Re: New In Chess #3 2008

<parrthenon@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:a260988b-9e83-49ae-9be2-db165caa7058@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>      Our Kanester and this writer do not disagree
> that Fischer's decision to part with the product of
> his mind in a chess match was illegal.
>
>      All kinds of acts, as decreed by the U.S. and
> several governments, are illegal.  In Stalin's Russia
> one could and did pay for one's life, along with the
> lives of one's family and friends, by violating
> Article 58 (later Article 70) of the Soviet penal code
> that forbade anti-Soviet slander.  Those who spoke of
> labor camps holding nearly 20 million people at their
> peak were acting illegally.
>

Once again, Parr shows us his great political "courage" - bravely
taking on Stalin a mere half century after his death. How daring
of him to speak up when there are so many pro-Stalinists around!

Of course the fact that Fischer (violating international
and American law) was *sup****ting* those who inherited
Stalin's legacy seems to have escaped our simpleton's notice.
(In Parr's fairly tale, imposing a trade embargo with the
purpose of preventing a widening conflict is "Stalinist" - if only
Stalin's real victims had been so lucky.)

To be honest, I am not a fan of increased executive powers
nor of many of the USA's recent executives - but complying
with international resolutions  in exigent cir***stances is exactly the
sort of thing that is in the the executive branch should be doing.

It would be interesting to hear how these are implemented
in other countries, but I'd be surprised if many required a full
parliamentary process.