Militias - Don't Think So

"There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea
of danger to moderates from the militia that one is at a loss whether
to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider
it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians;
as a disingenuous artifice to instill prejudices at any price;
or as the serious." --Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 29


Thoughts about this from Stewie Mikkelson:

There's more room than should be in the way people refer to
"militias." In the common language today, militia refers not to the
sanctioned fighting forces of individual states, but to fringe groups
that clothe themselves in the garments of freedom and citizen justice while
using that righteous position to espouse radical, fundamentalist or extremist
positions. The disparity between the current, popular definition of
militia is analogous to the disparity in the current, popular usage of the word,
"jihad." Both words have become bastardizations of their former
selves - terms usurped by individuals and groups that have no right to use them.
The Hamilitonian definition of militia equals today's definition of
the National Guard. It's a fighting force that is state-regulated,
locally armed and trained, and used in times of emergency. It's not a blank
check for gun-owners to gather automatic weapons and massive, civilian weapons
caches to assist their resistance against over-reaching government.
It's certainly not a fundamental protection for small, unregulated groups to
gather arms and wait for an event they deem to be an emergency. My
favorite perversion of modern militias is that of the definition of the second
amendment. They always remember the "right to keep and bear arms" part,
but they never quite seem to notice the second and third words: "well
regulated."

By their own definition, today's self-defined militias fall into the
last of Hamilton's three categories, "the serious." These outland
extremists do nothing to serve the liberty of the nation, or even the
liberty of a state against the federal government. Their
ultra-conservatism proves as dangerous to the pursuit of social advancement and true
liberty as any extremist group. These groups - as any extremists groups are
(liberal or conservative)- are not only less tolerant of true freedom than any
one group has the right to be, but they're probably better armed, too.

A thought from a veteran:

Yes, I do have a thought about this. The groups who call themselves
militias today, are typical examples of folks with an agenda, usually an
antisocial one, who take a word originally perceived as a good thing and
use it to try (unsuccessfully) to make themselves look like a good
thing. Other examples: People's DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC of China, Union of
Soviet SOCIALIST REPUBLIC, DDR (Deutche DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC). Today's
militias are a mockery of what a militia used to be - a group of
citizens loosely formed to protect each other, their rights not to be
violated, their property taken away, etc. Instead, they aspire to do
just those things to others. They are populated by people who already
know deep down that they are not widely accepted in society, so they
gravitate toward others with the same affliction - the lack of the
common sense and intelligence to practice moderation or to have an open
mind. Therefore, today I am renouncing my membership in Sam's Club and
the American Automobile Association.

No More Terror for Schiavo

Thank God the right thing is finally being done for Terry Schiavo - and her former husband. She will pass over peacefully, and the government will not have (in effect) turned her into any more of a political prisoner than they already have. They should really have stayed out of it in the first place, in other words, done the right thing. Maybe her consciousness will return in the next world and she'll have an awareness that both Mr. Schiavo and her parents were fighting over what to do because on both sides they loved her.

No Financial Information Compromised?

In a news article following the recent compromise of ChoicePoint systems, MSNBC quotes an excerpt from a statement(re-quoted here) from LexisNexis about their recent computer hack incident:

The database that was compromised, called Accurint, sells reports for $4.50 each that include an individual’s Social Security number, past addresses, date of birth and voter registration information, including party affiliation.

"No credit history, medical records or financial information were accessed in the breach", LexisNexis parent company Reed Elsevier Group PLC said in a statement.

Well, I've got news for you, Reed Elsevier Group PLC: If the individuals' Social Security numbers were compromised, it's only a matter of time before some of their credit, medical or financial information can be breached as well. GMAB, as John Stossel of 20/20 would say.

GIVE ME A BREAK!