Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive 01	50		2002/09/30, 07:14 pm

He sure knows how to make a great cigar.

It's kind of funny how the Pope was mentioned for being a world leader, especially for his role in the eventual collapse of the Soviet Communist state. The Pope, and religion in general, get nothing but extremely negative press in this country. Or else he is simply ignored as being irrelevent to the modern world. And yet, in Latin America it is rare for a week to go by without the evening news mentioning something about the Pope or religion itself and almost always in a very positive way. During the Pope's last visit to this part of the world there were a few shots on the US news of him in Canada that pretty much focused on how old and decrepit he is. The Spanish speaking channels had long positive segments every night during the trip.

On the same subject of how the US media views religion remember during the Waco standoff/masacre when the group was continually portrayed as being dangerous fundamentalist nutcases (I agree on the last two words). And as such it was OK to treat them as less than human. The end result was almost universally applauded with Janet Reno standing proud on the administration's policy against extreme terrorist groups (as long as they were right winged). It wasn't until much later, after a series of revelations about the abuses of US government police/military groups by their politically motivated controllers, that we begin to question the original stories.

For what it's worth I have a low opinion of most religious groups although I don't fantasize about blowing them all away. I just think it's funny/sad how we either get a 100% positive or an equally negative view of anything to do with religion.

Explorer, you should read history, the Gallipoli fuck ups were caused by timidity on the part of the British admiral charged with supporting the Australian and NZ troops on the beach. Churchill had a good plan, that if it had worked would of ended the war in 1915. It was poorly executed, and someone had to be the fall guy.

Tight fit, you mean it is NOT OK for Federal stormtroopers to burn babies alive just because their parents are religous wackos? Wow, who would have thunk it?

Incidently, I have heard rumors, which may or may not be true that Gen Jaruzelski (sp) forestalled a planned invasion of Poland a la Checkoslovakia in 1981 by threatening to use the Polish army to invade West Germany if this was done, with the Polish army moving across Poland's western frontier at the same time the red army crossed in from the east. NATO would never have believed the Poles were acting alone, and WWIII would have started. Is this true? Who knows, but the Sovs did not invade Poland.

Powerslave, if your story is true, then Jaruselski should be a Polish national hero of sorts.

Powerslave,

I was being sarcastic. I agree with you 100%. Superman wrote earlier in the thread that because I participated on a prostitution board, I should look in a mirror before attacking Clinton. I still have not figured out the moral equivalence of corruption and abuse of power and participation on a prostitution board.

Batster1, Participating on this board and exercising our first amendment rights is legal. Perjury is not.

Snapper,

I know. Thats the point I was trying to make to Superman. If you READ the posts above, you will see where I am coming from. In a post above, I stated that Clinton was a scumbag. Superman implied that I was in no position to judge Clinton due to my participation on this board. I asked Superman to please explain how my particpation on the board and Clintons abuses of power were morally equivalent. I am still waiting.

Guilty, I do need to catch up on this thread. I guess I'm waiting for that response too.

I'm not surprised to see libertarian views espoused on a site which covers, primarily, libertine behaviors. Heh. But I'm surprised to see lots of commentators confuse right-wing policies (such as forcing the downfall of the former Soviet Union) with conservatism. Only in America ...

I'd just recommend that all and sundry double-check their assumption that a libertarian government need be a conservative one. Personally, my politics tend to be rather left-wing -- for example, I support the right to abortion choice, oppose the death-penalty on equally mushy-touchy-feely grounds, like demand-side economics more than supply-side, and I HATE tax-handouts to the corporations. But my attitude toward government tends to be rather more libertarian than either the Republicans (who seem to want to legislate the way I fuck) or the Democrats (who want as much of my money as possible to give to "some of my best friends are" cripples -- get them the HELL out of my bedroom and boardroom). In the USA, it's a strange mix, seldom represented by one single candidate from one of the major parties.

I'd bet most of us can agree on where we stand on the libertarian / authoritarian axis (far toward the L), although we'll differ on the left / right axis. Lots of Club Hombre participants are largely LIBERTARIAN whether or not they're LEFT WING or RIGHT WING.

Oh, and about Reagan? What a dolt. I will grant any conservative, that Clinton might have been an embarrassment to the office. But at least his policies did something. Reagan simply slept, and then woke up to act grandfatherly for the cameras. Crediting Reagan with the downfall of the Soviet Union (largely a good thing, but don't forget the despair that the ensuing chaos created) is like crediting the Catholic Church with the recent drop in marriages in China. NOT RELATED. Period. Ronnie was smart to take the opportunity to make the USA look good, and I'm (in the long term) happy for the economic opportunities and the civil rights that are springing up in lands formerly under dictatorial regimes. But I see Carter and LBJ as having formed the foundation for that, and the Democratic Congress forcing the issue.

Why hasn't anyone else mentioned LBJ? Best President of this century, is my opinion. Fumbled over Vietnam -- but who wouldn't have? -- because he was trapped by circumstance. Just like Reagan ... except the one got negative foreign circumstances, the other positives.

Book Guy,

Agree with you on your analysis of left/right Libertarian/authoritarian mix of the board. I doubt there are many members of the Moral Majority on this board.

I really would be interested in knowing how Jimmy Carter, LBJ, and the Democratic congress forced the the fall of the Soviet system. Thats an analysis I have never heard, In all sincerity I would like to hear it.

How did Ronnie make the USA look good when the Soviet system unraveled ? He was not even President any more. If anyone benefited from positive foreign circumstance it was Bush 1

If you think LBJ was the greatest president of the last century, I am assuming that you think the "Great Society" was good policy. You have some unique views. If you ever want to discuss them over a brew, I will buy.

Bottom line: the Soviet system fell apart all by its lonesome. As long as the US presented a credible alternative model, then the Soviets were screwed. Of course, RR tried to screw everything up by incurring a $4 trillion national debt, and making us poorer than the Russians, but the Democratic congress saved us from further damage.

OK, so I tried.

I don't exactly link LBJ and Carter to the fall of the Soviet Union, as much as I UNlink Reagan to it. When I said I "see Carter and LBJ as a foundation for that" (or however I put it) the "that" referred to downfalls of dictatorships, not downfalls of state-run non-free economic systems. Largely, Carter and Ford saw the largest planetary failures of one-man top-down governing that the world has ever seen. So, I wasn't talking evil-empire in specific, but hegemony in general.

I think that a US prospering in a different system is thanks to a larger number of factors, and the USSR failing is largely thanks to themselves ... oh, and Afghanistan. Don't forget that little tidbit of history ...

The libertarian conservative arguement is interesting. I, for example, am pro choice. In other words, I think people should be free to choose to own a gun or not, to send their kids to public or private school or home school them, and to have an abortion or not. I also believe in the freedom to choose to smoke cigarrettes of either tabacco or pot as one chooses. NONE of these choices, except perhaps the guns, is favored by hard line right wingers. On the other hand, except for abortion, none are favored by left wingers. So I look for the party that seems to protect more of the choices. Today that party is the republican party. period.

INCIDENTLY, Explorer, I have no idea if it is true or not about Jaruzelski, it is only a rumor I heard from someone who knew someone who might have known. What I do know is that Jaruzelski was tried in the last few years on human rights charges in Poland, and after a secret session with the judges and prosecuters, the charges were dropped. I doubt it is something that could ever be admitted.

Book_guy, what are YOU smoking these days? LBJ as a good president? The man only got about 50,000 Americans, several thousand ANZACS and a million or so natives killed in Viet-Nam. For NO FUCKING PURPOSE. He was, until BJB (Blow job bill) the most corrupt president of the century. You should read up on the goings on in Texas during the 1960 elections if you doubt me.

The best president of the last 100 years? It simply has to be Theodore Roosevelt: Conservationist; Trust buster; Diplomat/Nobel Peace Prize; military/Industrial/agricultural giant (Panama Canal; Irrigation projects; Reduced national debt; Naval development); unusually gutsy Civil Rights advocate (for his time); reknowned historian/scientist/naturalist; rancher; war hero; bulletproof. Nobody's perfect (stretching of presidential powers too far, military zealousness, gingoism), but he was actually a GOOD president.

http://www.lib.msu.edu/vincent/presidents/teddy.htm

Number Two: probably Franklin D. Roosevelt. Other honorable mentions? Taft and Truman, I suppose. Kennedy for boffing all those beautiful women...

Dogster,

I would probably say FDR, followed by Teddy. Although as a personality Teddy rules. He was a fascinating guy. Truman was actually pretty good also.

Powerslave,

I invited Book Guy to explain over a beer his reasons for naming LBJ the best of the century. I gotta hear these reasons. He has a pretty unique point of view.

I am also curious about the comment that Carter and Ford were in power during the downfall of most of the "One- Man Top-Down" systems. A quick review of recent history indicates that most of that changed in the 80's and early 90's. Reagan, Bush, Clinton.

One of the things that I find interesting is that so many people are completely unwilling to recognize the good points of presidents on the opposite side of the political spectrum, and refuse to acknowledge the weak points of those from their side of the political spectrum.

If Teddy had been president for the last few years, there wouldn't have been a CEO scandal on Wall Street.

Teddy Roosevelts one flaw was standing as a third candidate in 1912 against Taft, thus giving us the abortion that survived known as Woodrow Wilson.

Baster, Powerslave, et al.

LBJ? I can't defend my choice. I think Johnson's behavior regarding Vietnam was appalling ... in fact, I mentioned that in my first post about him. OTHERWISE, though, he's probably on my top-3 list. "Great Society" 'n' all that. Worst is easily Nixon, despite a rather decent foreign and domestic record; but he presided over the downfall of participatory government, and in fact deliberately contributed to that downfall.

Well, aside from Thomas Jefferson. But that's way-back and a different story altogether.

Again, I reiterate, I was most impressed with Clinton as a man, until he failed to perform up to potential. So now, I view him as a phenomenal waste of talents, squandered on luvvy-duvvy thinking. If only he'd used his mind rather than his charisma a little more often.

In general, I think Libertarianism would work if every member of the electorate were as intelligent as Libertarians seem to be. They aren't. For example, in general people who "choose" to smoke cigarettes also "choose" to pollute my personal breath with their exhaled carcinogens, thus indicating they haven't really considered carefully their role in a free society. "Hey, I got a right to do what I want" only should extend so far as to not prevent ME from doing the same. Unfortunately, a few cagey but irresponsible smokers (to extend the metaphor) will hide behind Libertarianism as an excuse, when we true choice-mongers know their behavior is largely anti-choice.

The idea of a party that defends "choice" being a good choice, in theory, appeals to me; although I don't see that leading irreducibly to picking the Republicans, especially not in local elections such as in the Tampa Bay area. Here "Republican" categorically equals fundamentalist and anti-lap-dancing. But in principle, I like the "choose the choice that offers more choices" choice.

BG,

You don't have to defend LBJ with me. I was sincerely curious about your reasons for naming him to your top three. Thats a ranking not seen very often. But the beauty of the US is there are many diverse opinions and we can spout them as we wish.

It never ceases to amaze me how fast our country lost the ability to have civilzed political debate. College campuses used to be a place where all viewpoints were welcome and you could have serious debates on the merits. Nowdays it is PC or nothing. All sorts of restriction on speech. If you are not on the left of the political spectrum your opinion is not valid, etc,etc. So I like this board for more than the "chica aspect"

I have said several times that Clinton was a BRILLIANT Politician. Nothing dumb about that guy. So I agree with you there. I just thought he abused the office and set a very bad precedent for Presidential behaviour. And I don't mean him getting a hummer from Lewinsky. I could care less.

Here is another thing I agree with you on. In my opinion the scariest thing about the Republican party is the large number of "Christian Fundamentalists" in its base. I have no problem with people following their beliefs. I even admire their dedication. I don't like people forcing their beliefs on me.

Hell, Hitler was a good politician if you think about it. That doesn't mean he was a very good leader.
LBJ's great society could not have done a better job of destroying the black family if it had been though up by the KKK. As someone who grew up (albeit in a richer area) of a large east coast city, I got to witness firsthand the wonderful results of the great society, negro removal (excuse me, I meant Urban Renewal) and the wonderful public school system funded since LBJ's time with federal dollars. UGH

"It never ceases to amaze me how fast our country lost the ability to have civilzed political debate."--Batster1

Here, here. Right on. The "debate" product usually comes in three artificial flavors: (1) BLAND (overly polite wimps who say whatever it takes to get the most votes), (2) PRE-HEATED (marketable, pre-rehearsed images or soundbites masquerading as spontaneous thinking), or (3) OVER-COOKED (World Wrestling Federation style "battles" of non-intellect between utterly brain dead morons.)

And the American masses consume this crap like they were consuming McSpam milkshakes or something. Right down the piehole without even paying attention. The worst debates (and the norm these days) are basically simultaneous dual press conferences in which candidates answer predictable questions from the press and rarely engage each other in discussion.
-----------------------
Powerslave: I must say I enjoy your posts, even if I don't agree with everything you say. I'm not sure I'll ever be able to vote for a Republican...
------------------------
"Hell, Hitler was a good politician if you think about it. That doesn't mean he was a very good leader."--Powerslave

I think Hitler was a good leader, unfortunately. He got an entire nation to follow him to the grave, much like many cult leaders. It was his brutal expansionist greed and sickness, as well as his increasing ruthlessness, impatience and psychosis, that undid him and his nation.

Had he stopped or slowed his expansion in 1939, after uniting "Greater" Germany, he would've gone down in history as Germany's greatest leader, and Germany would probably still be the leading global superpower.
See Map:
http://www.msubillings.edu/history/NaziExpansionmap.htm
Churchill gets credit for detecting and fighting this monster successfully when the rest of the world was asleep.

Hitler was a decent enough fellow before he "lost it". One could only make such a statement out of ignorance.

It is important to point out that Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in 1933 when "he was still all right". In fact, he wrote Mein Kampf, his blueprint for world domination and for the destruction of the Jews in 1924, nine years earlier. He did not suddenly become an evil person

PS,

I think you are right about " The Great Society". Thats why I asked bookguy about it. If he thinks LBJ was a good president, I was curious to know if he thought "The Great Society" was good public policy.

Powerslave (and Bastster) ... great points about the "Great Society." Again, I must change my opinion in the name of defending it ... heh ... blurgh.

Basically, I liked the THEORY of the Great Society. No President previous to LBJ had really set out to deliberately wage a war on poverty. Nobody'd been so UN-social-darwinist as him ... 'cept maybe FDR, but that was in response to an unavoidable circumstance. LBJ SOUGHT OUT economic injustices to do battle against. That much sticks me in the tear-jerkie gullet and makes me all weepy and wet. "> In fact, I would go so far as to bleeding-heart affirm, that there is no higher calling for the government in a philosophical sense, than to enable those members of its society who otherwise would not have a fair shake. The rest of it -- fighting wars and defending borders, stoking or dampening the economy, jailing murderers and chasing pervs across the net -- all comes under that mantle, of empowering the downtrodden. So, it's a great starting-point, and (I think) few Presidents have placed as so fundamental such basic notions. All the others seem to have gotten caught up in the details and lost sight of the big picture (which is what LBJ did with Vietnam, BTW).

Now, urban renewal as a PRACTICE was rather ... umm ... a debacle. I know it first-hand, I lived on the South Side of Chicago and saw how the un-Jane-Jacobs-es had ruined formerly thriving communities (poor though they had been) with overly planned antiseptic high-rises. My recently positive opinion of LBJ stems largely from the HBO docu-drama, which was wonderfully performed and written, that made clear his own personal internal conflict about what to do regarding the mess which he inherited in Southeast Asia. And the back-stabbing two-faced nature of McNamara, whom I think still doesn't "get it" even after his supposed tell-all confessionary.

I'm really impressed with Thomas Jefferson, man and President. All of the above. But it was a different time then, men such as he could rightly claim to have read everything that was important on the subject of governing, and the economy consisted solely of farmers' interests in bringing internal goods to internal markets, all of it overseen by a penny-pinching Scotsman who voluntarily forewent any higher office than the Treasury. And Jefferson invented the dumbwaiter and the drycleaner's moving clothing rack. And I think the folding chair. Where would we BE?!!

Ya know who else I'm really impressed with? I'm really impressed with Harold Bloom these days. The New Yorker profile of him was delicious. Not that I'd vote for him for President ...

Amazing. This thread has gone from Osama bin Laden and Oliver North to Harold Bloom and the New Yorker. Anyone want to go for Kevin Bacon? ">

Oh, and regarding civilized debate: I do indeed agree, the political correctness on campuses has all but eliminated discourse. That was, after all, their plan -- in that sense, they're more right-wing than the supposed anti-open right-wingers whom they seek to combat. Anti-intellectuality by any other name is just as stupid. De Tocqueville wrote of how enamored we are of that ostriching, lo these many centuries ago. I left academia because of it -- unable to express opinions and keep a salary at the same time, for example. I had hoped to grow through a career from minor medievalist to the Stephen Jay Gould of the humanities, fighting our own brand of creationism with my witty and acerbic essays in influential popular magazines month by month. Then I got sick of it and decided to sell real estate. Anyone want to trade a half-eaten half-written thesis for an investment in some land near a bridge?

Anyway, what we lose with this decline in debate, is the capacity to really HOLD ON to difficult concepts over the course of hashing out the details. Everything gets simplified on the telly, to some kind of "sound bite" and the minor and supposedly insignificant details end up being disregarded. We also, as a society, lose a certain type of mental discipline, which in previous ages required that in order to object to one thing, one most definitely had to find good reason to object, and then go out of one's way to articulate that reason, for the benefit of others and oneself. We don't do any of the nitty-gritty of hard-core deep-down thinking any more, in the USA, we just kind of push and pull at the main concepts in a tug-of-war. Our attention spans have ... umm ... what was I saying?

Book Guy,

Nice Post. Like your analysis on debate. It is difficult now days to speak up on tough issues if you are not politically correct. In academia in particular it is harder and harder for people from right of the political spectrum to even voice their opinions. On some campuses the censorship is down right fascist. I for one do not agree with all of the ideas of the right or left, but I certainly would like to hear them. And I think intellectual growth is curtailed when you are only allowed to hear one side of each issue. to many of todays students will only hear one side of the issues.

My sisters are heavily involved in Democratic politics. They are so fanatical that they will defend their party and their people even when they know they are wrong. The worst behavior is explained away with "everyone does it". They refuse to even listen to alternative ideas on the issues. Any idea originating from outside of left field is not even worth consideration in their book. They spout the party line 100%. I think that is sad.

Regarding Hitler: I dunno if that assessment (that if he'd stopped before war, Germany would have just been successfully unified and therefore would remain an industrial power, etc.) is too accurate. I think of Hitler as much as a symptom as a cause -- he arose in a markedly xenophobic and anti-Semitic society, one largely based on martial exploit and warlike ferocity as the highest callings, and he simply voiced what many had been taught by parents, grandparents, great-grandparents.

Even as recently as the 1980s, I found the "typical German" (the less educated lower class ones) to have real axes to grind about "proving" that Americans / Canadians / tourists / foreigners needed to be "taught" something. They'd go out of their way to set up some elaborate whoopsadaisie scheme that would demonstrate that the Yank hadn't managed to cover every single one of his bases, just so they could "tsk tsk" at him -- then they'd be stunned to find that this particular Yank spoke such fluent German he could tell them off, obscenely, in three different dialects. At which point they'd "approve" because he (I) was sufficiently Germanized, and reluctantly relinquish the Wurstchen or the museum ticket. The whole "you people need to ..." phenomenon -- dose seelly Tchermans.

So, I think maybe Hitler without a war-machine couldn't have existed. Basically, he was always successful BECAUSE he was driving at eventual armageddon. The industrial might was, after all, mostly built on steel aircraft and maritime manufacture, which sees its most profitable days during wartime. Ever seen the Ruhr valley from the air?

I don't support political correctness for the sake of it. But, I shouldn't have to come here and read words like Jap and negro thrown around just so that a guy can show off his juvenile political incorrectness.

Bryon, I assume you mean me. "Negro Removal" is a term coined by black community members in DC who were indeed being removed from their neighborhoods so that said neighborhoods could be "renewed" and sold to limosuine liberals for big bucks. That is reality. If you cannot handle reality, I do not know what to suggest for you, except maybe drugs.

Book Guy, you make interesting points, yet I think the huge error you make is that all these theories about improving society DO NOT WORK, and make things worse. The THEORY of Marxism actually sounds rather nice. It is a disaster. As are liberal schemes to "improve" the poor, who were actually improving quite nicely without any help until the 60's.
What great society schemes usually do is empower, improve and enrich the liberal white intellectuals who run them, no one else.

Book_Guy, your HUGEst error is that you were supposed to have you midlife crisis AFTER you finished your academic thesis. Then you could be Dr_Book_Guy and get your chicks for free.

Ben. Oy vey! I KNOW Hitler was always a monsterous whack. P.S., How do you know so much about Mein Kampf, you FUCKING skinhead?

Lets put this another way. If Count von Stauffenberg and his many allies (e.g., Rommel) had succeeded in assassinating Hitler in '44 (he came awful close), Germany would've negotiatied peace and maintained many of their gains.

I think the phenomenon that caused all those Germans to cruelly follow Hitler's monsterous orders is in fact operating in our own society. The classic studies by Milgram and Asch on conformity proved that...

Dogster, I disagree that there are similarities between the US and Germany of 60 years ago. Huns, er Germans, have a heard instinct and ingrained need to obey authority that us stinking yankees never will. Hell, they won't even cross streets against the light when the street is closed to traffic.

Fine for Negro Removal, then.

Explanation for the use of Jap, please.

I don't need an explanation for the use of Atomic bomb. I am asking your choice of the use of the word Jap.

Is this the term coined by the Japanese community, too?

When the Japs apologize for the Bataan death march, accept responsibility for the rape of Nanking, and compensate the Korean women held in sexual slavery, I will stop calling them Japs.

Bryon, where did I say "japs" in this area, I cannot find it. I am not bullshitting you, I just can't find it. It doesn't matter, even if I didn't say it, they are still japs to me.
Incidently, several people here, including myself are bashing Germans, including calling them stereotypical names. No complaints from you; is it allright to call whitey names, but no one else?

Whitey Names:
Gringo-Euro-FUCKING-whiteys are responsible for 500 years of genocide, as brutal and tragic as anything the Nazis did. This sort've stuff doesn't make it into our history books often, and when it does, it is watered down considerably. Whiteys almost completely wiped out nearly 2 American continents of Native Americans (physical and cultural genocide). And now Milky wants to re-conquer Mexico.

"Indian Removal" was the US government's policy, consistent with the zeitgeist. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2959.html

The Native American Genocide has been documented in various places.
http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/usgenocide/IndianPeoples.html

"You will do well to inoculate the Indians (with smallpox) by means of blankets, as well as to try every other method that can serve to extirpate this exorable race. I should be very glad if your scheme for hunting them down by dogs could take effect."
-General Amherst to Colonel Henry Bouquet, July 1763

The Nips and Krauts (oops, sorry) have skeletons in their attics but so do we. And so do all cultures. Compare the Nazis to the ancient Romans, the ancient Maya, Stalinist Russia, the Turks in Armenia, the Imperial Japanese, current US foreign policy, etc., etc. Sure, those Teutonic dudes are a little weird, and they wear lederhosen and shit. But being murderous, inhumane, and self-righteous is basic human nature.

Studies of conformity and brutality (starting with Milgram's classic shock experiment) demonstrate that people in America are totally capable of becoming "Good Germans."

By all means, compare the Nazis to current US foreign policy. Who exactly are we genociding? What ethnic group are we targeting as scapegoats, when said ethnic groups members did nothing to us? What innocent countries are we attacking and then exterminating the population?

The US is a work in progress. In the past we may have committed more than our share of abuses but we have made an effort to avoid the same abuses in the future. More than most countries, we are willing to recognize our errors and try not to repeat them.

As for history ignoring the ugly truth of the European conquest, History is always written by the victors. And sometimes by the losers. ThIS IS NOT AN ATTACK ON BYRON. Japanese school books until recently made nary a mention of the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. Nor did they mention the atrocities committed in Manchuria and Korea. Dogster is right. Its human nature.

Will I think we should give money,reparation, to the Native Americans or those that have at least some indian blood flowing in their veins.

They deserve it more than Afro Americans.

We already have given plenty back to the Indians. Visit your local casino some time.

As far as Hitler goes, he rose to power because of the economic collapse of Germany after WWI. This was due to the impossible restraints that France and England placed on the country as punishment for the war. When the Great Depression arrived it hit Germany even worse than this country and allowed Hitler to gain support from sections of society that would have never tolerated him before.

Hitler gave a voice to the discontent of a country full of people who had seen their entire belief system destroyed along with a terrible economic crisis.

At any time there are always more than enough political idiologues running around who want to eliminate some group for their supposed evils. It just takes a certain set of circumstances to arise that allows them to gain power.

Listen to the rhetoric sometime of the far left or far right. Or the hard core feminists. Look at the actions of someone like Hilary Clinton. Or listen to the gungho pro Isreali supporters who want to invade Iraq and kill as many dirty arabs as possible. All of these groups promote the hatred of certain "enemies" and call for their removal.

Hitler wasn't that unique. He just managed to rise the crest of a wave longer than most. And his methods have continued to be used by people who claim to speak for the disinfranchised while carefully distancing themselves from prolonged actual exposure to these very people.

Like I said, Powerslave. Human nature. We agree that Hitler wasn't that unique.

I agree about the rhetoric. One of my favorite books is Eric Hofer's "The True Believer". It documents the tendencies of extremist groups of all flavors. You'd probably like that book. (I have it right next to my books by Chomsky.)

Did anyone see the Sopranos episode where the Italians were complaining about the Native Americans who were complaining about Columbus Day? By the end of it, the Jews were complaining about the Cubans and ... whatever ...

Powerslave: minor comment. Your point (that the theory of the Great Society, and/or Marxism, seems neat in theory, but fails in practice) was exactly my point. I hadn't missed it, you just misunderstood that I wasn't trying to defend such in-practice failures as 1960s urban renoool.

Of course, I personally don't go so far as to literally call myself a Social Darwinist, but I do believe that "pulling oneself up by the bootstraps" will always be more appealing to any given individual, and more healthy for a society as a whole, than any form of governmental welfare, be it rearranging neighborhoods or giving out free lunches. Nevertheless, in the meantime, folks gotta eat, and them what ain't figgered out where their bootstraps are attached have my sympathy. I didn't know where mine were for thirty years. As a girlfriend was wont to say, as long as you build a society on the basis of competition you have defined, _de_facto_, a society that WILL include people who have lost those competitions, and therefore will either (a) require help or (b) become criminals whose neediness becomes a detriment to the wellbeing of us all.

To make it all a lot simpler: I'm a Libertarian, and I vote extremely left-wing in local politics. I live in Florida, so there's no reason for me to vote in national politics, they don't count my ballot anyway.

Dogster: you got it dead on the head of the nail, when you said my biggest mistake was having my midlife crises before becoming Doctor_Book_Guy. But I DID finish my thesis -- my supervisor never "got around to" reading it. Grr. Academic politics, and why I left/got fired by the academy. That's another huge long story I won't bore you with.

Powerslave, for the record, look at your post on Sunday, September 29, 2002 - 12:16 pm.

Batster, textbooks only represent the government positions on atrocities. The (right-wing) LDP rules the national government, despite they only receive 40% or so of the national votes. Their (relative) dominance is the product of fragmented oppositions, and the voting system that gives more voting power to rural areas. A relevant fact here is, the LDP orginated from the exact school of politicians who were at the power during the WWII. Therefore, for them, defending their predecessors' actions takes a priority.

However, It is not even close to assume that Japanese people don't know or concern themselves about these events. There are literally hundreds of books published on this subject by Japanese authors/journalists from both sides of the fence (those who are critical of the military's actions and those who try to defende them). Millions of Japanese read them, and there are debates on the media all the time. For example, two heated subjects about Rape of Nanking is, the magnitude of the killing, and the dissociation of killings of soldiers (Japan and Chica were fighting) and civilians.

In addition, there are plenty of political enemies to the LDP. The leftists in Japan have a real power. For example, during much of the '70s to '80s, every single major city (Tokyo, Osaka, Kyoto, Yokohama, Nagoya, etc..) was governed by leftists that sometimes included members of the Communist party. When the Socialists took the national power for a short time in the '80s, they made a series of apologies to Asian nations.

IMHO, Japan entered into its own version of colonialism and imperialism a century too late. Too late because Western nations who arrived Asia earlier (British, French, Dutch, and the US who had Phillipines for no justifiable reasons if you apply today's sensitivity) had already established their colonies. So, Japan had to fight against them in order to gain its own territories. Of course, Japan did not say this. Offcially, it advertized its action as the effort to "liberate" Asia from Western rulers. What matters here is, Japan's action lead to disatsters in the areas, not only from wars but from unjustifable atrocities.

Byron,

I hear ya. As I prefaced my comment before, I meant no attack on you. I was just using the Japanese view of WWII as an example of how easy it is to ignore, or rewrite, history.

One of the things that frequently gets overlooked by us Americans were the economic reasons behinds Japans expansion. I think that Dogster talked on another thread awhile back about the great misconception that war with Japan was a big surprise. It was pretty much inevitable.

I would like to take this time to congratulate the New Jersey Supreme Court on doing a fine job of rewriting the law to suit they needs.

Too bad that many absentee ballets have already bent sent back in with Torricelli's name on it. I'm sure that there will be another New Jersey Supreme Court case following the election where they are going to rule that the voters really wanted to vote for Lautenberg.

Too bad calif republicans can't now remove Simon and replace him with Riordan.
Bryan, you are right, I did not look in the archive. I stand by my comments, tho, japs will remain japs until they, AS A NATION show some remorse a litany of war crimes and atrocities as long as my dick.

The use of ethnic slurs adds nothing to a political disucssion.

WIth this slug lautengerg, the interesting thing will be, if there is a republican majority in the senate, if the senate votes to seat him or not if he wins. Very legitimate arguements can be made that he is NOT a legitimate candidate and should not be seated.

I would recommend refraining from further ethnic slurs.

Laugh. I just noticed that a monger (who shall remain nameless) mis-typed the nation "China" as "Chica". Just goes to show where our Freudian collective minds are at, even in political discussions!

I noticed that a while ago.

I sometimes fight them.

Not for nothing, Byron, but after disclaiming that you're not a big fan of political correctness &c., you've done nothing but pedantically insist on the political incorrectness of the posters.

Are you a spy from Delaware, or just bored?

Also, I'm a little unclear on your meaning for ethnic slurs. Negro and Jap don't strike me as being overtly offensive words, comparatively speaking.

Dem Gnomes

Where did I say I am not a fan of political correctness? I said, I do not support pc for the sake of it.

A big difference of about 180 degrees.

(I can't believe I have to explain this.)

I support righteousness. That's my principle.

Oh, c'mon. All the tea in vagina wouldn't make any of you p.c.

What do the pubococcygeus muscles have to do with the price of tea in chica anyway?