Hiroshima: The Falsehood Fallout

The bombing of Japan was a watershed event in human history. It ended the war, saving hundreds of thousands of people on our side (of course, we were the side that was ruthlessly attacked). This includes pow’s who were treated inhumanely (to say the least!) by the Japanese and any soldiers who would have attacked Japan directly (full disclosure: i owe my life to the bombing).

It also demonstrated - in tangible form - what nuclear weapons were capable of. I believe this has been a key reason they have not been used again in the modern age. While we have had irreposnsible leaders on both sides, no one has been so crazy to unleash the nuclear genie again. Let’s just hope the Islamic nuts out there never get such weapons!

Posted by wolf on Aug 8, 2005 at 7:02 AM

For other views read:

WHY TRUMAN DROPPED THE BOMB
Weekly Standard, 08/08/2005, Volume 010, Issue 44:
Sixty years after Hiroshima, we now have the secret intercepts that shaped his decision. 
by Richard B. Frank

Also, from PBS’s website:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pacific/timeline/ 
FROM THE FALL OF SAIPAN TO SURRENDER

In the recent battles leading up to the bombing only around 3 percent of the Japanese Imperial troops participating were taken alive. 100,000 Japanese died on Okinawa rather than surrender. Our Naval Intelligence was intercepting over a million of their messages per month. No mutually acceptable terms were ever presented by authorized representatives

Posted by whattheheck on Aug 8, 2005 at 12:32 PM

Great article and an anniversary under-recognized in the US.  However, a few facts about the actual events in Hiroshima include the distribution of fliers over the city announcing the dropping of a bomb.  The Japanese government advised people to stay, that it was a trick, and to ignore the warnings.  The city is a port for military and an industrial center, however, the vast majority of people killed were women and children (still at home eating breakfast).  Also, the Japanese government’s reaction to the bomb was non-reactive until the 2nd bomb fell, which historical documents actually show that conversations in the Emperor’s cabinet was completely unpredicted.  With conversation and debate, the surrender was determined by the Nagasaki bomb and the destruction Japan faced if these kinds of bombings continued.  Some interesting reading is the Japanese surrender doc which details the limitations on occupation through the surrender.  Thus, Hirohito went on to live a long and comfortable life, in his palace, undisturbed.
The morality of taking 200,000 lives with just 2 bombs…in order to save more lives…sounds reminiscent of Kissinger’s faulty logic for Vietnam.  Or maybe more currently, Schwarzeneggar’s “Collateral Damage” ethics.  It is an important question that remains to be answered.

Posted by Judith on Aug 8, 2005 at 1:03 PM

i don’t think one can view the decision to drop THE BOMB in isolation, i.e. whether the japanese were ready to surrender or could have been defeated conventionally.  first, let me say this: the list of japanese atrocities in the war are legion.  just ask the chinese or koreans or filipinos. this is not to say that we should meet their horror with our greater horror.  but wars are always ugly and this one was more so (as all the “modern” wars have been due to the “efficiencies” achieved).  read “the rape of nanking” if you need convincing.  second, there is “evidence” to drop or not drop on both sides.  yet, as has been noted, the japanese fought to-the-death in places like okinawa and iwo jima.  i have no doubt imagining that the homeland would have fought because the military leaders in japan would have ordered it.  third, it’s hard to make an analogy or comparison b/n truman’s characterization of hiroshima as a military target and bush’s lies re: wmd.  truman didn’t manufacture the war and he didn’t manufacture the arguments about what it might have taken to end it on terms acceptable to the u.s.  fourth, the war was filled with civilians being attacked.  the germans bombed london, the allies bombed dresden, the german subs sunk non-military ships, the japanese had their korean comfort women, and on and on and on.  so let’s not act as if hiroshima was the first time civilians had been attacked in that war.  fifth, the manhattan project began in response to fears that the germans were on the way to developing THE BOMB.  i have no doubt that hitler would have used it; and i have no doubt that if the u.s. and germany had simultaneously developmed THE BOMB each side would have been on a hair trigger.  sixth, i see no problem in pushing for an unconditional surrender with japan.  they would have asked the same of us had the position been reversed.

anyway, my bottom line point is that it’s too easy and, in my opinion, inaccurate to say that the decision to drop THE BOMB was wrong.  absolutely, it was one of the seminal moments in human history; and i believe that the questions raised by nuclear power and war and peace and etc. are too complex to be distilled to whether it was right or wrong.

Posted by carl8833 on Aug 8, 2005 at 3:44 PM

Japan was probably prepared to surrender on conditional terms-but the United States would accept only unconditional surrender.

And what conditions would those be?  The militarists were insisting on no occupation of the Japan mainland, and were unwilling to lose Japan’s overseas territories (acquired by conquest).  Also, any war criminals would have to be tried by Japanese, not Allied courts.  These conditions would never have been accepted by the Allies.

Simply allowing the Emperor to remain on the throne would not have been sufficient to induce the military to surrender.

Finally, would Japan have been better off if the Soviet Union had invaded and occupied Hokkaido?  Look at what happened when the Russians occupied parts of Germany and Korea to get your answer.  Stalin only called off the invasion at the last minute, and long after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed.

Posted by Bobster1985 on Aug 9, 2005 at 4:21 PM

War is hell. Period. Unconditional surreneder means just that: you lose, you toe the line given by your conquerors. Why do you think they call it “war?”

I also agree with the excellent points raised by Carl… there is absolutely no comparison whatsoever between Truman dropping the bomb and the current administration.

Posted by g-love on Aug 10, 2005 at 8:20 AM

I don’t have much patience with people making judgments sixty years after the fact.  People were dying every day in 1945, and the war had to be brought to a swift end.  All this talk about the Japanese government being on the brink of surrender is simply not supported by the evidence.  They were putting out peace feelers for a negotiated settlement - on terms favorable to them.  The military was not willing to surrender prior to the A-bombings, and even after Hiroshima and Nagasaki the cabinet was divided.  It took the direct intervention of the Emperor to finally persuade them, and STILL there were some in the military who wanted to fight on (including officers who attempted a coup to prevent the Emperor’s surrender message from being read on the radio.)  You can speculate all day on what might have happened, but here’s what DID happen - the bombs were dropped, and within a week Japan surrendered.  The Soviets didn’t occupy any of the home islands so there was no divided nation like in Germany and Korea.  And Japan has been peaceful and prosperous for 60 years.

Posted by Bobster1985 on Aug 11, 2005 at 9:14 PM

I find it funny how people always forget to put into perspective what was perceived at the time. And I do realized that the American people at that time also had a perspective that to this day leads most to believe that bombing innocent people in Japan was justified, but
But I ask this one question. If Iraqis drop some Atomic bombs on New York or LA today since America is invading and killing them, even thought we have soldiers over there who, also like the Japanese soldiers, were deceived into the war in the first place.

So from all the rants I see here in support of the bombings I guess then if Iraq bombed the usa it would also be justified since our soldiers were also lied to and are now killing countless innocent people and also fighting to the death.

So yeah bombs away is my motto—But I prefer to side with the folks who do not feel it is justifiable to do unto others as they do unto us… So what if Japan had a few Nuts like JW Bush at the time, it doesn

Posted by hkray on Aug 21, 2005 at 9:17 AM

To: hkray

Your comments on WW2 were especially interesting to me in view of the Tim Russert/David McCullough interview re: his book,

Posted by whattheheck on Aug 22, 2005 at 8:14 AM

This had nothing to do with the people who sacrifice themselves in the belief they were fighting for a cause - as our soldiers in Iraq have been fooled to believe. This was about the motivation for the fight in the first place. I agree that we must put things into perspective to the time and place - like so many blame the US for Vietnam, Korea, yet not a word of Communist China as the major troublemaker in all those troubled times. SO this is not an issue if I am young or old, more to do with what the real purpose of war is in almost all examples As far as American interest - you have never heard about the puppet governments of the US. Look around and wonder why we have all these conflicts and who is the major contributor to this troubled times. Who support Taliban, Marcos, Korea dictators, Iranian Shaw, Panama, SA & Central America, Middle East, shall I continue—shall I continue..

Even to this day the US is still using the Philippines as a launching pad and no one even realizes what is going on over there. The government is still controlled by the same people who were Marcos cronies and they continue to this day under the guise of terrorist - some poor Muslim fishermen who are angry because the rich Catholics of manila use the most fertile fishing and farming lands for themselves while leaving the poor Muslims impoverished. SO Yeah my father also fought and he also was blind to see how so many died for the wrong reason. What were Canadians, but shields for the British in their battles - Fight the good fight.

War is not what war was. As a New York Times Journalist put it this week - America has no idea there is a war. As he stood outside a shopping mall he over heard a group of people walk out and say

Posted by hkray on Aug 23, 2005 at 12:32 AM

Young people seem to be more passionate about the truth. For example protests are generally full of the younger generations. Younger people seem to believe stronger in human rights. In universities around the world, I often hear the talk of how people are suffering in this place or that place due to this policy or that company.

The older generations, especially in the west. Seem to to lose their passionate fight for a better world as the years pass them by. Experience gets the better of their idealism.

Whattheheck wrote “Your misconceptions of what precipitated that war indicate you are too young to remember it and have little or no historical knowledge, (quite disrespectful)but rather believe what you prefer to be the truth.” to hkray

I don’t believe that hkray’s writings are necessarily misconceptions, rather, another way of looking at the same event. He choses to look at other times in history to take information from. Hkray takes different evidence into account. Maybe living the American Dream isn’t as great as so many make it out to be.

Youth Suicide has grown in the Americas since WW2. Japan has one of the highest rates in the world.

Since graduating from high school, 4 fathers of friends of mine have commited suicide in Australia, and The USA.

I am currently living in a small town in Wisconsin where people are friendly but nearly everybody is suffering from health problems, taking many kinds of pills each day just to stay happy, under-weight and so on.

I recently asked a few different small town Americans if they had travelled to South America or Asia. All said no. Their reasonings were mainly because they are too afraid to travel since 9/11 or that they can’t get more than a week or two off from work. They can’t quit their job for a year because they would be afraid off being unemployed and being unable to have a good retirement.

Freedom?

What is my point?

My point is that the power struggles fought by governments are about control and imposing one set of beliefs and one way of life to a group of people.

Isn’t imposing our way of life on other countries simply because ours is better a wee bit arrogant?

Isn’t the word ‘better’ a little too subjective?

One piece of wisdom to the elderly and the young that both often forget.

‘I have a lot to teach, but I also have a lot to learn.’

Peace

P.S over 25 000 iraqi cilvilains have died since the Invasion. Over 2000 young men and women have died from the UK, Australia and yes America you also have lost lives. But please remember, the sacrifice of American lives don’t out rank the sacrifice of others lives.

Posted by chase on Aug 23, 2005 at 8:12 AM

to hkray,

At least there is one point on which we can agree

Posted by whattheheck on Aug 23, 2005 at 1:15 PM

I hear the views of whattheheck all the time.

As If Muslim extremists have no reason at all to be accusing usof being ‘crusaders’.

Unfortunately this uninformed opinion leads to the very extremism that causes people to die, hence the belief in the death penalty aswell.

Most americans hear the word terrorist and don’t even question why that person was issued with that buzz word.

Nobody asks why did they attack us? Nobody tries to find out if their attack on us has anything to do with something we are doing in their countries to their families. They also put their families, religion and beliefs first and when they are being taken over by our ways of life they fight like we would.

We, Americans, Chileans, Australians, Japanese, anybody who takes part in the Consumer world are at risk because what our Public Corporations are doing is our responsibility, we are the owners of them! the share holders. We are also completely responsible for the actions of our governments.

So VOTE.

And also vote for ethically and environmentally aware companies by buying their products and not the products of companies that put profits before people and our planet.

It is also our responsibilty to learn, because we can. Too many of us vote with one party simply because our family does! We have free press! We have so many opinoins to read about! So why does everybody just stick to the mainstream?

Laziness?

Posted by chase on Aug 23, 2005 at 4:19 PM

WTH at it again are you. All your lies, lies and delusions. We know you don’t care about truth, but since others are and since you raised the issue. The truth is out, even the MSM has it loud and clear, the British police did not think that De Menezes was a suicide bomber. Simply did not, just another official lie which has unravelled. You SHILLS really have to stop throwing in all these irrelevant issues especially when they are themselves proven lies.

You are on the losing side in every sense of the word WTH. You war crime supporters are haemoraging supporters faster than the polls can keep up with. You and people like you have got nothing to offer anybody else except your completely hubristic delusions. Not an ounce of truth to claims you have a free or even humane culture. You are the only country who has ever used nuclear weapons, you are doing so on a massive scale via Depleted Uranium Bombs. (Dirty Bombs), which nobody else except the USA has or will sink to. You are furthermore threatening to use nuclear weapons against a country who has not attacked you, once again, based on transparent lies.

Can anyone believe anything that comes out of your lost democracy. Its lost or didn’t you dummies notice that the election in 2000 has been proven to have been won fraudulently.
Can anyone say Fitzgerald?
Unlike the well attended democratic election in Iran which clearly placed a leader in charge. Not my idea of the best choice, but heh who’s fault is that? Thanks to US bungling and warmongering and thieving and looting and raping you just gave the worst people a leg up.
But all the drum beating and war mongering from a country who gets it’s president apointed by a crooked court, all your claims are obscene when you talk about “bringing democracy” to the middle east. Iran has a democracy, you don’t.
These are facts Whattheheck, not opinions, facts. Your elections are no longer considered to be up to the standards expected of democracies, official, international observers who were mostly excluded from your crooked election have made clear this. Iran on the other hand was complimented on pretty straight and certainly well attended and conclusive election by international observers who were welcomed. Deny it WTH, please come on and deny it. Oh and the Ukrainians showed that when their government tried to pull an “American Style” election on them, they have the balls to stand up and demand fair and transparent elctions. Americans got no real democracy anymore, not even enough cojones to demand one.
You’d rather make up stories about yourselves and your fantasy land. Nobody else is buying anymore though. No kid outside America wants to be a cowboy when he grows up anymore. We’ve had enough of cowboys actually.

Way to go America.

Posted by Rabbitvoz on Sep 1, 2005 at 7:17 AM

Rabbitvoz-  What is your evidence that the elections in 2000 were “stolen”?  You might have some OP-ED pieces (such as the hysterical ravings by Krugman) but I doubt you have any real evidence.  In fact some newspapers that recounted the ballots the way that Al Gore was arguing they should be counted in court concluded that Bush would have won anyway under that recount.

hkray-  Do you think we should have just ignored the attack on Pearl Harbor?  Japan attacked us because we cut off their oil and scrap iron.  We cut off their oil and scrap iron because of their aggression against China, and their refusal to give up their ill-gotten gains.  So much for your statement that we “never cared” about Japanese imperial expansion.

Posted by chopper on Sep 3, 2005 at 7:22 AM

I am writing from Tokyo, Japan.

Since the start of the war against Iraq, I

Posted by jimc on Sep 4, 2005 at 9:20 PM

jimc,Now I am really relieved. To learn that Japan wants to change its constitution to help US in future wars and include nuclear bombs in them makes me feel safer. You sure are a by-product of US propaganda. As for tyrants, pardon me but I don’t understand your concept that people support them as all people should do when living under authoritarian rulers. In my country, Argentina, between 1976 and 1983 30.000 young and courageous people were “disappeared” for opposing a military dictatorship. And guess what, the massacre of a whole generation was supported and encouraged by the USA who could have chosen not to recognize a government not chosen by the people, but instead encouraged them and trained them at the “School of the Americas” in Panama, as they did with army men from different Latin American countries. Sorry, I forgot, those young people were “leftists”, and they deserved to be vanished from the earth for not accepting the bright American democracy, which has been lying to its own people for decades, with the help of Hollywood and its stereotypes. I grew up seeing films where different nationalities or cultures were represented as evil-doers, just because they didn’t fit in the model. Remember the “Japs” (vicious and cruel), then the “Russians”(all spies), the “viet-namese”  (torturers and vile), the “Italians” (cowards and maffiosi) the Latinamericans (tango-dancers and corrupt? Meanwhile, american heroes had to do all the work to establish law and order? I don’t recall having seen that 6 million russians died during the World War II but they did, you know and a few years later they were pointed at as the new evil-doers.
We now have a new image to hate (someone should re-read Year 1984 and the two-minutes hatred scene) and they come in arabian clothes, we also have Bin-Laden (by the way, how come he hasn’t been captured yet?)and we are looking in dismay at the American people who seem to be blind and deaf to truth. How is it that despite innumerable denounces all over the world and even shown in some of the expiatory films by Hollywood as putting their noses in all countries to overthrow governments, kidnap or kill undesirable people, the CIA continues to operate as if nothing had happened?
I wouldn’t mind so much Americans being lied at by government after government if they didn’t feel they are “la creme de la creme” and have a right to tell others what to do with their lives, but they continue to do it.
One last question, which intrigues me, how is it that nobody says anything to China, or portraits “Chinese” as the communists they are?
Maybe because they are too numerous? If you think by setting up a new Disneyworld in Hong-Kong you will convince them to take the capitalistic world as a model… I hope you are wrong.

Posted by Maria on Sep 12, 2005 at 4:09 PM

Maria,

Thank you for your comment.

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say.

First, I am totally opposed to the planned revision of the Constitution of Japan, because the proposed change is designed to enable Japan to legally wage war with the United States, which is now in the process of updating its nuclear strike plan.

Second, I didn

Posted by jimc on Sep 12, 2005 at 5:49 PM

P.S.

Maria,

I forgot to put “support” after “should”: It should be read “I didn’t say people should support their tyrannycal leadership.”

Thank you.

jimc

Posted by jimc on Sep 12, 2005 at 5:57 PM

Maria-  What is your source for the 30,000 disappeared?  From what I recall the number was much lower (around 2,000 is what I remember), but I’m not a 100% sure.  And btw, Russia (more accurately the Soviet Union) lost 20 million people in WWII, not 6.  And whatever the nature of the people of Russia, its Soviet regime was evil, in fact probably more evil than the Nazi regime of Germany.  Are you saying we shouldn’t have fought against Japan in WWII (they did launch a suprise attack against us, I haven’t heard of any country whose propaganda didn’t go at least somewhat over the top in wartime)?  Or is the point of your post just the US is bad, everyone who opposes us for whatever reason is good?

Posted by chopper on Sep 12, 2005 at 8:10 PM

I agree with Hkray in that the United States dropped the bomb on Japan more for personal reasons than humanitarian reasons. It was the sanctions we had imposed on Japan after WW1 that allowed a “militaristic” government to take control of Japan in the first place. It was our restrictions on Japan’s ability to purchase oil, food products and other things deemed neccessary for a stable life for the Japanese people that pushed Japan into trying to expand its control and presence in the Pacific in the first place. The “Military” mindset of the government at that time had no choice but to align itself with Germany, Italy and the other Fascist Nations. After all even our own historians admit that Germany was the most advanced “War Machine” in existence at that time. Plus their respective governments were pretty much the same in the way they controlled the people with the exception of the slaughter of the Jews. Not only did Japan refuse to allow Jews in Japan to be turned over to the Gestapo but some of their foreign ministers even helped some of the Jews of Europe to escape by issuing passports and travel visas in direct opposition to German policy. It’s really hard to say if the Atomic Bomb ended the war with Japan sooner than it otherwise would have ended. Personally I tend to think that it did only because of the Japanese cultural mindset at that time, similar to the Jihadist now, that it was an honourable thing to die for emperor and country. Therefore the Japanese were willing to “fight to the last living soul” before recognizing defeat and that would almost certainly cost us close to a million more dead allied soldiers. The real problem we have today here in the United States is that the American People still believe that our Government only fights for “freedom and justice” and refuses to accept that our government hasn’t stood for “freedom and justice” for a very long time. We no longer even provide freedom and justice to our own people here in America much less to the people of a foreign nation. We, like most nations citizens, have always tended to wear blinders whenever it comes to the true objectives of the ruling government because we simply do not want to admit that the United States is really not much better than some of the very countries we purport to condemn for the way they treat their citizens. The present administration just happens to be worse than some of our previous administrations in that it is unilaterally destroying the very values that make us americans. If you really take a close look at what has transpired here in America during the past 5 years I think that you will be surprised at just how close to a “Fascist” Nation we are.

Posted by reddragon696 on Sep 13, 2005 at 2:35 AM

To chopper: My source for the 30,000 disappeared in Argentina is that I worked for some time with the Commitee appointed in 1984 to investigate on the matter and receive and gather all the testimonies and denounces. This Committee was presided by a writer, Ernesto S

Posted by Maria on Sep 13, 2005 at 12:21 PM

Maria-  The Soviet Regime was evil sounds ominous to you?  You’ve got to be kidding. If it wasn’t an evil regime, what was?  Next you are going to say the Nazis were merely misunderstood, after all they opposed us so they must have been doing something right. I’m not “justifying” our foreign policy, I was pointing out that you seem to think we are somehow the most evil regime on earth, and this is not borne out by the facts.

Posted by chopper on Sep 13, 2005 at 9:18 PM

reddragon696- Our sanctions didn’t “push” Japan in a militaristic direction, they moved that way on their own.  In fact our sanctions were a reaction Japan’s aggression in China.  But I suppose you are right that the Japanese government had no choice but to align itself with Germany and Italy.  Where else could a facist, militaristic, & murderous government go?

Posted by chopper on Sep 13, 2005 at 9:22 PM

To Chopper: You are correct that we didn’t create Japan’s militaristic government as they were already seeking to increase their land holdings due to the overcrowding of the “home” island becoming an issue. I still believe that our sanctions did allow the militaristic faction to retain control of the government as they were able to tell their people, true or not, that the problems they were having were a direct result of our sanctions against them. The Emperor, whom the Japanese people followed religiously,was kept so out of touch with what was really going on in the world that he followed somewhat blindly what the Military told him was happening. Of course it would be kinda hard to show that now, but I was under the impression that the Emperor was not an overly aggresive ruler and like most “figureheads” was simply being manipulated by the ones who were really in control.

Posted by reddragon696 on Sep 13, 2005 at 11:00 PM

reddragon696- There was a book first published in 1971 named “Japan’s Imperial Conspiracy” written by David Bergamini, a Rhodes scholar who is fluent in Japanese.  Bergamini’s thesis is that Emperor Hirohito was much more active in Japan’s government before WWII than is commonly assumed, and that he was the primary factor in pushing Japan in an aggressive and militaristic direction.  I don’t think even today most historians would subscirbe to this interpertation, however Bergamini definitely did a lot of research on this and cannot be dismissed lightly.  I first came across it while I was taking a course in Far Eastern history in college, the professor had it as one of a list of books that we had choose from to read for the course.

I’m not an expert in Oriental history, so I’m not equipped to make a judgement on my own, but it is an intriguing thesis.

Posted by chopper on Sep 14, 2005 at 7:37 PM

One factor that may have influenced Bergamini’s judgement is that his brother was a Marine who was killed in the Pacific theatre fighting the Japanese in WWII.  Not sure, but it possibly made him a less than impartial researcher.

Posted by chopper on Sep 14, 2005 at 7:39 PM

Chopper- Thanxs for the info on the book. I will have to check it out. We just did a study where I work that involved 2nd generation Japanese and so I am trying to re-learn some of the history before we get into our next study so that I will be more able to converse with them without insult.

Posted by reddragon696 on Sep 14, 2005 at 10:09 PM

reddragon696- You might also want to watch some of Kurosawa’s films, such as “Seven Samurai” (from which the western “The Magnificent Seven” was taken) for insight into traditional Japanese culture.  He also made a couple of films based on Shakespeare but transferred to a Japanese setting, such as “Throne of Blood” (based on MacBeth) and “Ran” (based on Lear).  His films are in Japanese but it is easy to get them with subtitles.  “Seven Samurai” is so visual that you could almost get the story without a translation.  It’s one of greatest action flicks ever made, even though it is black & white & was filmed in 1954.

Posted by chopper on Sep 15, 2005 at 5:10 PM

Chopper,

Glad to discover you are such a Kurasawa fan.  You might like to check out “Hachi-gatsu no ky

Posted by luminous beauty on Sep 16, 2005 at 8:16 AM

luminous beauty- Uh, like where have I supported a “blindly nationalistic justification of war”?  Maria did state that my characterization of the Soviet Union as an evil regime was “ominous”, going by her own standards she cannot then characterize us as evil for supporting Pinochet. After all, the number of people slaughtered by the Soviets was many times greater than 30,000.  And in spite of leftist propaganda, I’ve never seen any real evidence that the School of the Americas taught people to torture or murder.  Did some graduates of the School of the Americas go on to commit human rights violations?  Undoubtedly, but that fact alone doesn’t implicate the School of the Americas, any more than the fact that some graduates of public schools go onto become criminals implicates those schools in their graduates criminality.
  Yes, I like action flicks (if they are well done) as do most guys.  That no more makes me a “blindly nationalistic” supporter of warfare than it makes fans of murder mysteries supporters of murder.  Get a grip.

Posted by chopper on Sep 16, 2005 at 8:54 PM

luminous beauty- As a follow up, Maria posted human rights violations the Pinochet regime committed.  She didn’t establish any connection between those atrocities and the United States.

Posted by chopper on Sep 16, 2005 at 9:01 PM

chopper,

Check out this:

<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0008GDPYO/qid=1126945344/sr=8-9/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i8_xgl14/102-1474808-8666552?v=glance&s=books&n=507846>

As far as my reading skills can ascertain, Maria never characterized anything or anyone as ‘evil’.  The inference is your own judgment of the facts she presents.  That is ominous.  Also, she nowhere says that the School of the Americas taught torture.  As to ‘murder’, well, that’s the business of soldiers.  Also, she was, once again, talking about Argentina, not Chile. 

You are correct.  Enjoying action flicks does not make you chauvinist.  It’s the one-sided moral relativism.  How does the systematic annihilation of 50 million+ Native Americans stack up against the Soviet gulags, eh?  My point is there is no monopoly on evil, no one who’s soul is left unstained by the evil that has gone down.  Returning evil for evil just makes more evil.

Posted by luminous beauty on Sep 17, 2005 at 2:20 AM

To Eadora and Luminous beauty: Thank you for coming to my rescue and helping me see what’s going on. English not being my native tongue, and being an elderly woman sometimes I am at a loss because I tend to believe my language was faulty and that is the reason of some of the answers I receive, such as Chopper’s. But Eadora set me on the right trail now, although I still find it hard to believe what’s going on. That sort of conduct and reasoning is not only incredibly small, but dangerous and it has been spreading world-wide in the last decades. It’s as if there had been a shrinking of the mind, a uniformity of thought that has produced a true sub-species ready to applaud predators, support false slogans and validate aggresion, war, poverty and disregard for others with no remorse. Their arguments are growingly vicious, as I suppose once you surpass the limit of compassion it must be pretty hard to justify one’s actions and you reach the justificacion of wrong-doing by saying “because I can, and I can get away with it”.
Anyway, expressing my views has only one motive: trying to look for common ground in which all humanity could agree if we can leave our differences aside and work for the welfare of future inhabitants of the endangered planet. I sometimes feel man has gone too far in the search of “profit” and not far enough in responsibility towards others. As Bertrand Russell so wisely put it: The good life is one where love and knowledge prevail.
Thank you to both and wish you well.

Posted by Maria on Sep 17, 2005 at 3:59 PM

luminous beauty- unfortunately I can’t access the link you posted in my viewer.  You were right, I mistakenly conflated Argentina and Chile.  My bad.
  Maria stated directly in her post that the School of the Americas supported the massacre of an entire generation of Argentinians.  Let me remind you that it was she that first injected “the Russians” into the debate.  She also listed a whole series of nationalities that we supposedly stereotype, apparently from watching some films made in the United States.  She seems to be confusing films made in Hollywood with official government positions.  Perhaps she is unaware that we have something called freedom of speech here, so naturally you are going to get diverse viewpoints and expressions, some of them not very edifying.
  What is the nonsense about the “one-sided moral relativism”?  Are you saying that since all governments are imperfect (since they are made of human beings, who are by nature imperfect) that they are all equally bad?  Frankly, it is people on your side of the isle who are the moral relativists.  You say it is “ominous” that I called the Soviet regime evil (and I meant the government, not the Russian people), you can make no distinction between it and the United States (admittedly imperfect, as all human institutions are). 
  You write “the systematic annihilation of 50 million+ Native Americans” after accusing me of sidestepping the issue?  What does that have to do with anything?  For the sake of the argument assuming your figure is correct, most of that took place before there was a United States, and frankly, the overwhelming majority of it was from the unintentional spreading of diseases that the native populations didn’t have immunities from.  Not to minimize the atrocities that European explorers and imperialists sometimes committed, but for the most part there was no systematic effort to extirminate the Native Americans.
  “Murder” is what soldiers do?  I looked up the definition of murder, it is the unlawful killing of another human, usually intentionally.  Killing enemy combatants in a war is not included.  I understand that atrocities happen in every war, and some armies are worse than others in this regard.

Posted by chopper on Sep 17, 2005 at 5:31 PM

Maria- You made some serious generalized charges against the US government, some of which I don’t find credible (mind you, all governments lie to an extent, I’m not naive in this regard)and you are trying to find “common ground”?  Anyone who disagrees with you is thinking with a “small mind”?  Somehow we approve of “aggression, poverty, war, and disregard for others”.?  Show me any statement of mine that shows I approve of those things.  I can assure you I don’t.  What I think are the best means to avoid them may differ from what you think are the best means, but this doesn’t mean I want to see anyone afflicted with them.
  You are right in one regard.  For years my government leaders lied to me, specifically about the Soviet Union.  They stated it was here to stay and we needed to learn to co-exist with it.  Ronald Reagan was the first one to say its days were numbered, and he was right.  For this the left has never forgiven him.
  I do want to make it clear that I’m not intending any personal attack against you.  I do believe in vigorous debate, however, and will strongly criticze expressed views I with which I disagree.

Posted by chopper on Sep 17, 2005 at 5:54 PM

chopper,

This is the article I was trying to link:  ARGENTINA: DECLASSIFIED STATE DEPARTMENT FILES SHOW U.S. SUPPORTED REPRESSION DURING “DIRTY WAR”. : An article from: NotiSur - South American Political and Economic Affairs.  Maybe you can google it.
    By moral relativism I mean the way you justify evils committed on ‘your’ side by saying they are not as evil as the acts committed by others. I am certainly not claiming that all governments are equally bad.  Nor am I claiming as you seem to that because a certain government in its history has been responsible for atrocities then that government is absolutely evil.  I used the destruction of the Indians as an example of the absurdity of such a claim and such comparisons.  I should have known you wouldn’t get it and go off in a tirade attempting to justify and minimize that tragedy.  And then you accuse ‘my’ side of moral relativism.  It would be funny if weren’t so ominous.  What side do think I’m on?  You may not approve of ‘aggression, poverty, war, and disregard of others’,  but you do have an uncanny talent for rationalizing them away when it suits you.

Posted by luminous beauty on Sep 18, 2005 at 12:15 AM

luminous beauty- I’ll try to find the article and read it.  Your post would make more sense if Maria had stuck to Argentina in her initial statement, but she didn’t.  As I wrote earlier, she injected the “Russians” into the debate, and yes, you are correct, the Soviet Union did, I’m sure, perform some good deed here and there, but it was basically, as Reagan stated, an evil empire.  My point about the Soviets was that during the cold war the US wasn’t a 100% perfect and the Soviets weren’t a 100% evil, but there was a stark difference between the two.  It was you who threw in the irrelevancy about the Native Americans, and you didn’t even get that right, or you at least seemed to imply that it all 50 million deaths were the result of US government policies.

Posted by chopper on Sep 18, 2005 at 1:02 AM

I think your framework for trying to diminish, minimize, rationalize and remove our (yes, I am a seventh generation American WASP) forebears responsibility for the genocide of NA’s is not only in grave rational error, but horrifically ominous.  Yes I think US government policy, if not always the direct cause, was the major contributive factor to that genocide, along with mindless population pressures plus the ignorant racist bigotry shared by my own ancestors.  It is not really a question of 50+million deaths.  If there were indeed 50+million NA’s within what is now the continental US at the beginning of the 19th Century all those individuals would be dead now, anyhow, wouldn’t they?  If even 75-90% had died off due to non-resistance to disease then in the next 7 generations one would think their population would have returned to near its prior level.  Rather, the effecting of genocide was by the agency of being constantly harassed and driven from their homes, by whites who arbitrarily murdered them, often for pay, considering them no more than vermin and savages.  Consider the Army, which policy-wise was there to protect both Indians and Whites, and how it paid the merest lip-service to restraining White attacks on Indians, but, by God, if an Indian attempted to retaliate his whole family; women, children, elderly, and even their dogs would be put to the sword by such ‘heroes’ as Gen. Jackson, Gen. Miles, and Col. Custer.  Read Kroeber’s “Ishi” and learn the gristly details of the systematic destruction of the Indian Tribes of California.  Learn how even the progressive Christians protected the lives of NA’s only to make them slaves, leaving them perennially naked and under-nourished.  Read “Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee”, hell, read some Ward Churchill, try to keep an open mind.  You might just learn something.  Do I think you should wallow in guilt over it?  Beat your breast and tear your hair?  No.  Just be a mensch and face the truth.  Maybe acquire a little wisdom and humility.  Is that too much to ask?

Posted by luminous beauty on Sep 18, 2005 at 9:57 AM

Ok, luminous beauty, we are really going off on a tangent here, but by 1800 the Indian population of what is now the present day United States and Canada had already declined to about 600,000.  (Source, “American Colonies” by Alan Taylor, hardly a rightwing fanatic).  As early as 1620 Plymouth colonists in New England commented on depopulated Indian villages due to plague.  Clearly the disease microbes brought over by the Europeans had already done a lot of their work.  I’m not trying to excuse or justify what was done in the past, or say that the US was anywhere near just in its treatment of Native Americans in the past, but you could at least get your basic facts correct.  And, oh yeah, I’ve already read “Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee”.  Great book.  You’re right, I probably need to work on my humility (as do all of us) but it is irrelevant to this discussion.

Posted by chopper on Sep 18, 2005 at 3:46 PM

BTW luminous beauty, my forebears were German Catholics who immigrated in the mid to late 1800’s, not WASPS, so they may be your ancestors, but not mine.

Posted by chopper on Sep 18, 2005 at 4:16 PM

sorry, chopper.  I should have written 18th Cen.  I gave you a range of 500,000 to 1.25M surviving the pandemic which I don’t think is outside the conventional thinking on the matter, though it is also fairly conventional to estimate there was that number of Navaho in 1800, so it makes one wonder about documentary historians making hard and fast conclusions, especially concerning numbers, especially in an era with so little documentation.  I’ve been looking for a fairly recent archeological report that estimates a much larger number, as high as 25M as I recall, but I haven’t been able to source it, so forget it.  It really doesn’t affect my argument, anyway.
******* I don’t mean to beat you over the head with this, but it is incredibly difficult to have an honest discussion with most liberal to conservatives about the dark side of US foreign policy (Isn’t that the subject of this article and thread?)  To make a tired, cliched observation, denial is not just a river in Egypt.  That you concede there might have been some small bit of dirty business is refreshing.  There might be hope for you yet, chopper.
******** I may be wrong, but I think a little humility might be relevant to any discussion.

Posted by luminous beauty on Sep 18, 2005 at 6:21 PM

Sorry again.  That should be 5M to 12.5M. Make of it what you will.

Posted by luminous beauty on Sep 18, 2005 at 6:31 PM

Do you mean 25 million surviving to 1700 or to 1800?  I’d find it hard to believe that 25 million survived until 1800 (and by that I mean in North America north of the Rio Grande), or for that matter even to 1700.

Posted by chopper on Sep 18, 2005 at 8:03 PM

Re “the dark side of US foreign policy” it often seems to me that to those on the left the “dark side” is all there is to American foreign policy.  I’m not sure I buy the article’s premise that the main reason we dropped the bomb was to renege on a wartime deal with the Soviets, and I certainly don’t buy the implication in the article (not stated directly but clearly there) that the cold war was mainly engineered to benefit defense firms and Washington politicians, ie., it was primarily our fault.

Posted by chopper on Sep 18, 2005 at 9:03 PM

I have a hard time buying noble intentions from State or Defense.  US interests are corporate interests The Cold War was not very benign to the left.  It was very good for corporations.  There might be something here about one’s perspective.  Look at Nicaragua.  The US’ proxy war against the Sandinista government was more a blow to the US left, which had invested heavily in social development there, than the Soviet Union.  Chiquita Banana’s interests were served quite well.  It’s hard to see the positive side if you are the one getting dumped on.  The results are there in Nicaragua for anyone to see.  US supported governments haven’t helped the poor at all.  If you could point to a long list of countries where our policies have brought about widespread bottom-up social and democratic development, rather than supporting repressive oligarchies, your skepticism might have more bite.

Posted by luminous beauty on Sep 19, 2005 at 6:45 AM

I have no problem believing the bomb was dropped primarily as a ‘message’ to the Soviets.  It certainly had no tactical purpose.  The strategic cover story of saving lives in an invasion is not much more than a fig leaf,  a warm fuzzy justification.  A bit of propaganda.  If I get a chance, I’ll look at DeGroots’ book.  From the review, it doesn’t appear he is a flaming lefty.

From the article:  “DeGroot also gives short shrift to the profiteering that underwrites the arms race. He quotes the admission by Ronald Reagan

Posted by luminous beauty on Sep 19, 2005 at 8:27 AM

luminous beauty- I have to leave on a business trip for 3 days tonight & don’t have the time to give your post the attention it deserves.  Briefly, a lot of leftist ideas have been implemented in this country, such as high & progressive taxation, extensive government regulation of business, a fairly extensive social welfare state (admittedly not near the level in most of Europe), abortion on demand, and there are others but time is limited.  Politicians for the most part, whatever they call themselves, tend to do things to get them elected (and re-elected).  Nations tend to act in their self-interest.  Putting the “progressive left” in won’t change this, whatever you mean by this phrase.  I don’t have time to go into this further, & unfortunately won’t be able to post again until Thursday evening.

Posted by chopper on Sep 19, 2005 at 4:11 PM

chopper,
*      Nations tend to act in the perceived interests of those who control the state and the government.  Not necessarily their true interests nor those of the nation as a whole, but what they believe are those interests.  The more self-centered those beliefs are, the greater the divide between subjective perception and objective reality, the greater the need of the ruling faction to rely on the perception of intractable external or internal enemies and the greater the need to maintain power with the threat of coercive force.  The threat of force is not really credible unless it is demonstrated against those perceived enemies.  Thus self-interest as an organizing principle of governance ineluctably leads to war and/or an oppressive authoritarian state.    Whatever motivates politicians, in a republican form of government, the laws produced by those politicians are ideally the consequence of mediation, compromise, and a rough appreciation for the interests of others.  The product of which is hopefully a consensual expression of the mutual interests of competing factions.
*      Except for maybe progressive taxation your short list of ‘leftist ideas’ could just as well describe a paternalistic monarchy.  Indeed, the historical implementation of those ideas could be said to represent a compromise of paternalistic and oligarchic tendencies of liberal and conservative ruling factions in response to progressive democratic pressure.  To make political judgment exclusively on the basis of left versus right is simplistic and naive.  The reality is infinitely more complex and convoluted. 
*      You presume that I am advocating a progressive take-over of government.  Realistically, I don’t see this happening any time soon.  Traditionally, the progressive left has succeeded by organizing ordinary people around their real needs and raising consciousness of those just needs in the general population, forcing the established powers to respond.  The established powers have historically responded with initial indifference; then repression as they see their authority threatened; finally, eventual accommodation, compromise, and co-option as they re-learn the lesson that a stable democratic government rests upon the informed consent of the governed.  This is the progressive cycle that directs society toward the incremental creation of a truly egalitarian, libertarian, and just democracy.  Sometimes,  like in the present, our putatively democratic society becomes blinded by self-interested manipulative propaganda and misinformation, and loses sight of this vital process at the heart of the American experiment.  The hopeful aspect of this is that it depends on an extant, genuine and demonstrable structural process of social evolution that proceeds in the long-term regardless of how well it is understood and not on the instrumentality of any fixed prescriptive ideology.
*      Does this help clarify what I mean by the progressive left?

Posted by luminous beauty on Sep 20, 2005 at 11:39 AM

It helps me understand the thinking of the “progressive left” (I assume you are a more or less typical representative).  The “self-interest” of those “controlling” the state usually revolve around getting re-elected.  It is true that authoritarian governments that are in trouble often go looking foreign adventures (Russia in 1905 with the Russo-Japanese war, Argentina in 1982 with the Falklands).
  Your statement about a “paternalistic monarchy” is interesting.  In fact leftist governments often do become something like “paternalistic” monarchies, and often outright non-paternalistic dictatorships (most communist governments).  In practice what you see as “accomodation, compromise, and co-option” I see as often crude vote-buying, which is sometimes pretty obvious with some programs such as social security. 
  You are right, the “progressive left” as such is not going to take over government any time soon, since much of its agenda doesn’t seem to have much popular support.  Even a lot of John Kerry voters, for instance, voted for state initiatives that defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.  A lot of the progressive left appears to exist primarily in academia and in certain sectors of the media and some related professions and in some trendy areas, such as San Francisco.  Many of its victories in recent years, especially in social policies, have been through the courts. 
  Btw, I want to make it clear that I’m not the “blind supporter” of our government’s military adventures or George Bush that you and Maria seem to think I am.  I was never in favor of the invasion of Iraq, although I did support us going into Afghanistan. I thought it was necessary to destroy Al-Qaeda’s base.  In fact I think if Bush had to invade someone he could have made a better case for going into Iran.  Bush is also spending way too much domestically (however, I favor cutting government spending much more deeply than almost any electable politican from either party would).
  Also interesting is your statement about evolving towards a “truly egalitarian, libertarian, and just democracy.”  I’m some what ambivalent about democray (although I wouldn’t like a monarchy, dictatorship, anarchy, or aristocracy either), democracy can sometimes be inimical to liberty.  I’m even less enthusiastic about egalitarianism, one way to make people equal is to cut off the heads of the ones who are taller.  Some of the greatest horrors of the 20th century were motivated in part by a desire for egalitarianism, such as Stalin’s purges of the Kulaks.

Posted by chopper on Sep 22, 2005 at 9:37 PM

luminous beauty,
  re: your point about my “short list” of leftist ideas possibly being enforced even by a “benovelent monarchy”.  All of these have been advocated by those on the left, & I would argue that all have been, on balance, more or less destructive.  I would admit, however, that extensive regulation of business by the state would be regarded by any true leftist as merely a first step on the way to the complete takeover of the economy by the state.

Posted by chopper on Sep 23, 2005 at 5:07 PM

chopper,

So many straw men.  So little time.  The only true leftist is a Stalinist, eh?  How trite. ‘Cut off the heads of the ones who are taller’.  How witless.  I suppose you are in rapturous agreement with the egalitarian sentiment of nobles and peasants being equally forbidden from sleeping under bridges and stealing bread.

By elimination, you must have something positive to say about liberty and justice,  but I’m afraid I can’t see them having much meaning unless they apply equally to everyone.  Can you elaborate?  ‘Liberty and Justice for Some’  How would that work?

Posted by luminous beauty on Sep 23, 2005 at 6:38 PM

luminous beauty-
Come on now, you can do better than that.  I didn’t say Stalin was the only true leftist, (show me where I wrote that, you won’t be able to) just that I don’t subscribe to egalitarianism, and that his purge of the kulaks was motivated by the fact they were the more successful peasants.  Yes, I believe in liberty and justice for all.  They can’t be achieved by trying to enforce some kind of artifical equality of circumstances, which seems to be the main goal of the left.  Such attempts usually make everyone worse off, poor especially.
If you want a more benign example, much of European politics in the last few decades have been an attempt to enforce an equality of results.  Much of Europe is also faced with high, seemingly intractable employment, low to no economic growth, and imploding populations.  Their current policies are not sustainable long term.
This seems to be a blind spot with the left.  The assumption seems to be that we can’t have liberty or justice unless everyone’s life circumstances are equal.  It often seems as if you would rather have us all equally impoverished rather than everyone better off if everyone being better off means that the results are unequal.  Trying to eat the rich to help the poor doesn’t help anyone.

Posted by chopper on Sep 23, 2005 at 7:06 PM

To go back to an earlier statement you made, “The Cold War was not very benign to the left”, it would seem to be obvious that something that ended in the disintegration of a system that brought poverty and brutality to millions (Soviet communism) would be welcomed by everyone.  Are you really saying you aren’t happy with the way the Cold War ended?

Posted by chopper on Sep 23, 2005 at 8:57 PM

to chopper, so you are on the war path again, how brave of you, specially when you can direct operations from home and send others to do your dirty job. Your logic is the same as your tin warriors behind their desks: Let’s go for Iran, now! How many high rank officers have died in combat? It’s always the pawns that have to do the killing or dying. Please, don’t bother to explain to me the reasons for your wars, and as for Afghanistan, isn’t it remarkable that the best equipped army together with the CIA and all those special forces haven’t been able to find Bin Laden, being so tall and all that? You know what, more and more people everywhere are beginning to doubt his being the boogey-man. The only problem is that the ghost you invented is probably taking real shape by now and poking at ant-hives with a long stick by your blindmen
might turn out to be the beginning of your future troubles.The world is sick of your weapons, your armies and your beligerance as much as of your corporations and your capitalistic model. It has caused too much pain, too much poverty and is absolutely based on LIES. You are not the chosen leaders, what’s more we don’t want any leaders,all we want are compassionate and truthful human beings trying to help each other.

Posted by Maria on Sep 23, 2005 at 9:08 PM

chopper,
I am doing better than that, thank you.  Equality of circumstances?  Not a reasonable expectation or a very desirable one.  Certainly nothing an intelligent progressive would ever propose or countenance.  A false and invidious characterization. (What is it with these straw man arguments?  They don’t amount to crap.)  Equal rights?  Equal opportunity?  Equality before the Law?  Worth fighting for. 
You implied that a ‘true leftist’ is an advocate of a centralized state economy,  the peculiar and particular invention of Stalin that made Stalinism so special.  Naive, simplistic, and wrong. 

Stalin destroyed the Kulaks because they threatened his authority.  If you believe Stalin was ever motivated by anything else you are indeed naive.  Stalin if anything was the apotheosis of the triumph of self-interest.  Mutual Aid was no more a part of his vocabulary than yours.  If you suspect I am making an invidious comparison here, you’re right.  Live with it.

Europe’s policies are unsustainable?  Ha, ha. That is so funny.  The US has high intractable unemployment that if measured by the same standard that most European countries use would be comparable.  The economic growth in the US is based on runaway irrational Keynsian spending coupled with leveraged borrowing to finance increasing private debt and a growing negative trade balance.  With nothing but the promise of future tax revenues to back it up.  You think that is stable?  Come back a couple of years after Peak Oil and tell me that one again.  It’s not Europe on shaky ground, it’s Capitalism.  Occasionally there are limits to growth.  Dumping on the poor won’t help.

Posted by luminous beauty on Sep 23, 2005 at 9:34 PM

luminous beauty-
I would say that you are making a lot of straw man arguments yourself.  What I wrote was that a true leftist would want a complete takeover of the economy by the state.  I didn’t say it would be of the central planning type of Stalin. (Or Lenin either, it was actually started before Stalin took power).  You yourself imply that, by writing Capitalism (which is the private ownership of business) is on shaky ground, that you don’t want private ownership of business.  If you actually mean something else, what is it?  Are you saying the left has abandoned socialism as its organizing principle?  And where did I advocate dumping on the poor, or that mutual aid was a bad idea?  I don’t think re-distributionist policies by the government are an effective way to help the poor, and often hurt them in the long run.  That is far from saying they shouldn’t be helped.
You are wrong about Europe, you need to check some basic stats.  France and Germany both have unemployment figures close to double ours.  It is true they’ve made unemployment physically fairly comfortable, but with their imploding populations (again, you need to check some basic stats) their high level of spending is not sustainable.
In some respects you are right about the future of the US economy, our high level of spending is no more sustainable than Europe’s.  Even though I have explicitly stated that I’m not a supporter of many of Bush’s policies, you seem to have this idea stuck in your head that I support whatever he does.  In fairness he did not start the runaway growth of our federal government, he just isn’t doing anything to stop it, & in fact is aiding and abetting it.

Posted by chopper on Sep 24, 2005 at 3:51 AM

chopper,
-
Please enlighten me on the difference between ‘a complete takeover of the economy by the state’  and a state controlled economy or a centralized state economy, or…  The subtlety eludes me.  Oh! I get it. A stalinist economy, just different from Stalin’s economy.  Lenin (or Trotsky, d’ya think?) may or may not have arrived at the endgame Stalin most certainly did, for which he is re-known in human history.  Is this not called dissembling?
-
This exchange so makes me think of the truism that winning an argument on the internet is like winning a medal in the Special Olympics—you’re still retarded.   
-
‘No, you’re the straw man, man.’
Just because I think the extant system is falling apart is no reason to infer I find the prospect pleasing or that I or others on the left are all ideologically opposed to private business.  Although, unless your talking about masturbation, I think the phrase is a near oxymoronic non-sequitur.  A free and open market is necessarily a public space.  Capitalism is not just the individual, joint, or collective ownership of business.  It is a system of finance which tends to remove, through a variety of instrumentals, equity and control from the putative business owner (not necessarily unkindly) into the hands of class controlled fiduciary institutions ruled exclusively by that monstrously false and incomplete construct you seem to find so compelling, self-interest. Believe me, they’ve had their victories in the courts.
-
Socialism isn’t a single organizing principle and certainly not the only economic or political philosophy on the left.  Socialism is represented by a plethora of factions. It is somewhat tedious to report that there are more Anarchist factions than there are Anarchists.  There is nothing monolithic about the left.  There are populist, progressive, environmental, religious and libertarian streams of leftist thought, covering widely various social, cultural, spiritual, political and economic points of view.  If there is any central principle it is the genuine desire and moral commitment to try to make life better in all respects for everyone, or at least whomever you can, as much and as soon as possible.  Have individuals and groups,  whole movements and national governments been less than perfect in realizing that ideal?  Of course.  It’s a learning process, man.  Have established institutions out-lived their usefulness and become dinosaurs concerned only with their institutional survival?  Tell me, is that news?  A problem only on the left?  Maybe only for the left?  Over-simplification serves only to concretize ignorance. 
-
You are ambivalent about democracy and scorn equality.  You show no sense of reciprocal responsibility in the affairs of human governance and you seem to believe all efforts to minimize the severe consequences of poverty are not worth the cost to wealthy people.  If you’re not dumping on the the poor exactly what is your great plan to alleviate unnecessary human suffering? 
-

Posted by luminous beauty on Sep 24, 2005 at 5:31 PM

What do you understand by ‘mutual aid’?  Have you ever heard of the concept of social equity?  Some interesting ideas there. 
-
I personally am just as skeptical of paternalistic re-distributive programs that only serve to make the poor dependent on the state.  Especially those that are only a thinly disguised subsidy for special interests.  I would be happy with guaranteed employment at a living wage, universal health care - single payer free at point of service, dignified support of the aged and infirm, subsidized child care and universal quality free education. For real.  I’m amenable to any methodology to meeting those goals.  If you want to teach a person to fish for himself, it is necessary to provide him the basic bait and tackle and access to a body of water that has fish.
-
I am in favor of progressive taxation, not because of any re-distributive scheme, but because it serves as a brake on the massive accumulation of personal wealth and the social inequity it creates.  If you think it is a constraint on your God given desire to be wealthier than Croesus, that’s correct.  That’s greed not freedom.  Face it and get over it.  If the wealthy weren’t greedy, they wouldn’t be rich.     
-
The published statistics, as I said, are compiled and analyzed with different methodologies.  They are not equivalent.  For example; even though I’m not working right now, because my job is seasonal I’m not included in US unemployment.  A distinction not made in western Europe.  You do more research, man.  The stabilization of population (it’s not imploding; the plague was an implosion) represents a temporary problem with boomer retirement, as it does in the US.  It is peculiar to me to hear these stories of moribund, stagnant economies in Europe and Japan for years and years now, but they somehow have muddled through without giving up the farm.  The EU is generally much better suited to withstand the impending train-wreck of structural problems and physical constraints imminently faced as a consequence of century and a half of unbridled corporate profiteering and consumer driven economics than the US.
-
I apologize if I’ve implied in any way that you are a Bush clone.  I don’t think I’ve even mentioned him.  My picture of you is more mainstream petit bourgeois conservative with pseudo-libertarian tendencies.  A bit o’ the common Babbitt.  This is only an impression. I’m willing to be surprised.  Bush, with his Neo-con cronies, is just a shill for the plutocracy, with a completely phony and manipulative public persona.  It’s good to know you aren’t a sycophant.  Still, what are you doing here, trying to persuade us imagined party-liners how we’re wrong about everything?

Posted by luminous beauty on Sep 24, 2005 at 5:32 PM

A bit of the common Babbit?  Isn’t that a bit old fashioned?  Actually, I’m nowhere near being as wealthy as Croesus & (barring winning the lottery) will probably not get there.  Yes, I know about all the (well, most anyway) different strands of leftist thought, just as there are many different strands of conservative-libertarian thought (of which you seem to be unaware).  And there are anarchists on both sides of the spectrum, the socialist anarchists (such as Noam Chomsky and Michael Parenti, who now call themselves libertarian-socialists) and anarcho-capitalists, such as Murray Rothbard and David Friedman.  I think both are floating abstractions that can’t funtion in the real world.
What I oppose is government attempts to achieve equality, I think this can only be done by trampling on liberty.  I do not mean equality before the law, what I mean is attempts to achieve equality of circumstances.

As for all the things you propose, (guaranteed employment, universal health care, etc) they will lead inevitably to a large, paternalistic state of the type you don’t like.  Some how you seem to think that if I don’t like the idea of a big government, or that if I think the state should be limited but business should be left to operate in a free market (within broad limits) that that translates into a personal desire to accumulate as many goodies as possible, and that is my primary goal in life.  I must say, if it is, I’ve done a remarkably bad job of it over the years.  Perhaps you think this because so much leftist thought never seems to get much beyond its vulgar Marxist roots, and sees every motivation in life as being rooted in economics.  I once watched a leftist talking head on C-Span expound on how it was only natural that most college professors voted
Democratic because they were paid so poorly.  He seemed to be totally unaware how well they are paid compared to ordinary working people, and what priviliged lives (especially when you throw in their generous perks) that most of them actually live.
Babbit?  Most people who know me think I’m slightly strange & have somewhat exotic tastes.

Posted by chopper on Sep 24, 2005 at 7:23 PM

Re: European statistics.  I realize that different methodolgies can give different results, I’ll have to further check the unemployment stats.  As for their population, however, it is imploding, their birth rate is well below replacement levels.  They are going to have a large retired population supported by a diminished working age population.  In fact, if current trends continue, Europe could be majority Muslim by the end of the century.  At that point I would argue that Europe, as we know it, would cease to exist.

Posted by chopper on Sep 24, 2005 at 7:53 PM

There is something intrinsically old-fashioned about conservatism.  A certain longing for the ‘good old days’ and a lot of the world is going to the dogs, and what’s wrong with these kids today.  I always thought Lewis’ portrayal was tender and sympathetic for being the object of satire.  Something generally lacking in those rare conservative literati who can actually write compelling prose.  Conservatives haven’t changed all that much in 50 years. 

I do not dispute that any government program presents some risks.  However, I don’t think that is a good reason to do nothing.  If you want all people to take personal responsibility for their actions,  don’t you understand that can only be expected in a society that takes responsibility for the well-being of all its members?  It’s our government.  We have some slim democratic processes to ensure that our government is that kind of responsible.  The individual is not some entity existing outside and opposed to society,  but the living expression of that society.  Freedom means living in society that supports and reinforces individuals in their natural desire to grow within their personal talent and interest to be moral capable citizens.  When and where that fails to happen it is at least as much a failure of society as it is the individual, and it is always a failure of freedom.  That is a much greater threat to liberty, i think, than a little bureaucratic fumbling. 
-
Everyone who is able and willing to work should be able to find work and earn a decent living.  Everybody who needs health care should be able to get it without bankrupting themselves and their families.  Medicine for profit is a moral travesty.  It is everyone’s concern, not just the purview of some special interest.  Profitability of hospitals and giant insurance corporations, however is a special interest.  Why does their freedom to gouge people trump the ordinary citizen’s existential unavoidable and unpredictable need for medical attention?  If you are worried that programs that are meant to end poverty may become entrenched why don’t you help to create programs that actually give the results intended, with proper monitoring and measurement.  If there are fewer poor people to serve, those programs will dwindle away.  Are conservatives not good watchdogs? 
-

Posted by luminous beauty on Sep 25, 2005 at 9:49 AM

Nothing leads to an inevitable conclusion with adequate attention and foresight.  Your attitude is so fatalistic.  Whatever happened to that Yankee can do?  It’s been replaced with a lot of cynical can’t do that.  When progressives point to real problems that aren’t being addressed, they’re accused of cynicism.  Told, “Why do you hate America?  You only see the dark side” Horseshit. 
-
They’d rather let someone die in the street than risk a little hypothetical so-called liberty (meaning they might have to pay their fair share of taxes).  I just don’t know exactly what freedoms you think would be lost.  I don’t think you have a clue how much society actually right now for real constrains the liberty of the working poor; how humiliating and demeaning it is to people who have to rely on welfare, just to survive.  You’re so afraid of government actually working for the benefit of the people,  but no worries about the overwhelming dominance of business interests.  You whine about politicians ‘buying’ votes with support for Social Security, but a-holes like Jack Abramson and Tom Delay buy politicians for real graft and we get pooh-pooh, playing politics, blame game, no body broke the law horseshit from the right.  We can waste trillions of dollars making things that go boom, yet not one word of caution about the dangers to liberty presented by an increasingly militarized society.  Police are monitoring the populace with cameras everywhere and the Patriot Act has blown the doors on surveillance wide open.  Doesn’t that threaten liberty? No?  The Boogie Man is gonna getcha. Bolt the doors Margaret,  Osama’s out there somewhere.  Fear and Greed are what drives conservatism, not freedom.  They’d rather make criminals out of everybody than spend a dime and use their heads to ameliorate the conditions that produce crime or terrorism.  This is hypocritical.  And don’t tell me there are hypocrites on the left. Oh! Look over there, a puppy. 
-
They claim that the problems with welfare, etc. are the other guys fault and strut around like they are so innocent.  Well, the conservatives may not have been in power during the New Deal, or the Great Society but they had the influence to stop things and include poison pill provisions that guarantied that they would fail.  As soon as Nixon got into the presidency he put an end to all those programs in the War on Poverty that would actually help to lift people and give them the access to jobs and community development, and kept those (food stamps, Sec. 8 housing) that leave them dependent and treading water while at the same time functioning as subsidies of the IGA and property management corporations.  But the War on Poverty was a failure and it’s all the liberals fault.  Horseshit.  They say they care and are so compassionate and all.  I don’t want to hear it, I want to see it.

Posted by luminous beauty on Sep 25, 2005 at 10:15 AM

It isn’t that the left can’t get over its ‘vulgar’ Marxist roots,  It’s that narrow minded conservatives can’t let go of their Boogie Men.  They define themselves by what they fear and hate, and define their opponents in the unconscious reflective projection of that fear and hatred.  It is pathological.  A consequence of believing introspection is a weakness.
-
Like any thoughtful person, Marx had a few good ideas, a lot of mediocre ones, and his share of boners.  He wasn’t completely and utterly wrong about everything, nor was he the embodiment evil.  He certainly is not a god to the left in the way he is satan incarnate to the right.  Some have used Marx’s ideas in a cynical and manipulative way, on both sides of this artificial divide, others have built on them, refined away the dross, re-interpreted them in the light of new knowledge.  You’re stuck in a very simplistic prejudiced and very, very unproductive mental framework.  Just another red-herring to deflect the conversation away from the real problem.
‘No, you’re the straw man, man.’  What’s the problem with having ‘vulgar’ roots, anyway.  You don’t have any ‘vulgar’ roots?  Vulgar originally meant ‘of the people’ and I’m damn fine with that. 
-
In spite of the fact that I have already addressed the diversity of leftist views (yeah, you know all about them, but I’m not aware of the fine lines of conservatism.  I come from a long line of conservatives, buddy.  I outgrew it, you can too) you immediately resort to specious, unfounded, simplistic generalizations.  Come on, either crap or get off the pot.  Tell me what is your grand plan to alleviate the suffering of poverty?
-
FYI - The phrase libertarian-socialist as an Anarchist appellation goes back at least to Kropotkin in the nineteenth century.  Right-wing libertarianism isn’t libertarian or anarchist.  It’s a mishmash of self congratulatory nonsense disguised as a political philosophy. An ahistorical arc that began reasonably enough with Spencer, spun and twisted through phantasmal space to land with a thud in the rabid screed of Ayn Rand.  Anarchist thought a la Chomsky, Parenti, et. al. may or or may not have practical application as a stand alone political theory, which most anarchist thinkers will tell you it isn’t (but that won’t stop you from making that erroneous assumption, will it?).  As a method of critical analysis, it is more often than not right on the mark.  That’s why the pseudo-intellectuals of the right feel the need to try and bury them in disingenuous and slanderous accusations, evade the real and genuine implications of their ideas with red herring and straw man arguments, and lie, lie, and lie some more.

Posted by luminous beauty on Sep 25, 2005 at 10:17 AM

Let’s see if I’ve got this right, if I disagree with you I’m being “simplistic” & “fearful”, while you are thoughtful and nuanced?  Right, got it.  I can also tell from your answer that you don’t really know much about libertarianism, there actually are anarcho-capitalists such as Murry Rothbard and David Friedman that I described, they actually want to abolish the state and have free enterprise with no government at all.  As I wrote however, it is a floating abstraction, almost as much as the clueless junk that Noam Chomsky puts out.
Maybe you shouldn’t have outgrown your conservatism, whatever it was.  You wrote about the need for humility earlier, but your assumptions seem to be if someone disagrees with you they are both simplistic and liars.  That is not a very good recipe for humility.  You also have an astonishing faith in the ability of the state to accomplish your goals, while at the same time denying the ability of private associations to accomplish anything of value.

Posted by chopper on Sep 25, 2005 at 11:48 AM

“You whine about politicians

Posted by chopper on Sep 25, 2005 at 12:35 PM

chopper,
vulgarity is a fine and wonderful thing, a pungent spice best used sparingly.
-
I think I have shown where you have used over-simplification in some of your arguments.  I don’t wish to imply that you are stupid or simple or any kind of ad hominem nor do I have any reason to believe you to be anything but honest and sincere in expressing your views.  Nonetheless, it’s my opinion that there is a pathological tendency in conservatism as it is configured today to be in near all respects stubbornly and consciously in denial of much that is demonstrably true.  You can call that standing by their principles, if you want.  You should know what I call it by now.  I have no idea if you are now or ever have been in the past or may be at anytime in the future, fearful.  We’ve all been manipulated by appeals based on fear.  Some times with good reason, sometimes to make us do things we otherwise would not.  Sorry to get all nuanced on you here, mate.   
-
I don’t trust the state as far as I can throw it.  Wishing it away won’t help, though.  I think you under-estimate Chomsky.  Or else you have too much respect for his detractors.  I assume you’ve at least tried to read some of his more accessible stuff.

Posted by luminous beauty on Sep 25, 2005 at 1:55 PM

luminous beauty said “Nothing leads to an inevitable conclusion with adequate attention and foresight.  Your attitude is so fatalistic.  Whatever happened to that Yankee can do?  It

Posted by chopper on Sep 29, 2005 at 10:10 PM

Contrary to conventional truism, most government workers are dedicated and motivated.  Like other human beings they are most satisfied with their work when it is effective.  They can be demoralized, however, by an administration that fundamentally believes that government cannot work.
-
It is wonderful that Walmart has shown such generosity in a temporary disaster.  Now if they could only pay their workers a living wage.  What do you think the PR value of Walmart’s magnanimous gesture is vs. a few million out of pocket?  Priceless. 
-
I’m getting tired of being the ‘leftist’ foil to your one-sided, bipolar argument.  For a critique of conservatism free of my admittedly scathing assessment, and insight to what I mean when I say I have outgrown my conservative roots; you might read:
-
http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/cons.htm
-
Hayek’s three-cornered model of political thought is somewhat interesting.  For a more interesting model, you might want to look here:
-
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
-
If you truly want to understand more closely where I’m coming from you could read:
-
“A Theory of Everything: an Integral Vision for Business, Politics, Science, and Spirituality” by Ken Wilbur, Shambala 2000.

Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 2, 2005 at 9:20 AM

Contemplating our conversation in the light of this nugget of thought should also be of help:
-
False dilemma

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
       

The logical fallacy of false dilemma, which is also known as fallacy of the excluded middle, false dichotomy, either/or dilemma or bifurcation, involves a situation in which two alternative points of view are held to be the only options, when in reality there exist one or more alternate options which have not been considered.

Examples:

“Mark is late for work. Either his car has broken, or he has overslept. If it can be shown that the latter is false, the former must be true.”

This argument is a false dilemma, because there are many reasons why Mark may have been late for work. If it were somehow proven that there were no other possibilities, then the logic would be sound. But until then, the argument is fallacious.

False dilemmas are also common in politics. They are often hidden in (rhetorical) questions, and then become akin to the fallacy of many questions, as in:

Will you re-elect the ruling party, or face nuclear holocaust?

Are you with us, or with the forces of evil?

...or they can be done as statements of fact:

My opponent voted against the public schools spending bill. He must think educating our children is not important.

The false dilemma fallacy refers to misuse of the or operator. For another misuse of “or”, see the false choice fallacy. For misuse of the and operator, see package deal fallacy.

A false dilemma may not necessarily be limited to two choices; it may involve three possibilities, in which case it is known as a trifurcation, or more, in which case the dilemma may be more the result of accidental omission than deliberate intention.

Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 2, 2005 at 10:33 AM

Many government workers undoubtedly are highly motivated, but from what I’ve experienced, as a group, many are not. 

Another good example of a false dilemmma fallacy is either I think government is the best solution or I must be fatalistic.

One of my subordinates is often late for work, or coming back from lunch.  I know from experience there are many different reasons why he is late, and often new and more inventive ones.  One thing I can count on, however, is that he will have always have a good and entertaining story of the disasters that befell him thus causing his lateness.

Posted by chopper on Oct 3, 2005 at 9:45 PM

“Another good example of a false dilemma fallacy is either I think government is the best solution or I must be fatalistic.”
-
What I find fatalistic, is not that you don’t think government is the best solution; but that you have given me every reason to think you believe absolutely, mostly as an article of faith, that government, either cannot or has no reasonable authority to modulate and seek to minimize the disparities between the poor and the weak, and the wealthy and powerful. 
-
Or, as it says here:
  “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
-
I hope you link to the Hayak essay.  Read carefully what he says about ‘principled arguments’.
-
I struggled for minutes trying to understand your story about your coworker, there.  I was locked in thinking it was some kind of allegorical allusion to what we’ve been discussing before I realized it was a personal anecdote, riffed off the Mark example in the Wikipedia quote.  If there was some deeper significance, let me know.  I, too, can be dense at times.
-
If it was just for entertainments sake, thanks. I used to be that guy, come to think of it.  So, I owe you an amusing tale.  Well, here is a mere ‘vulgar’ joke my partners’ stepson just told me, and I have to unload it on somebody:
-
A young couple were on their way through the Sierras to Reno in order to be wed, when their car went over the mountainside and crashed, killing them both instantly.  Their souls were transported to the Pearly Gates where St. Peter was ready to usher these virginal innocents right in, when the woman asked “We never made it to the Chapel, can we be married in heaven?”  “Hmm, I’m not sure,” said St. Peter. “Please, wait here while I go check”.  So they sat and waited. All day they sat. And waited the next day, and the next.  For a whole month, because their love was so strong and their commitment to become married was so great, they sat quietly and waited patiently at the Portals of Paradice.  Finally St. Peter returns.  “Yes! Yes!”, he says, “You verily married may be.  Now come along, I’m way behind schedule.”  Just as they were about to rush through, the couple stopped.  The young man sheepishly turned to St. Peter and asked, “Sir I hate to mention it and I don’t want you to think we’re unsure or having any second thoughts or anything like that, but if it should happen our marriage doesn’t work out, can we get a divorce in heaven?”  St. Peter moans and throws his hands up in supplication and cries, “Look, I just spent a month trying to find a clergyman, where do you think I’m going to get a lawyer?”
-
Not saying that joke has or doesn’t have any applicable significance.  Harmonic reverberations maybe.  Maybe not.

To make another attempt to clarify my position:  I, philosophically, am fully in agreement with Jefferson’s dictum “The government that governs best, governs least”.  I, practically though, read that as a variation on Einstein’s teaching to “make it as simple as possible, but be careful not to make it too simple”.

Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 4, 2005 at 10:40 AM

Actually the story was mostly just for amuesment, it was prompted by your example of “Mark is late for work”, and I was showing that I have personal experience of someone who apparently has innumerable reasons for being late.  Even though his behavior is often flaky and exasperating (and personally often self-defeating, he is in a dysfunctional marriage) he is technically very good and handles some of our largest customers very well, so I’ve learned to tolerate defects that would be intolerable in a lesser employee.

Posted by chopper on Oct 4, 2005 at 4:54 PM

Btw, I liked your story about the young couple trying to get wed at the pearly gates.

Posted by chopper on Oct 4, 2005 at 4:56 PM

Here’s another one:

How many free market ideologues does it take to change a light bulb?

Answer:  None.  They just sit in the dark and wait for an invisible hand to change it for them.

I thought it was funny.

Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 6, 2005 at 12:40 PM