The Distant Ocean

Happy Birthday, UDHR!

It's been 60 years since the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which has since become one of the foundational documents of international human rights.  If the concept of "human rights" has become commonplace these days, it's largely thanks to the direct and indirect influence of this document.

The UDHR is particularly important to me personally, since one of my first introductions to crazed lefty thought was Noam Chomsky's The Umbrella of U.S. Power, subtitled "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Contradictions of U.S. Policy"—a comparison of actual U.S. policy to the standards outlined in the UDHR (which was then turning 50).  Reading it was a painful but tremendously eye-opening experience for me, and it was a catalyst for huge changes in my life.

So happy 60th birthday, UDHR.  And a belated happy 80th birthday to Noam Chomsky as well, and a heartfelt thank you too.  Thank you for dedicating so much of your life to explicating the carefully-obscured obvious, and teaching millions of people the basics of intellectual self-defense—despite the personal and professional sacrifices it's no doubt entailed.  I can honestly say that my life is nothing like it would have been if you'd never lived.

Having a happy, carefree day?

Then don't read this.

On the other hand, if you're having a crappy, careworn day, dive right in!

BONUS: Global warming skeptic bingo.

Inconvenient shades of gray

As Ford, GM, and Chrysler have been begging Congress for yet more money to subvert capitalism, the United Auto Workers have been taking it on the chin as scapegoats because of their (apocryphally) sky-high wages, which are supposedly breaking the backs of these noble, helpless corporations.  Naturally, the left has been rushing to line up with the unions in this fight, blaming the automakers for shooting themselves in the foot by pushing ever more bloated, gadget-laden SUVs.

But reality is rarely so simple.  As Ralph Nader notes, the failures of US automakers to keep up with foreign corporations are in fact partially the fault of the UAW—but not because of inflated salaries:

RALPH NADER: I must say, on the UAW, though, the biggest mistake the UAW ever made in this area was to support for thirty years, against consumer and environmental groups on Capitol Hill, a freeze on fuel efficiency. And because the government could not upgrade its fuel efficiency for over thirty years, from the 1975 standards, the Japanese and other foreign competitors were able to eat a larger—eat into the market share of the domestic industry. ... [W]e hit a stone wall the moment that United Auto Workers allied itself with the auto companies and stopped any increase in fuel efficiency standards. That opened the door for the SUV gas-guzzlers, etc., and that differential that consumers saw between what foreign car companies were selling and what Detroit was selling.

He's talking about things like this.  It should come as no surprise that unions have a mixed history where progressive/environmental goals are concerned, since a labor union is fundamentally concerned with the self-interest of its members, and that self-interest can and sometimes will be at odds with progressive goals like protection of the environment.  For example, Obama's stance on coal is no doubt driven by a desire to cater to the coal industry (just as Kerry's was), but it's also in line with the goals and interests of the United Mine Workers of America.

This doesn't mean the left is wrong to defend the UAW against the corporate PR assault they're facing, of course, both on the specifics of this situation and on general principles.  Unions are inherently worthy of support by anyone on the left for many reasons: they organize those with little power against those with enormous power; they give people an experience of direct democracy (in all its hideous glory); they foster the idea that we can and should work together; and so on.  But they're not a panacea, and it's a mistake to think of them that way.

"Apparent evolution"

Here's Jeremy Scahill writing about late-breaking mainstream media recognition of Obama's "nuanced" position on withdrawal of US forces from Iraq:

The New York Times is reporting about an "apparent evolution" in president-elect Barack Obama's thinking on Iraq, citing his recent statements about his plan to keep a "residual force" in the country and his pledge to "listen to the recommendations of my commanders" as Obama prepares to assume actual command of US forces. "At the Pentagon and the military headquarters in Iraq, the response to the statements this week from Mr. Obama and his national security team has been akin to the senior officer corps' letting out its collective breath," the Times reported. "The words sounded to them like the new president would take a measured approach on the question of troop levels."

The reality is there is no "evolution."

Anyone who took the time to cut past Barack Obama's campaign rhetoric of "change" and bringing an "end" to the Iraq war realized early on that the now-president-elect had a plan that boiled down to a down-sizing and rebranding of the occupation.

I particularly appreciate the Times' choice of headline: "Campaign Promises on Ending the War in Iraq Now Muted by Reality."  This is an extremely useful principle I'm sure we'd all like to employ at one time or another: "Unfortunately, Tom, my promise to pay back that money you loaned me has now been muted by reality—namely, the reality that I never had any intention to.  Sucker!"

For anyone who actually wanted to know how Obama would govern, the single most important thing he said during the campaign was this: "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified. ... Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don't exempt myself."

UPDATE: I'm sad to see that FAIR is handling this same story with the new favorite strategy of Obama backers: to point to his official campaign policy positions and pretend that he never said anything different then from what he's saying now—and if anyone foolishly thought so, they just weren't paying attention.  This is a particularly disingenuous tactic since it studiously ignores the "overheated rhetoric" Obama used on the campaign trail that contradicted those official positions and convinced so many of his supporters that he intended to bring the Iraq war to a complete close.

Oddly, FAIR never felt the need to make such fine distinctions when they were cataloging Bush's attempts to link Iraq to 9/11, even though those also took the form of insinuation and implication rather than outright assertions.  I wonder what the difference could be?

A great day for humanity

I don't want to let this day go by without offering my respect and thanks to the thousands of people who've achieved a tremendous victory for human rights...:

"This is a historic day when a majority of states are committing to ban cluster munitions, making a new international norm that will make a considerable difference for thousands and thousands of people all over the world," Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere said after signing the treaty.  ...

Over two days, around 100 countries -- including Britain, Canada, France and Germany -- are to sign the treaty that was finalised in Dublin in May, with the final number of signatory states only to be known at the end of the ceremony on Thursday.

...and particularly to people like this, who've reacted to their own pain and loss by working to prevent anyone else from suffering the same fate:

Afghanistan was initially reluctant to join the pact — which the United States and Russia have refused to support — but agreed to after lobbying by victims maimed by cluster munitions, including 17-year-old Soraj Ghulan Habib. The teen, who uses a wheelchair, met with his country's ambassador to Norway, Jawed Ludin, at a two-day signing conference in Oslo.

"I explained to the ambassador my situation, and that the people of Afghanistan wanted a ban," Habib, who said he was crippled by a cluster bomb seven years ago, told The Associated Press.

Speaking through an interpreter, Habib said the ambassador called Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who agreed to change his stance on the treaty.

"Today is a historic day," Habib declared.

Yes it is.  And it's a reminder that despite all efforts to the contrary, the world is slowly becoming a more civilized place.

John Kerry happy that John Kerry wasn't elected in 2004

John Kerry in 2004:

John Kerry and John Edwards believe that the Kyoto Protocol is not the answer. The near-term emission reductions it would require of the United States are infeasible, while the long-term obligations imposed on all nations are too little to solve the problem. Unlike the current administration, John Kerry and John Edwards will offer an alternative to the Kyoto process that leads the world toward a more equitable and effective answer, while preserving coal miners' jobs.

In the Kerry-Edwards Administration, the U.S. will equitably match the initial efforts of our  industrial-country trading partners and competitors.  U.S. reductions will be achieved in a reasonable and realistic timeframe.  American workers and industries should not be forced to shoulder the costs of these reductions.

(The standard translations apply: "coal miners' jobs" actually means "coal corporations' profits" and "workers and industries" means just "industries".)

John Kerry now:

"It's a moment we've been waiting for, many of us, for some period of time - for eight years, to be blunt. ... after eight years of obstruction and delay and denial, the United States is going to rejoin the world community in tackling the global climate challenge," Kerry said.

I at least give him credit for recognizing that his corporation-servicing stance on global warming in 2004 didn't represent a break in the eight years of obstruction, delay, and denial.

BUT: Kerry's deft rewriting of history won't come as a surprise to most of the people who voted for him, since 74% of them had no clue about his 2004 position on Kyoto anyway.