to pay for shipping of these tissues, and that is what is being discussed. 

I don't care too much how any presidential candidate attempts to figure out how to deal with the hoax. I don't think it leads to any great insight into their political views. And that is why I suggested that there isn't much here to see.

David:

Getting pregnant is not like getting cancer. It isn't something that just happens to people. You wake up one morning, and, hey, you're pregnant.

I am fully in favor of empowering young women to choose not to get pregnant. But once you make the choice to have unprotected sex, and you become pregnant, both parents have the responsibility to care for the baby they have created. No one has to have to have an abortion. Being pro-choice really means that you are in favor of eliminating a child that is inconvenient. And before you poo poo that comment, the vast majority of abortions in this country are for just that reason.....convenience.

Doug:

Which is completely legal.

David:

You may say that the videos (which are available unedited, just so people can't say they are manipulated via clever editing) describe processing fees, but their medical director notes that the price is variable. "Let's say $100, but I'll have to check around to see what other people are getting." Then, she goes on to say she wants to make money, and wants the Lamborghini. Not something you'd expect someone to say if they were only charging a standard shipping rate.

I think society has taken a bad turn, when we accept the idea that it's a good thing to destroy children to make our adult lives better. I'll have to eliminate a baby, by having it's head crushed, but I'll get a new liver out of it, so it's all good. You call it "tissues", but it's really human body parts, fully developed and functioning. And that's because they come from real people.

Doug:

Obviously you see this issue completely differently---not only from me, most of the women in the world, but the supreme court as well. Women have a choice, and that is the law. In addition, the hoax video doesn't help your argument. Even your own Governor Mike Pence has found nothing wrong here.

 

David:

The issue here is not whether abortion is legal. The issue is whether Planned Parenthood is illegally making a profit by selling baby parts. The videos certainly offer (at a minimum) circumstantial evidence that they are. It is also against federal law to alter the abortion procedure just to prevent damaging certain organs to be used in research or to be sold. The videos conclusively show that Planned Parenthood changes their procedures based on what pieces of the baby are being "harvested".

 

Doug:

I think society has taken a great turn, by allowing women to have control over their lives.

On this issue, I think we will have to agree to disagree.