Jim DeMint has some ideas about signing treaties

Jim DeMint delivered a speech the other day opposing the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.  At least, I think that's what it's about, because that's what he says it's about, although he certainly has trouble staying on point if that's the case.  For those who may not be aware, the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is basically an treaty that emulates the Americans with Disabilities Act on an international level.  John McCain has lended his support to the treaty, saying that it is an example of American leadership on rights for the disabled.  Bob Dole has also spoken extensively in support on it, and was present to give some testimony in support of a treaty that would have been a major victory in his lifelong campaign for disability rights.  In fairness, there are some valid reasons to be concerned about signing U.N. treaties, but I have a feeling Jim DeMint isn't going to be paying much attention to those (because secretly, I read the whole speech ahead of time.  Shh.).

As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I have participated in the hearings and debates on this treaty, and I understand the aspirations of the groups who support it. But I have serious concerns about reaching those goals through a legally binding United Nations treaty.

Other U.N. organizations have failed to achieve their stated purposes and actively work against the interests of the United States.

I'm sure he has some examples in mind, but he doesn't even say what I should look up to see if he's right.  If you're going to be paranoid about a U.N. takeover at least tell me what part you're paranoid about.

Not even a week ago, the United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to upgrade the Palestinian Authority to “non-member observer state” over the objections of the United States and Israel. This is a breach of the Oslo accords and will hurt the Middle East peace process. Secretary Clinton called it “unfortunate and counterproductive.”

Whoa, shit!  Now the Palestinian representative can come watch silently next time Israel tries to make sure they get no representatives at U.N. meetings.  What does this have to do with the topic?  What was the topic again?  Oh, right, the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.  Onward!

The U.N. Human Rights Council includes notable human rights violators such as Cuba, China, and Russia.

I think you left somebody off that list.

These countries have made little progress improving the rights of their citizens, and nearly 40 percent of the council’s country-specific human-rights condemnations are against Israel.

That's fair, maybe--that said, the fact that 40 percent of the "country-specific" condemnations are against Israel isn't really evidence for anything.  "Country-specific" is a pretty strange limiting factor there, so that could just mean that Israel is frequently condemned for actions that they undertake alone, whereas other countries violate human rights in groups.  It's a somewhat interesting fact, but it means virtually nothing in isolation.

More worrisome, convention committees–such as the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women–have a track record of overstepping their authority and advocating positions contrary to American laws and values.

/faints

People disagree with me on anything, ever? 

/regains consciousness
Good heavens!  People sometimes advocate positions that the U.S. disagrees with?  What on Earth are they asking us to do, throw all the white males out of office?

In the past, these committees have supported giving voting rights to felons, 

A thing that several U.S. states already do, including two states where felons can vote from prison.  Next?

the decriminalization of prostitution, 

A thing that is already legal in Nevada.

gender quotas,

This is vague.  I'm assuming this refers to either a political representation quota or a hiring quota for minorities, given the context.  Neither is being mandated by any U.N. treaty that I could find, and also we are talking about the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, or at least I thought we were.  I guess we'll go with:

If DeMint gets to re-use his anti-UN talking points, I get to re-use my pictures.

and increased access to abortion.

He's saying that these are things that treaties have "supported" in the past.  Are we seriously this scared of people supporting things we don't?

Overly broad language included in this treaty would likely allow the U.N. to meddle in many of our domestic matters.  International bureaucrats working with the U.N. should not be able to influence how the United States creates and implements laws for the disabled, especially when members come from countries with lower human rights standards than our own.

This is basically the opposite of what this treaty is.  It's based on legislation (the Americans with Disabilities Act) that already exists in the U.S., and really is designed to get those countries with low human rights standards to improve them.  This is a case where the U.S. influenced the U.N., not vice versa.

The purpose of any treaty should be to advance specific security or economic interests that make us a stronger and safer nation. This treaty does neither.

This seems to be an argument that we should not sign a treaty we do not "win".  That said, it's one of DeMint's more logical points, if you believe that the U.S. should not be responsible for advancing human rights on an international level.

Last week on the floor, Leader Reid argued that we must ratify this treaty to “take the high ground” on these issues with the rest of the world. But the United States does not have to join a U.N. convention or any other organization to give ourselves legitimacy and moral authority in the world.

Because America.  Fuck yeah.

This convention will do nothing to improve the rights of Americans in the United States. We have little evidence to suggest that joining this convention and its committee will ensure that other countries improve their protection of disabled people. Of the 126 member countries, this convention’s committee has only issued recommendations to a handful.

Let's summarize the main points DeMint is making.  First of all, this treaty is dangerous because it might force the U.S. to adopt all kinds of binding legislation that would take away our sovereignty and prevent us from making our own laws regarding the disabled.  Secondly, there's little evidence that other countries would have to do anything to improve their protection of disabled people, because apparently those terrifying binding clauses only apply to us (I'm not posting the citation needed image again).  I guess we're worried that they might issue us some very sternly worded recommendations?

Portions of this convention also concern reproductive health, 

Oh!  That's code for something, I bet.  Noted leftist John McCain, do you have anything to say about whether we should reject this treaty because of sections related to abortion?

"With respect to abortion, this is a disabilities treaty and has nothing to do with abortion. Trying to turn this into an abortion debate is bad politics and just wrong."

the rights of families,

Here, DeMint is insinuating that this treaty will take control of disabled children away from families and give it to the government.  It will not.

and the use of the treaty in our courts.

We should never cede the authority of these matters to an international organization. President Washington’s warning in his farewell address bears repeating here. He said:

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

Not surprisingly, DeMint's best argument is made using someone else's words.  There's a case to be made that we shouldn't enter into treaties that we don't need, but we should recall that Washington was president in the 18th century, when the U.S. didn't have to debate whether we should be involved in human rights issues in foreign countries.  It's not a wholly illegitimate point today, but it's a bit outdated.  Outside of a general philosophy opposing treaties that makes a modicum of sense from a certain worldview, all of DeMint's arguments here are essentially without evidence.  He's saying that X might hypothetically cause Y because he thinks it might, and he doesn't like Y, so we can't even consider X.  It's like if I was considering getting a cat, but then I had a dream where a cat scratched me, so I instead led a campaign to outlaw all cats ever. 

Don't look so worried!  I'd never do that.  I'm sorry I even brought it up.

Dole/Kemp '96 website still operational, still extremely old

Here is a site which should have vanished long ago but luckily has not, so we can explore the natural beauty that is a 1996 presidential campaign page.  The homepage appears below (seriously, full quality, as it appears on the page). 

According to this, Dole had 2 issues he cared about: K-12 education, and Technology and Internet.  

Reading through the updates yields the following description of the page:

On August 1, Dole for President unveiled the first individually 
customizable political web site. If you haven't been to the new site, 
here's a rundown:

When you first visit the site, you are given the option of setting up a 
custom Dole web page. (Requires a Netscape 2.0 compatible 
browser)

That is in fact the font that they used.  For all I know, that was the only font on the internet in 1996.  Sadly, without a Netscape 2.0 compatible browser, I was unable to customize my Dole web page (I wanted to focus on the issues most important to me: federal regulation of bourbon quality and photogenic cats getting the right to vote).  Having been stymied on that front, I went back to the homepage, when I noticed this image:

Pretty sure we've found the oldest gif on the internet.

After admiring that for several minutes, I moved on to the "Dole Kemp '96 Interactive" page, because all of the other links are broken.  Alas, the crossword, make-a-button, and send-a-postcard options were no longer active--you can, however, still obtain Bob Dole desktop wallpaper!  There are 9 options:

Is his dog named Leader?  I think his dog is named Leader.

Attempting to get a large version of any of these was an ultimately failed endeavor--here's what a Dole/Kemp wallpaper at full size looks like:

Maybe he just had one of those really old computers with a tiny screen?

After some further research, I found the issue:

Right now, we feature a variety of downloadable wallpaper images. Decorate your desktop with Dole for President graphics! The images below are shown at 50% of their actual size and are designed to tile seamlessly on your desktop.

Ummmm...no.  That can't be right.  Can it?

I guess the campaign strategy was to convince everyone that total control by our robot Dole overlords was inevitable.

So, yeah, that doesn't look great.  Also I can't locate any of my desktop icons now, and my computer is refusing to do anything for me until I change the desktop back.  Let's keep in mind the most important thing here, though.  It was time for the internet to change, and thanks to Bob Dole, IT HAS...

The future is here, and it's a tiled desktop wallpaper.