Why shouldn’t we know? If it is that bad shouldn’t we be told the reason that it is rather than a bunch of kabuki? What would happen if the U.S. doesn’t adopt? To us probably no more or less than if it had passed. However, since it has been said that it is modeled after our ADA (which I don’t know. I read most of the treaty and it is mostly just legal mumbo jumbo saying that people with disabilities have the same rights as those that have no disabilities. Our ADA says that we need handicapped access and such which I didn’t read in the treaty.) then not ratifying seems to say that we don’t approve of our own laws and would seem to tell other countries that it isn’t valid or should be used or strived for.
When I said conspiracy theories and abortion and home schooling I meant that they are all shadowy excuses and not a reason.
I imagine we could learn all of the reasons that folks did not vote in favor of it but I would assume they are varied and some of them I would wager are pretty silly reasons. If I were a Senator and could vote I would not have voted in favor of it. However, my objects are simply the moral ambiguity that I believe defines the UN regarding Human and Women's rights. I wish that we were a more powerful force at the UN in addressing this but at this point we are not.
I don't see it as we don't approve of our own laws but rather a disagreement with the body (UN) offering this treaty. That would be my reason and not a reflection on what others think.
So, then we should not try to do anything that can improve the U.N. because they are backward on some things? Wouldn’t us agreeing that people with disabilities have the rights of others be a GOOD thing to get the UN agreeing to? Wouldn’t it also seem also that since the U.S. doesn’t want to sign on the excuse for others to not agree to it as well?
We should try to do things, yes, and I believe we are in someway. I know that Amb. Rice has caught a great deal of flak but she has not been gravely ineffective. I don't see it as giving others coverage to not sign on when one considers that our ADA and Civil Rights Laws already extend to meet what is being expressed. I would say in this instance we are more of a vanguard for human rights than we give ourselves credit.
Congress can work on more than one thing at a time. If your theory was correct then why did the Republicans in the house spend so much time on abortion bills (more than 30) and other things that have no hope of passing the Senate? I don't think it does anything good OR BAD for the American people. It is for other countries improvement, and I wonder why some think that would be a bad thing.
True. The House spent a great deal of time on ignorant legislation, that's a given. That said, they did pass a budget. Why send bills to the Senate that have no chance of passing? Politics, plain and simple, IMO. It gave some house members the ability to return to there district and say, "hey, look what I did". Which was not much except waste time, money and continue to drive a social wedge between much of the American people.
I don't see it as a good thing to hope other countries become more "humane". Having said that we also have items that we could address that, IMO, if we wanted to work towards "humanity" issue we could and it would have a greater impact. Consider our treatment of prisoners and the manner in which we prosecute drug crimes.
Again the budget thing. I see no point in talking about it. Things changed from the last hostage taking. One is that Obama learned that he can't start with an offer that the other side SHOULD agree to and have it moved even more to the right. Second he is refusing to do the work of the R’s. Last time they said “what cuts do you offer” and asked more after. This time he said no way and told R’s they had to come up with the cuts they want to see instead. The only thing that is absolutely clear is that the R’s apparently will do anything to keep tax increases from happening to the rich, even eliminate tax cuts for the rest to get it as they DID vote before. Frankly I am tired of all the fiscal cliff” crap. It isn't a cliff. It is an agreed bill with the R’s. All taxes go up and cuts happen to a lot of places including the military. That is the rub though, cuts are good until it is the bloated military. So, I say let the taxes go up and the cuts happen just like the R’s agreed to. It will slow the economic growth, but if cuts are that damned important, then they will happen come Jan 1.Most on the right complain abundantly that FF is hyper partisan, abrasive, and insulting as well as closed minded. They hate him. The problem is that MT has a group of individuals equal to what they hate and refuse to see it. And it isn't one person but many. Frankly, from the right you are the exception and I really don't see you as a moderate. I see a Republican of the late 70’s that one can work with. I suppose that the bigger problem is that even nationally those like you appear to be an extreme minority and those that are the rights version of FF the vast majority. How can one expect that they will work in Washington when the same hate and intolerance is here and refuses? I suppose part is that I have been here a few more days than you and have seen the decline in civility and the increase in “my way or the highway”.To be honest I have no stake in it. I have been technically handicapped since I was 8 but never claimed it. I tried to live as a “normal” person until it wore me out to far, and still I do not choose to call myself handicapped. My grandson is autistic which is handicapped, but I don’t see it changing anything for him.. for good OR bad. However, can opposing agreement to the treaty that we negotiated send the message that we don’t think other countries should be like us?
But we do have a stake in this, all of us. I believe the bill that was passed and would begin in January was something neither group really wanted. I believe the Senate Republicans signaled this over the summer when they agreed to raise tax rates on those making over 250,000.00 having said that I also believe if the cuts occur it will have a negative impact on all of us. Couple the possibility of a slowdown with the fact that we have over 47 million citizens already receiving assistance and the knowledge that 73% of the new hires in employment since July have been government employees (Fed, State, Local) along with our 16 Trillion deficit, to me it places us on an unsustainable path and it is troublesome.
The major issue in politics, IMO, is the name calling and the very "absolute" positions taken. That one side is good and one is bad is ignorant and corrosive. Have you ever read the book, A National Party No More by Zell Miller? If not you should take a look at it. I find it a great expression of my feelings about politics. This isn't all that new but has grown worse. In my opinion it began to be corrosive on a personal level thanks to Lee Atwater and has gotten worse. Over the last few years the Sal Alinski book Rules For Radicals has gotten a great deal of "play" in the media but the truth is that there is some truth to it. In his book he wrote that one needs to define the enemy in the terms you wish others to see them and that once you sell this narrative then they (the enemy) spends all there time trying to change that instead of trying to work for solutions. This really is nothing different than what was done to Gov. Dukakis. Sure he was left leaning but that was already known. But one ad was put out that made him look "soft" and boom . . . he spent all his time trying to change that perception. Remember when he did the photo op in a tank? I see the difference now as being it has filtered down to the average voter that is interested in politics and that is where it is not only wrong but ignorant and divisive.
Consider that you rarely see elected officials speak in terms of working with others. It always seems snarky, judgemental or "I'm right, there wrong" and that is just fantasy. Do you remember when Chuck Schumer did a press conference regarding the "Bush Tax Cuts" and he held up a muffler and sitting beside him was a Lexus. His argument was that someone making 40,000.00 a year would get enough of a tax cut to purchase a muffler and someone making 1,000,000.00 a year would get enough to buy a Lexus. OK, but that person making 1,000,000.00 pays a hell of a lot more in taxes, no? It's the visual, the rhetoric, the venom of it that is wrong.
I think we have grown to the point that words are losing power. Hate is such a horrible word but it gets used like window dressing and this will not benefit anyone. What we need, IMO, is not only a change in business of politics but an end to the money involved. Corporate funding, Union Funding and Individual Donor funding needs to either be capped or eliminated. Until guys like Jim DeMint can be as venomous as he has yet leave for a 1,000,000.00 a year job nothing will change. I also think we need to learn to be adults again.
And again the budget Let’s go off the cliff… sequester won’t help because those at the top can’t control the rest. Primarily Boehner can’t control the teas that refuse any compromise. If Obama agrees to Ss cuts then he loses Dems. I don’t see the big deal. Let the cliff happen. Cuts agreed to by R’s happen, tax increases happen. Life will go on.
I found nothing that gives the U.N. control over anyone. Those agreeing say that they will work toward laws (however they are made in the respective countries) to make the handicapped have the same rights as anyone else. Really not much more than that. Nothing I saw about wheelchair access or anything like that. Just the rights of everyone else. If something like that makes the UN worse.
You have to be supportive of Speaker Boehner's removal of many of the Tea Party folks from leadership roles. It is a start, good for him. Both sides are going to have to upset the base and do so for the benefit of the entire country, IMO. Pres. Obama is in a great position at this point as he will not be on another ballot. Be the leader he promised and offer cuts across the board. Here is an idea; lets just freeze federal spending for a three years (excluding natural disasters and God forbid a war), increase all taxes on all income levels by two percent and then reassess after twenty-four months. Simple, reasonable and would never happen because it will not give the polar sides the cross to bear to the voters, IMO, and that is the real problem.
Instead what we get are always, "side shows" and rhetoric that is undefined and, IMO, divisive. The thing that I remain confused about is the "fair share" argument. Can it just be defined, already, ya know. How much should any person or corporation pay in taxes? 40%, 50%, 60%? We don't know. I read an article from LA Times that discussed the tax increases there and anyone making 250,000.00 or more will pay between 52 - 58% in taxes between Federal, State, Local, FICA, SSI and so on. That seems pretty crazy to me. Do these folks make "good money"? Sure but then again . . . they work for it. I had a friend in college (Jason Dunn) that got drafted by the Phil. Eagles and in his first year he made over 300,000.00. Good money. But in talking with him when he came back to Richmond for a visit one of the things he talked about was that while he made "good money" he also paid federal taxes, State taxes (KY) (like the rest of us) but then had to pay city / municipal taxes in every place the team played (preseason included). His argument was that "yeah, I make good money but I pay out more than what you know". I won't defend the wealthy but I will listen to the argument and see if it has merit.
Consider that for me, just this year I had to cash out a retirement plan to pay off some bills left over from my divorce. While it is great that I had this plan to do so it was not a "pre tax" plan so I had already paid taxes on that amount before placing it in the plan. Cashing it out I then had to pay the Federal and State taxes and will also pay a 20% penalty because I took it out early. Not being a wealthy guy, hell right now I find myself looking for work, that is frustrating. Partly because the tax code benefits the wealthy as they can hire the right accountants and so on. But partly because I wonder, "just how much is a fair share for Uncle Sugar".
I don't believe this treaty makes the UN worse. I think it could be a good thing. I also don't believe that it gives the UN any control over the US. My issues have been and will remain the hypocrisy within the UN and I hope we work to address that in the future.