Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by David '47

And regarding the evisceration of the court by amendment, I doubt you could get the Congress to act or even 50% of the states to go along. It would be more likely that the public would react at the polls. I'll wager that Rehnquist fears that most of all.

They did react at the polls. Part of the reason for Reagan's landslides in '80 and '84 (not the only reason) was irritation on the part of some against a perceived lunacy that had infected the courts, and especially the SCOTUS.

I think a few ideologues were incensed, but the public - less so. Those in the public that had the iggest problem with the court, hated the Civil Rights decisions most. I doubt anyone today thinks that they were unnecessary.

The only continuing hot-button issue from the Warren Court is abortion.

Today, you're right, no Amendment would be remotely likely. But in the late 2T, that was another matter. Tempers kept ratcheting higher with every controversial decision, and in some quarters there was a going sense that the SCOTUS was totally out of control. Rehnquist's fears were at least somewhat well founded, IMO, since the courts in general and the SCOTUS are, inherently, the weakest branch of government.

Weak - yes. Unable to make their will known - no. Controversial issues have often begun in the courts, and just as often, get settled elsewhere. Look at the Dred Scot and Pullman decisions.

Controversy SHOULD be part of the job. If the court gets it wrong, then the game moves to the next level. But nothing gets settled by sweeping issues under the rug.

The president commands the military and law enforcement. Congress controls the money. The SCOTUS, ultimately, derives its power from the respect (albeit often grudging and irritated) respect of the public. That's their only real power. If the public perceive the SCOTUS as too far out of line, their power suddenly weakens relative to the executive and legislative branches.

Justice Brennan (arguably one of the worst offenders in this error) used to boast that "five votes can do anything". In legal theory, that might be true. In practice, the more the SCOTUS tried to impose artificial consensus on issues where none existed, the more irritated and angry people became. The attitude Brennan displayed in that little quote was a big part of the problem.

As I said, controversy SHOUD be part of the job. The argument that hard cases make bad law is certainly true, but only looking at the easy cases makes the institution into a bush-league debating society.

If the court is too far out of line, an election cycle and afew appointments will correct it. And yes, I'm aware of how many a "few" may end-up being.

The SCOTUS is simply not equipped to settle issues that seriously divide the public on moral, religious, and cultural grounds. When it's tried to do so in U.S. history, it's usually ended badly or at best as farce.

If the court had folowed your rule over the years, we would probably not be living in a democratic Republic. I'd bet on an oligarchy of some sort. Probably a Plutocracy. The SCOTUS keeps the game honest by staying IN the game. When it opts for safety, the game begins to get a little rotten.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...r-health_x.htm

Taking America's pulse: Resilient spirit takes front stage

By Marilyn Elias, USA TODAY

Nearly one year after Sept. 11, a vast majority of Americans have recovered from the most severe and widespread emotional trauma inflicted on them in modern history, evidence suggest.

Metropolitan New York is the only region that continues to suffer significantly higher rates of anxiety and depression than before Sept. 11, says Harvard Medical School health policy expert Ronald Kessler, whose surveys track mental health trends for the National Institute of Mental Health.

But that doesn't mean terrorism didn't leave its mark on people. Although there's no evidence of lasting effects on Americans' mental health, some experts contend that Sept. 11 sparked the start of changes in values and behavior, with potential for even more shifts ahead. These changes and what they portend for the future will be reported at the American Psychological Association (APA) meeting starting Thursday in Chicago.

About 100,000 Americans either saw one of the attacks or knew someone involved, says psychologist Susan Solomon, trauma expert at the National Institutes of Health. "They saw it in person, had to run for their lives or had somebody close to them killed, injured or at the scene."

Most everyone else watched on TV, repeatedly. Mental health experts weren't surprised that 90% of Americans had at least one stress symptom ? from flashbacks to insomnia ? in the week after.

Although the anxiety has eased, many Americans don't feel safe anymore. In a recent national survey, nearly half of women and one out of four men said the attacks had shaken their sense of safety and security. About nine out of 10 felt at least as threatened as they did last fall, says Michael Traugott of University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research in Ann Arbor. Some 84% thought future attacks were likely.

Recovery is most elusive for those reminded of loss every day. Mary Ellen Salamone, 40, is a leader in Families of Sept. 11, a support and information group for survivors. "A huge majority of the families are nowhere near out of the woods yet," she says. "We have OK days and awful days, but nobody says, 'I'm all better and moving on.' "

Others who are "moving on" may land in new territory because of Sept. 11. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam, a speaker at APA, lamented the exodus from community pursuits in favor of solitary activities in his instant classic of 2000, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (Simon & Schuster).

Now Putnam thinks lessons from Sept. 11 could spur positive change, especially for youth. "We have an opportunity to create a new 'Greatest Generation,' " he says. Putnam's surveys after Sept. 11 found surges in mutual trust, national unity and interest in politics. Although these effects had decreased by spring, he thinks it's vitally important that adults younger than 35 are significantly more "we-oriented" than their elders.

"For the first time in their lives, terrorism reminded them what Americans share and our responsibility to one another," Putnam says. As ongoing threats of terror mark their coming of age, today's youth may be responding as their World War II grandparents did: by pulling together and prizing the common good above all.

That will only happen, Putnam predicts, if adults channel young people's service impulses into positive paths. A recent doubling in the size of AmeriCorps (a domestic Peace Corps) is one positive step. Major reform of public school civics education to emphasize concrete ways that kids can get involved in their communities, a plan reportedly being weighed at the federal level, could help too.

Some researchers point to signs that the terrorist attacks may be altering character traits of even older Americans. Responses to an online survey on how people view their own traits post-Sept. 11 found increases in traits such as love, kindness and spirituality. The increases had slipped by summer, but they're still higher than before Sept. 11, says University of Michigan psychologist Christopher Peterson, co-director of the survey. "We may be seeing a sustained change in American character."

But others argue that such changes are wishful thinking. Charity and church attendance rose briefly after the attacks, then sank to normal. Peterson has no proof that people are kinder and gentler. Putnam concedes that the heightened interest in community hasn't translated to joining more groups ? yet.

Some question the mental health impact. "It's been way overblown," says psychiatrist Sally Satel of the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank.

Although counselors in other parts of the nation see no significant increase in clients, therapists around Washington, D.C., and New York say there's a continuing need for added help.

"We have never been involved so long," says psychologist June Feder, who oversees volunteer therapists for the New York State Psychological Association. "It's almost a year later, and we're still doing a lot of therapy work on this."

Alan Lipman, a Washington, D.C., psychologist, says some victims of the Pentagon attack only recently have sought counseling. "These are happy, glib, well-organized people with no previous emotional problems. They tried to manage it on their own."

As the first anniversary of the attacks approaches, many dread the retriggering of pain. "Stress inoculation" groups to help survivors deal with the anniversary are underway at a Long Island family center directed by psychologist Thomas Demaria of South Nassau Communities Hospital. Survivors of loss heal best when they gain support from their religious and community moorings, Demaria says. He thinks the Catholic Church's sex abuse scandal has delayed the healing of some Catholic survivors "because it's another great shock from a place they thought they could trust," and terrorism in Israel is having a similarly corrosive effect on Jewish survivors.

The center's support groups provide a chance to share with and comfort others feeling similar emotions. Rosaleen Shea, 39, attends a weekly group for adults who lost siblings. "You look each other in the eye, and there's a comfort there. It's almost as if you've been through a war together," says Shea, whose sister, Mary Yolanda Dowling, died at the World Trade Center. The group has helped a lot, but she still feels grief.

Although victims' surviving loved ones tended to suffer the worst emotional blows, last fall's terrorism also battered certain kinds of people who weren't directly involved. Others recovered quicker, showing ways to cope with future terrorism. Among key findings, many to be reported at the APA meeting:

* "Worriers" and those who habitually take responsibility for others had the worst stress symptoms. People prone to "survivor guilt" holed up the most, couldn't allow themselves to have fun and may be at risk for depression, says psychologist Lynn O'Connor of the Wright Institute in Berkeley, Calif.
* Adults found to bounce back quickly from setbacks, in studies before Sept. 11, didn't bury their bad feelings after the attacks. They were only slightly less angry and sad than adults who aren't as resilient, says University of Michigan psychologist Barbara Fredrickson. But they felt many more positive emotions, such as gratitude and love, than the less resilient did. These positive feelings accounted for their ability to weather tough times last fall, Fredrickson says.
* Spirituality helped and hurt. The more adults felt that terrorists had violated something sacred or linked to God, the worse their stress symptoms and physical ailments two months after the attacks. But they also reported growing the most: They revised priorities, took stock of their lives and worked on relationships, says Bowling Green State University psychologist Annette Mahoney.
* The more TV people watched, the worse their stress a week after the attacks, a large national survey shows. That's worth remembering after future incidents, says University of Texas psychologist Etzel Cardena, who did the study.
* Teens and young adults took the attacks hard but report greater respect for authorities than before and a hunger to serve others.
* The elderly were toughest. In New York, visually impaired old people recovered normal levels of mental health by November, say psychologists at the Lighthouse International agency. In a Muncie, Ind., nursing home, "the lady in a wheelchair hooked up to an oxygen tank was saying, 'Don't worry, dear, we've gone through so many wars and tough times, we know we're going to be OK,' " says Ball State University psychologist Michiko Iwasaki.

Solomon, the NIH trauma expert, doesn't doubt that many families continue to feel the scorching aftereffects of Sept. 11. Americans didn't cave in, though. "To me, the amazing part of the story is the resilience, the courage we've seen," she says.

Even in the face of horrific bereavement, life does go on. A baby helps to remind you of that, says Terry Strada, 39, of Chatham, N.J. She lost her husband, Tom, a bond trader at Cantor Fitzgerald. Strada suddenly became a widow with a 7-year-old, a 4-year-old and a 4-day-old son.

Now baby Justin is starting to stand. "He's been something for us to love and focus on. ... A lot of women were pregnant or had babies and say the same thing. These gifts from God help us because we don't have time to wallow."

She still indulges in "a good cry" from time to time and is grateful for a weekly support group.

Despite her grief, Strada feels she must be a rock of stability for the kids to lean on. As childhood milestones pass, she's trying to keep alive the spirit and memory of their father. Kaitlyn, now 5, learned to dive off the high board this summer. "She said, 'Daddy would be so proud. Do you think Daddy's watching me?' I said, 'I'm sure he is.' "

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

Gun ownership was quite rare in revoultionary times, they were expensive and inaccurate outside the military arena. Knives, Swords, Clubs, Crossbows and Hatchets were the weapons of choice for anyone below the Rich.

I'll disagree with this. True, muskets were not an ideal weapon in individual conflict. They were inaccurate, and slow to load. However, they were very effective when used in mass. They were used in mass often in the Indian and French and Indian wars. As tensions between Britain and the colonies developed, the goal 'that every man be armed' was pretty much met. Check out the size of the colonial militia army that chased the Lexington and Concord raid back to Boston. The colonial militias were able to besiege Boston.

Recently, the gun control crowd has attempted some revisionist history. There are some modern works that claim the revolutionary era general public was not armed, but the authors have direct money links to the gun control lobby. Their pseudo-academic efforts have been challenged, though the money links of the challengers are not exactly pure. As one example, a gun control author, looking at the will of Thomas Jefferson, asserted that Jefferson did not keep arms. Examining old wills is one of the common methods used by the gun control academics to count weapons. The rebuttal arguments include modern photographs of revolutionary era weapons, still on display at Monticello. Clearly, not all weapons were listed in wills.

I'm not an expert to place final judgement on this particular revisionist history debate, but as the French and Indian and early Revolutionary wars featured a numerous armed militia, the militia was clearly armed.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

Gun ownership was quite rare in revoultionary times, they were expensive and inaccurate outside the military arena. Knives, Swords, Clubs, Crossbows and Hatchets were the weapons of choice for anyone below the Rich.

... Recently, the gun control crowd has attempted some revisionist history. There are some modern works that claim the revolutionary era general public was not armed, but the authors have direct money links to the gun control lobby. Their pseudo-academic efforts have been challenged, though the money links of the challengers are not exactly pure.

Thank you for at least admitting that academic efforts in this arena are almost always suspect. If the investigator has an agenda, the best rule is to ignore the results - unless an independent evaluation shows the contrary.

As one example, a gun control author, looking at the will of Thomas Jefferson, asserted that Jefferson did not keep arms. Examining old wills is one of the common methods used by the gun control academics to count weapons. The rebuttal arguments include modern photographs of revolutionary era weapons, still on display at Monticello. Clearly, not all weapons were listed in wills.

Clearly, not everything on display at Monticello resided there. Somethings are representational. And another point - Jefferson was rich, or at least he spent money like he was. Tristan was arguing the state of the common man.

I'm not an expert to place final judgement on this particular revisionist history debate, but as the French and Indian and early Revolutionary wars featured a numerous armed militia, the militia was clearly armed.

Those living on the frontier would have placed arms very high on the list of essentials, and those in settlements - much lower. The growth of firearm ownership in cities can be laid at the post-Civil War, when many soldiers returned from the war with their own weapons, or ones thet'd captured in battle. Once your neighbor is armed, you would be much more likely to arm yourself as well.

BTW, this piece of knowledge did not require the examination of wills, but was commonly reported in the press of the time. Whether you chose to trust the 19th century press is up to you, but they ceratainly don't have a dog in THIS fight.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by Number Two

As if liberal and conservative are the only two political positions :-)

i think that most of us here know that our resident Stoner is actually a libertarian and therefrore neither right-wing nor left-wing... he dislikes bush's politics not because he's towards the right but because bush is much more authoritarian than libertarian (as a liberal with libertarian leanings i dislike bush's politics for both reasons

Nice response, William. That about nails it. Thanks.

I was rather taken aback by Mr. Flandry's encyclopedic response(?), rebuttal(?). What could possibly motivate someone to write such a pointless epic on a dinky little board such as this one? But I endeavored to read it and got no further than the part where he claimed to be a true libertarian in asserting that freedom is relative. Absurd. Mr. Flandry is actually defending the Rule of Men on a relative scale as if to say that a captive who is permitted an hour of "freedom" in the courtyard every day should not complain about his condition when his fellow captives, by contrast, get no such respite. Freedom is relative to Mr. Flandry, perhaps even to the point where it blinks out of existence under the boot heel of man's arbitrary will.

The Rule of Law cannot be reconciled with the Rule of Men. In fact, the Rule of Law came about as a direct response to the excesses of the Rule of Men, which are unavoidable given man's flawed nature. No libertarian defends the Rule of Men and Mr. Flandry surely knows this. Ergo, Mr. Flandry was being disingenuous in his assertion (surprise!). However...he was being unwittingly honest with the other assertion in that he might be a true (modern) liberal. Modern liberals often do share his belief that freedom is relative and that power need not be predicated on such "obsolete" concepts as consent. Mr. Flandry should find a welcome home in the Democratic Party in that it is now virtually indistinguishable from the Republican Party.

As I indicated, I got no further than this point where Mr. Flandry revealed that he is a troll. I merely scanned down to the bottom and got a chuckle from his absurd postscripts. As if I seek the approval of the Kool-Aid drinkers who can still call themselves Republicans in good conscience! And as if I...or anyone else here...would even bother to respond to a cretin, troll or otherwise, who claimed that he "called the authorities" because he did not like what was being discussed with respect to possible outcomes of the approaching presidential election of 2004! But you do appear to care deeply about the cretin, Mr. Flandry, so much so that you make it a point to take time out of your busy day in order to keep track of who and who does not respond to his posts. It is a good thing to watch our for a friend!

The only other thing I caught was the word "phony" above "Begala," etc., just above the postscripts (again, chuckle, chuckle). No, Mr. Flandry, I may be a lot of things, but one thing I am not is a phony. I cannot get motivated to deal in anything else but the truth...I just do not have the time. You, on the other hand, plainly revealed yourself to be a phony in your epic. There are no billy goats here, Mr. Flandry. You best just crawl back under your bridge.


BTW, Mr. Flandry, if you do not already work for the executive branch in some capacity, by all means do drop off an application. You are precisely the sort the Bush administration is looking for. You demonstrate superior ability in subterfuge, obfuscation, and all the essential skills relevant to effective dissemination of propaganda. These skills are invaluable to the Machiavellian human garbage which presumes to rule us. This, sir, is your true calling in life. Good luck in your interview and be sure and quote our fearless leader who agrees with old relativistic you that "there ought to be limits to freedom." "Make the pie higher!"

I do hope this response suffices because this is all you are going to get. Now go on. Crawl back under your bridge.

I notice you never responded about the 2nd Amendment. I suppose that expecting a hard-core Carvillite to mount a defense of the right to keep and bear arms is an unfair expectation.

I also note that for all your hatred of my America (what you call my encyclopedic response) you aren't in a hurry to get on a boat to Iraq, or Canada, or even Switzerland. My point was to try to show you the real America; a land you can love as it is (even while seeing things that need improvement). But again I'm being unfair; someone who never leaves his philosophy textbooks probably isn't anti-American because he hates my nation, but rather because he just hasn't ever gone far enough from a college campus to SEE it.

Another point (I'll pretend for the time being that you are what you say you are): you constantly claim that Bush is a repudiation of Reaganism. This is false. Both Bush and Reagan have the same policies (which, by the way, are NOT the policies of Bush 41's, which were those of Nixon and Ford): tax cuts; a favorable climate for business; and a strong military to stand up to foreign totalitarian dictators. The reason that Bush is wrongly seen as more liberal is this: when Reagan was President, his criticism came almost entirely from the Left, because the Left dominated the news media. There was no right-wing talk radio, an Internet hardly anyone knew about, no Fox News. Thus, when Reagan signed a tax increase into law in 1982, or when he signed an amnesty for illegal aliens, criticism was nowhere to be seen. Were Bush to sign such into law today, he would probably face a Perot-type challenge in 2004.

Originally Posted by David '47

Thank you for at least admitting that academic efforts in this arena are almost always suspect. If the investigator has an agenda, the best rule is to ignore the results - unless an independent evaluation shows the contrary.

Agreed. One segment of my 2nd Amendment web site is titled "Liars Sure Figure." The question of how gun control effects crime rates is spun to absurdity. I distrust the favorite statistical methods of both factions. On the legal front, US v Miller is quoted by folks on both sides. I have learned not to trust anyone's interpretation of a 2nd Amendment case without reading the text of the decision myself, and thinking about what was going on at the time. (The three largest attempts at gun control took place during the Reconstruction, Prohibition, and War on Drugs. Not surprisingly, these attempts at social control resulted in violence, which resulted in gun control, but gun control did not result in a stoppage of the violence. Many of the important Supreme Court decisions regarding the 2nd Amendment took place in these time frames. One can see how the politics and problems of these times shaped how the Constituion was interpreted.)

Neither side has a monopoly on Truth. Many on both sides seem to value PR that fits neatly into sound bytes. There is more propaganda produced related to the issue than objective research. Many are far more concerned with swaying public opinion, rather than solid factual research.

But... the militia of at least New England was well armed in the French and Indian through Revolutionary time frame. Everything I've read about period fighting during the era indicates the People of the time were well armed. Thus, my interest in military history is very much at odds with the gun control lobby's "research" claiming firearms were rare in the period.

People might want to visit http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/news/EmersonAppealNews.htm The Second Amendment Foundation is definitely against gun control, with a focus on the legal issues. Don't trust the SAF site to be neutral. However, about a fifth of the way down the page, they have a bunch of pointers to a few dozen articles from assorted media outlets all over the country, divided neatly into pro and anti individual right columns. It gives one a feel for how much spin one might expect from the media.

I have found the academics to be much less biased than the media or lobbyists. I would trust those working for universities much more than those working for media outlets, think tanks or lobby organizations. In general, the legal academics have been leaning highly towards the 'standard model.' (The term 'standard model' meaning 'individual rights model' was invented by a very bitter advocate of gun control. The term was rapidly adopted by many.)

Originally Posted by monoghan

Converting the polar opposite is more likely than turning the moderate into a true believer. Eric Hoffer's book showed that Saul becoming Paul was not uncommon or a miracle, just as some of the best Nazis had been communists. If someone is susceptible to extreme beliefs, then the opposite might just work as well.

By the same token, just try turning a 'true believer' into a moderate. I suspect that if you could ever convince a Christian Fundamentalist that his or her reading of the Bible was in error, said person would be much more likely to become a militant atheist than a moderate Christian. The militant quality of the belief is more important here than the specifics of doctrine. In fact, as I suggested above, if one system of doctrine is discredited, the 'true believer' will simply latch onto another, even if the new one is the polar opposite of the old. The NKVD (aka KGB) personnel guarding captured Nazis after the war saw that proven out when many of said Nazis became fervent Communists while in Soviet captivity.

3T or 4T? It this isn't 4T, we are really in trouble.


http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/...114163381.html

(For education and discussion purposes only)


The government in the shadows

August 23 2002


Since September 11, some Americans believe their basic freedoms are under siege from within. Ritt Goldstein reports.

Nearly a year into the war against terrorism extraordinary things are happening. The Bush Administration is flirting with the possibility of America's military pursuing law enforcement, a member of the US Civil Rights Commission has broached the possibility of Arab-American internment, and the FBI's monitoring of domestic dissent and Internet traffic has intimidated many into comparative silence.

There are fears that the organisation established to manage disaster relief, the US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), has evolved into an unseen threat to American life.

Its origins began secretly during Ronald Reagan's administration when FEMA's domestic disaster management role was broadened to take in martial law and internment of so-called aliens and radicals. A joint exercise was held with the military to prepare for such a contingency, Rex-84. Concurrently, FEMA began assembling files on those whom the agency might target.

Today, most Americans know only FEMA's benevolent role in disaster relief. However, in a little known move 15 months ago, President George Bush returned FEMA to the forefront of national security by allowing it to participate "in homeland security training that involves military and civilian emergency response". Now the Administration is moving to give FEMA disturbing new responsibilities.

On August 14 the Los Angeles Times ran an article about Attorney-General John Ashcroft's desire to create camps for US citizens he deems to be "enemy combatants". The newspaper reported that Ashcroft aides "have indicated that a 'high-level committee' will decide who will be stripped of their constitutional rights and sent to Ashcoft's new camps".

While FEMA has no domestic intelligence apparatus of its own to target suspects, one of its
operations aimed to recruit "millions of American workers" to report "suspicious activity". But when the operation became public knowledge, a broad spectrum of Americans voiced concern that the program would turn neighbour against neighbour.

Already media reports highlight strip-searches of elderly women, routine targeting of people of Arab or southern Asian appearance and an ongoing stream of "terrorist alerts" by US authorities. Individuals have been questioned by the FBI over "suspicious posters" and academics disciplined for "improper" discussions.With US law enforcement free to engage in previously prohibited spying on domestic political and religious groups, many consider basic freedoms under siege.

Gregory Nojeim, associate director of the American Civil Liberty Union's Washington office, is concerned at the Government's apparently insatiable appetite for new powers.

"[In addition] military law enforcement jeopardises rights at the most fundamental level because soldiers are trained to kill the enemy, not make arrests," Nojeim says.

FEMA also compiled dossiers on people it might consider interning, although the FBI put an end to all that.

Details of FEMA's national security role first emerged during the Reagan-era Iran-Contra scandal. Iran-Contra involved the clandestine selling of weapons to Iran, illegally using the proceeds to fund US-backed Central American insurgents, the Contras. It was an episode that led to felony convictions for some of the Reagan administration's key figures, such as John Poindexter and Elliott Abrams, both of whom are in the Bush Administration.

As one of his last acts as president, George Bush Snr pardoned those still implicated by the scandal. Others had convictions reversed.

According to the Washington Post, the creation of a US "shadow government" was also a part of the Reagan initiatives.

When the Post revealed the shadow government's existence on March 1, the Bush Administration explained it as a precaution to ensure the continuation of government in case of a terrorist attack. However, present law provides for the speaker of the house, followed by the president of the senate, to assume the presidency should both the president and vice-president be unable to perform their duties.

Should the constitution be suspended, control of the country would pass to the president and FEMA alone.

Reagan initiated the roots of today's extraordinary concerns in the period when he was California's governor. In 1971, Reagan reportedly inaugurated the idea of utilising the military and law enforcement to combat dissent.

The final contents and disposition of the Reagan security initiatives, part of a national crisis plan, remain beyond public knowledge. But in February, the former FEMA executive who reportedly drafted the martial law/internment portions of the national plan, revealed it was "approved by Reagan, and actions were taken to implement it".

I don't know if the FEMA activities are anything to be concerned about, but this article completely overlooks anything that happened during the Clinton Administration. There were lots of libertarians, even Freepers, that were scared of the authority that Janet Reno had under FEMA and were scared to near death that she and Clinton might get a national emergency to round people up and cancel elections. There were, and probably still are, plans to fence in the cities in the event of some biological or disease outbreak.

The fact that the 93-00 period is ignored in the article suggests that it is just an anti-Republican hit piece. Looks like another example of FEMA fearers from the right and the left being closer than they would think. Stonewall, does this suggest the need for a FEMA axis or does the authoritarian axis work for this issue?

Originally Posted by monoghan

I don't know if the FEMA activities are anything to be concerned about, but this article completely overlooks anything that happened during the Clinton Administration. There were lots of libertarians, even Freepers, that were scared of the authority that Janet Reno had under FEMA and were scared to near death that she and Clinton might get a national emergency to round people up and cancel elections. There were, and probably still are, plans to fence in the cities in the event of some biological or disease outbreak.

The fact that the 93-00 period is ignored in the article suggests that it is just an anti-Republican hit piece.

BS. The Bush administration is openly referencing this crap, thereby verifying its existence. The Clinton administration never did. Besides, what difference does it make if it is an "anti-Republican hit piece" or not? The content is factual and this sort of thing should be of concern, irrespective of party in power, for all but the Machiavellian human garbage among us.

Stonewall, does this suggest the need for a FEMA axis or does the authoritarian axis work for this issue?

Sarcasm? That tells me all that I need to know about you. If you want to discuss axes, go find David '47.

[quote="David '47"][quote="HopefulCynic68"]

Originally Posted by David '47

The SCOTUS is simply not equipped to settle issues that seriously divide the public on moral, religious, and cultural grounds. When it's tried to do so in U.S. history, it's usually ended badly or at best as farce.

If the court had folowed your rule over the years, we would probably not be living in a democratic Republic. I'd bet on an oligarchy of some sort. Probably a Plutocracy. The SCOTUS keeps the game honest by staying IN the game. When it opts for safety, the game begins to get a little rotten.

I didn't say the SCOTUS should avoid controversy. I said that for some types of issues, it's attempts to settle them can't work, because for fundmaental moral or cultural issues, the losers simply chalk the decision up as being wrong and try to get around, past, over, or through it.

The classic case was Dred Scott. which was supposed to settle the question of the legality and morality of slavery, and which in fact settled nothing.

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Bob:

An armed populace is required for an effective militia, but in addition, the arms kept by that armed populace must be militarily useful. It would be quite pointless and suicidal to throw together a militia armed with deer rifles and .38 caliber revolvers and 12-guage shotguns, and send it into battle against a modern force of infantry. The arms kept by Americans at the time the Constitution was ratified were generally equivalent to those in use by soldiers, or could be made so by the addition of a bayonet. Arms in common possession today, however, cannot compete with military arms.
.

Gun ownership was quite rare in revoultionary times, they were expensive and inaccurate outside the military arena. Knives, Swords, Clubs, Crossbows and Hatchets were the weapons of choice for anyone below the Rich.

Sorry, but this is just a bit of revisionism the gun-confiscation advocates have put out. The public was in fact very well armed during colonial times, with firearms.

And anyway, Tristan, it doesn't matter. The point here is that the intent of the Second Amendment was to have a populace armed with military-grade weapons, ready to be called for militia service in case of invasion or insurrection. Whether and to what extent that intention was reflected in reality prior to the Civil War is irrelevant to the Amendment's meaning.

The author of Arming America may or may not have distorted the truth about Colonial and early republican gun ownership. I decline to enter that controversy. But he certainly misled on one point, according to my research. One of his arguments had to do with the inferiority of the smoothbore musket to the longbow as a military arm, and the irrationality of the decision to make that substitution. Only with the advent of the breech-loading rifle, he argues, did the firearm emerge as clearly superior to the longbow.

But while the musket clearly is inferior to the longbow purely as a missile weapon (the longbow has a longer effective range, greater accuracy, and higher rate of fire, and is just about as deadly), it was NOT purely a missile weapon. The attachment of a bayonet made it a melee weapon with a missile adjunct, and as such it was superior to the longbow in practical tactics -- especially after the first volley of musket fire filled the air with so much black powder smoke that accuracy was moot anyway. The tactics of musket-armed infantry were similar to those of Roman legions, who would thrown their pila and then charge with gladia; similarly, musket infantry would fire their muskets and then charge with bayonets. In such a conflict, the longbow would be at a distinct disadvantage.

If he misled on this, what else might he have gotten wrong, whether deliberately or inadvertently?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The author of Arming America may or may not have distorted the truth about Colonial and early republican gun ownership. I decline to enter that controversy. But he certainly misled on one point, according to my research. One of his arguments had to do with the inferiority of the smoothbore musket to the longbow as a military arm, and the irrationality of the decision to make that substitution. Only with the advent of the breech-loading rifle, he argues, did the firearm emerge as clearly superior to the longbow.

But while the musket clearly is inferior to the longbow purely as a missile weapon (the longbow has a longer effective range, greater accuracy, and higher rate of fire, and is just about as deadly), it was NOT purely a missile weapon. The attachment of a bayonet made it a melee weapon with a missile adjunct, and as such it was superior to the longbow in practical tactics -- especially after the first volley of musket fire filled the air with so much black powder smoke that accuracy was moot anyway. The tactics of musket-armed infantry were similar to those of Roman legions, who would thrown their pila and then charge with gladia; similarly, musket infantry would fire their muskets and then charge with bayonets. In such a conflict, the longbow would be at a distinct disadvantage.

I recently had a short conversation with a history teacher who used to play the part of Miles Standish at Plymouth Plantation. I'd tweak the above slightly. During the first series of Indian wars, the natives had bows distinctly inferior to the English longbow, while the Europeans had breast plates and helmets. The native weapons could not penetrate the plate, thus the settlers were considerably protected. The natives considered their bows to be toys. Volley firing was also considered important. Individual fire was wildly innaccurate. Any given shot might be discounted. One could not ignore a volley.

As fire arms could penetrate such armor, as black powder became more common, more dominant on the battle field, armor was abandoned. (Some cavalry did continue to wear breast plates, at least through the Napoleonic Wars, though it was increasingly rare.) There were matchlock cavalry "ironmen" in full plate fighting in the English Civil War time frame. (The Puritan colony of Massachusetts was settled to a great degree by folk fleeing the troubles leading up to the English Civil War.) By the Revolutionary era, unarmored musket and bayonet dominated. In the English Civil War time frame, there were missile troops and assault troops. By the Revolutionary era, most infantry did both.

I have not read Arming America, but everything I've heard of it sounds suspect. King Phillip's War was a bloddy terrorist mess. Villages on both sides were burnt, with warriors cutting down those who tried to escape. Believe me, the populace was armed. My sources are not at all limited to authors interested in the 2nd Amendment debate.

Another related point is that the concept of the American Revolution being won by sharpshooters hiding behind the trees and picking off the foolish redcoats marching in formation is a myth. There was a reason for all that marching in formation, a good one.

Troops of this era were volley-shooters and bayonet fighters. Appropriate tactics were completely different from those that prevail today, which emphasize accuracy, reconnaissance, and cover. The musket was grossly inaccurate and, being a black powder weapon, put out so much smoke that after a volley or two you couldn't even see the enemy to take aim anyway. Sharpshooting was useless in such a battle. Volley fire and melee charges dominated, and both required disciplined formations.

The rebel forces lost almost all of the early battles. Washington's success in this period consisted in keeping the Continental Army alive, not winning with it -- that was impossible. Over time, with help from some European advisors, he managed to drill it into a competent army in the European style, complete with those commonly-derided formations. With this force, and not with sharpshooters hiding behind trees, we won the war.

The Navy of His Majesty Louis XVI and the arms supplied by his manufacturers (they were sent to America as they were :wink: unuseable :wink: by the French armies) prevented the Colonials (yesterday's Northern Alloiance) from losing at Yorktown.


It doesn't seem very Patriotic to thank Marie Antoinette's husband so he is forgotten by many a "freedom-fighter" of our Age.

Virgil, that's not quite right. The French fleet kept Cornwallis' army from escaping and made Yorktown a decisive victory. Without it, we'd still have won the battle, but likely the war would have gone on longer.

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson082302.asp

Here is some evidance of a 4T mindset at least by some people.

Yesterday night I saw an episode of SNL that originally aired a couple of weeks after 9/11, and when I compared it to some of the more recent episodes from spring, the mindset is very, very different. Right after 9/11 SNL had a very 4T attitude, but it seems to have reverted back to 3T. If you compare spring 2001 to spring 2002, the episodes are quite similar, except for some non-9/11 related changes (due to the new season).

A 4T perspective:


www.newswithviews.com/loeffler/loeffler8.htm

(For education and discussion purposes only)


LESSON #1 EN ROUTE TO THE GULAG

WHAT WILL STOP IT?


By John Loeffler
August 21, 2002
NewsWithViews.com



Americans have enjoyed so much freedom for so long, they have forgotten that freedom is a fluke in the history of the world; not the norm. Our freedoms were hard-won over hundreds of years of human tears. The current view that freedoms are somehow self-sustaining and ?obvious? ignores a primary rule of the political universe, well established in human history: governments and those in them always gravitate toward power, money and control; power for themselves, confiscating money and property from their people, who then have to be controlled lest they protest too much.

The founding fathers thoroughly understood this, having experienced a lack of protections first hand. They understood that government is a necessary evil, not a paternalistic good. In assembling the Constitution, they knew that only a clear statement of citizens? rights would prevent power money and control from having their way.

Every one of our rights was established to protect individual citizens, the minority against the majority and to block abuse of power. ?Shall not be infringed? was designed to prevent government encroachment; not as a guide for a ?delicate balance? between ?liberty? and ?security.? Delicate balances always collapse uni-directionally toward power, money and control and away from individual freedom!

Lessons from the Looking Glass

Since 911, conservatives have been falling all over themselves to blow gaping holes in constitutional protections, demonizing those who object as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. ?This is a war,? they rant, ?and we?re defending freedom!? Now catch the illogic of this: We are going to protect freedom by demolishing the very legal protections that guarantee it.

In 1933 Germany faced a crisis. The country had just come through a horrible post-World War I decade of economic chaos and massive inflation. Tensions between the communists and the fascists were fierce. Both parties had substantial seats in the national parliament -- the Reichstag.

On February 27, 1933 the Reichstag building itself was set aflame by arsonists. Germany?s newly-elected Chancellor, Adolf Hitler, quickly blamed the deed on his chief political rivals, the communists, accusing a mentally-deficient Dutchman by the name of Marius van der Lubbe of setting the fire. Van der Lubbe was tried and subsequently executed. Still many suspected something was amiss. The conflagration was so massive and so rapid, that the hapless van der Lubbe couldn?t have been a sole operator. Indeed, took 60 years before conclusive evidence surfaced that the Nazis had actually set the fire as a ruse for blaming the communists!

Germany?s new chancellor, Adolf Hitler, approached the aged president, Paul von Hindenburg, warning that their country was on the verge of a Bolshevik revolution and that emergency measures were required to handle the situation; measures Hitler assured him would only be temporary.

Reluctantly, von Hindenberg issued a warm fuzzy executive order entitled, Die Verordnung des Reichspraesidenten zum Schuetz von Volk und Staat (Ordinance of the Reichspresident for the Defense of People and State). Has that Vaterland Security sound to it, doesn?t it?

The Verordnung suspended those portions of Germany?s constitution, which were equivalent to our Bill of .Rights ? temporarily, of course. However, once the rights were suspended, power and control quickly took over. The Nazis shut down the dissenting press. Political rivals were ?disappeared? off the streets and hauled off to Dachau concentration camp (ten years before the Endloesung (Final Solution) was determined at the Wannsee Conference!). Squads of SS began spying on all the potential citizen criminals to see whose ideas were not politically correct so they could be branded enemies of the state.

Shortly thereafter, on March 24, 1933, the Ermaechtigung Gesetz (Empoerment Law -- Law to Remove the Distress of People and State) passed the Reichstag 441-94, which gave Hitler the power to run things by executive order. In the avalanche of bad legislation was included the Heimtuecke Gesetz (Treachery Law), which made opposition to Nazi Party policies equivalent to treason against Germany. This meant you couldn?t criticize government policy without being an enemy of the state. This was in essence the very same argument being made by conservatives that if you oppose Constitutional violations by Homeland Security, you are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The Nazis used this law to imprison dissenters.

Since the German populace had been disarmed, no one could fight back. An atmosphere of fear settled over Germany as the long night of the black shirts began. Everyone ? Jews especially -- hunkered down, hoping that it would all blow over and get better. But it never did. Once constitutional limitations against abuse were suspended ? for the good cause of defending the Homeland -- they never came back.

But We?re Not Nazis!

Oh, but we?re not Nazis. We love freedom. Really? When Hitler came to power, the majority of Germans hailed him as the salvation of Germany. They were the good guys, or so everyone thought. It is crucial to remember that the entire Third Reich was a totally legal event, including the Holocaust! The people voted it in. Even after the war, many Germans were still wondering what had happened those last 15 years.

Witness the worldview changes that have occurred since the radical left flower child revolution of 1960s. Americans have experienced such historical revisionism in schools that few can tell you what the Bill of Rights contains and why those rights are so important. America has been in a constant state of self-demonization to the extent that Constitutional rights are viewed as the obsolete product of dead white slave owners.

Communism is alive and well on college campuses. For thirty years college students have been fed a steady diet of anti-American propaganda, attacking capitalism and exalting socialism with an all-powerful state as the ideal form of government. Indeed, Americans have accepted most of the major tenets of the Communist Manifesto, thinking they embody the essence of a free society. Moreover, American students have been encouraged to think of themselves as citizens of the world rather than the U.S. The Constitution is seen as a block to the emerging need for environmental harmony and global governance.

Americans have come to accept the core belief of Postmodernism; that there is no such thing as absolute truth or morals. Since there is no such thing as absolute truth, there is no such thing as absolute law. It all depends on what your definition of ?is? is and the law can be tortured to say what we want it to say. As such, it can be used to convict anyone who needs to be convicted, since their rights can be defined away because it?s all a matter of definition. Besides, many Americans believe that rights are something that are ?deserved? rather than inalienable. And, after all, politically incorrect people don?t deserve rights.

The Bill of Rights itself is under severe attack by means of thousands of laws which curtail the exercise of the rights or end run its prohibitions. The Bush administration seems determined to abolish habeas corpus and to suspend individual rights at will, merely by definition of an enemy combatant. The list of abuses is virtually endless. Every day, American citizens are routinely having their rights violated thanks to some legal precedent, which was established early on ? usually leaving them little recourse because the law has been distorted so badly and the system has been rigged against them. The slide towards money, power and control is proceeding virtually unabated.

In a free society, rights protect the individual from the government. In a dictatorship, rights protect the government from the people. If enough legal precedents for end-runs of all the protections contained in the Bill of Rights are allowed to continue unchecked, where will those precedents be taken by future leaders when all protections have been dismantled? What will stop the tyranny that will invariably follow? Nothing.

? 2002 John Loeffler - All Rights Reserved

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Virgil, that's not quite right. The French fleet kept Cornwallis' army from escaping and made Yorktown a decisive victory. Without it, we'd still have won the battle, but likely the war would have gone on longer.

Note the French casualties and the French troop strength at Yorktown. HTH


http://xenophongroup.com/mcjoynt/yrkcam-z.htm







1782
Confronted with the serious defeat at Yorktown and with world-wide conflicts with the French, England accepted to negotiate peace terms. Congress named peace commissioners to work in Europe 'under the supervision of the French': Franklin, Jay, Adams, and Laurens.
On 30 November 1782, without informing the French, the American commissioners signed preliminary articles with the British negotiators. However, it stipulated that the provisions depended upon France making its own preliminary treaty with Britain. The Americans were aware that they violated their instructions and had not kept faith with the French ally.
Vergennes was not surprised. He had his reasons for terminating the war quickly, and accepted the American diplomatic acts with the chide:


"We have never based our policy towards the United States on their gratitude. This sentiment is infinitely rare among sovereigns, and unknown to republics."

frpm Perspective on the French-American Alliance






http://www.xenophongroup.com/mcjoynt/allianc2.htm



Could the US have won the revolution that began in 1775 without French aid?

While a number of historians suggest that the US could have won on their own, a contemporary authority on the war -- none other than George Washington -- states more than once that French direct military participation proved necessary.

Most authors that claim French aid was not decisive or essential usually do not address the mutinies occurring in the American army and many signs of discouragement growing in the American community (which was never as united as popular myth suggests) as the duration of the war extended.
Cornwallis' expressed futility of trying to conquer the Americans can be suspect. Despite that fact that he went on to glory in India, Cornwallis did not exhibit sound strategic judgment in his North American campaigns. American myth likes to portray him as 'one of the best British generals of the war' -- it is always good to have beaten 'the best'. Cornwallis was familiar with his own frustrations, but not with those Washington faced. Also, the British did not have 'to conquer' the rebels, merely destroy their hope of wining independence and the credibility of the American leaders.


Scope of French assistance:

Loaned money that contributed to paying American troops and to purchasing local provisions for the American army.

Sent gunpowder, cannon, muskets, uniforms, and other war materials.

Sent experienced, professional army officers, especially engineers, to serve in the American army.

Provided seaman for some privateer ships.

Provided European-based ports to harbor US naval and privateer ships.

Diverted British military and naval resources from North America by challenging English navy on the seas and attacking English overseas possessions.

Assisted Dutch support of American effort.

Encourage and supported Spanish participation in the war against England.

Deployed the sizable military expedition and naval fleet that participated in the 1781 Yorktown Campaign.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by David '47

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

The SCOTUS is simply not equipped to settle issues that seriously divide the public on moral, religious, and cultural grounds. When it's tried to do so in U.S. history, it's usually ended badly or at best as farce.

If the court had folowed your rule over the years, we would probably not be living in a democratic Republic. I'd bet on an oligarchy of some sort. Probably a Plutocracy. The SCOTUS keeps the game honest by staying IN the game. When it opts for safety, the game begins to get a little rotten.

I didn't say the SCOTUS should avoid controversy. I said that for some types of issues, it's attempts to settle them can't work, because for fundmaental moral or cultural issues, the losers simply chalk the decision up as being wrong and try to get around, past, over, or through it.

The classic case was Dred Scott. which was supposed to settle the question of the legality and morality of slavery, and which in fact settled nothing.

This case case served a very important purpose, however. It drew a line in the sand between the two viewpoints - unreconcilable though they may have been. I suppose you could argue that the slavery issue may have been selttled better if the case had not been brought. I have a hard time seeing how.

Dred Scott came at a time that passions were already building. do you believe that attitudes about gun-rights are in that state, today? If so, we're in real trouble.

Hi!

[quote="HopefulCynic68"][quote="David '47"]

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by David '47

The SCOTUS is simply not equipped to settle issues that seriously divide the public on moral, religious, and cultural grounds. When it's tried to do so in U.S. history, it's usually ended badly or at best as farce.

If the court had folowed your rule over the years, we would probably not be living in a democratic Republic. I'd bet on an oligarchy of some sort. Probably a Plutocracy. The SCOTUS keeps the game honest by staying IN the game. When it opts for safety, the game begins to get a little rotten.

I didn't say the SCOTUS should avoid controversy. I said that for some types of issues, it's attempts to settle them can't work, because for fundmaental moral or cultural issues, the losers simply chalk the decision up as being wrong and try to get around, past, over, or through it.

The classic case was Dred Scott. which was supposed to settle the question of the legality and morality of slavery, and which in fact settled nothing.

I stumbled onto one court reporter who predicted SCOTUS would not review the Emerson decision. She predicted the Court would wait to see if other courts would accept Emerson, or continue to follow the older 'collective rights' precedents. Thus, arguably, the Court should resolve controversies, but should not always do so at the first opportunity. As the current court is so divided, this might be prudent. A radical change in the interpretation of the Constitution might be reversed as a few new justices are appointed.

I can see the point of this, but feel the academic evidence for the 'standard model' is so strong, the Court would be taking grave risks diverging from it.

jds: I have often wondered how many of us there are who might be potential targets of both sides in the various disputes that have arisen in our country over the years. Are there enough of us contrarians to perhaps band together for our own security?