Last Night's Drunk
has my head feeling hollow -- obviously either those whiskey shots or that table dance was the bridge too far. But I woke this morning thinking about the absolutely loud and brawling beer hall debate we had last night, and, I think, it really doesn't get any better than this.
As a native South Floridian, I am acutely aware of the differing world views of the various people from various places that all end up here, and there is really only one that I am entirely unsympathetic to, and that is the somewhat midwesterly attitude that discussions of politics are on par with discussions of bowel movements, best kept off the table by all but the most classless and offensive fools. People who think that are destroying America. Actually, they're undermining democracy, which is even worse. I will listen to any argument, and I will argue with any argument, but those who refuse to argue are horrible human beings, and I think all of us should make a habit of telling them so.
Fortunately, no such people tried to poop in our salad last night. But I woke with my pounding head echoing some lingering questions: why, if you approve of an international body like the UN, is the UN so reprehensible? Doesn't it make more sense to improve the international body we have, rather than to, out of frustration with it, try to undermine it and replace it with something? This is an especially non-rhetorical question for American voters, because we are the citizens with the most say in the world (the US runs the UN, and we, if we are willing to fight for it, have the say here). You say that UN troops have done bad things, and so there should not be UN troops, but how do you address the need that inspired the formation of such a troop body in the first place, and when does the lack of UN make the world a worse place for more people than the presence of the UN does? (I would say, right quickly!)
I sympathize with the whole being disconcerted by the UN thing, because I am disconcerted by the IMF and World Bank. But while I see the IMF and World Bank doing real, concrete, bad things to actual human beings, the UN is a toothless body of talkers. And as I've said, I like debate. So I like the UN. I think it's irrational to blame the UN for the world's woes, unless to say that you think they do not have enough power, and should be empowered as a "one world government" (which, incidentally, while I gathered that that was supposed to be a boogery man to frighten me, doesn't bother me in the slightest: as long as humans are thriving and not running through the planet like locusts, I will take whatever brings peace and prosperity to the most people).
One of the most interesting things to me in these conversations are the foundational stopping points that people sometimes don't even realize are there: "we should do as we've been doing since 1776." Why? Don't you know we must adapt to new circumstances or die? "One world government would be a bad thing" -- well I wouldn't enter into it lightly, but you could make the same argument that Fort Lauderdale should secede because statewide or continentwide government is too big. It's not the meat it's the motion, baby. I'm not scared of vast governments: I'm scared of not having a say in them; I'm scared of people deciding "all is well" and deciding they no longer need to pay attention and participate. I'm not scared of "Chinese troops in the streets" any more than I'm scared of any troops in the streets: and I am scared of that, but why the xenophobic invocation of the "other"? The scariest person on the planet is Rupert Murdoch, and he's Australian. Tell me he is going to be trooping through my streets -- oh, but he already is, in corporate-media form. And that's the real problem.
So why are ya'll so hung up on the UN?
I can't help but think that the anti-UN sentiment is really just misdirected anger with the IMF, World Bank, and/or the US government and/or NATO. But all of these bodies have become almost irrelevant as power in this world shifts to corporations and their "leaders." They are threats only in as much as they are used by these moneylords to create havoc. But they could be used by us as well. So doesn't it make more sense to storm the moneylords? Don't you ever get the feeling that it's just a big red herring shoved up your nose?