Reviews for The School of Homer

Saturday, February 28, 2004

Haiti Problem

I was watching Geraldo's "At Large" program this evening and to my horror both he and Col. David Hunt hypothesized that the only reason we aren't intervening in this third world mess in Haiti is racial prejudice from the White House. Huh?

The United States has already sent troops to Haiti once, and it achieved no long lasting results, nor was it going to given the nature of our motivation and mission. Haiti posed no threat, we merely wanted to "stabalize" the country so that refugees wouldn't flee to the United States (amusing they don't run to Cuba). No one called President Clinton a racist for his use of the military to keep black refugees from getting here.

Personally, I could care less if people flee Haiti to come to the United States, good for them. It shows that they at least know their country stinks and that they will have a chance for a better life in the United States. However, what is the point of using troops, who are in short supply, to prop up a democratically elected (this is irrelevent, democratically elected leaders can by tyrants as well, i.e. Nazi Party) and very unpopular leader? Haitian rebellions and coups don't threaten the United States unless there is some sort of property confiscation or killing/kidnapping of American citizens.

Plus, it has been proven that these interventions merely delay the two sides from fighting it out. Our coming in in 1994 has only put off the unrest for a decade, it was a complete waste of time and money. Not to mention, what good is stability if that stability comes at the price of individual rights? Would we have appreciated a foreign power coming to put down the American rebellion in 1776 in the name of world stability? Of course that would not have happened back then, and I'm in no equating our rebellion to Mr. Phillip's cause in Haiti. The point is, the Haitians have plenty of examples around them for what not to do and what they should do, they will have to battle it out and create a better life for themselves, not us.

I blame this bluster for intervention on the way the United States sold the Iraq War to the world, calling it Operation Iraqi Freedom, as if we had no selfish cause and were only fighting to free the people of Iraq. We fought to get rid of a dictator who showed himself perfectly willing to be an aggressor (shooting at our planes almost daily, itself perfect provocation for war) and who was thought by the entire world, not just the United States, to have deadly chemical and biological weapons which he could easily give to terrorists, like Abu Nidal (a deadly terrorist who resided in Iraq for years before his mysterious death, probably at the hands of Saddam). Granted it would have made more sense to attack Iran, but Iraq would have been in the way of our march to Syria and would have had to go anyway.

When engaged in a real war that is directly related to the country's survival we should have even less patience for these Roosevelt Corollary wars than normal. Haiti will either remain a basket case or will gain some real leadership that has eyes and can look at the United States for inspiration. This will be the case whether we go in or not, so we should save our money for more important things.

Besides, if you accept that country A should be interfering in rebellions in country B because A has a past link or tie to B then you must ask yourself, if Haiti is B, what country is properly A? It is none other than international pain-in-the-ass (and nuclear power) France! They colonized Haiti and imported the African slaves whose descendents are the current inhabitants. They were also kicked out in a slave rebellion and have since washed their hands of the place, why aren't they racists? Because, in a passing moment of genius, the French government realized it was no longer their concern and that it was much cheaper to not hold onto Haiti as colony or interfere in Haitian internal affairs (not to mention France had numerous internal problems during the nineteenth centuries).

Hopefully, Bush will keep out of this mess, but ships are already being deployed to the region and pressure from Democrats (most of whom reject selfish wars to preserve the country) could push the president into sending troops. I hope not, but I hope the president will not do a lot of things that he ends up doing anyway.

Friday, February 27, 2004

From The Political Review, June 13, 2004

Exclusive Interview with Independent Candidate for President, Jesus
By Randall Cliffordstein

Of course, the story of Professor Finklemeyer’s time machine extraction of Jesus is well known to anyone on the planet with any exposure to any kind of media and certainly doesn’t need to be repeated here. The story of Finklemeyer’s tragic and untimely demise is also well known. His tampering with time only worked once before his machine malfunctioned and was destroyed along with his entire lab, thus destroying the designs and formulas necessary for time travel. But Jesus is still with us, much removed from his world in first century Judea and yet he is settling in quite well.

In fact, he has thrown the country into further uproar in last two weeks by way of his candidacy for the presidency, which he can now pursue thanks to the quickly passed twenty-eighth amendment allowing foreign born citizens to become president. Jesus became a citizen of the United States by way of a lighting fast expedited process spearheaded by President Bush (though we must wonder if he would have done that had he known that Jesus would run against him). With most of the people in the country declared Christians, Christ himself would seem to be a very formidable candidate with a built-in base of those who are especially devout. The only one who can be seen to benefit from this initially is Senator John Kerry, who was never counting on the devout to put him into the White House to begin with, but there is a catch. Jesus has some rather controversial views on a wide variety of topics that may not engender voter enthusiasm from many Americans.

I was fortunate enough to get the first exclusive interview with the candidate to talk about the issues of the day and to ask him how a Jesus presidency would approach the many problems facing our nation today. He was as clear as he could be, as he doesn’t have great experience with our language yet, and very forthright. The question is will this forthrightness gain him more votes or less? Would he be better off shutting his mouth and running a front-porch campaign? I’ll let the reader decide, but even George Washington’s popularity went down some after he entered politics and started taking positions on matters publicly.

RC: Hello Mr. Jesus, do you mind if I call you Mr. Jesus?
JC: Please, umm, call me Christ.
RC: Ok, Mr. Christ. Well I think the first thing people want to know is why are you running for the presidency?
JC: I am the son of God. God’s word must be that which people live by, not the word of man.
RC: And you don’t think President Bush governs by the word of God?
JC: No, from what I see he violates God’s word in a great many areas, he swears oaths to the word of men as opposed to that of God, my father.
RC: Wouldn’t you, as president, have to take an oath to uphold the constitution as well?
JC: Maybe, as a formality, but should it conflict with the word of God, my father, then I have no doubt which I will choose.
RC: God’s?
JC: My father’s, yes.
RC: Oh, well, um, moving on. What do you think, Mr. Christ, …
JC: Think not, I’ve no need to think, one should live by the word of God alone. What thinking does one’s heart do? What thinking does one need with the word of God?
RC: Umm, I don’t know, none I would assume. So what is ahhh, what is God’s word on the subject of taxation and the rich? Should they be taxed more or less?
JC: This came up in Judea as well; I care not how much anyone is taxed. Should one care about such things they will never be welcome in the kingdom of God. I used to tell my disciples that it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
RC: So then, would you tell rich men to give up their wealth or people in general to not strive for wealth?
JC: I’ve always told those with things to sell off all they have and then distribute the money to the poor, that way they will sit with me at the seat of power on the right hand of God. Also, those who try to be the best will only make themselves the inferior to all and the servant of all. All should repent as the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
RC: What do you mean by that exactly?
JC: God will come to judge the world, those who are sinners will be cast to hell and those who have followed me shall be saved.
RC: Let’s move on from that, how would a President Jesus fight the war on terrorism?
JC: Fight a war? Hah! I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do well for those who hate you, and pray for all those who persecute or misuse you. Remember, the peacemakers are blessed, for they are the children of God, those who make war shall burn.
RC: So you wouldn’t fight the terrorists?
JC: Do not resist evil, if someone strikes your right cheek; turn to him your other.
RC: But what about those among the American people who want to be able to live in safety and not be killed by terrorists?
JC: Those who love life will only lose it while those who despise their lives in this world will live forever.
RC: So you are essentially saying that we ought not to fight the terrorists and should despise our lives on Earth?
JC: Yes, that’s what I’m saying.
RC: You’re not concerned that this position will cause people to not vote for you?
JC: Those who don’t follow me are not worthy of me.
RC: That’s a pretty elitist attitude isn’t it?
JC: I am the son of God.
RC: Oh, yes, umm, it’s been a practice here to always ask, what would Jesus do? So, in the interest of answering some of these questions, would you drive a sport utility vehicle? Perhaps I should ask if you’ve had time to learn what that is exactly?
JC: Yes, I’ve become all too familiar with your automobiles. I would not drive any of them or own any of them, such a waste of money which could go to the poor. To own one would be to hoard from your brothers and sisters, that is not acceptable.
RC: Yes, I suppose that is consistent. So how would the good Jesus deal with homosexual marriages?
JC: None are good, not even me. Only one is good, and that one is God. I would do nothing about homosexual marriages. People who get married are obviously concerned about this worldly, I think you call this secular, happiness when the kingdom of heaven is at hand. All who do this are foolish and will not sit at the seat of power when God comes to judge.
RC: That’s a, well, interesting view of things. This may be getting redundant, but we have a problem here with lawsuits, healthcare, things of that nature. What would President Jesus do about frivolous lawsuits?
JC: I say that if any man sues you to take away your money, let him have your home and other possessions as well. The kingdom of heaven is at hand, all of these possessions are useless anyway.
RC: So your position is that whoever sues you, merit or no merit, let him have what he wants and even give him more?
JC: Yes.
RC: I’d like to go back to something you said earlier. You said, “Those who don’t follow me are not worthy of me.”
JC: Yes, I did.
RC: So how would you characterize someone who is “worthy” of you?
JC: He that follows me, or he that gives his life for my sake are those who will be rewarded.
RC: By “gives his life for my sake,” what exactly do you mean?
JC: I mean, he that sacrifices himself for me is worthy, those who don’t shall pay, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
RC: Interesting. Have you had time to look at other religions while you’ve been here?
JC: Yes, I’ve looked at them, including the ones that claim to follow me which I think are all illegitimate, the kingdom of heaven is at hand and people set up palaces of money devoted to me? It is the ultimate insult.
RC: So what do you think of religions carried by the sword, like Islam? As opposed to your creed which you bring in peace?
JC: You shouldn’t think that I’m on Earth to send or bring peace; I’ve come with a sword, not an olive branch.
RC: What do you mean by that?
JC: I am here to set men against one another and to choose between me and anyone else they might wish to follow. If one loves their parents more than me then they aren’t worthy and if one loves their children more than me they also are not worthy.
RC: This would seem to break up families which might not agree about your words.
JC: They are not my words, but the words of God, and if they aren’t accepted by all then the resulting separations are necessary for these family members will be separated in the final judgment.
RC: So what does one gain by believing you, aside from being saved in this “final judgment” you say is imminent?
JC: All things are possible to those who believe.
RC: What does that mean?
JC: Only those who believe will know what it means and they don’t have to ask.
RC: Isn’t that a bit circular?
JC: Do you think you can out-reason God?
RC: Well, no offense, but I’m not sure you speak for God, assuming there is one.
JC: This interview is over.

He seemed affable enough during the interview, but obviously some of his views are quite controversial. It is clear that if it were anyone but Jesus, most people would consider the talk, of being the son of God and the coming “kingdom of heaven,” the ravings of a lunatic. Certainly his solution to the current terrorist problem, which is to do nothing, seems, at best, idiotic. And his economic policy, which consists of rich people, or anyone with any possessions, selling all they have and giving the proceeds to the poor, is what can be described as egalitarian and altruistic in the utmost extreme. Unless you are poor, in which case it is in your selfish interest to support Jesus, which is an odd paradox. It would seem safe to say that Jesus and Marx would have gotten along beautifully, except that Marx’s nominal concern for this world would have infuriated Jesus. Perhaps he can best be compared to a nihilist, but even that wouldn’t be accurate.

Can he win? Sure, he has a built in voting block that has been told for decades that he is the ideal of mankind, in fact he’s better than men, a God (or demi-God) even. But will his views, particularly on relevant issues of the day, so repel potential voters that people move away from Jesus?

Finally, Dr. Finklemeyer’s extraction of Jesus means that Jesus was never crucified or sacrificed, supposedly to absolve us all of our sins, which virtually destroys all of his appeal as a messianic figure. Perhaps it was good that Jesus was extracted so that we could take the measure of the actual man as opposed to the myth. In this reporter’s opinion, he doesn’t quite measure up.
Saturday, February 21, 2004
Does Secularism Threaten America?
By Michael Marriott

Well here we go again. Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly continues his attacks on “secularism” as a mortal threat to American values. The good news is he has finally come nearer a definition of the term so that it is possible to debate him on logical grounds. His February 20, 2004 Talking Points segment is enlightening:

Why traditionalists are losing the culture war, that is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points" memo. The answer's simple. Americans who believe traditional values are important have no leadership. Secularists who believe society has to change to include income redistribution, drug legalization, gay marriage, social promotion in public schools, no display of Christmas symbols or overtly religious images and on and on, those people have aggressive leadership (italics added).

The mayor of San Francisco is a great example. This Gavin Newsom guy, like him or not, is pretty gutsy. He's simply doing what he wants, violating state law, violating the will of the people. But Newsom has made a calculation that few will stand up to him. And he's absolutely right. At this point, it's me against him...

Here's a prediction. If President Bush and other traditionalist politicians don't start to confront the forces of secularism in this country, we'll be completely different five years from now. Hillary Clinton might well be president, our courts will be populated with very liberal judges, and the USA you used to know will be a memory. And that's the memo.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines secularism as “The doctrine that morality should be based solely on regard to the well-being of mankind in the present life, to the exclusion of all considerations drawn from belief in God or in a future state.” As shown above, O’Reilly concurs, in a roundabout way, with this definition. On one side we have the “traditionalists”, or those who believe in basic Christian values, versus everyone else, i.e, the secularists. The latter group includes skeptics, pot smokers, gays, collectivists, socialists, atheists, libertarians, and every other possible category. O’Reilly’s cultural dividing line stands marked by the Bible.

Now, when O’Reilly speaks of “traditional values” he is focusing on ethics. Ayn Rand defines ethics as, “a code of values to guide man’s choice and actions– the choices and actions that determine the purpose and course of life.” O’Reilly unequivocally casts his lot with the mystics in regard to ethics. Mystics determine right and wrong by supernatural means. God’s commandments, as transmitted by a work created by human beings, the Bible, are the gold standard of behavior. Thus mystics refuse to think for themselves, instead relying on external sources to guide their actions. (Mysteriously O’Reilly never considers that mystics are not all Christians; Muhammadans, for instance, act according to the dictates of the Koran, which means that flying airplanes into buildings is acceptable if they believe God commands it.)

There is nothing wrong with creating categories to denote people of a similar mind set. However, such categories must mirror reality. The neat O’Reilly division between believers and non-believers does not meet this concern. A better conceptual construct, one that is consistent with reality, is provided by the great Objectivist philosopher, Dr. Leonard Peikoff. He has demonstrated that all philosophical issues boil down to three categories, or as he terms it, trichotomies. Trichotomies in essence exhaust all possibilities related to the issue under examination and are mutually exclusive. Only one of the three categories within a trichotomy is correct.

Two basic trichotomies exist conceptually. One relates to metaphysics, the other to epistemology. In metaphysics, or the study of reality, the three categories within the trichotomy are: those who believe in a dual universe (Platonists/mystics); those who believe there is one universe (Aristoteleans/objectivists); and those who say no reality exists (skeptics/subjectivists). In epistemology, or the study of knowledge acquisition, the categories are: those who believe knowledge is innate or transmitted through supernatural means (mystics/religion); those who believe that knowledge is the result of interpreting objective reality (Aristoteleans/objectivists); and those who believe that knowledge is gained simply through subjective preferences (skeptics/subjectivists).

Ethics is formed by a combination of one’s metaphysical/epistemological tenets. Thus O’Reilly is correct when he describes the mystic position, i.e., a dual universe leads to God’s commandments which means one must act according to the Bible. Where he errors entirely is in his characterization of the non-mystics or secularists. As the trichotomies above reveal, the secular world is divided between skeptics and objectivists. O'Reilly absolutely makes no such distinction. This flaw seriously undermines his argument that secularists as a group threaten American values.

Consider the major differences in ethics between skeptics and objectivists. Following their metaphysical/epistemological tenets, skeptics believe that man’s consciousness determines reality. If one feels something to be true, then by definition the something is true. San Francisco Mayor Newsom is a skeptic. If gays wish to marry then an objective code of law contradicting that act is irrelevant. Each individual determines right and wrong and each choice, even if diametrically in opposition, is equally valid to a skeptic. Man’s subjective feelings are the standard of morality.

Objectivists, by combination of their metaphysics and epistemology, reject both subjectivism and mysticism, believing instead that reality rather than man’s personal feelings or a supernatural deity set the standards by which we live. The axiom that “existence exists” is the starting point of their philosophy. Life itself is the standard of morality. Insofar as a choice furthers life it is deemed good morally. Rational self-interest, rather than feelings, is the means of determining which choice to make when man is faced with alternatives. Reason and logic, in accordance with a real universe, lead to only one correct choice regardless what a man or combination of men may “feel” is right. To Objectivists, both the skeptics and mystics are absolutely wrong when it comes to a philosophically integrated, rationally anchored ethics.

Thus one may congratulate O’Reilly when he rightly opposes the skeptics. But if he opposes the Objectivists then he is treading on dangerous, and ultimately irrational, ground. It is quite possible to have a consistent and complete code of ethics having never read the Bible. For instance, an Objectivist can oppose the concept of murder using rational self interest as the foundation of his argument . He hardly requires a commandment from God to know that killing humans is inconsistent with the furtherance of life on earth, even if the murder does not involve him directly.

What becomes clear is that O’Reilly and other mystics distrust the human mind. When he groups all secularists together without distinction he not only engages in sloppy thinking, he implicitly condemns man as a helpless creature that cannot think for himself. Both O’Reilly mysticism and secular scepticism result in monstrous ethics. If O’Reilly truly cares about the “folks”, he must recognize his error and promote human reason as the only method of thinking and acting correctly. Far from posing a threat, the Objectivist point of view is the only one that explicitly promotes, protects and intellectually nurtures American values as individual freedom, limited government and capitalism.

Thursday, February 26, 2004

I have an idea for a short piece of fiction. It is based on the idea of Jesus as a candidate for President of the United States in 2004. The idea is to set it up as a dialogue between Jesus and an interviewer trying to get Jesus' opinion on the important issues of the day and see if his ideas, as attributed to him in the New Testament, would appeal to many people in today's America, or at least those who call themselves capitalists yet worship the peasant from Nazareth. I will post this dialogue when I finish it.

Tuesday, February 24, 2004

I find it rather amusing that conservatives, typically characterized by the media as "hawks" as concerns the war on terrorism, are beating each other up to be the first to see the new movie The Passion of the Christ in which the hero (Jesus) encourages one to love one's enemies. In fact you should love them as you love oneself, if not more, and take their blows on the cheeck, presumably until you die (like Jesus) or until they give up or are miraculously changed into loving you as well. In fact, this is the explicit foreign policy of the conservatives' policitical enemies, the liberals. They preach, quite openly, that it is not the fault of the terrorists, they come from poor countries, instead of throwing bombs at them we should be throwing money at them, and if they attack us more then we're not throwing enough money to them. Hence, both conservatives and liberals agree on the insidious morality of Jesus of Nazareth (as he wasn't the messiah and therefore not the "Christ"). Why do conservatives fight terrorism (though in an ass backward and ham-fisted way) and liberals refuse to do so? Because the liberals already beat them to the "surrender America first" political slogan? I don't know for sure, but it's a rather disturbing thought when you consider how little really separates both of these political movements.

Wednesday, February 11, 2004

"For empirically, taking the twentieth century as a whole, the single most warlike, most interventionist, most imperialist government has been the United States." - Murray N. Rothbard, For A New Liberty

"Throughout the tragic Vietnamese conflict, the United States maintained the fiction that it was a war of "aggression" by the Communist North Vietnamese State against a friendly and "pro-Western" (whatever that term may mean) South Vietnamese State which had called for our aid. Actually, the war was really a doomed but lengthy attempt by an imperial United States to suppress the wishes of the great bulk of the Vietnamese population and to maintain unpopular client dictators in the southern half og the country by virtual genocide if necessary." - Murray N. Rothbard, For A New Liberty

"J.K. Galbraith: A negotiated relationship between shop-floor pay and executive pay might be the best form of salary restraint. Following the current French discussion, if a full-time assembly-line worker in the United States got $12,000 a year, then a top executive would have as a ceiling, say, five times as much, or $60,000. That is a living wage.

Nicole Salinger: It would be a terrific reduction!

J.K. Galbraith: Make it ten times, or $120,000, then. It's the principle that counts." - Almost Everyone's Guide to Economics Galbraith was the Ambassador to India under President Kennedy, he also served as a general advisor to the President.

"There must also be enough jobs, and the right training, so the people who need them can fill the positions that are available. There must now also be a full employment program - work for all." - Hubert Humphrey, Beyond Civil Rights

Saturday, February 07, 2004

From the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" from Applewood Books: Bedford, MA. By Eleanor Roosevelt et al. pg. 6-8

Article 22

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23

1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

3. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable renumeration ensueing for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

Article 24

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25

1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Article 26

1. Everyone has the right to education.

Article 27

1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

Article 29

1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

Thursday, February 05, 2004

Constitutional Amendment to Ban Gay Marriage
By Alexander Marriott February 6, 2004

"The family enjoys the protection of the state. Marriage is based on the free consent of the woman and the man; the spouses are completely equal in their family relations."

This sounds much like an initial draft of a constitutional amendment for the United States constitution to "protect" heterosexual marriage. Conservatives and liberals both get something out of it, explicit definition of marriage as between a man and a woman and equality of the sexes. Consider the second half of this actual segment of an actual constitution,

"The state helps the family by providing and developing a broad system of childcare institutions, by organising and improving communal services and public catering, by paying grants on the birth of a child, by providing children's allowances and benefits for large families, and other forms of family allowances and assistance."

Of course now most people would have a problem with this constitution. The consitution in question here is that of the Soviet Union as of 1980. The point of showing that such a country did what the President and his surrogates are now suggesting is to show what such an amendment implies, oppression.

To codify an abrogation of individual rights, the right to freely make contracts that don't harm the parties or any third parties, would be an abomination on our country, much as the 18th amendment to prevent the consumption of alcohol or the 16th amendment to allow the levying of income taxes. Of course the constitution did implicitly allow slavery to exist by defering the question to the individual states, but this would be the first time since the triumph of the temperance movement that the constitution was amended to curb rights rather than secure them.

Marriage, contrary to recent alarmist and absurdist statements, is not the cornerstone or foundation of Western Civilization. It is an important contractual and moral committment two or more people make to each other to do certain things, i.e. love one another and not break their contract together, and if they do to fairly divide their joint property amongst them.

This contract needs no protection as it is not under attack, but it does need to be enforced and upheld when it is broken by one of the parties, which is the case for all contracts. Pehaps the government should be more concerned with actually following the provisions already in the constitution before considering new amendments, especially those that would work against the spirit of individual rights, the idea upon which the constitution is built.
Chapter Seven

The Basic Rights, Freedoms, and Duties of Citizens of the USSR

ARTICLE 40: Citizens of the USSR have the right to work (that is, to guaranteed employment and pay in accordance with the quantity and quality of their work, and not below the state-established minimum), including the right to choose their trade or profession, type of job and work in accordance with their inclinations, abilities, training and education, with due account of the needs of society.

ARTICLE 41: Citizens of the USSR have the right to rest and leisure.

ARTICLE 42: Citizens of the USSR have the right to health protection.

ARTICLE 43: Citizens of the USSR have the right to maintenance in old age, in sickness, and in the event of complete or partial disability or loss of the breadwinner.

ARTICLE 44: Citizens of the USSR have the right to housing.

ARTICLE 45: Citizens of the USSR have the right to education.

ARTICLE 46: Citizens of the USSR have the right to enjoy cultural benefits.

From "The New Constitution of the USSR" printed in 1980, pg. 250-252.

Chapter IX

International Economic and Social Co-opertion

Article 55

With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:

a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;

b. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems

from the Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court of Justice.