Two stories caught my attention today regarding the evolving role of state sovereignty in the modern world. One was from Jamaica – a remarkable 60 percent of Jamaicans think they would have been better off never gaining independence from the British. Only 17 percent disagreed, with 23 percent saying they didn’t know (a safe answer whenever one deals in counter-factual history).
This may seem surprising, but it really shouldn’t. Compare Jamaica to Puerto Rico, which has managed to continue developing a vibrant and distinct national culture while retaining the benefits of being technically in a union with the United States. Obviously there’s no turning back now, but it’s an interesting reflection on the relative value of sovereignty.
On a much less surprising note, France has been criticized by Russia and the AU for supplying weapons to rebel forces in Libya. They argue that this violates all sorts of rules and runs the risk of creating anarchy or partition in Libya. The AU’s criticism in particular shows that they know what side their bread is buttered on – essentially, they make it clear that any outcome besides an unambiguous victory for Gaddafi is unideal
From one point of view, this is unsurprising – Gaddafi has been a friend of the AU and of Russia for some time now, and it’s natural that they have his back. But when Russia complains that weapons could get into the hands of the wrong people, you have an interesting philosophy going on. That is to say, it is acceptable from their point of view to support nearly any state, no matter how terrible. But to give aid to a non-state is a grave violation of the rules set between states – once in the club, you can count on any other recognized state to back you, at least against any non-state actor, no matter how brutal you may be. This philosophy is deeply embedded into the current functioning of intergovernmental organizations, and it is the basis of Russian and Chinese foreign policy.
Interestingly, it also forms the basis of American liberal isolationism. The extreme deference to sovereignty is not in the interest of the populations of other countries, however. It is merely a structure invented to maintain the power of established states. In its own right, the doctrine that calls for respecting sovereignty for its own sake has no moral grounding – it is the self serving ethics of an exclusive club unwilling to admit new members.
I don’t mean to continue to pick on a single reporter, but once again, Billings Gazette reporter Tom Lutey has done an incredibly sloppy job in his reporting, producing a story that is both inaccurate and one-sided in its description of the ongoing fight over Rick Hill’s Wikipedia page.
Lutey writes:
Wikipedia locked down former U.S. Congressman Rick Hill’s biography page Monday, after more than 30 attempts to add or scrub details about Hill’s past campaigns and his 1976 divorce.
Hill announced last November that he will run for governor in 2012.
The changes occurred over three days on the popular online encyclopedia written and edited by anyone who wants to contribute.
Depending on what time viewers read Hill’s Wikipedia biography between June 25 and June 28, his divorce was explained as “Rick divorced his first wife in 1976 and retained custody of his three boys….” Or, “Rick divorced his first wife in 1976 following an affair.”
Of course, a look at the Wikipedia history of Hill’s page shows that the battle over Hill’s messy personal history actually began in March, not days ago.
Keep Reading
I suppose you’ve all heard by now: Hundreds of thousands of homosexual couples will soon have the opportunity to get married in the state of New York. This is all the more significant because it comes as a result of democratic action, no as a decision of the courts. It’s a significant mile marker on the way to the admirable goal of a more equal and compassionate society for people of any sexual orientation.
In 2009, a similar effort was defeated. A few years later, governor Cuomo managed to push it through the same Republicans that blocked it previously. If there’s one group of people in this country who had good reason to give up on politics, it is the LGBTQ community. Fortunately, they did not give up, and their efforts continue to bear fruit. It’s a good lesson for all of us who may be tempted to give in the the belief that it’s impossible to better our country through politics.
Following the end of the Legislature and a bit of a collective lull in the Montana blogging community, I temporarily stepped
away from the Montana Blog Roundup, but we’re back! Below are some of the most interesting posts of the past week on Montana’s blogs.
MT Cowgirl takes a look at Rick Hill’s high disapproval numbers and how that will benefit Democratic candidates for governor. I plan to do a more extensive look at the GOP candidates soon, but this post makes the case that Hill, though the presumptive nominee, may have a more difficult road than he and his staff may have imagined. It’s almost certain that a fair amount of that disapproval comes from conservatives who aren’t sold on Hill’s claim to be a member of the “Tea Party before the Tea Party was cool.” Uh, cool?
It’s becoming increasingly apparent that the Legislature didn’t give much thought about the practical results or even the legality of the law they passed to regulate medical marijuana, and jhwygirl makes that clear in this post.
Loki at 2 Helena Handbaskets also laments Lee Enterprise’s decision to eliminate the editor position at the Independent Record, but manages to entirely mischaracterize the decision. To suggest that this decision was to move the paper back to the left is wrong on too many levels to describe.
The Western World takes a look at the polling in the Tester-Rehberg contest, arguing that both candidates have to be concerned. In particular, he hits on the dilemma that Denny Rehberg is going to face: “Rehberg, on the other hand, aligned himself to the far right with the Tea Party. In some GOP races candidates do this to win the primary, so we may see Rehberg try to become more “independent” after the primary or when he feels it’s too late for some other right-leaning candidate to come on board to challenge him.”
Some of that concern might be reflected on a relatively new site (Rehberg the Rino) whose author seems to believe that Rehberg is not conservative enough. It’s worth visiting this story for the image alone.
Finally, Rob wrote about the confluence of racism and populism in the Tea Party movement, along with the growing extremism in Montana. Given the re-emergence of organizations like the John Birch Society in Montana to compliment the occasional lone wolf militia member, it’s worth paying more attention to.
I’ve rarely read a more tone deaf and arrogant comment than the one written by Northwestern Energy executive director of government affairs John Fitzpatrick, in which he explains to the little people why his company should be able to do whatever the hell it wants to private land. It reads in part:
Eminent domain laws exist for two reasons. First, to ensure that private property owners are justly compensated if their land is acquired for a public use necessary for the welfare of the citizenry. Second, to protect the public from the tyranny of a minority be they organized naysayers or people who are just uncooperative or unreasonable.
You can understand this better on a personal level by thinking about some person who’s your opponent. Imagine having to go to that individual and get permission to cross his property so that you can have electricity, water or a road. Eminent domain prevents such people from holding you hostage. It gives them an incentive to negotiate a settlement reasonable to both parties.
It’s refreshing to see a corporate interest so brazenly trumpeting its ability to get what it wants from government—and a nice change of pace from the usual veneer of corporate citizenship.
One thing is certain: NorthWestern Energy hardly has the “welfare of the citizenry” in mind. On the other hand, I’m happy to learn that NorthWestern believes that I can cross their private property whenever I need to access electricity, water, or a road.
After all, letting me cross would be the “reasonable” action, right?
For about an hour today, I gave serious thought to attending this weekend’s meeting of the John Birch Society featuring Derek Skees, but a careful consideration of likely outcomes convinced not to attend. I suspect my choice will reduce participation by 20% at least.
I didn’t, however, want to miss out on the opportunity of letting my readers know what they and I will be missing, so I did a little research about the speakers an elected member of the Montana Legislature has chosen to spend his time with.
What’s on the Agenda?
At lunch, the event will open with John McManus, President of the John Birch Society. While no one could reasonably be expected to watch this video in its entirety, I do suggest watching the discussion that begins about the 2:10 mark:
Afterwards, attendees will enjoy the rhetorical stylings of Pastor Dan Fisher, who believes that the Bible is clear on the Second Amendment and that the Obama Administration is filled with treacherous Marxists.
Finally, Robert Brown, the state director of the Birchers, who seems to spend most of his time cowering in a bunker lest the UN troops come to confiscate his copy of the Constitution, will speak.
Dinner offers more tasty treats, including:
- a visit from Elijah Abraham, who believes that Muslims should be banned from “serving in the military , running for public office, or serving as government employees” and that Muslims are running training camps all across the country to ATTACK AMERICA!
- Ray Clark, a CANADIAN IMMIGRANT who serves on the Birch Society board of directors. One can only hope they have investigated him, as he is likely to be a Socialist.
- Birch Society CEO Art Thompson, who believes that his fringe hate group singlehandedly stopped the “consolidation of control” of the government planned for 1976 and shut down the planned 2010 North American Union. Oh, than that Senator McCarthy never said anything that “wasn’t true.” At the 5:10 mark in this video, he’s either describing the plot to destroy America or the last episode of Lost.
Representative Skees is associating himself with a hate group which peddles conspiracy theories of the worst kind. Do former Secretary of State Bob Brown and current Senator Ryan Zinke really want to be associated with this kind of legislator? Does the Republican Party?
All fair questions someone should ask.
