Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Wars shred Constitutions.?Baldwin was one of thousands of Americans in jail in November of 1918 for violating the 1917 Selective Service Act or for violating the Espionage Act of 1917 or its amended 1918 version, known also as the Sedition Act, which condemned dissenting voices that allegedly threatened the security of the nation at war. In October one man had been sentenced to six months in the workhouse for saying he preferred Germany?s kaiser to President Wilson. Another was sentenced to ten years in prison for delivering speeches in which he called conscription unconstitutional. Yet another received a twenty-year sentence and a fine of $10,000 for telling a Liberty Bond salesman that not only did he not want to buy any bonds but he also hoped the ?government would go to hell.??
Wilson was an idealist, an academic and a politician. He was rigid, self righteous, and thought littleof the morality or practices of great power politics. He had the biggest stick at the peace conference ashe had the only nation with fresh troops, a huge untouched industrial capacity and lots of capital.Many books have been written about this strange man and he cannot be viewed without taking intoconsideration his second wife and Colonel House. The 14 Points, the basis on which Germany enteredinto an armistice, was a wonderful document if you believed as Wilson did, that man is sinful, butperfectible and thus willing to work together for the greater good of mankind if only given the rightinstitutions and capable leadership. (think Clavin)I have read a lot about him and although he is a bit boring, his actions and his attempts to deal withthe real politicians of Europe--Clemenceau and Lloyd George make for amusing reading. Apoplexy lurked behind each conference room door and eventually he was felled trying to convince his fellowAmericans that the treaty was a good thing. This leads me to buy into the real GREAT 20th CENTURY WAR thesis which suggests that the warcame in three acts, or four with the revised version. 1. Act I 1914-19182. Intermission 1918-1939 (sort of)3. Act II 1939-19454. Act IV 1945-Fall of the Soviet Union and the morphing of China into something still questionableIn some respects it reminds me of the 30 years war--starting out small and then growing larger andmore horrible as new players are brought into the conflict, exhaust their blood and treasure and reachout further to the periphery for more resources.As far as I now there has been no real new material available on this subject for some time, but thenI have not really delved into it for at least a decade. Fascinating subject this.
12:52:25 AMTribune A fulgurant progress within 2 months only !!To what lightning like illumination do you refer? I am wretched today, tired and need sleep--please explain!Just congratulating you for your active contribution to the forum, I registered in september and I barely could write less than 500 posts. Nothing else but congrats OH! It is my pleasure, sir. Thank you for the unexpected kudos. My screen name is a Greek verband means "roughly" he who shouts out in the market place. How apt.
Tribune A fulgurant progress within 2 months only !!To what lightning like illumination do you refer? I am wretched today, tired and need sleep--please explain!
Quote from: willyD on Today at 11:48:21 AMI'm trying to figure out how this supports any such hypothesis..In the HBO movie it is clearly evident that the Jew-free Germany/Europe was always evolving. TheFinal Solution was the last of a long line of options designed to accomplish the racial goals of the Nazi regime. As I recall the film closely follows the notes in the sole copy of the meeting that survived the collapse of the regime. And what, if anything, has this to do with the price of nails in Denmark?Actually just a bit. Denmark was occupied in April of 1940 after the German government convincedthe Danes that war would not be in their best interest. The Danes, for the most part, adopted a policy of non-cooperation with the Germans who were careful not to push too hard as Denmark was even then a source of copious quantities of excellent food. The Danish resistance was fractured with the Communists being the most aggressive. There is a good Danish movie making the rounds of the art circuit called--The flame and the Lemon--about the anti-German activities. Nails were not specifically mentioned, but I am sure that there is a peripheral connection. (Actually I made an error thinking you were posting to me). Sorry.
I'm trying to figure out how this supports any such hypothesis..In the HBO movie it is clearly evident that the Jew-free Germany/Europe was always evolving. TheFinal Solution was the last of a long line of options designed to accomplish the racial goals of the Nazi regime. As I recall the film closely follows the notes in the sole copy of the meeting that survived the collapse of the regime.
Conspiracy: The Meeting at Wannsee – 2001On January 20th 1942, 15 men gathered in a villa on the outskirts of Berlin to feast on food and drink and discuss their business at hand. An hour and a half later, the Final Solution had been planned, sealing the fate of millions of European Jews.Kenneth Branagh, Stanley Tucci and Colin Firth star in Conspiracy, an award-winning HBO Films/BBC Films co-production for BBC TWO.http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0266425/ YUP Seen it recently?
saw a movie some years back about the decision that brought about the “Final Solution”. I can't remember why we rented it…perhaps we thought there would be more action in the movie. I believe it ended up being about a dinner party at which the Nazi officers came up with their plan. It sounds like the same movie you're talking about, but I don't recall Kenneth Branaugh being in it. Perhaps he did a remake?That is the very one--a luncheon at which the best part was not the food, but the dialogue-excellent.
Treasury department ? Actually Treasury was pretty good. For a real horror show we used to look at Justice. As a character in a film once replied when he was asked why he abandon law and joined the Nazi SS " Law taught me to distrust language". I thought that was a great line.
Clinton was impeached–true and I for one believed he lied.If everyone who was indicted, was convicted and was somehow jailed, we would have a job boom amongthe turnkey set.
Correct–nor did Oliver North, Ronnie, Nixon, Gordon Liddy and a host of others who believed that breaking the law was justified to either save their hides or is service to a higher good.In passing--is there any reason why at West Point the sequence is DUTY, HONOR, COUNTRY?I should think the last would be first.
Wally posted a response–he did not answer the moral question of whether we should blindly follow–sheep like–a law that we know to be unjust–he sidestepped–albeit adroitly.Nor did he refute the proposition that there is nothing "inalienable" about our right to vote. If you are locked up in a prison, you may believe you have a right to vote, but do not--the right has been taken away--perhaps forever. I see nothing in the Constitution which lists reasons to deny the vote as the word itself is not found in the original document. It is up to the states to set the rules and a test forcivic knowledge seems reasonable to me.
Wally–thank you for your comments–I will forego being petty and end the thread here also. Asfellow law breakers we must stand together.
Quote from: willyD on Yesterday at 02:22:33 PMPerhaps--but consider this. As a citizen, at birth, you are given the right to vote, but it is conditionalin the sense that if you are convicted of a felony or treason the government may take away this right.Voting isn't the right; the opportunity to vote is the right. The act itself is a civic responsibility (we are not compelled by law to vote)... the only condition is that we follow the laws (and have not abrogated our opportunity by breacking the law) and are insured the equality of our position to other legitimate voters (old enough, resident of district, correctly registered etc.)QuoteI would argue that the "right" is dependent on your behavior and in that sense is conditional--do you not agree? It is the same for life, liberty and happiness--all dependent upon what the state considersappropriate deportment.Word games perhaps? Limiting the rights of certain individuals is one method of assuring the rights of the majority. Dead people in Chicago voting in a Presidential election compromises the weight of my one and eqaul vote. As far as life, liberty and happiness... it is l, l and the pursuit of happiness... but all within societal norms... no guaranteesQuoteThe state can take all of these away under certain conditions so one could make the argument that these are not in fact inalienable, but conditional--do you not agree?In a word, no. One of the duties of a citizen is to follow the laws; break the law and you abrogate the right.Earlier I had a rather involved comment on this extension of the thread and lost it... this will have to do, as my patience is wearing thin. At some point I will reconstruct the lesson that I used for this topic aI have checked and checked again and nowhere in the Constitution is the word "vote" used. It does say that our leaders will be elected by the "People", but fails to define just who those people might be; that is left up to the states in the carefully crafted compromise that was forged. It also does not set any limitations on the franchise for those who break the law as that too is a concern for the states. Amendments to the original document did address some of these questions, but I find nothing in the whole document that would suggest that voting is not the right, but an opportunity to vote is.Now I know that you know more of this than I do so please excuse my swimming in a semantical sea,but I am confused and cannot help but feel that either you are wrong or I am more obtuse than mywife believes.Since the state sets the rules for voting it has always been a game to limit access to the voting boothas a means of excluding your opponents or to maintain the status quo if your party us in power. Intheory a state could have given the right (note word given) to vote to women as far back as 1790.States could and did place restrictions on the franchise using property, taxes, residence and race andliteracy testsas methods of exclusion in various places at various times. In Texas I am told that people on probation could not vote at one time! In theory a state could have exclude whole categories ofpeople--swarthy people, people who could not use the subjunctive mood correctly or confused the present with the past participle in everyday speech.Agreed--the Constitution does not guarantee you happiness, but it does set suggest that you have a right to your life and your liberty if you are a law abiding sheep. So let me set you a problem.You are a law abiding citizen and the Dredd Scot decision has just been handed down. You are nowobligated to assist slave catchers in pursuit of "property" that ran off to seek his "inalienable"liberty. As I understand it, and please correct me if I am wrong, if you fail to assist or impede these doughty chasers, you can be charged with a crime and, if convicted, be jailed and perhaps lose your "right" to vote. Am I correct here? What would you do--be a good sheep?The point is a good citizen is bound to obey the laws--even Presidents or Marine Colonels are supposed to do so. But what if the law is a bad law, wrong morally to the point that you cannot accept it. So I will end this by setting you another problem. Imagine that you are a Customs officer stationed on the Canadian border at Niagara Falls, New York. One evening a young man crosses the border from Canada and one of your subordinates finds a marijuana cigarette in his sock. Let us make this hard--it is 1969 and President Nixon has declared an all out war on drugs.You question the young man and find that he has just finished law school in Michigan and is on his way home to Long Island where he is scheduled to take the bar exam. Now at that time in New Yorkthe rule was that Federal prosecution would be declined, but state prosecution would be initiated andthe young man would be charged with a felony--this is true--look it up. If convicted, and it is probable that he would be as government officials at that time were still believed to be telling the truth, he would never be able to practice law and his career would be aborted. You are the Supervisor and you have a choice. Arrest him, turn him over to the locals and smash another druguser in the drug war--OR--write up the encounter stating that the evidence was destroyed in testingmeaning there can be no prosecution, no conviction and no record. What would you do? Obey the law or see that right was done? Remember, if you choose the latter you become a law breaker!Thank you for your time--I am looking forward to your answer--happy Sunday.
