So these two candidates have three different positions on a single issue? God love 'em.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:  This election will be won or lost on the U.N. Law of The Sea treaty.

"percieved"

Sarah:  i before e except after c.

adaglas, Law of the Sea will not decide the general election.  Was it really that much of an issue during the primaries?  How many of the "base" really paid that much attention to that treaty?

adaglas,

You joke, but there's a reason Palin and other Alaskan Republicans have broken with the wingnuts and come out in support of the Law of the Sea: the Arctic. Mineral claims and territorial claims will be adjudicated by the U.N. and only nations that have signed the Law of the Sea get a seat at the table. All the Arctic nations are in on the rush. We're not.

I'm deeply wary about the drilling and mining of the Arctic sea floor, for environmental reasons (the Arctic is an extremely sensitive ecosystem that does not quickly purge itself of pollutants). I'm especially wary in light of Palin's mania for drilling and skepticism toward science. But unless we sign the Law of the Sea treaty, we have no way to voice objections to the actions of, oh, say, Russia, never mind what are own Putin-in-lipstick wants to do.

I belive adaglas was being sarcastic.  

No, desertdog, he wasn't.  I have had the pleasure of meeting adaglas, and all the dude fucking talks about is "Law of the Sea".   He's obsessed.  Frankly, it scares me.

Others interested in why the Law of the Sea should be something we'd heard about in this election, see Scott Borgerson's "Arcitic Meltdown: The Economic and Security Implications of Global Warming" in the March/April 2008 issue of Foreign Affairs.

His thesis:

"While the other Arctic powers are racing to carve up the region,

the United States has remained largely on the sidelines. The U.S.

Senate has not ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea

(UNCLOS), the leading international treaty on maritime rights, even

though President George W.Bush,environmental nongovernmental

organizations, the U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard service chiefs,

and leading voices in the private sector support the convention.As

a result, the United States cannot formally assert any rights to the

untold resources oa Alaska’s northern coast beyond its exclusive

economic zone—such zones extend for only 200 nautical miles from

each Arctic state’s shore—nor can it join the UN commission that

adjudicates such claims.Worse,Washington has forfeited its ability

to assert sovereignty in the Arctic by allowing its icebreaker fleet to

atrophy.The United States today funds a navy as large as the next

17 in the world combined, yet it has just one seaworthy oceangoing

icebreaker—a vessel that was built more than a decade ago and that

is not optimally configured for Arctic missions.Russia,by comparison,

has a fleet of 18 icebreakers.And even China operates one icebreaker,

despite its lack of Arctic waters.Through its own neglect, the world’s

sole superpower—a country that borders the Bering Strait and possesses

over 1,000 miles of Arctic coastline—has been left out in the cold."

Nippers, to be clear I support our signing the Law of the Sea treaty.  However, as my forte is less maritime law and more childish humor, I was simply remarking on the fact that if you asked 10 people on the street their take on the Law of the Sea, nine of them would think it had something to do with pirates, and the tenth would think it was the spelling tip dubyadoubte mentioned.

Not as scary as boneill's obsession with getting Megan's Law repealed.

Oh, I know that adaglas. I get the joke.

Just so happens this was a topic that I've had reason to pay attention to, and I wanted to bring it to the attention of other TalkBackers.