[dkstories] DIR Chapter 14

[old bob]

There are certainly a wide range of opinions on that topic! Some Americans would even go so far as to take up arms against their own government if it EVER tried to hand over US sovereignty to the UN, and be willing to die in the act. I'm one of them. But, as I say, there are a wide range of opinions on the subject, so don't take mine as representative of America in general (on this or any subject).

 

Hey James, dont take my opinion too seriously.

What I dont understand is the relation between UNO and USA. USA founded UNO, USA support financially UNO, USA accept to discuss within the Security Council, USA accept the votes of the General Assembly. Where is the differences between participating and hand over sovereignty to the UN ?

As for the representativity of the GA readers and writers, I could say after reading all the different blogs, that you all represent for me the positive majority of the US-citizens

Edited June 11, 2006 by old bob

[C James]

Hey James, dont take my opinion too seriously.

What I dont understand is the relation between UNO and USA. USA founded UNO, USA support financially UNO, USA accept to discuss within the Security Council, USA accept the votes of the General Assembly. Where is the differences between participating and hand over sovereignty to the UN ?

As for the representativity of the GA readers and writers, I could say after reading all the different blogs, that you all represent for me the positive majority of the US-citizens

 

The following are just my opinions and interpretations. There are many differing ones.

 

The US was indeed the driving force behind the Treaty of San Francisco, which founded the UN.

 

The USA often does not accept the actions of the General Assembly, as those actions are often bizarre. For example, replacing the US on the Human Rights commission with countries that are amongst the worst offenders.

 

The Security council is most often deadlocked due to the veto power of the five permanent members. Witness the current impasse on Iran's nuclear program. Europe, too, sometimes ignores the UN. The war in Kosovo was Europe's idea (they asked for US participation.) That action was never approved by the UN in any way, nor was that route even tried, due to the (in that case) Russian veto.

 

The difference between sovereignty and participation could best be summed up by example: Participation could be described as playing a part in the process, and respecting UN resolutions. Surrender of Sovereignty could be described as surrendering US sovereign power over the United States and it's citizens. One example would be the demands by the UN to turn over control of the Internet root servers to the UN. A Better example would be demands by the UN for US citizens to be subject to UN criminal courts, UN institution of global taxes (including in the US), or the US agreeing to UN demands to take away the constitutional rights of Americans (such as to bear arms). Basically, allowing the US to make laws that apply internally within the US would be a surrender of Sovereignty, and that's the sort of thing I'd oppose, with my life if need be.

While none of the above examples are in themselves cataclysmic, I believe in the "wedge" principle in that if one is allowed, it will merely be the first. As I oppose the concept of world government in any form, I therefore oppose any move by the UN in that direction.

 

Basically, my opinion of the UN is that it's irretrievably broken and corrupt (witness the oil-for-food scandal, and so many others) It's also rather useless (witness it's lack of response to the genocide in Sudan, and it's utterly hopeless (and that's being charitable) response to the Indian Ocean Tsunami). The one option for a replacement that holds my present interest is a league of democratic nations.

 

BTW, as far as I know, I'm only representative of sunglasses-wearing goats in Arizona, not Americans in general.

[Demetz]

What I dont understand is the relation between UNO and USA. USA founded UNO, USA support financially UNO, USA accept to discuss within the Security Council, USA accept the votes of the General Assembly. Where is the differences between participating and hand over sovereignty to the UN ?

 

Basically, the US has not handed over its sovereignty because the US still has the ability, the right, and the means to ensure that it can say "no" to the UN.

 

If it wanted to, the UN could claim it has absorbed the US into itself and that US citizens are now under its authority, however, the United States people would largely reject such an assertion of foreign power, and the United States military is strong enough to prevent the UN from ever successfully exercising their claim. Only a handful of countries hold that status, most are on the security council and none want war with each other because of the huge cost it would require.

 

The US may be the principal financier, but it is by no means the controlling power of the UN, or there would be UN flags flying in Iraq right now. We hold a strong position in the UN, but that power is limited by what the other four countries with veto power have in mind. For example, we wanted a UN force (of which our own forces would make up the largest portion) to deal with the invasion and occupation of Iraq, but France, who as we found out later had a number of less than ethical dealings with Saddam Husseing that effectively undermined the sanctions against him, threatened the use of the veto to prevent UN action there. As a result, the US organized what it deemed a coalition of the willing to do what it wanted anyway, the only real difference being a lack of troops from several nations that otherwise would have participated, and the financial costs of the war were lain almost entirely on the US.

 

We can not be forced by the UN to do one thing or another, but neither can we force the UN to move where we want it to if certain key members are set against that.

[old bob]

We can not be forced by the UN to do one thing or another, but neither can we force the UN to move where we want it to if certain key members are set against that.

 

Hey James and Demetz

I'm always amazed about how deep is your knowledge about history (now and in the past). I agree, Im not sure UNO is what it should be. Remember, which was the last nation to join UN ? We, the swiss people discussed 50 years about it and voted yes 2 years ago with a very short majority.

[C James]

Hey James and Demetz

I'm always amazed about how deep is your knowledge about history (now and in the past). I agree, Im not sure UNO is what it should be. Remember, which was the last nation to join UN ? We, the swiss people discussed 50 years about it and voted yes 2 years ago with a very short majority.

 

Just don't take me too seriously... I have some rather odd political leanings (for example, there are darn few people who are members of both the Sierra Club and the National Rifle Association, which I am), and those leanings on various issues color my perceptions of some things if I'm not very careful (and sometimes even then). I also live in a very rural area (over twenty miles from the nearest town) and that gives me a perspective that's markedly different than someone from a city or suburb.

 

I'm a member of no political party, which has both advantages and disadvantages when it comes to trying to view a political event or situation objectively. On one hand, I don't have the "us against them" perspective, but on the other hand it's all too easy for me to play the role of cynic and just criticize, instead of actually proposing solutions.

 

I'm also not a professional or an expert in any of these areas. I tend to focus mainly on politics at the national level (and even then only as an "armchair general" not a participant or player), so on state issues (even in my own state) I'm usually not very knowledgeable. I think I'm rather jealous of DK's profession, as he is a true professional, and is doing something I've only dreamed of doing.

 

I do love to discuss science, politics, history, and a few other subjects, but I'm prone to be very long-winded once I get rolling (as if that is news to anyone here. )

 

As for the UN.. I think I fully share Switzerland's rather skeptical past view. I also admire Switzerland for "bucking the trend" for so long. It's been a few years since I've visited Switzerland, and I miss it, as it's one of my favorite places. I was mainly in the Lucerne area (The William Tell Inn, a really nice place on the river that I highly recommend) last time, and loved the whole region.

[EMoe57]

I do love to discuss science, politics, history, and a few other subjects, but I'm prone to be very long-winded once I get rolling (as if that is news to anyone here. )

Sounds like the makings of an author to me. Why not give it a try?

[C James]

Sounds like the makings of an author to me. Why not give it a try?

 

ROFL!!

 

Funny that you should mention that.. Look for "Across the Sand" in the summer anthology. I'll be sending it in shortly, as I'm pretty well done. I don't know if it will make it through the selection process for actual selection for posting in the anthology, but I have high hopes.

 

And, umm, I guess I'll mention it here: I have written a few multi-chapter stories. I just haven't ever posted anything, anywhere. I tried submitting one to Dabeagle a few years ago, but it got rejected. Frankly, there was probably good reason for that, as I think it's much better now since a re-work.

 

I don't actually have any completed stories (except the short story for the Anthology). I've got two that are about ten chapters into roughly twenty chapter stories, plus a couple of stories that have only two or three chapters done so far.

 

And, yes, I HAVE A PLAN! <cue sinister music...>

 

I am trying to get the first ten chapters of three stories (so thirty chapters total) ready for posting. *IF* my summer anthology entry does ok, I plan on using the "success" of that, plus having thirty chapters ready for posting, to beg and cajole Myr for non-hosted "Author" status so that I can start posting in e-fiction and make the announcements in the non-hosted story annuncments group (I know I can post in the e-fiction now, but I want to be able to make announcements). I'd then post two chapters a week from two stories (four a week total) for a few weeks, and see what happens.

 

So, Emoe, I am indeed giving it a try... And your post here today was indeed fortuitous! For now, in future years, as distraught and anguished readers, cradling their abused eyes, cry forth "why, why does he do this to us?" I shall be able to say "Don't blame me, it was all Emoe's idea..."

[EMoe57]

OK, I responded to the PM before I saw this...

 

So, Emoe, I am indeed giving it a try... And your post here today was indeed fortuitous! For now, in future years, as distraught and anguished readers, cradling their abused eyes, cry forth "why, why does he do this to us?" I shall be able to say "Don't blame me, it was all Emoe's idea..."

NOPE! Can't blame it on me unless I'm the editor - right DK? J/K ~ DK has always stated that the flubs are his but I feel bad when I don't catch them either...

[C James]

OK, I responded to the PM before I saw this...

NOPE! Can't blame it on me unless I'm the editor - right DK? J/K ~ DK has always stated that the flubs are his but I feel bad when I don't catch them either...

 

But Emoe, if it's you who encouraged me to write, surely you bear some responsibility for the anguish and misery of my reader (assuming I ever get one of those..).

[old bob]

But Emoe, if it's you who encouraged me to write, surely you bear some responsibility for the anguish and misery of my reader (assuming I ever get one of those..).

Yoopee .....

I cannt wait anymore. At least you will have ONE reader.

Wenn will I have the pleasure.....?

[C James]

Yoopee .....

I cannt wait anymore. At least you will have ONE reader.

Wenn will I have the pleasure.....?

 

Thanks, Bob!

 

Well, I'm submitting one story (across the Sand) for the GA Summer anthology. If it's accepted, you will see it then. If it doesn't make, it, I'll post it in e-fiction anyway, so it will be there. So, within a few weeks, one way or the other.

 

For the multi-chapter stories, it should be immediately after that.

 

I should warn everyone though: Neither "Across the Sand" or the first two multi-chapter stories have Sci-fi or politics. This is a surprise even for me as it was the politics and the technothriller aspect of DO (and the rest of the series) that I liked so very much. Basically, I couldn't think of a good plot for one when I first started to write. HOWEVER, I hope to fix that eventually as do have a third story that I'm working on for later that has a little sci-fi, and I have an idea (outline) for one with some politics.

[old bob]

Hey Demetz and James...

I went trough all your posts about the subject.

Everybody should be aware of the importance of the fight against terrorism.

Like Demetz says : "We have to fight them with guns and bombs and so forth, because were we to let them live they would surely use such weapons against us, but unless we also fight their words with stronger reasoning, this war will go on forever, and even then, the best of reasoning can still be lost on those who have no wish to listen and the sad truth of the human condition is that there are many who do not care for reasoning at all."

But the example of the Isreali show us that all the means of a powerfull army (tsahal) are not sufficient enough to win this war. The right way shouldn't be to encourage the democratic proces in the muslim states (like in Marocco for instance) and bring them to an economic welfare (like the Marshall plan in 1945 in Europ) ?

The situation in Palestina shows us that if the people see in it their advantage, they stop to sustain terrorism. The human condition is clear. Wen they have themself something to loose, wen they are wealthy enough, they will begin reasoning and stop the fight !! USA has there a big economic challenge to win and non only a war to win. Are your politicians able to ?

[C James]

Bob wrote..

 

Hey Demetz and James...

I went trough all your posts about the subject.

Everybody should be aware of the importance of the fight against terrorism.

Like Demetz says : "We have to fight them with guns and bombs and so forth, because were we to let them live they would surely use such weapons against us, but unless we also fight their words with stronger reasoning, this war will go on forever, and even then, the best of reasoning can still be lost on those who have no wish to listen and the sad truth of the human condition is that there are many who do not care for reasoning at all."

But the example of the Isreali show us that all the means of a powerfull army (tsahal) are not sufficient enough to win this war. The right way shouldn't be to encourage the democratic proces in the muslim states (like in Marocco for instance) and bring them to an economic welfare (like the Marshall plan in 1945 in Europ) ?

The situation in Palestina shows us that if the people see in it their advantage, they stop to sustain terrorism. The human condition is clear. Wen they have themself something to loose, wen they are wealthy enough, they will begin reasoning and stop the fight !! USA has there a big economic challenge to win and non only a war to win. Are your politicians able to ?

 

I do agree that the solution isn't solely military, though I disagree on the economic development angle.

In brief, many politicians and pundits have suggested spending hundreds of billions of dollars in direct Aid to the countries that are the source of much dissent and terror. The problem I have with that is that it seems to be a policy suggestion based upon political dogma rather than objective reality (unfortunately, exceedingly common in politics).

 

The underlying reason why this would not work (and would, instead, likely make the problem worse) is a false precept: the idea that economic disadvantage is a root cause of terror. Simply put, in most cases it isn't, and I can prove it.

 

Lets take a look at the nations that are the prime sources of terrorists and terrorism, and compare them

to the more peaceful nations in their area. First we have Saudi Arabia: It is the single largest source of terrorists, especially on a per capita basis. 15 of the 19 9-11 hijackers were Saudis, as were the majority of the foreign fighters in Afghanistan under the Taliban, and Saudis compose the largest component of the foreign jihadists in Iraq. Saudi Arabia is also the richest nation in the region, and one of the richest on the planet.

 

If one looks at the economies of the nations that are the worst sources of terror, one could actually make a better argument that it's prosperity and not poverty that is the culprit. As a point of fact, we do not see terrorists to any serious degree from any of the poorest nations on earth.

 

Personally, I don't believe that either the cause or the solution is economic, nor can the area be looked upon as a homogeneous whole where similar causes and solutions apply. Saudi Arabia and Iran are both sources of terrorists, yet their respective internal sociaodynamic causes are very different. This is especially true of Palestine: It's a special case due to it's long conflict with Israel, and it has sociodynamics that would not apply elsewhere.

 

With each nation (and sub-region) having different dynamics, the solution in each place must be tailored to it's individual situation. It's especially important to remember that things that work in one area may not work in others. One example would be an Israeli tactic: They often, as a matter of policy, bulldoze the homes of the families of Palestinian terrorists. This has, to the surprise of many, been a successful policy as it has deterred many attacks. It would not be practical to apply it elsewhere, though.

 

My own view is that the solution needs to be multifaceted and varied, and every possible use of leverage must be made. I do agree about encouraging democracy, be it via friendly encouragement and help where appropriate, or by regime change when not (though for practical reasons this is can not be done frequently, and must be done for maximum benefit and leverage.). A gross generalization of my opinion would be that I favor the use of both the carrot and the stick.

 

The recent changes in Lebanon and Libya, while very different in nature, were both in my view tremendous successes in the War on Terror. IMHO, we need to do more to take advantage of local differences, instead of viewing them as an obstacle. By applying multi-faceted and custom tailored policies and actions to each terror-source area and nation, and aiming for maximum leverage to achieve fixed goals, we could end this problem. Unfortunately, two prerequisites for success in foreign policy are coherency and consistency, which happen to be two things that the US has proven abysmal at, long term, for the last half century or more.

[old bob]

Hey James... I like to discuss world politics with you

 

IMHO, we need to do more to take advantage of local differences, instead of viewing them as an obstacle. By applying multi-faceted and custom tailored policies and actions to each terror-source area and nation, and aiming for maximum leverage to achieve fixed goals, we could end this problem.

/quote]

 

I dont agree entirely with your first arguments but 100 % with your conclusions above.

 

[quote Unfortunately, two prerequisites for success in foreign policy are coherency and consistency, which happen to be two things that the US has proven abysmal at, long term, for the last half century or more.

/quote]

 

In brief, your appreciation of the foreign policy should predestine you to be the next Secretary of State....

Hello ....

I come back because I found a book from an american Professor, written in french, with a terrific title "USA Patriot Act", better than Orwell....

Here the sites about it : http://ms.cc.sunysb.edu/~rharvey/ and http://ms.cc.sunysb.edu/%7Erharvey/USAPATRIOT-order.pdf

Is it really to late to stop the Beast ???'

Edited June 15, 2006 by old bob

[C James]

Bob wrote:

 

Hey James... I like to discuss world politics with you

 

I dont agree entirely with your first arguments but 100 % with your conclusions above.

 

Thanks.. I enjoy our conversations very much, too.

Don't worry about disagreeing: Heck, I don't even agree with me sometimes!

 

BTW, I wasn't arguing that impoverishing nations would be a way to combat terror, just opining that the demographics and the economics do not fit the premise that economic disadvantage is a main cause of terror.

 

In brief, your appreciation of the foreign policy should predestine you to be the next Secretary of State....

Hello ....

I come back because I found a book from an american Professor, written in french, with a terrific title "USA Patriot Act", better than Orwell....

Here the sites about it : http://ms.cc.sunysb.edu/~rharvey/ and http://ms.cc.sunysb.edu/%7Erharvey/USAPATRIOT-order.pdf

Is it really to late to stop the Beast ???'

 

That looks like an interesting book, but unfortunately I don't speak french so I couldn't figure out too much from the text. I'll see what I can figure out for a translation... I'm absolutely no fan of the so-called Patriot Act.

 

As for me as SecState, that would indeed be my dream job! Might be everyone else's nightmare, though, as I can be a bit of a hard liner on some issues. I'm not that much of a hard liner though.. For example, I am in most cases opposed to the use of Strategic Nuclear Weapons as the first step in resolving a minor trade dispute...

 

Edited to add::

Bob, I thogght you might be interested in this, due to your interest in USA politics (and this is an example of it at it's worst)

 

I'm very ticked off right now, at my local congressman. Ok, some background: In the US, there is an enormous problem regarding Federal spending. Due to the nature of the budgetary process, individual congressmen can add in "earmarks" for pet projects in their district, basically federal grants of money. This is what we call "pork", as these projects are usually little more than ways to bring Federal money home to their districts (and thus buy them popularity and re-election).

 

It was this sort of wasteful corruption that got the Democrats in hot water when they controlled Congress, and was instrumental in getting them tossed from power by the Republicans, who ran largely on a platform of budget-cutting (there were other aspects to the Contract with America, but that was a huge part).

 

So, what happens once the Republicans have held power for a while? They go and do the same darn thing that got their opponents tossed out! Not clever at all..

 

So, back to why I'm mad at my Congresscritter. Basically, I think that he's an idiot, because he just sent out a campaign mailer that is bound to enrage his own political base. He's also a liar, because he campaigned on a promise of ending this sort of nonsense. So, what is in his three-page flyer? It's literally nothing but item-by-item examples of all the federal money that he's "Secured for the district". In other words, 148 million dollars of loot, for projects that are nothing that the Federal government should be involved in, and are often blatant featherbedding if not outright graft.

 

His name is Rick Renzi (Republican), and I deeply regret ever voting for him. I won't make that mistake again, and I hope his opponent in November uses this campaign mailer to ram it down Renzi's throat.

 

Bob, how is this issue dealt with in Switzerland? How do you stop politicians from looting the national treasury to bring home money for their district (to buy themselves re-election?)

Here in the US, our system seems designed to favor the biggest thiefs in this regard.

Edited June 16, 2006 by C James

[Demetz]

Is it really to late to stop the Beast ???'

 

Unfortunately it probably is too late to stop it completely. Reversing parties will only change which violations of our rights are made more frequently. It will take a very long time to reverse all the damage done by the PATRIOT act, especially with two justices on the Supreme Court placed there by Bush. Extracting the patriot act back out of our lives will be a long process of picking new and trustworthy (near impossible to find) people to place in congress, while making sure a democrat gets the Presidency to put liberal justices on the Supreme Court when the time comes. It will probably take decades to undo what panicked politicians did in just a couple weeks... and there are some parts that may never be undone, but hopefully people will have enough sense to make certain a president of a different party grabs the Presidency in '08.

[old bob]

I Bob, how is this issue dealt with in Switzerland? How do you stop politicians from looting the national treasury to bring home money for their district (to buy themselves re-election?)

Here in the US, our system seems designed to favor the biggest thiefs in this regard.

 

Not so easy to explain the system in Switzerland. In one word : we have not only 2 parties, but about 2 left, 2-3 middle and 2 right, and in principe 3 different regions (french, german and italian) each with all parties represented. The politicians watch each others! On the national level, the press is represented through 3 groups without a definite political orientation. The national and the regional press (about 10 daily papers) is very aware of this problem (they are more interested to control that no other dictrict receive more money than to brin money to their own district !!). The subject of all the present discussions in the parliaments (swiss and all the cantons) is : " how reduce the expenses et not allow the executive to exceed the voted budgets". Dont forget : each expenditure decision can be rejected by a referendum, and in 60 % of the cases it works. As everywhere, swiss people dont like to pay to much taxes. The last time they accepted an exceeding was 35 years ago for the army during cold war !! I should say : I live in an happy country ! :king:

Another important difference : the politicians are NOT professional politicians. They have their own job and are only part time politicians . It an honor to be elected and the money doesnt play a big role.

Edited June 16, 2006 by old bob

[old bob]

It will probably take decades to undo what panicked politicians did in just a couple weeks... and there are some parts that may never be undone, but hopefully people will have enough sense to make certain a president of a different party grabs the Presidency in '08.

In the meantime, could not the press play a bigger role, like the "Washington Post" in the Watergate-Nixon story ?

Do you remember the movie "Mr Smith goes to Senate" In these times, the politicians were to so crooked as today

Edited June 16, 2006 by old bob

[C James]

Unfortunately it probably is too late to stop it completely. Reversing parties will only change which violations of our rights are made more frequently.

 

I really, really wish that I could disagree with you on that, but all past behavior by both parties points unequivicably in that direction. I sincerely hope to be wrong on this, but I'm not overly hopeful.

 

It will take a very long time to reverse all the damage done by the PATRIOT act, especially with two justices on the Supreme Court placed there by Bush.

 

I've been growing more and more disgusted with the SC in some of it's decisions in recent years. As an example of different philosophies attacking different rights, I'll mention the eminent domain case of Kelo Vs. New London (three of the five justices supporting it are liberals) and then the abominable ruling (mainly by conservative justices) that the commerce clause of the constitution (giving the Feds the right to regulate interstate trade) could be used as the basis for the Feds prohibiting the legalization of drugs WITHIN a state. This is IMHO one of the most appalling ruling of all time: using this as precedent, there is literally nothing that the Feds can't claim to have power over within a state, based on a clause that clearly does not apply.

 

I shouldn't be surprised, though... This is, after all, the same SC that has allowed some justices to use FORIGN court precedents and even foreign (overseas) public opinion as support for certain rulings. That was beyond absurd.

 

Extracting the patriot act back out of our lives will be a long process of picking new and trustworthy (near impossible to find) people to place in congress, while making sure a democrat gets the Presidency to put liberal justices on the Supreme Court when the time comes. It will probably take decades to undo what panicked politicians did in just a couple weeks... and there are some parts that may never be undone, but hopefully people will have enough sense to make certain a president of a different party grabs the Presidency in '08.

 

Unfortunately, The Patriot act is IMHO even worse in that regarding it's genesis. It wasn't done in just a couple of weeks by panicked politicians. I might understand it (though not agree) slightly more if that had been the case. The sad fact is that it had been around in the form of a right-wing wish-list for years. 9-11 was used as the excuse for enacting it.

 

If it had really been about 9-11 and terrorism, most criticism of it could have been quashed by simply making it apply only to terror investigations and prosecutions. They did no such thing, and as I recall the first use of one of it's powers was against a Casino owner in Vegas, in a case having absolutely nothing to do with national security. This, I believe, is true of the vast majority of it's uses. I don't know which I despise more: the law itself, or the use of a downright Orwellian name to make it look like something it isn't.

 

Not so easy to explain the system in Switzerland. In one word : we have not only 2 parties, but about 2 left, 2-3 middle and 2 right, and in principe 3 different regions (french, german and italian) each with all parties represented. The politicians watch each others! On the national level, the press is represented through 3 groups without a definite political orientation. The national and the regional press (about 10 daily papers) is very aware of this problem (they are more interested to control that no other dictrict receive more money than to brin money to their own district !!). The subject of all the present discussions in the parliaments (swiss and all the cantons) is : " how reduce the expenses et not allow the executive to exceed the voted budgets". Dont forget : each expenditure decision can be rejected by a referendum, and in 60 % of the cases it works. As everywhere, swiss people dont like to pay to much taxes. The last time they accepted an exceeding was 35 years ago for the army during cold war !! I should say : I live in an happy country ! :king:

Another important difference : the politicians are NOT professional politicians. They have their own job and are only part time politicians . It an honor to be elected and the money doesnt play a big role.

 

That is very interesting! Thanks! I like the way that seems to work.

It also sort of plays into a pet theory of mine: that divided government (no one party in control) is far better than either party controlling both houses of Congress and the White House. If one looks back at the budget for a few decades, there are interesting correlations between divided control and lower pork-barrel spending.

 

BTW, have Swiss gun laws changed much? I always liked the way that Swiss military and reservists (in a country with compulsory universal military service, that's a lot) were required to keep fully-automatic assault weapons in their homes. It was IMHO a very pragmatic policy considering Switzerland's geography. Last I heard, about 20% of Swiss households had a fully-automatic weapon in them.

 

In the meantime, could not the press play a bigger role, like the "Washington Post" in the Watergate-Nixon story ?

Do you remember the movie "Mr Smith goes to Senate" In these times, the politicians were to so crooked as today

 

Just my opinion, but I feel that the Press is a huge part of the problem. Due to the nature of Television news, and declining attention spans, there is a tendency to focus on soundbytes: a quick phrase or sentence that is newsworthy. This does not make for good or accurate coverage of complex issues such as the budget, or specifically when a congressman seeks to raid the treasury by earmarking funds for porkbarrel projects in his or her district. It's so common that the media pays little attention. The sad state of our media is best summed up by this disgusting fact: On the day that Israel bombed Syria a couple of years ago, the lead headline on most news outlets was not that, but some drivel about Michael Jackson (a singer).

 

Another problem is that the politicians find it far easier to co-operate, as most aren't direct rivals. So, get them supporting (or at least not objecting to) each other's raids on the treasury. This is made worse by the budget process itself: each congressman can add "earmarks" for funds for their pet projects to ANY bill, without debate or discussion or other review. The only chance of stopping it is if the entire bill is voted down, or vetoed. This is one reason why many (such as myself) favor the concept of the line-item veto. It would enable the President to remove selected financial items from bills, instead of just being able to kill or approve the entire measure. Most state governors have this power, and it seems to work quite well at the state level most of the time.

 

What I would really prefer to see, though, is the end of the "earmarking" process itself. This could be done without a constitutional amendment (which a line-item veto would require) and would force all these pet pork projects to go through the committee process, including public review.

[old bob]

BTW, have Swiss gun laws changed much? I always liked the way that Swiss military and reservists (in a country with compulsory universal military service, that's a lot) were required to keep fully-automatic assault weapons in their homes. It was IMHO a very pragmatic policy considering Switzerland's geography. Last I heard, about 20% of Swiss households had a fully-automatic weapon in them.

Hey James....

About swiss weapons, the swiss army had during the world war II about 600'000 soldiers, each with a non automatic weapon. Now, it was reduced to about 220'000 soldiers, able to fight within 48 hours.

If you are interested see the site : Military_of_Switzerland .

On the same site, you will find the description of our automatic weapon : .

SIG 550 assault rifle

 

Perhaps you will be interested to hear about friends of the old swiss riffle in Arizona ?

Look also at Swiss Rifle Club of Arizona

swiss rifles

Old Bob

Edited June 24, 2006 by old bob