I just returned from Manhattan where I talked with a tutor about how to go about applying and getting into grad school. And, it turns out that he was worth every penny. A lot of his advice was quite different from the stuff I got from the career counseling office, and have heard from various contacts in other colleges. Now, this might mean that his methods are bologna; conversely, it might mean that he’s an actual professional. Since everything he talked about seemed a lot more organized and efficient then the advice I’d previously gotten, I’m going to be following his outline from here out.
So currently, I'm hanging out in this great little place called the "Tea Lounge". Decent music, young people, lots of caffeine, but it's still the anti-Starbucks. I think I'll be coming back here. Anyway, since it's a nice hangout, there's *free* wireless and it doesn't reek of pretension and overpriced, prepackaged yuppie bullcrap, I decided to settle down and check out www.anncoulter.com for my daily does of hypertension.
As always, that deranged Aryan lovechild delivers up deep-fried crazy with a touch of desperate paranoia and inchoate rage. I guess the reason I try to read her material is that if I can understand where she’s coming from, I can get into the mind of maybe 20% of the really virulent conservatives. Then again, she can’t stop going on about how liberals want to “surrender to the terrorists”. Does that even make sense? Does wanting to direct US resources towards rebuilding our infrastructure and education system mean surrender? After all, how the hell does invading Iraq help defend the US? Is it really possible for a pack of anti-modernist, fundamentalist twerps with a hard-on for the Apocalypse to destroy the US? I mean, Falwell took his best shot at sending us back to the 1700s, and while he assembled a significant following, he didn’t really manage much more then infringing Roe v Wade and getting Kansas to pass a few anti-evolution provisions which were struck down within a year.
That brings me to another tangent; everyone talks about how uninspired and inactive the American people are; how they never jump out of their chairs and storm the halls of power. I have an alternate theory: The American people are quite active; they’re just very focused on a limited set of goals. We like the idea of the future; we just don’t want it to arrive too soon. The Internet’s pretty amazing; let’s see what we can do with that for a while, the space station can wait. We like our kids knowing more about the world then we did. After all, if they don’t, they’re not going to get a very good job, and that’s just not acceptable. Also, if our kids don’t learn anything, they just aren’t going to turn out to be very interesting people, and while familiarity is nice, boring isn’t a quality we want to associate with our children. We also like knowing our daughters are going to live a life they enjoy. We like knowing that no matter how bad that boyfriend of hers is, if he ever thinks about hitting her, she can just leave him. And if the fucker lies about wearing a condom and gets her pregnant, she’s not going to be forced into a position she never wanted. Also, no matter how much people bash on materialism, owning a nice house and a fancy car is a pretty nice feeling, at least, it’s a damn sight better then owning a mud hovel and a grumpy camel. Anyway, enough about this, let’s go to something that’s actually a source of contention.
Back to Ann Coulter: She believes that the only way to stop the terrorists is to monitor Americans for treason, bomb brown people to punish them for their assumed sins, and make sure the entire world fears and respects us, because otherwise, they’ll tear us apart. Sadly, none of these ideas make us safer. Monitoring Americans for treason is, well… un-American. And this isn’t bad just because it violates our constitution; it’s bad because it stifles good ideas from flowing to the top. The perfect way for a group to stay in power is to destroy any ideas or movements that threaten the ruling junta’s position. However, if the opposition has ideas with merit, those in power will usually have to stand in opposition to the idea, simply to maintain the distinction between “us” and “them”. This leads to stagnation, and in this accelerating world, stagnation means death. Take this “Treaty of the Sea” thing. The basic idea is… wait, never mind. The CSM puts it best.
For the second time in three years, a Senate panel has given the nod to a treaty that governs the oceans. Last time, alarmist concerns about the loss of US sovereignty kept the treaty from a floor vote. This time, the Senate must steer past those criticisms, or America will be left high and dry.
The Law of the Sea Convention protects its members' navigation rights to the oceans. It establishes limits for marine boundaries and rules for extracting resources and preserving the health of the seas. And it sets up a way to resolve disputes about these issues.
The United States was the lead negotiator on this treaty, starting during the Nixon administration. President Reagan had some problems relating to deep-sea mining, but they were fixed in a second negotiation. It's in force for more than 150 nations – for almost all NATO members, and for four of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, including Russia and China, but not the US.
Global warming has made US approval urgent. As the polar icecap melts, nations are steaming ahead to claim rights to Arctic sea-lanes and oil and gas reserves. Staying outside the treaty leaves the US with little say in this region, especially off Alaska.
The treaty has remarkably broad support in America: State Department and Pentagon chiefs from both parties; oil, gas, and fishing industries; and environmentalists. And yet, a few senators have the power to tangle this treaty in a kelp forest of myths:
The US is giving up sovereignty. Actually, the US gains sovereignty as never before. The treaty extends the nation's territorial waters from three miles to 12. It gains a marine "economic zone" that goes out at least 200 miles. The US would have exclusive rights to explore, conserve, manage, and exploit resources in this mammoth zone, about equal in size to the continental US.
The treaty also gives the US important new navigational rights. The key one allows warships and submarines to pass through straits and archipelagos.
The treaty is UN overreach. True, the agreement was negotiated under UN auspices, but the signatories created it. The three bodies to deal with disputes and issues are not UN bodies. And the US has opted out of an international tribunal to settle military disputes; for general disputes it's chosen arbitration.
The treaty hinders US ability to fight terrorism. Critics say rules restricting boarding of foreign ships and seizing their goods would prevent the US from intercepting weapons of mass destruction. But the treaty provides an exception for "military activities," and international law amply allows for self-defense.
The treaty restricts US intelligence by making subs surface in territorial waters. This provision is already binding law as part of a 1958 treaty. And does America really want Chinese subs lurking off its beaches?
What's going on is an attempt by a small, vocal group of think tanks to scare senators with the one-world-government specter. Let's remember that the US has negotiated this treaty (twice!) with its own interests at heart; that order on the oceans is preferable to chaos; and that the US cannot complain about violations when it is not party to the treaty, neither can it influence it.
-See for yourself
Because the UN negotiated it, some Republican are forced into the position of arguing against it, which makes no sense, because (except perhaps for the submarine clause) this does nothing but help us. So instead of supporting this boon to US industry and jumping on the bandwagon, these poor souls are reduced to screaming about One World Order and infringements on US sovereignty.
Now, jumping back to the terrorists. If you want to kill terrorists, launch more satellites, add funding to the CIA, and establish good-will with Muslim communities around the world. If we had had our army free to help out in Darfur, more Muslims would believe that America isn’t hell-bent on another Crusade. Instead, Muslims see OIF as just one more front in the war between dar al-Islam, and dar al-Harb, with George Bush leading the charge to kill, convert or subjugate every single Muslim he has power over.
On the job front, things are picking up again (finally). I got an e-mail from Cold Springs Harbor asking me to fill out a form so I could come in for an interview. And I also got an interview with a tutoring agency on Monday. So yay for employment, because if I don’t have a job by Christmas, I’m going for a government job, such as the Army.
No comments:
Post a Comment