On 2001-11-17 22:34, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

On 2001-11-16 20:26, Delsyn wrote:
One final thought:

From "The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant"

The Oath of Peace

Do not hurt when holding is enough.
Do not wound when hurting is enough.
Do not maim when wounding is enough.
Do not kill when maiming is enough.
The greatest warrior is one who does not need to kill.

I'm familiar with the Oath of Peace and Donaldson's stories, but I'm afraid I fail to see what you're getting at.

The quote kind of put a capstone on my comments on the "Peace Movement"

I sort of see the Oath of Peace as a metaphor for the way that an enlightened society governs it's use of military strength. It's a way of affirming that you can be a peace loving people without being pushovers for every tin-pot dictator who comes along. It says that you can morally defend yourself and your ideals with as much force as is required while simultaneous restraining yourself from going beyond what is needed to insure your survival.

In the novels, the society of The Land spent centuries recovering from a magical disaster called the Ritual of Devestation unleashed by Lord Kevin Landwaster to defeat their great enemy Lord Foul. One of the first things they did was institute The Oath of Peace to insure that they would never again, no matter the provocation, unleash such a disaster.

As they recovered, the Council of Lords tried to re-learn the magical knowledge of their ancestors and couldn't figure out why they only could tap into a fraction of the power that they knew their ancestors wielded. Eventually they figured out that it was the Oath itself that was holding them back. By not allowing themselves to tap into the primal rages, angers and fears that fueled this type of magic they were unable to wield it's power. They were going to have to abandon the magical Lore of their ancestors and search for new sources of power that could co-exist with the Oath.

Substitute "political power" and "military force" for "magic" and I think you can see what I'm driving at. There are plenty of sources of political power but the easiest to tap into is fear, anger and hate. It's quick and it's easy, but it's also a trap. That type of political power is an uncontrolled flame that only lasts as long as it has external enemies with which to fuel itself. Go on long enough and you start running into the problem the Nazis faced - running out of Jews.

There's another kind of political power though, and it's what our Constitution is based on and what our Declaration of Independence sets out in plain language. Democracy's power is derived from consent, consensus and compromise. That kind of power isn't as flashy as tyrannical control, it's not as fast, not as absolute nor does it make everyone (or anyone) absolutely happy. In the end though, that kind of power lasts longer because it doesn't require an enemy to work - it's the kind of power that can co-exist with an Oath of Peace.

Consider that the country with the most powerful military in the world has that army headed by a civilian. Consider that when America has faced massive political or economic crises, not only has there never been a coup, there's never been a credible coup attempt (say what you will about E2K, if that had happened in many other countries it would have started a civil war). Consider that every time the American people elect a new President - the old one just leaves! No incumbent President has ever ordered the Army to sieze Congress and declared the Constitution invalid. And consider that if Osama bin Laden had access to the kind of military might that America wields is there any doubt that New York and Washington DC would have been radioactive dust on 911? If we were truly the Great Evil he claims we are is there any doubt that Kabul and Kandahar would be glowing craters today?

If we really wanted to conquer the world, let's face it - we could probably do it. Not only will we not do it - our enemies know that about us, that's why they feel safe in taunting us. The Bin Laden types mistake that for weakness, and call us a paper tiger. He and his people took all the wrong lessons from events like the 18 Marines lost in Somalia and the USS Cole. If he truly understood us he would have known what our reaction to 911 would be. Attacking our home soil is WAY different.

Read the oath again - it allows a society to whatever is NECESSARY - but no more. It gives a moral underpinning for the use of force while simultaneously re-inforcing the need to monitor that use so that only what is NEEDED is used and no more.

To bring it back to the real world - though I regret the necessity, I have no qualms about the campaign in Afghanistan but I'm also seriously rooting for the ACLU to legally kick the crap out of John "What's Lawyer-Client privelege?" Ashcroft

It's late, I hope that helps.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Delsyn on 2001-11-18 04:28 ]</font>

On 2001-11-16 17:35, enjolras wrote:

....... which is patently false and totally unprovable,......

How is it that something that is "totally umprovable" is patently deniable?

Does any conspiracy theory have a greater standard of proof than disproof?

Think about it.

On 2001-11-17 20:05, Stonewall Patton wrote:

On 2001-11-17 18:53, tsgarp wrote:

sv81= marc s.lamb

Why do you say that?

It's a conspiracy.

Delsyn, I know of at least one attempted coup [or plot to commit a coup]. It was, I believe, in 1934 or 1935. I don't recall the names of the principals, but a small group of Army officers decided that FDR had to go, and they got pretty far along in their planning. Their principal mistake came when they decided that they needed a senior officer to head the coup, someone who the rest of the military could unite behind.
They went to a very conservative Marine Corps general who listened attentively to all their plans and then went directly to Roosevelt and informed him of what was going on.
All of them were "invited" to resign immediately or face imprisonment and disgrace. [they resigned]
Their miscalculation was in mistaking the General's disagreements with FDR's policies with his loyalty to his oath to support the Constitution.
IN your post you used the word "credible" in regards to a coup attempt. They never got to the point of storming the White House or taking Roosevelt captive, but historians agree that this was a very dangerous moment in the life of the Republic, fortunately thwarted by this senior offficer.

[quote]
On 2001-11-18 04:19, Delsyn wrote:

Consider that when America has faced massive political or economic crises, not only has there never been a coup, there's never been a credible coup attempt...

I suspect that future historians will look back and discern a coup occurring in 1937 when, after the "court packing" scheme, the federal government ceased to operate from within its constitutional cage. No, men in uniforms did not take possession of the seat of government. But it was a de facto coup nonetheless as we ceased to be the constitutional republic of specifically enumerated and absolutely limited powers established in 1787-1788, and threw off all pretense of adhering to the individualistic, anti-authoritarian principles fought for in the American Revolution. In the same way that contemporary Romans had no sense that Rome had fallen in 476, Americans have had no sense that Washington in fact "fell" in 1937. It took a bunch of studious monks in the Middle Ages to look back and see the significance of the year 476. Similarly, it will take future historians to look back and assess the real significance of the year 1937.

Consider that every time the American people elect a new President - the old one just leaves!

Yes, but it has become a matter of: "Meet new boss. Same as the old boss." I have a difficult time seeing this level of control as being securely and irresistably in place as early as 1937 as some would allege. However, with benefit of hindsight today, I see it as being securely in place minimally since Bush Sr.'s presidency and probably since Reagan's second term when Bush Sr. arguably ran the show. In fact, it might be traced to an Executive Order of Reagan's dated 1981 which, for some bizarre reason, had all the intelligence agencies report to the Vice-President (who was of course Bush Sr.) such that the Vice-President could coordinate their activities. This gave Bush Sr. the wherewithal to rig the system to what it is today and we may never know the magnitude and scope of what he did as it was all done in secret.

No incumbent President has ever ordered the Army to sieze Congress and declared the Constitution invalid.

Both Lincoln and FDR essentially declared the Constitution invalid to serve their purposes. The difference is that the Constitution was restored after Lincoln but it never came back after FDR.

And consider that if Osama bin Laden had access to the kind of military might that America wields is there any doubt that New York and Washington DC would have been radioactive dust on 911?

America has only become as powerful as it has because, for the first 150 years or so, people were free to pursue their dreams and maximize their potential, unmolested by government. The rigid control exercised by the Osamas of the world precludes development of great power status as the ruling class acts forcefully to prevent any citizen from succeeding to the point that he might pose a threat to their hold on power. This is why a nation such as Mexico remains a Third World backwater despite its mineral wealth and copious resources. Unless those in power remain vulnerable to losing their shirts in fair and open competition, no great advances can be made.

If we were truly the Great Evil he claims we are is there any doubt that Kabul and Kandahar would be glowing craters today?

Yes there is. The "evil-doers" in this country have a personal interest in Middle Eastern oil. To leave craters over there would run the risk of inciting jihad resulting in the expulsion of American oil companies from the region. That is an unacceptable outcome to our homegrown "evil-doers." So we will leave no craters over there. And as a consequence, we will do nothing to achieve our stated objective of removing the terrorist threat.

If we really wanted to conquer the world, let's face it - we could probably do it.

We already have. We exercise economic hegemony. The British experience in colonialism taught us what not to do. So our control is less overt. It is not absolute but is far stronger and for more successful than any military occupation of the world would be (which I think would be impossible anyway).


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Stonewall Patton on 2001-11-18 16:51 ]</font>

[quote]
On 2001-11-18 16:48, Stonewall Patton wrote:

On 2001-11-18 04:19, Delsyn wrote:

If we really wanted to conquer the world, let's face it - we could probably do it.

We already have. We exercise economic hegemony. The British experience in colonialism taught us what not to do. So our control is less overt. It is not absolute but is far stronger and for more successful than any military occupation of the world would be (which I think would be impossible anyway).

<font color="blue">
Exactly, and just as the British Empire had to shrink from its world domination 100 years ago, we must back down from imposing our standards on the world at large.

Anyone who understands the concept of culture can make the next logical step: that not all cultures are compatable.

I'll skip the Klingon analogies, and go to Mexico, as Stonewall Patton did. It's more than leadership that makes Mexico develop at a crawl: its the culture.

That isn't hate talk, only the truth. Go visit Baja, and take in the slow pace. The gringos want to move faster than the locals will go. It's not in their culture to run at the pace we set. That isn't a value judgment of good or bad, it's just the truth. We think they are too slow, they think we are too fast.

If you value culture of others, really value it, you judge less and accept more.

(I could rant for hours about bilingual education here in the U.S., but I'll restrain myself this time.)

Suffice to say, if you value the lifestyle of foreign lands, and respect that those people have a way of solving their problems, you don't make consumers of western technology out of them. You abstain from displacing their culture with yours.

Now, personally, I think it barbaric to chop the hand of a thief off, but to argue with an Arab on that issue devalues both his position and mine.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sv81 on 2001-11-18 19:37 ]</font>

Here's the thing Stonewall - you and I actually don't disagree that much on the specifics of the current state of our Republic. My previous posts should not be interpreted to say that everything is hunky-dory in America - far from it. My points were actually about the philosophical dream of America as opposed to the barbaric version of Islam proffered by Bin Laden and his crew. It's a version that not only an atrocity compared to the American system, it's an atrocity when compared to even the Golden Age of Islam that he claims to champion.

That having been said I'd day we both agree that the current America falls far short of where it should be. I think the real lesson of E2K was kind of lost on a lot of people, but it's the reason I didn't vote in it. The election of 2000 was finally the election where the two candidates were absolutely and utterly indistinguishable from each other. In the past I've held my nose and voted for the lesser of two evils - in this election there WAS no lesser evil.

One of the dangers that faces America today is the peril of becoming a bureaucratic/industrial oligarchy. You need no conspiracy theory to witness this - it's an obvious derivative of an iron law of bureaucracy - bureaucracies tend to gather power and information to themselves and will NEVER voluntarily give it up. This isn't something done out of malice or by some secret cabal, the danger is far more subtle than that.

The beauty of our system is it's resistance to tyrants, the vulnerability of our system is it requires it's members to practice an advanced form of citizenship. They need to care and pay attention to what's happening to the nation - otherwise one day they wake up and find that while the forms remain, this isn't the America they thought they knew.

Your contentions about the danger of home grown "Evil-doers" is right on the money. It's these kind of valid misgivings about the incredible power of transnational businesses and organizations like the WTO that are often raised by the Left while being simultaneously squashed by the incredibly stupid statements and actions of their lunatic fringe. The Seattle protesters raised some very valid points against the WTO that got lost among a group of looters and Communist agitators.

The good news is that it's not too late. The onset of the Crisis may have caused some of these people to overreach themselves. I'm thrilled that Bush is successfully prosecuting the war against bin Laden, but I'm not about to forget that he's also engaging in the biggest slash-and-burn on the Constitution since the aforementioned Roosevelt.

Secret tribunals? Lowered rules of evidence? Drumhead trials? John "We don't need no steenking civil liberties" Ashcroft? I'm not going to forget this stuff - and I hope that the Democrats and organizations like the ACLU and most importantly the voting public won't either. It is to be hoped that as the crisis shakes us out of the "fat, dumb and happy" mode of the that few decades, a newly re-energized American electorate takes back the power that's supposed to be theirs. If we don't, we could lose this Crisis even if we win every battle because I'm very afraid of kind of fascist American High we'd emerge into.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sv81 on 2001-11-18 20:40 ]</font>

On 2001-11-18 18:43, Delsyn wrote:

One of the dangers that faces America today is the peril of becoming a bureaucratic/industrial oligarchy. You need no conspiracy theory to witness this - it's an obvious derivative of an iron law of bureaucracy - bureaucracies tend to gather power and information to themselves and will NEVER voluntarily give it up. This isn't something done out of malice or by some secret cabal, the danger is far more subtle than that.

<font color="red">
Do I take it to understand, that you conceed power aggregates to form an evil unto itself?
An evil that like the anthill previously mentioned, forms a structure beyond the desires or intentions of its individual members?

If so, then we have something to discuss.

"This isn't something done out of malice". Delsyn, remember the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

"or by some secret cabal" Hitler and Marx (to name just two), specifically published precisely what they thought, and the public went along with their ideas. Evil isn't hidden as often at some would think. Even Thoreau, probably my favorite author, said he recognized that what his neighbors thought to be good, he knew in his heart to be evil.

Prior to joining this forum, I had never heard of the Protocols of Zion, nor the Global Conspiracy Theory, nor the Illuminati, nor Control. And I don't think any of them hold water.

Nontheless, like the ants, humans aggregate to manifest an evil that is unspoken, through a cooperation that is unacknowledged, to an end that is invisible to some, and manifest to others. I credit the fallen nature of humanity to this flaw of society, whatever it is; many people have called it many things.

It was once said that for evil to rule the earth, all that need occur is for good people to do nothing.

I believe it.

Was JFK a coup?

On 2001-11-18 18:43, Delsyn wrote:
I think the real lesson of E2K was kind of lost on a lot of people, but it's the reason I didn't vote in it. The election of 2000 was finally the election where the two candidates were absolutely and utterly indistinguishable from each other. In the past I've held my nose and voted for the lesser of two evils - in this election there WAS no lesser evil.

Oh, I could discern a little difference between "Shrub and Bore" and I really felt that Gore was ever so slightly the lesser of two evils. However, I decided to stage an act of personal rebellion against having been a Republican for 20 years and voted for Nader. You could have done that, too, if you really thought there was no difference but decided to participate after all!

On 2001-11-18 22:53, Vince Lamb '59 wrote:

On 2001-11-18 18:43, Delsyn wrote:
I think the real lesson of E2K was kind of lost on a lot of people, but it's the reason I didn't vote in it. The election of 2000 was finally the election where the two candidates were absolutely and utterly indistinguishable from each other. In the past I've held my nose and voted for the lesser of two evils - in this election there WAS no lesser evil.

Oh, I could discern a little difference between "Shrub and Bore" and I really felt that Gore was ever so slightly the lesser of two evils. However, I decided to stage an act of personal rebellion against having been a Republican for 20 years and voted for Nader. You could have done that, too, if you really thought there was no difference but decided to participate after all!

Oh, I thought about it - quite seriously actually. I take the responsibility of voting very seriously and I have voted in every Presidential, Congressional and State election (and most local ones too) since I was eligible. To not vote in the last election wasn't something I chose to do lightly. This time, though I just didn't have anyone to vote for. I might have held my nose and voted for Gore but I simply couldn't deal with Joe Lieberman. I work in the video game industry and Joe's views on the first amendment would embarrass those idiots who want all the copies of Harry Potter film collected and burned.

Vote for Nader? - hell no. Ralph Nader used to be someone I respected - he has since gone completely insane.

Al Gore, W, and Nader are all the same thing. They're corporate talking heads (Bush is corporate, Gore talks, and Nader actually has a head.) Nader is a has been.
Was great in the Awakening. However, he apparently had some kind of dispute with workers over labor issues. Too lazy to check the details. If you want, go to Google or Dogpile and type in "Nader and labor troubles" or something of that sort.
What I like about him ( a little more than the other two ) is that at least he's straightforward about not caring about anyone else. Better than the dingbats who pander to us all the way to the top. Bush will get thrown out. We'll win the war in Afghanistan and they'll be another attack (the sleepers are still here) and people will say "what happened?"

An article here for SV81 who worries about Jews all the time. Maybe its that big Jew, Rabbi Osama bin Laden. I must admit that I find his ghoulish demeanor more interesting and amusing than anything at the box office.
http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/1...ews.38354.html
And bear in mind that Al-Jazeera is put out by our "moderate" Muslim allies in Qatar where the WTO summit was just held.

As I stay home and ponder whether to see the Potter movie I just say *screw it*. I love the Harry Potter books I read. He seems so downright sensible compared to Al, and Shrub,and Ralph, and all the talking heads who fart their asses off on TV. Maybe he should be our Gray Champ, though he'd be a little young. On second thought, send him off to battle Bin Laden. He'll capture him for sure.

Let me put it this way, the 9000 series is the most reliable computer ever made.
No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical
definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error.

HopefulCynic:

Seriously, that's something I've wondered about. Why does the Left consider Clinton better than the alternative? It seems to me he almost _was_ the alternative.

That's overstating the case. He was measurably better on the environment and workers' rights than either Bush or Dole would have been. He vetoed bills from the new Republican Congress in '95 that I think Bush might have signed, which would have rolled back environmental protection on a number of fronts. (Of course, it could be argued that if Bush had won reelection there wouldn't have been a Republican Congress in '95.)


There's a core of truth to what you're saying sufficient to make the idea of Clinton as a hard leftie seem pretty laughable, but there were also enough differences to make it easy for me to vote for him. Effective progressive leadership is pretty much a dead horse in an Unraveling anyway. You take what you can get.


Stonewall Patton:

I suspect that future historians will look back and discern a coup occurring in 1937 when, after the "court packing" scheme, the federal government ceased to operate from within its constitutional cage. No, men in uniforms did not take possession of the seat of government. But it was a de facto coup nonetheless as we ceased to be the constitutional republic of specifically enumerated and absolutely limited powers established in 1787-1788, and threw off all pretense of adhering to the individualistic, anti-authoritarian principles fought for in the American Revolution. In the same way that contemporary Romans had no sense that Rome had fallen in 476, Americans have had no sense that Washington in fact "fell" in 1937. . . .


Both Lincoln and FDR essentially declared the Constitution invalid to serve their purposes. The difference is that the Constitution was restored after Lincoln but it never came back after FDR.

I disagree that Roosevelt did this, and it's arguable whether Lincoln did. The Constitution itself contains a clause allowing suspension of Habeas Corpus during insurrection or civil war. Certainly Lincoln didn't try to overthrow the constitution in its entirety, or he wouldn't have needed to run for reelection in 1864.


In any case, it's not true that the government was restored to its original configuration established in 1787-88 after the Civil War. There were two massive changes, one of which was created by constitutional amendment, the other by reinterpretation of an ambiguity, just as in FDR's time another ambiguity was reinterpreted to result in massive change.


The amendment was of course the 14th. This placed the states firmly under the control of the Constitution and bound them to the provisions of the Bill of Rights, which previously had only restrained the federal government. It was this measure which formally changed our political system from a weak federation to a strong one.


The reinterpretation involved the right to secede, about which the Constitution is unclear. Nowhere does it specifically state that secession either is or is not permitted. Some might suggest that the Tenth Amendment reserves the right to secede to the states, but that interpretation requires seeing the states as independent, sovereign bodies participating in the federal system voluntarily, which interpretation is called into question by such clauses as the ones forbidding states to have independent foreign policies or to make war on their own. It could also be argued that secession nullifies the Constitution, including the Tenth Amendment, and therefore the Tenth Amendment would not have jurisdiction to justify secession. The interpretation is arguable either way but by no means self-evident.


There was no amendment added to the Constitution clarifying this ambiguity. It still does not specify that a state may secede or that it may not. But the precedent has been set that it may not, and few would question that interpretation today.


What happened in the 1930s with the commerce clause of Article I Section 8 is similar to this. That clause reads as follows:

The Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

Now this ain't what you could call an ironclad, watertight piece of legislation here. It's very vague and broad-reaching, in potential.


Some implications of the clause are noncontroversial and obvious, like making trade treaties with other countries. Others are less clear.


When states have differing laws regarding child labor, businesses may choose to invest in those that are more lax on the matter so as to take advantage of cheap juvenile workers. Does this count as "commerce among the several states," subject to federal regulation? Same consideration applies to labor laws generally, environmental regulations, and consumer protection.


If you get right down to it, almost everything in the American economy these days is covered by the phrase "Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes," except maybe a kid's lemonade stand or a local farmer's market. And if Congress is authorized to "regulate" these matters -- an open-ended legal term if ever there was one -- then its powers over the economy are effectively unlimited, or rather they are unlimited by this clause, though they may be limited by other factors.


Prior to the Depression, this clause was not interpreted to allow Congress to do things which Roosevelt did to meet that emergency. But there is no self-evident Constitutional reason why it was interpreted that way -- it was just the laissez-faire creed of the age. And in 1937, it was reinterpreted to allow the Second New Deal. Again, there is no self-evident Constitutional reason why it was reinterpreted that way -- it was just the fact that the old economy had failed miserably and new measures were needed. And the clause itself, like the question of secession, provides sufficient ambiguity that no amendment was required.


So calling the court reversal of 1937 a "coup" is stretching things pretty far, IMO.


Regarding Rome, I imagine the sack of the city by a barbarian army in 476 was pretty good evidence the place had fallen. Perhaps you're thinking of an earlier event -- the fall of the Republic. It's true that wasn't recognized for some time thereafter. And it's probably a better parallel anyway, from your own perspective.

_________________
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Brian Rush on 2001-11-19 14:00 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Brian Rush on 2001-11-19 14:02 ]</font>

Things are going as I thought they would be at this stage. Environmentalists now think that the time for mourning has passed, and that the time for action is needed. Within the next few months, expect oil politics to dominate the political scene...with a vengeance!! http://www.msnbc.com/news/649869.asp

<font color="blue">
Green issues sidelined by Sept. 11

Nov. 14 ? Before Sept. 11, the stage had been set for an unprecedented lawsuit against a vice president: A federal agency was about to sue to get the names of people who met secretly with Vice President Dick Cheney?s energy task force. Since then, the terrorist attacks have put the suit on hold, relieving Cheney of a major political headache. Indeed, environmental issues in general have faded from the spotlight ? but environmentalists are regrouping and aim to change that soon.

SOME ISSUES have been shelved, while others have passed silently under the public radar. One issue, whether to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska ? which had enormous traction within the environmental community ? quickly became a litmus for patriotism.
Environmental groups laid low on drilling in the refuge after the attacks as the nation grieved and prepared for war.
?That?s over,? said Alan Metrick, a spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
The council, the Sierra Club and others are girding for battle when Congress resumes debate on drilling in the Arctic refuge.
In the meantime, the Sierra Club plans a ?softer? campaign to encourage Americans to seek solace outdoors in these stressful times, said Melanie Griffin, lands protection director for the group.

WHAT?S BEEN SHELVED
But recasting strategy may not be enough to pique the public?s interest right now.
The Cheney controversy, for example, was widely covered before Sept. 11, when the General Accounting Office was poised to sue after Cheney?s office argued it was entitled to keep the names of the energy task force members private. The GAO had intervened at the request of several Democratic lawmakers who believe the task force was biased toward the oil industry.
Advertisement<a><img></a>

[Add local news and weather to the MSNBC home page.]


The issued vanished after the attacks, and on Sept. 28, GAO chief David Walker issued a statement saying that ?given our current national focus on combating terrorism and enhancing homeland security, this matter is not a current priority.?
Walker promised to decide ?in due course? whether a lawsuit should be filed. The statement attracted little press attention, and a decision has yet to be made.
The Natural Resources Defense Council, the group that pushed hardest on the Cheney issue, didn?t question the GAO?s actions but lamented that ?the likely result is that the truth about who had access to the people drafting the U.S. energy policy will remain hidden.?
Other issues, large and small, have been shelved or delayed as well since the attacks. Two stand out:[*] Climate change ? The Bush administration promised to present an alternative to a proposed international climate change treaty by the time nations met this month. That didn?t happen.[*] Air pollution ? The administration has delayed legislation to counter a Democratic proposal that would set mandatory reductions for power plant carbon dioxide emissions. Both sides agree on capping three pollutants, but are divided on CO2, a gas tied to global warming. Congressional action is not likely before February.

WHAT?S UNDER THE RADAR
Of even greater concern to environmentalists are many administration actions that have passed below the public?s radar since Sept. 11.
?While these issues have received some coverage,? says Le Evans of the National Environmental Trust, ?there has been nothing done that brings them together into the larger question about administration decision-making, given the public?s attention on other matters ? i.e. ?the cat?s away, so the mice will play.??
In Britain, that attitude cost the job of a government official who?d sent a memo stating that the focus on Sept. 11 provided an opportunity to pass stealth policies.
In the United States, the below-radar issues include:[*] Public lands nominee ? The Interior Department last week announced the nomination of Rebecca Watson to be deputy secretary for land and mineral management. A Montana lawyer who has represented mining and timber industries, Watson would have a major say on whether to open more public lands to development. Environmentalists have criticized Interior Secretary Gale Norton?s picks as undermining the department?s mandate to be the steward of the nation?s natural resources. Farmers and industries generally feel Norton?s picks will bring a balanced approach to land management.[*] Wetlands ? Conservation groups say an Oct. 31 letter by the Army Corps of Engineers weakens a policy that requires developers to replace wetlands lost to development. The Corps denies the letter is a change of policy.
The Corps regulatory chief, John Studt, has also directed staff to speed up wetland development permits as a way to boost the economy after Sept. 11, according to a memo disclosed by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which fears an erosion of wetlands protection.[*] Job duties change ? Bureau of Land Management and fisheries enforcement officers are among the many federal agents diverted to security jobs, particularly those of sky marshals. ?National security is now their top concern,? the bureau said in a letter made public by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
Also, the U.S. Coast Guard has been directed to discontinue almost all fisheries protection in order to focus on protecting coastal sites from any terrorist attack. ?The level of impact varies regionally, but the entire nation is impacted,? says Dale Jones, chief of enforcement at the National Marine Fisheries Service.[*] Oil drilling ? Conservation groups this month sued to block federal oil leases of prime wildlife habitat near Yellowstone National Park. The leases would allow road building and oil drilling on public lands in northwest Wyoming that are habitat for grizzly bears and other sensitive species.[*] Air conditioners ? The Energy Department and the Environmental Protection Agency are at loggerheads over air conditioner standards. Energy opposes a Clinton-era rule to make them more energy efficient, while a recent EPA report says Energy?s concerns are exaggerated. Conservation activists say the standard would avoid the need for as many as 190 new power plants.[*] Trade bill ? The League of Conservation Voters, which tracks congressional action, has made opposition to an administration-backed international trade bill a top priority, fearing it will weaken environmental standards.[*] Biotech corn ? The EPA last month released a long-awaited decision to re-approve a genetically engineered corn for seven more years. Critics say the EPA did not properly collect or evaluate health or ecological data on Bt corn.[*] Mining ? The Interior Department this month revoked its short-lived authority to block new hard-rock mines on federal land where they could harm communities and the environment. Issued at the end of the Clinton era, the regulation applied to minerals ? mostly gold, silver and copper ? common in Western states.

RESHAPING THE OIL DEBATE
If any environmental issue returns to the public radar anytime soon it?s likely to be the proposal to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The coastal area could hold significant oil deposits, but it?s also home to wildlife whose habitat might be disrupted by drilling.
Earlier this year, whether or not to drill there was the subject of a loud debate over competing energy bills drafted by Republicans and Democrats.
Led by Bush, drilling proponents have revived the idea of opening the refuge as a way to decrease America?s dependence on foreign oil.
?It is appropriate for Americans to examine again our increasing dependence on foreign oil, especially Mideast oil,? Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, told reporters.
Much of the turmoil in the Middle East is tied to the geopolitics of oil, and even Osama bin Laden, the chief suspect in the Sept. 11 attacks, has said that the stationing of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia to protect oil fields was a major reason for his anti-American crusade.
What?s changed in the domestic debate is that each side appears to be banking that the other will look unpatriotic.
?Each senator is going to have to recognize his obligations to our national security as opposed to environmental extremists,? Murkowski said last month.
The Sierra Club?s Griffin counters that drilling proponents might paint environmentalists as unpatriotic, but adds: ?We think it?s the oil lobby that?s looking opportunistic.?

?TOUGHER ... BUT TRUER?
Environmentalists are trying to promote their energy proposals ? a focus on renewables, conservation and less foreign energy ? as the American way.
Reducing America?s dependence on all sources of oil ?is the most patriotic thing we can do,? says Metrick, of the Natural Resources Defense Council.
?It may be a tougher sell? given Sept. 11, he acknowledges, ?but it?s truer than ever.?

Metrick is quick to point out that his group is not against all drilling but wants the nation to get serious about reducing its dependence on oil.
?We here at NRDC have one president and his name is George W. Bush. But sooner or later that (dependency) bill comes due,? Metrick says, ?and as far as we?re concerned it came due on Sept. 11.?</font>

As someone recently said, "It all begins and ends with oil."

I think it is time for us to break this.

http://www.workingforchange.com/arti...m?ItemId=12359

<font color="blue">
All for one, and one for oil
No administration has ever been more in bed with the energy industry
By Damien Cave / Salon.com
11.19.01 | The Bush administration's ties to oil and gas are as deep as an offshore well. President George W. Bush's family has been running oil companies since 1950. Vice President Dick Cheney spent the late '90s as CEO of Halliburton, the world's largest oil services company. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice sat on the board of Chevron, which graced a tanker with her name. Commerce Secretary Donald Evans was the CEO of Tom Brown Inc. -- a natural gas company with fields in Texas, Colorado and Wyoming -- for more than a decade.

The links don't end with personnel. The bin Laden family and other members of Saudi Arabia's oil-wealthy elite have contributed mightily to several Bush family ventures, even as the American energy industry helped put Bush in office. Of the top 10 lifetime contributors to George W.'s war chests, six either come from the oil business or have ties to it, according the Center for Public Integrity.

"There's no denying that this is an oil administration," says Peter Eisner, managing director of the nonprofit, nonpartisan watchdog group that conducted the study of Bush's campaign finances. "You can't talk about the career of any George Bush -- father or son -- without talking about oil."

But talking is one thing; determining exactly how the ties to the oil industry affect domestic and foreign policy is another. How much influence does the oil industry have? Is the U.S. bombing Afghanistan in part because -- as antiwar critics have claimed -- the industry wants to clear a path for oil and gas pipelines? Will the Bush administration steadfastly avoid confrontation with Saudi Arabia -- home of 15 of the 19 suspected hijackers -- because it doesn't want to upset ExxonMobil and the other oil companies with a deep Saudi stake? Or, even more intriguingly, could the close ties between Bush and the Saudis lead to increased U.S. pressure on Israel to create a peace settlement?

Or is this too simplistic? Since at least World War II, the oil industry has often been forced by the U.S. government to serve foreign policy objectives, rather than the other way around. Presidents have generally accepted oil's economic significance, its role as the grease that makes capitalism go. But even the most conservative administrations have regularly emphasized geopolitical objectives -- Soviet containment, for example -- at the expense of oil industry interests. Aspects of Bush's energy plan suggest that even this administration will not break the give-and-take pattern.

The problem, however, is that this pattern, the so-called "cheap oil strategy" looks more and more like a failure. Foreign oil dependence has risen over the past decade while now -- with anti-American sentiment growing in the Arab world -- foreign oil supplies are looking increasingly insecure. More than ever, some kind of national policy pushing both conservation and the development of renewable energy resources seems eminently prudent, if not necessary.

And that's where the current makeup of the Bush administration becomes crucial -- not because Bush-Cheney and company plan to invade Iraq to make it safe for ExxonMobil, (although that's not totally beyond the bounds of possibility) but because these are the last men and women in the world to expect radical change from on questions related to energy. Their friends, finances, and worldviews are all oil-drenched.

George W.'s ties to oil don't prove that the industry decides our every foreign policy move. But they do just about guarantee, for all practical purposes, that nothing significant will change in American energy policy. With Bush-Cheney in power, oil addiction is here to stay.

The fusion of oil and politics is a Bush family tradition. For generations, the Bushes and their friends have been shuttling back and forth between energy industry boardrooms and Washington's hallowed halls.

Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush, initiated the pattern. Shortly before winning a Connecticut Senate seat in 1952 he helped his son George raise $350,000 to start what would become Zapata Petroleum.

Sen. Bush also regularly looked out for the oil industry and his son's interests while in Washington. His biggest single favor, according to Herbert Parmet's book "George Bush: The Life of a Lone Star Yankee," came a year into his first Senate term, when he opposed legislation that would have federalized offshore resources -- including oil -- to raise money for education. In the name of states' rights and free enterprise, the bill's defeat helped both the oil companies and gave Zapata just what it needed to expand. In fact, soon after the legislation failed, Zapata moved into offshore drilling -- eventually one of Zapata's most lucrative ventures.

George Bush made millions during the '50s and '60s Texas oil boom, and he also made many friends, most notably James Baker, who became Bush's company lawyer in 1963 after Zapata merged with Penn to become Pennzoil.

Bush later brought his friends to Washington, first as a representative in the House, then as head of the Republican National Committee and finally as vice president and president. He didn't stock his administration as full of oilmen and women as his son has, but like Prescott Bush, he didn't mind doing the industry's bidding either. His most public act for oil came in 1981. While serving as Ronald Reagan's vice president, he departed from the White House's official stance and visited Saudi Arabia to plead for an end to sliding prices. Bush argued that he was simply trying to protect American security interests by protecting domestic producers, who have higher costs than their Persian Gulf counterparts. But higher prices had another benefit: by protecting domestic oil jobs, they helped shore up support in Texas for what would eventually become his successful 1988 presidential campaign.

Higher prices also directly helped Bush's son, George W. Bush. George W.'s oil career started in 1978 -- 12 years after his father first entered Congress -- when several of his father's friends invested in his firm, Arbusto ("Bush" in Spanish). Unlike his father, George W. spent much of his oil career in the red. As Joe Conason pointed out in Harper's last year before the election, the company's original investors and others bailed out his firm at least three times. But after a final act of corporate CPR -- a merger with Harken Energy in 1986 -- Bush's connections to power really paid off. Two years after the merger, Abdullah Taha Bakhsh, a former director of Saudi Arabia's income tax department, purchased an 11 percent stake in Harken through his company Traco International. That same year, Harken won a contract for oil-drilling in Bahrain.

"Harken had no international experience at the time," says Eisner at the Center for Public Integrity, which published a detailed account of Bush's rise to power titled "The Buying of the President: 2000." "It was their first out of country contract."

Press reports at the time questioned Bahrain's motivations. Even the normally reserved Wall Street Journal reported in 1991 that the contract "raises the question of ... an effort to cozy up to a presidential son."

The Bush family countered that the contract was well deserved. Regardless, the deal in the Persian Gulf gave Bush a direct tie to the Saudi elite and set Bush on a suddenly successful path.

"It's not just the matter of a single contract," Eisner says. "It also has to do with converting Harken into a player that was then converted into a stake in the Texas Rangers and a run for governor. It's not incidental. The Bahrain deal is central to Bush's life."

Some experts suggest that it's not necessarily a bad thing to have a presidential family so steeped in oil knowledge, given the importance of oil to both national security and the domestic economy. But Bush has shown a pervasive willingness to let oil interests define energy and environmental policy. After accepting millions from the industry during his run for governor, he signed into law tax breaks for state energy producers, and in 1997, he gave them a hand in writing their own rules. Upon hearing that Texas' state environmental agency planned to end an exemption that allowed power plants built before 1971 to avoid complying with state pollution laws, Bush tapped two people to come up with an alternative plan: Vic Beghini, an executive with Marathon Oil Inc. and Ansel Condray, an executive with Mobil.

The plan they came up with initiated a voluntary pollution reduction program that didn't punish companies for noncompliance and thus essentially failed. A study by the Environmental Defense Fund published six months after Bush announced the program revealed that only three of the 26 companies had actually cut their emissions. Two years later, under increasing public pressure, Bush signed a bill forcing power plants to cut their emissions in half by 2003 -- but the essential exemption, as the industry wanted, still stands.

The politicos surrounding Bush also have enjoyed warm government/oil-industry connections. While Bush used his elected position to help friends in his former industry, Cheney employed past government connections to improve his own bottom line.

Iraq provides the most dramatic example. Cheney, intentionally or inadvertently, went against his own edicts in order to pad his company's profits. He told Sam Donaldson in August 2000 that, as the head of Halliburton, "I had a firm policy that I wouldn't do anything in Iraq, even arrangements that were supposedly legal." And yet, as the Financial Times eventually proved, Cheney oversaw $23.8 million in sales to Iraq in 1998 and 1999. Cheney, who collected a $36 million salary before becoming vice president, essentially profited from the destruction of Iraq that he oversaw as secretary of defense during the Gulf War. And while the oil-rig and equipment sales were legal -- a 1998 U.N. resolution gave Iraq the right to rebuild its oil industry -- Cheney's firm sold through European subsidiaries "to avoid straining relations with Washington and jeopardizing their ties with President Saddam Hussein's government," according to a November 2000 Financial Times report.

Cheney also helped Halliburton obtain a windfall of U.S. government loans. He secured $1.5 billion in taxpayer-backed financing for Halliburton -- a massive increase over the $100 million loan it received during the five-year period before Cheney took over. And while Cheney has claimed that Halliburton's rise to power had nothing to do with his political stature, State Department documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times suggest that U.S. officials assisted Halliburton both in Asia and Africa. Even the domestic defense-contracting arm of Halliburton -- Brown & Root -- saw its fortune change drastically once Cheney took over. The company booked $1.2 billion in contracts between 1990 and 1995; with Cheney at the helm, contract awards spiked to $2.3 billion between 1995 and 2000.

Other Bush administration officials have also profited from past government experience and influence. Bush's father and his then Secretary of State James Baker -- the lawyer who fought for Bush during the Florida election fiasco -- work for the Carlyle Group, an investment firm that until recently collected investments from the bin Laden family and other members of the Saudi elite. Reagan's Secretary of State George Schultz sat on the board of Chevron before the arrival of Condoleezza Rice.

Rice joined the Chevron board in 1991, after serving for a year on Bush Sr.'s National Security Council. There, she earned a $35,000 annual retainer, $1,500 for every meeting she attended and stock options worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, according to SEC documents. She was reportedly hired for expertise in the former Soviet states, and long before U.S. planes started dropping bombs in nearby Afghanistan, she spent much of her time at Chevron working on prospective deals in the Caspian region. Chevron (with Mobil) already produces 70 percent of the oil coming out of the Tengiz oil field in Kazakhstan, according to Ahmed Rashid's book, "Taliban," and the company has been working hard to secure a pipeline that would allow more oil to be produced. In 1993, with Rice on the board, the company pulled together a pipeline project to carry oil to a Russian port on the Black Sea. Russian opposition eventually postponed the plan indefinitely but Chevron still holds a 45 percent stake in the project -- and given the present state of improved Russian-American relations, many suspect that project will eventually get off the ground.

The slowly improving relations between the U.S. and Iran could also help Chevron. When negotiations over pipelines from Tengiz broke down a few years ago, Chevron turned its focus toward the Islamic theocracy, asking the Clinton State Department for a "swapping" license. Approval would have allowed oil from Tengiz to be shipped across the Caspian to Iran while, in exchange, Chevron would be able to sell an equal amount of Iranian oil that would be shipped from the Persian Gulf. The proposal was never approved, but given Rice's ties, many have suspected that Chevron will soon play a larger role in American foreign policy, whether in Iran or the Caspian.

Critics of the Bush administration point out that a stabilized Caspian region could benefit Rice's friends at Chevron, and if she returns to the board, Rice herself. They also argue that maintaining dependence on Saudi oil could benefit Cheney's old firm and Bush's father, and ultimately, the president himself when an inheritance comes his way.

But there is no clear evidence, right now, of oil company desires affecting current U.S. foreign policy. If anything, the terrorist attacks have reduced the energy industry's influence. Before Sept. 11 Saudi Arabia was reportedly pushing the U.S. to pressure Israel into Palestine peace concessions and, according to a Newsweek story, Bush was beginning to comply. But after Sept. 11, the chance that the U.S. would accede to Saudi requests evaporated, given the numerous Saudi connections to the attacks.

In that sense, the trajectory of oil influence over foreign policy has continued upon its historical path. A review of the evidence suggests that over time, the oil industry has progressively lost power. But that still doesn't mean that the current administration is likely to do anything radical to alter U.S. dependence on foreign oil -- barring the unlikely event of Bush pulling a Nixon-visit-to-China shock, and using his oil ties to force a real commitment to renewable energy and conservation. </font>

Amen MadScientist.

Send the articles to all your friends and relatives. Let them know what's really happedning in DC. With God's help, we will change this in the next New Deal.

<center><font color="red" size="5">Blizzard Warning for America</font></center>

<font color="red">In the past, I've issued several 'winter storm watches'. However, the way it is looking, we need to upgrade to a 'blizzard warning'. The way it is looking, this winter will be colder and stormier than usual. This winter is off to its worst start since 1675. The storm will not let up. Since September 11, the storm has strengthened. Look for conditions to rapidly deteriorate over the next 4 years before the regeneracy. Finally, after all of this time, after all of this wait, we can finally say that we need to batten down the hatches. Good luck to all.</font>

On 2001-11-19 22:17, JayN wrote:
Amen MadScientist.

Send the articles to all your friends and relatives. Let them know what's really happedning in DC. With God's help, we will change this in the next New Deal.

I would not make the comparison between future politics and the New Deal. Rather, I would compare this 4T with the 1680s and 1780s eras. In many ways, the prior 4T is why we are in this 4T. Sure, it was largely necessary then, but today, it will be our downfall if we do not radically change things. I've been telling my family what will happen. Even though they haven't read the book, they at least know the basics of what is to happen. However, they don't quite grasp what we are getting into. Because my parents lived through the 1960s and 1970s, they think that they perhaps knows what a revolution is. Not so. Most people do not like the way our nation is evolving, and more people are becoming suspicious of the Bush administration. All of us here will witness a terrible storm right before our eyes, and be able to tell future generations of it.

"May you live in interesting times."

_________________
Robert Reed III (1982)
---------------------------------------------
"Life is not a cancer of matter; it is matter's transcendence of itself." - John S. Lewis
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." - Einstein

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: madscientist on 2001-11-19 23:24 ]</font>

On 2001-11-19 23:23, madscientist wrote:
<center><font color="red" size="5">Blizzard Warning for America</font></center>

<font color="red">In the past, I've issued several 'winter storm watches'. However, the way it is looking, we need to upgrade to a 'blizzard warning'. The way it is looking, this winter will be colder and stormier than usual. This winter is off to its worst start since 1675. The storm will not let up. Since September 11, the storm has strengthened. Look for conditions to rapidly deteriorate over the next 4 years before the regeneracy. Finally, after all of this time, after all of this wait, we can finally say that we need to batten down the hatches. Good luck to all.</font>

You are being a bit grim in predicting very bad times ahead Robert,

Maybe I am still in a late 3T mood and I am pretty hopefully about happenings in Australia. maybe even the world over the next three or so years.

Although the social mood will get more jittery over the next few years, Howard has a ablitiy to exploit the public mood to his political advantage, it will be interesting to see how he uses the public mood in the years to come.

The media and people right of the Green Party, seem pretty hopefully about the economy over the next few years and are not predicting recession and criticising anyone who does, because they think these naysayers want to drag the economy down.

On 2001-11-19 13:58, Brian Rush wrote:

The Constitution itself contains a clause allowing suspension of Habeas Corpus during insurrection or civil war. Certainly Lincoln didn't try to overthrow the constitution in its entirety, or he wouldn't have needed to run for reelection in 1864.

Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is about the only one of his usurpations which makes it through the filter of our approved paradigm of history as determined, as in all cases, by the victors. And it is commonly not even considered to be a usurpation since, as you stated, the Constitution allows for this in times of rebellion, etc. But what rarely ever makes it through the filter is the fact that the suspension of habeas corpus appears in Article I, Section 9, and is specifically -- and solely -- a legislative power. Lincoln, as the executive, had no authority under the Constitution whatsoever to unilaterally and arbitrarily suspend the writ of habeas corpus. And when Chief Justice Roger Taney reminded Lincoln of this fact, Lincoln ordered his arrest. Had Lincoln followed through and taken the Chief Justice into custody, he likely would have been impeached, and justifiably so.

Lincoln's dictatorial usurpation of the legislative prerogative to suspend the writ of habeas corpus is but a drop in the bucket (the thousands he left languishing in cells without charge notwithstanding) and does not in the slightest way convey the magnitude of Lincoln's contempt for the Constitution. The list of abuses and usurpations is far too exhaustive to include here. But let me just highlight the thousands of printing presses he ruthlessly shut down all over the North in an effort to stifle all dissent. (Let us remember that truth trumps everything and when one's argument is in line with truth, one does not feel even the slightest bit threatened by dissent.) The crimes he committed in his effort to keep Maryland in the Union alone could conceivably occupy volumes: he arbitrarily arrested all state legislators with Southern sympathies (having unconstitutionally suspended the writ of habeas corpus) thereby cleansing the legislature of all political opposition. He then stationed federal troops all over the state and used them -- with fixed bayonets -- to intimidate voters into voting his way at the polls. He also had these federal troops vote in Maryland's elections even though they were not legal residents of the state. In this way, Lincoln kept Maryland in the Union, through force, in violation of the will of Maryland's citizens.

The list goes on but suffice it to say that few if any presidents have had less respect for the Constitution and individual rights than Abraham Lincoln, all "Great Emancipator" propaganda about this non-abolitionist aside. Lincoln never let that old piece of parchment interfere in any way with his dictatorial will. He indeed laid the foundation for the later New Deal in many ways, not the least of which by firmly establishing the falsehood as apparent fact that the executive could at any time arbitrarily declare a crisis and suspend the Constitution when of course the Constitution allows no such thing. Indeed the Constitution would be worthless if it allowed such a thing and this in large measure is why it is in fact worthless today despite its universal and timeless applicability.

Before I forget, let me address the 1864 election which you referenced. Many of Lincoln's closest advisors did indeed advise him to arbitrarily cancel the 1864 election on account of the war, as if he had the authority to do so. The Constitution was intended to remain in force at all times, without interruption, both in peace and in war, although hardly anyone seems to realize this today -- certainly not our current administration. But that did not stop Lincoln and his cohorts. And twentieth century "liberal" Democrats invariably get all the blame for trashing the Constitution? What's wrong with this picture?

In any case, it's not true that the government was restored to its original configuration established in 1787-88 after the Civil War.

I agree, Brian, but I was being brief. Despite the changes, the constitutional amendment process was still required to grant power which meant that the federal government was still in a cage, albeit a bigger one. It did not escape the cage for good until 1937. That is the only point I was making.

The reinterpretation involved the right to secede, about which the Constitution is unclear.

I will not dwell on this one other than to say that it is absurd to claim that the Constitution forbids secession. If so, then our original secession from the British Empire was illegitimate and we need to rectify this right away by joining the Commonwealth. In other words, TJ and the boys must have been a bunch of bad guys. And why stop with England? Why not follow the chain of secession back until we have restored the Sumerian Empire over the entire earth? This gets ridiculous. The Southern states declared their independence through the same democratic processes used by the founding fathers. If American independence was legitimate, then so was Southern independence.

So calling the court reversal of 1937 a "coup" is stretching things pretty far, IMO.

It is not stretching things at all. Prior to 1937, federal power was limited to enumerated powers plus amendments. After 1937, the Tenth Amendment was a "truism" with no bearing on anything and the federal government could do anything it damn well pleased at the expense of individual liberty...so long as the panel of buffoons on the Court had no personal objections. As of 1937, the Constitution was null and void and we had returned to the state of affairs, highlighted by the illegitimate exercise of arbitrary power, which prompted our secession from the British Empire in the first place.

Regarding Rome, I imagine the sack of the city by a barbarian army in 476 was pretty good evidence the place had fallen.

But to contemporary Romans, it was just another sacking much like the one which had occurred in 410. It took centuries before anyone took note of the discontinuity after 476 such that this date was attached to Rome's fall.

Perhaps you're thinking of an earlier event -- the fall of the Republic. It's true that wasn't recognized for some time thereafter. And it's probably a better parallel anyway, from your own perspective.

In many ways, the change from republic to empire is perhaps a better parallel to 1937. But I do not believe that there was as much confusion about things then as there would later be around 476. From the confusion perspective, 476 would more readily equate to 1937


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Stonewall Patton on 2001-11-20 04:49 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Stonewall Patton on 2001-11-20 04:52 ]</font>

Excellent article, Robert. But one point of the author's caught my eye:

On 2001-11-19 21:10, madscientist wrote:

Column continues: But there is no clear evidence, right now, of oil company desires affecting current U.S. foreign policy. If anything, the terrorist attacks have reduced the energy industry's influence. Before Sept. 11 Saudi Arabia was reportedly pushing the U.S. to pressure Israel into Palestine peace concessions and, according to a Newsweek story, Bush was beginning to comply. But after Sept. 11, the chance that the U.S. would accede to Saudi requests evaporated, given the numerous Saudi connections to the attacks.

In fact Bush came out after 911 breaking new ground by officially calling for creation of a Palestinian state. But this is probably not due solely to the pre-911 Saudi pressure to which the author alludes. It is probably a requirement for keeping this coalition of Arab terrorist nations together. And the only reason this coalition was sought was to ensure that US oil companies would not be expelled from the region for toppling the Taliban (and the administration was set to topple the Taliban by March 2001 so as to put in a regime acceptable to the pipeline's underwriters). Any and every way you slice it, it comes back to oil.

Stonewall Patton:


I'll concede most of the point regarding Lincoln's assumption of dictatorial powers, merely remarking in passing that the circumstances were the most extraordinary ones we've ever faced as a nation, and also maintaining that you're exaggerating the significance of his actions. You note:

Before I forget, let me address the 1864 election which you referenced. Many of Lincoln's closest advisors did indeed advise him to arbitrarily cancel the 1864 election on account of the war, as if he had the authority to do so.

I imagine they did, but he did not follow their advice. What's more, until Grant and Sherman broke the stalemate each army faced in that year, Lincoln looked like a loser, so there was plenty of temptation for him to do the deed. He could even have justified it (to himself) on the grounds that MacClellan would have recognized the Confederacy and left the Union divided, so he had to suspend the Constitution to save it. I think it's to his credit that he didn't.


Nor did he ever suspend free speech or a free press, nor dissolve Congress, nor suspend elections generally (which was done in New York this year), nor do a lot of other things that some of history's real dictators -- Sulla, Mussolini, Hitler -- did earlier and later.


Yes, he did assume extraordinary powers that the Constitution did not grant the presidency.

And twentieth century "liberal" Democrats invariably get all the blame for trashing the Constitution? What's wrong with this picture?

The Democrats only became our liberal party (again -- that's what they were to begin with, but they had a long stretch in between as the conservative voice) in the 1930s. In Lincoln's day, and as late as the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, the Republicans were the progressives, by and large.


However, your basic point, that unscrupulousness knows no party, is of course on target.

Despite the changes, the constitutional amendment process was still required to grant power which meant that the federal government was still in a cage, albeit a bigger one.

I don't agree with this interpretation of history at all. Constitutional amendment was then and is now required when the document is explicit and clear, which was the case with the Bill of Rights as it applies to African Americans and to the states. That is, the pertinent language clearly specifies that the federal government is the object of these passages, not the states, and that African Americans are not necessarily protected is made clear by the three-fifths of a person rule in Article I.


It also can be necessary to clarify an ambiguity when there is no consensus regarding reinterpretation. This was more or less the case with the 20th amendment, which should have been implied by the fourteenth, women being beyond dispute "persons born in the United States."


Perhaps it should be done even when that consensus exists, as with the right of secession or the power to regulate the economy, at least after the fact. But the Constitution is not nullified in toto by the occasions when that isn't done.

I will not dwell on this one other than to say that it is absurd to claim that the Constitution forbids secession. If so, then our original secession from the British Empire was illegitimate and we need to rectify this right away by joining the Commonwealth.

Umm -- our secession from the British Empire was illegitimate. All the men involved knew they were acting illegally. That's why it led to war. Their justification was that the British government had forfeited its own legitimacy and claim to rule America through its actions, and their underlying actual motivation was that they, the American mercantile elite, were tired of having the British aristocracy and Crown interfere with their business, and felt the nation was strong enough to put a stop to it. But certainly British law -- which was the law of the land at the time -- defined their actions as treason.


The presumption of history is that secession from a government by a portion of the territory it rules is illegitimate and cause for war. That's the way things normally work. If it was going to be different in our case, then the Constitution needed to spell out a right of secession. Thus, the fact that it did not is a prima facie case that no such legal right existed.


But let's ignore all that and pretend you're right. That only bolsters my own point that here was a change in the way the Constitution was interpreted that was not spelled out by amendment.

It is not stretching things at all. Prior to 1937, federal power was limited to enumerated powers plus amendments.

I already addressed this. Your case here rests upon the reinterpretation of the commerce clause by the Court in that year, after FDR failed to add new members and sway the majority that way. But the commerce clause is itself a vague and broad statement of powers.


Now -- perhaps that wasn't the case in 1788. At that time, most commerce was local. There was little migration of capital from one part of the country to another, since our industrial infrastructure was only beginning to develop. But today, most commerce is interstate, and we'll soon cross a line if we haven't already where most commerce will be global. That being the case, the clause could legally justify much more drastic regulation than has taken place, right up to the imposition of a socialist economy (assuming that can be done within the bounds of the Fourth Amendment, which, using the principle of eminent domain, it could, although at quite a high monetary cost).


The government is still sticking to enumerated powers. Your problem is that one of the enumerated powers is pretty damned broad.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Brian Rush on 2001-11-20 09:23 ]</font>

With regard to our Arab oil dependence, I think that despite the current low prices, we are looking forward to some serious deprivation in that area over the next twenty years. I saw a man interviewed last night who said that bin Laden is trying to get back to Saudi Arabia where his return will have the same effect as Khomeini's return to Iran 20+ years ago, and I believe he is probably correct.

As I've said elsewhere, I expect the entire Mideast to go up in flames at some point over the next twenty years, and when it does, whatever oil we have now (and whatever our new buds, the Russians, can get to us) will be all. I don't expect it to be very pleasant having to deal with oil shortages, but such 4T things are not generally pleasant. However, it's a bitter pill we're going to have to swallow sooner or later, so it may as well be sooner.

When Texas started their power deregulation pilot program in June, I chose to go with the company that offered 100% wind power because I felt that no matter what happened with oil prices and the Mideast, I'd still have a power supply, I'd be paying a stable price, and best of all I wouldn't be raping the environment. Most people I know around here went with "the best price" and they'll probably laugh at me...for a while.

On 2001-11-20 11:20, Lis '54 wrote:
With regard to our Arab oil dependence, I think that despite the current low prices, we are looking forward to some serious deprivation in that area over the next twenty years. I saw a man interviewed last night who said that bin Laden is trying to get back to Saudi Arabia where his return will have the same effect as Khomeini's return to Iran 20+ years ago, and I believe he is probably correct.

As I've said elsewhere, I expect the entire Mideast to go up in flames at some point over the next twenty years, and when it does, whatever oil we have now (and whatever our new buds, the Russians, can get to us) will be all. I don't expect it to be very pleasant having to deal with oil shortages, but such 4T things are not generally pleasant. However, it's a bitter pill we're going to have to swallow sooner or later, so it may as well be sooner.

When Texas started their power deregulation pilot program in June, I chose to go with the company that offered 100% wind power because I felt that no matter what happened with oil prices and the Mideast, I'd still have a power supply, I'd be paying a stable price, and best of all I wouldn't be raping the environment. Most people I know around here went with "the best price" and they'll probably laugh at me...for a while.

I never thought about the Middle East going up in flames. Well, there's another reason why oil politics will dominate this 4T. Maybe you want to post your thoughts on the "New Energy Paradigm" thread in the future forum. :smile: