--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In situations like this it might make more sense > to give some > > enforcement power to an international authority > comprised of member > > nations from all over the world. Of course the US > has decided the UN is > > bogus, so until we get a little national humility > and get rid of a > > certain arrogant, cowboy Texan in DC, little will > change. > > But there is an experimental basis for that view of > the UN. For example, > the UN is tacitly endorsing the genocide in the > Sudan. My Zambian daughter > said that, as much as she hates to admit it, Bush > has done more than anyone > to address the situation. > > After long having faith in the UN, she has become > very disillusioned. > > Dan M.
Indeed, given the UN's record in this regard (Sudan is, after all, on the _Human Rights_ Commission, having been put there by our European "allies"), it would seem like there is considerable evidence that would suggest that such a power in the hands of an international organization would vastly constrict freedom of speech in the US. In fact, as far as I am aware the US has the most expansive definition of freedom of speech of any nation (it is a sad irony that political speech in the US is more tightly regulated than commercial speech, but both are less regulated than anywhere else) and quite a few countries that would be very powerful in the UN are _actively opposed_ to any form of freedom of speech, while many of the others <cough>France</cough> are easily bought off, so it's hard to imagine how it would turn out any other way. ===== Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
