Jump to content

Just watched SiCKO


Farbeyonddriven

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Rumble in the Jungle' post='509152' date='Jul 9 2007, 09:33 PM']i never wrote a school paper in my life that was this long, and you just put one up on a message board like it's nothing, lawman...you da man :pimp:[/quote]

[i]Yes, I could of saved spaced with a simple link, but I was looking out for your health Rumble; aiding in the prevention of carpel-tunnel syndrome. One more click of the mouse could of been it[/i]. :P

[i]Actually, what the writer described was what I have witnessed first hand and my crew has documented (still photo's / video). As mentioned before, this (Classified) imagery is only seen by a select few, while some of what has been shot can be de-classified and released for public use. Why ihas it not been released? I don't know! I was working on this issue prior to my departure; our Operations Officer made a visit in January. He seen what we were doing and commented to me "If you can make this happen, you could be a hero to alot of people".

Someone up the food-chain is holding things up. You gotta love our beauracacy.[/i]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[i]I have no idea where you guys in the Heroin debate are going and I care not to join in.

I lost a niece to an overdose last year and I am the Command Drug and Alcohol Program Advisor, trust me prior to joining the Navy I did a little experimenting myself, ok I lied maybe it was alot. :P

Just some info to chew on: [/i]

[url="http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/heroin.html"]http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/heroin.html[/url]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bengalrick

[quote name='oldschooler' post='509109' date='Jul 9 2007, 08:00 PM']Heroin was first cultivated in 3600 BC, and was legal in the U.S. up until 1914.
That was 3 years after Ronald Reagan was born, and 138 years after
this Nation was born. The World didn`t come to an end when it was
legal, and this Nation thrived . . .
Peace, pot, microdot and sweet twat . . .[/quote]

the best mode of transportation was also the horse and carriage and there was no hydroponics in the early 1900's.... so there really wasn't much of a chance to widely distribute the heroin, was there?

considering columbia is a pretty long stroll from the US, doubtful there needed a law for this until cars became more popular... i'm surprised they passed the law that early to be honest w/ you...

a few things that have changed in those 100 years... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest oldschooler

[quote name='Bunghole' post='509163' date='Jul 9 2007, 08:49 PM']Are you seriously implying that crackheads are better or even EQUAL workers to those that refrain from hard drugs (well, the addictive ones, anyway....you had me at microdot and twat... ^_^ )?
I appreciate your argument about alcoholics to a degree...I am likely a functioning one of those who keeps promises and responsibilities to family, job and country.
I NEVER met a crackhead that was any of those things after a few months of hard use, ditto for heroin addicts.
I am for the legalization of marijuana, with the govt profits of taxing/selling going to stamping out cocaine, heroin and such FOREVER.
There really aren't productive serious addicts to those drugs. They may be good people at heart, but when smoking crack or shooting dirt becomes your primary focus in life once you're deeply addicted, then I would watch my wallet.
And this isn't just because it's coming from a former addict, because it is, but because IT'S TRUE.[/quote]



I`m implying that drugs, and/or the addiction of hard drugs don`t make a
person a bad person, a theif, a lazy ass, or an asshole. You have to have
that stuff in you. Sure drugs could enhance the bad person, theif, lazy ass
or asshole that is in you, but they don`t make you those things.

Just because something is legal doesn`t mean everyone, or even more people
will do it. I haven`t drunk a drop of alcohol in years. The majority of people
don`t smoke cigarettes.

If the Government legalized drugs, they would have total control of them.
They could control how they were sold, their potentcy, and everything else.
Just like they regulate how potent alcohol can be, and how it`s sold.


Right now we have people that are crackheads, heroin addicts, coke heads ect.
and just buying and/or consuming them makes you a criminal in the eyes of the law.
So if drugs were legal, we`d have crackheads, heroin addicts, coke head ect, but they
would only be criminals when they committed a real crime.



Look, I know this is a pipe dream. I just said in my opinion, the Government should
give up on the war on drugs, that they`re losing, and use the money to pay for medical care for all of us . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest oldschooler

[quote name='bengalrick' post='509299' date='Jul 10 2007, 09:35 AM']the best mode of transportation was also the horse and carriage and there was no hydroponics in the early 1900's.... so there really wasn't much of a chance to widely distribute the heroin, was there?

considering columbia is a pretty long stroll from the US, doubtful there needed a law for this until cars became more popular... i'm surprised they passed the law that early to be honest w/ you...

a few things that have changed in those 100 years... ;)[/quote]



Well Rick, people used to "medicate" their children with Cocaine.
Coca-Cola`s main ingredent was Cocaine.

Bayer (the asprin company) used to make Heroin Pills.
Heroin also used to be in Children`s Cough medicine.

So actually it was very widely distributed.

And Coke and Heroin weren`t made illegal because of cars, it was made illegal for racists reasons.
So was pot . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Actium' post='509229' date='Jul 10 2007, 12:10 AM']maybe. But I'm genuinely curious as to when you think we lost our way. I don't believe we ever really had it--it's just that people used to believe the myths we spun, and now they are becoming frayed and the veil is torn.[/quote]

I don't think we "lost" our way in the sense you suggest. It's not an all or nothing proposition. I wrote a post (somewhere) the other day in which I went into the factional nature of our nation. It's just my belief now that the "bad guys" are in ascendence.

If I had to argue anything here, it would be the fact that it is a fight that is renewed with each generation. As for the substance of our republican heritage, and the vitality of it, there's plenty to discuss there. I'll try to find a little time later today to jot a few ideas down.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='oldschooler' post='509307' date='Jul 10 2007, 10:47 AM']Well Rick, people used to "medicate" their children with Cocaine.
Coca-Cola`s main ingredent was Cocaine.

Bayer (the asprin company) used to make Heroin Pills.
Heroin also used to be in Children`s Cough medicine.

So actually it was very widely distributed.

And Coke and Heroin weren`t made illegal because of cars, it was made illegal for racists reasons.
So was pot . . .[/quote]

i'll testify to that, i heard that exact same thing before.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lawman' post='509274' date='Jul 10 2007, 07:48 AM'][i]
Homer,

I have said this in the past, but is worth repeating here. The day we can close GTMO for the RIGHT reason will be a great day shared by all. That RIGHT reasons means that the entities that are out to kill Americans (OSAMA bin Laden wants 4 million dead in one attack alone) no longer exist. Unfortunately, I do not think this to be anytime soon.

[i]Admittingly, this piece was a bit extreme, but informative and presented an argument away from the middle of the field wear the grass has been worn an the marking indistinguishable.[/i]

For other's to understand the crux of our argument on habeaus corpus, I offer this [/i][url="http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27096"]Affirming Our Constitution[/url]

To best of my understanding, in the afore mentioned piece:

[color="#000080"]The Supreme Court had ruled last year in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that Congress - not the President alone – had the authority to establish the rules governing military tribunals. “Nothing prevents the President from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary,” according to Justice Breyer’s concurring opinion. The Supreme Court’s Hamdan decision focused on the separation of powers involving the relative authority of the two political branches – Congress and the President. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Congress’s prerogatives under its legislative war making powers. The issue was solved when Congress passed the Military Commissions Act signed by President Bush into law last October. The President now has the authority that the Supreme Court said he needed from Congress to proceed with his alien enemy combatant detention program. And Congress expressly intended this law to bar the federal courts from considering all pending and future habeas corpus petitions from alien detainees who are designated as unlawful enemy combatants. During wartime, that determination belongs to the President as commander-in-chief under guidelines established by Congress.

In short, Congress and the President are now on the same page - at least until the Democratic majority is able to repeal the law’s restrictions on habeas corpus petitions to the benefit of the terrorists, as some are trying to do.[/color]

[b]Summary[/b]:

[i]One of the things most Americans can readily agree on or actual bitch about is the ineffectiveness of our Government and mostly from the Left on how this Bush Administration (Executive Branch) cannot work with Congress (Legislative Branch). Here's the case were they have, yet not satisfied, they whine to the Supreme Court (Judicial Branch) in order to recieve a decision in their favor.

Where am I wrong? Actium?[/i][/quote]

I saw an interesting program the other day in which LCDR Swift was a panelist. He's the Hamdan lawyer. That man has my admiration--and it was pretty clear that we'd disagree on many policies at the level of politics. The issue here is above the level of day to day politics--it's about the nature of our system itself. "What it is, what it shall be, what it ever was...."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='BlackJesus' post='509245' date='Jul 10 2007, 12:31 AM'][font="Arial Narrow"][size=3][b]Sadly I think you may be right.

But then again I am an "American Hater" ... so welcome to the club. [/b][/size][/font][/quote]

I'm not an American Hater--I just think that every civilization seeks expansion, or the belittlement of its rivals through a variety of means--military might, cultural influence, soft power...I don't think anything's wrong with it. What I do think is wrong with this is when a society starts to believe too much in its own bullshit. That's when they start to totter.

Every civilization is built on some sort of myth. American = liberty; USSR = economics; Nazi Germany = military conquest. Once that myth is pursued contrary to all reason, the nation is doomed. Because pragmatism trumps ideology every time as far as building a functioning society goes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bengalrick
[quote name='oldschooler' post='509307' date='Jul 10 2007, 10:47 AM']Well Rick, people used to "medicate" their children with Cocaine.
Coca-Cola`s main ingredent was Cocaine.

Bayer (the asprin company) used to make Heroin Pills.
Heroin also used to be in Children`s Cough medicine.

So actually it was very widely distributed.

And Coke and Heroin weren`t made illegal because of cars, it was made illegal for racists reasons.
So was pot . . .[/quote]

so your saying you could get coke and herion as easily in the 1900's as now??

also, why doesn't bayer and coke do that any more? why was it made illegial? b/c of racial reasons? please, you can't just say that... you better explain this one to me...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='bengalrick' post='509351' date='Jul 10 2007, 11:29 AM']so your saying you could get coke and herion as easily in the 1900's as now??

also, why doesn't bayer and coke do that any more? why was it made illegial? b/c of racial reasons? please, you can't just say that... you better explain this one to me...[/quote]
...Really man, watch the friggin' [i]History Channel[/i] once in awhile. They got a WHOLE episode on this topic that you seem to be utterly clueless about. Yes, cocaine was made illegal because a few blacks were high on it and caused some trouble within the white community. Cocaine WAS used and encouraged, especially in ship yards, because it kept the workers going, up, awake (which ='d more $$ [profit] for the ship yard owners).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='bengalrick' post='509351' date='Jul 10 2007, 12:29 PM']so your saying you could get coke and herion as easily in the 1900's as now??

also, why doesn't bayer and coke do that any more? why was it made illegial? b/c of racial reasons? please, you can't just say that... you better explain this one to me...[/quote]

you actually could find coke and heroin easier then than now!


[quote][b]Cocaine
History of Cocaine, Medical Use


Toothache Cures and Patent Medicines[/b]Cocaine was first synthesized around 1860, from the leaves of the coca plant (erythroxylon). At that time, it was regarded as a wonder drug that would cure many illnesses.

In the short time between the isolation of pure cocaine powder from the coca leaf to the beginning of the awareness of it's dangers, cocaine was used to try to cure almost all the illnesses and maladies that were known to man.

One of its first non medical uses was military. In 1883 Theodor Aschenbrandt administered cocaine to members of the Bavarian army. It was found that the drug enhanced their endurance on manoeuvre. His positive findings were published in a German medical journal, which brought the effects of this wonder drug to a wider medical audience, including Sigmund Freud (see below).

Today, its use in medicine had been tempered by experience. Medical use has been largely restricted to producing local anesthesia. Even in this area, the dangers of cocaine led to the early development of safer drugs.

[b]Cocaine was sold over-the-counter,[/b] until 1916, one could buy it at Harrods. It was widely used in tonics, toothache cures and patent medicines; and in chocolate cocaine tablets. Prospective buyers were advised - in the words of pharmaceutical firm Parke-Davis - that cocaine "could make the coward brave, the silent eloquent, and render the sufferer insensitive to pain".

When combined with alcohol, it yielded a further potently reinforcing compound, now known to be cocaethylene. Thus cocaine was a popular ingredient in wines, notably Vin Mariani. Coca wine received endorsement from prime-ministers, royalty and even the Pope.

[b]One medical use [/b]that was found early in the history of cocaine, and which the drug is still used for today (rarely), is that of a good surface anesthetic. Beginning in the late 1880s surgical procedures using local anesthetics (numbing a specific area to pain) were starting to be used instead of general anesthesia (rendering a person unconscious).

This was due to experiments, using cocaine, that were conducted by William Halstead, one of the four founders of The Johns Hopkins Medical School and often called the Father of American Surgery.

Unfortunately William experimented on himself by injecting cocaine, to see if surgery could be performed using cocaine as a local anesthetic. After experimenting for a time, he became addicted.

The addiction grew so bad it put his career on the line. He stopped shooting cocaine and began taking morphine instead. A habit that probably lasted the rest of his life.

[img]http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/coc03a.jpg[/img]
[i]Cocaine Toothache Drops Ad, 1885[/i]


[b]Coca-Cola[/b] was introduced in 1886 as a valuable brain-tonic and cure for all nervous afflictions. It was promoted as a temperance drink offering the virtues of coca without the vices of alcohol. The new beverage was invigorating and popular.

Until 1903, a typical serving contained around 60mg of cocaine. Sold today, it still contains an extract of coca-leaves. Coca Cola imports eight tons from South America each year. Nowadays the leaves are used only for flavoring since the drug has been removed.

A coca leaf typically contains between 0.1 and 0.9 percent cocaine. If chewed in such form, it rarely presents the user with any social or medical problems. When the leaves are soaked and mashed, however, cocaine is extracted as a coca-paste. The paste is 60 to 80 per cent pure. It is usually exported in the form of the salt, cocaine hydrochloride.

This is the powdered cocaine most common, until recently, in the West. Drug testing for cocaine aims to detect the presence of its major metabolite, the inactive benzoylecgonine. Benzoylecgonine can be detected for up to five days in casual users. In chronic users, urinary detection is possible for as long as three weeks.

[b]Sigmund Freud [/b]the father of psychoanalysis, in the early 1880s began to experiment with cocaine. At a time when he was undergoing a low period in his life, he reported that cocaine lifted his spirit, and took his mind off his professional and financial difficulties. He sent cocaine to his fiancee, telling her it would make her strong and give her cheeks a red color.

Freud was to play a significant role in the development of the Western cocaine-industry. I take very small doses of it regularly and against depression and against indigestion, and with the most brilliant success, he observed. Drug giants Merck and Parke Davies both paid Freud to endorse their rival brands. He wrote several enthusiastic papers on cocaine, notably Uber coca (1884).



[b]Taken from "On Cocaine" by Sigmund Freud[/b]

A few minutes after taking cocaine, one experiences a certain exhilaration and feeling of lightness. One feels a certain furriness on the lips and palate, followed by a feeling of warmth in the same areas; if one now drinks cold water, it feels warm on the lips and cold in the throat. One other occasions the predominant feeling is a rather pleasant coolness in the mouth and throat.

During this first trial I experienced a short period of toxic effects, which did not recur in subsequent experiments. Breathing became slower and deeper and I felt tired and sleepy; I yawned frequently and felt somewhat dull. After a few minutes the actual cocaine euphoria began, introduced by repeated cooling eructation. Immediately after taking the cocaine I noticed a slight slackening of the pulse and later a moderate increase.

I have observed the same physical signs of the effect of cocaine in others, mostly people my own age. The most constant symptom proved to be the repeated cooling eructation. This is often accompanied by a rumbling which must originate from high up in the intestine; two of the people I observed, who said they were able to recognize movements in their stomachs, declared emphatically that they had repeatedly detected such movements.

Often, at the outset of the cocaine effect, the subjects alleged that they experienced an intense feeling of heat in the head. I noticed this in myself as well in the course of some later experiments, but on other occasions it was absent. In only two cases did coca give rise to dizziness. On the whole the toxic effects of coca are of short duration, and much less intense than those produced by effective doses of quinine or salicylate of soda; they seem to become even weaker after repeated use of cocaine.[/quote]

[url="http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/coc03.htm"]http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/coc03.htm[/url]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote][b]History of Heroin[/b]

Heroin is a very popular drug of choice in the American drug culture. Heroin is not a new drug that just showed up in the late 1960s, and the negative effects of heroin are not unique to modern times.
Heroin is an opium derivative and, as with any of the opium derivatives, there is a severe physical/mental dependency that develops when heroin is abused.

[img]http://www.stopaddiction.com/images/pop.jpg[/img]
[i]The opium poppy,
source of heroin.[/i]

[b]The Birth of the American Heroin Addict[/b]
In the mid to late 1800’s, opium was a fairly popular drug. Opium dens were scattered throughout what we know today as the Wild West. The opium influx during this period was due in large part to the drug being brought into the country via Chinese immigrants who came here to work on the railroads.

Accurate American history tells us that famous names of the period like Wild Bill Hickock and Kit Carson actually frequented opium dens more often than saloons. The stereotyped picture we have of the cowhand belly up to the bar drinking straight whiskey after a long hard ride on the dusty trail is only part of the story of the Old West. Oftentimes times the cowhand was not belly up to a bar at all. He was in a prone position in a dim candle-lit room smoking opium in the company of an oriental prostitute. It was not uncommon for some of these cowhands to spend several days and nights at a time in these dens in a constant dream-state, eventually becoming physically addicted to the drug.

Nonetheless, it was true that alcoholism was a bigger problem. Alcoholism was one of the major sources of violence and death during this period. Eventually, however, opium was promoted as a cure for alcoholism by the late 1800’s.

It was from opium that morphine was developed as a pain killer in approximately 1810. It was considered a wonder drug because it eliminated severe pain associated with medical operations or traumatic injuries. It left the user in a completely numb euphoric dream-state. Because of the intense euphoric side effects, the drug in 1811 was named after the Greek god of dreams, Morpheus, by Dr. F.W.A. Serturner, a German pharmacist. By the mid 1850’s morphine was available in the Untied States and became more and more popular with the medical profession. The benefits of using the drug to treat severe pain were considered nothing short of remarkable to doctors of the time. Unfortunately, the addictive properties of the drug went virtually unnoticed until after the Civil War.

[img]http://www.stopaddiction.com/images/kit2.gif[/img]
[i]A civil war-era morphine kit.[/i]

During the Civil War the numbers of people exposed to morphine in the course of being treated for their war related injuries sky-rocketed. Tens of thousands of Northern and Confederate soldiers became morphine addicts. In just over 10 years time from its arrival into this country the United States was plagued with a major morphine epidemic. Even though no actual statistics were kept on addiction at this time, the problem had grown to large enough proportions to raise serious concerns from the medical profession. Doctors became perplexed and were completely in the dark as to how to treat this new epidemic.

[img]http://www.stopaddiction.com/images/bayerad.gif[/img]

An early heroin ad from Bayer of Germany, who invented Heroin in the late 1800s and promoted it as a 'safe, non-addictive substitute for morphine. By 1874 the answer to this increasing problem was thought to be found in the invention of a new drug in Germany. This new wonder drug was called Heroin, after its German trademarked name. Heroin was imported into the United States shortly after it was invented. The sales pitch that created an instant market to American doctors and their morphine addicted patients was that Heroin was a “safe, non addictive” substitute for morphine. Hence, the heroin addict was born and has been present in American culture ever since.

From the late 1800’s to the early 1900’s the reputable drug companies of the day began manufacturing over the counter drug kits. These kits contained a glass-barreled hypodermic needle and vials of opiates (morphine or heroin) and/or cocaine packaged neatly in attractive engraved tin cases. Laudanum (opium in an alcohol base) was also a very popular elixir that was used to treat a variety of ills. Laudanum was administered to kids and adults alike - as freely as aspirin is used today.

There were of course marketing and advertising campaigns launched by the drug companies producing this product that touted these narcotics as the cure for all types of physical and mental aliments ranging from alcohol withdrawal to cancer, depression, sluggishness, coughs, colds, tuberculosis and even old age. Most of the elixirs pitched by the old “snake oil salesmen” in their medicine shows contained one or more of these narcotics in their mix.

Heroin, morphine and other opium derivatives were unregulated and sold legally in the United States until 1920 when Congress recognized the danger of these drugs and enacted the Dangerous Drug Act. This new law made over-the-counter purchase of heroin, opium, morphine and other drugs illegal and deemed that their distribution be federally regulated. By the time this law was passed, however, it was already too late. A market for heroin in the U.S. had been created. By 1925 there were an estimated 200,000 heroin addicts in the country. It was a market which would persist until this day.[/quote]

[url="http://www.stopaddiction.com/heroin_history.html#"]http://www.stopaddiction.com/heroin_history.html#[/url]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest oldschooler
[quote name='bengalrick' post='509351' date='Jul 10 2007, 11:29 AM']so your saying you could get coke and herion as easily in the 1900's as now??

also, why doesn't bayer and coke do that any more? why was it made illegial? b/c of racial reasons? please, you can't just say that... you better explain this one to me...[/quote]


[quote name='Quaker' post='509371' date='Jul 10 2007, 12:56 PM']...Really man, watch the friggin' [i]History Channel[/i] once in awhile. They got a WHOLE episode on this topic that you seem to be utterly clueless about. Yes, cocaine was made illegal because a few blacks were high on it and caused some trouble within the white community. Cocaine WAS used and encouraged, especially in ship yards, because it kept the workers going, up, awake (which ='d more $$ [profit] for the ship yard owners).[/quote]


[b]Hooked: Illegal drugs and how they got that way (Opium, Morphine & Heroin Episode)[/b]


[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQlk01sxO_E"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQlk01sxO_E[/url]



[b]Hooked: Illegal Drugs & How They Got That Way - Crack & Cocaine[/b]

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lrd5xtyfjFw&mode=related&search="]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lrd5xtyfjFw...ted&search=[/url]


[b]Hooked: Illegal Drugs & How They Got that Way - Marijuana & Amphetamine[/b]

Description
This insightful history channel documentary on prohibition and how it evolved from cannabis and spread to a worldwide drug war. Hashish, opium, MDMA, "uppers and downers" and more are all examined in the history of american drug policy.


[url="http://www.pot-tv.net/ram/pottvshowse2703.ram"]http://www.pot-tv.net/ram/pottvshowse2703.ram[/url]



There is another episode. But these are enough . . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='509423' date='Jul 10 2007, 04:51 PM']Consent
Representation
Rule of Law

...not liberty.[/quote]
Okay, I've got a few moments to get into the republican heritage v quasi-imperialism query, with a dash of mythos tossed in, Actium.

What's the significance of what I said yesterday? Your liberty as myth mention is, in many ways, quite true. On the other hand, the idea of liberty was a very important component of the impulse for independence. Yet, as for the nature of the government which came after the fight for "liberty" (among other ideals), it was the failure of the Articles of Confederation to adequately create the conditions for both prosperity and the pursuit of happiness which led to the Constitutional Convention.

Remember how this came about? Under the guise of addressing trade and other economic issues, the Annapolis Convention was called--by folks who strongly suspected that a proper quorum would not be met. This provided the means/excuse to call for the broader Philadelphia Convention. And that's important. Because fellows like Madison and Hamilton were convinced that a wider scope of subject/action was needed to lay the groundwork for fulfilling the promise of the Revolution.

Now, what's the essential difference between the terms I cite above? While liberty represents a positive assertion of a kind of freedom which tends to be heteronomous--a kind of law for the many, as interpreted by the individual-- and thus, is oriented towards non-compromise and absolute freedom; the ideas of consent, representation, and the rule of law are quite different in orientation--they demand a kind of submission, a slight giving up of absolute freedom. That is to say, the surrender of absolute assertions of freedom in order to achieve a kind of coherence and compromise in government was considered both more practical and more virtuous.

Think about it for a moment. Isn't our nation just as importantly defined not merely by some ideas of freedom, but also by ideas of tolerance--especially about views which one might detest? Isn't that, in fact, the genius of the government founded back in 1787? A practical, workable set of ideals embodied in a document which still recognizes the idea of freedom as an absolute truth? A timocracy of sorts which wisely does not provide a foundation for willy-nilly freedom, as interpreted by individuals who are short-lived and emphemeral, but instead provides a foundation based on compromise, checks and balances, and a division of power?

After all, what is tyranny but the assertion of absolute freedom by an individual--who also happens to wield sufficient power to impose their ideas upon the willing and unwilling? And, more genius yet. Which is more enduring: a system based on ideals, yet with mechanisms for compromise and division of power, or the mortal tyrant--nothwithstanding that the tyrants ideas could possibly be absolutely true assertions of absolute freedom? What happens when the heir takes over?

That's my layman's take on the theory underpinning our gov. What about some history?

If you listened to the LaFeber(sp?) lecture I posted in the link I posted yesterday, you'll remember that he said something which was inclined to agree with your idea that the republican beacon lasted only about five minutes after independence. He said it this way: the revolutionary generation was the only generation when the intellectuals and the politicians in our society were one and the same. I take your point, and his, although I disagree--that's a slight to folks like John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay (the Great Compromiser), and other bright lights of subsequent generations. I will agree that there has been an almost inexorable dilution of intellect and professional politics. How could I not, given what we witness today? Yet, it is also true that in times of deep crisis, our system is such that folks like Lincoln or FDR can rise to the occasion. Even the man LeFeber criticizes--Wilson--tried, in his own way.

Re-read deToqueville. Consider the great impulse of "association" that characterized the period between Independence and the Civil War. Consider also the other "MD"--not Manifest Destiny, but the Monroe Doctrine. Is that any less an important inflection of our nature and tendency as a people who have designed a government to serve, if somewhat clumsily at times, the people? You're right, it's true that folks like Polk can provoke a war to perform a land grab, but it's also true that many, many folks--in both high and low places--could support the impulse for republican governments in Latin America, not to mention Greece, in the 1820s.

Take the biggest flaw in our society: our unwillingness to adequately deal with the problem of racism. Keep in mind that in many other cultures, racism is not a "problem" at all--it's a matter of fact. We set the bar high--"All Men Are Created Equal" and it took 80 years of simmering before that particular pot boiled over. 80 years--a little longer that the life-span of one famous tyrant--Dionysus I of Syracuse. And yet, even after all the bloodshed, our republic endures. (Meanwhile, many folks are now running off to Google Dionysus I--who the fuck was that?) Would Ben Franklin, Alex Hamilton and many others who were involved in emancipation associations circa the turn of the 19th century be disappointed in how long it took to free the slaves, as well in how poorly we have behaved in the recent 150 years with regard to racism? I'm pretty sure they would be. Yet, what did Franklin say when he was asked if we had a monarchy or a republic? "A Republic, if you can keep it." So far, we have managed to keep it for the equivalent of the lifetimes of many potential tyrants, and we keep stumbling along.

It isn't perfect and it isn't guarenteed. But it's what we've got.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='509824' date='Jul 11 2007, 09:22 PM']Okay, I've got a few moments to get into the republican heritage v quasi-imperialism query, with a dash of mythos tossed in, Actium.

What's the significance of what I said yesterday? Your liberty as myth mention is, in many ways, quite true. On the other hand, the idea of liberty was a very important component of the impulse for independence. Yet, as for the nature of the government which came after the fight for "liberty" (among other ideals), it was the failure of the Articles of Confederation to adequately create the conditions for both prosperity and the pursuit of happiness which led to the Constitutional Convention.

Remember how this came about? Under the guise of addressing trade and other economic issues, the Annapolis Convention was called--by folks who strongly suspected that a proper quorum would not be met. This provided the means/excuse to call for the broader Philadelphia Convention. And that's important. Because fellows like Madison and Hamilton were convinced that a wider scope of subject/action was needed to lay the groundwork for fulfilling the promise of the Revolution.

Now, what's the essential difference between the terms I cite above? While liberty represents a positive assertion of a kind of freedom which tends to be heteronomous--a kind of law for the many, as interpreted by the individual-- and thus, is oriented towards non-compromise and absolute freedom; the ideas of consent, representation, and the rule of law are quite different in orientation--they demand a kind of submission, a slight giving up of absolute freedom. That is to say, the surrender of absolute assertions of freedom in order to achieve a kind of coherence and compromise in government was considered both more practical and more virtuous.

Think about it for a moment. Isn't our nation just as importantly defined not merely by some ideas of freedom, but also by ideas of tolerance--especially about views which one might detest? Isn't that, in fact, the genius of the government founded back in 1787? A practical, workable set of ideals embodied in a document which still recognizes the idea of freedom as an absolute truth? A timocracy of sorts which wisely does not provide a foundation for willy-nilly freedom, as interpreted by individuals who are short-lived and emphemeral, but instead provides a foundation based on compromise, checks and balances, and a division of power?

After all, what is tyranny but the assertion of absolute freedom by an individual--who also happens to wield sufficient power to impose their ideas upon the willing and unwilling? And, more genius yet. Which is more enduring: a system based on ideals, yet with mechanisms for compromise and division of power, or the mortal tyrant--nothwithstanding that the tyrants ideas could possibly be absolutely true assertions of absolute freedom? What happens when the heir takes over?

That's my layman's take on the theory underpinning our gov. What about some history?

If you listened to the LaFeber(sp?) lecture I posted in the link I posted yesterday, you'll remember that he said something which was inclined to agree with your idea that the republican beacon lasted only about five minutes after independence. He said it this way: the revolutionary generation was the only generation when the intellectuals and the politicians in our society were one and the same. I take your point, and his, although I disagree--that's a slight to folks like John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay (the Great Compromiser), and other bright lights of subsequent generations. I will agree that there has been an almost inexorable dilution of intellect and professional politics. How could I not, given what we witness today? Yet, it is also true that in times of deep crisis, our system is such that folks like Lincoln or FDR can rise to the occasion. Even the man LeFeber criticizes--Wilson--tried, in his own way.

Re-read deToqueville. Consider the great impulse of "association" that characterized the period between Independence and the Civil War. Consider also the other "MD"--not Manifest Destiny, but the Monroe Doctrine. Is that any less an important inflection of our nature and tendency as a people who have designed a government to serve, if somewhat clumsily at times, the people? You're right, it's true that folks like Polk can provoke a war to perform a land grab, but it's also true that many, many folks--in both high and low places--could support the impulse for republican governments in Latin America, not to mention Greece, in the 1820s.

Take the biggest flaw in our society: our unwillingness to adequately deal with the problem of racism. Keep in mind that in many other cultures, racism is not a "problem" at all--it's a matter of fact. We set the bar high--"All Men Are Created Equal" and it took 80 years of simmering before that particular pot boiled over. 80 years--a little longer that the life-span of one famous tyrant--Dionysus I of Syracuse. And yet, even after all the bloodshed, our republic endures. (Meanwhile, many folks are now running off to Google Dionysus I--who the fuck was that?) Would Ben Franklin, Alex Hamilton and many others who were involved in emancipation associations circa the turn of the 19th century be disappointed in how long it took to free the slaves, as well in how poorly we have behaved in the recent 150 years with regard to racism? I'm pretty sure they would be. Yet, what did Franklin say when he was asked if we had a monarchy or a republic? "A Republic, if you can keep it." So far, we have managed to keep it for the equivalent of the lifetimes of many potential tyrants, and we keep stumbling along.

It isn't perfect and it isn't guarenteed. But it's what we've got.[/quote]

Thank you for your words. It sort of boils down to what Robert Graves said through his mouthpiece Claudius--the greatest form of government is the enlightened despotism--the problem being, that only lasts as long as the despot is enlightened. On average, the moral strength of a republic will be greater than the moral strength of a monarchy. It should be noted that I detest I, Claudius.

I was going to mention the Monroe Doctrine the other day--that sort of goes along with what Stalin said--"everyone imposes his own system as far as his army can reach." And that is a phrase that encapsulates the course of human history. And that is a sort of indirect imperialism.

And as you mention it greatly amuses me that, per the provisions of the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution itself was technically an illegal document. It was just so hard to amend it that they took a short cut. Sort of how the Supreme Court shortcuts the amendment process today by virtue of activist rulings.

I'm still not sure where you think we turned from republican to imperialist. I don't think an "imperialism" is at all contrary to the American way--just that we are more clumsy about it of late. And that now more people buy into the Wilsonian claptrap. I'm also not sure if the Founding Fathers actually believed in the high-minded principles they espoused or if it was all show.

Ultimately, what I think history is about is that the world needs heroes. What is it but a "set of lies agreed upon." But I'm fine with that. Create the myths that support what you want the world to be.

I find that I am spewing a lot of Orwell's ideas, but I do so without the horror he felt. I think he was right, but that his theories are not things to be avoided, but to be embraced. I guess that says a lot about me, for good or ill.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='oldschooler' post='509300' date='Jul 10 2007, 03:35 PM']I`m implying that drugs, and/or the addiction of hard drugs don`t make a
person a bad person, a theif, a lazy ass, or an asshole. You have to have
that stuff in you. Sure drugs could enhance the bad person, theif, lazy ass
or asshole that is in you, but they don`t make you those things.

[b]Just because something is legal doesn`t mean everyone, or even more people
will do it. [/b]I haven`t drunk a drop of alcohol in years. The majority of people
don`t smoke cigarettes.

If the Government legalized drugs, they would have total control of them.
They could control how they were sold, their potentcy, and everything else.
Just like they regulate how potent alcohol can be, and how it`s sold.
Right now we have people that are crackheads, heroin addicts, coke heads ect.
and just buying and/or consuming them makes you a criminal in the eyes of the law.
So if drugs were legal, we`d have crackheads, heroin addicts, coke head ect, but they
would only be criminals when they committed a real crime.
Look, I know this is a pipe dream. I just said in my opinion, the Government should
give up on the war on drugs, that they`re losing, and use the money to pay for medical care for all of us . . .[/quote]
BINGO! And in fact, it appears to be the opposite. Half as many folks in the Netherlands smoke weed as compared to the US, even though it is legal to buy there...

[url="http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=688c8943-c48f-4ef8-b773-d1e968976ca1&k=12968"]http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.ht...ca1&k=12968[/url]

[quote]Marijuana use in Canada is the highest in the industrialized world, far higher than in the Netherlands where it’s legal, and more than four times the global rate, a report by the United Nations has found.

The report also says cannabis use around the world appears to have stabilized and appears to be declining in North America. A plunge in use by Ontario high school students was cited as a factor in the trend.

The world drug-use study by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime said that 16.8 per cent of Canadians aged 15 to 64 smoked marijuana or used other cannabis products in 2004, the most recent year for which statistics were cited.

Marijuana possession remains illegal in Canada, despite years of recommendations by parliamentarians to decriminalize it. As a result, tens of thousands of people have criminal records for possession.

The study, using the most recent statistics collected from each country — although some dated back almost a decade — estimated that 3.8 per cent of the world’s population aged 15 to 64 used cannabis in 2005. That was about 159 million people, down slightly from 162 million the previous year.

The data show Canadian usage fifth after Zambia (17.7 per cent in 2003), Ghana (21.5 per cent in 1998) and Papua New Guinea and Micronesia tied for first place at 29 per cent each in 1995.

The Canadian statistics compared to 2005 rates of 8.7 per cent in England and Wales, [b]12.6 per cent in the United States[/b], 8.5 per cent in Israel; 10.7 per cent in Jamaica (2001), [b]and 6.1 per cent in the Netherlands (2001), where it is legal to buy and sell marijuana for personal use.[/b]

In some countries in East and Southeast Asia, such as Korea and Singapore, and in the Middle East, such as Oman and Qatar, cannabis use is negligible.

The report said cannabis comprises, by far, the largest illicit drug market on the planet.

The study also noted a 38 per cent decline in cannabis use among U.S. 12th graders between 1979, when marijuana use peaked, and 2006. A 19 per cent drop in use by Ontario high school students between 2003 and 2005 was also noted.

The report also said there was slightly less trafficking of cannabis from Canada into the United States in 2005.

“This could indicate that cannabis production stabilized or even declined slightly in Canada, following large production increases in previous years,” the report said, citing Canadian government estimates. “Between 2000 and 2004, production Canada more than doubled.”

However, the report also suggested that the altered trafficking trend could also indicate that organized crime groups have relocated to the American Pacific northwest and California to avoid tightened border controls.

Forty per cent of Canadian cannabis is produced in British Columbia, 25 per cent in Ontario and 25 per cent in Quebec, the report noted.[/quote]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bengalrick

i just don't understand why making cocaine, heroin, and other deadly and EXTREMELY addictive drugs legal will help society in any way... if your talking about medical marijuana, i'm sold... i'd even talk about legalizing weed even though that is a pipe dream in itself... but i will NEVER EVER agree that free reign on drugs is a good thing... even if it cleared up every economic issue we ever had, it is not worth it....

does making it legal mean everyone will do it? nope.... but almost certainly means that more people will try it because it would be "accepted" (think about the difference between the stigma of drinking alcohol vs. smoking weed in society vs. the comparison of actually long term effects of the two drugs) if more people try an extremely addictive drug, my logic tells me more people will get high... and if this drug is even easier to get (if it were legal) it would be even harder for addicts to stop (think about someone addicted to porn, trying to stop watching it, and then turning on the tv and seeing commercials and tv shows focusing on hot ass bitches practically getting naked... not that i don't like that or anything :) )

i don't see how in the world legalizing all of it is a good thing... imo, we need to focus on those particular drugs, along w/ crystal meth and treat weed in a different category...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Actium' post='509855' date='Jul 11 2007, 11:27 PM']Thank you for your words. It sort of boils down to what Robert Graves said through his mouthpiece Claudius--the greatest form of government is the enlightened despotism--the problem being, that only lasts as long as the despot is enlightened. On average, the moral strength of a republic will be greater than the moral strength of a monarchy. It should be noted that I detest I, Claudius.[/quote]

Franklin would agree with that.

[quote]I was going to mention the Monroe Doctrine the other day--that sort of goes along with what Stalin said--"everyone imposes his own system as far as his army can reach." And that is a phrase that encapsulates the course of human history. And that is a sort of indirect imperialism.[/quote]

I think you don't understand the strategic context in which John Quincy Adams wrote the Monroe Doctrine.

[quote]And as you mention it greatly amuses me that, per the provisions of the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution itself was technically an illegal document. It was just so hard to amend it that they took a short cut. Sort of how the Supreme Court shortcuts the amendment process today by virtue of activist rulings.[/quote]

Yeah. One of the very interesting aspects of how this transition was managed has to do with the adoption of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787--which was being debated/voted upon by the Confederate Congress pretty much simultaneously as the Philly convention.

[quote]I'm still not sure where you think we turned from republican to imperialist. I don't think an "imperialism" is at all contrary to the American way--just that we are more clumsy about it of late. And that now more people buy into the Wilsonian claptrap. I'm also not sure if the Founding Fathers actually believed in the high-minded principles they espoused or if it was all show.[/quote]

For the third time: it's not an all or nothing proposition. Government is people. Different people (factions, too) have different underlying sets of principles. That said, I'd say that for the most part, with the exception of the Mexican War, our government was pretty clear on this, up until McKinley got cornered into the Spanish-American War. (One of the interesting things I have wanted to research for years, but haven't gotten around to, is this curiosity: John Hay was one of Lincoln's personal secretaries; he was SecState for McKinley. The difference in attitude in foreign policy is pretty stark--at least on the surface. Although Seward (Lincoln's SecState) did want to take on the English at one moment, for the most part Lincoln's foreign policy shop relied on diplomacy based on the principles elucidated by Washington.)

Now, after the Span-Am war is when you begin to see some policy creep, but there were a lot of factors. Through WWI you still had a relatively explicit and robust republican set of ideas at play, though you have to look in some interesting places to find it: WJ Bryan, Henry Cabot Lodge, LaFolette, Borah, Johnson of Calif., even some of the socialists associated with Debs. In relatively modern terms, I think the worm turned in orientation with Truman's admin. It's no accident that Truman was forced on FDR by the Dem party hacks (as well as with the implicit acceptance of the Stimson crowd.)

[quote]Ultimately, what I think history is about is that the world needs heroes. What is it but a "set of lies agreed upon." But I'm fine with that. Create the myths that support what you want the world to be.[/quote]

I think you can anticipate my response to this, so I won't even say it. :D

[quote]I find that I am spewing a lot of Orwell's ideas, but I do so without the horror he felt. I think he was right, but that his theories are not things to be avoided, but to be embraced. I guess that says a lot about me, for good or ill.[/quote]

Be careful about Orwell. The thing with Democratic Socialist Webb-type pinkos is that they fundamentally serve the oligarchy. And they knew that, seeing themselves as the "rowdy" members of the ruling class. Think of BJ as Sir BJ. (Sorry BJ)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 years later...

The sociology class I am taking started this movie last night (didn't finish it, got about 90 minutes in before class time ran out, had a test prior to the movie).  

I am going to read this thread after I finish watching it, but good lord, what an eye opener. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a great example of why the J&D forum is in existence. There is a nearly global perspective on world events. Just as perspectives are wide and varied, so are the cultures participating here. Kind of difficult to obtain in a local strangulated environment. This board has been an excellent source of networking ideas. I used it on a regular basis during my time at school.

A special thanks goes to Homer who always tried to give a concise answer to some pretty complex subjects.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...