Question for Jambo...

Jambo wrote:

"I personally, despite my Irish heritage, cannot condone the terror campaign of the IRA in any of its manifestations. There is no justification of what the British did during the centuries of occupation of Ireland, but terror is terror and is unacceptable. "

Question: When is "terror" terrorism, and when is "total war" an acceptable part of grand strategy?

Michael Collins is seen (almost entirely) as either a national hero/patriot or as a war criminal/terrorist. His stated defense for his actions during the guerrilla campaign was that he was waging "total war"... and he employed terror techniques to accomplish his goals, but the terror itself was never his goal.

This is a case were we can see both the before and after of the situation. Prior to 1917, Ireland had no legitimate representation within the British government. Both Scotland and Wales today have a greater degree of self-determination within the United Kingdom than all of Ireland did prior to the Easter Rising. Because of the efforts of men like Collins, there now exists an independent, democratic republic where none existed before, and millions of people are free to exercise their rights and liberties as they see fit through a model, modern representative system of government.

Does the Irish Republic exist today because of the efforts and actions of Collins (and those like him) between 1916 and 1922, or does it exist in spite of those efforts and actions?

The definition of "grand strategy" is: "...purposeful employment of all instruments of power available to a security community...", and Collins was the man in charge of the "security community" during the years in question. He certainly didn't deny the responsibility and consequences of his actions and decision... so no question remains as to who is responsible for what was done under the authority of the Provisional Irish Republican government. His stated intentions were to cripple the ability of the British government to administer and govern effectively... and he succeeded.

I guess my question is this: My grandfather fought with and received honors and medals from the French government for his efforts to support the French resistance movement during the last years of WWII. These men and women fought a guerrilla war that included acts of sabotage, assassinations, bombings of trains... and civilian deaths, while unfortunate, were seen as an acceptable risk by both the French and the Allies in general. Were the efforts of the French resistance better or worse than the efforts of the IRA and the Republicans between 1916 and 1922? Can one be "legitimate" and the other not?

Part III...

The United States of America has complete sovereignty over all lands, territories, districts and holdings currently understood to be part of the US. No disputed areas exist, to the best of my knowledge.

The Federal government has the final authority over all areas and territories. All Native American lands fall currently into two categories: Federal reservations or privately owned property. In the area of reservations, the Fed is the only authority greater than the reservation itself... no State, county or municipality can supersede them.

As far as I am concerned, the settlements by the Federal government over the last 65 years has been satisfactory for both parties (the various Indian tribes and the Fed)... not because I'm an expert or an authority, but because the Supreme Court of the United States said it was. The various tribes can continue to demand that certain tracts of land be returned to the Indians and tribes, and the can continue to refuse to use the settlement moneys that are growing in trust on a daily basis, in the hopes for some future settlement for past failings or violations, but I don't think that will happen.

In this instance, the status quo is where we are supposed to be. This is one of the very few time when I can say with confidence that I think Washington would have been proud of where we are today. True equality under the law is what he wanted with the Indians, and while he (and most of his successors) failed to achieve that, there is no question that it exists now.

This begs the question of whether or not Jambo's point about "legal entitlement" is where they should be. I say yes, if for no other reason than it was a ball that began rolling with treaties and agreements made between the US government and the sovereign governments of recognized and established Indian nations. These peoples have the same rights and freedoms under the Constitution as any other American, and these "governments" have the same autonomy and authority as any other political territory within the US now... be it a territory like Puerto Rico or Guam, or a district like D.C., or a Protectorate like the Virgin Islands or Wake Island... and I feel that is fine. They are responsible for the cost of their infrastructure now (on almost every reservation across the land) and take no money from the Fed for things like healthcare, education, housing, and roads. For the first time since the country's inception, they are "autonomous". They have their own industries, businesses, governments and schools. What more could anyone hope for a people, community or society?

I don't want anyone to think that the "obligation" for the treaties that were entered into by the Indian nations and the Fed are held by the Feds alone. In signing the treaties and agreements, the Indian governments took on a degree of obligation, too... and that is why they are American first, and "tribal" second. This might not be the mind-set of every single Native American on the map... but it is where I believe everyone should be, and that is what I think (I make no assumptions here, as per my last post) Ryan was asking me: what is MY opinion.

Part III?

Im good with everything you wrote, but there is the matter of my question in "Part III." Im genuinely curious.

The Great November Peace...

We really should start naming these moratoriums we keep having after our knock-down, drag-out, fisticuffs Bund-Brawls... something to mark the event by, you know what I mean?

Everyone knows the Treaty of Paris, or the Peace of Amiens, or the Good Friday Accords... what better way can we have to mark our "historic" moments of reconciliation and/or mutual understanding?

As regards the poster (could this be remembered as the First Poster War?), I will say this about my position within the entire debate:

I think it was in bad taste (the poster, not the debate).

I think the examples of anti-Obama posters I found were in bad taste.

I think all fit nicely in the realm of Free Speech, and none is more offensive than another (of these examples).

As regards the "questionable" title coined by Ryan:

I didn't give it another thought, past those that led me to make the comments already made. I've far thinker skin that that, and I know Ryan has a nasty temper that is rivaled only by my own (and only eclipsed by his ex-wife's). I was particularly amused by my own wife's opinion of the exchange, and think it a rather insightful look into where we all really are here at the Bund...

"You're all nerds that need to get lives."

Touche, Lizardo.

As regards Ryan's apology:

Unnecessary... now and in the future. I think I know you well enough after more than a decade to be able to tell when you are venting and when you are serious, even from the one-dimensional online environment that we almost exclusively utilize (the Bund). To put it poetically... "Your words are as the buzzing of flies to my EGO!"

In regards to Ryan's request:

I must confess that your observations concerning my using you as a "punching bag" are undoubtedly far more valid than I'd like to admit, and I will do my best to not allow myself to do that any more. I trust you understand that, upon reading your thoughts on this matter, I couldn't help relating to what you said you were feeling... meaning I can see myself feeling the same way about some of your more general assumptions and generalizations... so perhaps we can both agree to try harder to avoid "stereotyping" each other in the future?

So... what's next?

I heard rumors ...

That Favre REALLY disliked Childress, and that the Southern MS grad has been the true leader in that locker room for quite some time. Man, did Childress go into that office and make the wrong ultimatum ... "It's me or Favre."

I found out before Jambos post though. My own little NFL hopeful, whom I got to coach this year on the same team he's been watching his big brother play on the last 2 years, woke me up, "Dad, dad, Childress was fired!" Why is he home from school? Our team entered the play offs this past Saturday. In our first game he broke 2 tackles & juked the last defender for an 80 yard TD run on 2nd down of our first drive. He went on to garner us 3 more 1st downs, one on 4th & 7, and sacked the opposing QB in over time to end the game with us up 35-28. He won game MVP. Our second round game we lost. Tough, rainy, windy, cold. 28-21 the final (yes, 2 games in 1 day, with kids that run both ways, & what's more he & our other 2 star players played every single down of both games, and special teams - tough little rascals). Later that night he wakes up with a screaming headache, nausea, the works. An ER trip & a cat scan later & it's official - concussion.

He'll be fine, couple days rest. And he really likes telling people, "Ya, I got a concussion the first game & still played the second one." Bare in mind no one knows which game it occurred ... but I figure he earned that bragadocia, hehe.

What I realized though is the sting of losing as coach is monumentally mitigated by the pure joy of being Dad & having just watched your 9 year old have a monster game ... I ask you, does it get any better then that? :-)

Hey, this is REALLY IMPORTANT!

Still haven't read the posts from yesterday but just got this on the wire...

Brad Childress has been fired as the head coach of the Minnesota Vikings.

FINALLY!!!

SPOILER ALERT!!!

For the record... I have NOT READ any of the posts from yesterday yet! So if there is something in this post that is redundant or has already been discussed, TOUGH.

We spent damn near $400 in a bar that had every interior wall space available glorifying a late 1980s visit of KNOWN TERRORISTS to Scranton, PA.

I worked for almost five years with a kid (last name Willoughby) whose primary pastime was doing the pow-wow circuit. That's not a joke, he'd go from reservation to reservation as a part of a drum/dance team for his tribe. Won a bunch of awards. Probably has that infamous poster tattooed on his back now.

I know/am friends with/work with three guys, one named Lee, one named Nathan, one named James, all of them named after prominent Confederate Generals. When asked they will admit to it proudly.

We all were once residents in a state that has the battle standard of the Confederacy as a part of its state flag, STILL.

Now, everything I just mentioned can be seen as the same type of indictment that has stirred the pot so forcefully. As mentioned numerous times, my great great grandfather's name is on the Wisconsin memorial at Vicksburg. My friendly meathead Confederate-named coworkers occasionally talk Confederate smack when they forget who's sitting at the breakroom table with them... And I usually give them enough rope to ensure when they fall, the neck won't break so they get to Danny Deever for three minutes before the twitching stops.

I personally, despite my Irish heritage, cannot condone the terror campaign of the IRA in any of its manifestations. There is no justification of what the British did during the centuries of occupation of Ireland, but terror is terror and is unacceptable.

But Willoughby was a different story.

For good or for bad, and despite the many, many atrocities committed against the American Indian population, they have something no other minority in the United States has... Legal entitlement. African Americans do not have a legal right to the "40 acres and a mule." Disenfranchised Spanish/Mexican Americans, robbed of their legal land grants in a post Mexican/American War or Texan Independence, have no legal recourse nor were given any. But I know many, many people of American Indian descent benefiting from the treaty structures of today.

So when someone plasters a poster concerning Homeland Security, I have to scratch my head. In today's world, the American Indian not only gets to drink, drive and vote... They get the benefits of dual citizenship within their tribal nation AND our country. So how freaking tough is that?

My personal opinion? They want Homeland Security? Fine. Then they become NATIONS, independent nations, stand alone political entities. They LOSE citizenship within the United States. They're responsible for their own affairs, and their own security. Of course, it's my opinion... No one listens to me anyway.

Do I agree with the poster? No. Do they have the right to print/sell it? Of course. Do I feel it's an indictment of everyone not American Indian? No... I feel it is the same kind of misguided individual expression as the Confederate Flag or the Malcolm X or Che or CCCP t-shirts. I get pissed when I see them but more for the morons wearing them. (Well... Che pisses me off on principle, so that's overtime pissed)

Now that being said...

Was the curator of that museum a COMPLETE MORON? Absolutely. Was Ryan justified in his actions with said curator? Completely. Just because someone has the right to wear a swastika, or a rising sun bandanna, or anything with the CCCP on it doesn't mean he/she needs to be parading around in it at the D-Day Museum on June 6. You want to proclaim Indian Homeland Security? Do it from the Crazy Horse Monument, or a warring tribal reservation. Not from some pacifist desert tribe that died out centuries before Columbus was born. Not out of any type of context.

I hope, with all sincerity, that we get posted updates on the campaign against said museum. I would be very very interested in knowing how that turns out.