If an antiwar or other types of large rallies are held to change policy in order to fit the will of the people. I could easily see bush, or even hillary if she is elected sending in the tanks in order to quell the "anti-government uprising". The politicians then make it clear to the people that it is the adminstration, not the people who have a say as to how this nation progresses.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Man, the whole 'personal responsibility' thing just flies right past you, doesn't it?..

What, you to dumb or something, to recognize or acknowlege 'personal responsibility' as being part of a collection of words organized into a sentence designed to answer your question?

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I have often thought, in a two party system, that one party would lean towards the upper classes, the other to the lower. The balance of power might be determined by whether the middle classes think of themselves as well off or not. Does the middle class perceive of policies that benefit the wealthy as benefitting themselves?

I suspect that young workers might try to establish themselves on what they think the fast track to economic success by adopting the reactionary politics that they (usually) associate with shareholders and the executive suite. Even if the policies that favor owners and bosses are contrary to the interests of most people, they might have the belief (whether justified or not) that they too can advance rapidly through the system.

The middle class seemed largely to believe from about 1994 that trickle-down economics and top-down management were both necessary to creating prosperity. They of course created prosperity -- but not for any other than the owners and bosses That may have led to the demise of the Republican Party as the majority party for the next twenty years or so.

We can of course expect some lag between public sentiment and public policy. I predict that by 2015 we will see very high taxes on high incomes even if we don't end up with a European-style cradle-to-grave system welfare state.

(I) The working class can be cowed and it can be diverted with circuses or numbed with irrational religion. The middle class has to be bought off with opportunities.

Let's hope that should the ruling class (financiers and the executive nomenklatura) become destructively rapacious and selfish that the lessons that the disgruntled people whose good educations offer them little material benefit choose revolutionaries like Adams and Bolivar as models instead of Lenin or Mao.

When you speak of 'irrational religion,' would you contend there is another kind of religion? Also, when you suggest that the ruling class might "become destructively rapacious and selfish," do you imply that they are not already sufficiently so to transfer the allegiance of the middle?

Some religious expressions are less irrational than others. One can easily contrast the late GI Rev. Fulton Sheen to Jimmy Swaggart. The best clergy are as a rule the ones well versed in philosophy, literature, science, history, and the like; the worst have little more than a few semi-literate expressions of gut feelings (assuming that they don't misuse their personal authority with persons or church funds) that are the same as those of their flock...

I am not convinced that we can quit speaking of God, Jesus, Moses, Mohammed, Buddha, or whoever exists at the apex of some religious doctrine on grounds that religion is utter nonsense. Some, like creationist doctrine, is sheer nonsense for much the same reasons for which astrology is nonsense.

I think that the ill-educated parts of the working classes are vulnerable to mass culture, advertising, superstition, fundamentalist religion, materialism, and fads or crazes. They rarely get appreciable rewards for abstract thought even if they have the capacity. Many operate a the 'concrete' level of cognition, something incompatible with any white-collar work other than retail sales or clerical work. The middle class expects to be rewarded for thinking, and when those who control the rewards disappoint those expectations, then boses and owners begin to see the talents of the educated used in ways that do not flatter the elite.

Who do you think is more likely to become a radical -- a farm laborer or dishwasher who knows well the limitations of his talent, or someone who has a master's degree but has to scrape by as a clerk-typist or file clerk?

.... Again, I see the generational dynamic meeting social pathology. The executive class, now largely Boomers, consists largely of people who have never had to make a huge sacrifice for anything. They weren't the grunts who put their lives on the line in Vietnam (GI executives born between 1915 and 1924 who successfully avoided WWII were rare). Unlike GIs they rarely have any idea of what goes on on the shop floor because they started as 'financial analysts' or lawyers who went to grad school or porfessional school on a student deferment. Of course they never knew poverty as many who work in the plant or do clerical work might have known. They have validated themselves by their paychecks more than anything else, and have few loyalties except to right-wing economics and politics.

The GI executive often had something in common with someone of like age in the plant: as a rule he started there, and having had military experience, recognized that his subordinates were necessary to the smooth operation of business. The Boomer executive would often be delighted to move the manufacturing overseas if that saved money. Even more, the GI executive made perhaps five to ten times what some assembly-line worker made instead of the hundreds of times what the usual person in the largest job classification in the firm makes.

That's a huge difference between 1965, when GIs filled the executive suites, and today, when Boomers are the executives. Major change in that situation is vital to any semblance of economic and social decency in America.

I believe that the condition of the society today can be classified as guarded. While there are rumblings of discontent, there still is not enough social pathology on a large scale to come closed to classifying it as critical or even serious. Words have power, whether written or spoken, and so do thoughts. After all, didn't someone once say that the pen is mightier than the sword? This dominates the day and this should be kept in mind, whether we yet realize it or not.

There are those who resent have certain buttons pressed, such as a laid-off worker when the talk of outsourcing comes up. Yet there is not anywhere near the unrest necessary for any kind of revolution, be it active or passive. Money may talk, but there are those who can talk louder, and they are the ones that are going to have to be heard before there can be any significant change for better or for worse.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Man, the whole 'personal responsibility' thing just flies right past you, doesn't it?..

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

What, you to dumb or something, to recognize or acknowlege 'personal responsibility' as being part of a collection of words organized into a sentence designed to answer your question?

I get it. This is an example of "creating your own reality."

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I get it. This is an example of "creating your own reality."

I just figured he was on shrooms or something when he 'answered'. It probably made really good sense at the time.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I just figured he was on shrooms or something when he 'answered'. It probably made really good sense at the time.

So, I take it, shrooms was the something vs just being dumb. Liberals have so many excuses for, or issues with, everything that we normal folks often get confused. Next time just mention, I'm on shrooms, so we normals understand the jest behind the looney liberal mindset. BTW, thank you for clearing this all up.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I just figured he was on shrooms or something when he 'answered'. It probably made really good sense at the time.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I get it. This is an example of "creating your own reality."

Actually, this is the perfect example of "creating your own reality". Gee, two peas in their own liberal love potion filled pod. Yah! I was waiting for this opportunity.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

The answer, as many as the Japanese people were willing to sacrifice on behalf of their emperor.

You seem to be saying that because the Japanese government was unwilling to accede to American demands, the Japanese were willing to "sacrifice" the victims of the Hiroshima and Nagaski attacks.

This is exactly analogous to saying that because the US was unwilling to accede to al Qaeda demands, the Americans were willing to "sacrifice" the victims of the WTC and Pentagon attacks.

Is this what you mean?

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Actually, this is the perfect example of "creating your own reality". Gee, two peas in their own liberal love potion filled pod. Yah! I was waiting for this opportunity.

Getting back to the original issue, now -- whether all those nuked Japanese schoolchildren deserved what they got back in 1945. Why don't you answer the question?

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

I believe that the condition of the society today can be classified as guarded. While there are rumblings of discontent, there still is not enough social pathology on a large scale to come closed to classifying it as critical or even serious. Words have power, whether written or spoken, and so do thoughts. After all, didn't someone once say that the pen is mightier than the sword? This dominates the day and this should be kept in mind, whether we yet realize it or not.

There are those who resent have certain buttons pressed, such as a laid-off worker when the talk of outsourcing comes up. Yet there is not anywhere near the unrest necessary for any kind of revolution, be it active or passive. Money may talk, but there are those who can talk louder, and they are the ones that are going to have to be heard before there can be any significant change for better or for worse.

If the freakish weather that the northeastern USA holds through the summer, then we might just have the lit fuse for the powder keg of a 4T; even here, a year without a summer implies crop failures and sky-high food prices. All of the corruption and economic savagery that people could tolerate in comparatively good times becomes intolerable to hungry, cold people who begin to hear calls for revenge against people still living large for reasons that the masses can't understand. Of course, it's still April, and the midwinter weather pattern now upon us can change in time for the planting of crops and the ripening of fruit. Note well that the French Revolution followed a couple years of poor harvests after the eruption of a volcano in Iceland in 1783.

George W. Bush is the worst President for meeting a disaster, as demonstrated by the inept response to Hurricane Katrina. Words are mightier than the sword because words command those who wield the swords. But like swords, words too can hurt, and when used ineptly enough (as in Marie Antoinette's infamous "Let them eat cake") they cause people to want to turn on leaders who have hurt them badly and have no clue to the damage that they have done with rhetorical incompetence that displays incompetence, recklessness, cruelty, or destructive selfishness.

The ruling class of America has become unusually selfish, rapacious, and -- except at formulating rationales for its own vices and means of shutting out others from the potential richness of life -- unimaginative. It has no perceivable virtues. Its replacement will be necessary for the regeneracy that stops the undermining of the efforts that Americans have made in building institutions and wealth over more than two centuries.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Getting back to the original issue, now -- whether all those nuked Japanese schoolchildren deserved what they got back in 1945. Why don't you answer the question?

The generic answer is: kids don't deserve the damages wars inflict, regardless of who or where they are ... not even the child soldiers.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

You seem to be saying that because the Japanese government was unwilling to accede to American demands, the Japanese were willing to "sacrifice" the victims of the Hiroshima and Nagaski attacks.

This is exactly analogous to saying that because the US was unwilling to accede to al Qaeda demands, the Americans were willing to "sacrifice" the victims of the WTC and Pentagon attacks.

Is this what you mean?

Well, I guess your into shrooms as well. I see some complication and confusion in your post. I prefer simple and straight forward. So, I hope you don't mind, I simplified and altertered it abit to allow some intelligent light.

pre-Pearl Harbor analysis

You seem to be saying that because the American govt (FDR) was unwilling to accede to Japenese (Tojo) demands, the American govt (FDR) were willing to "sacrifice" the victims of Pearl Harbor.

pre-9/11 analysis

This is exactly analogous to saying the America govt (Bill Clinton) was unwilling to accede to al Qaeda (Osama) demands, the American govt (Bill Clinton) was willing to "sacrifice" the victims of the WTC and Pentagon attacks.

Gee, I can see some similiarities with the things presented this way. One similiarity, liberals like to risk or sacrifice American lives for the sake of maintaining peace. You toss in a few other similarities like, the Islamics are fanatical similiar to the Japanese, socially indoctrinated and spiritually guided similiar to the Japenese, Islamics like to chop of heads of captives like the Japanese, Islamics like to torture and rape captives like the Japanese and the Islamics attacked the United States the Japanese.

BTW, the answer your post as presented to me is NO.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

If the freakish weather that the northeastern USA holds through the summer, then we might just have the lit fuse for the powder keg of a 4T; even here, a year without a summer implies crop failures and sky-high food prices. All of the corruption and economic savagery that people could tolerate in comparatively good times becomes intolerable to hungry, cold people who begin to hear calls for revenge against people still living large for reasons that the masses can't understand. Of course, it's still April, and the midwinter weather pattern now upon us can change in time for the planting of crops and the ripening of fruit. Note well that the French Revolution followed a couple years of poor harvests after the eruption of a volcano in Iceland in 1783.

George W. Bush is the worst President for meeting a disaster, as demonstrated by the inept response to Hurricane Katrina. Words are mightier than the sword because words command those who wield the swords. But like swords, words too can hurt, and when used ineptly enough (as in Marie Antoinette's infamous "Let them eat cake") they cause people to want to turn on leaders who have hurt them badly and have no clue to the damage that they have done with rhetorical incompetence that displays incompetence, recklessness, cruelty, or destructive selfishness.

The ruling class of America has become unusually selfish, rapacious, and -- except at formulating rationales for its own vices and means of shutting out others from the potential richness of life -- unimaginative. It has no perceivable virtues. Its replacement will be necessary for the regeneracy that stops the undermining of the efforts that Americans have made in building institutions and wealth over more than two centuries.

Weather is one of my life-long interests, and let me tell you it has definitely been crazy. Just before the most recent cold snap, the Midwest had been enjoying temperatures in the 70s and 80s, which is far above normal. Then suddenly, we go right into a historic freeze, with 10s and 20s for lows all across the Midwest. There has been widespread crop failures east of the Rockies in the Midwest and the Southeast. And in January a similar freeze destroyed the citrus crops in California. The cost of fruit, vegetables, and wheat will be very high.

And there is more weather weirdness ahead. The Midwest and East Coast could see heavy snows over the weekend as far south as Kansas, Missouri, the Ohio Valley, and the Mid-Atlantic. Let's hope that the weather warms up.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Actually, this is the perfect example of "creating your own reality". Gee, two peas in their own liberal love potion filled pod. Yah! I was waiting for this opportunity.

-snort- Liberal? Me?

Get with it

Originally Posted by Mikebert

You seem to be saying that because the Japanese government was unwilling to accede to American demands, the Japanese were willing to "sacrifice" the victims of the Hiroshima and Nagaski attacks.

This is exactly analogous to saying that because the US was unwilling to accede to al Qaeda demands, the Americans were willing to "sacrifice" the victims of the WTC and Pentagon attacks.

Is this what you mean?

Thank you Mike. I've thrown down the bin laden card enough times in the past that I was disinclined to repeat myself. You've saved me the trouble.

Originally Posted by The Rani

One of these days I'm going to actually post on shrooms, just to see if anyone notices.

I'd notice.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The generic answer is: kids don't deserve the damages wars inflict, regardless of who or where they are ... not even the child soldiers.

I agree.

I may believe that the US was justified in doing what it could to stop the expansion of the Japanese Empire. But it's just as important to acknowledge that great harm was done to innocents in the course of the war.

If we can't do that, we risk becoming as thoughtless and cruel as our adversaries. I don't think I have to go very far to find examples of how we've abused innocent people while claiming that we're on the side of Good.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Well, I guess your into shrooms as well. I see some complication and confusion in your post. I prefer simple and straight forward. So, I hope you don't mind, I simplified and altertered it abit to allow some intelligent light.

pre-Pearl Harbor analysis

You seem to be saying that because the American govt (FDR) was unwilling to accede to Japenese (Tojo) demands, the American govt (FDR) were willing to "sacrifice" the victims of Pearl Harbor.

pre-9/11 analysis

This is exactly analogous to saying the America govt (Bill Clinton) was unwilling to accede to al Qaeda (Osama) demands, the American govt (Bill Clinton) was willing to "sacrifice" the victims of the WTC and Pentagon attacks.

Gee, I can see some similiarities with the things presented this way. One similiarity, liberals like to risk or sacrifice American lives for the sake of maintaining peace. You toss in a few other similarities like, the Islamics are fanatical similiar to the Japanese, socially indoctrinated and spiritually guided similiar to the Japenese, Islamics like to chop of heads of captives like the Japanese, Islamics like to torture and rape captives like the Japanese and the Islamics attacked the United States the Japanese.

BTW, the answer your post as presented to me is NO.

Actually, you don't prefer "simple and straightforward" as you claim. This is a not-so-artful dodge and ad hominem attack that (spelling and punctuation errors aside) could have easily been written by Zilch.

It's a rambling, illogical mess, coated with outright lies and misrepresentations.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Well, I guess your into shrooms as well. I see some complication and confusion in your post. I prefer simple and straight forward. So, I hope you don't mind, I simplified and altertered it abit to allow some intelligent light.

pre-Pearl Harbor analysis

You seem to be saying that because the American govt (FDR) was unwilling to accede to Japenese (Tojo) demands, the American govt (FDR) were willing to "sacrifice" the victims of Pearl Harbor.

pre-9/11 analysis

This is exactly analogous to saying the America govt (Bill Clinton) was unwilling to accede to al Qaeda (Osama) demands, the American govt (Bill Clinton) was willing to "sacrifice" the victims of the WTC and Pentagon attacks.

Gee, I can see some similiarities with the things presented this way. One similiarity, liberals like to risk or sacrifice American lives for the sake of maintaining peace. You toss in a few other similarities like, the Islamics are fanatical similiar to the Japanese, socially indoctrinated and spiritually guided similiar to the Japenese, Islamics like to chop of heads of captives like the Japanese, Islamics like to torture and rape captives like the Japanese and the Islamics attacked the United States the Japanese.

BTW, the answer your post as presented to me is NO.

KIA sees complication in my post, but then follows with a much longer "clarification".

To try to confuse the situation he presents an example that is NOT analogous. The attacks on Hiroshima and the WTC were made during a declared war. They occurred years after the attacker had declared war on the target nation. Pearl Harbor was attacked when the US was at peace with Japan.

Finally he gets some simple facts wrong. Clinton was not president when 911 occurred so he couldn't have sacrificed anyone. If anyone sacrificed anyone on 911, it was President Bush.

Of couse, I don't think that failing to do what a belligerent demands of you makes you responsible for what that belligerent does to you. If I refuse to hand over my wallet to a knife-wielding mugger and he injures me in the subsequent scuffle, I am not "sacrificing myself". Just because I don't want to hand over my wallet doesn't mean I deserve to be knifed.

I don't think KIA thinks this either. But he seems to say that Japanese resistance to American demands means that they deserved what happened to them. Yet when the exact same situation is presented to him in which it is American resistance to al Qaeda demands he implies that the Americans did not deserve what happened to them.

I'll make it explict, how is what the US did to Hiroshima any morally different than what al Qaeda did to the WTC?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I'll make it explict, how is what the US did to Hiroshima any morally different than what al Qaeda did to the WTC?

One take, often cited, is that Truman dropped the big ones to shock the Japanese ancient mindset and avoid the devastating 'island-hopping' (e.g. out of 22,000 Japanese soldiers present at the beginning of the Iwo Jima battle, 20,000 were killed, and only 216 taken prisoner) being played-out by hundreds of thousands of our people amongst the millions of Japanese civilians in their islands homeland --- untold carnage. Another take is that he dropped them to show the Soviets our resolve at a time when they could have rolled their tanks through to Normandy further continuing the massive global carnage that was otherwise coming to an end. Whether you buy into these motivations or not, Truman's actions took place towards the end of a prolonged period of total war where 62 million people or 2.5% of the total world population was killed; many millions more harmed and displaced.

OBL had those planes fly into those buildings at a time of relative peace in the world in order to provoke a war with his "far enemy" as a step towards imposing his own religious beliefs on a large segment of, if not eventually the entire, world population.

I think most can see the difference.

However, none of this is related to nor excuses KIA's rather twisted up logic. ;-(

Hopefully, KIA will provide his own answers, and I am not in the least claiming to speak for him, but the questions Mike proposes are interesting enough that I'll throw a few of my own ideas out.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Of course, I don't think that failing to do what a belligerent demands of you makes you responsible for what that belligerent does to you. If I refuse to hand over my wallet to a knife-wielding mugger and he injures me in the subsequent scuffle, I am not "sacrificing myself". Just because I don't want to hand over my wallet doesn't mean I deserve to be knifed.

Any time one defies someone who is willing to use force, one is accepting a risk. I would agree that the primary moral responsibility in the above example would fall upon the mugger. The mugger needs to be put in jail or relegated to eternal damnation, not the muggee. This does not imply that the act of defiance is not significant.

In a larger conflict, many are put at risk who made no choices beyond perhaps voting for a particular government. The school kids of Hiroshima did not vote for the Emperor. Not all in the twin towers voted for Bush 43. Those who live in the same Iraqi village as an insurgent group may well die in a revenge raid launched in response to the local insurgent group's activity, even if not everyone in the village approves of what the insurgents are doing. Conflicts create a de-facto collective guilt that is hard to defend morally. In any war or insurgent situation, those who decide to use violence are often willing to put others at risk -- others on their own side as well as the enemy's -- who may not agree with their motivations or actions.

Whenever conflicts are resolved with violence, the innocent are apt to die. This was not always as true. A single civilian, Jenny Wade, died at Gettysburg when a stray bullet entered her kitchen. In older times, it was more possible to isolate conflicts. Of late, neither organized nations fighting declared wars nor insurgent groups defying organized nations are making significant attempts to try to isolate non combatants from harm. Attacking civilian targets has become the most cost effective means of coercion, the most efficient means of achieving desired goals.

I for one would not confuse 'efficient' or 'effective' with 'moral.'

Originally Posted by Mikebert

To try to confuse the situation he presents an example that is NOT analogous. The attacks on Hiroshima and the WTC were made during a declared war. They occurred years after the attacker had declared war on the target nation. Pearl Harbor was attacked when the US was at peace with Japan.

It is not clear to me that declaring a war makes the resultant murders more moral. To me, dropping a bomb from an aircraft during a declared war is inherently no more or less moral than parking a car bomb during an insurgency. Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan character once proposed the same metaphor as Mike. He proposed that war is mugging on a grand scale. Force is being used to take something from someone else. Signing a declaration of war, putting on uniforms and following ritualized rules does not make the mugging more or less moral. It just legalizes the mugging. It immunizes the participants from prosecution should they lose the war and get caught.

Still, there are some questions that might be asked if one wishes to determine if either side is fighting a 'just war.'

1. Who is the aggressor? Who first resorted to the use of violence?
2. Who is the muggee, and who is the mugger? Which faction is extorting wealth from the other? Which faction is attempting to end such extortion, to free their culture from negative external influence?
3. Who, if anyone, is trying to isolate civilians from the conflict? Who is pushing the theory of collective guilt furthest?

Feel free to add more similar questions. The more questions, the muddier the waters. What if the muggee is the first to use force? What if the mugger helped write the rules for how to do a legal mugging, then follows them to the letter? What if the mugger writes the rules of mugging in such a way as to always put the muggee at a disadvantage?

As a general rule of thumb, it is my belief that in any conflict situation both faction's priests, philosophers, media pundits, politicians and people on the street will find a way to convince themselves that their own culture is the good guys, and that their use of force is just, and that the enemy's use of force is immoral. Self interest will lead to creative morality. In the process, God will anoint tyrant kings as rightful rulers, entire races will be denied equality and human rights, democracies will trade away principles for opportunities to profit, 'superior' races will push 'inferior' races into the sea, while the poor and oppressed will see through it all and try to spit in the Big Man's eye.

As both sides see themselves as right, might too often decides the issue.

I think its important to note that Truman did not start a war with his A-bombs. Most would say the Japanese started the war with us while a few might say FDR may have had some pre-Pearl Harbor hand in it. But Truman did not start the war.

Some may say that our conflict with al Qaeda started with 9/11; others might back up to OBL's earlier declaration of war, the embassies and the Cole. Some might say he had moral justification (not me), but the decision to go to open conflict was his.

Unlike the Japanese, FDR or OBL, Truman's dropping the big ones did not start a war. As I posted above, many believe it brought the larger carnage to an aborted ending in Asia and/or prevented it from morphing on the European front into a Soviet-West conflict at a continuing scale of WW 2 carnage.

There is no moral comparison here.
.
.
.
Korea on the other hand ....

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

If we can't do that, we risk becoming as thoughtless and cruel as our adversaries.

I think we flatter ourselves to think otherwise.

Originally Posted by salsabob

OBL had those planes fly into those buildings at a time of relative peace in the world in order to provoke a war with his "far enemy" as a step towards imposing his own religious beliefs on a large segment of, if not eventually the entire, world population.

That is not correct. OBL declared war on the US in 1998 and proceeded to launch a series of attacks against the US, 911 being the fourth of these. His al Qaeda organization was not provoking* a war with the US--it was already at war with the US.

In his declaration of war, OBL claimed that the US started the conflict by its persecution of civilians in Iraq who had done nothing to harm or threaten the US. He also asserted that the US had commited a crime against (his fundamentalist understanding of) Islamic law by placing an infidel army in Saudi Arabia. For OBL, the presence of US troops in SA is like trying to force acceptance of homosexuality on militantly religious people who see it as an abomination.

Just because the American government did not take OBL's ability to wage war seriously doesn't mean that there was no war. Had America not declared war on Germany after Pearl Harbor, does that mean Germany would not have been at war with America?

*OBL was trying to provoke a response from the US. He wanted the US to take his war declaration seriously. He didn't get exactly what he wanted, the US still doesn't take him seriously, but it did respond.