this is a lot of talk about these pieces of paper.  rights are just stronger laws.  laws can be changed, so can rights.  if you have power, you can unfortunately do as you please, “rules” notwithstanding.  the UN certainly got the mirror held up to them in 2003–check it out, UN, you operate on no objective terms, and all your rules for the world to follow in terms of “morality” are nothing but arbitrary conventions, and unenforceable at that.


did the world err in allowing an angelically benevolent-seeming nation like the U.S. to get so powerful that it can assert unilateral dominance as it pleases?  is it too much to expect from the world (or from the power elites that run it)?

the fact that these legal caveats were done away with so easily shows just how non-robust relying on conventions is.  i mean, the first time someone touches the constitution there should have been an immediate penalty.  what does enshrinement really mean?
then again, i’m against institutionalizing anything, so i suppose this is just my punishment from the Karma Gods, whom i must have somehow angered.