RC>Yeah, right. We've only to look south of the border to see
RC>the results of government from soccer stadia. Nothing
RC>suggests a basketball stadium is any more inspiring. 
 
        I think the will of the people and their representatives have
more to do with the governance of a nation than the building they
convene their government in.
RC>The Clinton's would like that - institutional immunity for
RC>perjury and obstruction of justice. 
 
       He'll get immunity anyway.  If this drags on until after he
leaves office, which it probably will because few Republicans wish to
see Gore run in 2000 as an incumbent, it'll go away the moment he's out
of the presidency.  If a smoking gun is found and impeachment becomes
certian, Clinton will resign and Gore will pardon him.  Either way
he'll never be prosecuted for his crimes.
 MA> No retirement. You work for government you do it
 MA> understanding you'll eventually have to get an honest job. 
RC>Come on, Mike. What's dishonest about serving 20 years in
RC>the US military? What's dishonorable about serving as a
RC>Federal prosecutor, a secretary, a receptionist, a clerk?
RC>Your characterization is insulting and undeserved.
 
       It may be, but it's how I feel.  Government employees, those
that make a career of working for government, sustain their lives by
funds taken from others by force. I have difficulty with that.  
       To serve one's nation is honorable if that service is limited to
a short period of time, but to serve one's nation for the sole purpose
of being able to retire decades before a private sector counterpart and
live off the society for the remainder of one's life is not honorable.
       Military persoannel that make desire to make a career of the
military ought be honored for that choice. but when they leave the
military after 20 years they ought be either employed elsewhere in
government until retirement age, or reenter the private sector
workforce until they are retirement age.  37 year olds should not be
spending the remainder of their lives drawing government checks.
 RC> No, it's a semi-orderly anarchy resulting from
 RC> institutional amnesia and unnecessary capital expense.
RC> 
 MA> "Semi-orderly anarchy" and "instutional amnesia", somehow
 MA> those phrases are almost appealing.  :)
RC>Only if you don't consider the results.
 
        The only comparison I have is the state of affairs as they ar
today.  This whole idea, though, was simply an odd one proposed once by
a friend that I thought was a bit amusing to think about and rather
unusual, not something I propose myself.  However, on occasion, when I
see government do something really, really, stupid, I do stop and
wonder if he may not have had a good idea after all...  :)
 
         A current example is the .8 national standard over alcohol in
the blood.  Arguments are flying back and forth over the pros and cons
but I have yet to hear anyone raise the REAL issue here:
         Under what constitutional authority does the federal
government seek to set such a national standard?
         This is NOT a federal issue.  It's a state issue, and if Texas
or Wyoming wishes to not set it's level lower than a point that
fatalities are caused by people using cell phones, then it's no of
Washington's business at all.  If New York and Colorado want to make it
illegal to drink within a year of driving, then that's none of
Washington's business either.  By what possible constitutional
authority does Washington seek to override the elected representatives
of the people of the various states and defy the will of the people? 
 
                                              Mike Angwin
--- RBBSMail/386 v0.997
---------------