DD>> An interesting letter in the Australian Shooter Magazine,
 DD>> which I quote:

 DD>> "If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000
 DD>> troops in the Iraq theater of operations during the past 22
 DD>> months, and a total of 2112 deaths, that gives a firearm
 DD>> death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.

 DD>> The firearm death rate in Washington, DC is 80.6 per
 DD>> 100,000 for the same period. That means you are about 25
 DD>> per cent more likely to be shot and killed in the US
 DD>> capital which has some of the strictest gun control laws in
 DD>> the US than you are in Iraq."

 DD>> CONCLUSION: The US should pull out of Washington.

 bk>>  My conclusion.

 bk>>  All the residents of DC should have jobs.

 bk>>  All the residents of DC should have military training. And serve
 bk>>  in the National Guard.

 bk>>  The Swiss system.

 bk>>  The first part of the answer is the hard part.

 DD> But, not the second. I have stated before (not in this
 DD> particular forum) in FIDO discussions that a term of
 DD> National service should be a pre-requisite for voting
 DD> privileges. If you didn't serve you don't get to help
 DD> choose the leaders/policies/etc.

 I want it to be military service. A "term of service" leaves too
 may opening for unreal service. The need to be willing to put
 themselves on the line.

 Even concientious objectors can serve.

 And it should not be a pre-requisite for voting, but simpley
 required.

 DD> It would be no guarantee that the electorate would be any
 DD> more informed or better able to make wise choices. But, it
 DD> would insure, at the very least, that the voters had
 DD> actually invested *some* effort in supporting the system in
 DD> which they are participating.

 Yep. And be prepared and trained should it be necessary in the
 future.

 DD> That, coupled with a two term limit for *ALL* elective
 DD> offices would help ensure that this noble experiment in
 DD> which we are enmeshed will continue ... at least long

 The two term limit sounds good, and I used to favor term limits.
 Though I favored a time limit, not a term limit. Twelve years
 for congress, six for president and VP.

 After I saw the disaster term limits caused in Michigan I got to
 doubting the principle. As the Toledo Blade's ombudsman, who is
 in Michigan and a prof at a journalism school there, as well as
 a long time journalist wrote, when the Michigan budget was
 practically impossible to balance there was not one single
 member of the legislature who had been there just 6 years before
 when a lot of those programs and tax cuts had been voted in.

 Nobody was responsible for the looming disaster. Nobody was
 facing responsibility for fixing anything they passed in that
 legislature.

 DD> enough for our descendants to pay off the huge bills the
 DD> Bushies and the Obamites have run up.

 If Obama does not run up that debt our decendants will likely
 inherit a country without an economy to speak of. A country in
 economic collapse.

 After WWII the national debt was 122% of GDP. On the level of
 Greece today. Yet we managed to pay it down to 32% of GDP by
 1980. Through war and peace, republican and democrate, liberal
 and conservative, prosperity and recession, the debt load went
 down.

 Oh, and don't just blame GW Bush and Obama, blame the real
 culprits, Ronald Reagan and GHW Bush. Reagan trippled the debt
 and Bush I turned that into a quadruple debt over their 12
 years.

 I had thought GHW Bush was not so bad, but recently, when
 researching it, I discovered he was much worse than I thought.

 Under Reagan and Bush I the debtload went from 32% GDP to
 66% GDP.

 Under Clinton it went down to 57% GDP. Under Bush II it went to
 near 90% GDP. Under Obama it's not projected to go much above
 that. However, retreating from a growth policy could result in
 another recession. That would almost certainly mean another
 spurt in debt growth.

 If we tip over into depression the economy will contract
 significantly. A 30% contraction in GDP would mean the debt load
 would instantly jump to 128% of GDP. A 50% contraction would
 jump the debt to 180% of GDP. I doubt any country has ever
 survived a debt load like that.

 And we can't even start a war to get us out of it.



BOB KLAHN bob.klahn{at}sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Be alert! The world needs more lerts.
 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a