[Kobuchi]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

you are misinterpreting both the spirit and letter of the law.

Are you talking to me, or my pastes from the government site?

The spirit of the law, I said, is pro-Israel.

--------------
Primary Impact:
The Arab League boycott of Israel is the principal foreign economic boycott that U.S. companies must be concerned with today.

Boycott Alert
U.S. companies continue to report receiving requests to engage in activities that further or support the boycott of Israel.
--------------

Browse the site, you'll find many protective references to Israel, and none to any other boycott target. That's fine by me, just let's be honest where the pointy end of these laws falls on the political compass.

----------------
Antiboycott Laws:
During the mid-1970's the United States adopted two laws that seek to counteract the participation of U.S. citizens in other nation's economic boycotts or embargoes. These "antiboycott" laws are the 1977 amendments to the Export Administration Act (EAA) and the Ribicoff Amendment to the 1976 Tax Reform Act (TRA).
-------------------

What are they ashamed of? Just say Arab embargo. Say Israel. Otherwise, without spelling it out, the letter of the law must be all-inclusive, like so:

-------------------
Agreements to furnish or actual furnishing of information about the race, religion, sex, or national origin of another person.
-------------------

The object is to stop people from saying "Israeli business" but, to appear unbiased, the law blankets all and renders normal and harmless discrimination illegal. Just read that last paste again. Such sweeping grandeur is too broad even for a human rights charter. You can't deny "Israeli" cheeses nor "French" cheeses, though you may reject "Golan goat" or "Bree" as you please. That's the law.

The accepted practice though is governed not so much by these laws as it is by a system of winks and nods. So we all understand boycotting French companies naughty but patriotic, while boycotting Israeli ones a deal with Osama. That extrajudicial system's fine by me if it works for you - it's your nation.

Now, back to where we started. The antiboycott laws plainly state boycotting (not state sanctions) is illegal. Just the name antiboycott gives that away, don't you think? Who is covered by the laws? "US taxpayers", the law says. "US persons", it says. So how am I misinterpreting the letter of the law?

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Perhaps you should make a complaint about Bill O’Reilly call for a Boycott of France.

I'm a foreign national, for one thing, and that mechanism is for American use. For another, it would be naive of me to think Bill O’Reilly or off-record officials can't supersede your written laws.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

What is it America’s fault that the Soviets Invaded Afghanistan? Lets see hear. The Soviet invade and ruin the county they pull out and anarchy in sues. American forces invade and help establish a democracy for the first time in Afghanistan’s history...yep we are bad people...to the bone evil.

Afghanistan was ruined by proxy warfare. Man, your own country built the Taliban, puffed bin Laden up, taught psycho little war orphans to chant, "Death to the secularists! Jihad! Jihad!" in the madrassas and then taught them explosives in "freedom fighter" camps. Who says so? The CIA says so. If you don't think that's bad go talk to the 9/11 families. OK then help Afghanistan with another twist by declaring war on your own thoroughly odious jihadists once they've lost all credibility and usefulness, install a new regime. So when's the next War on Afghanistan? When Karzai declares indefinite martial law, or later, when he's assassinated? It should ideally be after Americans forget how he got to power. Then you can point to that tottering Islamic Republic and say how awful we need to go in and fix the poor country.

Not "bad", not "evil" - not future friendly either. And that Americans suffered blowback doesn't vindicate US policy for making Afghanistan a hornet's nest for the Soviets. Peace and stability, in my opinion, would have been better for Afghanistan and all concerned than this 30 years of US sponsored proxy warfare and regime change. Not evil; shortsighted, again and again.

Let us see if your present denial of history to prove a moment isn't yet another twist in it.

***

It took some goading but I extracted the useful purpose:

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

It sends a clear message that tin pot dictators do not have the same authority as those leaders who represent the collective will and consent of their people. Further, they don’t get a equal voice because they don’t represent their people.

Tin pot dictators know well enough their authority is tenuous. That's why they resign their countries to the verge of anarchy, and rely on soldiers to enforce the few laws. Of course they'd love to wield the same powers enjoyed by election, if they can set that up.

The other stripe of dictator is the popular strongman, unelected yes but enjoying real support, for a while.

Both types face militant opposition, as a rule, at home or threatened by other regimes, the US or Russia or Rwanda for example, depending on the foreign interests. They'll always get the "message", from one party or another, that people don't support the regime. Arming militant opposition groups sends a clear message. Often the message has teeth enough to thoroughly destabilise the country and keep it under martial law, anarchy, or civil war. This is the effect of intensifying the message.

So your suggestion is not helpful. But how does it look on paper?

Charter Article 1 (Purposes):
1.1 security of states
1.2 peace
1.3 cooperation between countries, and lastly
1.4 "To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends."

Charter Article 2 (Principles)
2.1 "The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members."

You're proposing the most fundamental Principles of the UN be changed to suit you. It can't be done! The United Nations is the forum of all nations, period. You're proposing, essentially, the United Nations be destroyed and a different organization take its place, one that suits you more perfectly.

Go start your own exclusive club for democratic states then.

***

You've taken time rummaging through the US Constitution and Universal Declaration for matches. So I'll follow up in like spirit:

Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is actually from the United States Declaration of independence. They just replace pursuit of happiness with security of person.

3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
---
US Declaration:
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

There's a near match, and plainly following yours. Funny how that last Right changes over time. It was "life, liberty, and estate" originally. So you may boast the US Declaration of Independence was copied from the Brits. But if a modern charter of rights uses "Life, Liberty, and Toys", does it copy John Locke, the UDHR, or something in between?


Article 4 is the 13 Amendment to the US Constitution

4: No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
---
13th: Abolishes slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime.

There. Both human rights documents address slavery. Well, of course they do.


Article 5 is the 8 Amendment to the US Constitution

5th: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
---
8: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Both human rights documents address prisoner abuse. As they should.


Article 6 is the 5 Amendment to the US Constitution

6: Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
---
5th: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The UDHR affirms the undeniability of the Person. The US 5th Amendment uses the word "person" not just once, but twice, as though to hammer home this key point.


Article 7 is the 6 Amendment to the US Constitution

7: All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
---
6th: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Discrimination? No match here.


Article 9 is part of the 5 Amendment to the US Constitution

9: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
---
5th: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Some overlap there.


Article 10 is part of the 6 Amendment to the US Constitution

10: Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
---
6th: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

You found a pretty good overlap. Of course all human rights documents must address trial, but nice work in spotting how both UDHR Article 10 and US Amendment 6 affirm similar trial rights in their respective paragraphs.


Articles 18 and 19 are part of the 1 Amendment to the US Constitution

18: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
---
1st: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Here we see both human rights charters address freedom of belief and expression. I wonder what inspires people to dream up these things?

Well, back to your original statement: that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was "inspired directly the from the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights". I've shown your evidence, and I suggest you compare again. Unless the fact that both US law and the UDHR both address issues like property, language, etc. constitutes direct inspiration in your mind, you have no argument left. And if you do want to try that road, I promise to show how your own Bill of Rights in most particulars traces from prior works, usually foreign.

IMO the UDHR was about as fresh a document as was possible at the time.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

No, I did not personally exhume anyone but I did see the graves they are all over southern Iraq. The graves are from Saddam ordering entire villages exterminated. How do we know? I witness accounts from other villages and the physical evidence. The sear number of children found in the graves suggest it was completely indiscriminate...not collateral damage. Saddam's track records in these matters are obvious. This will all come out in his trial.

Interesting. So did you see any graves from the Iran/Iraq war, the Inter-Kurdish (proxy) wars, Kurdish rebellions, Desert Storm, Shi'ite uprising, Desert Fox, US Invasion, or the million kids dead of malnutrition and foul water during sanctions? There must be many. I understand that Saddam had his defeated troops of Desert Storm/Desert Sabre simply plowed under while machine-gunning them to make double sure. A guy who could plan that obviously places little real value on the lives of Iraqis.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Your right there is no magic however, the US Constitution is enforceable. There is no international body for enforcement of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for an individual. The only counties which truly honor that document are though who have element written into their own constitution or where the inspiration for the elements.

Agreed. It doesn't dictate anything, as a national constitution does. Not unless *ahem* that constitution regards it as the Supreme Law of the Land. But you and I and Bill O’Reilly know not all laws are to be taken seriously.

I think the UDHR potent though, if we can say Chairman Mao's Little Red Book or the Bible or Koran are.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Canada’s debt is 77% of GDP if you really worry about public debt, I would worry about your own house. Our debt may be a larger number but it is only 62.4% of GDP in fact Canadian debt per person is only about $3,000 less and your average income is about $10,000 lower.

I was talking about economic trends, not snapshots. Since you mention Canada, I'm glad to say we've been running surpluses and paying down the debt for seven consecutive years now, and we're still enjoying government service levels way above most industrialised countries.
[quote=Lothar5150]
Some numbers for perspective
National Debts by GDP

UK 51%
United States 62.4%
Germany 64.2%
Austria 67.6%
France 68.8%
Canada 77%
Japan 154.6%

As you can see we all, live in glass houses. The joke is that it is all fiat, just paper Kobuchi, just paper. You should have learned that in economics 101A. We base the value of that paper on the GDP and how many pieces of paper in circulation. If you reduce the number of pieces of paper in circulation then the value of exchange for each piece of paper becomes higher when compared with other pieces of paper. The United States GDP is 11 Trillion the world economy 51 trillion. Since the US is, a 1/5 of the words GDP that alone ensures the US Dollars place in trade not oil.[/QUOTE
Aha but the joke's on you: it's worth nothing in particular, just paper, Lothar5150, just paper. You should have learned that in kindergarten.

Again, you're pretending the picture isn't moving. What's this got to do with currency speculation? And no, speculation doesn't "base" the value of a currency on your almanac formula. The dollar is going down and is expected to eventually bottom at about 30 - 40% pre-euro value.

Since the Eurozone is 1/5 of the world's GDP and expanding geographically those alone ensure the euro's place in trade not oil. Yet the EU already imports more oil than the US, so a shift from petrodollar to euro seems inevitable.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Try again the agreement regarding softwoods ended March 31, 2001.

That's right and your government balks at any agreement for free trade in lumber, in particular. Both the WTO and NAFTA panels have ruled US tariffs illegal, and will soon declare your government turning that money to subsidise US forestry illegal too, so now the issue is larger than a stalled softwood agreement. The issue is America's keeping with the NAFTA agreement. Why would anyone sign into NAFTA knowing the other party will only form agreements in transactions where it has advantage? Why should Canada keep its end of the bargain by upholding free trade in Florida oranges? How is this different?