McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

PurduesUSAFguy · 2005-02-02 11:39:15

Not to nit-pick but I hate the word McCarthyism, since the entire McCarthy era was revisionist history run rampant.

The Hollywood hearings were run by HUAC, the HOUSE unAmerican Activities Commision...McCarthy was a senator and never even attended one.

The people who McCarthy accussed of being Communists and traitors have now been proven to have been so by declassified documents on both sides of the Iron curtain, Alger Hiss, the Julius and Ethel Rosenburg, and many other members of the state department. I'm not going to get on a Rant here but McCarthy should be considered a hero of the cold war, not the personification of a witch hunt.

On to the point of your question, I am very concerned about high schoolers not caring about first (or second for that matter) amendment rights, I don't think that the bill of rights is nearly emphasised enough in schools.

BWhite · 2005-02-02 11:46:10

http://www.cygneis.com/anastaplo/intro.htm]George Anastaplo was booted out by three tyrannical regimes for daring to speak the truth:

The nation of Greece for daring to criticize the military officers after their junta;

The Soviet Union for speaking too honestly on a trip to Moscow;

And the Illinois State Bar Association for refusing to sign a paper saying he was not a Communist. For the record, he is most definitely NOT a communist.

:;):

= = =

He took his case to the US Supreme Court, by himself, and was rewarded with an eloquent dissent by Justice Hugo Black.

Today, he teaches constitutional law at Loyola University in Chicago but has refused to accetp admission into the Illinois Bar, despite resolutions apologizing for the McCarthy era miscarriage of justice.

= = =

http://www.cygneis.com/anastaplo/about/tribune.htm]His story

Anastaplo, incidentally, was not a communist. He was not a card-carrying member of anything, not even the public library. "I'm not much of a joiner," he says.
"It was perfectly obvious George was much too independent a mind and character to be affiliated with any party, and certainly not one as doctrinaire as the Communist Party," says Mikva.

Edited By BWhite on 1107367060

clark · 2005-02-02 11:55:02

McCarthy was condemned by his fellow senators 67 to 22, on December 2, 1954.

McCarthy was a Senate sub-comittee chairman. He used his position to hold well publicized investigations of sensational accusations, without proof.

Your hero is a zero. But I'll let you have the last say.

BWhite · 2005-02-02 13:13:03

http://www.cygneis.com/anastaplo/collec … ]Anastaplo on McCarthy:

The challenge to which this meeting is primarily directed was that posed by the Cold War, particularly the effects upon life in the United States of that somewhat paranoid campaign which came to be known as "McCarthyism." (I myself never liked the term "McCarthyism," in part because it made too much of the aberrations of a Wisconsin opportunist who was soon in beyond his depth.) That paranoid campaign seems to have raised the price paid, especially in Vietnam, by the United States in its understandable opposition to perceived threats from the Soviet Union and Stalinism.

I had forgotten how brilliant this man truly is.

Thank you, Purdue, for inducing me to look him up again.

= = =

I have had a curious relation with the University of Chicago since I first crossed swords with its Law School Dean in 1950. (One consequence is that I never attend Law School class reunions. On the other hand, the Special Collections Department of the University Library has requested and acquired from me a substantial amount of my papers.) I have been permitted, for some forty years now, to conduct adult-education seminars downtown for the University. But I have never been permitted to teach on this campus, with one exception: in the late 1950s I was taken on for one of the Common Core Social Sciences courses in the College, and even met my class for one hour, during which we began a discussion of the first reading in the course, which happened to be the Declaration of Independence; but before the second meeting, I was informed by an embarrassed course chairman that difficulties had developed with my appointment and that my class would have to be taken over by someone else.

Edited By BWhite on 1107371948

BWhite · 2005-02-02 13:29:25

From Hugo Black's dissent:

The personal history form thus did not contain so much as one statement of fact about Anastaplo's past life or conduct that could have, in any way, cast doubt upon his fitness for admission to the Bar. It did, however, contain [366 U.S. 82, 99] a statement of opinion which, in the minds of some of the members of the Committee at least, did cast such doubt and in that way served to touch off this controversy. This was a statement made by Anastaplo in response to the command of the personal history form: "State what you consider to be the principles underlying (a) the Constitution of the United States." Anastaplo's response to that command was as follows:

"One principle consists of the doctrine of the separation of powers; thus, among the Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary are distributed various functions and powers in a manner designed to provide for a balance of power, thereby intending to prevent totally unrestrained action by any one branch of government. Another basic principle (and the most important) is that such government is constituted so as to secure certain inalienable rights, those rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (and elements of these rights are explicitly set forth in such parts of the Constitution as the Bill of Rights.). And, of course, whenever the particular government in power becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and thereupon to establish a new government. This is how I view the Constitution." (Emphasis supplied.)

What we are doing in Gitmo and to Padilla is morally wrong; undermines the principles of our Nation and hinders our fight against radical Islam.

For a US Senator to say that LOUDLY from the floor of the US Congress is the very essence of what it means to be an American.

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-02 13:37:04

What we are doing in Gitmo and to Padilla is morally wrong; undermines the principles of our Nation and hinders our fight against radical Islam.
For a US Senator to say that LOUDLY from the floor of the US Congress is the very essence of what it means to be an American.

Only if they truly mean it. Always, even when it cuts their own perversions of the Constitution as well.

As that is not forthcoming, I remain convinced that we cannot fix the system by working strictly within the system.

BWhite · 2005-02-02 13:44:05

What we are doing in Gitmo and to Padilla is morally wrong; undermines the principles of our Nation and hinders our fight against radical Islam.
For a US Senator to say that LOUDLY from the floor of the US Congress is the very essence of what it means to be an American.
Only if they truly mean it. Always, even when it cuts their own perversions of the Constitution as well.
As that is not forthcoming, I remain convinced that we cannot fix the system by working strictly within the system.

Yup. This is what we need to talk about.

I continue to believe Bill and Cobra as equal pro-consul, each with veto power over the other, would do a damn fine job of running America.

But we'd both need food tasters!

Palomar · 2005-02-02 13:48:29

I continue to believe Bill and Cobra as equal pro-consul, each with veto power over the other, would do a damn fine job of running America.

*That'd be interesting.

Considering how some (a lot, most?) of your viewpoints are diametrically opposed...(no offense to anyone).

Will withhold other comments, other than to say I know who'd get -my- vote.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-02 13:49:41

I continue to believe Bill and Cobra as equal pro-consul, each with veto power over the other, would do a damn fine job of running America.
But we'd both need food tasters!

If it governs best which governs least I'd imagine we'd govern exceptionally, spending most of the time vetoing each other.

BWhite · 2005-02-02 14:12:33

I continue to believe Bill and Cobra as equal pro-consul, each with veto power over the other, would do a damn fine job of running America.
*That'd be interesting.
Considering how some (a lot, most?) of your viewpoints are diametrically opposed...(no offense to anyone).
Will withhold other comments, other than to say I know who'd get -my- vote.
--Cindy

IMHO, Cobra and I think very much alike, and we may share more values in common than it appears.

That said, I believe we see the world very differently - - differing sets of data inputs will result in opposite conclusions despite similar methods of analysis.

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-02 14:21:38

That said, I believe we see the world very differently - - differing sets of data inputs will result in opposite conclusions despite similar methods of analysis.

Or perhaps more to the point I think we usually want essentially the same thing, we just have very different ideas on how best to achieve it sometimes.

It's opposition of means rather than ends for the most part. With notable exceptions, I'm sure.

But then the means to an end can be almost as important as the end itself, so debate and attempts to circumvent the food tasters must continue.

BWhite · 2005-02-02 14:30:00

That said, I believe we see the world very differently - - differing sets of data inputs will result in opposite conclusions despite similar methods of analysis.
Or perhaps more to the point I think we usually want essentially the same thing, we just have very different ideas on how best to achieve it sometimes.
It's opposition of means rather than ends for the most part. With notable exceptions, I'm sure.
But then the means to an end can be almost as important as the end itself, so debate and attempts to circumvent the food tasters must continue.

If we were Senators, our base would villify us both for "consorting with the enemy" no? That said, I will freely buy the beer at the next convention.

Our space settlement views are largely consistent, if I recall correctly.

Edited By BWhite on 1107376221

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-02 14:36:04

If we were Senators, our base would villify us both for "consorting with the enemy" no? That said, I will freely buy the beer at the next convention.

Well, my Blackshirt base would, but the Greyshirt base isn't quite sure where the line is.

Our space settlement views are largely consistent, if I recall correctly.

I think I have a somewhat more blatant disregard for existing treaties and the consequences of shredding them, but other than that...

C M Edwards · 2005-02-02 15:05:45

My, my, all of this hand wringing about rights...

I'm not surprised by the reaction of high school students in that recently cited poll about the First Amendment. If high school students were afforded first amendment rights, maybe they would be concerned about them.

But they are not. The US supreme court has repeatedly ruled that minors do not have the same rights under the first amendment as other citizens. The justices have been pretty clear about our kids and the US constitution's fourth amendment, too.

So why worry? Just follow the lead of your elders.

As for the second amendment being about the ability to resist and/or overthrow the government, that's a bunch of hogwash. The second amendment is about militias, not guns, not insurrection. Legally, it's a cornerstone of the implied right to police protection.

We pretty much surrendered the "arms" a century ago in order to have police backup instead.

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-02 15:17:15

I'm not surprised by the reaction of high school students in that recently cited poll about the First Amendment. If high school students were afforded first amendment rights, maybe they would be concerned about them.

I think I said as much this morning, they aren't taught much about the history of their rights and they can't properly exercise them, is then any wonder that they don't understand or value them to the degree they should?

As for the second amendment being about the ability to resist and/or overthrow the government, that's a bunch of hogwash. The second amendment is about militias, not guns, not insurrection. Legally, it's a cornerstone of the implied right to police protection.

Hogwash?
I hate to have to get into this again but that's just not right. At the time "militia" was understood to mean the entire able-bodied male adult population. The people were the militia, this is clear in the writings of the period. It refers to the right of individuals (which is why it appears in a list of individual rights) to possess the means to protect themselves from anyone that would threaten their life and liberty, including their own government. It has nothing to do with the National Guard or police.

And as for "implied right to police protection", it doesn't exist. Numerous court cases have ruled as much. One example, plenty more if you dig:

It is a fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).

Wash that hog.

BWhite · 2005-02-02 16:00:37

Our space settlement views are largely consistent, if I recall correctly.
I think I have a somewhat more blatant disregard for existing treaties and the consequences of shredding them, but other than that...

I suppose so.

I would rather circumvent those same treaties while maintaining a plausible argument that we have done nothing of the sort.

Funding a Mormon settlement on Mars (filled with Mountain-West US patriots) allows the US to establish a colony and simultaneously tell the whole world, "Nope its not our colony. . ."

Don't pick needless fights merely for the principle of it all. . .

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-02 16:06:57

I would rather circumvent those same treaties while maintaining a plausible argument that we have done nothing of the sort.

Which is essentially what I proposed some time ago, though not fully formulated in its original presented form.

Another point of agreement then.

BWhite · 2005-02-02 16:29:49

I would rather circumvent those same treaties while maintaining a plausible argument that we have done nothing of the sort.
Which is essentially what I proposed some time ago, though not fully formulated in its original presented form.
Another point of agreement then.

Which is why I say "continue kissing the UN's butt" unless or until we hold cards sufficient to "run the table" - - talking tough is foolish unless we can follow through and right now Soyuz (and China's "son of Soyuz") is the only operational Earth to LEO platform.

= = =

I have a draft article in process:

Oh Lord, won't ya buy us a Mercedes RLV;
Our rivals fly Soyuz, we're filled with en-vee.

Edited By BWhite on 1107383455

ERRORIST · 2005-02-02 16:33:25

"We pretty much surrendered the "arms" a century ago in order to have police backup instead."

Not me I am armed to the hilt. In fact we need to hand out 357s to all airline passengers before they board the plane. This would put an end to all hijackings.Make them strong enough to kill but not strong enough to go through the fuselage or windows.

Euler · 2005-02-02 16:54:45

2nd amendment:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It certainly appears to be talking about the National Guard. I don't think that it is intended to be pro-terrorist.

ERRORIST · 2005-02-02 17:07:07

"2nd amendment:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

How dare they infringe on my right to carry arms on aircraft???
How else am I to protect myself on airplanes? I think I am going to sue them!!!!!!!

BWhite · 2005-02-02 17:23:50

Intuition tells me ERRORIST is an alter ego of someone else we know and love, here at New Mars.

I am not saying this for sure, its just a hunch.

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-02 17:27:15

Which is why I say "continue kissing the UN's butt" unless or until we hold cards sufficient to "run the table" - - talking tough is foolish unless we can follow through and right now Soyuz (and China's "son of Soyuz") is the only operational Earth to LEO platform.

I wouldn't say go so far as to "kiss the UN's butt", rather just refrain from actively crushing them.

And speed up our developments according to a much more defined plan than is currently on the table.

2nd amendment:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It certainly appears to be talking about the National Guard. I don't think that it is intended to be pro-terrorist.

Pro-terrorist how exactly?

As for the national Guard interpretation, it's a common myth, a sort of McCarthyism of the Left. Only other writings from the period, the writings of the Founders themselves, the Amendment's placement in the Bill of Rights with the use of the term "the people" and numerous court rulings refute this interpretation. Add on top of that the fact that police are neither capable of protecting anyone before a crime is committed nor do they have a duty to do so and this entire perversion of the Second Amendment is not only logically indefensible but morally reprehensible. To deny people the means to protect themselves then not provide that defense by other means forces citizens to choose between endangering themselves at the hands of criminals or becoming criminals themselves by violating the unjust law and in the process undermines the government and makes it a force against the people. Find out how to assign every American an armed guard and it's a valid, if screwy position, otherwise it's complete nonsense.

Euler · 2005-02-02 17:43:33

Pro-terrorist how exactly?

What else do you call a bunch of armed militants trying to overthrow the government?

As for the national Guard interpretation, it's a common myth, a sort of McCarthyism of the Left. Only other writings from the period, the writings of the Founders themselves, the Amendment's placement in the Bill of Rights with the use of the term "the people" and numerous court rulings refute this interpretation.

There are also numerous court rulings that support that interpretation. It also makes sense since the National Guard is the only well regulated militia that I know of which has an important role in national security.

Add on top of that the fact that police are neither capable of protecting anyone before a crime is committed nor do they have a duty to do so and this entire perversion of the Second Amendment is not only logically indefensible but morally reprehensible. To deny people the means to protect themselves then not provide that defense by other means forces citizens to choose between endangering themselves at the hands of criminals or becoming criminals themselves by violating the unjust law and in the process undermines the government and makes it a force against the people. Find out how to assign every American an armed guard and it's a valid, if screwy position, otherwise it's complete nonsense.

The problem is that every time you give people better weapons to defend themselves, you are also giving other people better weapons to attack them with. If you let people have whatever weapons they want, then you will end up with an arms race that the criminals will win.

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-02 17:54:51

What else do you call a bunch of armed militants trying to overthrow the government?

It depends on why they're doing it. Sometimes it's justified, the fact that we're even discussing the US Constitution should attest to that.

There are also numerous court rulings that support that interpretation. It also makes sense since the National Guard is the only well regulated militia that I know of which has an important role in national security.

A few lower court rulings and a National Guard=only approved militia interpretation don't stack up well against everything supporting the other interpretation. You have a logical, scientific mind, you know this. :;):

But perhaps it rests on the idea that the Amendment is about national security, which is really only part of it.

The problem is that every time you give people better weapons to defend themselves, you are also giving other people better weapons to attack them with. If you let people have whatever weapons they want, then you will end up with an arms race that the criminals will win.

Criminal use of firearms overwhelmingly involve handguns. Semi-automatic pistols. They're easy to conceal and carry, reliable, simple to operate.

Most use of firearms for self defense, also handguns for the same reasons. Semi-automatic pistol design hasn't changed much in the last century. There is no arms race. Even if plasma cannons were available the choice of weapon for criminal and law-abiding citizen alike will remain semi-automatic handguns.

And the criminals always get theirs regardless of the laws in place, being that they're criminals.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2005-02-02 11:39:15

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#52 2005-02-02 11:46:10

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#53 2005-02-02 11:55:02

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#54 2005-02-02 13:13:03

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#55 2005-02-02 13:29:25

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#56 2005-02-02 13:37:04

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#57 2005-02-02 13:44:05

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#58 2005-02-02 13:48:29

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#59 2005-02-02 13:49:41

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#60 2005-02-02 14:12:33

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#61 2005-02-02 14:21:38

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#62 2005-02-02 14:30:00

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#63 2005-02-02 14:36:04

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#64 2005-02-02 15:05:45

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#65 2005-02-02 15:17:15

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#66 2005-02-02 16:00:37

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#67 2005-02-02 16:06:57

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#68 2005-02-02 16:29:49

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#69 2005-02-02 16:33:25

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#70 2005-02-02 16:54:45

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#71 2005-02-02 17:07:07

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#72 2005-02-02 17:23:50

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#73 2005-02-02 17:27:15

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#74 2005-02-02 17:43:33

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

#75 2005-02-02 17:54:51

Re: McCarthyism - ...will it rise again?

Board footer