How did freezing the judge's Blackberry disrupt the trial? Does he preside over the trial from a remote location by phone? Can he not preside over a trial without email on his phone? Has he no other computer in his chambers?
Uhhh.... Hitler was the head of the National Socialist party, not the National Fascist party.
The Nazi's weren't fascists, they were socialists with a strong nationalistic fervor, and both Marx and Engel agreed with their political viewpoints. Hitler, Goebbels, Strasser(a nazi party founder), etc... knew what they believed and where they fit into the political spectrum. They were skillful politicians, and to even suggest they were so naive, or stupid, that they misnamed themselves is just plain strange.
Everything Obama is pushing for was in the Nazi party platform. And, Obama is a lot more than "slightly" left of Bush. He's far left, and so were Stalin, Lenin, and Mao as socialists and communists are the left side of the spectrum as they are both total-government-control ideologies.
Germany was very close to having nukes at that time.
You have some peculiarly ill-informed opinions about the recent history, I hope you are not in charge of children.
I don't know that you're correct. The Germans were most definitely working on the A-bomb, had been for several years, and had the people capable of succeeding. They weren't all that far behind us, and that's despite the fact that we had destroyed their heavy-water production capability at one time. If not for that they might have beaten us to it.
I see, so you would have rather seen millions of both Japanese and American casualties rather than the death of a few hundred thousand people, as you condemn the the acts that made the reduction in the total number of deaths possible.
Yeah, you're a real humanitarian worried about people dying.... You would rather play political games than to admit the US did something wise, and in the well-being of the majority of the Japanese civilians themselves.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I would much rather see fewer than a half million people die than see the deaths of up to twenty+ times that many. It's a matter of the lesser of two evils.
I would be far happier if the cabal of Japanese leaders hadn't opposed surrendering and wanted their entire civilian population to suffer the horrors of war rather than surrendering when any reasonable person would know they were defeated. That's where the real responsibility lies. The fanatics whose pride wouldn't admit to defeat were the real source of all of this. Take them out of the equation and none of this happens, none of those people die.
This is a reprehensible spin on the facts. Those involved in the process of deciding to drop the bomb had no idea where those 12 POWs would be. To say this was a deliberate sacrificing of American GI's goes beyond the pale. It's outright libel.
Yeah, nothing new can come along. Only the established survive in the business world. That's why DEC, US Steel, Cunard, Circuit City, Frigidaire, etc... are all still the giants they used to be and no one has supplanted them.
Unconditional surrender isn't the worst thing a victorious nation can impose upon a losing nation. All that means is that the losing nation says "we quit and acknowledge we are completely beaten".
We could have added any kind of post-surrender conditions, as in oppressive reparations, we could have imagined, and gotten them. We could have easily done to the Japanese what the Brits and French did to the Germans after WWI, but we didn't. We retained the same language and conditions even though we had demonstrated the ability to, quite literally, "wipe them off the map".
A part of the Japanese were negotiating, but there was a powerful cabal of Japanese political and armed forces leaders who were against peace. They almost succeeded in assassinating the Emperor for surrendering.
That the US didn't up its demands after dropping the atomic bombs says much about the humane way we ended the war. We weren't out for retribution even though we were very angry about the treatment of our POW's, and we ended the war with as little bloodshed as possible. The end was still horrific, but it was a great reduction in death on both sides compared to what would have happened.
I'm really concerned that you, a teacher, didn't recognize such obvious sarcasm, especially when it's preceded by a statememt announcing a rant about how Americans are perceived. I really hope you're teaching your students far better critical thinking skill than you demonstrated here. I don't think it's very likely as you don't seem to possess those skills, and it's very difficult to teach what you yourself don't possess, but I can always hope.
I just couldn't keep quiet any longer. I almost didn't post it though as I wasn't sure how sarcasm that strong would be perceived. I was just sick of the same old crap about Americans being stupid, ignorant of our own history, and that all we know is what we're "taught", when there are most likely more self-taught Americans than there are self-taught people in any country in the world. It's in our history, and thus our genes, to educate ourselves.
It wasn't classified as a war crime simply because the perpetrators of said attack were on the winning side.
Says an opinion stated as fact.... Do you actually know whose idea it was to bomb Dresden, why it was bombed? It was Winston Churchill's idea and he's the one that pushed it through to completion. And, yes, I still consider Churchill to be one of my heroes.
The motive behind bombing Dresden was two-fold. One was to break the will of the German people and thus to shorten the war. The other was to punish the Germans for the extended bombing of London. At least part of it was retaliation for English civilian deaths, pure and simple. I think if you had lived in London during those years you would have wanted your politicians and military to extract a pound of flesh for what you went through also.
That the Germans didn't get the same effect through their years of bombing of London wasn't for lack of effort on their part, or from not having the motive of wanting to destroy the English people's will.
Warning, a rant born of frustration with the perceived world-wide view of Americans.
Yeah, we Americans are so ignorant we've never heard of "friendly fire" deaths during war time. We're shocked, I tell you, shocked, that there were American POW's on Japan's main islands and that some of them were killed. About a dozen GI's died in Japan from a US bomb? Oh, no. We didn't know any of the POW's in Japan ever from any kind weaponry. We thought all POW deaths in Japan were due to starvation. Learning this is enough to make us want to start a full-scale revolution as the US government has taught us that only the bad guys ever kill any of the good guys in any war we've ever been in. The US government is far too secretive to actually publish any facts.
And as far as Americans learning about WWII, well, yeah, all any of us know about that war is what the US government teaches us in its news bulletins. We don't have libraries, a free press, historians, access to WWII government records, curiosity to learn anything on our own, or anything like that. Even if we did none of us would ever use any of those tools as we know the government will tell us everything it wants us to know. It's only foreigners that know anything about American casualties. Here? We're just stupid, ignorant, non-curious rednecks that wait for the government to tell us what we need to know.
Hell, we don't even know that the US military estimated that there would be at least a million American casualties, and up to 10 million Japanese civilian casualties, if we invaded the Japanese homeland using conventional warfare. We've never figured out on our own that, even as horrific as the numbers are from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a lot fewer people, both Japanese and American, died than would have died if a conventional invasion had taken place. But, that's because we Americans are just so stupid and ignorant of any and all facts.
None of us learn on our own, or tell any of our fellow Americans what we've figured out. We all just sit in front of the TV breathing through our mouths while we wait for the next government news bulletin.
OK. End of rant.
What is such big news to you is well-known by many Americans. I knew these things before I graduated from high-school, and my parents knew it decades before I did. I learned about in the late 60's. Lest you think we knew something only those in academia or government knew, my old man was a timber faller most of his life, with no formal schooling beyond the 8th grade, and my mother was a housewife with a couple of years of college education. I say my old man had no formal schooling beyond the 8th grade, but he read voraciously. He educated himself. We, the family as whole, used the public libraries regularly and had a library of a few hundred books at home.
Those approximately dozen GI's killed by an atomic bomb? They are a drop in the bucket to the total number of POW's killed through starvation while held on the Japanese homeland. The number is even insignificant when compared to the number of POW's in Japan who died of starvation on a daily basis. A sad event that they died? Yes, but when considered in the big picture, only a single, very small event, when we will most likely never know the total number of American POW's that died in Japan.
Re:Ah, so it is the bias, not the money you object
on
How Did Wikileaks Do It?
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Thanks for clearing that up, now we know your bias.
You really think your post doesn't expose your bias?
Yeah, as if Al Queda, and all the rest of the terrorist organizations around the world, subscribe to and follow religiously, the Geneva Convention.
The terrorists are a bunch of real humane people, that's for sure..They attack only organized military groups, and the only civilian casualties they ever cause are collateral damage that happen only because British, American, Australian. Israeli, etc... troops cowardly hide in mosques, hospitals, apartment complexes, etc... where they then lob mortars, fire rockets, etc... on the brave terrorists who come boldly, and openly, down the middle of the streets, roads, and highways. If all these organized military groups didn't hide behind civilians, civilian deaths would be practically unknown.
1 and 2. Why are you against rewarding good behavior, even if the recipient is non-military? That's very self-defeating behavior for individual or group. I fail to see anything reprehensible about rewards.
3. Just out of curiosity, when a "state" acts, who makes the decision to act? A non-entity? A non-human? Do individuals in government give up their humanity when they become a part of government? Do you deny that "states" behave like human beings? If so, show how. Give me an instance of a state action for which a parallel cannot be found in individual behavior.
4. I don't see the correlation between this and the rest of your list. Is having difficulty understanding something a "reprehensible opinion" in your eyes? If so, that's quite a unique definition of an "opinion", to put it politely. I'm unable to find any definition of opinion that's anywhere close to that in any dictionary.
Do you just make up your own definitions as you ambiguously go along? Maybe that's why people need analogies to understand what you're saying. Maybe "the reader" isn't the problem.
And you ignore all examples that show that the effort of individuals has time and again changed unjust laws. You say non-violent change is impossible even after being given examples where change came through the efforts of a single individual. That's not exactly a rational response.
I'd also like to point out that you have given up on all non-violent solutions without even seriously attempting a non-violent solution. Then you go on to tell me that the issue you are most passionate about is the one I should work to change. Why? I'm in agreement with you that the law is wrong, but I'm not nearly as upset about it as you are. It's not something I'm that passionate about, and thus I would be bound to fail, as I don't really care. You guys are the ones that are the most passionate about it and thus you guys are the ones most likely to succeed, yet you won't even attempt to work for real change. All you do is bitch, bitch, bitch, and cast a negative light on your own cause through your own actions by causing the majority of the public to see you as dishonest and self-serving.
You might assume that, but if you read pre-war history the war began because of the slavery issue. Yes, the South was upset over income distribution, and thus wanted to expand slavery into areas that the founding fathers had said it shouldn't be allowed(if you doubt this read Lincoln's speech of October 16, 1854 as he very carefully explains this issue), but, the North's problem with this was the issue of spreading slavery, a moral issue. (This is once more explained very well by Lincoln.) That was brought about by public opinion upon an issue that was seen as a profoundly moral issue.
It was a bottom up movement that started with the individual and spread to the Northern government at large, as politicians wouldn't back the anti-slavery issue until public opinion on the matter was quite clear.
Without it, you get guys with guns entirely in control.
Hmmm.... You go to the opposite end of the spectrum and you get guys with guns entirely in control too. All government regs are ultimately enforced at the end of a gun, and I'm ultimately much more distrustful of a government run amok than I am of a business run amok. Right now we seem to have both. Government is sticking their noses into places the founders never designed it should go, and at the same time allowing, and not only allowing but encouraging, corruption in business, through rewarding corrupt practices by bailing out those who engaged in them.
But, actually *liking* the taste of the smoke I find difficult to believe
You know those ultra-sour candies advertised on TV? They're so sour I don't see how anyone could possibly like them, but a lot of kids eat them. and think they're great. Me? I wouldn't even think of eating one. The same goes for many other foods. Lot's of people like foods that just the thought of almost makes me puke, and most likely vice versa. So, is it really so surprising that someone would like a taste that you find distasteful?
I do not look back on those years with rose-colored glasses. I find them to be painful memories as they really affected my life very negatively. I talk about them in the hope that maybe someone will learn from my mistakes, not because I find them "romantic", or because I'm proud of them.
I did, however, like my first cigarette. It gave me a buzz, and I liked that buzz. I also liked the taste of the smoke. If I hadn't, peer pressure or not, I wouldn't have smoked the second, third, fourth, etc....
I guess I'm just missing you're point, as I still do not understand what you're getting at.
I do not see a causal relationship between simple use and addiction from my own experience. I see a causal relationship between enjoyment which leads to continued use, and that continued use and addiction. If simple use was the cause of addiction anyone who used would be addicted.
By addiction I'm referring to physical addiction, not the total sense of addiction which includes both the psychological and physical aspects of addiction. And, by continued use I am referring to the everyday usage of the addictive substance that is actually abuse of the substance.
I split physical and psychological addiction into separate aspects of a whole as the psychological addiction to drugs that aren't physically addictive can be very powerful. My everyday drug of choice was pot. When I quit, after a decade of very heavy use, just walking past someone on whom I could smell pot smoke would cause me to have the physical symptoms of being stoned: a gritty feeling in my eyes, lowered eyelids, etc.... It took almost a year for that to stop.
Slashdot Mirror
How did freezing the judge's Blackberry disrupt the trial? Does he preside over the trial from a remote location by phone? Can he not preside over a trial without email on his phone? Has he no other computer in his chambers?
Uhhh.... Hitler was the head of the National Socialist party, not the National Fascist party.
The Nazi's weren't fascists, they were socialists with a strong nationalistic fervor, and both Marx and Engel agreed with their political viewpoints. Hitler, Goebbels, Strasser(a nazi party founder), etc... knew what they believed and where they fit into the political spectrum. They were skillful politicians, and to even suggest they were so naive, or stupid, that they misnamed themselves is just plain strange.
Everything Obama is pushing for was in the Nazi party platform. And, Obama is a lot more than "slightly" left of Bush. He's far left, and so were Stalin, Lenin, and Mao as socialists and communists are the left side of the spectrum as they are both total-government-control ideologies.
Germany was very close to having nukes at that time.
You have some peculiarly ill-informed opinions about the recent history, I hope you are not in charge of children.
I don't know that you're correct. The Germans were most definitely working on the A-bomb, had been for several years, and had the people capable of succeeding. They weren't all that far behind us, and that's despite the fact that we had destroyed their heavy-water production capability at one time. If not for that they might have beaten us to it.
I see, so you would have rather seen millions of both Japanese and American casualties rather than the death of a few hundred thousand people, as you condemn the the acts that made the reduction in the total number of deaths possible.
Yeah, you're a real humanitarian worried about people dying.... You would rather play political games than to admit the US did something wise, and in the well-being of the majority of the Japanese civilians themselves.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I would much rather see fewer than a half million people die than see the deaths of up to twenty+ times that many. It's a matter of the lesser of two evils.
I would be far happier if the cabal of Japanese leaders hadn't opposed surrendering and wanted their entire civilian population to suffer the horrors of war rather than surrendering when any reasonable person would know they were defeated. That's where the real responsibility lies. The fanatics whose pride wouldn't admit to defeat were the real source of all of this. Take them out of the equation and none of this happens, none of those people die.
This is a reprehensible spin on the facts. Those involved in the process of deciding to drop the bomb had no idea where those 12 POWs would be. To say this was a deliberate sacrificing of American GI's goes beyond the pale. It's outright libel.
Yeah, nothing new can come along. Only the established survive in the business world. That's why DEC, US Steel, Cunard, Circuit City, Frigidaire, etc... are all still the giants they used to be and no one has supplanted them.
Unconditional surrender isn't the worst thing a victorious nation can impose upon a losing nation. All that means is that the losing nation says "we quit and acknowledge we are completely beaten".
We could have added any kind of post-surrender conditions, as in oppressive reparations, we could have imagined, and gotten them. We could have easily done to the Japanese what the Brits and French did to the Germans after WWI, but we didn't. We retained the same language and conditions even though we had demonstrated the ability to, quite literally, "wipe them off the map".
I apologize. I misread your post too.... Shame on me. You learned what you did in school, not taught it.
A part of the Japanese were negotiating, but there was a powerful cabal of Japanese political and armed forces leaders who were against peace. They almost succeeded in assassinating the Emperor for surrendering.
That the US didn't up its demands after dropping the atomic bombs says much about the humane way we ended the war. We weren't out for retribution even though we were very angry about the treatment of our POW's, and we ended the war with as little bloodshed as possible. The end was still horrific, but it was a great reduction in death on both sides compared to what would have happened.
siride,
I'm really concerned that you, a teacher, didn't recognize such obvious sarcasm, especially when it's preceded by a statememt announcing a rant about how Americans are perceived. I really hope you're teaching your students far better critical thinking skill than you demonstrated here. I don't think it's very likely as you don't seem to possess those skills, and it's very difficult to teach what you yourself don't possess, but I can always hope.
You're welcome.
I just couldn't keep quiet any longer. I almost didn't post it though as I wasn't sure how sarcasm that strong would be perceived. I was just sick of the same old crap about Americans being stupid, ignorant of our own history, and that all we know is what we're "taught", when there are most likely more self-taught Americans than there are self-taught people in any country in the world. It's in our history, and thus our genes, to educate ourselves.
It wasn't classified as a war crime simply because the perpetrators of said attack were on the winning side.
Says an opinion stated as fact.... Do you actually know whose idea it was to bomb Dresden, why it was bombed? It was Winston Churchill's idea and he's the one that pushed it through to completion. And, yes, I still consider Churchill to be one of my heroes.
The motive behind bombing Dresden was two-fold. One was to break the will of the German people and thus to shorten the war. The other was to punish the Germans for the extended bombing of London. At least part of it was retaliation for English civilian deaths, pure and simple. I think if you had lived in London during those years you would have wanted your politicians and military to extract a pound of flesh for what you went through also.
That the Germans didn't get the same effect through their years of bombing of London wasn't for lack of effort on their part, or from not having the motive of wanting to destroy the English people's will.
Warning, a rant born of frustration with the perceived world-wide view of Americans.
Yeah, we Americans are so ignorant we've never heard of "friendly fire" deaths during war time. We're shocked, I tell you, shocked, that there were American POW's on Japan's main islands and that some of them were killed. About a dozen GI's died in Japan from a US bomb? Oh, no. We didn't know any of the POW's in Japan ever from any kind weaponry. We thought all POW deaths in Japan were due to starvation. Learning this is enough to make us want to start a full-scale revolution as the US government has taught us that only the bad guys ever kill any of the good guys in any war we've ever been in. The US government is far too secretive to actually publish any facts.
And as far as Americans learning about WWII, well, yeah, all any of us know about that war is what the US government teaches us in its news bulletins. We don't have libraries, a free press, historians, access to WWII government records, curiosity to learn anything on our own, or anything like that. Even if we did none of us would ever use any of those tools as we know the government will tell us everything it wants us to know. It's only foreigners that know anything about American casualties. Here? We're just stupid, ignorant, non-curious rednecks that wait for the government to tell us what we need to know.
Hell, we don't even know that the US military estimated that there would be at least a million American casualties, and up to 10 million Japanese civilian casualties, if we invaded the Japanese homeland using conventional warfare. We've never figured out on our own that, even as horrific as the numbers are from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a lot fewer people, both Japanese and American, died than would have died if a conventional invasion had taken place. But, that's because we Americans are just so stupid and ignorant of any and all facts.
None of us learn on our own, or tell any of our fellow Americans what we've figured out. We all just sit in front of the TV breathing through our mouths while we wait for the next government news bulletin.
OK. End of rant.
What is such big news to you is well-known by many Americans. I knew these things before I graduated from high-school, and my parents knew it decades before I did. I learned about in the late 60's. Lest you think we knew something only those in academia or government knew, my old man was a timber faller most of his life, with no formal schooling beyond the 8th grade, and my mother was a housewife with a couple of years of college education. I say my old man had no formal schooling beyond the 8th grade, but he read voraciously. He educated himself. We, the family as whole, used the public libraries regularly and had a library of a few hundred books at home.
Those approximately dozen GI's killed by an atomic bomb? They are a drop in the bucket to the total number of POW's killed through starvation while held on the Japanese homeland. The number is even insignificant when compared to the number of POW's in Japan who died of starvation on a daily basis. A sad event that they died? Yes, but when considered in the big picture, only a single, very small event, when we will most likely never know the total number of American POW's that died in Japan.
Thanks for clearing that up, now we know your bias.
You really think your post doesn't expose your bias?
Yeah, as if Al Queda, and all the rest of the terrorist organizations around the world, subscribe to and follow religiously, the Geneva Convention.
The terrorists are a bunch of real humane people, that's for sure. .They attack only organized military groups, and the only civilian casualties they ever cause are collateral damage that happen only because British, American, Australian. Israeli, etc... troops cowardly hide in mosques, hospitals, apartment complexes, etc... where they then lob mortars, fire rockets, etc... on the brave terrorists who come boldly, and openly, down the middle of the streets, roads, and highways. If all these organized military groups didn't hide behind civilians, civilian deaths would be practically unknown.
1 and 2. Why are you against rewarding good behavior, even if the recipient is non-military? That's very self-defeating behavior for individual or group. I fail to see anything reprehensible about rewards.
3. Just out of curiosity, when a "state" acts, who makes the decision to act? A non-entity? A non-human? Do individuals in government give up their humanity when they become a part of government? Do you deny that "states" behave like human beings? If so, show how. Give me an instance of a state action for which a parallel cannot be found in individual behavior.
4. I don't see the correlation between this and the rest of your list. Is having difficulty understanding something a "reprehensible opinion" in your eyes? If so, that's quite a unique definition of an "opinion", to put it politely. I'm unable to find any definition of opinion that's anywhere close to that in any dictionary.
Do you just make up your own definitions as you ambiguously go along? Maybe that's why people need analogies to understand what you're saying. Maybe "the reader" isn't the problem.
Come on, it just wouldn't be Slashdot if people didn't use childish analogies as an excuse for holding reprehensible opinions.
What "reprehensible opinions" are you referring to? Enumerate them.
And you ignore all examples that show that the effort of individuals has time and again changed unjust laws. You say non-violent change is impossible even after being given examples where change came through the efforts of a single individual. That's not exactly a rational response.
I'd also like to point out that you have given up on all non-violent solutions without even seriously attempting a non-violent solution. Then you go on to tell me that the issue you are most passionate about is the one I should work to change. Why? I'm in agreement with you that the law is wrong, but I'm not nearly as upset about it as you are. It's not something I'm that passionate about, and thus I would be bound to fail, as I don't really care. You guys are the ones that are the most passionate about it and thus you guys are the ones most likely to succeed, yet you won't even attempt to work for real change. All you do is bitch, bitch, bitch, and cast a negative light on your own cause through your own actions by causing the majority of the public to see you as dishonest and self-serving.
You might assume that, but if you read pre-war history the war began because of the slavery issue. Yes, the South was upset over income distribution, and thus wanted to expand slavery into areas that the founding fathers had said it shouldn't be allowed(if you doubt this read Lincoln's speech of October 16, 1854 as he very carefully explains this issue), but, the North's problem with this was the issue of spreading slavery, a moral issue. (This is once more explained very well by Lincoln.) That was brought about by public opinion upon an issue that was seen as a profoundly moral issue.
It was a bottom up movement that started with the individual and spread to the Northern government at large, as politicians wouldn't back the anti-slavery issue until public opinion on the matter was quite clear.
Without it, you get guys with guns entirely in control.
Hmmm.... You go to the opposite end of the spectrum and you get guys with guns entirely in control too. All government regs are ultimately enforced at the end of a gun, and I'm ultimately much more distrustful of a government run amok than I am of a business run amok. Right now we seem to have both. Government is sticking their noses into places the founders never designed it should go, and at the same time allowing, and not only allowing but encouraging, corruption in business, through rewarding corrupt practices by bailing out those who engaged in them.
And why do you guys care anyway? You've got a public safety net now.
Uh... Who are the "you guys" you're referring to?
But, actually *liking* the taste of the smoke I find difficult to believe
You know those ultra-sour candies advertised on TV? They're so sour I don't see how anyone could possibly like them, but a lot of kids eat them. and think they're great. Me? I wouldn't even think of eating one. The same goes for many other foods. Lot's of people like foods that just the thought of almost makes me puke, and most likely vice versa. So, is it really so surprising that someone would like a taste that you find distasteful?
Government regulations drive up costs, lower profits, and thus cut job creation? Who would have thought it....
I do not look back on those years with rose-colored glasses. I find them to be painful memories as they really affected my life very negatively. I talk about them in the hope that maybe someone will learn from my mistakes, not because I find them "romantic", or because I'm proud of them.
I did, however, like my first cigarette. It gave me a buzz, and I liked that buzz. I also liked the taste of the smoke. If I hadn't, peer pressure or not, I wouldn't have smoked the second, third, fourth, etc....
I guess I'm just missing you're point, as I still do not understand what you're getting at.
I do not see a causal relationship between simple use and addiction from my own experience. I see a causal relationship between enjoyment which leads to continued use, and that continued use and addiction. If simple use was the cause of addiction anyone who used would be addicted.
By addiction I'm referring to physical addiction, not the total sense of addiction which includes both the psychological and physical aspects of addiction. And, by continued use I am referring to the everyday usage of the addictive substance that is actually abuse of the substance.
I split physical and psychological addiction into separate aspects of a whole as the psychological addiction to drugs that aren't physically addictive can be very powerful. My everyday drug of choice was pot. When I quit, after a decade of very heavy use, just walking past someone on whom I could smell pot smoke would cause me to have the physical symptoms of being stoned: a gritty feeling in my eyes, lowered eyelids, etc.... It took almost a year for that to stop.