According to James Bamford in his book on the NSA "The Puzzle Palace," back in the 70's the NSA was disposing of 20 tons a day of printouts from phone conversations. According to him, the NSA had machines monitoring phone calls and if a trigger word was used a printout was made and an analyst checked it over.
Thank you for the glimpse into the complexities. Don't forget that Clinton's involvement in Somalia has pretty much become the poster child for how not to get involved in a conflict...
In the age of information, freedom of information becomes critical. The old way of doing things is becoming obsolete and without freedom of information, human development will be stifled. Swartz was perceptive enough to understand this and courageous enough to pursue it.
Mr Cole I don't always agree with your perspective, but I do appreciate your thoughtful awareness and your keen eye for the significant. You have become an important part of my information system; it's obvious you are well traveled and well read - thank you.
HQUAIN, you are correct that the war was won by a professional army. However, it was the militias that started the revolt. Without taking that imperfect first step there could have been no eventual victory. It is that armed intolerance for tyranny that was so significant to our founders. The debatable part to me is that we do have an armed populace, but I'm not so sure there is an intolerance for tyranny when it's encroachment is gradual and subtle.
The historical context of the second amendment was of a bunch of ragtag farmers with rifles against the professional army of the British. It is well documented that Washington had a problem with troops sneaking away for harvest. You have to ignore the context and just about everything else our founders said to interpret the second amendment for disarmament when our founders clearly believed in an armed populace as a bulwark against tyranny. Whether that kind of bulwark is still valid against todays professional military forces is debatable. I believe our founders wanted to instill an intolerance of tyranny, but in recent years I have begun to wonder if they failed...
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
According to James Bamford in his book on the NSA "The Puzzle Palace," back in the 70's the NSA was disposing of 20 tons a day of printouts from phone conversations. According to him, the NSA had machines monitoring phone calls and if a trigger word was used a printout was made and an analyst checked it over.
Thank you for the glimpse into the complexities. Don't forget that Clinton's involvement in Somalia has pretty much become the poster child for how not to get involved in a conflict...
Aren't google books and project Gutenberg similar in scope to JSTOR and yet don't cost anything?
In the age of information, freedom of information becomes critical. The old way of doing things is becoming obsolete and without freedom of information, human development will be stifled. Swartz was perceptive enough to understand this and courageous enough to pursue it.
Mr Cole I don't always agree with your perspective, but I do appreciate your thoughtful awareness and your keen eye for the significant. You have become an important part of my information system; it's obvious you are well traveled and well read - thank you.
HQUAIN, you are correct that the war was won by a professional army. However, it was the militias that started the revolt. Without taking that imperfect first step there could have been no eventual victory. It is that armed intolerance for tyranny that was so significant to our founders. The debatable part to me is that we do have an armed populace, but I'm not so sure there is an intolerance for tyranny when it's encroachment is gradual and subtle.
I just said it was debatable as a bulwark against tyranny; I still believe in an armed populace precisely because of scenarios like you mentioned.
The historical context of the second amendment was of a bunch of ragtag farmers with rifles against the professional army of the British. It is well documented that Washington had a problem with troops sneaking away for harvest. You have to ignore the context and just about everything else our founders said to interpret the second amendment for disarmament when our founders clearly believed in an armed populace as a bulwark against tyranny. Whether that kind of bulwark is still valid against todays professional military forces is debatable. I believe our founders wanted to instill an intolerance of tyranny, but in recent years I have begun to wonder if they failed...