We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Saturday, August 8. 2015
How To Slice A Bagel Along A Mobius Strip — And Why
Is Our Universe a Fake?
Artificial intelligence is already weirdly inhuman
Attorney General’s Charity Chief: Fraud Is “Surprisingly Common”
An ‘unarmed’ white teen was shot dead by police. His family asks: Where is the outrage?
That’s Not Funny! Today’s college students can’t seem to take a joke.
New doc highlights Buckley-Vidal debates, a turning point in TV news history
The New York Times Gets Money in Politics All Wrong
Democrats: They're All Socialists Now
Cheryl Mills To Destroy Emails About Boss Hillary Clinton
Clinton Campaign Deems GOP ‘Out of Touch,’ Hillary Selfies with Kim Kardashian, Kanye West, Kris Jenner
Cheryl Mills To Destroy Emails About Boss Hillary Clinton
Read more at http://observer.com/2015/08/breaking-cheryl-mills-to-destroy-emails-about-hillary-clinton/#ixzz3iDKgTMLl
Follow us: @observer on Twitter | Observer on Facebook
Read more at: http://tr.im/OfUsG
Puerto Rico's 'death spiral' can be traced back to one mistake
Turkey and Its Kurds: At War Again
HIROSHIMA 70TH ANNIVERSARY: A JUST END TO WORLD WAR II
Tracked: Aug 09, 09:31
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Lion hunting is for cowards.
Peter Capstick is a good read; recommend his books. Unless you are morally opposed to killing animals that will kill you first, of course. Then don't. Full of macroaggressions.
EPA Dumps One Million Gallons of Wastewater Into Colorado River
It's not illegal when the government does it.
See abortion, murder by cop, robbery, extortion, environmental destruction, EPA "health" experiments...
Actually, under the American system of government it is illegal when the government does it. What it is not, is prosecuted since government controls the prosecutors and has artfully removed the possibility of prosecution by The People independent of the bureaucrats.
Today's College Students..
I have absolutely no optimism in our future when these delicate snowflakes are in charge of our country. Or maybe they won't be, as they will be too weak to get out of bed by that point.
We'll be "led" by the tiny midget OZ behind the curtain by that point.
Michael Phelps wins 200 fly at nationals with fastest time in world this year
The media blackout over white deaths at the hands of police
Notably, it was twitter followers on #BlackLivesMatter that have tried to push the story.
Democrats: They're All Socialists Now
It depends on the definition of socialist. While the standard definition means "A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole," it turns out that people who support socialism advocate varying degrees of social ownership, with most in the West supporting private capital and robust markets. However, where they all generally agree is that the people have a vested and democratic interest in the fair and just workings of the economy including a social safety net.
Bernie Sanders: “To me, socialism doesn’t mean state ownership of everything, by any means, it means creating a nation, and a world, in which all human beings have a decent standard of living.”
The State may not own it, but they will regulate the hell out of it. Controlling every little bit of day to day operations that they wish. Democrats, and any more, republicans, have been spouting this nuanced lie for the last hundred years. What ever it is you wish to call it, liberty and a truly free market, have no place in the plan.
Actually, total socialism is full state ownership of property. But the state, permits private deed holders, but controls the use through very restrictive and controlling regulation. The State also makes a priority claim to up to 40% of all income generated from said property. (granted some portion of that claim goes to general police powers and not the socialistic programs).
What we have is partial socialism. And in truth, barring dramatic shift after the abolition of Christianity, we will have to tolerate some proportion of socialism to capitalism. Although of late, the micro-controlling nature of the socialists has been the larger problem.
The economist in the passage below calls it "government guided" enterprise. I prefer "government-throttled enterprise". I leave it to the reader to define that as strangulation or regulation.
Is the big and successful corporation its own master, then? Not quite.
To begin with, it is severely circumscribed by the government. as Professor Sumner H. Slichter has said, one of the basic changes which have taken place in America during the last fifty years [1900-1950] is "the transformation of the economy form one of free enterprise to one of government guided enterprise....The new economy," says Dr. Slichter, "operates on the principle that fundamental decisions on who has what incomes, what is produced, and at what prices it s sold are determined by public policies." The government interferes with the course of prices by putting a floor under some, a ceiling over others; it regulates in numerous ways how goods may be advertised and sold, what businesses a corporation may be allowed to buy into, and how employees may be paid; in some states with Fair Employment laws it even has a say about who may be hired. "When a piece of business comes up,' writes Ed Tyng, "the first question is not likely to be 'Should we do it?' but 'Can we do it, under existing rules and regulations?' "He is writing about banking, but what he says hold good for many another business. Furthermore, in the collection of corporate income taxes, withholding taxes, social security taxes, and other levies the government imposes upon the corporation an intricate series of bookkeeping tasks which in some cases may be as onerous as those it must undertake on its own behalf. Thus the choices of enterprise are both hedged in and complicated by government.
--'The Big Change: America Transforms Itself, 1900-1950', Frederick Allen Lewis
I think you're right that it depends on one's definition of socialism. The Soviet Union was and example of Marxist socialism where the government owned the means of production. Hitler's socialism forced privately companies work to the benefit of the state via regulation and taxes. It is Hitler's version that Democrats seem to want to resurrect. This makes sense because Progressives (of both parties) were Hitler supporters, but Progressives do not inhabit the Republican Party, but have taken over the Democrat Party.
"fair and just workings of the economy including a social safety net."
How is that fair and just to those who work and have to pay for this hammock (safety net)?
If you have children or ever contemplate having children would you give them everything for free, reward failing in school and getting pregnant five times with five different baby daddy's? That is what our safety net has become. A large portion of welfare is used to directly pay for booze, drugs and cigarettes. If we were to end all welfare tomorrow the Mexican cartel would collapse overnight. Most of the 7-11's and mom&pop stores would either go out of business or have to start selling food. Welfare; the social safety net, created the problem. End welfare and free all those lazy slobs to experience and enjoy learning to take care of themselves.
"Bernie Sanders: 'To me, socialism doesn’t mean state ownership of everything, by any means, it means creating a nation, and a world, in which all human beings have a decent standard of living.'”
That's a little like saying: "To me, conservativism [or insert random tag here] doesn't mean [dictionary definition], it means a list of good results I think will poll well, without the tiniest thought given to any link between its actual program and the results predicted for it, and in the face of considerable evidence that the opposite results will follow."
So good on Bernie.
HIROSHIMA 70TH ANNIVERSARY: A JUST END TO WORLD WAR II
another in an endless stream of badly researched, no-context articles on the A-bombs. Japan surrendered because the long range bombing campaign that started in September '44 when bases in Saipan became available. The bombing became increasingly destructive, the A-bombs were the culmination of the campaign but not actually the most destructive raids. the air war was morally justifiable overall, the A-bombs I think were not.
the government's own post-war report, cited many times here/ key findings in bold:
Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.
doesn't fit anyone's narrative these days.
Cold Comfort for some one like Bookworm at Bookwormroom whose mother was days from death by starvation in a Japanese internment camp when she was liberated with the surrender.
Or even my own family. My uncle was a counter-sniper in the Pacific and could likely have died in continuing, perhaps low-intensity combat, thus none of his 4 children, grandchildren or great-grandchildren would exist.
In any case, the decision to drop the bombs to force surrender was not made with the luxury of a survey of Japanese war archives.
I'm not going to play the whose is bigger game with you. you're not the only reader with family KIA in WW2.
try, for once, to parse the argument. the war was going to end before the invasion, A-bombs or not. numerous articles in the last few days tie the A-bombs to making the invasion unnecessary. these articles are bullshit. not only are these articles stupidly wrong, but they force you into justifying atomic weapons out of context and in all honestly explaining to a sane person why area bombing civilians with nukes is a good idea is insanity itself.
wholly separate is the question of whether low level incendiary bombing was justified as a military necessity, personally I think it was. Personally, I think the A-bombs were not.
Of course the soldiers and Marines who fought at Tinian, Tarawa Iwo Jima and Okinawa would have had a different perspective, although a large percentage of them died in those battles.
pretending to speak for the dead to make your argument is obscene.
Read "The Night of the New Moon" by Laurens Van der Post. He was a POW in a Japanese prison camp during the last days of WW II, and vividly details life in his camp. He and his fellow POWs knew the war was going badly for the Japanese and were convinced they would all be murdered and the camp razed before their guards retreated. Sir Laurens was convinced that he and the others were saved only because the shock of the two bombs allowed the Emperor to override his generals and surrender.
Incidentally, it is my understanding that there were more civilian deaths in Tokyo, Kobe, and other Japanese cities from conventional bombing than occurred at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was the shock of the destruction of a single bomb at each city which enabled the Emperor to make his move.
thanks for the reference.
I've made my point in 6.1.1
In the closing days, historically speaking since the people in charge didn't know they were the closing days, 7,000 Americans were being killed a week by the Japanese. As the Japanese withdrew from Pacific islands they were killing natives at a rate of 440,000 a month. The "Japanese leaders" who would have surrendered had no power to do so, only the Emperor could do that and apparently he still didn't want to after Nagasaki and only only agreed after intense pressure.
I'm never certain where people like you are coming from since more Japanese were killed by conventional bombs and incendiaries than were killed by Atomic bombs. How ever it played out the atomic bombs likely saved more Japanese lives than American ones.
sources? I not saying you're making anything up, but I'm not saying you're not.
the only reason you know that more people were killed by fire bombings that the nukes is because I've been making this point for the last few days, with appropriate citations.
it's obvious you haven't read any primary sources, so time to go back to school, kid.
Lion Hunting Is For Cowards
great story, a kind of Lion Porn/ Boy's Own / World of Commander McBragg mashup, any man who is still a 13 year old would love it.
no one's called these big game hunters cowards except a the usual anti-hunting rabble. so who is he trying to convince he's not a coward? anyway, he's got a gun bearer who gets taken down and absorbs some of the lion-rage, and, probably something like a .425 or .375 rifle. if he's in any danger its because he didn't bring enough gun bearers. I think the author's envious of the Maasai warriors who hunted lions alone, with a spear.
>>so who is he trying to convince he's not a coward?
Peter Capstick is dead. This story is published under another title, (I've read it in two other compilation hunting story books).
It was reprinted with this title by NYM, I believe, to counter-mock the mocking that Kimmel was attempting on his late night show, by trying to insinuate that big game hunters have erectile dysfunction problems. Because beta males like Kimmel don't understand about adrenaline junkies or alpha male activities, they must attack with what they think is humor.
I'm sure Kimmel has never wrestled with anything more dangerous than a bread bag.
while it's natural to question the mental stability of -- let's call them Great White Hunters -- I don't regard them as cowards, nor do I consider those hunters brave.
that said, you might enjoy:
I think you should go hunt a man killing lion and get back to us about the bravery thing.
the only "alpha male" in that lion hunt was the unarmed gun bearer who carries the rifle for the hunter because why? the hunter is too lazy to carry it? cannon fodder needed? it doesn't work for his "Great White Hunter" movie he's shooting in his own mind?
the Massai warriors in any of their lion hunts are alpha males because if you carry a spear vs. a 510 Express, we know who has the bigger pair.
you've a bizarre notion of bravery. stop watching movies.
At times it seems some are obstreperous just for the sake of it.
As for me, after action reports are just that, after action as in no where near the action.
After action tainted in innumerable ways both good and bad.
IOW's, what do studies done in 1946 have to do with decisions made in 1945. Or, I missed something.
There are just some 'things' you don't tangle with, lessen you want your ass kicked. Japan chose wrong. No morality involved with blood lust, as justly deserved.
you missed the point. you'll always miss the point. why am I not surprised?
You think you are smarter than you actually are. By a bunch.
Had a friend, grew up at Oak Ridge, mother was on the AEC. He told me that it was gospel among the community during the fifties that the reason the USA dropped first device on Japan was to prove to the USSR that we had a deliverable weapon. We dropped the second to prove that our weapon tech was reliable and that we had more than one. The joke was, we didn't have three.
Somehow I don't think that 70 years from now there will a tortured discussion of their collective guilt for destroying American, Israeli and European cities by our coming Muslim overlords.