Yay (Or Nay) For UN Day!

In all honesty, I have mixed feelings every year when UN Day comes around. There have been so many great things that this institution has accomplished in its history and yet so many things that it continues to get horribly wrong in its current incarnation. If only they could look at what they have done in the past and applied those same virtues to the present the situation would be completely different and many questions regarding its modern viability would be alleviated. My personal opinion (i.e. detest for the current body of politicians) is one that is formed from the current positions that the United Nations has taken but it is also curbed by the things that, historically, this international body has allowed to happen.  

I can’t help but maintain my focus, above all other work being done, on two current issues in which I hold a personal stake in the outcome. The first is the ongoing push for the UN Arms Trade Treaty and the impact it could have on my rights. In an article published on April 14, 2013 in The Wall Street Journal, former United States UN Ambassador John Bolton summed up the push for this distasteful policy when he wrote the following:  

While much of the treaty governs the international sale of conventional weapons, its regulation of small arms would provide American gun-control advocates with a new tool for restricting rights. 

…

Like many international schemes, this treaty has seemingly benign motives. It seeks to "eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and to prevent their diversion to the illicit market," where they are used in civil wars and human-rights disasters. The treaty calls for rigorous export controls on heavy conventional weapons, such as tanks, missiles, artillery, helicopters and warships.

…

But the new treaty also demands domestic regulation of "small arms and light weapons." The treaty's Article 5 requires nations to "establish and maintain a national control system," including a "national control list." Article 10 requires signatories "to regulate brokering" of conventional arms. The treaty offers no guarantee for individual rights, but instead only declares it is "mindful" of the "legitimate trade and lawful ownership" of arms for "recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities." Not a word about the right to possess guns for a broader individual right of self-defense.

Gun-control advocates will use these provisions to argue that the U.S. must enact measures such as a national gun registry, licenses for guns and ammunition sales, universal background checks, and even a ban of certain weapons. The treaty thus provides the Obama administration with an end-run around Congress to reach these gun-control holy grails. As the Supreme Court's Heller and McDonald cases recently declared, the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right "to keep and bear Arms" such as handguns and rifles. Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce remains broad, but the court's decisions in other cases—even last year's challenge to the Affordable Care Act—remind us that those powers are limited.

The other reason for my disdain is rather simple… the United Nations ongoing efforts to vilify Israel and attempts to prevent the Jewish State from defending its boarders and living in peace. In addition to the outright deplorable statements made related to Israel’s acts of self-defense, the UN’s unwillingness to recognize the terrorist states that surround the country and levy harsh penalties for their actions is borderline anti-Semitic. It is amazing how much this international body has devolved from one that supported the country’s right to exist to now defending those who seek to destroy it.

It is because of these reasons that I cannot support the United Nations nor will I celebrate this day. It is a shameful institution full of people who cannot see past their utopian ideals and view the world through the prism of reality. If justice is blind then the United Nations is Helen Keller.

A Return To Letter Writing

Negotiations with Iran have long been a polarizing subject from all colors on the political spectrum. This has always seemed a little odd to me given the United States’ tenuous relationship with the country, the vile policies of their leadership, and their attempts to vilify and desire to destroy Israel. To this end, I would support the current nuclear negotiations with Iran if they would simply reverse every position that they have doggedly held on to for so long.

This was the driving force behind Netanyahu’s speech to Congress as Israel can’t afford, nor can the United States, to see Iran develop a nuclear arsenal. To think that this radical country would stick to any agreement let alone one so ill-conceived is naive at best. Believing that they will only use the development and technology for peaceful purposes is like saying Hillary only deleted private emails. It just doesn’t add up.

It was for this reason that Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) penned a letter to the Islamic Republic and why 46 other Senators joined him by signing the letter (the full text of the letter can be found on The Wall Street Journal blog). Contrary to many of the reports from “unbiased” news outlets, this was not an attack on the president nor was it a threat. The letter was a means to demonstrate the significant public opposition to the current negotiations. The current 10 year plan is one that won’t work, one that should not be supported, and if signed, one that should be overturned as quickly as possible to limit the fallout.

With that said, the means by with this message was presented may not have been the best decision. But, again, this is not a means to offend or undermine, it is a way to ensure that the opposition is heard loud and clear. Frankly, it is one of the more transparent actions that I can remember seeing come out of Washington. There was no doubt as to who signed the letter.

The subsequent twisting of the words and assumption of motive is what the public should be up in arms about. That and the idea that there are too many who are placing their trust in the untrustworthy, crossing their fingers, and hoping that there is some semblance honest in the empty promises of a murderous republic. That is simply a stance that I cannot support, Israel does not support, many in the military and intelligence communities do not support, and at least 47 politicians in Washington do not support.

Firearms Friday: Green Is The New Black

When it comes to firearms the federal government is very concerned with color. It seems as though they are obsessed with how something looks rather than taking a closer look at what it actually is. The most prevalent obsession is about black rifles in which they clump together all kinds of firearms, attribute fantastical powers to them, and don’t bother looking at the actual functionality of the various semi-automatic platforms. This is an ongoing problem that continues to bother many of us as the claims made are false and the solution that these “lawmakers” have is to strip away the rights from everyone.

Now many politicians are focusing on a different color… green. And I am not referring to environmental issues. They are determined to prohibit the sale of green tip ammunition which, not so coincidentally, is used primarily in the AR15 (“black rifle”) platform. The increased popularity of the AR pistol platform seems to have provided the impetus for the ATF’s proposed ban just as it did for the recent opinion released by the ATF that the Sig Brace can no longer be shouldered. In reality, anyone who thinks that an AR pistol can be concealed as a handgun has never bothered to consider the facts in that scenario. However, there is huge hole in the ‘logic’ behind this proposal as was outlined by Robert Farago on TheTruthAboutGuns.org:

“Mark Glaze [Executive Director of Every Town For Gun Safety] wants American gun owners to use ammunition that doesn’t pierce the “bulletproof” vests of police officers, but the fact of the matter is that any commercially available 5.56 ammunition will do that same job. The vests worn by cops simply aren’t designed to stop rifle rounds… Nor is there any ammunition in the intermediate or large rifle caliber range that will fail to penetrate a Level IIA vest. .308 Winchester? .30-06 Springfield? 7.62×39? All of these calibers will pass straight through a “bulletproof” vest, no matter what kind of projectile is used — “armor piercing” or not.”

Yes, this is the same Mark Glaze that made the following confession last year to The Wall Street Journal shortly after resigning as the executive director of former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns: “Mr. Glaze said the movement hasn’t solved one of its signature problems: Many mass shootings wouldn’t have been stopped by tighter regulations proposed by gun-control advocates, even if they might have prevented other gun crimes.”

The ATF’s proposal really isn’t about the banning of a popular surplus ammunition, this is the back end work that continues to happen in order to limit the availability of ammunition for this platform. While it may be seen as a leap in logic for some to see this as an affront to our rights, when looking at the larger picture the common motivation is quite clear... they are trying out flank the banning of the AR platform since their direct assault failed. And, as Glaze has previously admitted, any legislation that does pass will not satiate the emotional fervor that they, and other similar groups, have instilled in many people. These types of policies just don’t work!

Packages And Returns

It seems as though there is one package or another that arrives at the office on a daily basis. All different shapes, sizes, and weights. Some business and others personal (especially around the holidays). Also a common sights is the occasional box that is put aside to be picked up and returned to where it came from. I have heard all the reasons for send something back even though I rarely do so myself from wrong size or color to poor quality, wrong item all together, or arriving too late and everything in between.

Every time I see one of those packages heading out the door I can’t help but think about the cost of those returns and how the “free returns” policy isn’t really a free service as those anticipated costs are factored into the price of the object. When I looked into the data behind returns (focusing on the online side of things) I was taken aback by the percentage… in 2013, The Wall Street Journal found that nearly a third (33%) of all online purchases were returned for one reason or another. That is a lot of money spend on “free returns”.

Beyond the money it just seems like a pain in the what to have to go through that process and I tried finding some more information on what impact it has on the retailer. From a recent survey I found the following statistics:

• 54% of respondents stated that the reason for returning an item purchased online or by phone is because the item is the incorrect size or color
• 97% of respondents stated that the return process is important to their future intentions to shop with a retailer
• 73% of respondents who receive an incorrect item after already returning it once stated that they are much less likely to shop with that retailer online or by phone again for future purchases
• 45% of respondents who have experienced continuous return process issues with particular retailers stated that they have limited shopping with that retailer altogether (both online and in-store)
• 26% of respondents expect the correct item to be shipped to them within one to two days after returning the incorrect item

While I rely more on the end cost of the item and tend to put up with these errors, it seems as though I am among the minority. But it makes me think more about the disconnect that many people have from the products they buy while maintaining the “I see it now and I want it now” mentality. While I prefer going into a store and buying the items that I want or need, online is an inexpensive alternative to get the same thing at a much better price. I wonder how many of those in the above survey could have avoided the return had they seen the color in person and determined if something ran large or small while trying it on in the store.

We have to remember that while online shopping is convenience and cheaper, the in-store experience is sometimes worth the ten minutes out of your day and ten cents out of your pocket. Heck, sometimes it is cheaper to buy in the store if you simply talk to the sales person, manager, or owner. That little bit of time can end up saving you a lot of aggravation if not money and if people stop returning so much stuff online it might even drive down some of those “low prices” even further.