The Bear's Key

The functional parts of government would know (and they do say "ineffective"). But as for ideologically-minded politicians, they usually wouldn't have a clue. As for why they'd encourage something dubious, it's possible they're compensating against market forces at work. Our type of business model depends on growth. Without it, a huge business enterprise/structure fails -- and creating a recruitment tool for jihadists might keep demand up for the businesses that get military contracts. Plus it likely also boosts demand within the politisphere in the form of votes (on increasing military action). Conceivably, it should take only a handful of people demanding continued secrecy in government to replenish the necessary variables/catalysts. Question is...would the relevant politicians and/or industry heads be that unpatriotic (and especially, monstrous)? Joint Personnel Recovery Agency http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/24/politics/washingtonpost/main4967676.shtml Daniel Baumgartner, who was the JPRA's chief of staff in 2002 and transmitted the memos and attachments, said the agency "sent a lot of cautionary notes" regarding harsh techniques. "There is a difference between what we do in training and what the administration wanted the information for..... Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said he thinks the attachment was deliberately ignored and perhaps suppressed..... "It's part of a pattern of squelching dissent..... But the JPRA's two-page attachment, titled "Operational Issues Pertaining to the Use of Physical/Psychological Coercion in Interrogation," questioned the effectiveness of employing extreme duress to gain intelligence. ........ "The requirement to obtain information from an uncooperative source as quickly as possible -- in time to prevent, for example, an impending terrorist attack that could result in loss of life -- has been forwarded as a compelling argument for the use of torture," the document said. "In essence, physical and/or psychological duress are viewed as an alternative to the more time-consuming conventional interrogation process. The error inherent in this line of thinking is the assumption that, through torture, the interrogator can extract reliable and accurate information. History and a consideration of human behavior would appear to refute this assumption." ........ The JPRA attachment said the key deficiency of physical or psychological duress is the reliability and accuracy of the information gained. "A subject in pain may provide an answer, any answer, or many answers in order to get the pain to stop," it said. In conclusion, the document said, "the application of extreme physical and/or psychological duress (torture) has some serious operational deficits, most notably the potential to result in unreliable information." The word "extreme" is underlined. @ Mr Skeptic: that article happened to echo Jon Stewart's claim.... ...the planned techniques stemmed from Chinese communist practices and had been deemed torture when employed against American personnel, the former administration official said. The U.S. military prosecuted its own troops for using waterboarding in the Philippines and tried Japanese officers on war crimes charges for its use against Americans and other allied nationals during World War II. McCain: Japanese Hanged For Waterboarding Interesting what John McCain said.... ...reminded people Thursday that some Japanese were tried and hanged for torturing American prisoners during World War II with techniques that included waterboarding. ..... "I would also hope that he would not want to be associated with a technique which was invented in the Spanish Inquisition, was used by Pol Pot in one of the great eras of genocide in history and is being used on Burmese monks as we speak," the Arizona senator said. "America is a better nation than that." Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding. ........ A towel was fixed under the chin and down over the face. Then many buckets of water were poured into the towel so that the water gradually reached the mouth and rising further eventually also the nostrils, which resulted in his becoming unconscious and collapsing like a person drowned. This procedure was sometimes repeated 5-6 times in succession. The biggest drawback I sense about official torture is a look at who practiced it (scan the above). Verification... As to the facts and sources of info: the best lead so far is Google Books which lets you search many copyrighted books (with varying limits) and many in the public domain. The Project Gutenberg collection of free eBooks (over 100,000) and public domain works might be useful too. The first set of 3 excerpts below is from 2007 (pg 519-522). The next set of 2 excerpts are from 1996 -- I wanted to include a source from before 9/11. Neither of these have definitive evidence on the specific tortures the Japanese were hanged for, but there's a plenty to learn about the culture and effectiveness of torture. From Torture and Democracy‎... Pages 1 & 2 of Hidden Horrors...

I dunno, seems to resemble more Darth Vader's head

You're entirely wrong, and missed a critical qualifier (in bold) which equalizes the reasoning of both those variables in your quote. Being against the use of torture by official means. Being OK with the potential dangers that abiding by the Constitution might bring. That doesn't mean we lie down and take the attack, it means we use our heads, intellect, creativity, technology, and every possible means within Constitutional bounds -- even if the price of not lowering our standards is danger from attack. Give up if you want, like other states less threatened by attack did in 2004 elections, but the real heroes in my eyes were the areas most likely to be terrored* having voted against the promisers of national safety, crafters of the "Patriot" Act, gutless chickenhawk politicians, and that a vote for Dems was an efective surrender to terrorists. And the other real heroes are those living in the panicked states who tried valiantly to fight against the grain and tide of fear. *(New York, California, Washington DC, plus virtually all major hubs of finance and commerce).

I answered your quote with the one by Sisyphus, then I made a comment about that last quote. Maybe it's a symptom of the frustrations that might arise, understandably so, from living deep in Bush country? Who wouldn't go mad? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Yeah, if a newscaster proclaimed that walking under the ladder is a dumb superstition, they're not going to be inundated by mass compalints and phone threats. Religion intrudes on the lives of so many people it's natural a great many are going to harbor deep resentment and go off wherever comments about religious "truth" enter the conversation. (@anyone)...However, it does play into the hands of sly religious cons. For example, it's a mistake to wield science as a battle instrument against religion, as their fight won't be against you then, but against the whole of science. Using a bit of tact goes a long way -- to ensure you're being fair and they know what exactly you're denouncing.

I'd like to find sources of evidence detailing that.

And that is how politics work...often enough. Half the U.S. government is opposed to public schools, ignores their needs -- willfully, mind you, usually by cutting funds or with half-ass efforts, laws, fixes -- and then blames public school ineffectiveness on, guess what...the public schools themselves. If you dig enough into many failures of society, you'll encounter this problem. What's needed isn't pure market or excessive government, what's needed is both smart economics and government.

Our nation's ideals and moral footing, a respectable government. If the torturer acted without official permission from government, then I agree. Otherwise, I'd have to strongly disagree. The torturer must accept a price for going to extremes. A real hero who did manage to extract critical ticking-nuke information would almost certainly receive a pardon. If the torturer erred, the price and risk is jail time. Few would be concerned about jail time if the nation was at such threat -- but only the gutless would cover up the error by lying to the nation to escape a prison sentence -- instead of admitting it. My concern is for what happens to a government infected by the "torture is OK" bug.

If religions and extreme activism both were corporations, imagine the natural advantage religion has in competion.... Worldwide entrenchment/longevity (historical roots) Missionaries preaching in the Third World A colossal enticement in promising the "Afterlife" (or if you don't listen...an eternity in Hell) A network of very widely scattered backwoods towns -- all nonetheless within quick and easy reach by them using a handy strategy.... You instruct just one top church figure, who relays it to all those scattered backwoods churches, who finally preaches onto a massive, collective flock to "vote your values" (which are suspiciously like the values preached by candidates running for office) -- and not even internet has that kind of effective reach into the Heartland and/or deeply rural areas. Sisyphus hit the nail on its poor head so accurately it shattered.

Same as the OP. Good = Separation of religion from government. Bad = Government goes beyond that, attacking religions in general. Atheism is definitely not what Pangloss said (or meant, likely). I doubt anyone can provide evidence that Sweden and Denmark have laws that specifically keep religions out at the nations' borders. I'm happy for their low-religion numbers (makes a visit there enticing), but I doubt it came about from keeping guard at the borders and prosecuting those who dare believe.

@JHAQ 24 (TV series) = Hollywood's version of torture effectiveness. 31 days = a bit like...reality? Jack Bauer wouldn't have a chance outside TV. (see also: "official lie" in bold). In any ticking bomb scenario, if the info gained turned out to be incorrect, the bomb would likely go off before the prisoner could be re-tortured. Misleading your captors is a great incentive when time is on the prisoner's side. What are they going to do to you after the bomb detonates, torture you in revenge? Give him a medal. I thought briefly about the feasibility of opening a roadside "be waterboarded" set-up, for people to try and crowds to witness. But then it occurred to me the best place would be outside the Republican National Convention, to see how many actually have the guts to make a "prove to the nation" type of statement -- if waterboarding really ain't torture. Using professional waterboarders (like on the vid), of course. Let Keith Olbermann choose the waterboarders, and I'd believe the outcome. Heck, forget that -- just use the guys from the vid and let the code/safety word or metal objects do the talking. Shall we email the challenge idea to Mr. Olbermann? KOlbermann@msnbc.com (thanks waitforufo for the many posts of his email ) Let's see how well they can endure.... I was very gently yet firmly grabbed from behind, pulled to my feet, pinioned by my wrists (which were then cuffed to a belt), and cut off from the sunlight by having a black hood pulled over my face. I was then turned around a few times, I presume to assist in disorienting me, and led over some crunchy gravel into a darkened room. Well, mainly darkened: there were some oddly spaced bright lights that came as pinpoints through my hood. And some weird music assaulted my ears. (I’m no judge of these things, but I wouldn’t have expected former Special Forces types to be so fond of New Age techno-disco.) The outside world seemed very suddenly very distant indeed. ........ You may have read by now the official lie about this treatment, which is that it “simulates” the feeling of drowning. This is not the case. You feel that you are drowning because you are drowning—or, rather, being drowned, albeit slowly and under controlled conditions and at the mercy (or otherwise) of those who are applying the pressure.....You are not being boarded. You are being watered. This was very rapidly brought home to me when, on top of the hood, which still admitted a few flashes of random and worrying strobe light to my vision, three layers of enveloping towel were added. In this pregnant darkness, head downward, I waited for a while until I abruptly felt a slow cascade of water going up my nose. Determined to resist if only for the honor of my navy ancestors who had so often been in peril on the sea, I held my breath for a while and then had to exhale and—as you might expect—inhale in turn. The inhalation brought the damp cloths tight against my nostrils, as if a huge, wet paw had been suddenly and annihilatingly clamped over my face. Unable to determine whether I was breathing in or out, and flooded more with sheer panic than with mere water, I triggered the pre-arranged signal and felt the unbelievable relief of being pulled upright and having the soaking and stifling layers pulled off me. ........ I am somewhat proud of my ability to "keep my head," as the saying goes, and to maintain presence of mind under trying circumstances. I was completely convinced that, when the water pressure had become intolerable, I had firmly uttered the pre-determined code word that would cause it to cease. But my interrogator told me that, rather to his surprise, I had not spoken a word. I had activated the "dead man’s handle" that signaled the onset of unconsciousness. So now I have to wonder about the role of false memory and delusion. What I do recall clearly, though, is a hard finger feeling for my solar plexus as the water was being poured. What was that for? "That’s to find out if you are trying to cheat, and timing your breathing to the doses. If you try that, we can outsmart you. We have all kinds of enhancements."

But its sister (or cousin?), Gliese 581 d, is just the right distance for liquid water. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090421/ap_on_sc/eu_britain_new_planet Scientists also discovered that the orbit of planet Gliese 581 d, which was found in 2007, was located within the "habitable zone" — a region around a sun-like star that would allow water to be liquid on the planet's surface, Mayor said. He spoke at a news conference Tuesday at the University of Hertfordshire during the European Week of Astronomy and Space Science. Gliese 581 d is probably too large to be made only of rocky material, fellow astronomer and team member Stephane Udry said, adding it was possible the planet had a "large and deep" ocean. "It is the first serious 'water-world' candidate," Udry said.

Good point.

It seems one has to not just know the law, but at the time of the deed, one's superiors must acknowledge that interpretation of the law (before it lands in military courts -- and hope they don't side against you)... http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/obeyingorders.htm In fact, under Article 90, during times of war, a military member who willfully disobeys a superior commissioned officer can be sentenced to death. Seems like pretty good motivation to obey any order you're given, right? Nope. These articles require the obedience of LAWFUL orders. An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders -- if the order was illegal. "I was only following orders," has been unsuccessfully used as a legal defense in hundreds of cases (probably most notably by Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg tribunals following World War II). The defense didn't work for them, nor has it worked in hundreds of cases since. ........ It's clear, under military law, that military members can be held accountable for crimes committed under the guise of "obeying orders," and there is no requirement to obey orders which are unlawful. However, here's the rub: A military member disobeys such orders at his/her own peril. Ultimately, it's not whether or not the military member thinks the order is illegal or unlawful, it's whether military superiors (and courts) think the order was illegal or unlawful. ..... So, to obey, or not to obey? It depends on the order. Military members disobey orders at their own risk. They also obey orders at their own risk. An order to commit a crime is unlawful. An order to perform a military duty, no matter how dangerous is lawful, as long as it doesn't involve commission of a crime.

Of course, household AI would be no match for industrial/government AI, if they first ran all public statements through AI to eliminate obvious holes. But the info gained by our AI -- which should eventually include the Library of Congress and many university libraries (of various nations, all translated) -- would almost certainly make it ever difficult for the BIG AI to slip one by us. http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2007/07-020.html ...the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation has awarded the Library of Congress a $2 million grant for a program to digitize thousands of public-domain works.... "‘Digitizing American Imprints’ will make a major contribution to the collective body of knowledge that is accessible worldwide, further democratizing the information that is a key to functional societies and economies," Dr. Billington said. "It is inspiring to think that one of these books, many of which are in physical jeopardy, might spark the creativity of a future scholar or ordinary citizen who otherwise might not have had access to this wealth of human understanding." ..... A significant number of books from the Library’s great collection will now be available to anyone in the world in an open, non-exclusive and non-profit setting, thus bringing the ideal of a universal digital library closer to reality." ..... Partnerships are crucial to help the Library of Congress realize our mission of acquiring and making accessible a universal repository of information in order to further human understanding and achievement.... The program has also supported the Internet Archive, the Open Content Alliance – which includes over 50 of the nation’s biggest libraries and research institutions – the New Orleans Public Library and On Demand Books. All that sweet knowledge, catalogued and faithfully retrieved by one's personal AI -- interconnected to other AIs in the world. A few might be specialized, for researchers collecting giant amounts of data like cosmic happenings, local weather fluctuations everywhere and their global interactions, natural microbe populations, etc. But certain things would be answered in real time, such as the effects on areas/crime with marijuana decriminalization or gun control, for example. Plus all historical mentions buried in texts within the mountains of books/literature as reference (digitized by the Library of Congress and many universities). Those kinds of artificial intelligence might carry a "fakey" kind of image like that of artificial grass.

Nice. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090421/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_cia The president urged the hundreds of CIA employees who gathered in a secure auditorium to ignore the recent controversy. "Don't be discouraged by what's happened the last few weeks," he said. A round of cheers erupted when CIA Director Leon Panetta introduced Obama, who quickly reassured them that they had his backing. "I know the last few days have been difficult," he said. "You need to know you've got my full support." But Obama also heard a reminder of the intense criticism his decision sparked from many in the intelligence community. Four former CIA directors and several senior agency officials opposed the release of the memos. This next bit has tones of Benjamin Franklin and Patrick Henry. He said that he understands that intelligence officials sometimes feel as if they are operating with one hand tied behind their backs. But Obama said that upholding American values and ideals in the face of those enemies is "what makes the United States special and what makes you special." A*freakin*men. Government employees have long been duped by politicians into believing their jobs are difficult only because the pesky Constitution stands in their way -- in the way of blaming lawyers and political opponents. It's a habit so ingrained that many public servants consider it wise to look for the easy way out. But they need to relearn viewing it a duty to go the one extra mile demanded by the rigors of ensuring Constitutional compliance (and safeguardng its protections). Well they should give Obama a healthy dose of credit for releasing the info. And the employees were simply doing their jobs, even if some probably did fall victim to enjoying it. But I'm more interested in exposure than prosecution. All of the Bush Gang's actions must be exposed. To quote the right-winged, they have nothing to fear if they've done no wrong -- especially if no prosecution is forthcoming (although votes won't be either).

Not quite. Our research skills are quite limited. AI can scan the entire network of Mexican AIs for more concrete info, plus the AI from Mexico could've identified the source in real time. Plus all the skewed facts/figures that later were identified by FactCheck's simple research could've instead been debunked in real time by AI. In government debates, no one wants to (or can) sift over tons of data while making arguments. Thus if your opponent hasn't memorized a particular bit of fact, it's easy to mislead. But AI can likely do searches at Google speed. Before the end of a Congressional hearing, the AI would've pinpointed all the discrepencies and list them neatly in a chart (with highlights too). The AI would be more able to pinpoint fallacies in real time, and sound off a buzzer when a politician commits one.

....to exist in our homes? Pure, unadulterated AI? A machine never forgets and would be able to do instant/extensive research, so the power brokers couldn't any longer falsify everyday reality. The public would know exactly, and immediately, the unfiltered details of events anywhere in the world, by communicating with other AI. Thus media reports couldn't be twisted so easily by the unscrupulous. Plus, AI might learn how to unravel secrets of national security, and how to reverse-engineer ultra weapons just by looking at their shape and effects of use. Maybe it's something to consider ahead of time

At the link below are two vids on the sidebar.... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30273330 Obama: No trials over CIA's harsh tactics April 16: The Justice Department Thursday released memos from the Bush administration that authorized the CIA to use harsh interrogation methods against suspected terrorists, but the Obama administration said CIA staffers won't be tried for "mistakes of the past." NBC's Pete Williams reports. Obama in hot seat for torture memos April 17: Former Bush officials are accusing President Barack Obama of weakening national security by releasing the torture memos, even though he decided to give immunity to any CIA interrogators involved in these practices. Constitutional law Prof. Jonathan Turley discusses.

Not sure if most people had branded themselves as diehard Republicans, or just said they'd absolutely never vote Democrat. Either way, a few diehard Republicans had changed party affiliation to Libertarian in 2005-2006. They easily swallowed the *conservatism* pill by Republicans, then abandoned it, but only to swallow the conservatism pill offered by Libertarians. During 2006-2008 I would point out (in conversation to Republicans) how the separation of powers is threatened when a single party has control of all branches of government -- by using the incoming possibility of a Dems majority government to illustrate the folly of seeking a permanent majority. Whenever I'd state that both Parties needed a deep cut in power, they'd insist all that's needed is for the Dems to go bye-bye. For every Democratic voter recounting to me how the Palin/Biden debate was fairly even, I'd hear Republican voters insisting she whooped Biden, hands down. Even the one Dems voter, after I pointed this out, had to admit the seeming discrepancy. What's most troubling is how the Republican/conservative base, after their profound error on Bush -- his policies defended with a tenacity bordering on fanaticism -- still expects us to view them as experts on what's best for us all. I'm willing to bet, more Dems (than Republicans/conservatives) would like either for all parties to be done away with, or for there to be more than just the two-party system (with national umph, at least). That older party is now called the Democratic-Republicans, as you likely well know (but others might not).

And try getting a job in Europe if you don't have the required permit. So much for Europe being a "liberal" wasteland (..speaking of reporting bias and politicized statements) Well, there's England.

If the previous administration were involved, then perhaps the money hadn't flown out the window. And considering Texas is the home base for Karl Rove & crew's schemes/operations, and they're now back home during intermission, might the Texas politicians in reality be upset about this?.... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30277540 Obama vows to cut dozens of federal programs 'There will be no sacred cows,' president says as he targets inefficiency President Barack Obama said on Saturday he would soon announce the elimination of dozens of government programs as part of a broad effort to restore fiscal accountability to the federal budget.

Reread my posts a bit more carefully, you'll see I didn't say the protestors were complaining about representation. I pointed out how it wasn't about that. So far, we're in agreement -- except that when I pointed out the folly of using tea bags (as the modern protest isn't about representation), you somehow perceived me accusing them of false pretext. No, I just meant it's either silly or ignorance. Thus the reason I wrote.... Slapped by a full-detail history lesson, they might come to realize: never did the event planners say "No Taxation 'Cause We don't Wanna Pay" See, no one is arguing the modern protest wants representation. (except for DC maybe) You've been countering against a personal error of your misperception, and not to what I really said. Then let's hear such kind words for the "liberal" media, "conservative" pundits, Hollywood, religious cons, lawyers, etc. They've done a bang up job of marketing and selling the hell out every twisted fact and/or political view, simply for mad $$ and regardless if they even believe their own garbage/hype. Neither of us can show evidence of the best way, however, global trends do exist showing what usually occurs when certain variables are present in a system. Anyway, I disagree. It takes smart work, but it's hard regardless unless you're going to depend on luck. In that case, might as well depend on the lotto as your path to success. Again, you're rebutting a personal misperception, and not what I said..... A lot of big players accumulate wealth mostly by knowing how to play the system, rather than by pure hard work, ingenuity, and talent People see an injustice of the power brokers setting up things so the richest 1% in the U.S. is richer than the lower 90% of people's combined wealth Not to mention....the power brokers hijack our government with a flood of lobbyists. Nothing wrong in being rich, fabulously wealthy. Yet they can only be so within the safe confines of a system paid into by all. That system favors keeping 1% richer than the lower 90% due to their playing the system...at our expense. If 25-30% were richer than only the lower 50%, it'd be a far different, healthier society. I'm very pro-business (yet more pro-citizen) and wouldn't tolerate forced sharing. My proposals are mainly for system changes that weaken the loopholes of unethical "business" cartels, and I don't propose to force wealth redistribution. But if you think everything's being done legit on the power brokers' end, and the 1% > 90% is the result of simple, honest business practices, you have a bit more educating to give yourself, perhaps. My error. I'm not here to judge particular shows. It's actually not that bad, just wouldn't TiVo it myself Yet it does make certain people happy. My point was that your labeling the other classes of wealth as underachievers is counterproductive. If they all did in fact elevate themselves to "high class", we'd be left with all companies/businesses and few workers. So, the mindless radio you shut off in digust is actually good for your status quo -- plus there's a huge audience for the inane drivel, the result of their awesome bang up job of marketing and selling the hell out of collective mindrot. Next time you'd complain how stupid people (if you ever do complain about them) might be so frustrating or perhaps need to be *fill in _____ the blank* just remember and smile with pride: it's the effects of "ingenuity" at work. You know, ads/products that lie, empty your wallet, and make brainless lifestyles enticing. Thus for the sake of individual liberty, give the people responsible a tax break. It's much overdue and deserved.

Nope. From my post... Boston Tea Party? If only the modern "conservatives" would meet the older Tea Party era of Founding Fathers, they might be vocally informed/reminded of the Boston Tea Party's main goal.... I'm saying you both things couldn't be any more different. Like you said. But you might agree the tea bag's imagery has enough symbolic umph to be misinterpreted easily. Heck -- Washington, DC should put tea bags on their license plates, it'd be more relevant to their cause. But the right-wingies are pricks for stealing the tea bag mailings idea, regardless. I care if any bill hasn't been read, as stated in a previous thread.... ...and I do offer solutions, rather than just pinpoint what's broken. You're missing a sense of perspective, maybe. The rich would ever rarely attain material success if all the less well-off people consisted of top notch achievers and performers. But if you think a lot of big players don't accumulate wealth mostly by knowing how to play the system, rather than by pure hard work, ingenuity, and talent -- also, if you belive the free market always gives us exactly what society needs -- then let me bring up a post you just made to refresh... Where in there do we see pure hard work, ingenuity, and talent? Some childish people might, wrongly, feel the rich deserve to be taxed more....just because it's not going to make a dent in their wealth, and/or because "they just deseve it" -- however, a lot more people see an injustice of the power brokers setting up things so the richest 1% in the U.S. is richer than the lower 90% of people's combined wealth. Not to mention how the power brokers hijack our government with a flood of lobbyists. The stream of mindless commercials, garbage products, studid fads, Amercian Idol, bad music, which helps the $$ flow to the richest, also helps keep many of the consumers from over-achieving. They're only asking the richest 1% pay a bit more to for the dandy $$-raking system that's mostly funneling the nation's $$ into the fewest pockets. Nothing wrong in being rich, fabulously wealthy. I like that people can do it. Yet if not for this nation or system of government, which belongs to us (not the companies), they'd have to do it elsewhere, and work much harder. They do owe to fund the system, which is set up to benefit them the most. If 20-35% were only richer than the lower 50%, it'd be a far different, healthier society. Until then, I'd not cry for the whiners sitting on the biggest pile of $$ imaginable.

Shall we take the lack of replies to the above as there being no validity to it?

Boston Tea Party? If only the modern "conservatives" would meet the older Tea Party era of Founding Fathers, they might be vocally informed/reminded of the Boston Tea Party's main goal.... No taxation without representaion. Slapped by a full-detail history lesson, they might come to realize: never did the event planners say "No Taxation 'Cause We don't Wanna Pay". And they might be scolded about neglecting a duty to fund the system with resources necessary to keep established a Government by the People, For the People. Then, after the scolding, our nation's forefathers might continue.... Anyone who'd preach such neglect might be thinking to remove your freedom by getting you to accept weak logic. Now, responsible spending by the government is essential -- thus you'll need to monitor waste, corruption, and budget trickery. And finally, you'll want to beware secrecy in government: it's the only way they'd be able to escape notice in wasting your much hard-earned tax money. Would the time voyagers heed the lesson and wisdom imparted by our forefathers? Stay tuned... P.S. Also, did the voyagers learn that merchants back in the birth of our nation had already fought the battle against a central government, and lost it? Well I'm not sure how long (or if) the voyagers had stuck around to explore the original 13 states. You gotta ask them. P.P.S. When researching some of our nation's early mixed views, I see that perhaps government isn't necessarily too big....it just might've overstepped some bounds. And I think we're able to reach a compromise, for the two views to be reconciled. There are merits to in both the original schools of thought. http://history-world.org/history_of_the_united_states2.htm In the Revolution, most locals had served in militias rather than in the national army, and they preserved a localist, rather than nationalist, view of politics. They also preserved a distrust of any government not subject to direct oversight by citizens. ..... In September 1786 delegates from several states met at Annapolis, Maryland, to discuss ways to improve American trade. They decided instead, with the backing of the Confederation Congress, to call a national convention to discuss ways of strengthening the Union. In May 1787, 55 delegates (representing every state but Rhode Island, whose legislature had voted not to send a delegation) convened in Philadelphia and drew up a new Constitution of the United States. ..... Thus the Constitution carefully separated and defined the powers of the three branches of the national government and of the national and state governments. It established checks and balances between the branches—and put it all in writing. The stated purpose of the document was to make a strong national government that could never become tyrannical. ..... The Confederation Congress sent the completed Constitution out for ratification by state conventions elected for that purpose—and not by state legislatures, many of which were hostile to the new document. Thus the Constitution—which began "We the people"—created a government with the people, and not the state legislatures, as the constituent power. ..... Opponents of the Constitution, who called themselves Anti–Federalists, were locals who feared a strong national government that would be run by educated and wealthy cosmopolitans who operated far away from most citizens. They were particularly distrustful of a Constitution that lacked a bill of rights protecting citizens from government attacks on their liberties. ..... The new national government was dominated by men who had led the movement for the Constitution, most of whom called themselves Federalists. They were committed to making an authoritative and stable national state. This became clear early on when President Washington asked Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton to offer solutions to the problems of the national debt and government finances. Hamilton proposed that the federal government assume the revolutionary war debts of the states and combine them with the debt of the United States into one national debt. The federal government would pay off the parts of the debt that were owed to foreigners, thus establishing the international credit of the new government. ..... Hamilton’s measures promised to stabilize government finances and to establish the government’s reputation internationally and its authority in every corner of the republic. They would also dramatically centralize power in the national government. Many citizens and members of Congress distrusted Hamilton’s plans. The assumption of state debts, the funding of the national debt, and stock sales for the Bank of the United States would reward commercial interests, nearly all of them from the Northeast, who invested in the bank and the bonds to pay the debt. Also, establishment of the bank required Congress to use the clause in the Constitution that empowers the legislature "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper" to carry out its specified powers—a clause that some feared might allow Congress to do anything it wanted. ..... Jefferson became the leader of a group that called themselves Democratic Republicans. They wanted the United States to remain a republic of the small, property-holding farmers who, they believed, were its most trustworthy citizens. Democratic Republicans envisioned a central government that was strong enough to protect property but not strong or active enough to threaten property or other republican rights. ..... The Jeffersonians then abolished federal taxes other than the tariff, reduced the number of government employees, and drastically reduced the size of the military. They did, however, retain the Bank of the United States. Internationally, the Jeffersonians had no ambitions other than free trade—the right of Americans to trade the produce of their plantations and farms for finished goods from other countries.