Some things I don't forget

I've got a list of lawyers & senior staff who I think need to be held accountable for our opening up of the gates of hell in 2002. It was a long slide that started with "extraordinary rendition" and has wound up with Prison guards routinely pepper spraying prisoners to make them more cooperative.

The ACLU is working to publicize the full extent to which the Bush Administration opened those gates, and our own Obama POTUS has helped them get away with it. The ACLU notes about this:

"Nevertheless, the Obama administration is still fighting to keep the full truth about torture – including photos the public hasn't yet seen – from the American people. But recently the courts and the Senate have been pushing back, resisting the government's claims that it can't reveal its torture secrets. As a result, those secrets may finally be dragged into the light."

A lot of the information has been published from leaks, and of course denied, and I've written about it before. The spigot was actually more open when Bush was still doing it.

"The government is holding back as many as 2,100 never-released images from Abu Ghraib and other detention centers overseas. The ACLU first sued for their release 10 years ago, and in August, District Court Judge Alvin Hellerstein ruled that the government must publish the photos unless it can defend withholding them on an individualized basis."

I don't need the images. My imagination fills in the details and they haunt my nightmares sometimes. I've got a list of folks in my head. I'm not going to get revenge. That's up to Divine Causality. But I won't forget either.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/human-rights-national-security/torture-secrets-are-coming

Other things I don't forget:

Corruption in our SEC:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/top-regulator-says-bank-c_b_6021296.html

Rewriting History

I grew up in a world where Christopher Columbus was the hero who "sailed the ocean blue" and "discovered America" too. A world where local Indians saved innocent religious Pilgrims from starvation, and John Smith wooed Pocahontas and she became an English Baroness. It was only later that I learned that it was "more complicated." Nothing has changed much. I walked 5 miles to Harpers Ferry today and saw various paeons to Robert E Lee, a wax image of John Brown that depicted him as a black man, when he was in fact as white as I am. A paeon to some black fellow who resisted the assault on the Federal Arsenal at Harpers Ferry. In a world where Robert E. Lee is a hero and John Brown a blood thirsty black person it's no wonder that folks still have delusions of what the South was up to in 1859, much less understand the present. Of course it's "more complicated" than any mythologized narrative. But that is why we need to tell the truth. Columbus wasn't a demon and he didn't "discover" America except from the POV of Christian Europeans looking for loot and slaves. The Pilgrims were indeed saved from starvation by help from local indigenous folks, but they weren't innocent and they were endangered of starvation because they had arrived with dreams of plantation farming or finding gold and silver. Pocohantas did save John Smith from death, and she did marry a gentleman and live in Britain. There is some truth in the legends.

Liberal Fascism

We see folks rewriting history everywhere. Jonah Goldberg wrote a book "Liberal Fascism" which is a prime example of rewriting history. Yes, there were common ideological elements between 20's and 30's liberalism and 20's and 30's Fascism. But Goldberg's thesis of identity involves rewriting (or at least spinning) the actual record. He's not the only one.

Alternet notes:

"Jonah Goldberg that contends that Hitler and Mussolini were committed left-wingers, and that today's liberals are fascism's natural intellectual heirs. While this may sound like yet another Coulteresque quickie aimed at prying some money out of Dittohead Nation, Goldberg insists that it is actually a Very Serious Work that "isn't like any Ann Coulter book" because it presents an argument that "has never been made in such detail or with such care. Goldberg also goes to great lengths from the start of the book to say that he's not really saying liberals are fascists, but hey, here are 400 pages of similarities between liberals and fascists, and if you start associating the two of them by the end of the book, then that's not his fault."[http://www.alternet.org/story/72960/jonah_goldberg's_'liberal_facism'_brings_historical_revisionism_to_comical_new_heights

Brad Reid continues later:

"But what in the world do Hitler's Germany, Soviet Russia and America under the Roosevelts all have in common, you ask? For one thing, Goldberg contends that all of these regimes gained popular support by using sinister populist rhetoric that painted wealthy capitalists in a negative light. Through sheer ignorance or ideological blindness, Goldberg never explores why trashing wealthy plutocrats during the Gilded Age and the Great Depression had become both politically profitable and morally sound. Rather, he deems all populist rhetoric as a key piece of the anti-individualist "totalitarian political religion" that American liberalism shares with Communism and Fascism.">

"While a lot of this stuff is easy to laugh off, some of Goldberg's historical revisionism is downright sickening. In one particularly grotesque passage, he tries to obfuscate the Nazis' treatment of homosexuals by calling their attitudes toward homosexuality "a source of confusion." Oh sure, he writes, "some homosexuals were sent to concentration camps," but it's also true that the early Nazi party was "rife with homosexuals." I'm sure the 100,000 men who were arrested for being homosexuals in Nazi Germany, as well as the thousands more who died in concentration camps, were proud to see their brethren so well-represented in the SS."

What is funny (not in the nice way) to me is the observation that many publicly homophobic individuals in the modern anti-Homosexual movement among the Far Right in our own country are also "rife with" closet cases who keep getting outed by folks in the gay movement. From Roy Cohn in the late 40's and 50's to "Mister spread my legs" Congressman. It's not a new thing that the vanguard of any angry movement is replete with folks who hate themselves; women who are misogynistic, gays who are homophobic, minorities who are self hating, etc... So again "it's complicated.

If Goldberg were the only one engaging in revisionism we could sigh and laugh a little. But of course he's joined by Amity Schlaes, who wrote "The Forgotten Man" with the primary objective of rewriting the history of the Great Depression. The author of one mostly positive review notes that aside from trying to paint Calvin Coolidge and Hoover as heros the book turns economic history on it's head. David Warsh writes;

"What then /did/cause cause the Great Depression? According to Shlaes, an overheated market, culminating in the October Crash of 1929, had something to do with it. So did bad banking policy and protectionism. "But the deepest problem was the intervention, the lack of faith in the marketplace. Government management of the late 1920s and 1930s hurt the economy... Fear froze the economy, but that uncertainty itself might be a cost was something the young experimenters simply did not consider." But for the air of emergency fostered by "the world of theory, the world of the pilgrims," the economy would have quickly equilibrated by itself, with wages and share prices quickly "marked to market." The Depression would have gone into the history books as no more severe than the short, sharp "liquidation" that began the '20s -- a "quarter-hour" in the history of the American republic in Andrew Mellon's memorable phrase." [http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/07/david-warsh-on-.html]

In short her argument is the true believer argument that insufficient "faith" in free markets drove the great depression; the idea that somehow letting the economy completely crash would enable debts to be discharged and businesses to get rid of excess industry and get back to the work of making things. A theory that is not economics or ethics, but ideological dogma. As the author notes:

"There is very little support for this idea among professional economists. Consult Essays on the Great Depression by Ben S. Bernake, for example, and you will learn that a majority of macroeconomists have concluded in recent years that prolonged adherence to the gold standard played a dominating role in determining the worldwide monetary contraction of the 1930s. "We do not yet have our hands on the grail by any means," he writes, but countries that left the gold standard early were able to reflate their monetary supplies and price levels, while countries that remained on gold were forced into further deflation. In other words, some approaching a consensus exists among economists that poorly-designed institutions and short-sighted policies were at the heart of the Great Depression. ... (About this considerable volume of work, Shlaes has very little to say. ...) ..."[http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/07/david-warsh-on-.html]

But of course Krugman gets on her for going after (Our hero) Keynes with pure BS spin:

Grr. Keynesianism says that deficit spending can help create jobs when the economy is depressed. The Great Society wasn’t deficit spending, it wasn’t intended to create jobs, and the economy of the 1960s wasn’t depressed. It was social engineering; we can talk about how well or badly it worked, but it had nothing whatsoever to do with Keynesian economics."

When Roosevelt did his efforts to alleviate the Great Depression Keynes hadn't even made a name for himself. Instead the Chicago School of Economics and economists in our own country had to discover the principles that Keynes would later talk about by trial and error. Krugman continues:

"Now, LBJ did engage in some Keynesian economics: namely, he imposed a contractionary fiscal policy in the form of a tax surcharge in an effort to cool an overheating economy."

And unfortunately such measures do "work" somewhat. Even con economists have discovered that monetary policy rarely impacts the economy the way theoreticians predict (Mostly because banks are privateering institutions and not agencies of good government). But hte whole prupose of rewriting history is to substitute myth (lies) and legends (half truths and exaggerations) for concepts that someone doesn't like. Krugman continues:

"Alas, pretty soon we’ll have all the usual suspects saying that the Great Society proves that Keynesian economics doesn’t work — after all, the “experts” told them so."[http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/amity-shlaes-strikes-again/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0]

So Secessionist traitors like Lee are painted as heros. The Generals who fight them are portrayed as drunks. Causality is turned on it's head and modern Neo-Fascists call their opponents fascists because young folks have been groomed to rewrite history.

All this is intentional. Whether it's Schlaes, Anne Coulter, Goldberg, or Dinesh D'Souza, these rewrites give license to folks for whom "free enterprise", "oligarchy" and "markets" are a religion. The right recruits, grooms and trains intellectuals who will carry on family tradition and spread convenient propaganda. As he notes about Goldberg, William Krystal and Podhoretz:

"William Kristol and John Podheretz, Goldberg was raised by prominent figures within the right-wing movement and was trained from the start to be an influential public "intellectual." And just as Kristol and Podheretz's writings closely mirror the neoconservative views espoused by their parents, Goldberg's penchant for attacking liberals in the most shameless and slimy ways imaginable is unsurprisingly similar to the style of his mother Lucianne, a right-wing literary agent who first came to national prominence when she helped Linda Tripp break the Monica Lewinsky scandal to the press." [http://www.alternet.org/story/72960/jonah_goldberg's_'liberal_facism'_brings_historical_revisionism_to_comical_new_heights]

That might border on being "ad-hominem" except that the author has already shown the misrepresentations, spins and outright lies of his targets.

And it "works" -- if repeating easily avoided policy mistakes is your definition of "working."

Website Progress

I've finally back to work on my artscommunity.com website. I've been too distracted by other things to get really dug into it, but now I'm fleshing out my vision for what it should look like. It's been a while and I'd forgotten some things about basic syntax, so the execution takes longer than I expected. I'm mocking it up on my computer. It's going to, ultimately, consolidate a lot of stuff, but to start with I need the interface and a few elements to support some of my volunteer projects and create materials I can show to potential customers. I hate sales but I love developing marketing materials. I've been having fun building the elements. I should have done much of this a year ago. I haven't been procrastinating. It just takes longer than I expect to do anything. This is not an announcement, just a status report.

We Dance on the Second Law of Thermodynamics

As long as the sun shines with light and earth radiates infrared into the night

we dance on the second law of thermodynamics.

We are fossil sunstuff born in long ago cataclysms of dying suns.

Our lives dance due to things made from the chaos of spreading space and time.

 

Our eyes should be wide with wonder,

at the massiveness,

the mysteriousness of it all.

We live in a moment of creation and destruction,

and the more we feel it we realize we are in it's thrall...

We who are here are here because of ancient dreams and bursting things.

As if a single word were spoken saying "breath" from a single spot.

And you can hear the sound, the sound of creation all around.

It is in every moment, and we should hear it and sing along.

We create our present moment.

 

Dancing on the moment of creation we ride a wave coming from the past.

We have to live in the moment though not one moment ever lasts.

Born, awakening, sleeping, dying. Seven days in every moment.

You may see a book of paper. I see a book of life.

You may see a frozen dictation. But I see a blowing wind.

Christopher H. Holte Today, 10/16/2014

My Hypothesis confirmed -- Thomas Duncan died due to substandard treatment and now Nurses getting sick

The Nurses at the Presbyterian Hospital tell a horror story of how the late patient Duncan was given substandard treatment that probably contributed to his death. They make 5 allegations, which I extracted from a CNN report:

"A nurses' union is sounding the alarm about the lack of safety protocols at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas after two nurses there apparently contracted Ebola from a patient who later died of the virus."

This is a follow on post to an earlier post: http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2014/10/ebola-or-why-medicaid-expansion-matters.html

1. Duncan wasn't immediately isolated
2. The nurses' protective gear left their necks exposed
3. At one point, hazardous waste piled up
4. Nurses got no 'hands-on' training
5. The nurses 'feel unsupported - fear retaliation for talking

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/15/health/texas-ebola-nurses-union-claims/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

The nurses tell horror stories of how during his initial admitting process he was left in the hall and treated by Nurses wearing minimal protective gear. They then go on to say that when he was finally placed in an isolation ward the gear they were given wasn't much better. Thus it's only a surprise that only two nurses have tested positive for Ebola. And it remains to be seen if they will get the kind of first class care that is necessary for them to survive.

More details:

"The nurses' statement alleged that when Duncan was brought to Texas Health Presbyterian by ambulance with Ebola-like symptoms, he was “left for several hours, not in isolation, in an area” where up to seven other patients were. “Subsequently, a nurse supervisor arrived and demanded that he be moved to an isolation unit, yet faced stiff resistance from other hospital authorities,” they alleged."

They also note:

"Duncan's lab samples were sent through the usual hospital tube system “without being specifically sealed and hand-delivered. The result is that the entire tube system … was potentially contaminated,” they said."

They deny that Presbyterian understood or passed on CDC guidelines:

"The statement described a hospital with no clear rules on how to handle Ebola patients, despite months of alerts from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta about the possibility of Ebola coming to the United States."

“There was no advanced preparedness on what to do with the patient. There was no protocol. There was no system. The nurses were asked to call the infectious disease department” if they had questions, but that department didn't have answers either, the statement said. So nurses were essentially left to figure things out on their own as they dealt with “copious amounts” of highly contagious bodily fluids from the dying Duncan while they wore gloves with no wrist tape, flimsy gowns that did not cover their necks, and no surgical booties, the statement alleged."

All this has policy implications. I'd like to think that what we need is a National Health Militia that is more like the Founders would have constituted it had they known what we know now. Further Reading:

http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2014/10/why-we-need-national-health-service.html

Source for second half of article:http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ebola-dallas-20141014-story.html#page=1

What is wrong with our attitude towards Ebola is now coming back to bite us:

http://mic.com/articles/100618/one-powerful-illustration-shows-exactly-what-s-wrong-with-media-coverage-of-ebola

Private Manning and Years of Tradition of Keeping Secrets

One reason why many folks of my Generation and older were shocked and angry when Private Manning "did his thing" is that we come from a long tradition of secrecy. I had friends and family members with clearances who'd sworn a blood oath to keep secrets and took that oath seriously. I was one of them. Sometimes I'd been let in on some of the secrets (illegally since the law doesn't let relatives let relatives in on them) but it was always with the implicit understanding we'd keep them for the family member. Most of the time a relative would point to an article in Science or Popular Mechanics and say "that's what I was working on." They were forbidden to talk about it, kept that promise, and suddenly this joker spills an entire database of secrets out to the press. I never read Manning's material first hand. I was offended by his action. I knew people who wanted to "take him out" for breaking the silence that millions of American men and women had been keeping on what our government was doing. We really believed that "loose lips sink ships" and that most of what we were doing was honorable (even the dishonorable parts) and for the sake of our country and even mankind as a whole. We thought we were the good guys.

In fact I was working with Military Medical ID secrets and had worked on Pay and Personnel, news releases, and other non-classified but equally private information. I took pride in keeping appropriate secrets and also agreed with that "oath keepers" notion that we would never obey an illegal or immoral order. But the reality began to set in even before Private Manning did his thing. And as time goes by I'm realizing that the secrets we were keeping were not good for our country, that such secrets sink ships even more than loose lips about them, and that we really need to rethink this whole "secrecy thing.

Trouble is

Trouble is, when we live in a society where we can trust each other but not those outside our own group that is a dangerous place to be. And we do. Russians, Israelis, Arab Nations, Vatican, French, British, emerging nations, ancient Nations, Chinese and even little countries like Rwanda, all have people keeping secrets. And "loose lips" really do "sink ships." The Pueblo was sunk to protect North Korean secrets. And the USS Liberty was sunk to keep Israeli secrets. We remember these transgressions because they illustrate the "great" (actually it's not great at all) "game" that is international spying, covert operations and terrorism. Folks die to keep secrets. Folks commit suicide, are murdered, are jailed, are defamed and blacklisted, suicided, labeled crazy or otherwise sidelined to keep secrets. And the law gives officials and judges power to keep secrets that shouldn't be kept. And the nature of the release of secrets is such that their release kills people, shocks Wall Street, brings down governments, and hurts people. Truth hurts. Untruth hurts more.

Keeping Crimes Secret Hurts a Lot more.

But keeping crimes secrets hurts a lot more. I had no trouble keeping my secrets because I understood them, was hiding nothing that shouldn't be kept secret, and it was my honor and duty to "fermé le bouche" about them. And I'm hyper-sensitive about such things, so I don't think I have the wisdom to decide which secrets ought not to be kept. But I'm out of government work because I no longer believe that much of what we are doing is right. There is a lot of crime committed in "secret-land" and it needs to be stopped. I believe the Congress needs to amend it's whistle blower and secrecy laws to make it easier to declassify information about crimes and harder for courts and the Government to use secrecy to cover them up.

Legacy of Ashes

Right now I'm reading "Legacy of Ashes" by Tim Weiner, and it is like all books on the CIA, FBI, etc... Told by authors who depend on professional liars for their source information. So it has a lot of tantalizing clues in it, and some areas that contradict what other books on the CIA tell me, and stories I've heard from some of those friends and relatives I mentioned. But it points to the fact that we don't get a straight story, even when the authorities are pretending to come clean. The meat of the story is how the CIA deflected the Church Committee and avoided prosecution after years of violating it's own charter, and that alone makes the book a good read. It's not definitive. Not sure there ever will be a definitive book on the CIA, spycraft involves regularly recording misinformation, disinformation and lies within lies. But it does have it's clues. For example on page 336 it discusses how Colby tried (mostly successfully) to dissemble, deflect and hide CIA domestic spying. Ultimately Colby let himself be a scapegoat too, but first he:

"by laying the issue of illegal domestic surveillance at the doorstep of Jim Angleton, who had been opening first class mail in partnership with the FBI for twenty years."

He then notes the treasonous attitude of Angleton (and by implication most of the CIA) when he quotes Angleton:

"It is inconceivable" he said "that a secret arm of the government has to comply with all the overt orders of the government."

Anyone familiar with the CIA and it's 17 fighting, struggling, rival and different internal agencies, or the Special Ops community, to any degree will recognize this quote as part of a "protecting the President" [from knowledge] attitude of many folks in our Security forces. It is dangerous to play with Special Ops. Unemployed Special Ops people formed the Nucleus of Mussolini's Fascist party in the 1900's and they are very dangerous folks to any civilian government. Anyone wondering how Obama can be continuing programs he criticized for reaching office need only hear this quote from Angleton and a few more to understand how hard it is to reign in a security state once it's formed.

More likely they'll quietly remind officials like Presidents where the real power is.

So I'm not onboard with keeping all the secrets that some of our officials want to keep in a democracy. I don't see Snowden the way I saw Manning, though I wish he'd focused on just the "bad secrets" and not spilled the beans on the huge spying capabilities I've known about for years. What switched me is that Angleton's words applied in 1975 and they never stopped spying domestically. And they not only kept secrets but lied. And not only lied, but lied for the private gain of a cabal. That is what hurts most. I innocently helped them betray my country. Snowden is nominally a traitor and were I forced to sit on a jury trying him I'd find him guilty. But so are the folks at NSA and the FBI who are undermining our democracy and subverting our countries basic principles. Like Angleton they assert impunity.

Legacy of Ashes: http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Ashes-The-History-CIA/dp/0307389006

Why We Need a National Health Service

The Constitution was designed for a Networked but Federated system for responding to national threats. The founders divided into groups around George Washington, who would prefer a National Military ("Continental Army") and others who wanted more localized militia. But they all agreed on the need for collaboration and coordination. They just weren't sure on how to achieve that goal as militia forces had weaknesses in training and discipline and were not always effective over trained, disciplined "professional" forces like the infamous redcoats we fought during our revolt from Britain. The constitution spells out the powers of congress on our national operations including the duty and power to organize arm, and discipline a national militia.

Clearly the Federal Government is responsible for defending the country from all threats. And the founders clearly envisioned a medical component for the militia, though the science of health and the military was in it's primitive state when the constitution was written. Folks defending the Affordable Care Act were able to cite the 1792 Militia Act which mandated that militia members provide their own arms and the Seamans Act, which mandated that Ships carry insurance on seamen.

But I'm not defending private solutions for our health care issues. The authority for the arms requirement of the USA militia is in Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution as well as the commerce clause. I'm citing these because it is clear that the principle of Federalism involves collaboration and cooperation directed from a general staff with consent of legislatures and local government -- and that has been focused on national services from the beginning of our country. We need a National Health Service organized along militia principles.

Article 1 Section 8 Militia

The Surgeon General is an old position. He should be the Article 1, Section 8 head of a National Health Service Militia which should be the organizing, provisioning and disciplining body for that service under the supervision of congress. The Surgeon General should also be responsible for governing such part of them as employed in the Service of the United States. It should have 50+ membership branches (with intermediate administrative branches by region for organization purposes) with each member at the employ of the States. This National MHS and it's officers and education should be shared collaboratively between the member governors and the Surgeon General. The National MHS would have a governors Board composed of delegates from each subdivision and a legislative advisory board elected by general members (interested people) of the MHS.

Such organizations, being collaborative between States and Federal Government would be explicitly constitutional, but including a legislative advisory body within them ensures that Federal principles are replicated within the States. To do that right this principle needs to be replicated within each state as well. A section 4 Republican guarantee to every State involves replicating this structure within each State so that Hospitals, Schools, clinics, Towns, Counties and Cities are involved in this system and represented in it's governance.

What is missing from most of our top down bureaucracies is a rational legislature. A principle of good requirements and good lawmaking is involving the stakeholders in making such laws. A legislative advisory organization led by experts and elected representatives of an expert community can provide such guidance in an excellent way. This is what we need to organize our response to both emergency and to budget and policy decision making. Collaboration and bottom up forms to counter the effectiveness and inertia of top down decision making.

I propose that the HS include a HS membership organization (which can be an umbrella with chapters and subchapters) with formal advisory powers. It should be self governing and self-funding through membership or similar fees and independently bottom up run. It would be self governing over those parts of it's membership that are self funding. This would be a formal organization with open general membership and a "bar" of people of good character with voting powers and officer eligibility.

Federal Government as Collaborative Government.

The original vision of the Founders was of a country that would be a collaboration between the states. It also is one of Federalism and Commonwealth. It was not intended to be yet another incarnation of the Top Down bureaucratic Imperium of Rome. It was supposed to be a new idea of a new government that would be as Lincoln said "of the people, for the people and by the people". And we can make it so.

Discussion

Constitution on militia:

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

1792 Militia Act which mandated that militia members provide their own arms:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia by the captain or commanding officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this act. And it shall at all times hereafter be the duty of every such captain or commanding officer of a company to enroll every such citizen, as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of eighteen years, or being of the age of eighteen years and under the age of forty-five years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by a proper non-commissioned officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/06/26/george-washingtons-individual-mandates/

Seamans Act:

In 1790, the very first Congress—which incidentally included 20 framers—passed a law that included a mandate: namely, a requirement that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. This law was then signed by another framer: President George Washington. That’s right, the father of our country had no difficulty imposing a health insurance mandate.[...]

Six years later, in 1798, Congress addressed the problem that the employer mandate to buy medical insurance for seamen covered drugs and physician services but not hospital stays. And you know what this Congress, with five framers serving in it, did? It enacted a federal law requiring the seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves. That’s right, Congress enacted an individual mandate requiring the purchase of health insurance. And this act was signed by another founder, President John Adams.

That's from Einer Elhauge, a professor at Harvard Law, who continues, "not only did most framers support these federal mandates to buy firearms and health insurance, but there is no evidence that any of the few framers who voted against these mandates ever objected on constitutional grounds. Presumably one would have done so if there was some unstated original understanding that such federal mandates were unconstitutional."