Duffbert's Random Musings

1 - Matthew 11:17 New King James Version

First, the people groups in this region of the world have been fighting for what......4,000 years or so? I don't think there is ANYTHING western nations can do to broker peace. There are reports in the media about the disproportionate number of deaths. But is that really the issue? See this link, you'll have to scroll about halfway down to the Keeping Things in Proportion heading.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008675

As for gas prices, those are affected by several things. Primarily, the price of oil, which is driven by speculative bidding in the futures market. This market is in itself driven by world events. Anything that could affect supply (wars and rumors of war) drives the cost per barrel up. Anything that could bring stability (increases in output), bring the price down. Likewise, the price of gas is affected as suppliers hedge their bets against rising prices.

According to the US Dept of Energy the price of a gallon of gas is proportioned like this:

58% Crude Oil
20% Federal, State and Local Taxes
15% Refining
8% Distribution and Marketing

So, 78% of the price of gas comes from something that can't be controlled by the gas companies. I blame the speculators and futures market traders for the drastic run up in barrel prices.

2 - Uh-oh, the universe may be about to implode! Chris and I agree on something (UN reform - and we also agree that Syria probably has some very interesting Saddam memorabilia lying around somewhere...)! Look out, Duffbert, 'cause your blog is hosting the merger of matter and anti-matter... Heh...

btw Tom, does "turning this blog around" mean we'd have to get mirrors to read it, a la DaVinci?!?

3 - They added 10% ethanol to gas everywhere since that summer.

4 - I apparently touched a nerve here... :) Bonus goes to Skip and Greg...

Just to make my position clear... I back Israel's right to defend herself. The reaction has been hard and agressive, but given the history it doesn't surprise me. I wish there were a better way to resolve the matter, but I really can't blame them.

And I really *don't* think the US should be the one brokering a peace deal... Involved? I think we have no choice there. But as the main peacekeeping force? No. What we've done in that region over the last decade has polarized opinion, and I don't believe we could be viewed as an impartial party in the proceedings...

5 - Well, good job on that Tom!

Rob, it appears there may be a vergence in the force because of that!!

6 - OK, so the UN has it's HQ in North America. You have to admit it puts them in an odd geographic location far from where UN aids are dispatched for world issues. There isn't too much the UN needs to be involved with on this side of the globe. But it's NYC and that's where they want to be. Whatever. Their existence should inspire negative reaction from everyone. Ever hear of the oil for food scandal? I still stick with "owe" on our debt to them. What have they done for us except back out of DOING anything in the Middle East. We wouldn't be in Iraq today if Bush 41 didn't kowtow to UN demands to not invade Baghdad in 1991. And they allow inhumane countries to be on their councils. They let Sudan be on their Human Rights commission. SUDAN!!! Oh and let us not forget about how members of the security council were in bed with Hussein. They were all talk before the US got serious in 2002/3. Then France and Germany backed out because of their ties to Iraq.

Oh, and lest we think the current administration just wanted to go to Iraq for kicks, don't forget Clinton's policy from 1998 that Bush 43 inherited and had to implement.

http://cwhisonant.blogspot.com/2005/09/iraq-policy-since-1998.html

Instead of asking me why we hate the UN so much, could you give me a reason that we SHOULD like them? It's not the existence of some type of global "police" that we don't like. So their "mission statement" shouldn't be your reason to like them. It's the UN that really bothers us and the security council's ineffectiveness at enforcing the "rules". I put rules in quotes because if they aren't enforced then they are meaningless and worthless. No government is perfect, but the UN has really fallen to pieces.

7 - @17 Topic? There's a topic we're supposed to be discussing? Damn, I knew I was missing something... Seriously? I'm not sure what the UN (or anyone) can really DO about the Middle East - it's one heck of a problem. The last time it blew up, a few years ago, I semi-seriously suggested to some friends that we should apply 3-year-old logic: if nobody in the region could share their toys (read: Jerusalem), the rest of the world should take them away (turn the various holy sites into international land, owned by no-one) until the children grow up. I also suggested giving the Palestinians Montana (or South Dakota or some mostly empty state) so they could have their own country and stop picking fights with the Israelis. Absurd? Yeah. So's the whole mess.

@18 Sure, but did Halliburton lose millions upon millions of dollars of those contracts under the Clinton administration? No. So my reasoning is entirely valid. And you're the one who keeps dragging this into a debate about Iraq and the Bush administration. And we absolutely were NOT going there, but now that you have (I have a New Years' Resolution to not allow FUD, be it political or technological, to go unchallenged):

WMD?!?! You MUST be joking. We've foung NOTHING. And don't bring up those pathetic little caches of sarin gas left over from the Iran/Iraq war - they only become WMD with a delivery vehicle, and there aren't any. We went into Iraq looking for NUKES! Oh, and 50% of the American public has ALWAYS believed there were WMD in Iraq. 50% of the American public believed Saddam was directly responsible for 9/11 as recently as last year, for cryin' out loud! 50% of the American public would believe the moon was made of cheese if they heard it on TV often enough...

My proposal for the UN? First of all, eliminate the Security Council vetoes wielded so obnoxiously by Russia, China AND the US. Maybe require 2/3 or 3/4 or something, but no single country should be able to veto something the rest agree with. Second, send an ambassador who doesn't want to eliminate the UN entirely (Bolton is a jerk who can't get along with anyone else, which is a pretty silly description for the guy in one of the most important diplomatic positions in our country, but the *problem* is that he doesn't want the system to succeed - you don't give a difficult problem to someone who wants to fail). Third, require a UN version of Sar-Box (it makes life miserable in IT, but the sound business controls it mandates *should* be mandatory in governments - and I'd *LOVE* to see it applied to our own...). Fourth, separate all of the non-PeaceKeeping missions of the UN (various humanitarian, medical, or educational programs) into a different organization: focus, focus, focus.

Where's YOUR constructive proposal to fix the UN? Lots of people complain about it, but I don't hear a lot of suggestions for alternatives to it or proposals to make it better.

8 - You know... I try to contribute to the blogosphere... I try to do insightful posts. And it seems the only time I generate significant comment activity is on my throw-away observations on world events... :)

9 - *sigh* I was trying to avoid this. But since you won't drop the phrase "oil for food scandal" I guess I have no choice:

I find it not even remotely surprising that the UN wasted and lost and gave away boatloads of money. I also find it not even remotely surprising that the US government repeatedly does the same. I consider "oil for food" to be roughly on par with BushCo awarding multiple no-bid contracts to Halliburton, and then not noticing that Halliburton has "lost" millions and millions of dollars. The US government wastes my tax dollars all the time - google "bridge to nowhere" for one of my favorites, or look up another much closer to home: Boston's atrocious Big Dig (they ought to have named it Big Money-Sucking Fiasco, and that's from a Massachusetts Democrat). Governments waste money. They throw it away so fast the corrupt politicians can barely stick it down their pants fast enough. The UN is not a government, technically, but it is certainly full of politicians. There is no such thing as a non-corrupt politician.

Oil for food? It's not surprising. It's the norm. Is it a good thing? Hell, no. Is Congress' addiction to pork spending a good thing? Hell, no. Is Bush 43's refusal to veto any pork a good thing? Hell, no. Conservatives used to hate pork spending, but they've managed to raise that game to new levels of ridiculousness in the past several years. Yep, my tax dollars at work. I'm a cynic about politicians and governments. Now do you understand why I'm not impressed with the use of the phrase "oil for food scandal" as though it were some sort of holy water and the UN were a vampire (I'm sure you'll like the blood-sucking undead image applied to the UN, no?)?

10 - This is one of the few times I have agreed with him. Hizbollah picked a fight they had no chance in winning at this time and now they have to pay the price for their misjudgement. Israel isn't like the United States. They already know that none of their neighbors like them and they won't hesitate to use for to defend themselves or their interests. And I totally agree that they should decide whether or not they want the US involved in their region of the world.

Sean---

11 - I usually steer well clear of these discussions, but does anyone else think that the US going in is a really really BAD idea? Surely George has learned that going in alone without UN backing is just dumb.

Get the UN over there with a large contingency (with power) and start to broker peace deals on both sides. Then stay the hell there, and assist on infrastructure improvements ASAP in Lebannon. Get the people to appreciate and see the help being given by the UN, and to thank them for helping. If the see an engineering corp assisting after the guns have stopped firing, they *may* see sense in the peace.
As for misjudgement and "paying the price". .. there are a lot of innocent people paying the price over there. I believe over 200 dead on the Lebannon side with 29 from Isreal.

12 - I'm being nice pops! ;) Just having some friendly conversation.

Where to start?

Sarin + Water = BAD NEWS no real delivery mechanism (missile/warhead) needed for that.

Sarin + Food = BAD NEWS (again, no delivery mechanism needed)

If you're looking for his weapons, I suggest we send our military over to Syria. Though they've probably redistributed the ones Saddam send over prior to our invasion since he was given ample alert.

Actually, the "50% believe there were WMD poll" was just from a couple of days ago. That number was up from 36% last year.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060724-110410-8309r.htm

Or the media just didn't care about Halliburton under Clinton... Halliburton didn't change so if they "lost" money under Bush they probably did under Clinton.

I like your ideas about the UN and I like the South Dakota idea too (although the South Dakotans might not!) But in all seriousness your UN proposals do sound pretty good. I was going to suggest that we just disband the UN and go back to the league of nations... But I think reform would be a good start.

13 - Paul, that would be wonderful if the UN would get off its butt and actually do something!

But the UN is antiquated and useless. The only UN involvement in the atrocities of the terrorism in that region is that they had their resolution 1559 and other written "mandates".

http://www.mideastweb.org/1559.htm

And how many resolutions were there regarding Iraq? 14? And Saddam shirked ALL of them without caring. Why, you ask? Because the UN was fluff and he knew that they would do nothing to him. That is precisely why the US, Great Britain, and many others decided to enforce the resolutions that the UN failed to enforce. A "large contingency" of the UN now consists of Kofi's motorcade driving around New York City...

It may not be quite that bad, but you get the idea. UN passes a resolution that they never enforce when it's violated. It's just ridiculous. And what would the UN be without the US? "We pay 22% of its regular budget, and about 27% of its peacekeeping costs."

http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/rm/2004/39496.htm

14 - Strangely, I have to agree with Chris on this one.

The UN has become pretty much ineffective at best and a complete organizational joke at worst. As it stands, their action policy pretty much consists of the following:

1. Pass resolution condeming activity
2. State, "Stop doing this....see resolution XXXXX"
3. Be ignored (not just by the US - see Iraq under Saddam, Quadaffi in Libya, Sudan, Bosnia, Darfur, pick one)
4. State, "I said STOP!"
5. Be ignored
6. Repeat at Step 1

That's why the UN is ineffective.

And I'll echo Chris's point about their membership. How in the WORLD did China end up on the Human Rights Committee?? Are they trying reverse psychology on China? Doubt it. Most of the world views the UN as the crazy old codger that lives at the end of the street, "Don't mind him, he yells a lot, but he won't do anything to you...he's harmless."

15 - "PS Oil for food? Again? Not interested or impressed."

So you don't care that b/millions of your tax dollars were funneled through the UN's corruption. WOW! I think that says it all...

16 - Umm, Bill Clinton awarded no-bid contracts to Halliburton too. So that line of reasoning isn't valid. I'm not sure of any other company that could have done the work (or even that wanted to). But I'm glad you're still on the talking points from the 2004 presidential race. Oh, what about WMD (since we're going there)? We've found 500 in Iraq and over 50% of the public now believe that WMD were in Iraq (according to the same polls cited for Bush hatred). There goes another talking point against the war...

Anyway, what do YOU propose we do with the UN? Keep going on the current track? If we both agree that there are issues with the UN, then what needs to be done?

17 - Matthew 11:17

18 - @9 - Dave, I'm extremely glad that we're not paying everything we "owe". Have you heard of the "oil for food" scandal? I'm glad that 1.3 BILLION less is at the UN thanks to us. And I think we should force the UN to move its HQ from NYC to somewhere in Africa or the Middle East where the UN leadership can do the most good. The world problems that the UN is supposed to be solving are all centered in that region. They should setup their base of operations there to be closer to where they can help the most.

"Proportionate response" - let me ask you what a "proportionate response" should be to centuries of Islamic fascism aimed to destroy Israel? We're not just talking about a single incident, but centuries of violence from both sides. Resolutions mean nothing here - that's my point!! Peace treaties didn't stop WWII from beginning and they won't stop the violence in the Middle East. When the State of Israel was re-established last century, that really set off the violence against them.

Can you name a UN treaty Israel is ignoring? I'm just curious.

19 - @Duffbert,

Send over 10 Exchange guys and 10 Notes/Domino guys. Tell them that peace goes to the team that can deliver a secure, robust and scalable messaging and application infrastructure.

Who needs guns?

20 - Um, Chris, Israel is famous for ignoring UN resolutions (as opposed to treaties, which to my knowledge they are no more or less likely to ignore than others). Rather than citing ones they ignore, the challenge would be to find any (aimed at them) they do not ignore. Of course, since the US vetoes most resolutions critical of Israel, there is a much larger list of anti-Israel resolutions that have been vetoed than ones that have been passed and subsequently ignored.

I confess to an absolute fascination with the hatred American conservatives have for the UN. You say that you're glad we're billions behind on our dues (please don't put the word owe in quotations, because it implies the debt does not exist - it very clearly and factually does, regardless of whether either of us is happy about it), and you wish the UN would leave NY. I have a hard time figuring out how the UN would be more effective if it were located in a different region, but would you truly be happy with them if they moved somewhere else? What do you want the UN to do, exactly? Would you only be satisfied with a UN that did exactly what the US said to do? Or one where everyone else in the world paid dues but we were exempt? Do you want the UN to be an "everybody but the US" organization, where we aren't even a member? Do you want the UN to be eliminated, and if so how do you propose to fill the role they currently have? Do you want the US to take over the world and enforce American laws everywhere? Do you want the US to have to play global policeman all by ourselves? Do you think the world doesn't need any such policing (and if so, well, questions about the past few decades of US foreign policy, much of it dominated by the GOP, abound)?

I'm entirely serious, and I'd love a serious answer: why does the very existence of the UN inspire such strong negative emotions in American conservatives?

I'm not interested in debating the (in)effectiveness of the UN, btw, or its relative proclivity for scandals. Similar negative statements can be made about every American administration in history, most definitely including the current one (and the previous one, as I'm sure you will agree). In fact, if anyone can name a major government that has *not* had its share of scandals and was universally acknowledged as effective, I'll be very surprised (for the "Mussolini made the trains run on time" fans, I'm going to make a preemptive strike: the temporary success of fascism itself was a major scandal, and the fact that fascist and communist governments stifle reporting of scandals does not mean they don't exist...).

21 - Wow, that's an interesting world view. Watch Faux News much? Yowza. I'm not going to debate politics with you - clearly you are very far to the right and equally clearly I am not, so for us to argue about the reasons for the mess in Iraq or the fact that the UN allows both Sudan and the US (currently an "inhumane" regime per Amnesty Internation and the International Red Cross - witness Abu Ghraib and Guantanimo Bay) to sit on plenty of committees would be at best counterproductive, at worst an ugly flamewar.

I think you should check your facts, though. The UN is in NYC because they were invited by the US. The US agreed to pay dues, and we have not done so. Those two items aren't debatable, or quotable, or arguable. You don't have to like them. But pretending they aren't facts is like pretending the world is flat - it doesn't exactly increase the effectiveness of your arguments.

Ultimately, my question wasn't why you don't *like* the UN, it was why you *hate* it. The strength of the negative emotion the right wing of the GOP aims at the UN is amazing. The UN is right up there with abortion and evolution in terms of the violent reaction provoked, and I just don't get it. The abortion and evolution issues are tightly would up with religion, so I'm not at all surprised that people get would up about them. The UN? It's a well-meaning, occasionally-effective meta-governmental organization with an unbelievably difficult job. From your last paragraph, it sounds like you think the UN has become a second League of Nations (closed down specifically because it was ineffective and its resolutions could not be enforced in any way, which caused the creation of the UN with explicit authority for peacekeeping forces). That would be unfortunate (I say "would be" because I don't happen to agree that the UN is *that* bad at what they try to do), certainly, but it can't be the reason for hatred - mild annoyance, maybe, but not hatred.

PS Oil for food? Again? Not interested or impressed.

22 - I've heard no-one in the Dutch or English media asking for the US to send a force in, but a UN force has been mentioned regularly. It WOULD help if the US would help the UN broker a deal, if only to show that the US government was looking at both sides, and not just kow-towing to Israel as usual.
For sure, Hezbollah was not only stupid but criminal in kidnapping two soldiers and firing rockets, but what Israel is doing bears no relation whatsoever to self defence or proportionate response. It is very close to murder now.
Oh, and Chris Whisonant - a couple of points.
Please don't talk about the US and UK enforcing UN resolutions. How many resolutions does Israel currently ignore, and how many has it happily ignored in the recent past? If resolutions were the sole criteria for starting a war (as you seem to imply) we'd have been in Israel long before Iraq!
How much do "you" pay to the UN? Roughly half what "you" promised. I think at the last count, the US owed the UN around $1300 million. That would fund an awful lot of operations...

23 - Play nice, everyone...

Don't make me turn this thread around... :)

24 - Hey...back on topic kids....

I personally LIKE oil, and sometimes vinegar, on my food, but we could go on about that for ages...and my doctor would get mad at me, etc, etc, etc...

ANYWAY, back to the other argument points...so, Israel is so bad for ignoring UN resolutions/declarations/etc. Has it occurred to anyone that Hez, his, huz - something - bollah started this recent little sand party? They waited until Hamas was bothering Israel to get in on it with their own little terrorist activities. Now, Iran (through their mentally unstable leader) is stating that:

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=9187ed75-f23e-4af1-ae3c-aeedc6304865

"Israel is doomed to Destruction"

Sounds to me like Israel needs a friend since all their neighbors are calling for their utter destruction. And we all KNOW the UN won't actually do anything except wring their hands and issue harmless resolutions.

oh, and by the way.......I also like oil on my salads...but I guess that's a food.