OT&Controversial: Just say no

[Peter Boiney]

Sean, I'll just comment on the last few words of your post, regarding the teaching of your children: Amen.
My wife and I are currently raising three very different (from each other) teen-age boys, and this is exactly the approach we've been striving to maintain. I'll tell you that it seems to work. You MUST present all sides, and you must NOT judge. We feel that our young men, while not setting the academic world on fire, are becoming free thinking, tolerant members of society. They have their lapses in judgement, to be sure, but always at least appear to accept the observations of those who've been there and done that as valid. We can only hope that, in the end, what we give them is enough to keep them healthy, happy, and unbiased. I've always said that I don't particularly care what they end up doing to earn their keep in this world as long as they're happy doing it, and they're not bigots.

[fluter_d]

On 2002-09-12 18:55, Sean wrote:
Fluter_d,
The greater irony is that the majority of our front line military are not of an age to drink.
"I'll go get killed defending your opression".
Oh, I can already feel the heat on this one, so I'll add a little fuel.

No, not more heat on this board... oh no.

I want to comment on your point on the military, though. What really made me wonder about the US approach to government was the ads for the military. Last time I was in the States (summer of 2000 - hoping to get back next summer [see? I do like it!]) there were ads everywhere. My then 14-yr-old brother was asked to sign up at a Staten Island Yankees baseball game, where the US army was the main sponsor for the night. And the ads on the radio - "Thinking of going to college? don't know what to do? Why not join the Army/Navy for 2 years, then get college free! Its a great way to figure out what to do." [Or words to that effect.] That really worried me - still does, in fact. You don't know what to do, so you join the military? Hmmm...
And I do know Ireland isn't perfect - far from it - but I do find that the 'yeah, right' attitude that prevails ("It's after closing time? Ah, no. Just a few more tunes!" ), and the suspicion of anything ANYONE in authority says, means that there seems to be more debate on issues here...

But I don't want to make any enemies, so if you disagree I'm not going to get all militant.
*Dismantles soapbox*

Deirdre

[Sean]

It's invasive. The ads I mean. In fact this year the army did an online reality show with their recruits during basic training. Oh yeah and they showed everything, NOT.
Allright I'll admit it, I was in the Marine Corps. And I love those guys dearly, as one will any person with whom you share adversity. The funny thing is that there is truth in what my father told me, the military is not glamorous. But at 19 you enter with wide eyed romantic ideologies of how YOU will make a difference in this world. It's not a militia, you do whatever you are told to do. Period. There is an intrinsically paradoxical nature to the military as such. They want leaders who stand out to their troops, and yet all individuality is not just discouraged, but systematically stomped out of you. I understand the rationale behind team unity, but in a conflict situation one must act with forethought and a fair amount of individual compunction. It does you no good to follow blindly into the gaping maws of death, some jackass who decides, "well these orders came from HQ so this is what we'll do" when he knows damn good and well that some REMF who doesn't see a rifle except on his letterhead, wrote those orders.
Oh man see what you did now I'm all worked up about this too.
That's it. I'm going home to play my whistles.

[MurphyStout]

This thread has turned in an interesting direction. Especially for me because I plan on going into the armed forces (I don't know which one yet)for the experience and to pay for law school (Don't jump to conclusions, I'm going for a political science law degree, not to be a court lawyer). Sean said that individuality is stamped out of you. That is something that I look forward to. It will be a great challenge and adventure to have someone try to oppress me . It might even give me some insight on what it might be like to live in a oppressed society. Sean, do you have any advice to give to someone who does not wan't to be change by spending time in the military. Only one real downside, I'll have to cut my hair!

[U2]

Chas/Enders: While I’m fine with T. Jefferson’s quotes, I’ve done a bit of reading beyond the topical, founding father fluff we all seem to get in history class. The research actually centered on how US intelligence agencies operate. To gain historical perspective I found myself all the way back in the presidency of G. Washington, who controlled 1/3 of the budget of his day secretly (Congress knew, citizens did not). I soon was sidetracked into a study focused on reconciling the statements of US founders with their actions. Jefferson is well known for US expansionist policies. Documents reveal that the Lewis & Clark expedition, widely taught to US children as an expedition to gain knowledge about indigenous flora and fauna, also was intended to bring Jefferson information to aid in expansion and the injustices required to obtain territory. He was especially interested in New Orleans.

Expansion was at the expense of the natives, whom Jefferson, at various times, claimed to hold in high regard. It is documented that Jefferson, to his advisors, advocated lulling the natives into a passive state with talk of friendship and eliminating any who offered resistance. Many, many quotes of President Jefferson exist in which he expresses the virtues and desirability of freedom and liberty while at the same time owning slaves and endorsing strategic decisions to militarily eliminate entire Native American tribes. This may not be the forum for a complete discussion, but I am trying to share that he is often quoted as a libertarian when an excellent case can be made based on his actions that he talked something other than he walked.

To be fair to the US founding fathers it is imperative to study the context in which many of their decisions were made and familiarise oneself with the climate and choices before them. I said all that to say this: Politicians often make lofty statements that are not evidenced in their personal lives. It may be more just to separate aspirations from initiations. This is not an attempt to demonise anyone, but the reality is that Thomas Jefferson, in the case of personal freedoms and liberty, fully understood concepts of liberty as they related to him personally. His actions, however, seem to indicate a "me first" approach to engagement. The dichotomy of his words versus some of his deeds has yet to be fully understood by many Jeffersonian scholars. But on the basis of philosophy alone - he eloquently stated many strong, admirable concepts for governing.

[Sean]

MurphyStout,
All right. here's my honest to God, uncensored response.
It is very difficult for me to balance my respect for the military and my sense of patriotism with my loathing of the process and the beurocracy. Joining the service was the single worst decision I have EVER made.
But, if you are determined to follow a romantic delusion, I would have to say join the Air Force. You will learn far more valuable skills with the least amount of trauma to your sense of self. The Ideal way would be to go ROTC. Get your schooling and your Idea of who you are Going To Be first. Then serve your tour with better pay, chow, housing, and JOBS. Especially for someone going into law, you would learn how the government actually functions, and be able to apply that knowledge toward your greater goal of well being for the masses. "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer" Learn the stratagem that they employ, and use it to your advantage.
On the other hand I have many friends and family for whom the military was exactly what they were looking for. And I'm eminently glad that those people exist Not only because they're family, but because I do believe in the necessity of a military.
So no I don't have any "Good" advice, but I certainly wish you much success, and adventure.
Besides, your recruiting officer will fill you full of "good advice".

[Rockymtnpiper]

I served 4 years in the Army, it wasnt as bad as some might think. Rather a lot of the training has to do with doing things in a completly illogical manner. (Like attempting to polish floors with watered down- water based wax for example.. and expecting said floor surface to hold a shine for more than 10 minutes.) The reason for doing illogical sh** is simple, a soldiers primary function defies all logic.. to kill another human being. This is something that one has to work up to, starting with "baby steps" .

I have no idea why people think individualism is crushed and destroyed in the Military. Many if not most people are not in possesion of a free will to begin with. I have in my possession and express 1 each Free Will. The Army really didnt do much in the way of destroying it, or suppressing it. Quite the contrary, perhaps it is just a weird co-incidence.. The Platoons I always ended up in had more free thinkers in one place, than any other environment I have ever been in.

One thing I do not miss is the vanity and pretense. The Military has an unfortunate tendency to practice Vanity, pretense and 'politics' as a religion. How the Chaplains tolerate this is beyond me.

As much as I dislike "oiling the jaws of the war machine, and feeding it with our babies".. I also believe that EVERY Young American should serve their country for a couple of years. For me it was not an option, it was just something that I had to do.

[susnfx]

I love this board (rubs hands in glee). What a great thread - it's gone off into amazing areas. Who would have thought I'd read thoughts about Thomas Jefferson on C&F?!? I recently read Stephen Ambrose's indepth study of the Lewis & Clark expedition. I seem to recall being taught in school what that expedition was all about and learning more fully about Jefferson's agenda came as no surprise to me. Wonder how the Founding Fathers would have voted on legalization of marijuana. And one thought on the military - there are countries (including England, I believe) where military service is mandatory thus no advertising is necessary.
Susan

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: susnfx on 2002-09-14 14:29 ]</font>

[Rockymtnpiper]

""Wonder how the Founding Fathers would have voted on legalization of marijuana.""

Most, if not all of the founding fathers grew hemp as a crop.. the vote would likely be YES. Furthermore the vote would be recorded on archive quality hemp paper. (which was often made from recycled hemp rope and genuine canvas sails back in those days)

[The Weekenders]

On 2002-09-13 09:59, U2 wrote:
Chas/Enders: While I’m fine with T. Jefferson’s quotes, I’ve done a bit of reading beyond the topical, founding father fluff we all seem to get in history class.

So have I.

The research actually centered on how US intelligence agencies operate. To gain historical perspective I found myself all the way back in the presidency of G. Washington, who controlled 1/3 of the budget of his day secretly (Congress knew, citizens did not).

I would say that the "budget" of the day was tiny and this was all uncharted waters. This is a really skewed observation U2 though i respect your words on the drug issues. Like you're alluding to a conspiracy or something....

Jefferson is well known for US expansionist policies.

Yes, he signed the Lousisiana Purchase, in which he overspent and exceeded his own desired mandate of the new Federal Govt. A very controversial move on his part but the deal was too good to ignore. And yes, the prerogative of the early colonials included the notion of getting the entire continent. Virginia, prior to the Rev War, claimed all western lands to the Pacific Ocean at one time. This idea continued and was later called the "Manifest Destiny" for better or for worse.

Documents reveal that the Lewis & Clark expedition, widely taught to US children as an expedition to gain knowledge about indigenous flora and fauna, also was intended to bring Jefferson information to aid in expansion and the injustices required to obtain territory.

I was never taught that it was that benign. It was a survey of newly purchased land as well as to find the best ways to traverse the continent.

The United States was an extremely vulnerable new country. many , including Aaron Burr, had ideas of forming new countries because they were disappointed or disenfranchised from Post-Rev realities and sensed military weakness, unpreparedness and a simple lack of territorial control.
. We had just bought a lot land from France and it was a survey of what Jefferson had bought. The propaganda like rhetoric you are using is odd, U2.

Expansion was at the expense of the natives, whom Jefferson, at various times, claimed to hold in high regard. It is documented that Jefferson, to his advisors, advocated lulling the natives into a passive state with talk of friendship and eliminating any who offered resistance. Many, many quotes of President Jefferson exist in which he expresses the virtues and desirability of freedom and liberty while at the same time owning slaves and endorsing strategic decisions to militarily eliminate entire Native American tribes. This may not be the forum for a complete discussion, but I am trying to share that he is often quoted as a libertarian when an excellent case can be made based on his actions that he talked something other than he walked.

Yes, he was a hypocrite. I am more a fan of John Adams, who saw Jefferson idolized while being aware of these hypocrisies. jefferson always maintained that Indians would have to adapt to land ownership or they would be eliminated by lower classes and less disciplined people than himself. He witnesses the Paxton boys massacre for example as the cruelty of the new Scots-Irish immigrants, who were notorioous squatters and Indian killers. But I have never seen or heard of a document signed by Jefferson that, in your words, condoned "eliminating any who offered resistance."

To be fair to the US founding fathers it is imperative to study the context in which many of their decisions were made and familiarise oneself with the climate and choices before them. I said all that to say this: Politicians often make lofty statements that are not evidenced in their personal lives. ... His actions, however, seem to indicate a "me first" approach to engagement. The dichotomy of his words versus some of his deeds has yet to be fully understood by many Jeffersonian scholars. But on the basis of philosophy alone - he eloquently stated many strong, admirable concepts for governing.

Yes, Jefferson was a "too good to be true" liberal in my eyes, who ran up debts and whose estate was literally auctioned off before and at his death. He could never afford to free his slaves as Washington did (by example) because of those debts. He was a profligate spender: books, wines, books, wines, building projects. Most of the slaves he owned, he inherited along with a debt-laden estate from his father-in-law and he frankly never really focused on cleaning up his fiscal operations.
The more you study Jefferson, the more inconsistencies you will find but you also pointed out his qualities which served the country at the time.
More later.
(edited for errors)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Weekenders on 2002-09-15 10:00 ]</font>

[MurphyStout]

On 2002-09-14 16:48, The Weekenders wrote:

Yes, Jefferson was a "too good to be true" liberal.

Week, I hate to nit-pick because you're mostly right in the above post, but this is a cheap shot to liberals. Jefferson was no liberal. At best he was a libertarian, and a slightly right one at that.

And Sean, thanks for you advice and I'll take it into consideration. I'm not joining for some romantic delusion, I'm joining to understand how that whole system works. Just like you said "know your enemies." Anyways thanks for your advice.

Jack Murphy

[Walden]

[quote]
On 2002-09-14 16:48, The Weekenders wrote:
Yes, he was a hypocrite. I am more a fan of John Adams, who saw Jefferson idolized while being aware of these hypocrisies. jefferson always maintained that Indians would have to adapt to land ownership or they would be eliminated by lower classes and less disciplined people than himself. He witnesses the Paxton boys massacre for example as the cruelty of the new Scots-Irish immigrants, who were notorioous squatters and Indian killers.
[quote]
I was reading a book at the library that was the letters and correspondences of John Ross (my great uncle to the 4th degree). I was particularly looking at the correspondences between him and some of my ancestors who were in Cherokee leadership just prior to the "Trail of Tears." In many ways they were more clear-headed than some of these people whose pictures are on the currency. But in reality, everyone of all racial groups were racists to a greater or lesser degree, as most are today.

All the historical museums and everything seem to focus on the Trail of Tears, as if that were the greatest event in Cherokee history. As long as we focus only on who got done wrong, we are building up resentment. The truth is it was just one more of countless forced human migrations in history. A horrible thing, but hardly unique.

I think it is good and right to study all aspects of history, positive and negative, but when we get sidetracked about historical injustices, we wind up breeding a mindset of resentful mobs. My great grandfather to the nth degree on my mother's side of the family was brought over to America as a bond servant in the 17th Century, and lived out his life as such, and he was white as anybody. Should we decry the injustices against the illiterate whites of three centuries ago? It won't do a lot of good. We need to learn from history and move on, rather than trying to build up pride and resentment.

[The Weekenders]

Murphy: I say "liberal" because he its the best way I can equate this 18th century "Renaissance" Man with interests in so many areas. He was artistic, interested in architecture and inventions and science, was a gourmet and conossieur of fine wines and articulate in many disciplines. He lacked self-control, and a few times "mashed" on various women, including a friend's wife and I frankly equate these characteristics to someone who is less control-oriented and self-denying. To me, that is often what we call a liberal while we consider conservatives too quick to deny the many possibilities inherent in bending social and political beliefs.


But you are right to question that label as it didn't quite exist in those days. There were Torys and Whigs prior to the Rev War who were sort of that way, except that all of them would be conservative perhaps in our modern view because many were more religion-oriented and had not experienced the evolution of Post-Revolutionary secular humanism.

He was not above bending the laws to suit his passions. Did you know that he smuggled rice seed out of Italy, which had the death penalty as punishment there, so he could try growing it in the US? He was so fascinated by agriculture that he wrote down the daily temperatures for most of his life at Monticello; imported a virtual village of Italian vintners to set up wine production in Virginia, modified the design of the plow so it would operate more efficiently and so forth. The list goes on and on.

And as for the classic knock that he had slaves: few slaveholders did more to prepare their slaves for possible freedom than did Jefferson who set up leatherworks, carpentry shops, forges and other craft pursuits and trained MOST of his slaves to various trades (some were indeed relegated to field work only). Yes, it served his interests at Monticello but he openly stated that he wished for his slaves to have professions should freedom come in the future. He had dark foreboding of the eventual Civil War (as did Adams) and stated on several occasions sentiments of that nature.

I accept Jefferson's assertions that contemporary society was not "ready" to allow freed slaves to exist as freemen as well as his feeling that their mentalities were also not prepared to live as free men, considering the conditioning they had been exposed to in their miserable lives. I also accept that in an absolute sense, he was a hypocrite to not find a new and different way to live without slaves. He learned in the 1760s while crafting political documents for Virginia that anti-slavery attitudes were political death for someone who wanted to "make a difference." He lacked the resolve and cultural imperative of Quakers, for example, to truly defy the institution of slavery. He would have had to "de-elevate" his social/economic status as a Virginia planter to do so and he didn't.

I had to craft quick answers earlier today. But I have a few other observations: the Lewis and Clark expedition most certainly did have a mandate to collect flora and fauna and information about every group they encountered though it was also a strategic military and geographical survey. This was a continuation of the practices of fathers of both Washington and Jefferson, who surveyed land for Viriginia in early days. Its the way things were done. Jefferson was an ardent advocate of the township scheme, of laying out grids to establish settlement etc. The expedition was the first step of this process. Someone quoted Jefferson earlier as distrusting government schools with a rhetorical flourish. I am not sure that is a Jefferson quote as he advocated public school districts in the same style as townships.

As an example of its complex mission, Jefferson (an ancestral Welshman on his father's side) specifically sought information about any European evidence linguistically or otherwise that might verify the existence of "Welsh indians" based on a popular theory that Welshman had gone up the Mississippi in Pre-Columbian days . That's just an example that we might find wacky but was an indicator of the philosophical and scientific amateur mentalities of the day.
And Lewis and Clark did head for home loaded with preserved specimens of many animals and plants, charts, maps, info etc. The Ambrose book is a great introduction to the subject.

Never forget that Jefferson could read and write in Latin and Greek by age 15, that he had read every book available to a man in those days by the time he was 19. He underwent an intellectual training whose rigor is probably unmatched in todays world as did many other lawyers in those days.

I can't take lightly a put-down or easy revision of Thomas Jefferson, even though my own examinations of him have resulted in some of my above conclusions. He is not a personal hero of mine (rather a disappointment in some ideal model), but I regard his contributions to our country to be the very best this brilliant man could give and the pain of death was a possibility for him as well as all of the signers, no matter what his aristocratic upbringing might have given him earlier.

There may be a few errors in my descriptions; I last read that six-volume bio of Jefferson (Dumas Malone) at least 10 years ago, as well as the Randall single volume and other works, but I pondered this man with all of my intellectual resources at that time. I found him wanting, yet still a giant of a human being in terms of political activism, theory, philosophy and science.

There was a great amount of disillusionment after the Rev War. The French debacle, the Whiskey Rebellion, the failed presidency of John Adams, the yellow journalism and the imperial plots like Aaron Burrs to break away from the new country. This is part of the context I would include with U2's assertions. But Jefferson did pretty damn well with what he had to work with, his own upbringing and limits of intellectual and scientific knowledge of the day.

I don't think U2 truly condemned Jefferson and paid some respect to him in his post which precipitated my two answers. But I am sharing what I have come to learn about him and calling attention to what I think are perhaps misperceptions or reductions of him in that post.

Best wishes to all.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Weekenders on 2002-09-15 10:15 ]</font>

[U2]

Weekenders, I am enjoying the civil exchange of ideas here, so please consider I am not being argumentative, nor do I have to have the last word. Your last post, however, inspired me to go back and review some of Jefferson’s quotes I found surprising. I will appreciate any additional thoughts from you.

Enders quote: “I would say that the "budget" of the day was tiny and this was all uncharted waters. This is a really skewed observation U2 though i respect your words on the drug issues. Like you're alluding to a conspiracy or something....”

No - no conspiracy, and I didn’t suggest that. Unless you consider intentionally witholding information from the American public as “conspiratorial” in every case it wouldn’t fit the definition as I understand it. Properly placed in context, it must be recognised that the concept of covert activity is planned, and non-conspiratorial when the official government has oversight. But the essential component that separates a conspiracy from a plan (that includes covert activity), is whether the citizens have endorsed the plan with the expectation of covert elements. Absence of that expressed knowledge increases the likelihood of abuse by those who do not receive scrutiny (see Church/Pike Committee Hearings of 1975).

Weekenders, are you aware of any conspiracies perpetrated on the American public by members of the US Government? Restated: Do any acts of your government meet the criteria for your definition of “conspiracy?”

Ender’s quote: “...We had just bought a lot land from France and it was a survey of what Jefferson had bought. The propaganda like rhetoric you are using is odd, U2...”

Odd? I mean to be honest and truthfully express my thoughts on a subject to which I have dedicated considerable study (covert activity). I am not suggesting Jefferson was a demon, just pointing out that his actions do not correspond with the words for which he is often quoted. Your terms: “propaganda, conspiracy, rhetoric, revision” appear defensive. It may be more beneficial to focus on the specifics than to find a category for respondents who express opinions different from your own. I don’t know if you previously knew President Washington secretly controlled 1/3 of the national budget. But if that fact doesn’t surprise you, I would ask you to consider whether it would have surprised those who elected him. That is really the issue as I see it.. See: Secret and Sanctioned that documents the proliferation of secret activity in the name of US citizens from the inception of the country.

Ender’s quote:”... I am more a fan of John Adams, who saw Jefferson idolized while being aware of these hypocrisies. jefferson (sic) always maintained that Indians would have to adapt to land ownership or they would be eliminated by lower classes and less disciplined people than himself... But I have never seen or heard of a document signed by Jefferson that, in your words, condoned "eliminating any who offered resistance."...”

In April, 1789, Jefferson wrote a letter to Senator Charles Carroll, Maryland. Carroll was a signer of the Declaration. The Indian wars in the west were more expensive than Jefferson had anticipated. He wrote, “...I hope we shall give them a thorough drubbing this summer, and then change our tomahawk into a golden chain of friendship. The most economical as well as most humane conduct towards them is to bribe them into peace, and to retain them in peace by eternal bribes...” Jefferson and the Indians, ISBN 0-674-00066-8, by Anthony F.C. Wallace. Jefferson signed the letter. I do not know whether you consider a letter a “document” but the point I was raising was that Jefferson, like many politicians, spoke with a forked tongue. There are many other issues that center around his control and involvement in land companies that I won’t go into. Washington and others of the elite class were involved in same.

I was not offering my statements as being a fan of one politician over another. The founding fathers remained, after all, politicians. I was simply responding to Chas’ quote: “Thomas Jefferson said something to the effect that the populace should never allow the government to educate us (ie, public schools), because then we'd only learn what the government wants us to.”

I was pointing the possible absurdity of having an elected government official suggest whom the American public should regard as a qualified educator, and that it was to direct them away from someone who closely resembled himself. I was unaware that Jefferson freed (let them go) his slaves while he was alive. My understanding is that he ordered them to be freed later, after he was dead. Many people ignore that the northern US states gave up slaves following the widespread tobacco crop failure when slaves became an economic liability to northern owners, who retained the obligation to care for them in the absence of a profit. The south replaced tobacco with cotton production, that required labour. The growing season in the northern states was not conducive to growing cotton. I am aware T. Jefferson penned an emancipation proclamation that never got off the ground. That is part of the contrast between Jefferson’s words and deeds. I consider those who seek public office as being worthy of close scrutiny. Thank you for sharing your thoughts regarding Jefferson.

[Eivind]

Hey Whistling Elf;
how do you pick up your hands afterwards?

Ehee-hee.

Eivind