NEW YORK HAM TICKETED!

Gee, I'm gone for one day and i'm already four pages down.
As for my advice be stinkin'..then you are a stinkin' attorney! I've never personally jabbed at anyone on here but you are! I put in my "two-cents" like anyone else. This is a forum. If you disagree then you disagree. I disagree with you. As far as a no contest plea meaning in a way that you plead guilty then yes it is and then again it is not. However, if your arguement is compelling enough to the judge...then he'll throw out the charge. I've seen many a people in my day plead no contest, the judge hears their story...and then POOF!!! Charges magically disappear becasue he knew it was BS. I guess you were too busy chasing ambulances to know that.
My idea was to speed up the case since any arguments would have been heard right then. By pleaing not guilty the case would be set for trial probably months later.
So, if you're an attorney...act like one! State you're arguement and if I disagree...then I disagreed!

Larry, KB5ECV

 

Fellow hams, I'm still waiting for the editor to review my new post of court events. I'm sure it will be out soon. What was I doing to get pulled over in the first place?? Seems to be a popular question. Driving my Jeep 40MPH in a 55MPH zone during what has been termed the "drunk hour" (about 0230 or so). I saw the police cruiser turn onto the road I was on (in my rear view mirror) as theres alot of reflective stuff on the side of their cars. I was followed closely for maybe a mile or two and pulled over. The question of the hour was "How much have you had to drink tonite"? "I don't drink". Knowing I don't drink at all, and the officer keeping drunks off the road, I thought everything is fine. I don't drink, don't do drugs, and wasn't speeding. Nothing to worry about, huh? That's what I thought. That's when the two clearly visible evil things called radios came into play. That's it. I wish there was something more exciting to the story, but theres not. The ticket shows a violation of NY VTL 397. Theres no "secret" axe murdering, wifebeating or any other thing going on. I'm just a guy who likes radio just as much as all of you. 73, de KC5GAX

 

check with Arrl, they have a list of lawyers who while they don't work for free, will usually do first visit free, who have knowledge in the area you are dealing with, and they can help.
I used to be a peace officer, and I think that officer should be 'corrected' by the judge.

Would be nice since we have a federal license that allows us to build and modify existing equipment to our own needs that we have a federal law that exempts us from all this scanner b/s. Present a current FCC amateur license and get a free pass, that would make it 'simple' for all the ignorant people in law enforcement.

kd5inm

 

Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: Jan. 2002
Posted: June 11 2003,16:36

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact is, hams are not much appreciated in a lot of places. Just think, you could be part of a tornado watch detail, spot an f5 tornado, relay information to the authorities which saves thousands of lives and then spend 6 months in jail as a result. I really think we should all refuse to help local agencies as a freebie. We should start getting paid, at our rate, not theirs. Why should hams give up free time like so many do and then be treated like this?
---------------------------------------------------------------------


I agree with part of above, not about the paid part, but about the 'RESPECT' part, I think we as Hams should get to together and mobilize our efforts to 'strike' when we don't get the help we need.
Here in north Texas we have had ignorant ideas about antennas, such as height restrictions and such and these stupid scanner laws.Height restrictions limit our ability to do our job, especially when we have to communicate over several hundred miles (I.E. from Texas into Northern Oklahoma). It seems we have to fight everywhere to just maintain our ability to help the ignorant people that want to take our abilities away.
I have proposed tomy fellow Hams that we 'just say no', if we aren't allowed to have the equipment we need, such as a tall antenna or a radio in our vehicle, then we should not bother spending time, money for gas, money for insurance on vehicle, money for vehicle, etc and also risk our lives to go out and spot storms, that maybe if we just say no and stay home, get somewhere safe and let it kill a few people and maybe they will see the error of their ways. You would think after all those people in New York died, the country and state of new york would be all out to help Hams, but no.The thing is that it wouldn't cost the country that much, we just need some protection(laws) , we pay our own way as far as equipment, we just need some respect and protection, and an occasional 'thank you' won't hurt either.

I'm sorry, but death seems to be the one thing that gets people spurred on to action.

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kb5ecv @ June 11 2003,21:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As for my advice be stinkin'..then you are a stinkin' attorney!  I've never personally jabbed at anyone on here but you are!  I put in my "two-cents" like anyone else.       This is a forum.  If you disagree then you disagree.  I disagree with you.  As far as a no contest plea meaning in a way that you plead guilty then yes it is and then again it is not.  However, if your arguement is compelling enough to the judge...then he'll throw out the charge.  I've seen many a people in my day plead no contest, the judge hears their story...and then POOF!!!  Charges magically disappear becasue he knew it was BS.  I guess you were too busy chasing ambulances to know that.
    My idea was to speed up the case since any arguments would have been heard right then.  By pleaing not guilty the case would be set for trial probably months later.
    So, if you're an attorney...act like one!  State you're arguement and if I disagree...then I disagreed!

Larry, KB5ECV[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Larry:  I used the term to express my disagreement.  No personal reflection on you.  Sorry that you took it that way.

I'm not a "stinkin attorney".  Never have been one, but I've had my share of experiences with the legal system.

No contest equals a guilty plea minus use of the transcript in civil proceedings.  That's it, plain and simple.  If Richard were to have plead that, every ham in NY state would have case law working against him or her.

While it would be less agonizing for Richard, he would then have a 'record', so to speak, for having been arrested and convicted of a misdemeanor.  Unless, of course, the judge would somehow 'see the light' and take the time to review the law, any and all evidence before him, and make a quick judgement.  Not likely to happen.  And, when they do make a quick decision, it's not usually to 'dismiss' the case at all, but to reduce or eliminate the fine or jail time.

If you think having a 'record' is no big thing, just try getting a security clearance, or most jobs these days employing any degree of trust.  Especially one requiring a bond.

Richard has told us that he's going to post some more specifics, so let's wait to hear more from him.

Richard, if you have an attorney, and I assume you do, he or she may not want you to say some things publicly and that's OK.  But, PLEASE, if we can help you in any way such as writing to the court, give us your case number, the court's address, date and time of the citation, etc.

Many have said it before, and I'll say it again: ARRL, wake up and defend Richard and all New York hams!!!

Lee
W6EM

 

I agree with Fred Richter’s statements. I am very alarmed at the events that are taking place in upstate New York. There is much more at stake than one ham’s ticket in NY State. There is much more at stake than what could affect all hams in NYS. If the State of New York gets away with trampling on PR 91-36, then there is a danger that other states will do the same. Although the Florida scanner law is well-written and outright exempts holders of a valid amateur radio license from the scanner law, I fear how the events in upper NY State could erode my right to have a ham radio in my car here in Florida. It will also set a precedent for the states to trample on other Federal rulings that protect our rights and freedoms. This stupid ticket that was issued to Richard, if allowed to stand is just another step in the direction of stripping Americans of their basic rights and freedoms. The 9/11 attacks already removed many of our freedoms. For instance, since 9/11/2001, I can’t walk into my neighborhood hospital and its adjoining medical building without signing in, producing my driver’s license, stating my business in writing and obtaining a sticker which I must wear on my person while in the hospital complex. I am no longer at liberty to come and go as I please on the hospital grounds, as was the case prior to 9/11/2001. Also, have you seen all the personal information that is requested of you in writing when you open a new bank account since the 9/11 attacks? A bank actually gave me a flyer explaining the new policy, which was mandated by the Feds due to the 9/11 attacks. It is obvious that the reason is to enable the government to be able to track any Al Qiaida funds in this country. Any way you look at it, it is an erosion of our freedoms.

The bottom line is that Rich’s ticket must be fought tooth and nail. The NYS scanner law must be struck down and rewritten. NYS must not be allowed to trample on FCC PR 91-36. The ARRL needs to make Rich’s ticket a priority, whether he is a member or not. It is not just Rich that they would be defending, but all hams.

By the way, I was born and raised in New York City. I am ashamed of what is going on in the State of my birth.

 

Lee I also appologize. This has gotten way outta control with people accusing anyone for anything.
As far as the no contesters I knew that won their cases, they received no criminal record. Though they may have to check yes on an appplication that they plead no contest, the results still are final that they were aquitted. Maybe things are done differently in different states.
If the case is won in a "local" court then the interpretation of the law will most likely stand only in that court. If a defendant then travels to another jurisdiction then that court may also interpret the law differently. Unless the case is initially lost and then appealed to a higher court (costing more money), only then may a ruling be made that would govern the descision of lower courts from then on.
I suggest that it simply would be easier and cheaper to waste 34 cents in stamps to lobby your own representative and have the law amended. This same scenerio happened many month ago and it appears nothing was done then.
As I read all the many posts, there already are two distinct interpretations of the law based on how it was written.
I'm sure there are enough hams in enough different districts that could write their reps and suggest a change. Either that or everyone could move to Montana like me where bsically there are no laws for anything...hihi
The catch 22 for cops is the general public cries they want something done about drunks. Eventhough driving way below the speed limit fits the "characterisitcs" of a drunk driver and is reasonable suspicion in most states, cops are then ridiculed that they stop people for "no reason." I've put many of drunks in jail for driving below the speed limit. For those that weren't drunk, I gave them a smile, told them what I was doing, and said have a nice day.

Larry, KB5ECV

 

AG4RG discusses some provisions of the Patriot Act, passed by Congress in response to 9/11 and I mentioned in a previous post that I was uncomfortable with many of its provisions. A retired Naval officer and good friend of mine first alerted this situation to me. I agree that some inconveniences, like the mentioned hospital procedures, may be needed for 5-10 years due to outside threats to the country, but some provisions of the Patriot Act are scary.

A suggestion to all. Go to your local video store and rent the movie "Seven Days in May" and watch it without interruption. Be thinking how possible of a scenario the film presents and what makes the United States exempt from what is being depicted. My parents taught me that such a thing would not happen in the U.S., that our checks and balances will take care of one branch of the government becoming too strong. After seeing "Seven Days in May" when I was 17, I realized that checks and balances only work when people vigilantly work and watch to make sure they do work. My first viewing of the flim scared me. Don't assume someone else will be there to be vigilant. This vigilance is a portion of what makes this a great country. We have some other serious problems which threaten to unravel the greatness of our country, some having to do with government, with most having to do with the collective behavior of individuals. However, that is just my opinion and the subject of several books I've read, and not germane to Richard's situation.

Now Richard's ticket in and by itself does not threaten the security of the citizenry. But if one tributary of a river floods, then another, pretty soon you have a larger problem downstream.

Just remember, if this case establishs that the presence of antennas only on a car being probable cause for a stop, it is possible that hams all over the country could suffer the consequences.

Richard, please look back at my postings. In one of them I asked your permission to Email a certain organization about your situation. I look forward to your reply.

Fred Richter
KF6DHV

 

After reading the attached law it looks to me that the local governing board would be able to give a permit to cause interference to local law enforcement communications.  I wonder what that permit would cost in the state of New York?

 

First, best of luck to Richard in his fight against those who have apparently misinterpreted what is a really unreasonable law. Please note that I do not use the term "unfair" because the meaning of that word has been corrupted by a number of whiny activists, and tends to lose the attention of those we are trying to reach (and who may be able to effect a positive change).

The New York V&T law needs to be done away with, or at least seriously revised. A letter to your state Senator may carry some weight in this endeavor, although legislative action may take longer than the resolution of this specific case. Keep in mind that the concern is not the transmission of signals on police frequencies, but the possession of a receiver in a vehicle that may allow reception of those signals. New york is one of the few states which has such "scanner laws" and really needs to consider its implications. If you live in New York, go to the NYS Senate web site and drop a message (in your own words - form letters are never effective) to your senator. If you have a state Assemblyman who you believe would be helpful, then do likewise with him or her. We need to present this in a clear, concise, and effective manner (no ham radio jargon, please ), and make this happen ASAP.

I have already contacted NY State Senator James Seward (R-51) concerning this problem; the text of that message follows (bold text):

Dear Senator Seward:

I have recently been made aware of a NY State (Vehicle & Traffic) law, #397, that has existed for a long time, but is horribly outdated. This law prohibits the use of any scanning (or otherwise) radio receiver in a motor vehicle unless the operator has permission to do so. Amateur (Ham)  Radio operators have been exempted from this law, according to the V&T law. One Amateur Radio operator (RICHARD C LALONE, 25532 JAMES ST, CALCIUM NY 13616), was ticketed last month by a New York State Police officer after being stopped at 2:30 AM while driving 40 MPH in a 55 MPH zone. The officer reportedly indicated that she stopped him because of the antennas on his vehicle. She issued the ticket because she observed two Amateur Radio transceivers in his vehicle. I have been told that no other violations existed nor were cited. He appeared in court recently to seek dismissal of the charges, based upon the exemption contained within the NY law, and the FCC decision (PR 91-36) that supercedes the NY law (and similar laws in other states) as well. Incidentally, I have been asked about my mobile amateur radio equipment by various law enforcement officers, and have never experienced that which Mr. Lalone is dealing with. I was told several years ago by a State Trooper (Ray Homer, who is now retired), that ham radio equipment in a vehicle should never be a problem, unless the operator is using it in the commission of a crime. Mr. Lalone's case seems to be rare at this time, but this could result in the loss of operating privileges by hams in New York State who wish to continue using their radios while on the road. As you can see, this issue needs to be addressed promptly, and it needs to be done in clear and definitive terms.

The issue of a criminal using a scanner to assist himself in the commission of a criminal act to evade law enforcement is separate, and most reasonable persons  believe that such should be specifically illegal. With digital encryption (scrambling) and/or frequency assignment (trunked radio) systems being used by virtually all police agencies, such a "scanner law" should not even be an issue. Most states have already written their scanner laws to include only the use of such devices in the commission of a crime. Please bear in mind that I refer only to the  reception of signals, and not the transmission of signals on police, fire, and EMS frequencies by unauthorized persons; this is clearly covered under federal law. As a Critical Care Emergency Medical Technician (Groton Fire Department Ambulance), I actually encourage the public to listen to the various fire and EMS frequencies so they can learn about what the Fire and EMS personnel actually do. I also have to caution them to not listen while in a vehicle because they could be prosecuted under the current law (V&T 397) for using a receiver capable of receiving police frequencies. There remains a potential for innocent persons to be judged as criminals for no valid reason, other than a law that really needs revision.

The radio transceivers to which I refer are that used by licensed Amateur Radio operators (at home, in vehicles, and portable transceivers as well), most of which are able to incidentally receive various police, fire, and EMS frequencies if programmed by the operator to do so. It is not primarily designed to receive police frequencies, but is capable of such only by its inherent design. This capability also allows the reception of NOAA weather broadcasts, which are useful in the observation and tracking of potentially or actual dangerous weather by "hams" who voluntarily coordinate the data to assist public safety personnel in attempting to minimize the damage from severe weather. Amateur radio operators have, for many decades, been at the forefront of disaster and emergency communications efforts, providing communications when other means have failed.

As for Mr. Lalone, he will be forced to spend a large amount of time and money to present his case in court, just to show that this law is outdated and summarily wrong, despite its original intent. This is unreasonable, and occurred because of a misinterpretation of current NY State and Federal laws by a police officer and a judge.

The current V&T 397 needs to be done away with or rewritten to clarify its intent, and to remove all restrictions on radio receivers, except in the case of use by those who are committing acts which violate criminal law. Any assistance that you can provide with this issue is very much appreciated. Please feel free to contact me if you need further information.

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Jerome E. Falletta

Now, let's be heard and make it happen!

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (fredrichter @ June 12 2003,07:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">AG4RG discusses some provisions of the Patriot Act, passed by Congress in response to 9/11 and I mentioned in a previous post that I was uncomfortable with many of its provisions.  A retired Naval officer and good friend of mine first alerted this situation to me.  I agree that some inconveniences, like the mentioned hospital procedures, may be needed for 5-10 years due to outside threats to the country, but some provisions of the Patriot Act are scary.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Fred, read between the lines. The Patriot Act will not be in effect for 5-10 years. The Government will make sure it becomes a permanent thing. My father told me a long time ago that income tax was instituted as a "temporary" measure. I'm sure the same will be with the Patriot Act. I don't see the threat of terrorism being eradicated by 2013. Fact is, I don't see it being eradicated within my lifetime, and I'm 48. I believe that the threat of terrorism will only increase, along with the erosion of our personal liberties. Why should security at a hospital and a medical building be so high? Is this what we are going to have to expect everywhere we go? To a shopping mall, the movies, a public park, a supermarket? BTW, my callsign is not AG4RG. It is AG4RQ.

 

I have had similar experience with local judges. "I you want to be protected by Federal law then you have to go to Federal Court."

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (fredrichter @ June 11 2003,13:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">   

With that I ask your permission for something.  I think some will be displeased with this suggestion.  I would like to Email the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) about your case.  It is a controversial organization and I am not a member.  The best thing I've ever heard in their defense is from Michael Douglas who in the film "The American President" while depicting the President said, "No matter what you think of them, this is the only organization dedicated to one purpose, to defend the Bill of Rights".  As such they have to stand up and be noticed, take some real tough, difficult to define, and unpopular positions.  As someone said once, "If you stand up, you are going to get hit in the head".  

If it was DWB last year, and antennas today, what next?  Our government cannot be compared to Germany in 1932, we have too many good people working in it.  However, we need our checks and balances to be working and a citizenry ever vigilent remembering that freedom is not free.  

I only suggest this because this organization will take on cases, pro bono, when they feel the Bill of Rights is at stake.  They might be interested in at least reviewing your case.  They may be able to help you and ham radio.  You and others may feel that ham radio should not associate itself with the ACLU, so I will not Email them unless I have your permission.  

When I have looked into what the ACLU actually does,  take off the red glasses many of us put on when they are mentioned (many see red), I see some things I don't agree with and lots of things I find I've taken for granted.  If a strong ACLU and courts that had to take them seriously, existed in Germany in the late 20's and early 30's, maybe history would have taken a different course.  

I look forward to your reply.  And HEY, you guys on the forum, remember not to kill the messenger.  Just a thought.  

Fred Richter
KG6DHV[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The ACLU is good at defending SOME of the Bill of rights and the Constitution..... Just try to get them to take a case concerning the Second Amendment and watch them run from you like the plague. I believe that the ARRL and FCC needs to step up to the plate and knock this mooncalf of a judge out of the ball park.
And I wouldn't put any weight at all in what Michael Douglas thinks, especially while his mouth is open.
Just another Hollywood liberal stroking his pets.

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Fred, read between the lines. The Patriot Act will not be in effect for 5-10 years. The Government will make sure it becomes a permanent thing. My father told me a long time ago that income tax was instituted as a "temporary" measure. I'm sure the same will be with the Patriot Act. I don't see the threat of terrorism being eradicated by 2013. Fact is, I don't see it being eradicated within my lifetime, and I'm 48. I believe that the threat of terrorism will only increase, along with the erosion of our personal liberties. Why should security at a hospital and a medical building be so high? Is this what we are going to have to expect everywhere we go? To a shopping mall, the movies, a public park, a supermarket? BTW, my callsign is not AG4RG. It is AG4RQ. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

You have some good points and they are well stated.  I would hope that we would not have to live like the Israelis, who are subjected to incredible scrutiny, but then they haven't had a plane hijacked in quite some time.  

Sorry for the not getting the callsign correct.  

Fred Richter
KG6DHV

 

"The ACLU is good at defending SOME of the Bill of rights and the Constitution..... Just try to get them to take a case concerning the Second Amendment and watch them run from you like the plague. I believe that the ARRL and FCC needs to step up to the plate and knock this mooncalf of a judge out of the ball park.
And I wouldn't put any weight at all in what Michael Douglas thinks, especially while his mouth is open.
Just another Hollywood liberal stroking his pets."

Thank you for your comments.  When I wrote mine I expected something that read exactly like your posting would appear.  That is, finger pointing, discussing the person who says something, rather what was said.  I've heard the comment on Article II of the Bill of Rights many times.  The ACLU disagrees with your interpretation of that Article and you apparently choose to dismiss the ACLU, by saying they are good except on the issue you disagree with them on. Then in the same message drag in Hollywood actors, sterotype them as those awful liberals. This is real shaky ground in my opinion, as I read more about Joe McCarthy. I was too young to understand his words at the time, but whose effect on the American people was collective paranoia, and I wasn't too young to understand that and remember it.

When I was in 8th grade my English teacher presented the topic of debating.  We worked on it for about two weeks and it included a mock debate on a current public issue.  One individual seemed to have the upper hand in a debate when he characterized his opponent, and anyone who agreed with the statement his opponent had made, in disrespectful terms.  The teacher immediately stood up, ended the debate, and indicated that the individual who chose to make his opponent an issue was disqualified.  She stated that as soon as any participant strayed from the issue by name calling, and question the education, intelligence, motivations, culture, and appearance of their opponent, or sterotyped their opponent because of their position, lost the debate.  I've always remembered that day in 8th grade.  I wish that everyone could exchange ideas, discuss issues, and solve problems together with that lesson in mind.  

I suspect that some would question the motivation and political views of my 8th grade teacher.  For those who would, she was the daughter of two German refugees of the 3rd Reich (they escaped by cross country skiing over the mountains into Switzerland after witnessing the execution of the Jewish corner merchant in the street) , and I was attending the 1st to 8th grade school at the Lutheran church that I was raised in.  She had then, and does now, have my respect, as does the Jewish woman with the number tattoed on her arm, who the my teacher brought in to speak to our class.

If you now choose to label me a liberal and dismiss my discourse, I must tell you that I am not a member of the ACLU because I am not as sure on their position on capital punishment as they are.  I donate some of my hard earned money to Morris Dees and his organization called the Southern Poverty Law Center, that has a program called "Teaching Tolerance".  They are responsible for bankrupting an organiztion that called itself the Aryan Nation and work hard to make sure the all the citizen's of this country are afforded the rights granted to them by the Constitution.  At one time, some people in this country who called themseves conservatives, disagreed and still disagree with Mr. Dees and his associates.  There is an often cited survey where when asked to read the Declaration of Independence on the street, more than just a majority of U.S. citizens labeled the document as "too liberal". For those who don't think that a civil rights movement was needed, pick up the book "Black Like Me". Our Constitution was not being held to the words in it and I consider that shameful.

As for Article Two of the Bill of Rights, I disagree with those who interpet it as giving a cult and its' leader the right to possess 50 caliber machine guns with armor piercing ammunition and hand grenades, while quoting scripture and the love of Christ, and sleeping with a different man's wife every night. Thank God for those Jewish resistors and the French underground who obtained some guns and fought the Germans. How many more American lives would have been lost without them? Why do Americans have more people per capita incarcerated than any other nation on earth, and why is our muder rate so high, mostly accomplished with firearms in the heat of passion, if we are such a great nation? This issue and the Constitution are not simple and I don't pretend to have all the answers.

Why is more and more wealth concentrated in fewer and fewer people and that trend being so pronounced during conservative administrations? How can a nation continue to be great without its middle class? Read through the book "The Twlight of American Culture" where the author cites some pretty good evidence that the Roman empire fell not because of declining morals, but because it lost its middle class. Kind of scary to me and I don't think calling each other names is going to address the issue.

I resent being called either a conservative or a liberal, I would rather learn and discuss positions on issues based on their merits, and not have the labels limit my thinking. I don't think I need advice on what I find I find as interesting dialog in the movies I watch. Watch the movie "Seven Days in May" and let me know if that is a liberal script or a conservative script or written by "just another Hollywood liberal". I remembered watching it in the 60's and at the time some people who called themselves conservative called it a liberal film because it depicted misconduct by the U.S. Military. Forty years later I've heard some use this film to champion the "fight against government", an issue raised by many who call themselves conservative. My observation is when it comes to the Constitution and the equal rights it states are guarenteed, whether something or someone is labeled "conservative" or "liberal" is often due, in part, to the times we are living in. If humans were always conservative would we not have a majority of serfs answering to feudal lords who owned all the land? Would we still dismiss the science of Copernicus because it dared challenge the dogma of the time, which held in valued tradition, that the sun revolved around the earth? Where would we be if we dismissed Copenicus as another one of those liberal scientists and educators? If mankind was always liberal would we hold fast to the values that we know work, many of which are timeless? Would we evaluate new ideas properly before jumping right in? The United States was born in revolution with radical ideas according to the thinking of the time. Revolution is often called liberal currently, and those who spoke of the U.S. needing a revolution in the 60's were called radicals, because they questioned values held by those in power. I think the answer is that the history of humans is a long push and pull between so called conservative and so called liberal forces, and without this process humans would never make any progress at all. Back to the sixties, "Love it or leave it" and "Change it or lose it" were the bumper stickers of the time. Mine would have said "Love it and change it, when necessary". So why do we catch ourselves up in name calling, finger pointing, and labels which sort of blow in the wind depending on the times in which they are uttered?

Our species has some real tough challenges ahead of us that need solutions without with our future is in jeapordy. It seems like the old viewpoint with some of us standing on the left or right side of a narrow line in the sand is not conducive to working out those solutions together.

I say these things in all due respect to your viewpoints, sir. I hope this message finds you well. I sincerely appreciate them and for the opportunity to express mine. Richard, good idea for starting a second thread, because I really got off the point here.        

Fred Richter
KG6DHV