Get U.S. out of the U.N.?

I was driving down the highway in central Indiana many years ago when I saw a homemade sign on the side of the road. It read: "Get U.S. out of the U.N.".
It was obviously homemade -- it had none of the seamless perfection of the billboards that dot and sometimes overwhelm the landscape.
Having nothing better to do, I turned that message over in my mind. What does it mean, get the United States out of the United Nations. The message was clear, but I wondered what brought that on.
Two decades later, it is abundantly clear, even if I don't agree with the message.
The United Nations has, if nothing else, provided us with a forum for the world's representatives to sit down and listen to one another's viewpoints.
Sometimes we all listened, many times we didn't.
Kruschev beat his shoe on the table -- a Soviet version of the child's "I can't hear you."
In the past few days, the North Korean delegate walked out of the U.N. after saying sanctions against his country would be considered an act of war.
Then, Condoleeza Rice and our president, George W. Bush, appeared on TV saying things like, "North Korea won't listen to the world. They have violated the expressed mandate of the United Nations and must be punished."
Interesting.
Wasn't it the United States that decided to invade Iraq after the United Nations said no?
Maybe the United States should be punished, using the same logic.
As a Christian, I am a firm believer in "Vengeance is mine, I will repay saith the Lord of hosts" and "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap".
If George and Condy are right and I am wrong, then the U.S. will be blessed. But if what I fear is happening, we may be taken to the woodshed. (That means we will be disciplined for the sophisticates not used to Hoosier lingo.)
I do believe we can't have it both ways. If North Korea was wrong for testing a nuclear device because the U.N. said so, then the U.S. was wrong for invading Iraq. The U.N. was just as vocal about that, before we decided to go in with a very small group of countries who have proven to not be very committed to the project.

Election issues: Are we lazy or what?

A friend stopped by to see me this morning. He is quite involved in
state politics, not as an elected or appointed official, but as a
volunteer in the Statehouse. He is also involved in Farm Bureau.
One of his jobs is to answer the telephone at the Statehouse when the Indiana General Assembly is in session.
He takes calls on all subjects; in fact, at one point the telephones were backed up 500 calls during the last session.
One of the points he made today was, anyone can lobby for any cause they
wish. But, they have to go to Indianapolis and see the people who make
the laws and plan the state's two-year budget.
A few people will do so, but most won't, he said.
Why?
Do we expect the organizations we join to lobby for us?
I belong to the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP),
though I doubt I'll ever be financially able to retire. I'm not even
sure I would want to retire, if I had good health. I always plan to
write, as long as I can hold a pen or produce typos on a keyboard.
But I'm also a member of Alamo Christian Church, Alamo, Ind. To my
knowledge, none of our members lobby on my behalf. We have no paid
lobbyists, according to the monthly financial reports.
I also belong to the Clay County YMCA. Any lobbyists there? Maybe, but I'm not sure.
This all reminds me of something one of my bosses said about a decade ago.
People complain about "special interest groups" running the country,
but we're all part of a special interest group.
Ahh, yes. But that's the rub.
I am a member of several special interest groups. I cannot be defined by just one of my memberships.
Not all retired persons are Christians -- they are certainly not all
members of the little church I attend. I'm sure many members of AARP do
not share my values. As an American I support their right to be
different and I stand up for my right to be an individual as well.
I guess I had better take time to visit the Indiana General Assembly, or not
complain because the state isn't doing what I think is best.
I vote in each election.
Usually, since I began voting in the early 1970s, I have voted Republican
(except for some state and local races). I voted for Gerald Ford
(against Jimmy Carter), I voted for Ronald Reagan (twice) and I voted
against Bill Clinton and against George W. Bush (twice each).
But I never really told any politician how I felt on the issues.
I think my friend was right this morning. You have to be your own lobbyist.

Looking for election to be over

"What can we do about the negative ads?"

It's finally happened.
I have finally arrived at the point where I said, "Uncle!" to all the election campaign commercials.
I want this election to be over!
It has nothing to do with the fact I work for a newspaper that accepts paid advertising from candidates. Those ads are civilized, fair and decent.
No, I'm upset by the TV ads that seem to have reached a new low attack and counterattack. They seem to be for candidates to the U.S. House of Representatives.
I understand. The Republicans have a narrow lead in the House and they quite possibly may lose control of the House to the Democrats.
But it seems the ads are worse this year than in years past.
One example: Have you noticed the most negative ads are not presented by the attacker, but by the national party? Both Democrats and Republicans are airing those ads in Indiana.
At a recent Rotary meeting, one club member asked a candidate who spoke that day, "What can we do about the negative ads?"
The candidate spoke for at least 10 minutes (by my internal clock) and never did answer the question!
In other words, as long as we are paying the freight for TV to carry those ads, you must endure.
You can't change the station. The ads seem to be everywhere, except on PBS and NPR.
Maybe that's why I turn to a nearby National Public Radio station every time I get in the car.