Many people believe that membership in and involvement with international regimes — such as The United Nations or, for European states, the European Union — involves an abdication of sovereignty. Whereas this is technically true, in actuality states do not actually give up their sovereignty as they theoretically should.
A state’s sovereignty is jealously guarded by the state’s government and people. There is a fear, some of it not unjustified, that giving up sovereignty, especially giving it up to someone or something, will open the doors of exploitation and slavery. Read the rest of this entry »
Michael did say one thing that irked me quite a bit: he said (emphasis added):
I think the fear of Muslims in America is unfounded, and racist.
How on earth is fear of Muslims or Islamophobia or whatever-you-want-to-call-it racist? Islam is not a race; Muslims do not make up a race. Muslims are South Asian, African, Europen, American, and even Oriental. I’m sorry, but calling it racist is plain wrong.
I have only heard Muslims and Islamists whine that anti-Islamic feeling is racist. If those are to whom Michael is listening, then we have lost Michael from the beginning.
Michael of Innocent Bystanders wrote a thought-provoking comment-post (technically, no one there posts: they all comment): Media Bias Against Muslims? In it, he quotes “Media Coverage of Muslims Bombs” by Lorraine Ali of Newsweek.
Now, I want to get this out of the way: I was little shocked to see Michael post such a post-comment. But this post-comment provides for me an excellent example of an otherwise well-meaning, erudite, educated, and admirable person may come to see the situation in a way that might not be entirely accurate. I don’t blame Michael for how he sees things, even though I see things in quite a different way. Read the rest of this entry »
Strange is it not that it seems that according to Leftists and other countries, every country is sovereign except for The United States. Leftists and other countries are constantly demanding that we not exercise exclusive control over issues pertaining to our sovereignty (examples of which are controling our borders, laws and policies concerning non-citizens, laws and policies concerning immigration, laws and policies concerning domestic threats to national security).
When it comes to American policy regarding other countries, national sovereignty is touted as a fundamental and even sacred right unto each country, the violation of which, to any degree, would be an abomination (and this extends to any criticism America may have concerning other countries and their policies); when it comes to American policies regarding its own issues, our national sovereignty becomes a hiss and a byword.
When America wants to comment or act regarding another state’s actions or policies, the world demands that America mind its own business. But then America’s business is held to be everyone’s business except America’s.
Going along my “use Mexico rather than China” line, using Mexico would be strategically beneficial for The United States. The less we depend on China, the more China will need us and our good will towards them. By swaying the balance in our favor, we will be able to negotiate better deals with China in addition to being able to force the Chinese government to make necessary civil rights reforms. Right now, because we need China as bad as China needs us, we ignore the Chinese government’s atrocities.
Another aspect is geopolitical. (Here I hope Geoff will help me out.) Read the rest of this entry »
Inspired by S. Weasel‘s post, “Elderly Aussies build clandestine drug labs“.
S. Weasel is an atheist: he does not believe in God. Whereas some time ago I would assume that this meant that he would be pro-choice and whatnot, as many “emancipated” people are wont to be, I have learned from atheists and agnostics on the dexteroblogosphere that it is just as likely that he would be pro-life. Read the rest of this entry »