myata

By the necessity of the survival. If we still understand and care what it is about.

One cannot clap with a palm of one hand. A solution cannot be reached if the arguments of only one side are seen as valid. Eternal war or a solution where interests of both sides are heard and taken into account are the only options so by closing one we chose the other. How is it not obvious, after so many years and tragedies? Yes there needs to be a reliable, trusted partner for negotiations on the Palestine's side. No Israel cannot grab ever more of the land that doesn't belong to it, under any guises or excuses. If there's any chance for the former option above to be avoided, that is. Why is it not obvious?

The advent of social networks, global access to them among other things allows us to obtain an insight, possible a measure of, what regular common people think everywhere on the globe. I do not find many of such instances and observations a cause to relax and celebrate: many are confused with respect to the meaning of the principles of humanity, essential freedoms and law; apologize and even admire brutal, murderous force; cower to, idolize and admire authoritarian leaders; and so on. Democracies especially in the West grew over-relaxed by only a few decades of relative stability and prosperity and chant themselves into the mindset and expectation that nothing bad could happen no matter what happens; while the reality of the world shows pretty much the opposite. Not only individuals, entire states show astounding misunderstanding and confusion about the basic principles of humanity and United Nations. Take the positions of South Africa or Brazil on the conflicts in Palestine and Ukraine. They read that great charter, and what did it say? Did it say, "unacceptability and reprehensibility of unprovoked aggression", or: "part with your territory to satisfy the aggressor"? How can it be one and the same? No, they just don't seem to understand plain, great words! There's a reason for it though: they don't have to. In the history of this humanity, great words, alone and on their own, never worked: like, literally. Another futile attempt and another failure. Nope: not going to work. Just can't, with us, as we are. What is needed instead is a global framework, alliance of democracies and aspiring states. After satisfying certain criteria of commitment it has to provide, above and first of all, the security: anywhere on the globe. Security is one undeniable foundation of prosperity, peace and development. Down this avenue, with time, more nations would join the global democratic alliance making it ever stronger, until a few dictatorships are left in their zoos as the reminder what the past was and the future can still be, on a dime, if we choose to forget. This will work. Great words only, more great words: no. Just no point in going there again. Never worked in the entire history. So won't work, again and again.

Or should it be: how normal, common sense and convenient it can be in the places where it is considered as an essential service to the citizens, and the governments are accountable and responsible?

Public transit in Canada is a decoration; a badge; an afterthought. Not an essential service, for millions of citizens. As simple as that. If water supply, garbage collection and policing were on the same level of availability and quality, we would be in the third world, squarely. Are we going away from it, of the other way?

Where else in the world (third included) could one sell the idea that to add a short extension, one would need to shut down the entire line for three years and counting? It's unique really. We don't need to do it on time and within budget. It doesn't have to make sense. It's our world we do whatever we like, no limits.

There's no culture of excellence in public transit possibly in the whole of North America, possibly with some local exceptions. It seen as frill, a decoration: not a cornerstone, everyday foundation of a modern prosperous society like in Europe and some other places. And changing a mindset, a deeply rooted culture can be a formidable undertaking.

Warrant of the ICJ orders the states-signatories to arrest the alleged criminals and deliver them to the court. The states most active in the recent decisions: Brazil and South Africa officially expressed doubts in enforcing its order in their territories. What kind of travesty is that? This is the real, actual and palpable danger and damage of this kind of words-only, imaginary institutions: folks really get used to the stark different between the words and the reality and stop noticing it. Here, I signed the great charter; no lets rob them of their land and have a mirage of "peace". The danger is real, it's right here. The benefits, few and far between. The promise, who cares about another wishful, impossible dream? Teenagers have those in dozens every night.

.. not to mention, started or instigated

How many wars did it prevent or stop? Speaking of security.

To a very limited degree again far from the overreaching claim.. that was obviously misguided and not grounded in the reality. It was based on an illusion of grandeur post WWII and an amazing wish to ignore the reality. Anything functional needs to have, just cannot work without only a few basic things: clear principles; determination of compliance; and enforcement. It has only the first one, that is, just words. And that never worked, in the entire history, not once. Catholic church didn't work for Heavens sake, despite all the holy words.

Please read Michael: international security mechanism. Yes, in the recent period of say, two or three decades it has not achieved any results on the scale and scope of the claim of a functional global security mechanism. Anything that was done, could have been done by just local or regional effort. There are glaring obvious problems to which there's no solutions and none was even attempted, in earnest. What's the point in having, and paying for a Cadillac if we're only going to ride a bicycle? It's just not real.

Ignore Russian bullshit. They tell everything with their acts: no words needed, for anyone with one working cell in the eyes and in the brain. Nothing else to add here.

In the world section Based on just pretty words, only? Has this idea worked like ever, one time in the entire history?

Our current situation in the UNSC is a parody combined with a persuasive demonstration of a triumph of a pure, distilled evil. If intelligent aliens saw and read it, no way they could figure out what this humanity is about and would fire off asap and as far as the Universe would allow it.

UN as a talking club and a bunch of cultural-humanitarian fora is OK. That part of its activities shouldn't need massive funding at all. It's international security responsibilities are an accomplished failure, almost entirely at the discretion of some shady bureaucrats and unless it's reformed deeply and in essence to ensure enforcing and compliance I see no practical reasons to keep pretending that it's doing anything useful.

The end of impartial, independent of politics justice will add a load of troubles to already struggling democracy. This is a stark reminder that are strewn through the history: no system is perfect and is assured to run forever. Each and every political system requires citizens attention, responsibility will and intelligence to change it when and where is needed. Another time, and another proof that there's no way out of this equation. Want the system to run itself with absolute minimum of your attention? Jump, cheer and go home like after a ball game? Yes you can: by letting it become a tyranny. No, no good ways out.

You weren't reading. Try again.

The deep foundational issue is: the claim, principle cannot exist without enforcement. Otherwise, it could and will be subverted all the way to the point where it means nothing, creating two alternative and starkly different realities: the paper one; and the real reality. That is a useless and dangerous avenue, and there's no point in following it. The second fundamental weakness is: granting a privilege without any form of accountability. In the history of humankind this idea never worked, and it failed yet again. So, something along these lines can be suggested. The General Assembly as the world forum is retained. The membership though is limited to the commitment and observation of the UN Charter that is enforced by the World Security Council (the compliant states). Those words are not just pretty words: they have consequences. UN Security council is disbanded by the GA majority vote. In its place a coucil/court of 31 (example) nations is elected for certain mandate term. Principal nuclear states can be allowed a "conventional" seat on the council for some initial period; however, no state that is not a member or is found non-compliant can sit on the council. There's no right of veto. Decisions with grave consequences such as possible intervention or determination of non-compliance made by qualified vote. Membership of a state is conditional on it observing the Statue and the Charter of the United Nations at all times. A determination of non-observance can be made by both the GA (simple vote) or WSC. On determination of non-observance, WSC must decide on possible suspension of the allegedly violating member. The reasons: principles cannot be declarative only because a connection between the word and the reality has to be maintained at all times. There's no point in going in cycles creating imaginary realities that have little or nothing to do with the real one.

Russian bullshit.

That can do nothing? That contradicts itself in every other decision? What would be the point?

"The ICJ called today on President Bolsonaro and other public officials to fully respect judicial independence and the independent electoral procedures .." Wtf? So it can rule on some election procedures, but not on a blatant, outrageous aggression that blatantly violated all laws, principles and charters? What is it? I don't even have a word for it. At least two members of the ICJ who supported the recent case against Israel, recently officially questioned enforcing mandates issued by the court: Braizl and South Africa. So, do you support the decisions of the presumably, "court" or you do not? Can you figure it out already, unless it's some kind of a joke, a pantomime? This goes straight to the core of the notion of justice: it cannot be applied selectively (that's right, Mr. Prosecutor). If you ignore, let off the hook a serial killer on some technicality, then charge a thief that in itself sets the value of your justice: nil. If you claim to adhere to principles, then refuse to implement them you set the real price of your commitment: nothing. So stop bringing those cases with a straight concerned face, as if for real: it's worth nothing; you yourself set the price, remember? Why do we need to play in more of useless: that's de facto, international pantomimes? No: we don't need to. It never worked to impose dreams and plays on the stark reality. And it won't.

The only cause for justice in a democracy is it being impartial: the decisions are guided by the common principles in the law, not political views and affiliations of the justices. Justice, is about the impartial and apolitical rule of law, not another rule of majority. Clearly, in the US now this is increasingly not the case. Clearly, the decisions split on political lines indicate degradation of impartiality. This is not a great news for one of the world's oldest democracies. It's not about whose fault it is, it's about the outcome: without objective, impartial justice U.S. will be bound only to further and still more bitter split. With no obvious or easy way back. Not good.

Right off the start: this is not a knee-jerk to any particular decisions. Only about the reality, seeing it, understanding it and taking it for what it is, not something we're dreaming or imagining. We are living in uncertain, quite possibly, dangerous times. The way forward looks murky and obstructed by many obstacles. Then, there's no point and importantly, no benefits in imposing on it rosy Red riding hood stencil of imagined offices and institutions that can, and do nothing: patently and repeatedly, in this reality. And the harm, very real one: an erosion of the very notion of justice. The Charter that every passing thug can violate at will with unlimited impunity. Quasi "security council", with violent robber and recidivist, pathological aggressor proposing measures and decisions. Something called "court", without any means to implement and enforce its decisions. That is another, separate discussion that needs to be had with a clearly understood outcome: what could abstract justice, without any practical effect in the reality do? Would it do more harm than good, spitting out useless words that mean nothing and no one going to hear? Imagine, in a town ruled by violent gangs, you would have a "justice" reading their daily decisions. How long would it be for it to turn into some comical parody, a show that no one would take seriously: that is, the opposite of the intent? I see absolutely no point in such a scenario. The notion of abstract justice is deeply flawed and not clear at all if it would serve any good. If so, what would be the reason to bother? Better, let's see the future for what it can be, and prepare to it best as we can. No need for rosy, impossible spectacles. They could do us more harm than good: and did, many times in history.

The democracy can be lost easily and the explanations, seeking scapegoats won't matter one bit. Part of it is just the binary system that naturally spawns ultimate partisanship simply because if not me then him no better me. And the other part is the obsession with the dream often and then, permanently ahead of, and on top of the reality. Yes, a difficult layout with few obvious ways out.