A sign that not everything has quited off since September 11. For example, some militiamen were planning a massive assasination campaign around January or February and were recently arrested in Montana. They were hoping for a massive showdown with the federal government.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,46752,00.html

Reprinted for educational use only.


KALISPELL, Mont. ? A Montana militia
group with an arsenal of weapons planned
large-scale assassinations as the first
step to an escalating confrontation they
hoped would lead to a war with the federal
government, local authorities said
Wednesday.

"We found weapons, ammunition, survival
equipment, booby traps, body armor,
explosive, bomb-making equipment, you
name it," Flathead County Sheriff Jim
Dupont said. "It all certainly supports the
theory that there was going to be big
trouble. The last I heard, it didn't take 30,000
rounds of ammo to kill a turkey."

The militia group, Dupont said, hoped to kill enough judges, prosecutors and
law enforcement officers to force the state to call in the National Guard. The
plan was then to kill enough National Guard troops to catch the federal
government's attention, setting off an unchecked escalation.

"We're pretty sure they were planning on assassinating as many cops and
public officials as possible," he said.

Dupont said charges were expected, though it was unclear how many people
belong to the organization. He said he planned to meet with federal
prosecutors Friday to determine whether federal conspiracy laws apply.

The militia group also collected "intelligence files" on the targeted officials
and their families, who included Dupont's own name and those of a county
attorney, police chiefs, district judges, various deputies and police officers
and some of their relatives, the sheriff said.

"They had these information sheets, actual forms printed out from a
computer," Dupont said. "They had officers' names, addresses, places they
eat, places they shop, stuff about their kids. They even had information on
what medications one guy's wife was taking."

The group, called Project Seven, was headed by
38-year-old Dave Burgert, who was arrested earlier this
month after an armed standoff that lasted nearly seven
hours, Dupont said.

Burgert had been awaiting trial on charges he assaulted
a police officer in January 2001. He also faced charges of
obstructing a police officer in a November 2001 incident.

Burgert faked his own death and disappeared as a judge
was ordering him to be taken off house arrest and placed
in jail, Dupont said. He was nabbed after an informant
member of Project Seven led officers to the home of Tracy Brockway, where
Burgert was hiding out.

Brockway, 32, is charged with obstruction of justice for harboring Burgert.
She also is suspected of using her job as a cleaning woman at the Whitefish
Police Department to gather information about officers and their families.

Burgert and Brockway remain jailed.

Dupont said there is some question "whether this was a wide conspiracy or
just Burgert."

Mark Potok, editor of the Southern Poverty Law Center's intelligence report,
said that it seemed unlikely Project Seven was a large organization.

Instead, Potok said, it seemed more like a case of "classic leaderless
resistance," in which a handful of disgruntled people operate without any
leadership or coordination with a network.

The center, which compiles information on hate groups and extremist
organizations around the country, has never even heard of Project Seven, he
said.

"We don't know of any big underground army operating up there, or anything
like that," Potok told FOXNews.com in a telephone interview from his offices
in Montgomery, Ala. "I think the likelihood is very much that this might not be
more than the two people they arrested."

Dupont said some answers may be on a computer seized at Brockway's
house, with much of the information encrypted, although the woman has
provided a password to decode some of the information.

The sheriff said the computer files could lead to additional charges against
Burgert, as well as conspiracy charges against at least four other area
residents believed to be members of Project Seven.

The militia's name refers to license plates in Flathead County, which all
begin with the number seven. A similar cell, called Project 56, is believed to
be operating in adjacent Lincoln County.

Dupont said the plate-based cells each have about 10 members who are
linked by a "mother cell" that serves as a communications hub.

The sheriff said his information came from the very reliable informant.

"Nothing he's told us has not come true," he said.

? The Associated Press contributed to this report.















Jobs at Fox News Channel
Terms of use. Privacy Statement. For FoxNews.com comments write to
foxnewsonline@foxnews.com; For Fox News Channel comments write to
comments@foxnews.com
For the latest in sports news, visit http://www.foxsports.com.
?Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Copyright ? 2002 Standard & Poor's
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Fox News Network, LLC 2002. All rights reserved.
All market data delayed 20 minutes.

There was peace in Europe, Eric, because the big powers were content, for the time being, with the arrangement,

The point is not whether the powers wanted peace or not. The point is that multi-lateral world affairs worked for a long period. You can set qualifications on this fact, but it remains a fact. The idea that the world must be run by the USA acting alone as the big bully is not as clear as you think.

They have the ability to raise armies and equip them.

The ability, yes, but not the will (at least right now). Further, that ability exists only in collective form, not individually to each nation today.

The point is that collectively they do; they don't need to have it individually. European nations act together; that should be an inspiration to we as the less civilized nation. You don't know what their will is.

In the aftermath of WW I, Britain still had her empire, a very large, well equipped, and well trained Navy, and was refining and improving her officer corps after the debacles of the First World War.

France still had her empire as well, and even the smaller European powers could still claim to be individual 'players'.

Not today.

Fortunately enough! Several down; one more to go; the USA empire! :smile:
Britain still seems to have plenty to offer as our allies. Imagine that multiplied by 10 and that's what Europe can contribute. Not to mention other nations. World collective security is the way of the future. Even though red zoners have the idea that things must always be the way they were in the past, that need not be so.

Where did you get the idea that (Gorbachev) wanted to duplicate Sweden?

I'm not sure; it might have been from him himself on one of his visits to the USA. Or statements to that effect I heard.

And no, had Carter been reelected, odds are the USSR would still exist. It's true that Communism tends to run out of steam, and it was stagnating, but that's not enough! There are several ways it could extend its life, the simplest being by sucking in resources from outside by force.

Its career in Afghanistan proved that it could not do that.

They had been doing it for decades quite successfully in eastern Europe, and to a lesser degree in Africa and Latin America and Asia.

We're talking 1980s, not 1940s. They were supporting Cuba, but that was a burden. What were they sucking in from Africa that extended its life? From where; Angola? Ethiopia? Not much to suck there!

I bet if we had ended it, the Soviets would have disarmed too.

Not only would you have lost that bet, if it had been taken up by America back then, but so would I, and the whole planet Earth.

Don't you think that qualifies as fear-mongering? The only reason the Soviets were armed in the 1980s was to defend themselves against us. We could not have gone all the way unilaterally, just as the Soviets didn't. But if we were anywhere near as good as we think we are, we would have initiated the process. They did. That tells us we were not so much better as we think we are.

True, driven by the pressure of the West's advancing military and economic power, and the policy of confrontation in Washington and London.

True, you said; it was more than a "little" reform. Inspired by democracies elsewhere including our own. Other than that, you are giving Reagan credit where little is deserved.

There is reason to believe that there were ecological failures with roots in human activity in the Southwest, in Navajo and Anasazi territory. It is also suspected that the Moche may have overfarmed and overgrazed their lands in South America and brought about a local collapse.

You are reaching for it with your smears of Native Americans. You should pay attention and learn from them instead. They have more to teach us than we have to teach them. You know very well that what we have done to the land is destroy what was inherited intact from the Native tribes.

Ecological concern on a major scale is almost entirely a product of the West, very few other cultures paid it more than local attention, if that.

No thanks to your Party and your zone, who have resisted it as much as possible. Concern for world ecology is a product of the people in the West who are concerned about the global destruction that the West itself has wrought. I'm glad the ecological movement exists. Why not support instead of oppose it? That is indeed one of the most basic issues dividing the zones, and why Gore lost Louisiana, Kentucky, etc. They were more interested in making money from oil and coal than in ecology.
The great thing in the West is ability to dream and develop new and creative things and advance freedom. It is thanks to the liberals of yesterday and today that the West has these qualities.
If you are still evoking the deeds of Alger Hiss, which in truth I forget the details about, it shows how far in the past you are preoccupied. What does this case matter now?

Yes, you can respect the law, without regarding it as possessing automatic legitimacy. The law itself can at times become the enemy of civilization, just as even a legal government can nevertheless be illegitimate morally.

Universal moral law does not derive from the authority of the state, Eric. It is when the state conflicts with the universal moral law that the state loses legitimacy. As stated, BTW, in the Declaration of Independence.

You are the one who stated that "the law" represents a universal moral authority. You meant the law of the state at the time. You changed your argument when it suited you.

No, simply resisting the law under extreme circumstances does not, in itself, constitute treason, which is rather narrowly defined directly in the U.S. Constitution.

Your contention is that the framers provided for the public to be armed so they could overthrow the state or resist its authority. I say that is balderdash and obvious nonsense. Who defines "extreme circumstances?" The wackos at Waco?

The idea that people buy guns so they can resist the government is nonsense. Guns are almost never used for this purpose except by a few wackos like those at Waco or the Montana freemen. Are you aligning yourself with them?

If you make a revolution or conduct an operation to overthrow the state, I don't think the state will be very amenable to your efforts. Its power shall dwarf yours. If you make war on the USA or give aid to its enemies, you are committing treason. That is no less true if you do it within the USA's own borders, or do it with weapons you buy yourself.

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-03-02 00:21 ]</font>

"Like sands through the hourglass...."

Eric, I'm still working through your and HC's thread so here is a continuation of my response:

Eric writes:

Red zone churches frown on real attempts to bring about personal growth. They only offer obedience to the Bible, and call anything else of the devil. This is the thinking that dominates your zone, Cynic. It determines who is elected to Congress from your zone.

Eric, Children of the Corn was a movie. It was fantasy. It was not based upon actual events. While we know that people such as you describe do exist in the Red Zone, their numbers are so small that they comprise a tiny minority.

Eric writes:

Before the New Deal we had a society of rich and poor, very unjust. From the 40s through the 80s we improved and the Middle Class grew. Now things have gotten worse again, although Clinton's period saw some improvements.

So you idealize the Malaise of the '70s? We had problems then and we have problems now. The point of this 4T is to junk the New Deal and find something that works.

America is drilling in Wilderness areas for more oil, and blocking the Global Warming treaty. There's a clear difference. We are backward, held back into neanderthal policies by a red zone that depends on the oil business and more Enrons for its well-being.

Eric, if you are referring to Kyoto, you should well know that it was a de facto global redistribution of wealth scheme masquerading as a global warming treaty. This truth was so obvious that none of your more "enlightened" European social democracies would touch it with a ten foot pole. If I am not mistaken, the only industrialized nation to actually ratify it was Australia and they flipped an immediate U-turn and "cancelled their subscription." Why you keep beating the drum for this thing when all your "enlightened" Europeans rejected it is beyond me.

Eric writes:

Why do you conservatives favor a big deficit now?

Very good question.

HC writes:

I'm not worried much about Bush and Ashcroft in the short term. I don't like the precedent they are setting, and I'm against them on much of this, in precise accordance with Franklin's words.

The nature of prior Nomad generations implies that this should be something of our Xer clarion call, at least for first wavers. I would hope that our generational cohorts awaken from their slumber sometime soon. It may already be too late.

Eric writes:

Reagan's militarism did not end the Cold War; that is a myth.
Gorbachev decided to end it for the good of his country; he did it unlaterally. That's all there is to it. It would have happened had Carter won re-election.

LOL! :lol: Eric, what on earth are you talking about? Gorbachev remained a member of the Communist Party even after Yeltsin took over and would have nothing of abandoning communism. As far as I know, he is still a communist today.

HC writes:

I favor a flat-percentage income tax, since you ask, which means that if you have ten times the income, you pay ten times the taxes. Incidentally, once that was in place, I might be willing to consider a tax increase if I thought the situation called for it, since it would be spread evenly across all brackets in accordance with the ability to pay.

I oppose the so-called 'progressive' tax, which means if you make ten times the income, you pay thirty times the taxes.

I also oppose sales taxes, since they fall heavier on the poor by percentage. That same tax on a purchase that is .00001% of a rich man's income might be 10% of a poor man's.

HC, I agree with your sentiments. But you know as well as I do that, even if by some miracle a flat tax were passed, the next Congress would begin creating brackets and deductions again until we are right back where we started from. The income tax must go, period. And more importantly, control of an individual's money must return to the individual, period.

The surest solution is a sales tax (perhaps along with a revenue tariff, if so desired). Alan Keyes offered a NRST with a "market basket" of essential products which would be exempt. By this means, lower wage earners could conceivably pay no taxes to the federal government at all. What are your views on something like this?

BTW, I really find it amazing that so many middle class conservatives, when given a choice between freedom and slavery with respect to abolition of the income tax, will so often opt to remain slaves for the sake of keeping a mortgage deduction. This has got to be the single saddest testament to the corruption of our liberty-loving culture there is. The Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves, submerging themselves in their own vomit.

HC writes:

Eric, the national news media are hard-core Leftist for the most part, and their coverage of vouchers and other GOP ideas is almost universally hostile.

Of course I always believed this too and the data proves it. But this is not the complete explanation. The media is simultaneously corporatist and "Leftist." Those in control of the media are as much pro-Bush now as they were pro-Clinton earlier even though the rank-and-file reporters continue to support Democrats overwhelmingly.

You do not arrive at a precise answer when you ask what bias the media exhibits. You only do so when you ask what the media is biased against. The media is specifically biased against individualism which would encompass libertarians and, in many respects, Greens and paleoconservatives. So in the end, the media is a pragmatic union of the authoritarian Left and authoritarian Right designed to flout the efforts of all individualists, left and right.

Eric writes:

We didn't win the Cold War

Who did then? The French?

Eric writes:

I have been pointing out that military buildups lead to war, not necessarily generals. It was certainly the case in World War I. It led to a spiral of armaments, and huge stockpiles are just an invitation to use them and depend on them to solve problems.

Eric, there was a reason those militaries were built up in the first place. Those nations were competing for colonial and even global ascendancy. The logistics of empire requires a vast military, hence the buildup. Why do you treat these rulers/governments as if they had nothing better to do than to build up those militaries with no plans to actually use them? Do you think that Kaiser Wilhelm, by engaging in that naval race, was merely trying to prove that he had a bigger unit than his cousin Edward or do you think that he might have had actual designs on his cousin's imperial power?

Eric writes:

Give up your neanderthal policies

Would you prefer Cro-Magnon ones then?

Eric writes:

However, lack of gun control means that many criminals can outgun the police.

Oh, so all we have to do is ban guns and criminals will not have guns? I suppose that nobody had alcohol during Prohibition and nobody has had drugs through the War on Drugs, huh?

All gun control means is that criminals can outgun the innocent. End of story.

You are seriously proposing that the framers provided for militias to oppose the power of the government? That I would call treason, which the constitution provides penalities for. The purpose for which you want people to be armed, is for the purpose of breaking the law. By your own definition, it fails.

Eric, this is so bizarre that I am not certain how to respond. The Founding Fathers believed that no people should live in fear of their government. Accordingly, they planned it so that government would live in fear of the people. Note that a government which violates no one's rights has absolutely nothing to fear from the people. Look where we are today.

In America, the government was to fear the people, not the other way around. THAT is why the Founding Fathers gave us the Second Amendment.

Actually, Edward was Wilhelm's uncle, his sister Vickie's boy.

Pax,

Dave Krein '42

Two Eric quotes...

What I pointed out then and will do so again is correct. Yes indeed, what those men said was appropriate for their times, but not for ours. That does not mean they were wrong for their time. But how can you expect the founding fathers not to be "ignorant of the realities of today?" They don't live today, so of course they are. So some (but not all) of their ideas may need to be revised. simply quoting founding fathers has little to do with what is right.

You are seriously proposing that the framers provided for militias to oppose the power of the government? That I would call treason, which the constitution provides penalties for.

My problem is not with your changing your mind on occasion. It is with total disregard of fact. We have debated the Second Amendment before at length. I have posted the NRA Founding Fathers quotes before. And still, if you are not hit over the head with two by fours at regular intervals, you will disregard basics. I consider the role of the militia in establishing democracy and the founding father's greater faith in an armed people than in central government basic. When you agree with the founding fathers, you use their cultural weight and your perverted view of their constitution to throw words like 'treason' at those who disagree with you. When you disagree with them, they are ignorant of the realities of the day. This sort of inconsistency, 180% shifts in arguments, are intellectually dishonest. I am reminded of Nixon's press secretary, after yesterday's lies had been exposed, passing it off with "That statement is no longer operational."

Yes, much has changed since the revolutionary era, notably democracy is more established, less an experiment, Gandhi established a place for non-violent change, and firepower has increased tremendously. I'd like a constitutional convention, and I would put the Second Amendment on the table. Still, you seemed to be saying that all armed resistance to the state was considered treason by the founding fathers. You should have known better. The Declaration of Independence and Constitution were written in part to justify a revolution, and to embed revolutionary doctrines into the culture. I wore myself out a while ago pounding that point home. I was just frustrated that the point didn't stick.

Have I changed my mind on gun control? Yes. I'm a quasi-liberal from Massachusetts. Before I researched the issue, I was vaguely in favor of gun control, but I knew my ignorance. It doesn't take much research on this issue to open one's eyes. While I'm not usually one to bash on the biases of the liberal media, this is one area where the popular press and academic press are in strong disagreement. Again, I'd recommend a little research, but you have persistently declined repeated invitations to remedy your ignorance in the past. When you quoted funny numbers in the last round of our debates, it was always up to me to look up your references. I had to figure out which snippet of liberal propaganda you had heard on TV many months ago.

I can respect your basic values. My problem is in your lack of respect for other people's values. You seem far more interested in proving yourself right than in understanding others or reaching consensus. The core of my world view is that many diverse world views can be simultaneously valid. The core of your world view seems to be that anyone that disagrees with you is wrong. This is the essential difference.

The millennial crisis involves military, ethnic, religious, ecological, economic, legal, political and moral problems, with multiple cultural perspectives on all of the above. In this, it is a typical crisis. It is not surprising that various individuals are more concerned with a few of the above than others. A CEO will gravitate towards economic perspectives and values, seeing these as primary, to be solved first as a basis for solving everything. A general might focus on security perspectives and values. A politician might be concerned with winning elections. A liberal new age astrologist might be concerned with ecological, moral and religious values. Still, the crisis as a whole can not be resolved without addressing all perspectives. Individuals locked so tightly in their own world views that they cannot appreciate other perspectives and values are not part of the solution. They are part of the problem. The hypothetical regeneracy will hopefully leave behind extremists more interested in debate than solutions, more interested in proving their world view uniquely correct than building a new world view, than building a new world. Consensus will involve listening skills as well as debating skills. While both you and Cynic seem to be enjoying this, it is ever so 3T.

I have grumbled that Dubya has put "underlying causes" off the table. He will not change his policies as a result of terrorist action. Are we doing any better here on this web site? Might we stop debating which ideology must be universally adapted? Might we suggest actions that must be taken to solve problems we are most familiar with, and listen to other's suggests on less familiar problems? Might a little less boomer, a lot more civic, be a desired shift?

I think that all of the gun control freaks know full well that they are morally wrong and the gun owners are morally right. Has anyone noticed that while gun owners generally work hard for a living, gun control freaks have so-called jobs that allow them to spend most of their days chatting away at Starbucks in their high-pitched voices? Gun owners work; gun control freaks giggle. They correctly see a gun as something they're not man enough to handle, so they seek to drag those who are man enough down to their level.

I knew one of these freaks once; he was a friend of my sister's. You could pretty well guess the truth about him from his lisp and his limp wrists, but he always denied it. When his girlfriend (whom he could never bring himself to kiss--though he showed her off to his friends to prove he wasn't gay)caught him puffing on another guy, he said, "I never thaid I wathn't bithexual." She bought into his story; subsequently she was raped by his best friend, and he broke up with her, being too much of a coward to stand up for her.

His name was Marcus Fox.

Just to let you know what these gun control freaks are really like...

In politics one should distinguish between a hard sell and a non-starter. A non-starter may be a issue that is very controversial but also stalemated-examples include abortion and gun control.

In the Civil War saeculum slavery was an issue in a somewhat similar position, but was eventually resolved by force of arms.

To see gun control implemented advocates will have to resort to extensive gun fire.



BTW, the late Poul Anderson named a sci fi character "Dominic Flandry."







<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tim Walker on 2002-03-02 14:24 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tim Walker on 2002-03-02 14:28 ]</font>

On 2002-03-02 13:51, Dominic Flandry wrote:
I think that all of the gun control freaks know full well that they are morally wrong and the gun owners are morally right. Has anyone noticed that while gun owners generally work hard for a living, gun control freaks have so-called jobs that allow them to spend most of their days chatting away at Starbucks in their high-pitched voices? Gun owners work; gun control freaks giggle. They correctly see a gun as something they're not man enough to handle, so they seek to drag those who are man enough down to their level.

I knew one of these freaks once; he was a friend of my sister's. You could pretty well guess the truth about him from his lisp and his limp wrists, but he always denied it. When his girlfriend (whom he could never bring himself to kiss--though he showed her off to his friends to prove he wasn't gay)caught him puffing on another guy, he said, "I never thaid I wathn't bithexual." She bought into his story; subsequently she was raped by his best friend, and he broke up with her, being too much of a coward to stand up for her.

His name was Marcus Fox.

Just to let you know what these gun control freaks are really like...
___________

Your're joking, right?
:sad:
This sounds like the story about the welfare queen who went to pick up her welfare check in her Cadillac.

God. I pity your sister.

Would anyone want to do a re-enactment of the Boston Tea Party? :smile:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=26644

On 2002-03-02 13:51, Dominic Flandry wrote:

(a bunch of snipped nonsense)

you know, sometimes someone says something where the only appropriate response (or at least the only one worth taking the time to make) is "you, sir, are a grade A jackass".

if that post was serious, this is one of those times, dominic.

now, perhaps i'm mistaken. but i don't particularly care enough to find out. that's the foot you put forward, so i'm calling you on it.


TK

On 2002-03-02 07:13, Stonewall Patton wrote:

Eric writes:

Why do you conservatives favor a big deficit now?

Very good question.

By preference, we don't.

HC writes:

I favor a flat-percentage income tax, since you ask, which means that if you have ten times the income, you pay ten times the taxes. Incidentally, once that was in place, I might be willing to consider a tax increase if I thought the situation called for it, since it would be spread evenly across all brackets in accordance with the ability to pay.

I oppose the so-called 'progressive' tax, which means if you make ten times the income, you pay thirty times the taxes.

I also oppose sales taxes, since they fall heavier on the poor by percentage. That same tax on a purchase that is .00001% of a rich man's income might be 10% of a poor man's.

HC, I agree with your sentiments. But you know as well as I do that, even if by some miracle a flat tax were passed, the next Congress would begin creating brackets and deductions again until we are right back where we started from. The income tax must go, period. And more importantly, control of an individual's money must return to the individual, period.

The surest solution is a sales tax (perhaps along with a revenue tariff, if so desired). Alan Keyes offered a NRST with a "market basket" of essential products which would be exempt. By this means, lower wage earners could conceivably pay no taxes to the federal government at all. What are your views on something like this?

I'm not sure what you mean by a 'revenue tariff', so I can't be sure what I think.

I don't like the idea of a national sales tax, because it strikes me as being regressive. I might find it more amenable with the minimum cut-off, but I don't see how to make that work on a pragmatic level.

In order to put a national sales tax into effect, a Constitutional Amendment would be required, and I think a minimum requirement for that should be the abolition of the income tax, if we go that route. Otherwise, we'll end up with both.

I agree with you about Congress. For that matter, I can't imagine much of any change in our bizarre tax system prior to the full 4T period. It's too valuable to the social engineers, not just for money but as a tool of social control (i.e. "Let's tax twinkies, since they make people fat." and the like. I'm not joking all that much, people have really suggested this!)

If we did go to a flat income tax, I think the only way to make it have half a chance of sticking would be an Amendment, again.

BTW, I really find it amazing that so many middle class conservatives, when given a choice between freedom and slavery with respect to abolition of the income tax, will so often opt to remain slaves for the sake of keeping a mortgage deduction.

If the deductions were the only consideration, I'd say trash it!

To my mind, though, ultimately all taxes are taxes on income, directly or indirectly. I don't find the income tax inherently more oppressive than a sales tax, though as I said, I hate the way it's been implemented.

Incidentally, for anyone reading this who thinks Stonewall or I are paranoid about what can be done with tax code, IIRC when the income tax was first proposed, assurances were given that it would apply only to the very highest brackets and would never be more than 1% or so. The people saying this might even have meant it, at the time.

HC writes:

Eric, the national news media are hard-core Leftist for the most part, and their coverage of vouchers and other GOP ideas is almost universally hostile.

Of course I always believed this too and the data proves it. But this is not the complete explanation. The media is simultaneously corporatist and "Leftist." Those in control of the media are as much pro-Bush now as they were pro-Clinton earlier even though the rank-and-file reporters continue to support Democrats overwhelmingly.

You do not arrive at a precise answer when you ask what bias the media exhibits. You only do so when you ask what the media is biased against. The media is specifically biased against individualism which would encompass libertarians and, in many respects, Greens and paleoconservatives. So in the end, the media is a pragmatic union of the authoritarian Left and authoritarian Right designed to flout the efforts of all individualists, left and right.

That is one of the weirder aspects of the modern media, the way it simultaneously fawns up to its sort-of-right-wing masters and at the same time remains hard left.

I agree about the media being biased against individualists. I also note a broad dislike of most religion, and especially of Christianity, and a deep distrust of the idea of family life as being more than a social construct. The idea that humans are biologically biased toward certain forms of society and family life is not one the media people generally approve of.

Do you think that Kaiser Wilhelm, by engaging in that naval race, was merely trying to prove that he had a bigger unit than his cousin Edward or do you think that he might have had actual designs on his cousin's imperial power?

Actually, in all seriousness, I think in the case of the Kaiser, it could be both at once.

One of the problems of monarchy in general is that it's really easy, under such systems, for personal and familial disputes, likes, and dislikes to transform into policy decisions that can cost blood and treasure.

On 2002-03-02 22:54, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean by a 'revenue tariff', so I can't be sure what I think.

I mean a single tariff rate on all imported goods designed to raise revenue. It eliminates the excesses of protectionism while not completely ignoring the protectionists' concerns.

I don't like the idea of a national sales tax, because it strikes me as being regressive. I might find it more amenable with the minimum cut-off, but I don't see how to make that work on a pragmatic level.

You just exempt essential food products, etc. In this way, low wage earners conceivably escape paying federal taxes entirely. But most importantly, the federal government no longer has a pre-emptive claim on all of our earnings. Control of an individual's money returns to the individual.

[quote]If we did go to a flat income tax, I think the only way to make it have half a chance of sticking would be an Amendment, again.[quote]

That is definitely true. And such a thing will likely be possible after the regeneracy.

IIRC when the income tax was first proposed, assurances were given that it would apply only to the very highest brackets and would never be more than 1% or so. The people saying this might even have meant it, at the time.

Yes, I think the original 1914 form taxed all income over $100,000 (in 1914 dollars) at a flat rate of 1%. How far we have come!

On 2002-03-02 22:54, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

By preference, we don't.

Depends on what you define as conservative, I like using Brian Rush's seven political ism's because they can describe people's political outlook better than conventional terms.

For example Some so-called 'Conservatives' are true conservatives in the Brian Rush sense since they favour tradition and an aversion to ideological fervour or too much change. Means to those kinds of people budget deficits are a minor concern.

However for capitalists (Most republicans and some democrats can be described as capitalists) their belief is one of that the corporations interests are paramount and budget deficits are a bad thing for corporations generally.

Budget deficits are good for corporations' short term interests.
They pay for wealthy people's tax cuts, corporate tax cuts, and the interest on the debt is in effect a redistribution from poor to rich with the the poor paying the taxes to fund the interest on the debt.
Budget deficits, at least as done by Republicans, are bad for the common man.
Of course one can make the case that increased public debt is bad for COMPETITIVE
capitalism because it restricts the supply of capitalavailable to the government and big corporations who can afford to bid each other up on the price of capital. This harms the small to medium sized corporation which is looking for capital to start up or expand.
It also harms the long term interests of big corporations by indirectly reducing productivity as a result of lessened investment and competition from smaller corporations. AT & T has benefited greatly from the breakup of its monopoly. Of course coporations don't think like economists about long term results. They think about short term profits. And profits are more important than long term economic competitiveness. It is to our detriment that our policymakers in the White House and Congress confuse the two.

I'm going to own a gun and try to forget that I own it-for now.

Is it time to get down to it? If it is then let's forget republican/democrat and red/blue. The rest of us need to get involved. The arguments put forth so far have elements of truth on both sides. Now it is time for us to paw through those arguments and see what flies and what doesn't. The questions posed are germane to our present situation. The answers, perhaps not. This is 4T stuff.

What do we actually believe? Do individual people have the power to make decisions for our country or do polical parties and elite groups? Do we follow after those with the loudest proclamations or do we "rightly divide" the truth from polemic?

I don't have all the answers. But I might have some of them. Look back over the posts of the last year or so and you will see a suble change. Whether you call it the culture wars or something else the dialogue has become more immediate and personal. We all have a vital stake in the outcome of this crisis. those of you who have been reading these posts for a while and not contributed, it is time for you to make yourselves heard.

I still believe that consensus can win the day in all issues. If you believe this to be naive then I see this country dissolving into civil war again. I don't want to grow up. God knows I can put in more time just pruning trees. I want it to be simple-like my prose. Why can't it be simple?

How come xers love to party, but they won't join one?

The xers are the weight that will tip the balance one way or the other on most issues.

As Silent influence fades, it will be up to Xers to restrain Boomer ideologues. But a worthy Gray Champion must come forth to give Xers a constructive choice on the ballot. How does one choose if the choice is between two fanatics?

On 2002-03-03 19:14, Tim Walker wrote:
How does one choose if the choice is between two fanatics?

In what manner or matter was Hoover versus FDR a choice of fanatics? FDR ran on a more tepid platform than the meddling Mr. Hoover. How does the franchise holder read the intent of someone who <S>lies</S> is pragmatic?


Character doesn't matter does it?

India is really in a Fourth Turning.
What is chilling here is to read about slaughter of Muslims by Hindus in an Indian village.
This isn't just a riot caused by random passions of the moment against a certain group of people.
This is full fledged ethnic cleansing within a village of the state of Gujarat which is an ethnically mixed part of India.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=251156

On 2002-03-01 17:43, cbailey wrote:
Elisheva:

What is your opinion of parents volunteering in the schools? My community is trying to encourage parents and others to share their expertise and talents with the schools so that we might change a negative mind-set about education that thrives here (rural, low-income, and geographically isolated).

We have alot of neglected kids, and we're hoping that the presence of parents in the schools might influence those families to take better care of said children. We're talking food, clean clothing, discipline.
The disrict administrators have not been too positive. Teachers are waiting and watching, but they do admit that their ability to teach is hampered by disruptive students.

Any thoughts?

Dear CBaily,

I love it when parents volunteer in my classroom. In fact, at the public high school where I used to teach, we had a database of parents and their talents so that we could bring them into the classroom. When kids see that what they are doing in the classroom is of interest to adults, they tend to shape up and apply themselves more. Also, when parents see what is really happening in the school, they tend to treat teachers and the educational process with a lot more respect.

Teachers and Admin often worry that parents coming and going would be disruptive--and I suppose it could be if it is not well planned. In our situation we came to count on the parents and they developed a very different attitude towards the school as well.

Now I teach at a private, religious prep school and here we could not function without the Parent Association. Although they tend to be in the classroom less than at the other school, they are highly visible on campus. This, again, means that they have a good idea what happens at school and we get a better picture of what goes on at home.

The total education of a child is a cooperative venture between parents and the educational institutions. HOWEVER, this is not the same as parents running schools. The few charter schools here that have tried that have had very poor track records and several have failed. On the other hand, one local district is so top-heavy with admin that refuses to change and some parents there have started charter schools. These parents act as the board of education and hire teachers and admin that they believe will benefit their children. Those schools have waiting lists to get kids in.

On 2002-03-03 18:35, cbailey wrote:


How come xers love to party, but they won't join one?

The xers are the weight that will tip the balance one way or the other on most issues.

Some of us first wave X-ers have started our own parties. I am half serious. I have never in my life voted for a major party candidate. I almost voted for Clinton in '92, but then I met the guy because I was part of the young Democrats at the university where I was a grad student. I remember the red flags waving in my tummy and I realized that I could never vote for a guy I would not let my daughter near. So I didn't. After that short flirtation with a major party, I joined what was then a minor party in my state. During the governor's election in '96, we attained major party status, mostly because of a coalition with the "tierra o muerte" folks up north. Now I didn't really start my party--it was started by boomers, but we X-ers have brought the voice of reality in to the discussions at the state council. In 2000-01, I was even elected as Co-chair of the state organization.

It is really mistaken to assume that Watergate turned us into apolitical people. However, my political education began in Grant Park 1968 and I graduated from childhood idealism with Watergate at the tender age of 13 or so.

We do need to restrain the boomer tendency to put ideology in front of practicality. But some of work at it outside the usual political parties. How--well, X-er of us!

On 2002-03-03 19:14, Tim Walker wrote:
How does one choose if the choice is between two fanatics?

In what manner or matter was Hoover versus FDR a choice of fanatics? FDR ran on a more tepid platform than the meddling Mr. Hoover. How does the franchise holder read the intent of someone who <S>lies</S> is pragmatic?




One might reflect upon what Mr. Hoover said just before the "important" Presidential election of 1936


And then, one might ponder why Senator John F. Kennedy, omitted the much vilified name of "Hoover" when speaking so plainly about "Wilson, Roosevelt, and Truman have been the Democratic Presidents who have led this country in the 20th century. McKinley, Coolidge, Harding, Landon, Dewey, and the Vice President have led the Republican Party in the 20th century. I cannot believe, faced with the difficult problems that this country now faces, that the American people are going to turn back to a Republican leadership. I cannot believe that the American people are going to say in 1960 that we have never had it so good, and we want more of the same. I think they are going to want to cross..." "the new frontier." [Applause.]


A bit of "pragmatism"? :smile: