Sometimes I Have to Remember...

Just a small blurb tonight...

I get caught up in things sometimes to the point where I forget the most important thing in life:

My self.

And no, I don't mean it the way you might initially think...

I have this problem of thinking of myself in terms of what I do, particularly as it pertains to how I obtain money so that I can be, well... me. This leads me to find constant frustration in the things that I do for a living, sometimes being angry at one or more of my supervisors or other coworkers in general. Sometimes my frustration is with them – and other times my anger is more directed at their job function than it is themselves personally, a distinction that can get very fuzzy when in the moment.

What I'm getting at is... in all the hustle of work I sometimes forget that, while I must perform the duties assigned to me, I do not have to be the job. I am not an equipment operator or an inventory control person just because those may be my job titles. Just in as much as a supervisor that makes a decision I disagree with is not suddenly a bad person by the sole virtue of their title, I have no less worth as a result of any failing (real or imaginary) I may occasionally have in my job.

So what am I? I'm not so sure about that either, but I think refusing to identify myself as my job is the first step towards being it in truthfulness to myself.

Take the Time to Re-Read

The idea came to me recently to read through certain points of the United States Constitution, particularly as it pertains to treaties that the United States has entered into, and their implications in law. This was, of course, in an attempt to refute certain concepts of international law on the basis of their Constitutionality, but it would seem that I may have to revise my earlier understanding.

I found several mentions of treaties in the document, but three stood out. I have truncated them for brevity (within reason), but I believe the meaning of the text is undamaged:

• Article 2, Section 2:
  “The President shall... ...have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...”

• Article 3, Section 2:
  “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority”

• Article 6:
  This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The preceding segments plainly state that treaties entered into via the Constitutionally defined process are, in fact, equal to the Constitution for the purposes of the judiciary process. While I think this is dangerous, it is stated in the document twice.

Bear in mind that the Constitution does defend itself, but the text does not specifically declare that treaties cannot be held above it in such conflicts – only “laws” of “any state.” Even if we mean to define the word “State” to include foreign “States,” treaties and laws aren't the same thing. This certainly brings into question the original founders' meaning, but I'm stuck on a logical failure in that I don't feel like we can be truly certain of what they meant at the time – the only thing we have to go on is what the text of the document literally reads.

The above supports the Supreme Court's ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006) that declared that the Geneva Conventions had to apply to “enemy combatants,” which to me really means foreign terrorists. I argued at the time that the Supreme Court had no business even ruling on the basis of the Geneva Conventions, and it would seem that I was probably in error in that.

Frustrating, but inevitable from time to time.

So our own Constitution, when relating to treaties with other nations, is on parity with authorities granted by those treaties, effectively forcing me to re-evaluate the entire relationship with the United Nations. I don't have to like the U.N., mind you, but I feel compelled to try to understand the organization a little better.

So here is what I intend to do: I've selected a few key documents that I intend to read (some of which I have read before, but I feel like I should read again in this context) and I will try to expand my understanding of them. I'm sure I'll come across other materials to read, at which point I'll surely share them if they are relevent.

Key Documents of Interest:

• The Constitution of the United States
  http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
• The Charter of the United Nations
  http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/index.shtml
• Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_the_Permanent_Court_of_International_Justice
  (Considered an “integral part” of the U.N. Charter, but for some reason not included in the Charter's actual text).
• Text of the Geneva Conventions:
  http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/CONVPRES?OpenView

I don't have to like the concept of our sovereignty being subject to international interests, but if I'm going to argue against the current way of the world, I might as well find ways to do so within the context of it rather than trying to argue it away entirely – because it won't be changing anytime soon. Call it the New World Order, or blame the Freemasons, or whatever, it doesn't change the fact that the system that exists today will be built on more and more over the coming years until it either cannot be sustained economically or is destroyed through war.

I wish I believed that human-kind was smarter than that, but I truly don't.

Respected in Death but Supposedly Shunned in Life?

I have just a quick flame to extinguish tonight. I have read a little about the fact that Osama bin Laden (however the hell it is spelled) was killed and apparently buried at sea. What the hell is “buried at sea” anyway? But more importantly, and somewhat humorously, was the reason given for having done so: “Osama bin Laden was buried at sea from the deck of a U.S. aircraft carrier because there was no alternative to bury him on land within the 24 hours required by Islamic law”

What business does the U.S. government have concerning itself with Islamic burial rites, or burial rites in general? What is most critical here is asserting the sovereignty of the United States.

I'm not suggesting that we should have “wrapped him in bacon” or some other such nonsense (as I heard more than once at work today), but I think Muslims, especially those who claim that Osama bin Laden did not speak for them, should be outraged at the simplest thought of venerating the man as if he were a righteous individual.

No, I think that it would be warranted that he be disgraced, especially by the religion with which he claimed to affiliate. A religion he sullied irreparably by that affiliation in the eyes of many Americans.

I'm not going to sugar coat this. Seeing Muslims openly shun Osama bin Laden in his death would have gone a long way towards helping Americans see just how much they supposedly shunned his actions in life. Instead, no such reparation shall be made, and Americans will simply see this as another reason to hate Muslims and those who they think support them.

I'm glad Osama is dead (it is not often I can say that), but, now that I've had the chance to think about it a bit, I do not think anything good will come of it. The cycle of anger and hatred will continue unabated, and this unfortunate fact will lead to more lives lost on both “sides” of this nonsensical conflict.