begging letter

It's no good.. I have to see it.. So anyone who has a copy of Randall and
hopkirk (deceased), can I please borrow it??? *flutter flutter* please?

Also just to be pedantic, in this country we don't have the automatic
'right' to free speech, that's an American thing.
*grin* *stir stir*

Linette
-------------------------------------
Linette.Voller@
Serious Fun Research Laboratory
Brunel University
Tel: +44 (0) 1784 431341 x.244
Fax: +44 (0)1784 472879
Phonetxt: linette@
------------------------------------

Linette Voller said:
You're thinking of the 5th ammendment or whatever... but I think "everyone"
has the right to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom from fear,
and freedom of religion... Think I've got the "4 freedoms" right, anyway?

---

Nick Waterman. Senior Systems Administrator, Sony Interactive Services
mailto:nick-sig@ http://www.nilex.co.uk/~nick/
AX25:G7RZQ@#32.GBR.EU #include <stddisclaimer> Team *AMIGA*!
You are in a twisty maze of standards, all conflicting

1st amendment. The 5th is the right to remain silent.
fear,
Not constitutionally, but then again we live in a country without a written
constitution,
so that is understandable.

---

Chris Lyth (Clyth@)

I wish to complain that my father hurt his ankle very badly when he
put his foot in the hole in his back passage. - Extract from genuine
letter to Hackney Borough Council

Chris Lyth wrote:
That's because we don't need one. Just about every country in
the world signed up to the human rights conventions created
as part of the UN. These include the basic freedoms that
Nick is refering to.

They provide a heck of a lot more protection than a constitution
ever would.

Laters,

Adam

written
Adam replied
No, it is because we evolved our way of doing things over 1000
years. (literally - Think of the Magna Carta as the first attempt)
This means that no-one sat down and invented the system. Something was
needed so it got tagged on. This contrasts with the USA for example,
where they sat down and deliberately developed a system which
doesn't work too well.
Such charming naivety.

Let us look at the sequence of events when the UN spots a
signatory to the human rights convention breaking it.
They have a meeting and pass an injunction against that country.
That country ignores the injunction. The US has over 100 outstanding
injunctions.
Protection, I think not.

Further to the immediately above, the other powers they might use
include
trade sanctions- the poor of target countries end up with
less than they had before. The rulers trade with people who
don't mind breaking the embargo and barely notice the difference.
Sanctions punish the people whose rights are already being ignored.

Sending in the Peacekeeping forces - Can anyone name a situation where
this has had any positive effect?

Oh well, so much for the UN as guarantor of human rights.

---

Chris Lyth (Clyth@)

I used to have an open mind but my brains kept falling out.

[Chris Lyth wrote about the ineffectiveness of the UN, which I snipped for
the good of humanity in general and myself in particular]

I am reminded of something somebody told me ages ago. I think it's a quote,
but I don't know who by.

"Why is it the only people who really know how to run the country are either
driving taxis or cutting hair?"

To this I add my own comment; "or sending their latest 5-year plan
to IFIS chat."

Ron =$-)


You know you've spent too long on ICQ when you have to turn your
head sideways to smile.

quote,
either
Did I say I knew how to run the country? Then again I don't cut hair or
drive
taxis either.
Nope no 5 year plan other than get a new job.
I'm just in a pedantic mood at the moment. And it is always far easier
to point out problems than to come up with workable solutions.

---

Chris Lyth (Clyth@)

Tact is just not saying true stuff. I'll pass. - Cordelia

Because in order to be a successful politician you need to be good at
politics, not at, say, economics. You need self-promotional skills,
diplomacy, and fawning ability.

Of course, that is assuming one considers the politicians to be actually
running the country. The more time passes, the more I think "Yes Minister"
was less of a comedy program, and more of a documentary.

I firmly believe that the politicians have next to no say whatsoever in the
actual running of the country. They often have no real skills in
country-running, and thus have to do pretty much what their advisors tell
them to do, or at least choose between one or two limited options presented
to them. All the politicians do is announce these actions, and try to slag
off the opposition. When was the last time you heard a genuine debate coming
out of parliament. One person stands up and makes a speech, and the other
makes snide comments and jokes at their expense.

The only people with freedom to do things are those running large
multinational corporations. There's a reason why William Gibson chooses to
make multinationals the powers in his Neuromancer books. The days of
geographical powers are nearing the end. Paddy Ashdown said this in his
resignation speech, and the press ignored him, but he's right.

(See, even when waffling about politics, I always try and bring some SF in
somewhere.)

Dominic

"The body is a sacred temple. Sex is not just a matter of knowing how
to enter that temple, it's finding out where everything is, shifting
the furniture about, and remembering to move more slowly and with
more respect than you'd really like to." [Spanky (by Christopher Fowler)]

Chris Lyth wrote:
For once I agree with you. This is certainly the primary reason
why I don't think we need a constitution. My comments were really
directed at republican weenies who seem for some reason to need
something written down...
I suspect we're in broad agreement. If we're not you're welcome to
take to email a discussion of how a written constitution would
provide us with more security than the UN declaration...

See ya,

Adam

Linette, you are a troublemaker. ;-)


In article <38D7A6D6.F8EAE86F@>, Adam Hattrell <adamh@> wrote:
Do they?

Wasn't China a signatory?

Did we see that protection at Tianmen Square?

Do we see it in Tibet?

The problem with all this talk of "rights" (and vaguely touched on this
weekend, for those that attend) is that "rights" mean nothing without the
means to enforce them. A constitution provides no protection whatsoever.
The protection comes by force. This is a fact that most people who should
know better find distasteful - hence empty gestures like the "UN Declaration
of Human Rights". It's also why, if you are mugged, you call the police.
Cue ranting by Jack Nicholson, at the end of "A Few Good Men". In essence,
he's right.


ObSF: it is interesting how much politics there is in SF. Most of it is
"subversive" in one form or another, since it is difficult to write SF
without going way away from the current order and then commenting on it, at
least by comparision.

Not impossible - read EE (Doc) Smith - but really quite difficult.

Saying this, an SF author can probably be judged on the quality of their
subversion. Some of them just go for it (Shea and Wilson come to mind, and
so do Heinlein and Pournelle) and some of them are more subtle (Le Guin,
Haldeman, Kingsbury). Which is good, as some folks find the pulpit style a
bit unnecessary.

On the other hand, there is a down side to the subtle style - Joe Haldeman
complains (in "Vietnam and Other Alien Worlds") about how people can get the
wrong message. The example he thinks of is someone telling him that "The
Forever War" is anti-Jewish. Well, duh.

If you haven't read "The Forever War", read it. It is in the IFIS library.
You will thank me for recommending it, and yourself for making the time from
your busy schedules of drinking, massaging each other and avoiding doing any
coursework to read it.

So read it.


Simon

---
"This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind" -Ecclesiastes 4:16

simon@ | Not affiliated to any religion
simon@ | Not affiliated to any politics
H (+44/0)1784 431998 | Not affiliated to any ideology
M (+44/0)7967 109779 (GMT/BST) | What does that make me?

simon@ said:
I'm glad you said that... this thread was starting to wander well
off-topic! :-)

---

Nick Waterman. Senior Systems Administrator, Sony Interactive Services
mailto:nick-sig@ http://www.nilex.co.uk/~nick/
AX25:G7RZQ@#32.GBR.EU #include <stddisclaimer> Team *AMIGA*!
Always borrow money from a pessimist; he doesn't expect to be paid back.

simon@ wrote:
:-)

Read my words carefully. I never said that it offers an unconditional
guarantee that your rights will not be breached. Just that it offers
more protection than a constitution would.

However, as you implied this is way off topic - I'll take it to email
if you like.

Mental note to self, must read Starship Troopers again...

Laters,

Adam

----- Original Message -----
From: <simon@>
To: <chat@>
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 9:04 AM
Subject: Some politics for you, boys and girls
Who? Moi?

*snigger*

Linette

Grab it from Chris L after he's finished with my copy.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Philip Ayres
payres@
www.netcomuk.co.uk/~payres
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-