Instructors: is no combat better?

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: Howard Berkowitz
Date: 3/9/04 3:54 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: Howard Berkowitz
Date: 3/9/04 1:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: Howard Berkowitz
Date: 3/9/04 9:47 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

I don't disagree with you in that exception. Where I disagree is
when
you appear to make accusations of cowardice or shirking against
people
that were not in WWII, and thus operated in different, valid
environments.


What do you mean "appear" to make them. You mean I don't make them but
only
"appear" to make them? And who have I ever called a coward?

Believe me, I am no raving Bush supporter, but you seem to have
suggested he avoided combat by qualifying in an aircraft with no mission
in Viet Nam -- but with a mission in continental defense.

You've criticized Rumsfeld for somehow not getting into combat. Again,
he was qualified in a platform that could have been critical if the Cold
War turned hot.

I think if you re-read the post you will find out that I made no
criticism of
Rumsfeld. I was simply pointing out that he was an instructor with no
combat
experience Then I asked if that was usual these days. I said nothing
negative
about him at all. The subject was qualifications to instruct, not
Rumsfeld per
se. You can understand that being trained in WW II the idea of an
instructor
who had never been to combat was just a but strange, Very strange.

It makes sense in WWII. What doesn't make sense is that your posts often
characterize people by WWII standards. Things change.

As far as saying anything negative, I really don't want to go back into
the archives, but I'm fairly certain you sounded at least dubious about
how someone could rise to O-6 without combat, and suggested that he
should have sought it out.


I would have sought it out. wouldn't you have as well?


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: Howard Berkowitz
Date: 3/9/04 4:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: Howard Berkowitz
Date: 3/9/04 1:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: "Tarver Engineering"
Date: 3/9/04 10:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"Seagram" wrote in message
...
Ok tribe members, its time to cast your vote. Who wants Art off
the
island

Nice thread Art, don't let the bottom feeders troll you.

Excellent signal, to all that participated.


I made it through WW II . There is no way the bottom feeders stand
a
chance,
especially the wannabee bottom feeders. But then again all the
wannabees
are
bottom feeders.


Catfish have a biologically useful role. Did you mean lawyers?


Without lawyers there would be no rule of law. There would be no equal;
protection under the law. There would be no courts and no constitution.

Be careful what you wish for lest you get it, And what you seem to be
wishing
for can be the end of freedom as we know it. Those who undermine the
lawyers
are undermining the law. And they have agendas that are well worth
examining.
No I am not a lawyer. Be watchful. Justice Thomas has been making noises
that
may well lead to overturning the 14th amendment. A disaster. Yup. You hit
a
nerve.


I admit to being a bit facetious. But I will state, in good conscience,
that there are lawyers that use technical knowledge to undermine the
rule of law.


Then we must strengthen the rule of law. And I know you were kidding.( :-)


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message
...

snip
Ummm...trying to remember...didn't the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments
have a few other effects? And wasn't at least certain aspects of
returning power to the states evaluated, oh, between 1861 and 1865?

The 15th amendment may as well have not existed for the first 100 years it
was law.

Justice Thomas has not exactly been the spiritual or intellectual leader
of the Court.

If you take the 14th Amendment as a literal application of the Bill of
Rights imposed on the States, then you have to take the 2nd Amendment that
way as well.

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: Howard Berkowitz
Date: 3/9/04 4:06 PM Pacific Standard Time

Justice Thomas has not exactly been the spiritual or intellectual leader
of the Court.

Ah Howard your understatement is poetic.(grin)


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: "Tarver Engineering"
Date: 3/9/04 3:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

The 14th Amendment does no such thing and should never have been interpreted
to cancel the 10th Amendment. A constructionist view of the Constitution is
best for freedom.



FROM THE 14TH AMENDMENT

"...no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of the United States nor shall any state deprive any citizen of
life liberty or property without due process of law...."

This is the constitution limiting state power. Take this away and state power
is dramatically increased..


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: "Tarver Engineering"
Date: 3/9/04 4:23 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message
...

snip
Ummm...trying to remember...didn't the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments
have a few other effects? And wasn't at least certain aspects of
returning power to the states evaluated, oh, between 1861 and 1865?

The 15th amendment may as well have not existed for the first 100 years it
was law.

Justice Thomas has not exactly been the spiritual or intellectual leader
of the Court.

If you take the 14th Amendment as a literal application of the Bill of
Rights imposed on the States, then you have to take the 2nd Amendment that
way as well.


The general legal wisdom has been that the Buill of Rights does not apply to
the states which is why the 14th amendment was written. "The Bill of Rights: by
Amar is a brilliant work that will give you new insights into the true nature
of the Bill of Rights.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: "Tarver Engineering"
Date: 3/9/04 3:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

The 14th Amendment does no such thing and should never have been
interpreted
to cancel the 10th Amendment. A constructionist view of the Constitution
is
best for freedom.



FROM THE 14TH AMENDMENT

"...no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges
or immunities of the United States nor shall any state deprive any citizen
of
life liberty or property without due process of law...."

This is the constitution limiting state power. Take this away and state
power
is dramatically increased..

The 14th Amendment was an attmept to enforce the 13th amendment. It was
four years from the ratification of the 13th Amendment until the Andrew
Johnson was stopped from blocking enforcement of the 13th Amendment. all
for the sake of a rew wealthy men.

Note that the 15th Amendment was ratified in 1870, but Congress did not pass
enabling law until 1965.

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: "Tarver Engineering"
Date: 3/9/04 4:23 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message
...

snip
Ummm...trying to remember...didn't the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments
have a few other effects? And wasn't at least certain aspects of
returning power to the states evaluated, oh, between 1861 and 1865?

The 15th amendment may as well have not existed for the first 100 years
it
was law.

Justice Thomas has not exactly been the spiritual or intellectual
leader
of the Court.

If you take the 14th Amendment as a literal application of the Bill of
Rights imposed on the States, then you have to take the 2nd Amendment
that
way as well.


The general legal wisdom has been that the Buill of Rights does not
apply to
the states which is why the 14th amendment was written. "The Bill of
Rights: by
Amar is a brilliant work that will give you new insights into the true
nature
of the Bill of Rights.

The Black woman Texas Supreme Court Justice that Bush nominated to the
Federal bench was called a "Neanderthal" by Ted Kennedy for agreeing with
what you wrote, Art.

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: Howard Berkowitz
Date: 3/9/04 3:54 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


e.

As far as saying anything negative, I really don't want to go back into
the archives, but I'm fairly certain you sounded at least dubious about
how someone could rise to O-6 without combat, and suggested that he
should have sought it out.


I would have sought it out. wouldn't you have as well?


Let's say I had been in service.. My answer is probably not, and
thoughtfully, for the good of my country. My strongest skills are in
C3I -- I'm trained as both a network architect and as a strategic
intelligence analyst. Being able to combine the two helped, for example,
when I consulted on design of command posts at the joint command level.

As I've said before, some of my work involved personnel sensors for Viet
Nam. If some of the devices I worked on variously could tell a strike
pilot where troops were located under jungle canopy, I might save quite
a few pilots from flak traps. We worked on a system that was just in
prototype, but potentially could let you line up "peaceful" villagers
and find out which ones had recently handled Soviet-bloc weapons -- and
perhaps get them out of circulation before they ambushed you.

So am I going to do more good for my country in a cockpit or in a
laboratory? Quite probably the latter.

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: Howard Berkowitz
Date: 3/9/04 4:06 PM Pacific Standard Time

Justice Thomas has not exactly been the spiritual or intellectual leader
of the Court.

Ah Howard your understatement is poetic.(grin)

Let us count our blessings. You may remember the failed nomination of
Harold Carswell. In general, there were less ideological objections to
him than a general realization he wasn't too bright.

Sen. Roman Hruska (R-Neb) complained in one speech "There are a lot of
mediocre people in this country. Don't they deserve representation too?"

Nebraska didn't have a monopoly on that sort of insight. The
then-senator from my own state, the great Commonwealth of Virginia, Bill
Scott (R), called a press conference to deny allegations he was the
dumbest man in the Senate.