Wednesday, August 31, 2005

Katrina - Lord Have Mercy


Father

We pray for the salvation of those who died because of Katrina.

We ask for comfort for their families.

We ask for a speedy recovery for the injured

That those who are with out a food or shelter be given succor.

That those who are with out a home or job be blessed with better than they had.

We plead that we be spared from the ravages of nature and ourselves.

We ask this in through your Son, our Lord and savior, Jesus Christ,

And in union with the Holy Spirit.


Amen

Katrina - Lend a Hand

To help those in a material way you can contribute to

Catholic Charities

American Red Cross

And FEMA has a list of organizations that are helping.

Wednesday, August 24, 2005

Escalate in Iraq??

Roger Payne of the University of Louisville posted on his blog and at The Duck of Minerva a suggestion the left could defeat the Presidents Iraq policy by pointing that there out there are complaints, especially from the military, that Bush did not escalate the war enough. The assumption being that a major portion of the Presidents support for the war would “jump ship” in protest of a failed policy.

I posted these comments (below) in the comment sections of those blogs.



Rodger

If I may, I think there are several points that you missed.

Your suggestion, as I gather it is that instead of the two option, “stay the course” or "pull out NOW” there is a third option of escalation, and that criticism of the Presidents failure to escalate sufficiently, will produce a backlash that would turn into net votes for the Left in 2008.

First the “Jacksonians” no matter how dissatisfied they may be with a non-candidate President Bush, they will be aware that a vote for the left would be trading bad for worse. If they perceive that this suggestion comes from the left they discount it. For this to work they need an alternative place to go, and the left won’t be it.

Bringing up Secretary Rumsfled’s ignoring the advice of General Shinseki advice won’t carry much weight. He had already lost much respect prior to Jan 2001 as an effective Chief of Staff. Of course he was right, but I got the same conclusion eyeballing the news papers pre-war, most any competent military analyst would. But a gamble was taken, it succedded in the immiedate operations. A complaint that the course of action should have been more prudent is not going to change votes.

It is pretty much the same for subsequent force levels. They can be critizied for being imprudently low, but except for the two battles at Fullajah it would be hard to make a case that does not sound like Monday moring quarter backing.

If the question of failing to escalate is rendered irrelevant by events, it will be a major PR victory for the President. It appears (despite news stories on worst case contingency planning) the plan is to have major force reductions by the 2006 elections. It seem probable that there will be at least noticeable reductions by the 2006 election and more by 2008. This will make calling for escalation seem foolish.

Your point is about the political tactics that should be adopted by the left IN THE US. Not about what is appropriate to the military situation.

In Viet Nam there was a real third choice, there were enemy locations, other wise off limits, which could have been attacked with militarily beneficial results. (The actual value I am sure will be a debated topic for decades.)

In Iraq at the current time an increase in troop levels would be more prudent but it would be hard to say it was big enough change in operations to be an escalation. The Iraq war is a slug it phase and there are no “off limit” targets that have the potential to change the military situation. The third choice you mention is only a rhetorical device in the current situation; there is enough alternative media to point this out. I doubt it would convince the “Jacksonians” you want to jump ship.



The country needs an effective alternative party for a two party system to work. Forget Bush, forget Iraq, and develop an effective counter vision and program for 2008. If things blow up in Iraq the left will be in a position to take advantage of it. If things go well in Iraq, opposing a policy that turned out successful will not be the last impression of the left in the popular memory.

Sunday, August 14, 2005

Medieval Lives

Book Review

Medieval Lives

Norman F Cantor
Harper Perennial, 1994



One of the uses of historical and science fiction is to present a point of view on contemporary subjects, set in the distant past or future. This lets the author present a viewpoint on current issues by passes current bias’ loyalties and personalities.

Norman F. Cantor’s Medieval Lives is such a book. The book is nominally about medieval characters discussing important issues of their day. What is happening is an apologetic for a postmodernism. The first eight chapters record a fictional conversation between real medieval persons discussing actual issues of the day. The last chapter is an overview. The background settings for each chapter are well done and there is enough variety in the chapters that the formula does not become boring. One of the characters in each chapter is seeing the issue from a postmodern lens. The other sees the issue through a straw man of how postmoderns would see other viewpoints. Of course with such a setup the postmodern viewpoint seems best, but then the straw man prevents a serious look at the counter argument or itself. In cases where I know something of the actual issue and persons involved I sometimes found it hard to credit that they would say what the author put in their mouths. Since the book is not really about the issues presented it seems little effort was made in researching the issues.

As an uncritical apologetic for postmodernism this book is reasonably well done. However, I bought it with the desire to learn something about the lives of actual medieval people. Except for the background settings, this book is useless for that purpose.



Monday, August 08, 2005

The Horror of the Trenches.

We just commemorated the 60th Anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima.

A lot of comment of differing quality has been posted on this event. (Two of the best, pro and con, come from R J Rummel
II and Dean Esmay (The Links have died 4/13/11) But it seems that an important piece of background information is being overlooked across the board. Namely the total horror of the trench warfare of the First World War.

In 1914 the armies in France quickly developed a line from Switzerland to the coast. Both sides dug trenches to fortify their positions. Any attack was a suicidal frontal assault against a well dug in enemy. At the time there was no way to break the stalemate. Eventually the French tried a strategy of attrition at Verdun. Once I visited that battlefield. The guide, apparently referencing a known incident, said this is where the XXth Division died in 15 minutes. An area that was barely two square kilometers. The whole tour was one incident after another like that. We saw a bunker where several buses of elderly Germans were stopping to pray and remember. An annual trip to the grave of a nine hundred of their relatives. Members of a regiment that was in bunker when French artillery closed all the exits. On and on and on. The Somme, I’m sure, was the same way. The big American battle was the Muse Argonne, many of the same stories. The 35th division was effectively destroyed in four days. Over a quarter of the infantry were killed, like numbers of wounded or stragglers wandering around the battlefield looking for a safe place.

One result of the trench warfare was there was a firm commitment that this would never never happen again. To the point that normal judgment was warped.

------------

The advent of the airplane in WWI as a weapon promised a way out of the trap. There were three schools of thought on the use of Air Power.

The first is tactical. Use aircraft as long-range field or naval guns to support ground or naval operations.

The second is strategic. Use aircraft to destroy factories, supply dumps, and similar targets that support the war effort.

The third was terror bombing. Bombing civilians to break the will of the enemy and force surrender. If you have any questions about the horror of the trenches in WWI, consider that the promise that terror bombing could be done so that only the enemy was hurt was persuasive.

To put it another way, military targets strictly defined, military targets loosely defined and often near civilian areas, and terror bombing of civilians.

The first option was held mostly in services that could never afford large bombers, or the services air section would have no purpose if it was not tactical.

The third option came to dominate the thinking of the RAF with the approval of most the involved civilian leadership accrues the board.

US Army Air Corp thought they could win with the second option, though there was a minority of officers and civilian leadership support in favor of the third option.

Neither the RAF, nor the Army Air Corp put much pre-war effort into tactical bombing.

So when the US and UK entered WWII there was a strong commitment to strategic and even terror bombing in parts of the Air Forces and in the Civilian leadership. Massive amounts of resources were committed to this at the governmental level. The Manhattan project was simply an extension of this program.


The terror bombing option was the result of what happened in the trenches in WWI. The memory burned so hard that even terror bombing looked like proportionally less evil than going back to the trenches. An attitude that would have been unthinkable before WWI and is becoming more so again. When we look at things like the RAF de-housing campaign in Germany or Gen LeMay’s fire bombing of Japan or the decision to use the Atomic bomb, it was made in a context where they saw a far greater evil. (Ironically the targeting of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was made with much more reference to military value than General LeMay's firebombing.) Captain Truman was an officer in the 35th Division noted above. When President Truman was looking at the decision to use the atomic bomb, he was comparing a known horror burned in his memory that would have been repeated when Japan was invaded, against an abstraction of the results of an unproven weapons system. Something that I’m sure weighed on his decision in a way we can’t comprehend.

------------------

Looking through hindsight, it was the tactical operations that proved the greatest contribution to the war effort; and it seems that the tactical element has consistently proven of greatest value.

The strategic bombing was really beyond the technologies of the time, but did make some contribution to victory, but some commentators have suggested the assets would have been better directed into a few more ground divisions and tactical air support. The development of smart bombs that can actually hit the target, and consistently avoid nearby civilian targets is giving this option more promise.

The terror bombing was always counter productive, creating no real change in war production but galvanizing enemy determination. It does not seem to been applied by any major power since then, and WWI being a memory long superseded by the memory of Hiroshima it will probably not be tried again, though every now and they you hear some fool advocate it.

--------------------------

A thought.

What in the name of "Hiroshima - never again" will we accept?

--------------------

Note 1: The point of this post is not to justify or condemn, just explain. Much comment is pro and con is devoid of solid knowledge of the events in 1945. The issue is to important for the ignorant comments that come from both sides. This is, I hope a minor contribution to informed discussion.

Note 2: The decision has to be evaluated on the information available to the decision makers and a reasonable evaluation of the consequences of all options. It seems to me that, in August 1945, and at the end point of a number of poor decisions, based on the best information available, using the Atomic bomb appeared to be the option that would end the war fastest with the least additional loss of life. Including information not available to them reinforces this conclusion.

Personal note: When US troops landed in Japan, they were not sure what to expect so they landed in assault formation. My father led a rifle platoon in the first wave. In the normal course of these events, if the landing was opposed, he would have died five years before I was born.

Update: 7 September 2005, 13 April 2011

Dr Rummel considered some new information and modified his position (Link Dead)

Friday, July 29, 2005

Discovered! The Cauuse of Terrorism.

The encyclopedic reference to juust about every thing, Baron Bodissey of the Gates of Vienna, tells uus abouut the “Ruut Cause of Terrorism!”

The best thing youu will read today.

Wednesday, July 27, 2005

Recycle Now ! ! ! ? ? ?

One day I was home from work sick and looked out the window as the garbage truck came by. They took the “recycle” containers and tossed the contents in the back of the truck, then tossed the regular garbage in the back of the truck, and every few houses compressed it all together.

Apparently the Chicago does it much better; there was an expose a few years ago. The recycle trucks and regular trucks picked up their separate loads and dropped them in the same dump. (Which is much better than the people who bribed the alderman to dump it anywhere, many of these individuals ended up as long-term guests of the Bureau of Prisons. I hope this is deterrent to others.).

Scott Kirwin of Deans World has a report from the bay area where they do process the recycling separately. He is wondering how much pollution the recycling process causes.

Disposing of waste is a serious issue. There are a number of things to be considered including whether the consequences of a given method are better or worse than the problem. In WWII tin and other things were collected from each house as part of the war effort. It was leaned later that most of this was unnecessary. Some may have been poor estimates at the beginning but most was an ”educational” program to get the home front involved in the war effort. Supporting recycling as an educational program to teach environmental awareness, does not protect the environment, and leaves people with a incorrect awareness of how to protect the environment.

Some one said serious work on understanding the environment cannot be done if you do not know differential calculus. (Differential calculus is used to solve problems with many interconnected variables which describes all but the simpelist environmental questions.) It would be better to insist that math be taught up to ones aptitude so there are people who can do serious work on the enviroment. The less talented will have enough ability to evaluate the question and act as resposible citizens. Environmental awareness should be taught by studying simpler problems that can be done with age appropriate math, not political indoctrination.


PERSONAL NOTE: What little calculus I needed in school I self-taught and forgoten, so I do not know differential calculus, I get to sit on the sidelines and complain rather than do serious work on the issue.

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Imagine

John Lennon’s song Imagine proves he is a much better song writer than a philosopher. He sings:

Imagine all the people
living life in peace

. . .

You may say I’m a dreamer,
but I’m not the only one,


Well R.J. Rummel, Professor Emeritus of Political Science is imagining peace with good science and hard data rather then poor philosophy and dreams.

His life professional work was uncovering the root causes of war, and Democide which is detailed on his Power Kills web site. His major thesis is that the incidence of war and governmental mass goes down with the level of actual democracy in a country.

This week on his blog Freedoms Peace he has two here and here posts about visualizing (or imaginings) this concept graphically.

regression”
This regression analysis chart shows that as freedom (x axis) increases, insecurity decreases.

A major thesis of Dr Rummel’s is the Democratic Peace - that genuinely democratic countries do not go to war with each other. (Andrew Cory at at Dean’s World provides a good short summary.) A while back I checked the data on Rummel’s web site. If one takes the strictest definition of democracy his data showed a statistical 99% confidence level for this thesis. (Actually no exceptions is 100% but I would leave room for some weird case coming up.) Depending how much doubt one would accept for the borderline cases it would be a 90 to 95% confidence level. Political Science is a social science; this level of confidence is very atypical. His data agrees with what I know and could verify on the subject. While I do not have his fondness for categorical statements, I would have to consider the Democratic Peace thesis as well established as anything in the Social Sciences and better than most.


It seems that John Lennon might have got something right.


NOTE: I decided I did not like some of my word choices and edited it, The point is the same. 07/21/05

Shelters of Stone

Book Review:
Shelters of Stone
Jean M. Auel
Crown Publishers, 2002
Fan club


Twenty years ago Jean Auel published her first novel Clan of the Cave Bear set in Europe some 30,000 years ago. The premise was Ayla a girl who is physically a modern human is adopted into a tribe of Neanderthal men (The Clan) at the age of five after her own family and tribe was killed in an earthquake. Of special interest was the carefully researched background into what life was like 30,000 years ago. This has since grown into the Earth’s Children series. Shelters of Stone, is the latest chapter in Ayla story. .


The series to this point.
Ayla, discovered there was no place for her in the Clan she set out to find her own people. Along the way she discovers a new way to make fire, a spear thrower and how to domesticate animals. She has also learned much of the healing arts and has some sort of spiritual gifts. She meets Jondolar who was on a “Journey,” he set out from his tribe to see the world. They travel back to Jondolar’s tribe to be mated and settle down.


The story is of Jondolar’s homecomings and how Ayla is accepted into the Zelandonii. Ayla, as a foreigner, would be normally be the lowest status person, but Jondolar is the son of the former chief and brother of the current chief, which with his won accomplishments makes his a very high status person. His mate should be a high status person. Also the spiritual leaders recognize her gifts and want Ayla (who is not certain she wants to) to have high status so she can be inducted in to the spiritual leader ship. How this is resolved is the main plot of the book. There is also plenty of action as this hunting and gathering community struggles to survive in unforgiving ice age climate.

Like all Auel’s novels, she has thoroughly researched what life was like in southern France 30,000 years ago. Her descriptions of stone age live are very interesting and informative, but overdone to the point that they detract from the main story. I enjoyed them even so, but if they do not interest the reader they can be easily skipped. The anthropology/sociology of this Stone Age tribe seems to be remarkably “politically correct contemporary American.” Again with more detail than necessary. The religion is the presumed Goddess cult.


In Auel’s books the interest is in the incident and detail not the main story line, they are a much better read than one would suppose from a general description. This is good light summer reading, I picked it up because I began the series and became interested in the characters. Shelters of Stone can stand alone but I would recommend starting with Clan of the Cave Bear, which is by far the best in the series, and if you find the characters interesting continue to read the others. There are enough open plot lines for at least two sequels.

Saturday, July 16, 2005

Vacation

I had a great vacation visiting family and visiting historical sites.

If you get to western Virginia I would recommend traveling the Blue Ridge Parkway. It has some majestic views. Be sure you have a full tank. The road goes sideways more often than forward (at one point the GPS said 223 degrees on a road that goes northeast. I came to the gas station at the north end with less than a gallon.


I visited Antietam and Gettysburg battle fields. Looking at the ground sure makes the descriptions clearer. Antietam is a better stop in you can only go one place since it is not mobbed like Gettysburg.



At Antietam more soldiers were killed in single day than in any other battle in North America. Both there, and at Shiloh a few months earlier, more men were killed than in all the previous wars in US history. At this point both sides realized there would be no cheap and easy end to the war. This was General McClellan’s last battle. Like always he had a good plan, but at the end he refused to throw in his last force and allowed the Army of Northern Virginia to survive for three more years. The troops committed by both sides had fought to exhaustion but there were 30,000 uncommitted federal soldiers and the Confederates had no reserves left. A decisive attack would have destroyed or trapped the Confederates. Even if it did not end the war just then Virginia would have been lost to the confederacy along with it’s largest army.


Not having enough time to see every thing at Gettysburg I followed of the second day. Most of the action that day was the result of Sickles poor initial deployments, establishing a line that was to long for his Corp to defend but leaving Little Round Top, the most important terrain feature, undefended. The story of the 20th Maine is often told, how it changed direction under fire to face the Confederates. What does not really come across is how steep and rough that ground is. It looks like a 30% slope. Here also the Regular Army division was destroyed in the effort to save Sickles Corp. The guidebook says they retired in “perfect order.” A nice way to say that when the units next to them were forced off position, they withdrew maintaining formation and firing the whole way back. For the rest of the war they were reduced to a small brigade.

Sunday, June 26, 2005

Going on Vacation

.


Be back in two weeks.

A happy Fourth of July to every one and a

Happy Birthday to the United States.

There is lots of good reading in on side bar. I have some new links.

Tuesday, June 21, 2005

The Lights Go Out In Europe

Dyphna at Gates of Vienna and I Could Scream has written an excellent post on the most decisive moment in the 20th Century.

The 19th Century is commonly given the “real dates” of 1815 to 1914, from the Congress of Vienna to the start of World War I. A ninety-nine year period of relative peace between the Napoleonic Wars and WWI. On June 28, 1914 Gavrilo Princip assassinated the Archduke Ferdinand. The following events led to WWI.

When I was studying International Relations one of our seminars was to evaluate the alleged causes of WWI. Europe had been at relative peace for 99 years. Economically it was more integrated than any time up to the present, it controlled major events in most of the rest the world. The international political situation had been stable for forty years and survived crises more serious than the summer of 1914. Simply reciting the events from the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand does not explain why.

So what happened??

A big problem in answering the question is the reasons that have been proposed look good on the surface but do not hold up to detailed analysis.

Attempts to do a scientific study of the events leading up to 1914 as a cause and effect model have no ability to predict when applied to other situations.

Many theories as to the cause are economic, greedy capitalists etc. When the actual government, business and personal records were studied from before 1914 there was no evidence of any such intent, most business leaders assuming war would be bad for business. This gets a push from the profits businesses made selling war supplies, but the records indicate this was taking advantage of the opportunity, not prior intent. Following production and trade records show no evidence that match the theories (especially Marxist) of economic inevitability. The only economic cause is that Europe was prosperous enough to feed several large war efforts.

The theories that allege the arms race caused the war do not hold up. There were continuous improvements in each counties armed forces, but no change the there relitive strength for years. It seems that force levels did not play a part in the decision making in the summer of 1914, the leadership would likely have made the same decisions no matter what the strength. And of course in there was forty years of peace before the war, but the greatly disarmed post-war Europe went to war in twenty years. The improvements in armaments and military management greatly effected the course of the war, but this should not be confused with the cause of the war.

There was, of course, the festering Balkans situation, unstable then as now. This especially affected the Austrian Hungarian Empire, which had a large number of minority populations. They were also worried about Serbian nationalism. But worse crises in the Balkans had been handled with out a major war.

The only explanation that makes some sense (I am not 100% convinced) was the result of a role-playing project using game theory. A scenario was set up that resembled the situation in 1914. It was played by a large number of teams. In teams where the personality types of the players matched their counter parts in 1914 - war broke out. Where they were different - war did not break out. This is not to say any individual personality type is a problem, just that combination at that time and place.

So to answer the question:

It seems that in the summer of 1914 there was a period of transient instability, in an otherwise stable structure, because of the persons who happened to be on the job and perhaps other factors (see the comments section on Dyphana’s post.) Into this situation comes Gavrilo Princip who triggers events that start a war. That war and it’s aftermath is a tragedy of untold proportions and which is still with us today.

Thus begins the Twentieth Century.


NOTE: The title is a reference to a comment by Lord Grey, the British Foreign minister, that "The lamps are going out all over Europe; we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime."

Friday, June 10, 2005

When Winning is Losing

In December I wrote a post about when Losing is Winning about the oral arguments in medical marijuana case ASHCROFT (now Gonzales) V. RAICH expecting that Raich would win. This week the Supreme Court handed down a decision for Gonzales.


The question before the court in the meaning of the jurisdiction granted by the Constitutions Interstate Commerce Clause. The obvious intent of having restricting the power of the federal government to interstate commerce is that there is such a thing as intrastate commerce, which is not the province of the Congress to regulate. In the notorious Wickard case in the 1930’s the Supreme Court ruled that since wheat grown for to use on one’s farm, and not for resale, had a theoretical possibility of causing a trivial effect on interstate commerce, it fell under the interstate commerce clause, making the distinction between interstate commerce and intrastate commerce meaningless.

Raich was claiming that while the Congress could regulate marijuana in interstice commerce purely home grown marijuana, which was not going to be resold, was not in interstate commerce. This was a perfect opportunity to overturn Wickard, but the court did not take it.

It may seem that a victory on drug control is a good thing the on this issue it is actually a loss for an effective constitutional government.

Tuesday, June 07, 2005

A New Look

I changed the Blogger template. Being a reader of history books the old format seemed rather me. But this new format is easier to read, the brightness of the page is a lot less dependent on the users computer settings, and it turns out the code was lot easier to reverse engineer.

There is an expanded set of links with more to come.

I switched the comments back to Blogger from Haloscan. This allows longer comments than Haloscan’s 1000 character limit. I have the URL’s for the Haloscan comments and I will be posting the link as the first comment in the new comment sections over the next week or so.


ENJOY

Hank

Saturday, June 04, 2005

A Test

.

Jesus and Satan were having an ongoing argument about who was better on his computer. They had been going at it for days, and God was tired of hearing all the bickering.

Finally, God said, "Cool it. I am going to set up a test which will take two hours and I will judge who does the better job."

So Satan and Jesus sat down at the keyboards and typed away. They moused. They did spreadsheets. They wrote reports. They sent faxes. They sent e-mail. They sent out e-mail with attachments. They downloaded. They did some genealogy reports. They made cards. They did every known job.

But, ten minutes before the time was up, lightning suddenly flashed across the sky, thunder rolled, the rain poured, and, of course, the electricity went off.

Satan stared at his blank screen and screamed in every curse word known in the underworld!

Jesus just sighed.

The electricity finally flickered back on, and each of them restarted their computers.

Satan started searching frantically screaming, "It's gone! It's all gone! I lost everything when the power went out!"

Meanwhile, Jesus quietly started printing out all his files from the past two hours. Satan observed this and became even more irate.

"Wait! He cheated! How did he do it??!!"

God shrugged and said, "Jesus Saves."




Thanks to Jana B

Monday, May 30, 2005

Memorial Day

.

Let us Pray

Father

Today, though mindful of our faults, we remember those who have died in the service of their country, for it was your Son who taught us that there is no greater love than he who gives his life for another.

We ask you to take those who have died into the warmth of your presence.

We ask for strength an comfort for their families.

We ask that those who were wounded have a speedy recovery and a long and happy life.

We thank you for those who have retuned safely home.

Most of all we ask that we will never have to add to the list of those we remember this day.

Thy will be done.

We ask this through our Lord and Savior, your Son Jesus Christ, and in union with the Holy Spirit.

Amen

Thursday, May 26, 2005

So much effort

And nothing to post.


I tied an experiment with changing the format. I did not like the result and attempted to change it back. It came up worse. And Blogger was showing an error.


Blogger help lived down to it’s reputation.

Between Google and having made multiple backups I got fixed (I hope – fingers are crossed!)

Wednesday, May 18, 2005

The Unorganizd Militia II

TM Lutas of Flit TM whose posts on the Unorganized Militia prompted writing my the previous post on the Unorganized Militia post sent an Email with some very pertinent comments.


I'm working through the source material right now but I think you haven't captured the reality of the thing. If the people are sovereign, they must, at some level, have the right to violence. I challenge you to construct a meaningful construction of sovereignty without it. At the same time, if we are not to have anarchy, such violence must be restricted and channeled in a reasonable way. I submit that the idea of an unorganized militia is an appropriate form for channeling and molding the necessary recognition that the people themselves have the right to do violence if they are to remain sovereign.

Thus it is not correct to say that the unorganized militia is not a part of the common law except insofar as the label itself seems to be of relatively recent vintage. The map is not the country and the label is not the thing itself. Sovereignty is meaningless without violence. Now normal people don't talk of such things on a regular basis. They are left between the lines, implicit and hopefully never used as there is no need. Those who tend to discuss this as a day to day affair tend, as a real world observation, to be obsessed nuts. That doesn't mean that they are in error, merely grossly counterproductive to their cause.

My wife doesn't generally bring up the topic of surgical removal of fingernails at mealtimes unless it is apropos of something that is mealtime conversation. That doesn't mean that she doesn't know how to do it or, when called for, will do it. Popular sovereignty and its attendant right to violence are similarly not for everyday conversation. It's also unrealistic to assume that government will be particularly eager to recognize the fact that it's not ultimately in charge in the US system.

The militia law, I would suggest, is a governmental attempt to restrain and channel this inherent right of a sovereign people to ultimately defend their lives, property, and liberty. Like a police choke hold, restraint in moderation is entirely of a different character than when it goes overboard, and results in death. There are rules for police choke holds and there are restrictions on the ability of the state to restrain the militia. In the US case, the regulation of the "choke hold" is in the text of the 2nd amendment, something that I find astounding that you did not include in your analysis. The entire bill of rights was written to prevent a government run amok from running roughshod over the rights of the people. Any assertion that militia are only creatures of the state have to at least confront the 2nd amendment. You have not done so. You may wish to correct that.





It would seem to me that reality of the thing is there are two issues. They are somewhat entwined because of their history but they should be considered separately. First is the right of people, individually and collectively to defend themselves. The second issue is what is the Militia? I think TM's disagreement is over the second issue. We seem to agree on the importance of the first.

If the people are sovereign, they must, at some level, have the right to violence. . . At the same time, if we are not to have anarchy, such violence must be restricted and channeled in a reasonable way.

Correct. They form a government. If the country is invaded and government does not or is incapable of defense, the citizens have the right to rise as a levee en masse. If the government becomes oppressive they have the sovereign right to remove it. Neither of which depend on the Militia, and exist even when there is not a militia.

The first function of government is the collective defense of its population against violence, foreign and domestic. And ironically, since governments end up with a virtual monopoly on the instruments of coercion, a government can be the biggest threat to the people it is supposed to protect.

The militia never included every one, for example women, but women also have the right to self-defense. Exercising rights to self-defense does not require a militia. TM sent me a link (see comments in the orgianal post) about Condolizza Rice’s father and friends patrolling their neighborhoods with personal weapons to protect against racist violence. They were individuals not a militia. But they were exercising basic human rights.

This is also why the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is not dependent on the militia, women have the right to keep and bear arms. The reference to a militia in the Second Amendment is preamble to state a reason why the right is important. Also since originally the Bill of Rights applied to the federal government, it made it impossible for the Federal Government to made an end run around the States duty to regulate the militia by infringing directly on the right to keep and bear.

The protection of basic human rights is dependent on a “democratic” system with a solid respect for the rule of law, that diffuses political power so that no one person or group can get in position to abuse rights. Related to this is a diffusion of the means of governmental coercion, i.e. state and local police instead of a national police force so that no one can control every thing. The militia was a good example of this, even though in theory a single military force its wide local administration made it impossible to use the militia to enforce any laws without wide spread consent. And a reason why, even though the classic militia structures are outdated, a major portion of our defense should rest with the National Guard and Reserves.





The militia is a means for the government to fulfill its duty to protect its citizens.

The militia law, I would suggest, is a governmental attempt to restrain and channel this inherent right of a sovereign people to ultimately defend their lives, property, and liberty.

In addition, I would rather suggest that the Militia system was brought to the colonies as the only economically feasible means of providing for defense. It still remains part of the Governments repertoire to “execute the Laws . . ., suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”

it is not correct to say that the unorganized militia is not a part of the common law except insofar as the label itself seems to be of relatively recent vintage. The map is not the country and the label is not the thing itself.

If it can be established that the thing itself existed, this would be a good point. I know of no examples of an “English” militia that exists separately from statutory or executive authority. Except for the American Unorganized Militia I know of no example where people who do not meet for training and have no structure are by design classed as a militia. Militias were always established by an action of the King, a legislature, a Lord or who had the right, or a person acting on delegated authority. Remember the Mutiny Act that made it illegal to raise an army without the permission of Parliament. This was a constitutional/statutory restriction on the Monarchs exclusive power to establish military forces. Up until then this was a purely Royal prerogative provided he had the money. Of course the Militia is not a standing army, even today if a group attempted to establish a militia in England without authority from Parliament they would be prosecuted under the successors to the Mutiny Act.

The Unorganized milita is an administrative category to account for the difference between a constitution that assumes a univeral militia and the fact that there is only a need for a small number of persons training in units. Simply the Constitution reserves to the States the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training. The unorganized milita is a part of the milita that does not have officers appointed or authorty for training. The Congress and legislature provide laws for the calling of the milita. Only two or three states have a law that governns calling the Unorganized Milita, basically, report as individuals at the time and place the governor designates. Without officers, training or a valid way to call them out, the Unorganized Milita is incapable of fufilling the funcitions TM would like. The militia movement organizations cannot be classed as a real milita since the state did not appoint their officers or authorize training.



I think the confusion arises because in our early history there was:

1) A strong distrust of a standing army, given the manner in which the Parliementary and Royal goverments administered, used, and abused the standing army in the 1600’s this was a very reasonable opnion. An opnion reinforced by the Crown’s arbitary use of the Army in the colonies (where the Mutiny Act restrictions did not apply) just prior to the Revolution. Thus the Militia became the model defense organization in the popular mind.

2) The very entwined role of the local militia company in the life of a village blurred the distinction between the governmental establishment of the militia and the nrights of citizens.

3) The American Revolution was a revolt of the Colonies/States against the Crown. Since the militias were controled by the state legislatures, the calling the milita was a natural option. The action of the State Governments in calling the Militia be came confused with indivduals standing up to tyranee.

4) since it is not a topic of every day convesation it is easy for mistaken ideas to take hold.

While entwined in actual use in American history the basic human right of collective self-defense and the organization of the militia are separate things. In the nornal course of things the people exercise their "soverign right to violence" to "ultimately defend their lives, property, and liberty" by forming a governments. In our case the government established by consititutional/statuatory law the militia as one means of exercising this right.

Monday, May 09, 2005

The Unorganized Militia

When the United States was established the founding fathers assumed that the militia would be the backbone of our defense. While it has not worked out that way, the militia clauses are still in the Constitution and law. Many people have a poor understanding what of the militia is, especially the Unorganized Militia. Many assume that the Unorganized Militia is some sort of Common Law structure that exists independent of governmental action, and that consequently citizens can on their own initiative organize themselves as a militia, because they are members of the Unorganized Militia. This understanding has given rise to the so called:”Militia Movement” a series of organizations that have formed themselves to be “militia”. However, this does not agree with the historical record, not is it consistant with intent of the authors of the constitution and laws governing the milita.


To understand the constitution's provisions for providing the common defense, reviewing them is a good place to start.

The US Constitution provides for a Militia. The Congress may establish laws:

Article 2 section 8
Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


These clauses assumes that every one knows what a militia is, thus there was no need to provide a definition.

This is different than the Army and Air Force which Congress established on the authority of

Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Title 10 Section 311 b) 2) of the US Code is the enabling statute:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, [NOTE: members of the regular services] under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. b) The classes of the militia are - (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

It does not state duties or functions of the Unorganized Milita, which must be determined from the legislative history and case law regarding the Militia.

However state laws sometimes provide for three classes of militia. For example:

9‑8‑102 (c ) The Wyoming code defines the States Militia as:

a) The militia of the state is divided into the organized militia and the unorganized militia.

(b) The organized militia consists of the following:

(i) Such elements of the land and air forces of the national guard of the United States as are allocated to the state by the president, the secretary of defense or the secretary of the army or the air force and accepted by the state, hereinafter to be known as the Wyoming national guard; and

(ii) Wyoming state guard forces, when organized.

(c) The unorganized militia consists of all persons liable to serve in the militia but not commissioned or enlisted in the organized militia.


Twenty-five states have State Guard forces.

The Constitution and Federal and State Law authorize a militia, provides for two types of organized Militia and an Unorganized Militia. But there are no detailed definitions in the constitution or law. To see how we got here and what the founders and Congress intended by the different types of militia, we need to look at their historical development.


The Royal Charters for the first Colonies gave them the right to establish militias. These were a continuation of the English Militia system. They were always organized. For each town a company was established and for each county a regiment. Officers were appointed, usually selected by election by unit members, but the commission was from the Governor. Every able-bodied white male between the ages of 16 and 60 was a member, required to provide himself with a suitable musket and equipment. (In modern terms we could say that the Colony was providing for defense by imposing unfunded mandates on the local government and citizens.). After independence the militia continued on the authorization of the state constitutions. After the US Constitution came into effect Congress passed the Militia Act of 1792 providing a common framework for the militia and calling the militia into Federal service. Under this law the President could call a states militia into the service of the United States for 90 days. But this required the permission of the governor, and the militia could not be deployed outside the US. Except for the 90 day requirement these were considered implicit constitutional requirements. When longer terms of service in wartime were required, the President called for volunteers by state who were mustered into the Army (Clause 12 above) as Volunteers. Volunteer army units were often based on militia units.


The company met for muster four times a year. Sometimes a regimental muster would be substituted. If there was a danger of foreign or indian attack the muster could be monthly or in a few cases weekly. If someone did not attend they had to pay a small fine. If they did not have the proper equipment they paid a fine. Muster day consisted of close order drill, musket drill, and maybe some skirmishing practice in the morning. Target practice was seldom done - the militiaman had to pay for their own ammunition. The afternoons were usually a town picnic paid for by the fines of no shows. Families came, and a good time was had by all. If there was a serious danger of attack the afternoon would also be drill and the fines would pay for target practice.

These local Militia companies served several purposes. They provided a rudiment of training, served as a home guard if the town was attacked, and provided a basis for recruiting volunteer forces to help protect other parts of the colony. When a volunteer force was needed, each company would be assigned a quota. If volunteers could not meet the quota the Captain would select who would be drafted to meet the quota. Theoretically the whole unit could be drafted. The few times militia units were drafted for any thing other than home guard duty were usually a disaster (i.e Bladensburg in 1814 and the burning of Washington.)

As the country became more settled, musters, attendance, and even the collection of fines became infrequent and eventually stopped. By the 1840's states were amending their laws to end the muster requirement. Commissions were granted for a time in these non-drilling regiments as a matter of social prestige, after the Civil War so many community leaders had held war service volunteer commissions that a militia commission provided no prestige and the practice was gradually discontinued.

From colonial times there was a different type of militia unit. Often called "volunteer militia." These were completely volunteer organizations that were first organized to provide the high cost units such as artillery and cavalry, often composed of the more prosperous members of the community who provided their own horses and purchased the cannon out of pocket. Later infantry units were organized. From the 1850’s or earlier these were the only militia units that received training. These units provided the backbone of the units that were called up in major wars and are the ancestors of the current National Guard. But because they were militia they could not be called without the permission of the state governor. If volunteer forces were needed for a major war the unit would vote on whether or not to respond, sometimes they voted no. In some places they were excessively involved in local politics. Training was of varying quality. (To confuse the issue some general militia units over time evolved in to volunteer units.)

This is the status at about 1900. On paper, all adult males were members of the militia, but only a small number actually were part of units that met and trained. The laws governing mobilization assumed the original concept of a universal militia. The militia laws also restricted the militia from any useful deployment. The wartime calling of volunteer units was a partial solution not suited to creating a modern Army in wartime. During the first 20 years the last century there were a number of reforms moving the Army out the 19th century into the 20th, The militia reform was an essential part.

The Dick Act (1903) and the 1916 and 1920 National Defense Acts created the basis for the modern Reserve and National Guard units. National Guard units (state militia) received federal funding if they met federal standards and were available for call up. Reserves for the Army that were not part of the state militia were authorized. All able bodied males who are not in regular services or the organized militia are by default members of the unorganized militia. The part of the organized militia enrolled in the National Guard is funded by the federal government, and administered by the states. States could from other militia units at their own expense.

The 1916 National Defense act established the Unorganized Militia is an inactive administrative category to account for the discrepancy between constitutional provision that assumes all able bodied adult males are members of the militia and the fact that current militia organizations are voluntary and only have a small minority of citizens as members.

The 1920 Act made clear that the National Guard was both a state militia (clause 16 above) so it could be called by the Governor as militia for local emergencies, and a reserve of the Army (clause 12 above) so that the President could order it to active duty as a reserve of the Army without the consent of the state governor.

This basic system still governs the organization of the National Guard and Reserves.

The "Militia Movement" is based on the the assumption that the community based milita units described above were created by the local community as an exercise of the rights of the members of the community. In fact (even though largely self administered) they were created on the authorty by the colonial/state governments on the basis of a Royal/Constitutional grant of authority.

Summary:

The “Militia Movement” organizations cannot be real militia since they were not established by law, these are at best gun clubs who like to wear camouflage on the weekends, and at worst violations of the neutrality and other laws.

The concept of an Unorganized Militia cannot be a common law right of citizens to establish their own militias. The militia of all sorts was always established as a delegated Royal prerogative and after 1776 as a legislative/constitutional act of the States.

Since statutory law established the Unorganized Militia in 1916, it cannot be a part of the inherited English Common Law from “time immemorial”.


See Unorganized Militia II


Selected references:

This is an article published in 1917 explaining the 1916 National Defence Act. It has a very good historical overview and what intent of Congress in passing the act. It is especially valuable because it was written before the current controversies.

This is a good modern summery of the militia laws. Note the article says the exact opposite of what one would expect from “Solider of Fortune Magazine” and from the expectations of the target demographic of the that magazine.


See also Arms for empire;: A military history of the British colonies in North America, 1607-1763, Douglas Edward Leach
and
History of the United States Army, Russell Frank Weigley

NOTE: This post started by expanding on comments I made in TM Lutas’s Flit TM (link in side bar) discussing the Unorganized Militia. The post sort of grew and morphed into something rather different.

Saturday, April 30, 2005

Who is a Fascist?

.


[Fill in blank] is a fascist, so don’t listen to what they say.

The argumentum ad hominem is attacking a person rather than the arguemnt they are presenting. It is always invalid on grounds of irrelevance, even if the accusation is true. For example “SoandSo makes that statement because he is a 'gruby worn and a low life'” Even if the accusation is true and SoandSo is a 'gruby worm and a low life', what they said is right or wrong on it’s own merits. SoandSo’s status (true or false) as a 'gruby worm and alow life' is irrelevant to what they are saying.


Since WWII, it seems that everyone’s favorite argumentum ad hominem is the argumentum ad hitlerum. That person is a Nazi or Facist or something similar. It has been used for so long against so many people in so many different situations, unrelated to the historical context, that the term means “someone I don’t like.’ It communcates no real knowledge about the person or what they are saying. Even, on the chance of random probability, it is most likley false. The worst part about this is that there is such a thing as Fascist ideology. Persons supporting this ideology, if they avoid certain keywords, can easly escape recoginiton in all the false claims. The substance of fascist ideas could be presented with differernt terms and not be noticed by the unsuspecting. It would not be surprising for fascists to be loudest in accusing their opponents of being fascists

I went to google to see how wide spread this phenomenon is. I made entries in different comibnations of “Is (was) a fascist (nazi)” to see what I would get. The following is a small sample. This is just items that appeared in the sample text Google displays. To be fair while some are serious, some are humor, and some are defending someone against the accusation, which of course means the accusation was made. Some show much study and thought, some are ignorant and thoughtless.


Dobson is a Fascist
LePen was a fascist
Brigitte Bardot is a fascist!
Hitler was a fascist
To modern-day Leftists anybody they disagree with is a "fascist”

Every Jew-baiter, every Catholic hater, is a fascist
Santa is a fascist!
China is a fascist country
My Tivo is a fascist
Fidel Ramos is a fascist

Peter Singer is a fascist.
Zarqawi is a "fascist"
Heidegger was a professed fascist
Richie Rich is a fascist!
Bill Clinton is A Fascist

Hillary Clinton is a fascist
[Hugo] Chavez is a fascist
Hillary Duff Is A NAZI!
Janie Is A Nazi
Everybody's a Nazi

John F Kennedy was a Nazi
Ted Kennedy is a nazi
[Ward] Churchill is a fascist,
Reno is a fascist,
Castro is a fascist

Saddam was a fascist
Your Dog Is a Fascist
Ezra Pound was a fascist
Bin Ladin is a fascist
Diana Mosley was a fascist

I was a fascist
[Winston] Churchill was a fascist
Roosevelt was a Fascist
Harry Potter is a Nazi
Los Angeles Shooter is a Nazi

Joseph P. Kennedy Sr. was a Nazi
Marx was a Nazi
Stalin was a nazi
Mao was a nazi
Che was a fascist

Heinlein's a fascist idiot
Bobby Fischer is a Nazi
Dean is a Fascist
Al Gore is a fascist
John F. Kerry is a fascist


And Crumpy Blog provides the best comment on the most popular “ is a Fascist (or Nazi)” response


- namely -


“Bush is a Fascist”

. . . I don't like people who pick a political stance because it's in fashion to do so. I saw a person wearing a Bush=fascist shirt. I asked her in a non-confrontational way, "Why do you think Bush is a fascist?" The response was, "Because of the stuff he does". I inquired "what stuff is that?" The response was "the Patriot Act". Playing dumb I asked, "What is the Patriot Act?" She said, "it takes our rights away." When asked what rights does it take away she said, "Freedom of the Press, and religion." OK, at this point I know she didn't know what the hell she was talking about so I simply asked, "What is a fascist?" She again said "Bush." So I said "Besides Bush what is a fascist?" A blank look came over her face. After about 30 seconds I asked her "Well can you give me an example of a fascist other than Bush". Her answer was "the English guy, Mel Gibson, and the guy on the radio". At this point I wanted to see how far I could take it so I asked "How about that guy who lead Italy during World War II....what was his name....Benito Mussolini?" The response I got floored me. "No, he was cool" she said.


I would like to respectfully submit that there seems to be a serious general knowledge problem in the fields of History and Political Science.
Copyright 2004-2012 - All rights reserved. All opnions are mine, except comments or quoted material - who else would want them. Site Meter