The Symbolism of Hats

David:
January 15th was official National Hat Day. I've been watching the news this past week, and found myself continually chuckling over the idea that the left has chosen pink, crocheted hats with little ears know as "pussy hats" as their new fashion piece. How fitting and emblematic. I'll bet you look quite dashing in yours.

Doug:
Why thank you! I think everyone looks great in their pussy hat. I think you'll find that many do find it fitting and emblematic. Pink is the new black, and these aren't made in China.

David:
While over here on the right, guys like Reagan and Bush, and many men and women across central America, have traditionally identified with cowboy hats while they were out working on the ranch.

Doug:
And the red baseball hat while working out of their... boardroom? Somehow the red cap seems to not be so fitting nor emblematic for the billionaire. But, yes, if one wanted to play "dress up" like a regular human, a red baseball cap seems to a good choice from their marketing team.

David:
Actually, Trump's hats are golf hats, which he frequently wears on his many golf courses around the world. I believe the only hat Obama ever wore was the same golf hat.

What does the hat you choose to wear say about you?

Doug:
Nothing. But speaking of the Emoluments Clause, what do you think about that?

David:
You mean when the Clinton's accepted gifts when they were President and First Lady, and later when she was Senator?  And then took these gifts with them when they left, along with White House dishes and furniture, presuming that they were personal gifts? And then they were forced to return them and pay for some items they kept? I think that scenario was exactly what that clause was supposed to prevent; Presidents, Senators, or Secretaries of State enriching themselves by their position.

Doug:
Exactly. I completely agree that we should look back to these precedents. But rather than an example from decades ago that was settled, I'm concerned with things that could happen tomorrow.

David:
Right. You don't care what the Clinton's did, even though you agree it was wrong. You're only concerned with what Trump might do.

Doug:
I am concerned with what Trump is doing. But I agree with you that if he is shown to break the clause, he should have to deal with the consequences.

David:
Because you think he should be held to a higher standard than previous presidents? I don't think reasonable people would claim that someone who owns a business cannot become President of the United States because of this clause. I assume you'd like to paint Trump as enriching himself by becoming President. Unfortunately for that argument, his business was well established before he became President, and will continue on as before without any change. His hotels don't generate business because he's the President. They generate money because they are hotels in places around the world where people need hotels.

Doug:
For many decades, the president-elect would sell off those businesses. For example, Jimmy Carter sold off his peanut farm. Carter was still investigated for 6 months because his brother was taking money from the farm that Jimmy no longer owned. I think it is pretty clear that this is exactly analogous to Trump's businesses. So I agree, reasonable people would expect that the president would sell these companies.

David:
Don't forget "Billy Beer".

If it's completely analogous, and nothing happened to Old Jimmy, then following your premise that we should not rehash the past, you can just drop your false outrage. Trump has put his children in charge of his business, and has made no efforts to capitalize on his amazing victory to enrich himself.

Doug:
How will we know if any action he takes benefits him or not?

David:
You seem to be saying that anything Trump does is going to be nefarious. Nice.

Unlike the Clintons, the Clinton Foundation, and the Clinton Global Initiative. We do know they generated funds that benefited themselves because the Clinton's had access and power. Yet you assume everything they did was only with the best of intentions. Now that they're out of power, the funds have dried up. Quid pro quo. Poor Bill will have to do without a million dollar gift for his birthday next year.

Doug:
I don't understand what you are talking about. Why is the Clinton Foundation relevant? Who is out of power? What funds? Who is quid pro quoing whom?

David:
You bring up the emoluments clause, and now appear to believe it only applies to Republicans.

Doug:
Why would you say that? I agree with those past actions on the Clintons and Carter. And those same rules should apply to Trump.

David:
But back to hats. First, whether you are a hat person or not, hats do not seem to have any impact on whether people like you or not. In fact, they don't seem to have any effect at all on how you are perceived. But that is not as it has been in the past, where your hat meant, well, everything.

John F. Kennedy may have actually destroyed the hat in America. He was famous for going bare headed, yet he, and many in the crowd, still wore traditional top hats at his inauguration.

JFK was the last president to wear a top hat at the inauguration

Here is a fascinating article describing how your hat established your societal standing, and even the most subtle change of the tilt of your hat might mean success or failure in your job or social circles:

Hats On, Hats Off. Cultural studies review by Hughes.

Hats have less meaning today, but can occasionally elicit a reaction. Just try to wear a baseball cap with a Patriot's emblem around Indianapolis during football season.

Personally, I have about a half-dozen baseball caps, a cowboy hat, a fedora for rainy days, a few knit toboggan caps for winter, and a tricornered pirate hat and a derby from past Halloween ensembles.

Doug:
I guess you really want to talk about hats.

David:
I'm just looking to discuss things other than politics that help us explain how people perceive each other, and to help illustrate we are all more alike than different. In the same way that dog and cat people are really both pet people. We can all wear different hats, but underneath, we are all the same folks wearing the hats. The post-election time period, which you claimed was going to be a time of coming together (when you assumed Hillary would win) has become bitterly divided. Your friends in their pink hats staged a rather large and impressive march to protest, um, well, it appears it was just to protest they are still mad their candidate didn't win. The hats they were wearing became a part of the protest itself. Hats can be important. Trump's red, Make-America-Great-Again hats became emblematic of the entire Trump movement.

As it turns out, hats have played a very important role in defining world cultures and delineating caste systems and social orders in various segments of history. Now you know.

Even within a hat group, subtle variances in the way you tilted your hat, or the way you creased it could speak volumes. Take cowboy hats. Back in the heyday of the cowboy, the way the hat was creased said a lot about the person wearing it. You could take one look at a man’s hat, know he was a cattle-wrangler, was raised in Montana, or know what ranch he worked on.  Many regions had their own custom way they would fold or crease their hat. Different races, occupations and sexes would also have a custom crease.

"Gus" hat,  popularized in the Montana region

But if you'd rather grab at esoteric straws to try to delegitimize the President, we can do that as well. 

Doug:
That is my choice: discuss hats or agree to your fake premise? No thanks. 

David:
I can see this is going to be a long four years for you and your pink-hat friends. Your so upset even discussing hats comes back around to attacking Donald Trump. And he hasn't even been President Trump for a full week. Oh well....

Bully in the Bully Pulpit?

Doug:
As you know, I find Trump's temperament completely disqualifying for many jobs, including Leader of the Free World. In fact, there are many personality traits that really bother me about Trump, but perhaps the worst is how he deals with any kind of disagreement. Any difference one makes with him (in which he responds) is met with an over-the-top smack down. Does this worry you in any way?

David:
To be honest, I haven't decided just yet. It's something we have not really seen in some time, and with access to social media, the instantaneous timing of his responses are unprecedented. There have certainly been presidents before who did not get along with the media, and there have certainly been presidents with fiery dispositions, so his temperament is certainly not disqualifying, or even unique. Teddy Roosevelt comes to mind.

To be factual, there are very few requirements to be qualified to be POTUS. This is laid out in the Constitution:

Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

• No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

You will note that temperament is not listed as a qualification.  Neither is your background, your education, nor any special training. If you win the electoral college, you become President.

Doug:
But this isn't how normal, intelligent, adult people respond to disagreement.

David:
I disagree with you on that point. Perhaps you don't spend enough time discussing things with people who are outside of your circle of friends and colleagues at the university. In dealing with the public, and with a huge number of diverse "friends" on FB, I run across people who talk like trump more than I don't. I guess you don't believe in diversity of temperment?

Doug:
I don't disagree that many people talk this way, perhaps even on social media. But I hold people that want to have an intelligent conversation to a higher standard.
       
David:
But, the POTUS is not interested in having a discussion with the American people. Obama wasn't, and neither will Trump. A discussion occurs when people are talking about an issue or idea to reach a decision or share ideas. When Obama was giving speeches, he was telling us what he had already decided, and usually why he was right and anyone who disagreed with his decisions were wrong, obstinate, and bad for the country. You and I having a conversation is not the same as the President talking to the public. Trump is certainly more blunt than Obama, or Bush, or Reagan, or just about anybody since LBJ, but that doesn't make his use of the bully-pulpit any different.

As time goes on, and President Trump gets busier with the job of running the multiple aspects of the country, I suspect he'll turn his tweets more towards swaying public opinion regarding policy rather than exchanging in tit-for-tat tweets with celebrities or newsmen that derail the conversations we need to be having about the myriad of problems we, as a country, face.

Doug:
Perhaps. But he should be pretty busy now, right? Instead, he has taken the time (16 minutes against Meryl Streep!) to tweet against people for various slights. Not all of these are from the last week, but some are:

• A teenager who asked a question - an “arrogant young woman”
• Union leader looking out for employees - Says Chuck Jones has done a "terrible job"
• Comedian who parodies him - complains about Alec Baldwin's "performance"
• Still tweeting about Clinton - "guilty as hell"
• Actress complaining about mocking a disabled reporter - calls Meryl Streep "overrated"; tweets for 16 minutes
• Argues with our own intelligence agencies - blames it on political motivations

Of course, the list goes on and on. My complaint isn't about each issue at all, but the manner that he chooses to have a disagreement. He does not argue with the issue, but insults the person. Usually he attacks them with ad hominem complaints. And he does this across the board: Republican representatives, Democratic representatives, teenage girls, or other regular citizens. When you are Leader of the Free World, these are are examples of Trump "punching down".

David:
You have to keep things in context. Streep attacked Trump from the stage at the Golden Globes, a major television event with a large audience. Heaven forbid he spend a whole 16 minutes defending himself.

Doug:
That will be fine with me... I know how to keep him busy over the next 4 years!

David:
But I do agree that he needs to drop the responses to each and every slight he feels from everywhere and anyone. I'd rather think he's focusing on more important things than what a petty entertainer thinks.

Doug:
Because of this kind of reaction, I can understand why some want to claim already that he is "Not My President." But for me, it goes deeper. I want to claim that he is "Not My Species." I live in the world where smart, thoughtful people disagree over pretty much everything (academics). I fear of Trump's anti-rhetoric. This is the playbook of the bully. What will we see from the generation of kids growing up in this environment?

David:
You mean the generation that is currently being taught that just seeing the words "Vote Trump" written in chalk on a sidewalk is hate speech? The generation that is being taught that if they disagree with how the president talks, they can claim he isn't their president? The generation that needs safe spaces because they haven't learned any coping skills in dealing with disagreement? I assume those kids will wither away, just like they've been trained to do.

Doug:
I don't see how you can compare chalk on a sidewalk with the style of argument I just described. Safe spaces are for people that have been abused. If any kid learns to actually have logical discussions based on the topic, that is what we want.

David:
"Vote Trump!" Wow, you're right. I can see how abusive that is. And I can see how any kid who sees that would want to run and hide....wait a minute! They should be out having a logical discussion if they disagree, not running and hiding. You seem to be contradicting yourself a little bit, and training kids to do just the opposite of what you claim they should be doing.

You have complained for 8 years that Republicans didn't work with President Obama, and yet now Democrats are already planning obstruction, even though they don't even know what he may propose. What does your attitude say about how you are affecting the kids you are teaching? When people said Obama wasn't their president, you felt they were wrong to do so. Yet now, what you're saying about Trump is even worse. It looks as though the pot was calling the kettle black.

Doug:
I'm only complaining about Trump's temperament at this point. No one (including Trump, I suspect) has any idea what he is "planning to do." So, this isn't about that. It isn't about Russians. It isn't about taxes. It isn't about policy, or claiming that Trump was born in Kenya. It is about arguing by insulting.

David:
And yet, all of the Democratic leaders have vowed to block anything Trump does, before they even know what his plans are. They plan to fight against all Supreme Court nominees, without Trump having named a nominee. They plan to fight against all of his cabinet nominees. (In a notable comedic round of questioning, Senator Kamala Harris, the freshman Democrat from California, badgered Mike Pompeo, the nominee to head the CIA, about how that agency would address climate change. Perhaps the Senator needs a refresher course on what it is the CIA does.) Even though Obamacare is failing under it's own rules (that were designed and passed by Democrats alone) they will fight any efforts to replace it with something better.

Doug:
But see, those kinds of points could lead to some interesting discussion. Why would the CIA be interested/concerned/knowledgeable about climate change?  And should we be interested in why the CIA is interested in climate change? Perhaps you trust the CIA to do whatever they want? Or perhaps you don't believe that the American people should be involved in that discussion? 

David:
And what's the EPA doing to combat Russian hacking? What's NASA doing about illegal immigration? For Pete's sake. How about we let agencies concentrate on their core missions, so they are actually effective at what they are supposed to be doing?

Doug:
Bait and switch! CIA? Now EPA? Keep 'em rolling, never stopping to actually answer. By the way, the "Democratic leaders" don't have a unified view on Trump. Some want to work with him on common areas, some don't want to legitimize him at all (much like what Republicans did to Obama). I, too, am wrestling with this dilemma, exactly because I am of afraid of his temperament. As I said, it isn't a policy issue. 

David:
Returning to your point about arguing with insults, I suppose calling everyone who supported Trump irredeemable deplorables was not insulting?

Doug:
Time will tell whether that insult it was warranted or not.

David:
So Clinton's insults towards a large swath of America are justified, but Trump's insults are petty and a sign of bad temperament? Perhaps a calculated and calmly delivered insult (rather than in a tweet) is just fine because it represents good temperament? Your statement sounds like ridiculous partisanship to me.

Doug:
Yes, please do compare any of the above Trump comments to Clinton's one statement in context (for which she apologized for). If you throw out enough details, anything can be anything. But my other even larger fear is: how can he engage other countries? Will he attempt to bully, rather than to have a deep discussion on the merits of an issue? This is the root of my fears over a Trump presidency.

David:
In case you haven't noticed, a great many of the countries engage each other via their militaries. Sitting at a table and discussing the issues is not how many countries settle their disagreements. Holding the big stick, and making sure everyone knows we will use it, is likely the best way to negotiate with Russia, North Korea, Iran, and China. As time has passed, we have found ourselves with fewer opportunities to negotiate with Russia and China, and more issues where we will face confrontation. This reality has come about because Obama talked, and talked, and talked, and then, talked some more. While you and I can discuss merits of an issue in our blog, when another country is making moves to militarily invade an ally of ours, discussion won't cut it. Having a President who will threaten the invader with military repercussions is the correct response.

Doug:
That is the opposite of the world I want to live in.

David:
I know. You live in a complete fantasy world. The world I describe is the one we actually live in. Obama offered up his views on how the world should work, and those views were repudiated in our last election, and in elections all over the globe. The world is a more volatile place because of Obama's actions. It's great to aspire to something better, but it isn't how it is. Maybe someday.

Doug:
I don't really understand why you would want to mock my desire to want to live in a peaceful world. I do agree that there has been worldwide movements to isolationist views, and lack of empathy for those seen as "other." But there are a great number of people in the world, and our country, who wish for better conversations without bullies in pulpits.

David:
I'm not mocking your desire to live in a better world. We all want a better world for our children. I'm just noting that you're making your argument as though that world existed right now. It doesn't. We've had eight years of conversations, and a majority of Americans in a majority of states rejected that course.

Doug:
Not a majority of people by nearly 3 million people. And I said "That is the opposite of the world I want to live in." Want. Desire. Wish. Work to make it that way.

David:
A majority of people in a majority of states is what the Electoral College is made of. The Presidency is not won by popular vote.

Let's at least let President Trump get inaugurated before you fail to give him an even shake. At the time of Teddy Roosevelt, the term Bully meant "excellent" or "first-rate".

Doug:
There was some blurring between two different ideas of the term "bully." From the 1897 Dictionary of Slang, Jargon, and Cant  :

Even then, the common meaning of the word was a "braggart". And from the 1922 "A Dictionary of English Phrases":

You can see that the two ideas are "swaggering heroic leader" and "forceful boasting, subjugator". This last example was from the time, right after Theodore Roosevelt's presidency, where the word was at its height of popularity:

Obviously, Trump is a braggart. My fear is the threatening and terrorizing aspects of Trump's bully persona.

David:
I'm not sure you understand what the word terrorizing means.  President Obama was never able to use the word to describe actual terrorists, but Trump's words and persona are somehow terrorizing? That is somewhat illustrative of the left's warped views of reality, I suppose. (Okay, now I'm kind of mocking you.)

Doug:
I was using the definition as used at the time of Roosevelt's election, and still in use today. See above: "(1.) a man who terrifies and threatens." Remember, I'm concerned about this meaning.

David:
Trump may yet surprise you. One way or another, I'm sure he'll surprise a lot of folks with his use of the bully-pulpit.

Doug:
Unless you have some belief that his temperament is going to change, I think you missed my complete and only point. But if his temperament does change, I'll be the first to welcome our new, non-bully president and look forward to thoughtful, engaging tweets. Place your bets.

Dave:
I don't think either of us has any expectation that a 70 year old billionaire CEO is suddenly going to change his personality, but that isn't the surprise I'm talking about.  Americans voted to get results rather than engaging tweets this past election. Trump is already producing results.  Teddy Roosevelt isn't on Mount Rushmore for being a braggart. He's there for getting results. That's how all presidents are ultimately measured.

Dogs versus Cats - Who's the Better Pet?

David:
Who's a better pet, a dog or a cat? What does your choice say about you? This week, I thought we'd look at some data on the subject.

Doug:
We have dogs and cats. But I'm always willing to talk data!

David:
If the question is who loves you more, a dog or a cat, here's a fun study that studied just that. Two neuroscientists measured the release of oxytocin, a marker for affection, from both dogs and cats after play time with their owners. The level of oxytocin increased 57% in dogs, but only 12% in cats. Dogs clearly exhibited more affection towards their owners than cats. At least cats showed some affection towards their owners, which does go against conventional wisdom.

Doug:
Perhaps cats don't need as much oxytocin to feel the love.

David:
Which is certainly possible, and a limitation of this small study. They are a different species, after all. But oxytocin is found across multiple species in similar fashions, which would argue they should respond in similar fashion.

If the question is which species is smarter, the data is more difficult to analyze (partly because researchers had difficulty working with cats). While dogs had larger brains by mass, cats have far greater neurons. Does that equate to intelligence?

"The research also showed cats and dogs can solve simple puzzles to get food, but when the puzzle is unsolvable, dogs will look to humans for help, whereas cats will keep trying.

This doesn't ultimately prove dogs are cleverer, just that their significantly longer interaction with humans (they were domesticated at least 20,000 years earlier than cats) grants them better social skills with humans."

What does your choice of pet reveal about you? Here's a discussion of research that found that dog owners are happier and more satisfied with their lives than cat owners.

"Another aspect of the study showed that dog owners are happier and more agreeable. But it was also found that life satisfaction level is higher in individuals who own any type of pet, whether a dog, cat, rabbit or even a guinea pig."

Doug:
Speaking of animal intelligence and neurons, I saw in the last month that scientists have trained an artificial neural network to look for patterns in bat behavior.  It appears that the machine learning system found that bats have a richer language than we ever thought. Turns out that bats argue a lot. Perhaps these learning system (which I study) might be able to discern languages in other species, like cats and dogs. Maybe they are telling us that they love us in words (well, cat-words and dog-words).

I have also seen research that suggests that people can form a close bond with a robot, just like the kind of bond that they would share with a cat or dog.

David:
Perhaps we should have bats as pets? Just make sure your rabies vaccinations are up to date. Some studies indicate you can get rabies just from being in the close vicinity of bats.

Doug:
Bats need better lobbyists.

David:
Which brings us into another tangential discussion. Why do we have pets? The obvious answer would be for companionship, but sometimes the obvious answer is not the correct one. This article, the-psychology-of-human-bonding-why-do-we-love-our-pets-so-much , theorizes our need for both companionship and a need for acceptance as a motivator for having pets.

Doug:
And they probably feel the same way about us, oxytocin levels not withstanding.

David:
Practicality may be more important in deciding which pet is right for you as well. You may want a dog, but live in a high-rise, and need a friend who is less maintenance. A pet who is self-contained may work best for you, like a bird or fish. I have both. In some aspects, birds are great. They can even talk back to you and mimic a great many words, and can learn to use certain words to get you to respond in certain ways.

Fish also can be trained to act in certain ways. If you've ever had a goldfish, you know that just turning on the lights or coming near the tank can trigger a pavlovian response. I had a black-moor goldfish in college that would come to the top of the tank and turn upside down so I could rub it's stomach. I've never encountered another fish that either showed the ability to do that, or a desire for human contact like that fish had.

Doug:
That reminds me of some of my human college roommates.

David:
Robots might be the ultimate in self-contained companionship. It doesn't need food or a litter box. It doesn't need someone to care for it when you're away. What does it say about you, if you prefer a robot over other pets?

Doug:
Sometimes real animals aren't an option. I have heard of hospitals using robots to get the same effects as dogs and cats without the hair and mess. You don't have to take them on a walk, but you do have to charge their batteries. Companionship is necessary, and can help quite a bit for the sick.

David:
Back to cats and dogs, here's a good discussion analyzing the studies that have been done:

psychologytoday.com  things-being-cat-person-or-dog-person-reveals-about-you

There has even been some research looking at whether owning a dog or cat may predict whether you're a conservative or progressive. (Since you own both dogs and a cat, it clearly shows your inner torment and struggle. There may be help for you, brother. Embrace your conservatism...) Maybe that's why Clifford was a big, red dog.

Doug:
Interesting research. Of course most people are a mix of conservative and progressive ideas. I love both my cat, and our dogs! Perhaps you need a cat around so that you don't feel so confined. And you might then want to join the Pussy Hat revolution! You'll need one for inauguration day!

http://ellenbloom.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-pussy-hat-project.html

Has the United Nations Outlived it's Usefulness?

David:
Much discussion has been ongoing during the past 2 weeks regarding the US abstention from the Israeli settlement resolution vote at the United Nations. Without delving too deep into that specific vote, has the UN become obsolete; a remnant of  World War II, or does it still serve some purpose?

Doug:
As a person who values world peace, the United Nations provides another place where diplomatic conversations can happen. Diplomatic conversations are good, and the U.N. is one place where we can have those often difficult conversations. So, no it has not outlived its usefulness and yes, it still serves a purpose.

David:
The United Nations was established during WWII to replace the largely ineffective League of Nations. The League was established after WWI specifically to provide a forum to prevent such a catastrophe from ever happening again. The idea for a coalition of nations to solve differences had been around for decades before then, but the first world war created an impetus for making it a reality.  But the limitations within the structure limited its effectiveness to the extent that only a few decades later, an even larger and more devastating world war broke out.

The charter for the UN is much more extensive than the League's guidelines. From it's website, The UN overview of it's mission:

Due to the powers vested in its Charter and its unique international character, the United Nations can take action on the issues confronting humanity in the 21st century, such as peace and security, climate change, sustainable development, human rights, disarmament, terrorism, humanitarian and health emergencies, gender equality, governance, food production, and more.

The UN also provides a forum for its members to express their views in the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, and other bodies and committees. By enabling dialogue between its members, and by hosting negotiations, the Organization has become a mechanism for governments to find areas of agreement and solve problems together.

But, has the UN really prevented any wars, or served the world in the way it was proposed? Has it outlived it's usefulness? Has it become too bloated with bureaucracy to function? Does it need to be replaced and remodeled, or should it simply be dissolved?

Doug:
I don't think we have had any World Wars since WWII, so I guess it has prevented all world wars since its creation. Why would anyone suggest that it should be dissolved? 

David:
We have not had a world war, but that isn't the same as preventing wars. The world has continually been at war since the creation of the UN.

If an organization spends a tremendous amount of money, without accomplishing it's stated goals, then something needs to change. For example, one of the most important bodies within the UN is the Human Rights Panel. Currently, Rwanda, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia are all members, and Saudi Arabia was vying to lead the panel despite it having one of the lowest rankings for human rights among the UN's members. That sounds a lot like 4 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. And that seems to be how many of the UN's agencies are set up; The worst offender from the year before becomes that agency's head the next year, because it's their turn.

Doug:
Many people (including me) would like for all countries to have excellent Human Rights scores. But this is a big project that will take many centuries, and will be a constant struggle. Why do I think it will take centuries? Because we need to come to some common agreements on what we all accept as basic human rights. Every country will need to become better, and perhaps change traditions that may have been in place for centuries. For example, even many Americans agree with the U.N. regarding the death penalty: it has no place in the 21st century. No government should be able to kill its citizens. But for that to change, it will take time.

David:
You do realize, of course, that the majority of countries in the UN routinely kill and imprison their citizens without trials. Placing these countries in charge of the Human Rights Commission is a ridiculous parody of striving for basic human rights.

Doug:
The goals of the U.N. can be a tough sell back at home, for any country. Why would any country want to give up any amount of sovereignty? Because, of course, we can make the world a better, peaceful world for all people.

One would think that losing money would be a driving influence in countries that have bad Human Rights records, and have some sort of sanction from the U.N. But for many countries, the citizens may not be aware of what they are losing, or their standard of living is so bad that the sanctions don't seem to make much of a difference anyway. But, if citizens of a country feel a substantial impact on their lives, then they may clamor for change.

David:
And end up dead, or worse. The UN General Assembly has become a political forum for petty dictators to attempt to improve their own lot. World peace is not their primary motivation.

Doug:
Can the United Nations operate more fairly, and more efficiently? Perhaps. But we need to take small steps towards where we want to be. Dissolving the single, working organization is not progress.

David:
There are portions of the UN that provide useful services, like the World Health Organization, which collects valuable information on emerging medical disasters, like ebola. But the majority of the organization is mired in feckless bureaucracy. A quick Google search of "UN corruption guilt" turned up just shy of seven million articles.

I believe it was you, in our last blog, who predicted that within the next year we'd see WWIII. I believe you, along with many liberal pundits voiced the opinion that this would occur not because President Trump would start a war, but that he would inadvertently cause Russia or China to start a war. This is certainly a bold prediction if the UN is as effective as you say. If a major war could start that easily, the UN is, by default, totally ineffective.

Doug:
I did not predict WWIII within a year. And I never said anything about Russia or China. So, no I did not make any "bold predictions." I also said that the United Nations is useful. But I do believe that Trump could start a major war easily, and that there is nothing the UN could do to stop that. But that does not make the organization "totally ineffective."

David:
"Doug: Nuclear proliferation? World war? Increased harassment of minorities? Increase in pollution? Decreased funding in federal science initiatives? Heightened aggression against predominately Muslim countries? Erosion of the press? Collapse of public education? Incompetence in the Trump administration leading to unexpected consequences? Scary times ahead."

The UN is a good idea, poorly implemented. Corruption and bureaucracy have rendered it as effective as a high school debate. Lots of talk, without much action. Or, in the case of Israel, a great number of anti-semitic players, whose goal is the complete annihilation of Israel and all jews, to pass resolutions at the highest levels of the UN, while Russia is bombing hospitals and schools across Syria. Genocide continues within African countries without comment. And the worst offenders of human rights can head the Human Rights Commission. It will take longer than centuries, brother. It will never happen. If the bullies run the playground, don't expect the bullies to vote themselves out of power any time soon. And if a new world war could be so easily initiated,  as you suggest, then the UN's basic premise for existing is null and void.

Doug:
You've just described all governments. But the U.N. is the best organization we currently have. Can it be made better? Yes, it can be made much better. 

David:
I think we can agree that if the UN worked as it was promised to work, we'd both support it. Some might say it is better than nothing. I doubt you'd hear that from Israelis, who are under attack within the UN by countries whose goal is jewish genocide. And those countries get a pass on their own actions. Perhaps the threat from the US to withhold some funding might be the impetus for reforms that would actually make it a better organization. As it stands, it has no accountability, except to it's members, with the majority of those being repressive dictatorships. Democracies make up a minority of members, (and China and Russia are both counted as "democracies" in that list). 

Doug:
We don't just want an organization that will make Israel happy; we want the entire world to be happy. This will take a long time, and continued pressure.