Why, Much Like 9-1-1, Proposition 1701 Is A Joke

Posted by Joshua White on 08.16.2006

My thoughts on Proposition 1701, legal soft-core child porn, and why I'll never "Shut The Hell Up" all in one masterfully written column.

This column is much longer than my normal ones. Don't get me wrong, every word is brilliant. But it is long. The reason is that I talk about two different subjects outside of my actual column. If you want to read only my discussion on proposition 1701, please feel free to skip down. I'll mark where you should start reading with a bolded title.

For those of you who are with me for the long haul, let's get going.

I want to very briefly mention the overly angry Ray Church. Recently, I was the recipient of the "Shut The Hell Up Award" (feel free to send all congratulatory notes to my normal e-mail address). He didn't like that I disagree with Joe in my latest column. And while I feel just terrible that I have upset him, I don't want to spend too much time on a simple mistake made by the "Ugly Un-America." See, he claims that I was "twisting evidence" when in fact it was he who "didn't do any research." And again, that is fine by me. See, the question was plainly "Did Saddam Hussein's government have WMDs in 2003?" No mention of the UN, who the weapons were to be use against, etc. And Church forgets to mention that both Joe and I discussed an actual government document (that would have been too inconvenient). And finally he criticizes my news source. Let me apologize for not using a Ray Church approved media outlet (the Daily Kos maybe?). All told, I still claim that there are some good reasons to believe that there were WMDs in Iraq. Whether or not there were viable weapons that were going to be used against us is a completely different question, which neither Joe nor I addressed. But that doesn't seem to concern the Church. Ok, enough with this nonsense. Let's talk a little bit about child pornography.

Last night my wife was flipping through the channels and a bunch of half-naked women caught my eye. Apparently, they also caught her eye because she stopped channel-surfing long enough for us to learn that we were watching Miss Teen USA. Now, I have heard about this "competition" before but I have never seen it. While I only watched for like 10 minutes what I saw was mildly shocking.

We're in the midst of a time when being a child predator/molester is considered one of the worst crimes imaginable (and rightly so). We live in a time when convicted child molesters aren't allowed to live in certain parts of a city, they have to tell people about their crimes, and they are never really allowed to repent and make something of their lives in the eyes of society. And in the same society we idolize and fetishize what we consider the perfection of the feminine form. Apparently, this fetishization doesn't stop with adults; now we do the same with children. Within the same culture we label an 18 year-old who has sex with a 16 year old as a disgusting pervert for the rest of his life, and we also parade half-naked 16 year-olds around as sexual objects. This "talent competition" involves 16, 17, and 18 year-olds playing with a beach ball in short shorts, crop-tops and little else. Later on these same children walked around the stage in remarkably skimpy bikinis. What exactly are saying to the people who watch this? Do you honestly believe that the people who are watching this aren't finding these kids sexy? The girls are doing little dance routines, shaking their non-existent hips and twirling in such a manner as to expose their underwear. Don't get me wrong. I've seen "Next Top Model", I know that strutting down the cat walk and posing correctly actually does take talent. However, I'm sure that that is not what these children are being judged on. This is some talent show!

So not only are force-feeding certain ideals upon our children when they watch Miss Teen USA (these girls were verythin, but we sexualizing children. Nobody has a problem with this? This show was the equivalent was Teen Maxim which is basically almost soft-core child porn. Don't believe me check this out, or even better (and potentially troubling) you can buy photos of your favorite child in a bathing suit (this is only one example, you can buy all 51 if you'd like)!

And now for a really smooth segue...let's talk about the UN Security Council Proposition 1701 and why it is a joke.

Proposition 1701

I don't know if any of you have heard, but recently Hezbollah and Israel have been fighting each other in what many a crazy newsman claimed was part of (in a loud and booming voice) World War Three! Well, the fighting was stopped because of UN Security Council Proposition1701. For the first time in my increasingly long life, I have read an entire UN proposition (again, congratulatory notes can be sent to my regular email address). Now, I'm not going to hyperbolize here and say that the UN is useless, horrible, etc., but I will say that I am starting to understand why the raging conservatives have problems with the UN. This proposition is clearly biased towards Lebanon and by being so it's losing it credibility (or at least it should). Let's go through this proposition and see what exactly is wrong with it by giving a few examples.

Let me firstly say that I'm so glad that the UN has expressed "its utmost concern at the continuing escalation of hostilities in Lebanon and in Israel." As we'll soon see this truly does mean a lot (and if you can't tell that this is sarcasm, please learn my sense of humor). My first real problem with Proposition 1701 is with the following: " Mindful of the sensitivity of the issue of prisoners and encouraging the efforts aimed at urgently settling the issue of the Lebanese prisoners detained in Israel." While, once again, I'm pleased as punch that the UN is mindful that a group from Lebanon has kidnapped two soldiers we need to fix the language here. The two Israelis are not prisoners. They are hostages. And this difference is important. To call these two men prisoners insinuates that it is they who have done something wrong. Further, these "prisoners" weren't detained! You are detained at a toll-booth. You are detained by your teacher after classes. You are kidnapped when someone from a terrorist organization comes from a different country, aggressively forces you into their company and under duress won't let you go. Nonsense.

But we move on to the actual subsections.

Number 3: Emphasizes the importance of the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory in accordance with the provisions of resolution 1559 (2004) and resolution 1680 (2006), and of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, for it to exercise its full sovereignty, so that there will be no weapons without the consent of the Government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the Government of Lebanon.

All of this is pointless. Why? Because as long as Lebanon allows for Hezbollah to stay in their country then Hezbollah isn't touched at all by this "emphasis of importance." Lebanon can theoretically continue to "exercise its full sovereignty" and still allow for Hezbollah. Hezbollah, as they might claim, isn't an army of Lebanon, and what they do is none of our business. They have broken none of our laws, so we will not punish them.

Further, even if what I describe above doesn't come to pass, this part of 1701 has (most likely) already been broken. There isn't anyone alive who would claim that Hezzy has ridden itself of all of its rockets. So, now Lebanon has two options: either allow them to have the weapons, or don't. If they do allow them, there is an authority other than Lebanon. If they don't allow them, and they do nothing (which seems to be the case), then the proposition has already failed.

Number 6: Calls on the international community to take immediate steps to extend its financial and humanitarian assistance to the Lebanese people, including through facilitating the safe return of displaced persons and, under the authority of the Government of Lebanon, reopening airports and harbours, consistent with paragraphs 14 and 15, and calls on it also to consider further assistance in the future to contribute to the reconstruction and development of Lebanon.

I'm just curious here people...didn't some Israelis die? Weren't a bunch of missiles launched towards Israel with the consequence being the destruction of many houses, places of work, etc.? Why is the UN only calling on the international community to help Lebanon? What did Israel do that was so wrong that it doesn't deserve some international help and sympathy? Were they too prepared for the war? Are they too prosperous of a country? Is it because they were winning? There doesn't seem to be any reason to leave Israel out of the thoughts and minds of the international community. To do this once again seems to make Israel seem like the big, bad bully country that doesn't need (deserve?) any help after this battle.

This proposition is ridiculous. It seems to be equating Israel and Hezbollah's actions and that doesn't seem fair. The worst part is that there is no mention of the kidnapped hostages being returned to their country and home. As I said earlier, the UN is "mindful" that this is a touchy situation, but Hezbollah doesn't have to return the soldiers. These men could be killed and no part of this proposition would be ignored.

And if that wasn't enough, Kofi Annan has gone further to insult Israel by asking them not to respond militarily if this proposition is broken by Hezbollah. He asks that Israel only respond with immediate self-defense. I refuse to even comment any more on this pathetic statement given by Annan.

Before I end this column I want to suggest that you take a few minutes and play around with the site Little Green Footballs. I'm sure that a lot of you know about this site, but I was just introduced to it recently. It is amazing at the amount of very good evidence that Hezbollah sets up photos, news clips, etc. that this site has. If you want just a small taste of what is available out there, then just go here.


Advertising Time

Even though he has backed down on his promise to reply in his column to each piece of feedback I still have to point you in Everett's direction. I must say though that I don't think that he said anything that deserves hate mail. The boy just speaks what he thinks is right. Then again, I am an insensitive man, who enjoys making fun of others, and has no soul (just don't make fun of me...my feelings are easily hurt.

Because he threatened to fire Crow I will suggest that you go and read our Honorable and Wise Leader's most insightful news report.

And because I don't want Crow to think that I actually want him fired (he might cry), you should go read about the Conflict in Connecticut.


I just realized that I haven't referred to you as "my followers" in this column. For that I apologize. Next time I promise.


Until next time…believe nothing unless you read it here.