Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Jan 01 - 07:03 PM

The nearest thing you'd find to the Bible Belt in the British Isles would be across the water from England. Ian Paisley got his "doctorate" at that strange Jones university where Bush got a standing ovation.

But I think we should get away from this politicking around, and talk some time about what you could call "cultural conservatism", or old-fashionism, because I think a lot of us have a lot more in common there, and not much in common with a lot of the people who run the parties we might find ourselves voting for, left or right, and both sides of the Atlantic (and beyond). And maybe that ties in with the music wee like as well.

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jan 01 - 06:14 PM

Absolutely, John! Good explanation, and well appreciated too. I would have gone into all that, but I was in a hurry, so I didn't. Frankly, the Bible Belt worries me a whole lot. Not too long ago, historically speaking, similarly minded people were burning their neighbours at the stake.

- LH

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Jan 01 - 06:10 PM

Thanks for pointing this out, Skeptic. I'm familiar with lots and lots of similar examples, and not just from the deep South.

Most people seem to consider the Religious Right as some sort of "cute" anachronism, and don't realise how much real damage they inflict and what they are capable of.

These people are not "cute", and they are certainly not "Christians". And they are being empowered by Prince George & Co. Can you spell "Afghan" ?

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: Skeptic
Date: 25 Jan 01 - 03:54 PM

Little Hawk,

Having lived in the Bible Belt, the fear is justified. Too many can quote the bible but not the constitution and feel they are divinely authorized to re-shape their community, town, county or state into a fairly repressive theocracy. Anyone who's opposed these groups (and the Religious Right are just the shock troops) has a taste of their moral fervor. When they tried to take over the School Board in the county in North Florida I used to live in, those of us opposing them had our friends and family and (in some cases) our employers called by very sincere "Good Christian men and woman" wondering how our families tolerated us, our friends associated with us or our bosses could allow us to work for them.

At least one of our action committee was told by a local HVAC service that they wouldn't repair her air conditioner as they didn't "do business with your kind.". Three local print/copy shops refused to print our brochures. Not because they supported the other side. They were afraid they'd start harassing their customers.

Even after we more or less won, there were still constant 'attacks' through the individual schools, letters to the editor and the every popular talk-radio shows to push their agenda. Their agenda, btw, included mandatory school prayer, banning a whole list of books (including Little Red Riding Hood), review/approval of the type of music allowed at school functions, dress code and so on.

Regards John

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jan 01 - 03:25 PM

Bald Eagle - The so-called "Bible Belt" has always been a particularly strident and notable voice in the politics of the USA, whereas in England I don't think there has been much parallel to that. Maybe that's why Americans are pretty hot on the issue of separation of church and state. There's more at stake in the USA when it comes to that.

By the way, I always assumed from your name "Bald Eagle" that you were American, because that bird is their national emblem. I was surprised to hear you're from England.

What does the term "Established Church" mean?

- LH

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jan 01 - 03:01 PM

Mousethief - I never DO eat them...but what can I do when our TV and all our media are saturated with American programming and American advertising, and each new generation of Canadian youngsters trots out dutifully and eats them? That's what I'm talking about here. They're all tuned into Survivor and Ally McBeal up here.

They did a survey a while back, and half the kids in our public schools didn't even know we have a prime minister in Canada...they thought we had a president! It's pathetic.

That's why the internal divisions in the USA offer us a glimmer of hope. It makes things look better here. Imagine how relieved the Gauls and Germanic and Brittanic tribes felt when the Romans were fighting wars amongst themselves. Same principle applies. When the Chinese are divided amongst themselves, the Vietnamese can relax for a while.

- LH

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: Ringer
Date: 25 Jan 01 - 02:56 PM

I don't understand you Americans' obsession with the separation of Church and State. In England, we have an Established Church, and it doesn't seem to make any difference.

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: mousethief
Date: 25 Jan 01 - 02:51 PM

"Cultural autonomy"? Look, if you don't like McDonald's hamburgers, O Canada, then stop the hell eating them!

Oy.

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jan 01 - 02:25 PM

Hey MAV, nice to see you back! I thought Spaw had driven you away in a fit of pique. (Well, no, I didn't really think that, but it's fun to say I did...)

One thing I can tell you for sure: The American Civil War never ended. It continues to be fought out in the political arena, in the newspapers, on the TV, on the talk shows, and on Mudcat.

Of course, the issues have changed (somewhat...), and the geographical divisions have shifted. It's now the denser population centers (like New York City and California) against the rest of the country.

The world outside your borders watches and chuckles. You are still "a house divided", despite Lincoln's efforts to avoid just such a situation.

And it's a damn good thing. If you yanks (excuse the term) ever got totally united you would be damn dangerous and would probably take over the entire world, and we'd all be forced to eat McDonalds hamburgers and have a TV in every room, and watch "Survivor" 6 days a week and then pray like hell on the 7th for an invasion from outer space or some divine intervention by the deity of our choice.

As long as you Democrats and Republicans continue slinging mud at each other, however, and wasting your energy in that fashion, there is some hope that we in Canada and other small countries may yet cling to some small vestiges of cultural autonomy.

Bravo! Let the battle rage, I say. :-)

- LH

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: Skeptic
Date: 25 Jan 01 - 07:34 AM

MAV,

The founding fathers wrote a political document that they tried to make as broad as possible. The Bill of Rights came about because the States and the people wanted them as the price of ratification. The founding fathers added them after the fact.

I always thought it was wrong to argue that the Constitution "grants" a right to privacy. Under the idea of constitution as a social contract, the government is created to mediate between individuals exercising innate rights. The government, except as detailed (I was going to use 'enumerated' but didn't want to freak out 'guest' in Vermont) by the Federal or State constitutions, has no right to interfere. The "right to privacy" existed (IMO) long before any constitution.

You seem to come at it from the other end. That the Constitution is the source of individual rights.

Guest, I apologize for being literate.

Regards John

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: InOBU
Date: 25 Jan 01 - 07:27 AM

Bushorchimp dot com... BRILLIANT, I was inspired to leave this comment in the guestbook... "in our chromosomes there is only a single enzyme difference between humans and chimps. In the case of Bush, I think we should demand a recount."
Larry

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: catspaw49
Date: 25 Jan 01 - 07:22 AM

Oh I dunno' Larry.........Its not too bad.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: InOBU
Date: 25 Jan 01 - 07:16 AM

PS I think I will go check out bushorchimp.com and let you know if it is worth a visit.

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: InOBU
Date: 25 Jan 01 - 07:15 AM

If I need to explain to you the difference between non-establishment of religion and what that means in creating a wall between church and state, well, there are some challenges I am just not up to this early in the day. Now, when it comes to fundamentalist interpritations of either the bible or the Constitution, I notice that the same folks are quick to interpret when the writing goes against their poticular notion. For example, most "right to lifers" interprit such sayings as "choose life" to say the Bible is anti abortion, and ignore the only direct reference to abortion, Numbers 5 - 11 (or there about, read a paragraph one way or the other) where in - if one suspects one's wife of infidelitiy, you take her to the priest who administers bitter water, which, if she was unfaithful, the baby withers in her womb. Now, I don't endorce coersive abortion, such as described here, just an example of selective fundimentalism (or legal formalism for its legalist equivelant). Well, enough from me for now... carry on all...
all the best,
Larry

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 24 Jan 01 - 11:48 PM

"The separation of church and state is found in the first amendment"

No it isn't. The first amendment says the state cannot establish a religion (As in "The Church of The US") nor prohibit the practice of religion. "As to the womens right to choose, it is an age old right in a pluralist democracy, the right to be left alone. Phisical autonomy is an age old notion, and it is closely associated with the right of privacy, which the Court found to be underlieing such rights as the protection agaisnt unreasonable searches"

That is the alleged location, but IT'S NOT THERE!

The founding fathers weren't idiots, if they meant something, they put it in explicit language.

...that majority which voted for President Gore and got mr. Bush.

They were also specific in stating how presidential elections are conducted, there IS NO "POPULAR VOTE"! There are 50 state races, winner takes all the electoral votes in most cases.

algor has been thrown down the stairs by the DNC, what an idiot. He's now teaching a Journalism class (Liberal Media 101) at Georgetown.

He didn't win the majority in either Tennessee or Arkansas, and today it is being reported that massive voter fraud has been detected in Florida (democRATs of course)

mav

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: InOBU
Date: 24 Jan 01 - 11:06 PM

The separation of church and state is found in the first amendment. As to the womens right to choose, it is an age old right in a pluralist democracy, the right to be left alone. Phisical autonomy is an age old notion, and it is closely associated with the right of privacy, which the Court found to be underlieing such rights as the protection agaisnt unreasonable searches. As to those rights being lost, they are more endangered than lost, but if they are lost, you will see an end to the appathy of the silent majority in this nation, that majority which voted for President Gore and got mr. Bush.
Larry

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 24 Jan 01 - 10:32 PM

Dear People living in the Blue Areas,

If Ashcroft isn't confirmed, perhaps you will enjoy an interim appointee like say, Alan Keyes or Bob Barr for AG.

Signed,

The People in the Red Areas

PS What woman's right to choose?

What seperation of church and state?

Can't seem to find them in the Constitution. Perhaps they've been lost.

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: GUEST,MAV
Date: 24 Jan 01 - 10:20 PM

Catspawl;

".........so where is MAV boy anyway?"

Actually I was in Washington.

mav

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jan 01 - 09:35 PM

"Operationalizing that concept is, admittedly, proving more difficult than anticipated."

"Operationalizing "; WOW!!! What an awesome word - I love it!! I'm gonna have to look that one up in my big, thick, heavy dictionary, 'cause i bet it ain't even IN that skimpy lil' Webster's! What's that one worth in "Scrabble"??? Really; I get a kick out of words, and that one surely is a doozey!!!

"...you could call the Washington Times "alternative press" -- it's owned and operated by the Unification Church. And that's about as alternative as it gets."

I was aware of the association, but I don't see a lot of Sun-Myung-MOON glorification going on here, only a bringing together of a multitude of people from an amazingly diverse spectrum of races, religions, cultures and creeds to restore basic family and civic values. Yes, I do retain a shred of skepticisim given the UC's past "Cult" status - but do I hear a somewhat stronger judgementalisim coming accross here?

MAV can tell you more about this movement, as he is more familiar with it. They do a lot of music, I'm told.

MAV, being a frugal, rural fellow, is using a "free" internet connection which is proving itself to be worth about all he is paying for it - which is why we are not hearing much from him here lately... much to the relief of some, no doubt.

"Those who cast their vote decide nothing..Those who count the votes decide everything..J Stalin"

Sounds like "Bugsy" DALEY took great inspiration from that one; I'll bet "Uncle Joe", perpertrator of one of the more massive genocides of world history, would have been a big fan of "Vote-O-Matics", "Butterfly Ballots", and "Chads" too. We got rid of those atrocities here in Maine about 20 years ago because they were so compatable with Chicago-style "creative counting" by the likes of "Boss" DALEY and his DNC operatives.

I picked up a little bright red volume of the "Thoughts of Mao Tse Tung" last summer at a yard sale, and from what I've read so far, it's resonates marvelously with what I hear spewing from the "PC" American Left. Coincidence???

Re. the NH motto:

"Live free by giving freedom to others to live freely in their chosen fashion"

...A viable option, but try getting that along the top of a licence plate so's anyone could read it from 2 carlengths behind... besides, it sounds more like Vermont than NH in sentiment.

Having been born, raised, and serving 5 1/2 years in NH's Service (Dept. of Safety) I remember how controversial that slogan is, and has been for some time. There was a big flap about 10 years ago where people were taping it over or coming up with alternatives etc.. I'ts a quote from some NH Revolutionary War hero as I recall, but I don't think many Granite Staters take it all that seriously any more.

Freedom being a relative thing, I suppose NH has a certain edge by having no income tax, per se, although they sure make up for it on property taxes, and the Governor there (Gene SHAHEEN, I think?)is taking steps to rectify that oversight and correct the greivous injustice of working residents keeping entirely too much of their own money.

"...Its called prior constraint and its one of the things our founding fathers tried to address in the Constitution. We're not supposed to do it. "

Oh, like "Gun Control"?? Register, then confistcate all those bad nasty guns BEFORE otherwise decent, responsible, law-abiding subjects run amock and start shooting each other? Works for the goose, how's 'bout the gander, Massah?

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: InOBU
Date: 24 Jan 01 - 04:41 PM

My dear Jon, In order for the Sups to find as they did, they flew in the face of every decision they previously wrote, so much for stari decisis, even within the same court, even within the same "judicial" mind.

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: Kim C
Date: 24 Jan 01 - 04:06 PM

Fair enough, Skeptic John. :)

KFC

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 24 Jan 01 - 02:03 PM

thx little hawk & hesperis may you die in bed at 95, shot by a jealous lover.

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: kendall
Date: 24 Jan 01 - 12:45 PM

If anyone wants to know more about this sort of thing, check out Mapp v Ohio, or the 4th amendment

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: Skeptic
Date: 24 Jan 01 - 12:35 PM

Kim,

Parades or protests (assumption: peaceful). Both are making a statement and teh distinct can be a very fine one. If the KKK, NAACP, AIM or GLA wants to have a parade, is it a parade or a protest? Lets remember the St Patricks Day Parade permit fiasco.

Its always easy to find "sensible" reasons to deny permits. It sounds so logical when teh police or city official says: "Well, our experience has been that these kind of things can get out of hand so its best not to let them get started". The implication is that if you want to give that group a permit, you're some kind of nihilistic anarchist who's in favor of incest, legalizing drugs, human sacrifice and Guinness over ice.

Its called prior constraint and its one of the things our founding fathers tried to address in the Constitution. We're not supposed to do it. The protestors in Washington may well have represented a security threat (note: threat with some probable cause). How was that probable cause demonstrated? Was their at least reasonable suspicion and where was the possibility or procedure fro independent judicial review before the point became moot.

The burden of proof should lie with the police or city, not those requesting the permit. And denial for other than practical reasons should demand a higher proof than some official making a value judgement that (in all practicality) cannot and will not be questioned. rather than the protestors having to go to court to get a judge to order that a permit be issued, it should be the other way around. If the permit is denied for other than practical (space constraints, schedule conflicts) maybe the city ore police should be the ones who have to go to court.

The willingness of officials and the police to justify actions that would seem to violate the constitution ought to be very scary. The willingness of a lot of people (without claiming you're one) to find excuses for those actions is far more scarey.

Regards John

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: kendall
Date: 24 Jan 01 - 12:09 PM

I stand corrected..just trying to be humorous. Jon..Those who cast their vote decide nothing..Those who count the votes decide everything..J Stalin

Disney gave us Mickey, Florida gave us Dumbo.

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Jan 01 - 11:25 AM

"I still find it hard to believe that almost half of the electorate voted for him." (kendall

They didn't. Something under one quarter of the electorate voted for him. Only half the elctorate voted for anybody - and most of them didn't vote for Baby Bush.>

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: Jon W.
Date: 24 Jan 01 - 11:21 AM

The election wasn't stolen. The Supreme Court prevented Al from doing that.

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: InOBU
Date: 24 Jan 01 - 10:38 AM

Kim C, we seem to have come a long way from Jefferson's view of a revolutionary democracy, haven't we? I don't think ol Thomas would have worried about a permit if an election was stolen in his life time.
Larry

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: Kim C
Date: 24 Jan 01 - 10:25 AM

Skeptic - as far as parades go, they are usually coordinated events and people who want to participate have to get permission from the city to do so. I think that's the case in most places. Every once in awhile it comes up in the news when a group is denied a permit for whatever reason. Marching in a parade, though, and protesting are not necessarily the same thing.

As far as people protesting on the street corner, I don't know that anyone has to have a permit for that. There may be city guidelines in regards to safety issues, etc., in some areas.

The inauguration was a coordinated event with a lot of high-ranking officials and as such, security/safety issues were a priority. I'm not sure, however, how the protesters thought W would see them from the back seat of a limo anyhow.

KFC

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: InOBU
Date: 24 Jan 01 - 09:03 AM

Thanks troll, your a gentleman.
Cheers, Larry

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: hesperis
Date: 23 Jan 01 - 08:57 PM

petr - Little Hawk says that your "Give Me Immortality or Give Me Death!" is the best slogan he has ever heard in his whole life!

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: Skeptic
Date: 23 Jan 01 - 08:52 PM

troll,

The inauguration was tacky. Look at who they inaugurated. (Just couldn't resist - sorry Kendall

You seem to be arguing that "being afraid of trouble" is a justification. Its also prior restraint. On that basis (and given the statistics) the police need to arrest 18 - 23 yo urban males before the go into a night club because they "might get drunk". Or stop 17 year olds from driving because they have a higher probability of causing an accident or....ad infinitum.

So there "might" be trouble. There might not. The assumption that the suspicion is sufficient grounds to act to limit assembly and speech and so on is one of the major problems. If you don't want the rhetoric and protests, don't become a public figure.

The apologists for this type of behavior (on the part of the police/officials ) need to remember lessons of history. What they can do to people who don't like GWB today, they can do to _________________________(fill in the blank) tomorrow. We either stop this kind of thing when it doesn't seem like a big deal, when the rationale seems so ...rational, or it grows. The bar gets raised another notch.

And people wonder why respect and trust for the government continues to decline.

Regards John

PS: Yes. I'm still reading. BTW your "Learn to Read with Phonics for Dummies - The Movie" is on the way. Hope it helps.

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: Troll
Date: 23 Jan 01 - 08:34 PM

Larry the difference between you and the anthropologist/socialist type, is that you care about the PEOPLE. They only want to document the culture for their archives.
Not bad Skeptic. You've been reading again I see. Considering the rhetoric from the various protest groups prior to the inaguration,and the memories of Seattle, they probably were afraid of trouble.
And busting heads on national TV really makes an inaguration look tacky.

troll

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 23 Jan 01 - 07:52 PM

instead of LIVER FREE OR DIE! how about Give Me Immortality or Give me Death!

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: InOBU
Date: 23 Jan 01 - 06:16 PM

Hey John, Your shaman story reminds me of a Judge I knew from Alaska. He was the Tklingt (I believe, one of the Vancover Island Nations) judge who blew the lid off the story of the "shaman" who went to court in a beating case to have the two native teens bound over to his "court". Turns out he was not a judge in his community, he was the kids Grandfather.
There are some good books, I'll have to get out one of the papers I wrote and dig into the footnotes, one was called something like the Ambiguous Iroquioan Empire... it was one of the better ones. I'll get the exact title one of these days soon for you. However, I recomend a visit, however, walk softly. The "HI Where is your Chief, I wanna know all your wisdom..." approach is not often very much apreciated. There are pow wows, there are Native buisnesses to avail yourself of, sometimes there are needs to be helped out on... stopping Hydro Quebec, for example, which puts you in contact with the people, and keep your eyes and ears and MIND open. I found it to be a huge life enriching thing to spend time in Native communities.
Larry

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: Skeptic
Date: 23 Jan 01 - 05:50 PM

Kim C.

Why should there have to permits for a parade. I mean permits that allow unelected officials to decide if I can protest? Guidelines are tolerable, if general enough. And if two groups want to use the same park/street/field at the same time some coordination and even denying permission might be in order.

The governments subjective "becuase it might cause trouble" seem unwarranted and ultimately indefensible in even our pseudo-democracy.

Regards

John

Little Hawk: Thanks for your kind words. I enjoy and appreciate your perspective and ideas to.

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jan 01 - 04:50 PM

Cheap cigars...expensive cigars...they all stink! Cheap wiskey...expensive whiskey...they both taste awful! Yuck!

Skeptic - You are an eminently reasonable man. Here are some other possibilities for a slogan to consider the merits of...

Live free by giving freedom to others to live freely in their chosen fashion.

Freedom for all.

One world, one nation, one humanity.

Unity in Diversity (the motto of the Bahai faith, I believe...which recoginzes and respects all other faiths)

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Do not inflict upon others what you would not wish to have inflicted on you.

And, last but not least...

From each according to his abilities, unto each according to his needs. (That one is the central tenet of socialism, ideally speaking.)

All of them are worth considering, I think.

Thanks for your well-reasoned responses on this thread.

- LH

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: mousethief
Date: 23 Jan 01 - 04:46 PM

Life's too short for cigars, period.

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: Kim C
Date: 23 Jan 01 - 04:34 PM

I don't know which inauguration y'all watched but the one I watched had plenty of protesters. I know they complained about restrictions being on them, but that's too bad. Where I come from if you want to march in the parade you have to get a permit and follow the rules. No one disallowed them, they just gave them a few rules to follow. So what. The Constitution only says they have the right to peaceably assemble; it doesn't say they have the right to peaceably assemble wherever they want to however they want to and without restriction.

I say life's too short for cheap whiskey OR cheap cigars.

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: Skeptic
Date: 23 Jan 01 - 04:21 PM

Larry,

I was speaking more to the complexity, depth and richness of the Iroquoian Federation than to the actual practices. I would imagine that in any culture that places a high value on family, community and clan/tribe, banishment would be viewed as extremely severe.

I do appreciate the information. And my information came from an outsider. A Social Anthropology book as I recall. Any book you'd recommend that might provide a insight would be appreciated.

I ask this with a little hesitancy. Back in the 60's and early 70's I had a very good friend whose grandfather was the Shaman of his tribe. This was when a lot of well meaning liberals suddenly discovered their were Native Americans outside of TV and movies and how neat they were. A couple of anthropologists interviewed her grandfather about the rituals, practices and beliefs of the tribe. He spent several months laying it all out in great detail. They went away and wrote papers, and he told his granddaughter what he'd done. And added that he'd made the whole thing up. A man after my own heart.

Regards John

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: Skeptic
Date: 23 Jan 01 - 04:04 PM

Little Hawk,

Been there. I was raised in the military and the schools run by the Army for all us 'brats', were much more restrictive than civilian run schools.

Will And Ariel Durant maintained that people pass laws to stop other people from doing bad things. 'Other' being defined as those outside whatever is defined as our community.

If I define my circle as the world, and couple that with a reverence for life (al la Schweitzer), the list of restraints I want to place on myself and "others" starts to get shorter and shorter. And freedom increases for all

Operationalizing that concept is, admittedly, proving more difficult than anticipated.

'Die' is extreme but it's a lot more punchy than saying "Live free or I'll fight you fascist bastards tooth and nail if you try to take it away from me."

If "freedom" is defined as a national value, I'd agree there could be problems. Defining it as a personal issue would seem to limit the dogma.

But posturing aside, I used it to more illustrate the idea of personal responsibility as a positive value. There is a line that each must draw and decisions to make over what to do when the line is crossed. In almost all cases, violence isn't an answer. Still, there can be a very fine line between assertiveness and overt aggressiveness.

Not being a fan of Korsibsky or Hiakaywa (I also thought General Semantics was a lot of smoke and mirrors), I don't attribute as much force to the words as you do. But I'm much more in favor of raising awareness through talking than violence.

Regards John

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: InOBU
Date: 23 Jan 01 - 03:41 PM

Just a quick note, Skeptic:
As a judge in a peacemaker court in an tributary Nation not one of the six Nations, but an Iroquoinaised culture... the constraints of the checks and ballences of Iroquain society is mitgated by the right to be bannished, to take ones share and start a new community, either within the confederacy or not. Much of what is written about Iroquain culture and law has been written by outsiders and does not reflect the reality of Iroquoian life. For example, bannishment was seen as a punnishment. That is as wrong as the applied titles of lords and such that were used to describe Iroquoi subchiefs.
However you are right that among the hundreds of Nations here there were a great variety of cultures, including some that approximated some eliments of capitolism and monarchy.
All the best
Larry

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: mousethief
Date: 23 Jan 01 - 03:38 PM

Yes I suppose you could ccall the Washington Times "alternative press" -- it's owned and operated by the Unification Church. And that's about as alternative as it gets.

Alex

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jan 01 - 02:42 PM

Well said, John. I can't complain about your reasoning on this one. I was keenly aware of the many restrictions on my own freedom from the time I was a Grade 1 student. School really brought the hammer down on what had been a fairly idyllic existence up till then. I found myself being forced to do all kinds of things I instinctively did not want to do by all kinds of people, from teachers to fellow students. What I learned in school was...to be afraid...very afraid...and to feel utterly powerless.

It particulary rankled in my case, because I was a very harmless well-intentioned kid, and frankly did not need to be restricted. I was also quite well inclined toward educating myself, and would probably have been way better off doing home education...or in a Waldorf school or some other alternative, but my parents just went the conventional route. Public school, for me, was a hellish experience, and it made me very skeptical of the value of society's power structures.

I think that the more mature a person is, the more freedom they can be entrusted with. I'm talking about emotional maturity, not the tally of years of age.

There are some people to whom you can give complete freedom, and not have to worry that they will abuse it.

It's important what values people are brought up with, in a moral sense, and in a sense of feeling their own self-worth. Education is also important, provided it's good education. I don't think the present educational system is very good, because its main focus is to teach FACTS to people, rather than imparting the MEANING which lies behind those facts.

People need a sense of meaning. People who have a very strong sense of meaning, and a strong sense of self-esteem, and a strong sense of the value of others...can function well in an environment of absolute freedom, but how many people are strong in all those areas?

So, I essentially agree with your points raised above...we do have to strike a compromise between freedom and social constraints...while striving to raise the general levels of social awareness in people.

I just think that "Live Free Or Die" is a bit extreme sounding...the "or die" part seems to be so strongly suggested. It reminds me of the old conservative catch phrase "better dead than red". Such thinking is just plain silly. After all, the entire Soviet population managed to go on living, functioning, loving their children, cooking supper, and so on...despite being "red", didn't they? Such slogans program people toward a pretty aggressive and paranoid attitude toward life, I think...and they help program people toward violence in defence of something they may not really understand very well in the first place. Such slogans have launched wars.

I once heard a joke based on the "better dead than red" saying...can't remember the whole joke, but the punch line was: Conservatives, of course, would rather be "dead" than almost anything! It's so patriotic to die, after all...

It's an attitude, and it's a worrisome one. It was that kind of attitude that gave German and Japanese soldiers such absolute zeal in World War II...and that made them highly efficient and very dangerous. Fortunately, their gross national products (respectively) were not large enough to sustain the effort.

Small nations fear this kind of patriotic fervor in large nations...with good reason.

- LH

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: Skeptic
Date: 23 Jan 01 - 01:33 PM

Little Hawk, Nor, come to that, did the Native Americans you talk about. They had a fairly elaborate social structure. (Even the more or less nomadic tribes) And for the nomadic tribes, often with more rigid controls than those found in more complex cultures. Move over to the Iroquois Confederation and you find a culture that was arguably more complex and sophisticated than any in Europe at the time. And had as many constraints on freedom as would any complex and fairly large society.

Society at any level imposes constraints, out of necessity. As humans, we need other people. Initially to raise/protect/feed us until we can do so on our own, then to develop beyond (metaphorically) the grunting stage. There seems to be a biologic need for others as an integral part of development (especially cognitive)and that seems to require some commonality, and so constraints on absolute freedom.

Clearly, modern society is a form of subtle (and not so subtle) slavery. Some of the freedom we trade is done willingly, a lot not. Clearly, the least freedom given up, the better. My point was more to the spirit of the motto than literal interpretation. Especially in contrast to the current motto.

Is freedom willingly given up truly slavery? Absolute freedom seems as dangerous as any absolute. Intuitively anyway.

Regards John

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: Troll
Date: 23 Jan 01 - 01:16 PM

Nope! Can't see Rush as Press Sec. Matt Drudge? NAW. Got it .
Neil Boortz, the Master of Insensitivity!
Gawd! That would be a scream.

troll

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jan 01 - 01:06 PM

Skeptic - You want to change the American national motto to "Live Free Or Die"????

Hell, you'd all have to kill yourselves! I've lived in the USA. You guys don't live free. Nobody in modern society lives free anywhere these days, so don't kid yourself.

The last people who truly lived free in North America were the ones who put an end to Custer and his boys at Little Big Horn.

I was born into a society of money-dominated slaves and I'm living in it right now and so are you. "Live Free or Die", indeed! Give me a break. Just because you're not communists doesn't mean you're not enslaved.

- LH

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: kendall
Date: 23 Jan 01 - 10:29 AM

And that smirk! boy would I love to wipe that off his face!

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: Mrrzy
Date: 23 Jan 01 - 09:23 AM

Well a rich gal she drinks good ole whisky
A poor gal drinks quite the same
My gal she drinks shoe polish
You know she's getting drunk just the same!

-Jim Kweskin and the Jug Band

Subject: RE: Conservative Cavalry Round Five !!!!
From: kendall
Date: 23 Jan 01 - 09:16 AM

Ronald Ray gun pardoned more crooks than Clinton. Knocking up some follower is hardly on the same level as drunk driving! Furthermore, most protesters are democrats, we cant afford to go to Washington. And No I did not watch his speech. I cant stand to look at that hatchet faced bastard. I still find it hard to believe that almost half of the electorate voted for him.