Danziger Bridge officers sentenced: 7 to 12 years for shooters, cop in cover-up gets 3

LTC Yinon Weiss - Major; I agree with you completely.

However that doesn't mean that there aren't those who will try to justify murders as "just doing their jobs under dangerous conditions".

COL Ted Mc - I personally reject your premise that "The Founding Fathers were big on making sure that ‘The Right People’ (read as ‘us and those like us’) maintained control of the reins of government BUT they were equally opposed to 'Adult Leadership'." Nothing could be further from the truth than that.

If you study the Declaration of Independence" and the "Constitution" with all its amendments within the context of the "Federalist Papers" I would hope you may see our “Founding Fathers” were attempting to build balance into our system of governance. As a "representative republic" the balance they struck was between "mob rule" vs. "elitism” and “state rights" vs powerful all-controlling central federal government. They also tried to map out the roles/responsibilities of the various levels and branches of government the better maintain the checks and balances they devised. All this has been weakened and possibly destroyed over the last seven years by highly questionable (if not counter-constitutional) acts of this current administration and the RINOs in congress not calling them into account.

Now keep in mind that the 18th century Americans studied history to know the cycles of great nations and for the best principles, institutional structures and methods/practices of good governance. They knew full well the balance between extremes and as in any human endeavor that is very elusive. Today, most historians, journalist, and average readers are immersed in the psychological and emotional. That is they want to know how some historical figure “felt” and what was his emotional state. They want to know how the death of his mother at an early age or some other emotional impacted their world view and decision making.

This distinction of how history is viewed is significant. It is used to justify a more flexible and manipulated approach to interpreting the constitution vs. a moral/principled one. It opens the door for activist judges making laws from the bench vs applying existing laws. This of course leads to the slow but persistent erosion of our basic rights and liberties. That is why we need to go beyond "right/left" rejections of ideas and ideals, if only because it requires what is not being taught in a schools and universities....critical thinking. Many of the so called "educated" coming out of today's institutions were taught "what to think" and not "how to think." There is a profound difference and the intellectual honesty required to truly think critically may no longer be possible given today's educational and social climate.

When I have been asked to mentor for a year a "problem" junior officer (you know one with a five year obligation but could give a sh!& attitude) , sometime during my first few sessions I almost always end up assigning them to read is "Critical Thinking" by Richard Paul & Linda Elder. Over the next three to five weeks we cover most of that book with an emphases on chapter 12 (Developing as an Ethical "Reasoner") and the last two chapters on "Strategic Thinking." While no two mentorees are alike, the process of developing critical thinking after a lifetime of indoctrination is enlightening...for me as well as them. My point in sharing this is that we to take a step back and look at how and why we think. The tools are out there but they are not being taught much less being used.

Now, logic is a factor in critical thinking, but as "Mr. Spock" pointed out in one Star Trek movie, "Jim, I have learned that there are limits to pure logic because some things in nature defy logic, particularly when involving humans."

This year and this election will be a pivotal point in our history as a nation.

LTC Thomas Tennant - Colonel; When looking at what the Founding Fathers "Originally Intended" it is just as important to look at what they DID as it is to look at what they SAID.

The Founding Fathers TALKED a fine egalitarian game, but the government structure that they set up ACTUALLY favoured the same class as had been running things before the American Revolution - just a different sub-set of that class.

"The People" had no actual say in the selection of Senators - but "The Natural Governing Class" most certainly did (until some "activist judges" inter-meddled).

"The People" had no actual say in the selection of Electors - but "The Natural Governing Class" most certainly did (until some "activist judges" inter-meddled).

"The People" had no actual say in the selection of federal judges - but "The Natural Governing Class" most certainly did (until some "activist judges" inter-meddled).

That being said, the Founding Fathers DID set up the basis for "The American Ideal" by using it for the basis of the "revolutionary rhetoric" that they used to garner support for the American Revolution (and that applies REGARDLESS of whether they intended to or not).

COL Ted Mc -
No, you missed the point and you are beginning to sound like a revisionist historian. To best study history you have to make it contextual. The American Revolution came about because of the oppression of Britain on all colonists and not just the rich. The farmer and merchant alike were being hurt by King George and his insanity. The British view of all Americans was that of serfs vs Crown Citizens.

After the Revolution, the Articles of the Confederation became a complete disaster because the states were being pitted against each other and they realized something had to be done. They also saw what happen when mob rule was the governing political philosophy because the French Revolution was happening at the time the Constitution was being written. Again, we in the 21st century do not view history like they did back then. We view history in terms of "touchie feely" and not for lessons learned in terms of principles, morals, the structure of governments, and binding agreements. The world views are different and that is significant.

You may call them the ruling class but in all reality they were a band of patriots representing their states to try and "form a more perfect union." They also knew that everyone had to have "skin in the game" if any system of governance is to work, and so initially the vote was given to land owners. Over the course of our history that right has been expanded out to others. Once that happen, Andrew Jackson the populist was able to literally ride into the presidency. They also understood that some issues could not be dealt with immediately at the "federal level" and maybe best worked on at the state & local levels. While slavery was the dominate contentious issue, it was one of many postponed for a different and hopefully better time.

Every time I study the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist Papers, I am amazed at the wisdom our Founding Fathers (and women when you include women like Abigail Adams and others like her). As practitioners of real politic, they devised a system of checks and balances into the overall framework of our Federal Government. There was a balance between the popular and representative votes. They also knew absolute power corrupts absolutely and the three branches of government was devised so power was spread out.

You make the "ruling class" as a closed group. It wasn't and the original signers of that Constitution are prime examples of upward mobility. With the addition of the "Bill of Rights" the ground work was set to not only protect our individual rights, but also the property rights as well. For the first time in history, if you work for something you get to keep it....until the income tax. For the first time if a man worked hard enough and was a good steward of what they had then they could sit at the power table. Within the capitalistic economic system that was early America, the door was open to anyone to become a member of the "ruling class".

LTC Thomas Tennant - Colonel; "The Natural Ruling Class" is ALWAYS a closed group. Admittedly the composition of that closed group will change over time, but the nature and interests of the group remain VERY similar regardless of what mask you put on it.

What the Founding Fathers "sold" wasn't what they intended to deliver, although, to their credit they did yield when it became obvious that the general populace actually thought that they were going to get a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" and were just as likely to "toss the NEW rascals out" as they had been willing to "toss the OLD rascals out".

Contrary to the myth, the "separation of powers" was NOT something that had never been thought of or implemented before. Admittedly it had been called by other names and had been tried in other formats but it was NOT new.

I take absolutely no issue with the fact that the "average colonist" was being told that they were being oppressed by Britain nor with the fact that the First Ten Amendments to the American constitution (essentially) replicated "The Rights of Englishmen" as set out in Britain's "Bill of Rights (1698)". The fact is that the "oppression" of the colonists was MOSTLY due to the British requirement that the colonists provide housing and food for the BRITISH troops that the COLONIAL LEADERS had demanded in order to breach the treaties which the colonies had signed with the Native Americans so that the colonial leaders could take the land that had been ceded "in perpetuity" to the Native Americans without paying for it and which support of the troops that they had demanded the colonial leaders refused to pay.

Of course the secondary way in which the colonists were oppressed was by the imposition of tariffs and duties on imports that were at such a level that the merchants who imported goods to the colonies legally could sell those goods for less than the merchants who smuggled goods into the colonies without paying the tariffs and duties (but having to bear the replacement costs of the smuggling ships that were lost to the RN's "anti-smuggling patrols".

You might find the page at the link interesting.

http://www.ushistory.org/gov/2a.asp

Maybe you are right...but it is what it is and we need to move on. I wrote extensively below on why I feel we need to move on if only because there is nothing anyone can do about this. As Ben Franklin once said...."sometimes you have to take a half a loaf (of bread) knowing full well you will be asking for more later".... or words to that effect.

We all want balance and fairness in our country. Remember "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." We need to work to keep that promise alive for us all.

LTC Thomas Tennant - Sir I actually liked your entire comment until the liberal/democrat slant was put in. I understand from your precious posts that you're no fan of democrats and that is no problem with me. I'm not either. But in this case, the mayor was sacked (if I'm wrong please correct me), and a lot of politicians lost their seats following this. I do not think anything would've been different had it been a republican/conservative person at the helm. In the end, human dignity, resolve, and good will would be the only things that can bring folks through. I thought it was weird that the focus was on getting the French Quarter back up and running. You only have a stadium FULL of people doing unimaginable acts to each other with no food, water, or other basic human needs, but you want to get Mardi Gras on time? You have folks that were buried, floating in the city, but an upcoming party is on your mind? Folks have no homes, stranded in places, and we are talking about bringing folks into town to have Mardi Gras? I know why they did it, but I don't know WHY they did it. Katrina exposed us for what we really are, and we didn't learn from it. Sandy did it again, and no one is listening. So we're going to have to deal with it once or twice more to finally see what needs to be done regardless of race, economic status, hardships, successes, religion and party affiliation.