The Very Best of Pudge
– posted by thehim
As a followup to Pudge’s 15 minutes of fame yesterday, I thought I’d give a roundup of some of his greatest hits here at Effu:
- Pudge explains how Iraq isn’t a civil war.
- Pudge goes gaga over the surge.
- Pudge wonders why feminism still exists.
- Pudge defends Karl Rove’s good name.
- Pudge criticizes Glenn Greenwald for being slightly inaccurate in how he pointed out that a high-ranking government official blatantly lied.
- Pudge attacks Michael Moore for saving someone’s life.
- Pudge takes offense to some snark from Barack Obama.
- Pudge takes a wide stance on the Larry Craig scandal.
- Pudge scoffs at the Constitution.
- Pudge dismisses the U.S. Attorney scandal.
And, possibly my favorite one of all:
- Pudge debates with himself about what the UN can and can’t do.
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Heh, the funny part is that you are wrong on all of these. I especially like that your possibly “favorite one of all” is attacking me for stating the clear fact that the UN’s mandate authority extends only to violent conflicts through the Security Council, and not pollution. How dare I state facts! Facts are BAD!
December 4th, 2007 at 9:21 am
What? Here’s a list directly from the UN website for what they have the authority to mandate:
Category b) there can certainly be used for dealing with carbon-emissions.
Either way, what’s your justification for saying that the UN should be an authority for certain matters that affect the planet as a whole, but not for other matters that affect the planet as a whole? Or do you not believe that global warming is a matter that affects the planet as a whole? Or do you somehow believe that only matters of war require government (this is at least an opinion that has some semblance of logic behind it even though it’s still wrong).
And none of this mentions the obvious and most overaching point here, that even our own Pentagon concedes that global warming and our growing need for natural resources across the globe is a significant security threat greater than terrorism.
My god, Pudge, do have any semblance of pride at all?
December 4th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Wow.
I am not sure about all of them, but MOST of the mandates in that database are *mandates ON the United Nations.* Not on member states. I picked one at random. Its mandate is for “the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its forty-eighth session on the implementation of the New Agenda.”
Another is “to extend the mandate of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) for another period of twelve months from the date of this resolution.”
Those are not mandates on nations, but on the United Nations.
Regardless, you ask what my “justification” is for separating security matters from other matters. I need none: the UN Charter says it. You will find nothing int he UN Charter that says any member state can be obligated to do anything by the United Nations, except for the UN Security Council. No other part of the UN has any authority to obligate any member state, in any way, unless that member state specifically agrees to it.
So, take the UN Convention on Torture. If a member state signs and ratifies the Convention, then the UN has authority to require the member state follow that Convention, under international law. But if the state does not sign and ratify it, then it is not binding, and the UN has no authority whatsoever. The UN, outside of the Security Council, can only mandate a member state to do something if the member state gives the UN permission to do that.
Indeed, it would be unconstitutional for the United States to recognize the UN as a lawmaking authority, or a rulemaking authority with the force of law, because such a recognition would have to pass the Senate and be signed by the President, AND not conflict with any of the powers granted in the Constitution. And none of that’s been done.
So the IPCC talking about forcing states to fulfill requirements against their will is nonsense.
That’s how it works. That’s how it has always worked.
And even if I were going to accept the assertion that global warming can reasonably be considered a security threat, it still can only be mandated by the Security Council, not the IPCC or any other UN body. And, since the U.S. has veto authority in the Security Council, the Security Council cannot mandate it without U.S. permission.
I don’t know what you think “pride” has to do with it (except for your pride in thinking you know what you are talking about). I am simply telling you how the UN actually works, what the law actually is.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
OK, then, so what’s “fascist” about the UN trying to have binding resolutions on climate change as opposed to having binding resolutions about nuclear weapons?
December 4th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
You can actually read through that entire piece again. Nowhere in the entire interview is Wirth arguing that the UN overstep its normal procedures for binding resolutions. All he’s asking for is for the United States to take the lead in establishing enforceable limits.
December 5th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
I was amused to see you in the comments at FJM though. I’d wondered with your making fun of HatGuy, only not calling him that.