tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post6097455494750619225..comments2017-04-13T04:47:21.148-06:00Comments on Pro Libertate: The Martial Law Mind-SetWilliam N. Grigghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14368220509514750246noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-63380459027028205782009-09-25T07:09:15.865-06:002009-09-25T07:09:15.865-06:00Black people endured the ultimate form of martial ...Black people endured the ultimate form of martial law...Slavery. Today we continue to endure more subliminal versions i.e. racial profiling.<br /><br />Sounds to me like Americans are simply reaping the fruit of their hipocritical labor.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-53593804678311169802009-03-16T23:08:00.000-06:002009-03-16T23:08:00.000-06:00Sans Authoritas and others, you probably are right...Sans Authoritas and others, you probably are right about most of the members currently serving in the military, regarding their oaths. I'll give you that. The Oath Keepers are probably a very small minority, at least 1 out of 10, or maybe 1 out or 20, maybe less. But remember, those members are soldiers, not your average peaceable citizens who are bogged down with debt, mortgages, families, etc., and many have combat experience and a fresh distrust of politicians and the government. Don't underestimate their resolve and potential.<BR/><BR/>Besides, if their oaths are ever...put to the test, so to speak, then they wouldn't start outright combat. IF they did fight, their roles would be more along the lines of the insurgents in Iraq. They would never, if they can help it, engage in open gun battles, because they would be fighting on the enemy's terms, and that's not usually a good idea.<BR/><BR/>All is not lost.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-43405606438709322322009-03-15T17:42:00.000-06:002009-03-15T17:42:00.000-06:00One slight point against your account of the offic...One <B>slight</B> point against your account of the officers who murdered Kreca; they couldn't have known his sidearm was unloaded. Cooper's Rule #1: All guns are always loaded.<BR/><BR/>They shouldn't have tried to handcuff him, they certainly shouldn't have shot him, but your claimed logical chain of "his gun wasn't loaded so he couldn't have been a threat" does not hold up to scrutiny and therefore detracts from the overall point of your article.<BR/><BR/>I say this not to defend the jackbooted bastards, but to provide you with the opportunity to exercise editorial control and not provide <B>them</B> with the opportunity to use that excuse.perlhaqrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01920117742664645165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-23785410336248737942009-03-14T18:43:00.000-06:002009-03-14T18:43:00.000-06:00CBP’s PLEDGE TO TRAVELERS* We pledge to cordially ...CBP’s PLEDGE TO TRAVELERS<BR/><BR/>* We pledge to cordially greet and welcome you to the United States.<BR/>* We pledge to treat you with courtesy, dignity, and respect.<BR/>* We pledge to explain the CBP process to you.<BR/>* We pledge to have a supervisor listen to your comments.<BR/>* We pledge to accept and respond to your comments in written, verbal, or electronic form.<BR/>* We pledge to provide reasonable assistance due to delay or disability.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-33863904328363821442009-03-12T13:32:00.000-06:002009-03-12T13:32:00.000-06:00Anon @7:56, I hope you are right about the militar...Anon @7:56, I hope you are right about the military and the Oath Keepers. (I noticed one of the comments on the OK web page was from Jay Stang; if that is the son of Alan Stang, the "intrepid reporter," that is a good sign.)qnunchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03276241501396117972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-48409142392956420242009-03-12T10:55:00.000-06:002009-03-12T10:55:00.000-06:00Anon 4:40 - Thank you for the link. Very informat...Anon 4:40 - Thank you for the link. Very informative and thought-provoking. This does come as close as possible to answering my final question in my last post.<BR/><BR/>Anon 7:56 said:<BR/><BR/><I>Sans authoritas, try saying that to a serving member of the military who is an Oath Keeper.<BR/><BR/>Don't make general assumptions like that.<BR/><BR/>Ever hear of "The Resister" in the 90's?</I><BR/><BR/>Anonymous, if you are indeed one of the few members of today's armed services who holds your oath of enlistment/commissioning sacred and binding, then God bless you. I hope you are "evangelizing" this fact to your comrades in arms who are ignorant of the responsibility behind the oath they took, the responsibility to defend the Constitution and the freedoms it protects. I feel that the ultimate test of your oath will soon be at hand. <BR/><BR/>I'm afraid, however, that Sans Authoritas's statement is pretty much on the money. Although I believe that the majority of those with whom I served during my nearly two decades of service in the 1980s and 90s would NEVER have obeyed an order to take up arms against their fellow Americans, I'm not at all sure that's true of today's active duty and active reserve personnel. The almost complete elimination of the study of genuine U.S. History or Civics in American high schools, particularly with respect to the Constitution and BoR and the steep indoctrination of ill-educated teenaged minds with PCBS has resulted in a military force populated largely by mercenary robots who will blindly obey ANY order they're given, without regard for its morality or legality. Again, as you point out, there are definitely exceptions such as yourself, but the evidence I've seen before my own eyes leads me to believe that such exceptions like you are just that, and that their numbers within the ranks are preciously few and far between. Please, do your part to help change that!liberranterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00555275410576294081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-190367978447260752009-03-12T10:31:00.000-06:002009-03-12T10:31:00.000-06:00Interesting thing about rights(as in Bill of Right...Interesting thing about rights(as in Bill of Rights). We can trace our rights regarding courtroom trials back into biblical times. The apostle Paul, for example, in Acts chapters 21-25, employed the right of appeal, the right of habeas corpus, and the right to face one's accuser, as well as the right not to be absed when under arrest.<BR/><BR/> Even more interesting, Paul also recommended a form of trial by jury in 1 Corinthians chapters 5 and 6, even advocating that judgement be left to the "east" of the church congregation(trial by peers in jury trial).<BR/><BR/> While Jesus himself said that he came to fulfill the law, and not one jot or tittle would be destroyed, he also gave permission to settle "out of court" in Matthew 5:25, and expanded on this idea in Matthew 18, employing the rule of two witnesses taught in Deuteronomy 17:6 and Deuteronomy 19:15.<BR/><BR/> The interesting part of the two witness rule is that the US Supreme Court ruled in "Miranda vs Arizona, 1966, footnote 27, that our fifth amendment right against self incrimination had as its foreruner and analogue the ancient Talmudic ruling, coming from the two verse in Deuteronomy, mentioned above, that the accused could not be held guilty except by the account of two or more eyewitnesses.<BR/><BR/> Paul himself no only advocated trial by the church before any judgement by the government, but used language of his time that freed the individual from trial by the government. The christian was "dead to the law(Romans 6). or a "slave to Christ".<BR/><BR/> In either case, the law had no power over the individual who accepted Jesus' sacrifice as payment in full for penalties of the law.<BR/><BR/> In common law terms, the bailor, one who brought accusation to the court, would be God. The bailee, one who stood under obligation to God, would be the church, acting as representative before the court for the bailor. The individual christian, would either be considered as dead or as a slave, neither of which had any legal status by law.<BR/><BR/> The plain teaching, here, in the words of both Jesus and Paul, is that the church judges according to the principles laid down by Jesus in Matthew chapters 5-7, and only turned over to government authorities AFTER the church has found no other alternative for "salvation" from the law.<BR/><BR/> This means that the command to be subject to higher powerws in Romans 13 is a command that takes effect AFTER the church has found no other solution.<BR/><BR/> The church would therefore pay tribute to whom tribute is DUE(due process) because it would be necessary for the state to take charge of the individual, which requires payment.<BR/><BR/> New teatament teachings are fully applicable, since all states, as far as I can tell, recognize the sovereignty of God in some form.Ralphhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03242043361089416030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-25432934524738956662009-03-12T08:56:00.000-06:002009-03-12T08:56:00.000-06:00Sans authoritas, try saying that to a serving memb...Sans authoritas, try saying that to a serving member of the military who is an Oath Keeper.<BR/><BR/>Don't make general assumptions like that.<BR/><BR/>Ever hear of "The Resister" in the 90's?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-14234324524551632522009-03-11T21:42:00.000-06:002009-03-11T21:42:00.000-06:00Will, Here is a case where the thugs with badges h...Will, Here is a case where the thugs with badges have taken it a step further: <BR/><BR/>"Highway robbery? Texas police seize black motorists' cash, cars"<BR/><BR/>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-texas-profiling_wittmar10,0,6051682.story<BR/><BR/>I hope you will share your wisdom on this case for us, as well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-41941146732496567722009-03-11T21:38:00.000-06:002009-03-11T21:38:00.000-06:00to further throw fuel on the fire, here's a great ...to further throw fuel on the fire, here's a great article of the police actually being highway robbers: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-texas-profiling_wittmar10,0,6051682.story<BR/><BR/>it is but a continuation of examples that napolitano highlighted in his latest book.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-81410928329679296202009-03-11T19:43:00.000-06:002009-03-11T19:43:00.000-06:00To all of you who are talking about how the Statet...To all of you who are talking about how the Statetroopers are going to stand down/rebel when ordered to do atrocious things to their own neighbors and countrymen: dream on. Human nature is the same here as it was in 1930's and 40's Germany. As it was in Russia. As it was in 1950's Hungary. As it was in Cambodia. As it was and is in Africa. As it was during the War of Northern Aggression! <BR/><BR/>Anyone who feels the urge to get dressed in a fancy uniform, and whose livelihood is dependent upon their employer, the State, is more than likely to cave in to the orders being breathed down their necks from thugs in fancier uniforms. <BR/><BR/>American State soldiers have already confiscated firearms. How many Nazional Guardsmen refused to follow the "un-Constitutional" (whatever the hell that means, these days) order to confiscate firearms from non-violent people after Hurricane Katrina? Zero. Imagine what they'll do when the adrenaline tap is really turned on. <BR/><BR/>People who speak your own language, English, will continue to egregiously trample your rights. It will get worse and worse. The Statist thugs will imprison, kill and torture Americans: their neighbors. And they will think they are doing a good thing, just like Saul thought he was doing a good thing. It happened in Israel. It happened in Germany. It happened in Russia. It happened in Hungary. It <I>will</I> happen <I>here!</I> <BR/><BR/>The dynamics of human nature, when endowed with State-"legitimized" coercive power will not be altered. <BR/><BR/>I, for one, do not much want to live through what I know is coming. I've seen what happened in WWII. It will be far worse this time around. Don't put your families through it, if you can at all avoid it. Leave these shores and go to a less-populated area, if you possibly can. <BR/><BR/>May God have mercy on us all: the unjust aggressors and their victims alike. <BR/><BR/> -Sans AuthoritasSans Authoritasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-71482533382104423572009-03-11T17:40:00.000-06:002009-03-11T17:40:00.000-06:00liberranter,http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot...liberranter,<BR/><BR/>http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2009/02/where-to-draw-line.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-70632115663601104702009-03-11T13:07:00.000-06:002009-03-11T13:07:00.000-06:00Dear Will,Another rage-provoking essay.Yes, Lemuel...<I>Dear Will,<BR/>Another rage-provoking essay.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, Lemuel, exactly. I should have been clear in my last post, before even responding to AvgJoe's point, that I only got about one third of the way through Will's work before I just had to stop. I still haven't yet finished it. <BR/><BR/>Will, for the first time EVER --and this is really saying something, given the power with which you cover this topic--, I was literally shaking with rage. Seriously, it was absolutely the last straw. I knew that if I finished reading to the end, I would either take my anger out on an inanimate piece of my own property within arm's reach (destroying some valuable personal possession and/or injuring myself in the process, which would only constitute a victory for the agents of the State whom you describe), or that I would deliberately put myself face to face with a local "peace officer" in the most confrontational and probably lethal mood possible. Since neither of these reactions is either 1) typical of me, 2) constructive, or 3) in harmony with the Christian and libertarian principles to which I aspire (if not always to which I succeed in living up) , I decided that distance and reflection were in order. I promise to digest the entire piece as soon as I end my self-imposed "time out."<BR/><BR/>All of that said, the nagging question that still gnaws at me is: At what point does the rubber band (or, hopefully, the collective bag of rubber bands) snap after being pulled too taut? At what specific point, if ever at all, do the actions of agents of the State become acts of lawless aggression to which we are morally (and legally, in terms of natural law) justified in responding with proportional lethal force? While this is a possibility that we certainly seek to avoid, until we can be assured of our righteousness in doing so under the right circumstances when compelled, frustration and suffering seem to be our inescapable fate for the future.liberranterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00555275410576294081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-46609249456314807132009-03-11T10:36:00.000-06:002009-03-11T10:36:00.000-06:00AvgJoe, here is a link to Death by Government: The...AvgJoe, here is a link to <A HREF="http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo114.html" REL="nofollow">Death by Government: The Missing Chapter</A> by Thomas DiLorenzo that shows statistics on government murder.qnunchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03276241501396117972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-23973477221728963932009-03-11T08:58:00.000-06:002009-03-11T08:58:00.000-06:00I wondered when I read of the man peppered sprayed...I wondered when I read of the man peppered sprayed for asking for the officer to be courteous in his oppression if you would cover it. I think the only reason it made it into my local paper is because of the somewhat humerous story, kind of like the <B>"Don't taze me bro!"</B> kid. Well, I stopped laughing a while ago.<BR/><BR/>It seems in summation that the old maxim "When they say jump" the only proper response from a serf is "how high sir?". <BR/><BR/>Anything other than that is "causing a disturbance, or resisting, or acting in a threatening manner". It's frightening to know that if they want to take you down drumming up false charges is so easy.Bobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13487404072546513179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-91789914636264619052009-03-10T23:45:00.000-06:002009-03-10T23:45:00.000-06:00Forget everything I said, I have one question tha...Forget everything I said, I have one question that any replies only need to answer with a question number.<BR/>My question is: How many people were murdered/butchered by their own governments during the 20th Century"<BR/>OK, I lied about one more question. <BR/>Second question: Would our government in todays world lie to us to expand itself with lies for more power over the citizens lives?AvgJoenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-22547153814981089862009-03-10T23:06:00.000-06:002009-03-10T23:06:00.000-06:00I felt sorry for Gaeta, his conversation with Balt...I felt sorry for Gaeta, his conversation with Baltar before the execution reinforced what a shame the whole situation was. With respect to your article, I feel that I'm on borrowed time. In all respects I'm a totally normal, boring person, except that I have exactly 0 patience for bullying under color of law. I must admit that I treat the police unfairly- if a "civilian" were rude to me, I generally wouldn't retaliate in any way. If they're in a uniform, I just feel uncontrollably violent. I guess I was born this way. Because they're in uniform, I have to lick their boots? I think not.zachnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-57481873279973416352009-03-10T22:34:00.000-06:002009-03-10T22:34:00.000-06:00Dear Will,Another rage-provoking essay.Thank you f...Dear Will,<BR/>Another rage-provoking essay.<BR/><BR/>Thank you for the education - I never knew Archimedes was murdered by a policeman. Just as hundreds of millions of other peaceful, inoffensive people have been, since then.<BR/><BR/>The seed of this phenomenon exists in the propensity of a small class of assholes to set themselves up as a "government" to tell other people how to live their lives. It may take the form of a theocracy, aristocracy, or democracy, but inevitably it occurs to the assholes, once they have the power, that hey, now we can rip everybody off and make it "legal" just because we say it is "legal." Every system of government inevitably ends up as a kleptocracy. <BR/><BR/>(Sorry, religious people, but in the days when the Church had the power to rule people's mortal lives, it too became a kleptocracy.)<BR/><BR/>What is the only way a thief can make his victims part with their money and goods? By force, naturally. (DUH.) Hence we have the police and the army, not to protect the populace from the thieves, but to enforce the monopoly of the State to extort money and loot from those poor suffering idiots it defines as its subjects.<BR/><BR/>Why does the state make it illegal to kill another subject peon? Oh yes, for all the noble reasons, to be sure, but basically, the only reason is that you are depriving it of a taxpayer. Only the state can take the life of a subject, like Michael Kreca, and then say, no law of the state has been broken. Naturally.<BR/><BR/>Subjects may not kill each other, but the State may kill them whenever it feels like it. Usually, this is when they are discovered to be challenging the total power of the State, either by challenging its armed enforcers, or challenging one of the State's monopolies, such as those on theft and murder.<BR/><BR/>Children, do not be so foolish as to imagine the police are there to protect you from each other. Their mission is to maintain and protect the monopoly of the State to kill, steal from, and plunder its subjects. The only reason the State needs an army is to keep other States from muscling in on its territory and its extortion rackets.<BR/><BR/>Understand this fully and learn to live with it, and you will sleep much more serenely at night.<BR/><BR/>Yours in peace,<BR/>Lemuel Gulliver.Lemuel Gullivernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-26361805090976715942009-03-10T21:45:00.000-06:002009-03-10T21:45:00.000-06:00I have always said that those who neither work for...I have always said that those who neither work for government nor are on the receiving end of government largess have become helots, a shrinking class which currently comprises approximately fifty percent of the population. I am not sure whether police state or gulag is the more accurate term. Perhaps Amerika has become a combination of the two.Marchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05638073945201888881noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-87255036204195649722009-03-10T19:06:00.000-06:002009-03-10T19:06:00.000-06:00'Due to basic human nature, and not paradoxically,...'Due to basic human nature, and not paradoxically, one is much more likely to be successful in standing on principle with a local then with a federale.'<BR/><BR/>Let's generalize this principle. Democracy works great, when you're in a room with fellow board members. It works pretty well, usually, when you can personally appear before the school board or town council to state your case.<BR/><BR/>By contrast, democracy becomes rather remote when you can only write to or meet with your state representative, who is somewhat unlikely to directly convey your opinion on the floor of the state legislature. <BR/><BR/>And it works hardly at all when your communications generate only form letters from your KongressKlown, unless you bundled 100K into his re-election campaign. <BR/><BR/>Finally, the president of 300 million people can't hear you at all, unless you're the president of a major corporate entity.<BR/><BR/>Conclusion -- democracy does not scale up. Small is good. Big is bad. This law is as immutable as the inverse square law of electromagnetic radiation. It's no coincidence that the U.S. became tyrannical as its population multiplied a hundred-fold.<BR/><BR/>So the path to subsidiarity, to respond to Will Grigg's perplexity, is called 'secession.' Let ten thousand statelets bloom, and associate under 'Articles of Confederation' if they so choose. No right of secession, no freedom.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-92007674705285087132009-03-10T18:27:00.000-06:002009-03-10T18:27:00.000-06:00'The one significant charge the police insist on p...'The one significant charge the police insist on pressing is "disorderly conduct," which supposedly took the form of speaking to the officers in an "unreasonable voice." "Unreasonable" in this instance refers to a tone of voice other than one associated with timid, cringing submission.'<BR/><BR/>This example highlights a chronic habit of today's 'justice' system -- that of piling on multiple, ovelapping charges for a single alleged offense.<BR/><BR/>When simple charges that require evidentiary proof can't be sustained, often derivative charges such as resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, weapons possession, and the like can succeed. In the federal context, prosecutors have the infinitely-elastic, all-purpose 'gotcha' charges of mail fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy and money laundering. If some nexus to crime can be asserted, then every time you talk on the phone, send an email or make a bank deposit became a crime in its own right. As does possessing a weapon, if there happen to be drugs in the vicinity.<BR/><BR/>Recently, I've been reading about a charge called 'eluding arrest.' As opposed to actively resisting arrest, 'eluding' seems to refer to walking away when the cops are approaching with an intent to arrest you or serve a warrant. If you fail to read their minds as to their intentions -- or simply had contemporaneous plans to go elsewhere -- well, that's a standalone crime too, in addition to anything else you may have been accused of.<BR/><BR/>Given the overwhelming power of the state, the U.S. Bill of Rights intentionally tilted toward advantaging defendants by placing the burden of proof on the state in a single trial -- even if that meant some guilty defendants were acquitted. Within our lifetimes, the law has been tilted entirely to the advantage of the state -- through 'piled on' charges, per se and status offenses, invented crimes such as money laundering, double-jeopardy prosecutions, savage penalties which induce bargained guilty pleas, and on and on.<BR/><BR/>Of course, this is martial law. Our rulers are clever enough to claim that nothing has changed; the constitution still protects us. That a minority can see through this absurd lie concerns them very little. They've got the guns and the money, and can beat up or lock up most of those who confront them.<BR/><BR/>The last freedom available is to teach our children not to honor, respect or obey our amoral, lying overlords.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-13693606828495851912009-03-10T17:51:00.000-06:002009-03-10T17:51:00.000-06:00Many of the men and woman in the military will not...<I>Many of the men and woman in the military will not stand for their families to be killed by other military units and sit still about it. The ranks of our military will be destroyed first.</I><BR/><BR/>AvgJoe, I hope to God that you're right. As I've said in this blog, my own, and in other venues many, MANY times, it is the <B><I>moral and legal OBLIGATION</I></B> of everyone in a state-issued costume (police or military) to resist unlawful orders, which are 99.999 percent of those issued to anyone, in any capacity. Those who do not resist and who choose to the blind, obedient attack dog response are guilty of malfeasance of office and treason and are to be treated accordingly.liberranterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00555275410576294081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-80408721469282957932009-03-10T17:35:00.000-06:002009-03-10T17:35:00.000-06:00"...and only our principled resistance, peaceful w..."...and only our principled resistance, peaceful where possible, but forceful where necessary..."<BR/><BR/>Will, I humbly submit that we are long past the point where peaceful resistance against government funded terror troops will have any effect. How do you deal with a schoolyard bully? Only when goons of this caliber truly fear the people will such acts cease.<BR/><BR/>jkAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-957785258001745082009-03-10T15:43:00.000-06:002009-03-10T15:43:00.000-06:00Another great post. May God bless you and yours.Another great post. May God bless you and yours.Josesphnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-47310866763273812262009-03-10T15:32:00.000-06:002009-03-10T15:32:00.000-06:00Christopher, you make some very sound and compelli...Christopher, you make some very sound and compelling points. In a previous comment thread I made the point of invoking Just War theory as a guideline for dealing with various kinds of abuse at the hands of LEOs. <BR/><BR/>The test of proportionality is based on the understanding that prudence and forebearance are worthwhile. I earnestly hope that I'm not perceived as urging people to commit "Martyrdom-by-cop"; that wouldn't help anybody. <BR/><BR/>I agree that it's a good idea to get to know as many of the (geographically) local constabulary as possible, and as much about its procedures as we can. <BR/><BR/>You usefully describe some of the advantages of this approach; it's true that a personal relationship with a targeted individual might cause the trigger finger to hesitate a critical moment or two. <BR/><BR/>Subsidiary is a wonderful concept. I've never figured how to sustain it in practice, however, since it always seems to collapse into a unitary, centrally-directed arrangement.William N. Grigghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14368220509514750246noreply@blogger.com