Who’s Sorry Now?
Nov 9, 2010
Elizabeth Scalia
Almost going unnoticed in the continuing analysis of last week’s election has been the absence of the sort of high-drama and neurotic self-indulgence that followed Democrat losses in 2004. Where is the “Sorry, Everybody” movement of 2010?
Post Election 2004, a website called sorryeverybody.com collected and displayed hundreds of photographs from disappointed Democrats expressing their disgust-in-defeat by offering their apologies to the world. “Sorry, we tried to stop the stupidity” was a common sentiment. Dogs, babies, animals, and snowmen were enlisted in the effort to express sad-faced, clownish contrition—to the whole wide world—that so many Americans could be such morons.
While some ’04 Democrats were processing their disappointment through arts and crafts, others ran to their psychotherapists and to American Health Association-sponsored support sessions, for treatment of a Bush-Derangement-Syndrome by-product called Post Election Selection Trauma (PEST). The treatment basically consisted of paranoid group ranting, rendered therapeutic by the hourly rate, as reported by the Boca Raton News:
“The Republicans have gotten away with phony spirituality,” said Alfred. “The Jeffersonian ideal of separation between church and state is going to hell.”
“There’s more of them than us,” said a woman named Joyce, referring to “red state” voters. “That’s scary.”
“The Supreme Court terrifies me,” said Sharon, the Delray retiree who can’t sleep. “Bush has the ability to stack that court.”
Only a few days after successfully mounting an impressive rally in celebration of their “sanity,” their superior intellects, their enduring collegiate cool, and their boundless capacity for irony, the party of liberals and progressives suffered their biggest political loss in nearly sixty years to the very people they referred to in 2004 as “ineducable” and in 2010 as “racists,” “sexists,” “homophobes,” “xenophobes,” and “really stupid people.”
If the Democrats and the “reality-based” community needed therapeutic outlets in order to get past the failed campaign of John Kerry—a politician they didn’t even like very much and whose numbers never supported a victory narrative—last week’s dramatic “shellacking,” which was a direct repudiation of the policies and promises of a president who was carried into his office with near-messianic adulation, should have thrown them into a play-dough-pounding, Zoloft-eating frenzy of bitterness and recrimination.
And yet, there is silence. A week into their defeat, there are no moue-faced apologies absorbing internet bandwidth; therapists are not stocking up on punch-pillows.
Obviously, making international apologies is more glamorous than making domestic amends, but if GOP victories are the unmitigated catastrophes the Democrats and the press would have us believe, it seems like the progressive base should be able to muster the energy to grab a sharpie and do a little penance. They could write:
“Sorry, gay friends, about DADT . . . .”
“Sorry, thought California was cooler about cannabis . . . .”
“Very sad that healthcare will probably be messed with now, sorry . . . .”
“Don’t blame me; I voted for tax increases so we can spend more . . . .”
There are no signs. No sad clown faces or turned-down thumbs being offered by the Dem Drama Department, Class of ’10. But why?
Perhaps it is because we are all six years older, and a little wiser, and we’ve put away childish things.
No, scratch that. Perhaps it is because there is no time for signs and sighs when so many are working at their new Obama/Pelosi shovel-ready jobs.
No, scratch that. Perhaps is it because the preening rhetoric of the ’04 election, full of “fierce moral urgency,” was mostly an exercise in expedient hate, group dynamics, and “belonging.” The cynical truthiness that declared the American constitution to be have been “shredded” encouraged the activism of acting-out. Perhaps those who so enjoyed the theatrics of ’04 have a sense that this year things really are too seriously and too fiercely urgent for self-indulgent whimsy or navel-gazing, which feels a bit shallow and facetious when the president and his congress are clueless and out-of-touch, and you’ve been out of work for a year.
Perhaps the posturing of political contrition has been put on hold because the Democrat base—so accustomed to moving in lockstep—is secretly relieved that the moronic Republicans, the hateful conservatives, the backward centrists, and the independents have managed to pull the reins on a reckless president and a Congress they felt helpless to stop.
They will never admit it, but I suspect that—as a new Congress tries to find an exit from the deeply ruinous Obama/Pelosi course—the Democrat base will let loose a long, cleansing exhale, and they’ll be surprised realize that they’d been holding their breath.
Elizabeth Scalia is a contributing writer of First Things. She blogs at The Anchoress. Her previous articles for “On the Square” can be found here. The blog she mentions can be found at Sorryeverybody.com.
Comments:
11.9.2010 | 6:20am
Steve M. says:
Perhaps it was because, in 2004, the salient fact about the winners is that they were killing people overseas for no discernible reason. This time around, both parties fully support the wars, and the election was focused on domestic issues -- the people we have to apologize to for a bad choice are ourselves.
11.9.2010 | 7:13am
Joe says:
Haven't they been calling Republicans stupid for about 50 or 60 years ?
I guess they'll spend the next 50 or 60 years calling them racist too.
I guess they'll spend the next 50 or 60 years calling them racist too.
11.9.2010 | 8:19am
Alan says:
This is a silly article. Mid-term elections are decided by turnout, and an older and richer and whiter electorate gave the Democrats a thumping. President Obama is, despite efforts to portray him so, hardly a left-wing ideologue, as shown by the health-care bill that he supported (without a public option and similar to what is already in place in MA), by his support of TARP (begun by President Bush), and by a bail-out bill that, despite its flaws, was aimed at doing what any president would do, namely, try to restart the economy. The really important thing is whether Republicans and Democrats can work together to move toward a balanced budget and restore the nation's economy, or whether political posturing to seek advantages for the 2012 election will take precedence. Frankly, from my perspective, the likelihood of statesmanship rather than partisanship seems slim.
11.9.2010 | 8:27am
Dad of Six says:
It could also be that they are able to console themselves with the knowledge that their buddy BHO is still CINC (child in chief) at the White House.
11.9.2010 | 8:38am
Asa Kraut says:
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why America dropped that second atom bomb.
11.9.2010 | 8:47am
Mike M. says:
Ms Scalia, This is an astonishingly bitter article. You have tried to set up a straw man that you have not yet been able to locate. Perhaps Democrats have found grace in defeat even though you have not yet found grace in victory.
11.9.2010 | 9:15am
Margaret says:
What a patronizing and unpleasant little screed. Is there any valid point to be made here? It seems to be all about "othering" and stereotyping and shows complete ignorance about the reality of taxation (taxes are lower now than they've been in a long time.
11.9.2010 | 9:45am
Ellen says:
Nice piece, Ms. Scalia. Yes, the real shocker for the Democrats and media acolytes who promoted Obama as a near messianic figure is that having no experience at actually doing things, as opposed to talking about things, really matters. This is what the DP strategists are all verklempt about. You mean, our candidates really need training and practical job skills BEFORE they get to the Whitehouse? Whoah! Why didn't anybody warn us about that other than those dumb Republicans? We might have listened.
11.9.2010 | 9:55am
Adam F. says:
Just another article demonstrating First Thing's degeneration into an outlet for Republican propaganda. I expect better from this once-great journal, but with the likes of The Anchoress and Spengler now in the forefront, I know I will be disappointed.
11.9.2010 | 10:02am
Paul says:
I'm confident that the sainted Richard Neuhaus would not have permitted this froth & drivel to appear in public print. How far FIRST THINGS has fallen from its founding purpose and mission.
11.9.2010 | 10:13am
Rex says:
I live in Ithaca, New York and I heard/saw these comments and attitudes from the liberal masses after Bush won in 2000. Sorry, nothing new here about liberal attitudes.
11.9.2010 | 10:16am
Steve says:
Elizabeth, I like the article simply because it's eliciting such bitter responses in this comment section. In 2004, despairing voters went to group therapy sessions. In 2010, they vent their spleens--veiled as righteous indignation against writers like you--on blogs.
11.9.2010 | 10:18am
Jravin says:
RE: Atom Bomb:
Actually, the reason was, that the Japanese refused to surrender after the first one was dropped. A good thing they did after the second, as we didn't have any more at that time.
Actually, the reason was, that the Japanese refused to surrender after the first one was dropped. A good thing they did after the second, as we didn't have any more at that time.
11.9.2010 | 10:20am
Fred says:
Some fine examples in these comments of Democrats bitterly clinging to their denial.
11.9.2010 | 10:24am
Spencer says:
Elizabeth,
I think you're drawing out some of those folks that contributed to the "sorry" sites in 2004. Your article is quite enjoyable. It's not gloating when it's fact.
Mostly unsaid in all of this is the fact that President Obama managed to wake up and terrify the slumbering Silent Majority, ably assisted by arrogant Democrat congressmen who didn't want to mix it up with their constituents in their local town hall meetings. How dare the masses question the actions of their representatives! Let's see, the "I don't worry about the Constitution" guy is gone; the mild-mannered, humble and bipartisan Alan Grayson is gone; the choke-hold congressman is gone.
The voters were reacting to the astonishing overreach of the White House and the Congress. In over 60 congressional districts the elections came as close as possible to peasants with pitchforks throwing the bums out that we've seen in a while. And it didn't just happen in the U. S. Congress. Over 700 Democrats joined the ranks of the unemployed in state house races. The people threw governors out. Republican governors hold most of the Rust Belt. It's their best position since the days of George Romney. Redistricting will tilt strongly to the Republicans. This in itself could hurt Democrats for at least ten years.
I think you're drawing out some of those folks that contributed to the "sorry" sites in 2004. Your article is quite enjoyable. It's not gloating when it's fact.
Mostly unsaid in all of this is the fact that President Obama managed to wake up and terrify the slumbering Silent Majority, ably assisted by arrogant Democrat congressmen who didn't want to mix it up with their constituents in their local town hall meetings. How dare the masses question the actions of their representatives! Let's see, the "I don't worry about the Constitution" guy is gone; the mild-mannered, humble and bipartisan Alan Grayson is gone; the choke-hold congressman is gone.
The voters were reacting to the astonishing overreach of the White House and the Congress. In over 60 congressional districts the elections came as close as possible to peasants with pitchforks throwing the bums out that we've seen in a while. And it didn't just happen in the U. S. Congress. Over 700 Democrats joined the ranks of the unemployed in state house races. The people threw governors out. Republican governors hold most of the Rust Belt. It's their best position since the days of George Romney. Redistricting will tilt strongly to the Republicans. This in itself could hurt Democrats for at least ten years.
11.9.2010 | 10:24am
edwhy says:
Dear Asa: While waiting, perhaps you might read some history of the Pacific War.
11.9.2010 | 10:25am
coggieguy says:
Remarkable how the reality based community can dish it out but they can't take a even a mild jab as here. Remember BU$Hitler......shrub......etc etc. What a bunch of whiny comments. Check for links to media matters. In closing, let me quote the President circa 2009 "We Won"
I bet these guys had the butts kicked on the playground and never got over it.
I bet these guys had the butts kicked on the playground and never got over it.
11.9.2010 | 10:32am
Gringo says:
Margaret says:
What a patronizing and unpleasant little screed. Is there any valid point to be made here? It seems to be all about "othering" and stereotyping and shows complete ignorance about the reality of taxation (taxes are lower now than they've been in a long time.
Is it "patronizing and unpleasant" simply to quote what the lefties once said?
Spending is the highest it has been in years. The deficit is out of control. Anyone who states that "taxes are lower now than they've been in a long time" is ignoring those rather important facts. So much for the "reality-based community."
What a patronizing and unpleasant little screed. Is there any valid point to be made here? It seems to be all about "othering" and stereotyping and shows complete ignorance about the reality of taxation (taxes are lower now than they've been in a long time.
Is it "patronizing and unpleasant" simply to quote what the lefties once said?
Spending is the highest it has been in years. The deficit is out of control. Anyone who states that "taxes are lower now than they've been in a long time" is ignoring those rather important facts. So much for the "reality-based community."
11.9.2010 | 10:33am
COOPER52 says:
The fact that Democrats haven't made amends - or demonstrated they will - is exactly why they were dumped into Obama's ditch. The arrogance of the triumvirate is astounding. Those who can't understand hubris must not have very high opinions of themselves.
As for Health Care Alan, notice how corporations have expressed the probability they will no longer insure their employees. It will be cheaper to pay the fine and make them sign on to these ridiculous insurance exchanges. Don't forget that the insurance programs that make up each exchange have to be 'approved' by the government or Ms. Sibelius and no, you won't be able to keep your present coverage, or even your doctor. If that isn't a public option then what is? We will have a de facto single payer system whether we want it or not and the Dems knew that from the beginning. Obama is on record saying that's what he was aiming for. Wake up. What we needed was a method to lower cost while making healthcare more accessible for the poor. Instead we get one more EXPENSIVE entitlement that costs more for everyone. We call that social engineering - a popular lefty/progressive past time.
As for Health Care Alan, notice how corporations have expressed the probability they will no longer insure their employees. It will be cheaper to pay the fine and make them sign on to these ridiculous insurance exchanges. Don't forget that the insurance programs that make up each exchange have to be 'approved' by the government or Ms. Sibelius and no, you won't be able to keep your present coverage, or even your doctor. If that isn't a public option then what is? We will have a de facto single payer system whether we want it or not and the Dems knew that from the beginning. Obama is on record saying that's what he was aiming for. Wake up. What we needed was a method to lower cost while making healthcare more accessible for the poor. Instead we get one more EXPENSIVE entitlement that costs more for everyone. We call that social engineering - a popular lefty/progressive past time.
11.9.2010 | 10:34am
jim2 says:
I suspect the difference may be that this time the Dems had had the WH+Senate+House for the previous 2 years, and with large majorities in Congress.
That is, this time it was their own performance and record that voters considered.
That is, this time it was their own performance and record that voters considered.
11.9.2010 | 10:37am
Peg C. says:
This piece is the best troll-bait I've seen in quite a while. It's also absolutely true.
11.9.2010 | 10:39am
BAW says:
Ms. Scalia must have touched a nerve, if the commentariat is being forced to break out the "othering" trope.
The irony of someone from the left crying "othering" at a piece that points out the determined "othering" perpetrated by the left on the right for the last decade or so is delicious.
But of course that other othering doesn't count, does it?
The irony of someone from the left crying "othering" at a piece that points out the determined "othering" perpetrated by the left on the right for the last decade or so is delicious.
But of course that other othering doesn't count, does it?
11.9.2010 | 10:40am
Tom says:
Asa "I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why America dropped that second atom bomb."
Simple history, Asa. Japan did not surrender after the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. Even after the second bomb was dropped, they almost did not do so. Tojo and the rest of the rulers wanted to go on, but the Emperor stepped in at that point.
Truman did not wait longer after than the 3 days after droppeing the first bomb because he wanted Japan to think that we had a larger arsenal than just the 2. However, a simple reading of history would show you that if he had waited 30 or 300 days, Japan would not have surrendered after losing Hiroshima.
Noone should have to wait "for someone to tell" you anything, unless, of course you are just being a snarky troll. Google is such a wonderful invention.
Simple history, Asa. Japan did not surrender after the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. Even after the second bomb was dropped, they almost did not do so. Tojo and the rest of the rulers wanted to go on, but the Emperor stepped in at that point.
Truman did not wait longer after than the 3 days after droppeing the first bomb because he wanted Japan to think that we had a larger arsenal than just the 2. However, a simple reading of history would show you that if he had waited 30 or 300 days, Japan would not have surrendered after losing Hiroshima.
Noone should have to wait "for someone to tell" you anything, unless, of course you are just being a snarky troll. Google is such a wonderful invention.
11.9.2010 | 10:45am
Rob Crawford says:
"Perhaps it was because, in 2004, the salient fact about the winners is that they were killing people overseas for no discernible reason."
You really should read the Authorizations for Use of Military Force passed by Congress that green-lighted Afghanistan and Iraq, as they lay out the reasons in detail.
Were you not paying attention to any of the news coverage at the time?
"I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why America dropped that second atom bomb. "
How does that bear on this article?
(As for your "question" -- because the Japanese hadn't surrendered, yet. Read a book; there are lots of them on the subject.)
You really should read the Authorizations for Use of Military Force passed by Congress that green-lighted Afghanistan and Iraq, as they lay out the reasons in detail.
Were you not paying attention to any of the news coverage at the time?
"I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why America dropped that second atom bomb. "
How does that bear on this article?
(As for your "question" -- because the Japanese hadn't surrendered, yet. Read a book; there are lots of them on the subject.)
11.9.2010 | 10:49am
DonM says:
The first nuclear bomb was detonated over the US.
The second nuclear bomb was dropped on Hiroshima (with a Japanese army group HQ and biological weapons factory) was a U235 bomb. Japanese physicists got samples of the debris and identified the bomb material from the fission products. They knew from their own nuclear program that U235 was rare and hard to separate from U238, there being no chemical difference and only a small difference in weight. They reported that no such bombs could be created again for many months.
US read their assessment through our "MAGIC" decryption of their diplomatic traffic. We knew their assessment the same day they gave it.
The third bomb was dropped on Nagasaki Mitsubishi Heavy Industry factory (made torpedoes). Japanese scientists analyzed debris, and recognized the fission products of plutonium, which can be produced from plentiful U238, and chemically separated in mass quantities. They reported that there was no obstacle to creating hundreds or even thousands of bombs of that type.
They decided as a matter of national policy to lie about why they surrendered, and to attempt to paint the US as cruel for using the bombs to end the war, while they were willing to sacrifice 30 million Japanese to kill 1 million US soldiers in an attempt to continue the war. The lie was they had to surrender because of the Soviet entry into the war. Of course in that lie they had enthusiastic supporters in the Soviet Union and their communist dupes.
And that intent to lie was also read by the US code breakers of MAGIC.
The second nuclear bomb was dropped on Hiroshima (with a Japanese army group HQ and biological weapons factory) was a U235 bomb. Japanese physicists got samples of the debris and identified the bomb material from the fission products. They knew from their own nuclear program that U235 was rare and hard to separate from U238, there being no chemical difference and only a small difference in weight. They reported that no such bombs could be created again for many months.
US read their assessment through our "MAGIC" decryption of their diplomatic traffic. We knew their assessment the same day they gave it.
The third bomb was dropped on Nagasaki Mitsubishi Heavy Industry factory (made torpedoes). Japanese scientists analyzed debris, and recognized the fission products of plutonium, which can be produced from plentiful U238, and chemically separated in mass quantities. They reported that there was no obstacle to creating hundreds or even thousands of bombs of that type.
They decided as a matter of national policy to lie about why they surrendered, and to attempt to paint the US as cruel for using the bombs to end the war, while they were willing to sacrifice 30 million Japanese to kill 1 million US soldiers in an attempt to continue the war. The lie was they had to surrender because of the Soviet entry into the war. Of course in that lie they had enthusiastic supporters in the Soviet Union and their communist dupes.
And that intent to lie was also read by the US code breakers of MAGIC.
11.9.2010 | 10:52am
Zachriel says:
Elizabeth Scalia: Where is the “Sorry, Everybody” movement of 2010?
It was a mid-term election, and only the lower chamber changed hands.
It was a mid-term election, and only the lower chamber changed hands.
11.9.2010 | 10:53am
DonM says:
Actually this letter is overly kind to the Democrats, presuming that many are well meaning dupes of the duplicitous Progressive-Socialists.
In my limited experience most think they will profit from the crooked ponzi schemes, lord it over productive people as willing and enthusiastic overseers, or even live in the big house as trusted advisors.
In my limited experience most think they will profit from the crooked ponzi schemes, lord it over productive people as willing and enthusiastic overseers, or even live in the big house as trusted advisors.
11.9.2010 | 10:55am
Mike Giles says:
Asa, Misanthrope;
RE: the atomic bombs....
Because the first one didn't work. And if the Army officers who were trying to stage a coup had succeeded; the second one wouldn't have worked either.
RE: the atomic bombs....
Because the first one didn't work. And if the Army officers who were trying to stage a coup had succeeded; the second one wouldn't have worked either.
11.9.2010 | 10:55am
Northern Observer says:
All I see is demented projection by Miss Scalia.
The epitomy of the American conservative worldview.
Equal parts bile and unwarranted righteousness.
Same as it ever was.
The epitomy of the American conservative worldview.
Equal parts bile and unwarranted righteousness.
Same as it ever was.
11.9.2010 | 10:59am
Maggie45 says:
What PegC said... plus I'm thinking Fr. Neuhaus is smiling proudly right now. Stay strong, Elizabeth. Lots of people praying for you.
11.9.2010 | 10:59am
_Jon says:
I think we will see if you are correct by how Congress behaves in the next 2 months. If they try to push through a bunch more social changes, then they believed in what they said and are trying to continue right through the end.
But if the flop that was Obamacare was the final legislative change they've made, then they weren't really about their ideals, just about their goal. Big difference.
So, does this 'lame duck' Congress do more, or sit still? If they sit still, then your article is 100% spot on.
But if the flop that was Obamacare was the final legislative change they've made, then they weren't really about their ideals, just about their goal. Big difference.
So, does this 'lame duck' Congress do more, or sit still? If they sit still, then your article is 100% spot on.
11.9.2010 | 11:12am
Robert Furmanak says:
Don M: Thank you for teaching me something about the atom bomb I didn't know, the U235 issue.
As others have pointed out, this article was been great troll bait.
As others have pointed out, this article was been great troll bait.
11.9.2010 | 11:14am
Mark says:
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why America dropped that second atom bomb.
To elaborate on the answers already given, we were reading Japanese codes -- including their diplomatic code and knew exactly were they stood on the issue of surrender. The second bomb had all along been planned to precisely dispel the notion that the first was a fluke. The intercepts left no doubt that the second bomb was necessary.
The head of the armed forces -- I believe his name was Gen. Anami -- was adamant for continuing the war. After the first bomb he declared his firm believe in the Imperial council that that was the only one. After the second bomb, he continued to support resistance, but bowed to the emperor's intervention. His subsequent refusal to participate or sanction the attempted coup against surrender was key to the collapse of that action. He committed suicide.
After the experience of how the years after WW I had played out, there was no tolerance in the West for any compromise that would have left Nazis or Japanese militarists in charge of their countries. The Weimar solution was just not on the table.
To elaborate on the answers already given, we were reading Japanese codes -- including their diplomatic code and knew exactly were they stood on the issue of surrender. The second bomb had all along been planned to precisely dispel the notion that the first was a fluke. The intercepts left no doubt that the second bomb was necessary.
The head of the armed forces -- I believe his name was Gen. Anami -- was adamant for continuing the war. After the first bomb he declared his firm believe in the Imperial council that that was the only one. After the second bomb, he continued to support resistance, but bowed to the emperor's intervention. His subsequent refusal to participate or sanction the attempted coup against surrender was key to the collapse of that action. He committed suicide.
After the experience of how the years after WW I had played out, there was no tolerance in the West for any compromise that would have left Nazis or Japanese militarists in charge of their countries. The Weimar solution was just not on the table.
11.9.2010 | 11:21am
S. Weasel says:
Bitter, angry, dismissive Comment People?
Your tears, they are like sweet honey.
Your tears, they are like sweet honey.
11.9.2010 | 11:27am
Carl Pham says:
Scalia, I think you might be on to something. When Bush was at the helm, I did get the feeling that, deep down, the OMG! Constitution Shredded! Film at 11! wackos in the street felt *safe* doing these things, because they knew that the Cowboy would keep them safe, that their national and economic future was secure -- if not glamorous. It was like protesting Dad not letting you (at age 16) go to Burning Man with a bunch of stoners. The outrage is enhanced by the fact that (1) you know he won't relent, he's not that type, and (2) you have a suspicion he is right, and his certainty has lifted your own anxiety about your own wishes, about whether you might, in fact, be doing something stupid.
Conversely, I have gotten the feeling recently from the Modern Left that there is a certain anxiety about Team Obama and the Congressional Pelosicrats. There seems indeed to be a certain undercurrent of anxiety, that perhaps these people, while they sing all the right tunes, are at best incompetent or at worst Stalinists, perfectly willing to prate about the good of the many while -- can't make an omelet without breaking eggs, ha ha, as Uncle Joe used to say -- herding a good number of "the many" into the camps, metaphorically speaking. I *do* think some number of the left are secretly glad that the Marxist Express to the 19th Century has been flagged down on the tracks, and that they can go joyfully back to their role of screeching "Why haven't you achieved utopia yet, you bastards?" while leaving the tricky job of governing and making responsible decisions up to the age-old dour, colorless, and humorless grown-up characters.
Interesting column! Thanks!
Conversely, I have gotten the feeling recently from the Modern Left that there is a certain anxiety about Team Obama and the Congressional Pelosicrats. There seems indeed to be a certain undercurrent of anxiety, that perhaps these people, while they sing all the right tunes, are at best incompetent or at worst Stalinists, perfectly willing to prate about the good of the many while -- can't make an omelet without breaking eggs, ha ha, as Uncle Joe used to say -- herding a good number of "the many" into the camps, metaphorically speaking. I *do* think some number of the left are secretly glad that the Marxist Express to the 19th Century has been flagged down on the tracks, and that they can go joyfully back to their role of screeching "Why haven't you achieved utopia yet, you bastards?" while leaving the tricky job of governing and making responsible decisions up to the age-old dour, colorless, and humorless grown-up characters.
Interesting column! Thanks!
11.9.2010 | 11:34am
Charlie Collier says:
If Ms. Scalia really minds the "nanny, nanny, boo, boo" behavior of boorish Democrats, she might consider a principled opposition to such behavior. Then again, she couldn't have written this finger-pointing and tongue-wagging rant, which does exactly zilch to advance the pursuit of the common good in the United States. Ms. Scalia is simply the mirror image of what she loathes on the angry left. The concluding paragraph is, moreover, such a preposterous bit of self-righteous projection that it's clear Ms. Scalia is more interested in commenting on her own feelings than on current events.
11.9.2010 | 11:52am
SFG says:
We blew our take over in 04. I don't know why Dems would be so scared now. If the GOP can finally show that they have what it takes, which I now doubt, then fine. Great. I voted for some of them and they totally disappointed. I'm bracing for more disappointment but am getting used to it. If I was a Dem, I would not be too worried. And, I'd get my illegals organized early to ensure a future win. The ones in my state are totally unrepentant and are busy making plans. So should we be busy making plans.
11.9.2010 | 11:54am
Asa Kraut says:
"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.
"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."
- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380
~~~ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
- William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.
~~~LEWIS STRAUSS
(Special Assistant to the Sec. of the Navy)
Strauss recalled a recommendation he gave to Sec. of the Navy James Forrestal before the atomic bombing of Hiroshima:
"I proposed to Secretary Forrestal that the weapon should be demonstrated before it was used. Primarily it was because it was clear to a number of people, myself among them, that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate... My proposal to the Secretary was that the weapon should be demonstrated over some area accessible to Japanese observers and where its effects would be dramatic. I remember suggesting that a satisfactory place for such a demonstration would be a large forest of cryptomeria trees not far from Tokyo. The cryptomeria tree is the Japanese version of our redwood... I anticipated that a bomb detonated at a suitable height above such a forest... would lay the trees out in windrows from the center of the explosion in all directions as though they were matchsticks, and, of course, set them afire in the center. It seemed to me that a demonstration of this sort would prove to the Japanese that we could destroy any of their cities at will... Secretary Forrestal agreed wholeheartedly with the recommendation..."
Strauss added, "It seemed to me that such a weapon was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion, that once used it would find its way into the armaments of the world...".
quoted in Len Giovannitti and Fred Freed, The Decision To Drop the Bomb, pg. 145, 325.
"Damn Right"
George Bush
"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."
- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380
~~~ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
- William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.
~~~LEWIS STRAUSS
(Special Assistant to the Sec. of the Navy)
Strauss recalled a recommendation he gave to Sec. of the Navy James Forrestal before the atomic bombing of Hiroshima:
"I proposed to Secretary Forrestal that the weapon should be demonstrated before it was used. Primarily it was because it was clear to a number of people, myself among them, that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate... My proposal to the Secretary was that the weapon should be demonstrated over some area accessible to Japanese observers and where its effects would be dramatic. I remember suggesting that a satisfactory place for such a demonstration would be a large forest of cryptomeria trees not far from Tokyo. The cryptomeria tree is the Japanese version of our redwood... I anticipated that a bomb detonated at a suitable height above such a forest... would lay the trees out in windrows from the center of the explosion in all directions as though they were matchsticks, and, of course, set them afire in the center. It seemed to me that a demonstration of this sort would prove to the Japanese that we could destroy any of their cities at will... Secretary Forrestal agreed wholeheartedly with the recommendation..."
Strauss added, "It seemed to me that such a weapon was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion, that once used it would find its way into the armaments of the world...".
quoted in Len Giovannitti and Fred Freed, The Decision To Drop the Bomb, pg. 145, 325.
"Damn Right"
George Bush
11.9.2010 | 11:58am
Stosh2 says:
The liberals, progressives, unions, various garden variety radicals, wackos & experimenters have been in charge of the education system for 30 - 40 years, and we're STILL stupid? Perhaps, everything they touch fails.
11.9.2010 | 12:19pm
Joe the Human says:
MAYBE ITS BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T REALLY WON YET.
First 1) It's still two to one: the a) President and the b) Senate, vs. the House.
Then too 2) you didn't win as much as the unknown quality - the Tea Party.
Then too 3) nobody's mourning - but nobody's really celebrating either. Because we've allready seen what Republicans can do: a) start wars; b) run up the deficit; c) crash the economy.
4) But of course, Republicans are infinitely good - on vain, premature self-congratulations.
First 1) It's still two to one: the a) President and the b) Senate, vs. the House.
Then too 2) you didn't win as much as the unknown quality - the Tea Party.
Then too 3) nobody's mourning - but nobody's really celebrating either. Because we've allready seen what Republicans can do: a) start wars; b) run up the deficit; c) crash the economy.
4) But of course, Republicans are infinitely good - on vain, premature self-congratulations.
11.9.2010 | 12:36pm
mariner says:
Asa Kraut:
All you've demonstrated by quoting Leahy, Strauss and Eisenhower is that they were wrong -- the Japanese were in fact not ready to surrender, and the bombs were necessary to make them ready.
All you've demonstrated by quoting Leahy, Strauss and Eisenhower is that they were wrong -- the Japanese were in fact not ready to surrender, and the bombs were necessary to make them ready.
11.9.2010 | 12:47pm
Ritchie The Riveter says:
If there really was a $5 fine for whining, the comments on this thread would pay off the national debt.
The critics here ... so typical of the Progressive poster children for Romans 1:22 ... think they are so above it all. It is THEIR conventional wisdom that was just weighed and found wanting by the electorate.
Let me tell y'all what is silly ... the idea that a few Best and Brightest "like you" in DC can effectively manage, from the top down, 300 million lives over 300 million lifetimes. The entire gamut of Re-, er, Progressive policies are built upon that conventional wisdom ... which is actually the Biggest Lie of All, which flies in the face of what has made this nation exceptional, and positively so.
In the past, as Elizabeth stated, you have yammered about how the GOP threatened the separation of church and state ... even as you leverage that doctrine to use our public institutions to EXCLUSIVELY promote the tenets of your own, blind faith ... blind faith in your own omniscience, which is a fool's errand.
In your quest to push your faith, intellectual honesty went right by the wayside, replaced by ends-justify-the-means relativism that ALMOST led to the world being conned by the Climate Change Cult ... and turned the PRUDENT defeat of a tyrant into a parsed-jot-and-tittle exercise in political correctness, not so much because you opposed the defeat of Saddam & Sons, but you saw it as a convenient club to use against your biggest fear ... that conservatives will be considered credible enough for others to call your perceived intellectual/moral superiority into question.
It is that last, that causes you to sneer at ANY voice ... even when they are expressing objectively-valid wisdom ... that does not conform to your conventional wisdom and simplistic litmus tests that supposedly prove the possession of an open mind by total conformance to them.
We allowed that for a while, in the name of civility. Now, we see that civility in response to intellectual dishonesty is counterproductive to the defense of liberty, for it allows the dishonest to frame the debate and gain the false appearance of objective legitimacy.
Despite their erudition ...
And academic pedigree ...
The Best and the Brightest look instead
Like a box of dim bulbs to me ...
The critics here ... so typical of the Progressive poster children for Romans 1:22 ... think they are so above it all. It is THEIR conventional wisdom that was just weighed and found wanting by the electorate.
Let me tell y'all what is silly ... the idea that a few Best and Brightest "like you" in DC can effectively manage, from the top down, 300 million lives over 300 million lifetimes. The entire gamut of Re-, er, Progressive policies are built upon that conventional wisdom ... which is actually the Biggest Lie of All, which flies in the face of what has made this nation exceptional, and positively so.
In the past, as Elizabeth stated, you have yammered about how the GOP threatened the separation of church and state ... even as you leverage that doctrine to use our public institutions to EXCLUSIVELY promote the tenets of your own, blind faith ... blind faith in your own omniscience, which is a fool's errand.
In your quest to push your faith, intellectual honesty went right by the wayside, replaced by ends-justify-the-means relativism that ALMOST led to the world being conned by the Climate Change Cult ... and turned the PRUDENT defeat of a tyrant into a parsed-jot-and-tittle exercise in political correctness, not so much because you opposed the defeat of Saddam & Sons, but you saw it as a convenient club to use against your biggest fear ... that conservatives will be considered credible enough for others to call your perceived intellectual/moral superiority into question.
It is that last, that causes you to sneer at ANY voice ... even when they are expressing objectively-valid wisdom ... that does not conform to your conventional wisdom and simplistic litmus tests that supposedly prove the possession of an open mind by total conformance to them.
We allowed that for a while, in the name of civility. Now, we see that civility in response to intellectual dishonesty is counterproductive to the defense of liberty, for it allows the dishonest to frame the debate and gain the false appearance of objective legitimacy.
Despite their erudition ...
And academic pedigree ...
The Best and the Brightest look instead
Like a box of dim bulbs to me ...
11.9.2010 | 12:50pm
Rick Caird says:
We should probably remind "Joe the Human" the Democrats have 24 Senate seats up for reelection in 2012. Many of those are in states the Republicans won handily this year. Their propensity will be to vote more conservatively than they have for the past two years. I fully expect the Republicans to have a working majority in the Senate while Harry Reid is consigned to herding cats.
11.9.2010 | 12:52pm
david says:
If soliciting comment is your goal (not sure that it doesn't compound our
vitriol vs. provide therapy), you were highly succesful.
Steve's comment is most correct in his assessment and Adam F. must not even
be reading what he comments on if he thinks First Things is very political, being
very Catholic and center-left if anything. I always read it anyway, as I feel I obligated as a Christian Catholic to at least listen to my individual social justice side even if it disastrous for our natioanal economy and it is.
vitriol vs. provide therapy), you were highly succesful.
Steve's comment is most correct in his assessment and Adam F. must not even
be reading what he comments on if he thinks First Things is very political, being
very Catholic and center-left if anything. I always read it anyway, as I feel I obligated as a Christian Catholic to at least listen to my individual social justice side even if it disastrous for our natioanal economy and it is.
11.9.2010 | 12:55pm
Hardrada says:
Because liberals are still formulating a response to why a $400 billion deficit under Dubya was a precursor to the collapse of civilization, but a $2 trillion deficit under Obama is actually good business sense.
Give the left time, they have to work these things out.
Give the left time, they have to work these things out.
11.9.2010 | 12:55pm
Mark says:
With all due respect to the sources cited by Asa Kraut, Eisenhower was not privy to all the intelligence availble from the Pacific. Leahy might of been, and if so, what we know of our intercepts now tells us that he was being very disingenous in his memoires. It is quite true that there was a vigorous debate among the American leadership about the use of the weapon. And, in stark contrast to the conversations of our enemies, humanitarian considerations played a part in the argument.
What the Japanese were saying to each other was that the emperor had to stay, there would be no occupation and any war crimes trials even if allowed would be in Japanese jurisdiction. Yes, some of that was posturing to keep up appearances among diplomats abroad -- but Truman et al were real flesh and blood men facing terrible choices on which the lives of millions hung, and they had to deal with the facts they had as those facts revealed themselves. After Okinawa, those facts seemed very daunting indeed.
There were powerful and plausible arguments for a demonstration -- by necessity over Japanese territory. What we know of the response to Hiroshima makes it clear that a second bomb -- this time inevitably on a city -- would have been needed.
Repeating the assertion that blockade and continued conventional bombing would have done the trick glosses over the very real fact that this would have entailed the additional deaths of millions perhaps tens of millions of Japanese civilians -- through malnutrition and disease if not out and out injury.
The argument that use of the weapon inevitably would inject it into the arsenals of the world is perhaps the most idiotic. It could not be uninvented. The Russian would never be persuaded to eschew it based on our forebance. Heck -- even the French would have gone for it -- as they did.
What the Japanese were saying to each other was that the emperor had to stay, there would be no occupation and any war crimes trials even if allowed would be in Japanese jurisdiction. Yes, some of that was posturing to keep up appearances among diplomats abroad -- but Truman et al were real flesh and blood men facing terrible choices on which the lives of millions hung, and they had to deal with the facts they had as those facts revealed themselves. After Okinawa, those facts seemed very daunting indeed.
There were powerful and plausible arguments for a demonstration -- by necessity over Japanese territory. What we know of the response to Hiroshima makes it clear that a second bomb -- this time inevitably on a city -- would have been needed.
Repeating the assertion that blockade and continued conventional bombing would have done the trick glosses over the very real fact that this would have entailed the additional deaths of millions perhaps tens of millions of Japanese civilians -- through malnutrition and disease if not out and out injury.
The argument that use of the weapon inevitably would inject it into the arsenals of the world is perhaps the most idiotic. It could not be uninvented. The Russian would never be persuaded to eschew it based on our forebance. Heck -- even the French would have gone for it -- as they did.
11.9.2010 | 1:09pm
PSGInfinity says:
Asa,
You've also demonstrated that these very smart men knew they were crossing a Rubicon, which no sane person does without extensive forethought. Now spend some time looking up 'Operation Downfall', along with 'Operation Olympic' and 'Operation Coronet'. The alternative to the bombs *wasn't* puppie dogs and rainbows, it was unprecedented death and destruction, with an entire nation at risk.
You've also demonstrated that these very smart men knew they were crossing a Rubicon, which no sane person does without extensive forethought. Now spend some time looking up 'Operation Downfall', along with 'Operation Olympic' and 'Operation Coronet'. The alternative to the bombs *wasn't* puppie dogs and rainbows, it was unprecedented death and destruction, with an entire nation at risk.
11.9.2010 | 1:33pm
McGehee says:
Ms. Scalia wondered where the Democrat Drama Club was hiding. I imagine after perusing this comment thread she is no longer wondering.
11.9.2010 | 1:39pm
rasqual says:
Joe the Human: It's not "two to one" on the elections major impetuses -- namely, government spending and taxes (both related to "size and scope of government," the tea party's platform). The House controls both appropriations and taxes.
Furthermore, with a Republican predominance in the statehouses during a redistricting period -- with governors in tow -- representative seats will likely drift to the right or consolidate there. For a decade.
Finally, with astonishing disaster areas like California hanging on to their Democrats, the inevitable catastrophe they'll face will -- count on it -- engender a reflexive turn to the right. That's not even speculative.
Don't take solace in counting on three fingers. It's a valuable skill, but prognostications based on facts would help you better prepare for the future.
Furthermore, with a Republican predominance in the statehouses during a redistricting period -- with governors in tow -- representative seats will likely drift to the right or consolidate there. For a decade.
Finally, with astonishing disaster areas like California hanging on to their Democrats, the inevitable catastrophe they'll face will -- count on it -- engender a reflexive turn to the right. That's not even speculative.
Don't take solace in counting on three fingers. It's a valuable skill, but prognostications based on facts would help you better prepare for the future.
11.9.2010 | 1:42pm
Patrick says:
In 2004, the crowd of morality and responsibility voted for a fellow who invaded a country, tortured people, handed public money to big corporations, and ended up handing even more over to failed banks. That sort of makes liberal condescension look like small potatoes, eh?
11.9.2010 | 1:45pm
Asa Kraut says:
So bomb them on Monday, and if you don't hear from them by Wedensday night then bomb them again on Thursday because clearly they are still not ready, and of course the only way to make them ready after one bomb and two days is to set fire to tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children.
Damn right, as George 'water boarding rocks' Bush would say.
Damn right, as George 'water boarding rocks' Bush would say.
11.9.2010 | 1:52pm
Assistant Village Idiot says:
To those criticising the original post: I think a point could be made that any whiff of triumph in the tone of the victors is unseemly and should be avoided. Where your credibility on that score goes down is that the criticism is much milder in town than the behavior it highlights; in fact, it is much milder than the tone of hate and bitterness in the comments. It is rather like being careful with one's grammar when writing a complaint about someone else's. Pretty basic stuff, actually.
Do you guys have, like, mirrors or anything in your house?
Do you guys have, like, mirrors or anything in your house?
11.9.2010 | 1:56pm
JustSaying says:
Asa Kraut says:
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why America dropped that second atom bomb.
Well you little twit, it could be because the US rightly felt that it was not work un-tolled US and Japanese lives to try to slug it out with a regime that was hell bent on making sure that the final end was a long and costly as possible. That since the first one was not motivation enough, a second demonstration was needed.
You might know this and a whole lot more if you actually read a real history book instead of taking the junk that is passed off as an education these days at face value.
The Japanese were in the process of arming as many of the population as possible with what ever was available to draw out the final end as long as possible. The hope was that if they could make it costly enough to the US in lives, time and material they would be able to strike up a more favorable surrender deal. A deal that would include keeping the current government leads in place and to protect the power and positions of same. The ruling class had not reservations in turning the entire populate into cannon fodder in pursuit of that end. Dropping the bombs demonstrated that we would resist being pulled into a long, drown out ground war that would have inflicted additional severe casualties on both sided. Prior to the dropping of both bombs, the civilians were warned when it was going to happen and had time to evacuate. The US was far more generous and accommodating that either Germany or Japan were during the war and more than they would have been had the shoe been on the other foot.
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why America dropped that second atom bomb.
Well you little twit, it could be because the US rightly felt that it was not work un-tolled US and Japanese lives to try to slug it out with a regime that was hell bent on making sure that the final end was a long and costly as possible. That since the first one was not motivation enough, a second demonstration was needed.
You might know this and a whole lot more if you actually read a real history book instead of taking the junk that is passed off as an education these days at face value.
The Japanese were in the process of arming as many of the population as possible with what ever was available to draw out the final end as long as possible. The hope was that if they could make it costly enough to the US in lives, time and material they would be able to strike up a more favorable surrender deal. A deal that would include keeping the current government leads in place and to protect the power and positions of same. The ruling class had not reservations in turning the entire populate into cannon fodder in pursuit of that end. Dropping the bombs demonstrated that we would resist being pulled into a long, drown out ground war that would have inflicted additional severe casualties on both sided. Prior to the dropping of both bombs, the civilians were warned when it was going to happen and had time to evacuate. The US was far more generous and accommodating that either Germany or Japan were during the war and more than they would have been had the shoe been on the other foot.
11.9.2010 | 2:00pm
TheOldMan says:
Maybe it's because they are mostly unemployed now and no longer have Internet access?
11.9.2010 | 2:04pm
rasqual says:
Asa Kraut: Our intelligence intercepts indicated recalcitrance after the first bomb. We DID hear from them. They just didn't know it. ;-)
Do you understand how that works? Do you think national leadership should count on waiting for public, diplomatic remarks when private, strategic plans betrayed continuing belligerence?
Where did counting on diplomacy get us with Japan in the run-up to Pearl Harbor?
Do you understand how that works? Do you think national leadership should count on waiting for public, diplomatic remarks when private, strategic plans betrayed continuing belligerence?
Where did counting on diplomacy get us with Japan in the run-up to Pearl Harbor?
11.9.2010 | 2:12pm
JustSaying says:
Sorry, I should not have called you a twit. My emotions got the better of me and I apologize.
I get upset when even as we live in the most informed time and society ever, people ask the snarkiest things in an effort to score political point when they are not only (so very) wrong but too ignorant or lazy to take the 10 to 20 minutes of time with Google to read up on the history that is just waiting there to be read.
I get upset when even as we live in the most informed time and society ever, people ask the snarkiest things in an effort to score political point when they are not only (so very) wrong but too ignorant or lazy to take the 10 to 20 minutes of time with Google to read up on the history that is just waiting there to be read.
11.9.2010 | 2:18pm
John Davies says:
I don't know what the people in charge in WWII were saying. But I did get to talk to an Army friend of my father.
He said that he was on a ship headed to Japan before the bombs were dropped. As far as he could see in any direction were more ships filled with men. They were told that the Japanese were prepared to fight to the death and that included all men, women and children. that they were supposed to prepare themselves to kill women and children because they would also be armed and shooting to kill.
He also said that it was the first time he was completely frightened during the war and his whole life he wanted to be able to thank anyone who worked on the Manhattan Project.
Asa Kraut, you may say that you haven't heard a reason to justify dropping the second bomb. What is closer to the truth is that you haven't heard a reason that was sufficient for you, living in a post-WWII world. It is so easy to watch the History Channel and know the good guys win in the end. But is was a whole different thing to the people living then. Your lack of empathy says more about you than it does about them.
He said that he was on a ship headed to Japan before the bombs were dropped. As far as he could see in any direction were more ships filled with men. They were told that the Japanese were prepared to fight to the death and that included all men, women and children. that they were supposed to prepare themselves to kill women and children because they would also be armed and shooting to kill.
He also said that it was the first time he was completely frightened during the war and his whole life he wanted to be able to thank anyone who worked on the Manhattan Project.
Asa Kraut, you may say that you haven't heard a reason to justify dropping the second bomb. What is closer to the truth is that you haven't heard a reason that was sufficient for you, living in a post-WWII world. It is so easy to watch the History Channel and know the good guys win in the end. But is was a whole different thing to the people living then. Your lack of empathy says more about you than it does about them.
11.9.2010 | 2:40pm
Barbara says:
I wondered where the "So Sorry" stuff went, too. As for the need for therapy, when you're in denial, you don't really see the need (please see: Nancy Pelosi, minority leader, and anyone who says, "Hey, we still have 2 out of 3," and "When the Republicans come up with ideas, then we'll talk.")
Speaking of therapy, it is just so yummy to read liberals go nuts about a "screed" from Elizabeth Scalia. When I need to relax and go to my happy place, I read what liberals say when they want to occupy the moral high ground. That keening you hear is for the loss of civility! Elizabeth, you killed it! you killed the lovely, polite, generous spirit of comity that the Lefties were all ready to embrace as they bowed to the reality and validity of Other People's Points of View. You hurt their tiny feelings and crushed their dreams of Just Getting Along with the Bitterclinger Neanderthals (Who Somehow Figured Out How to Get to the Polls- Damn!)
And you know any comment thread has jumped the shark when people actually respond to questions about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Next up: Dresden, or maybe the Crusades.
Speaking of therapy, it is just so yummy to read liberals go nuts about a "screed" from Elizabeth Scalia. When I need to relax and go to my happy place, I read what liberals say when they want to occupy the moral high ground. That keening you hear is for the loss of civility! Elizabeth, you killed it! you killed the lovely, polite, generous spirit of comity that the Lefties were all ready to embrace as they bowed to the reality and validity of Other People's Points of View. You hurt their tiny feelings and crushed their dreams of Just Getting Along with the Bitterclinger Neanderthals (Who Somehow Figured Out How to Get to the Polls- Damn!)
And you know any comment thread has jumped the shark when people actually respond to questions about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Next up: Dresden, or maybe the Crusades.
11.9.2010 | 3:03pm
Bob G says:
The scurrility of today's political rhetoric is hardly worse than during Jefferson's campaign for President. He himself utilized one of the greatest offenders. And no senator is yet beating another with a cane as in the 1850s. Such passions are endemic and permanent in US politics. Ms. Scalia’s rhetoric can be easily matched or exceeded on the left. As someone said, anyone who puts his/her hopes in politics is going to be disappointed. At least if you have faith you have somewhere else to turn.
11.9.2010 | 3:06pm
Ruy Diaz says:
Asa Kraut wrote: 'I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why America dropped that second atom bomb.'
Because Japan hadn't surrendered.
There. No need to keep waiting any longer. Glad I could help.
Because Japan hadn't surrendered.
There. No need to keep waiting any longer. Glad I could help.
11.9.2010 | 3:19pm
Asa Kraut says:
I feel you are all missing the point of the question. Operation Downfall was billed to commence in November, 1945. No doubt the loss of lives would have been horrendous and America would have been right to try to forestall it if necessary with an atom bomb that would claim far fewer lives. (Although the fact that people like Eisenhower and Leahy regarded the Japanese to be already defeated in August “and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons” should not be disregarded out of hand simply because people do not like to believe that America may have had more morally compelling means of ending the war than by resorting to the bomb.)
But given that the bomb was the only way to go, the question is: why was not the bomb on Hiroshima sufficient to the purpose? That bomb was dropped on Monday, Aug 06, some 86 days before Operation Downfall was due to commence. The fact that the Japanese, presumably a bit stunned at the time, had not yet arrived at the point of formally surrendering by Thursday, Aug 09, was no reason to believe that they could not be brought to that point by means other than dropping another bomb. For example, why didn’t the Americans take up Strauss’ suggestion to try to force the issue and demonstrate that they could repeat the effect of Hiroshima by dropping the bomb on the cryptomeria forest close to Tokyo ? Surely the Americans, having dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, could have allowed more than 3 days to bring the Japanese leadership to their senses?
But given that the bomb was the only way to go, the question is: why was not the bomb on Hiroshima sufficient to the purpose? That bomb was dropped on Monday, Aug 06, some 86 days before Operation Downfall was due to commence. The fact that the Japanese, presumably a bit stunned at the time, had not yet arrived at the point of formally surrendering by Thursday, Aug 09, was no reason to believe that they could not be brought to that point by means other than dropping another bomb. For example, why didn’t the Americans take up Strauss’ suggestion to try to force the issue and demonstrate that they could repeat the effect of Hiroshima by dropping the bomb on the cryptomeria forest close to Tokyo ? Surely the Americans, having dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, could have allowed more than 3 days to bring the Japanese leadership to their senses?
11.9.2010 | 3:32pm
Buzz says:
Asa Kraut
If flattening a city had no effect on Japanese resolve, what effect would flattening a forest have? Remember, the Japanese leaders were willing to sacrifice the lives of millions of their fellow Japanese in order to preserve their honor. What are a few thousand trees in comparison?
If flattening a city had no effect on Japanese resolve, what effect would flattening a forest have? Remember, the Japanese leaders were willing to sacrifice the lives of millions of their fellow Japanese in order to preserve their honor. What are a few thousand trees in comparison?
11.9.2010 | 3:41pm
Buzz says:
Asa
Forgot to add, study the battles of Saipan, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. They were bloody beyond belief and got worse the closer we got to the Japanese mainland. In Saipan and on Okinawa, the Japanese military willingly sacrificed the lives of civilians.
The invasion of Japan itself would have been a months-long bloodbath. Estimated casualties on the American side approached a million (that's wounded, missing, and killed) and on the Japanese side multiple millions.
My dad was in the process of being transferred from the European theater to the Japanese theater, and he said he was terrified. He'd survived fighting Nazis; he didn't expect to survive fighting the Japanese.
Forgot to add, study the battles of Saipan, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. They were bloody beyond belief and got worse the closer we got to the Japanese mainland. In Saipan and on Okinawa, the Japanese military willingly sacrificed the lives of civilians.
The invasion of Japan itself would have been a months-long bloodbath. Estimated casualties on the American side approached a million (that's wounded, missing, and killed) and on the Japanese side multiple millions.
My dad was in the process of being transferred from the European theater to the Japanese theater, and he said he was terrified. He'd survived fighting Nazis; he didn't expect to survive fighting the Japanese.
11.9.2010 | 3:45pm
Micha Elyi says:
1) Asa has brilliantly hijacked this thread.
2) The lazy tend not to show up to vote in midterm elections. Don't get cocky about what this year's results portend for 2012.
3) Mrs. Scalia is observant to note that among leftists, their angry hysteria of 2004 has been replaced by an angry funk in 2010.
4) Mrs. Scalia's theory that the so-called "independent" voters of center-left persuasion may be relieved that the 2010 results could prevent America from going over the brink into hard-core socialism explains a lot.
2) The lazy tend not to show up to vote in midterm elections. Don't get cocky about what this year's results portend for 2012.
3) Mrs. Scalia is observant to note that among leftists, their angry hysteria of 2004 has been replaced by an angry funk in 2010.
4) Mrs. Scalia's theory that the so-called "independent" voters of center-left persuasion may be relieved that the 2010 results could prevent America from going over the brink into hard-core socialism explains a lot.
11.9.2010 | 3:48pm
Micha Elyi says:
4) Also, there's not much point in America's leftists telling Europeans they're sorry they couldn't push the U.S. closer to socialism when Europeans themselves are now backing away from it.
11.9.2010 | 4:02pm
KevinM says:
Because an inherent trait of all militaristic nations is that they love wars more than they do future generations of their own countrymen.
If seeing 80000 people being killed in a few seconds [keeping in mind Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets] doesn't immediately bring you to your senses, nothing will.
If seeing 80000 people being killed in a few seconds [keeping in mind Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets] doesn't immediately bring you to your senses, nothing will.
11.9.2010 | 4:02pm
Asa Kraut says:
Buzz,
If the Japanese were as ruthless as you say, not stopping to sacrifice any number of their civilians nor being swayed by the flattening of a city, then why did the Americans think that flattening a second city would have any effect on them?
You are evading the question. Why did the Americans bomb the second city a mere 72 hours after the first bomb when they had time to leverage that first bombing against the Japanese?
If the Japanese were as ruthless as you say, not stopping to sacrifice any number of their civilians nor being swayed by the flattening of a city, then why did the Americans think that flattening a second city would have any effect on them?
You are evading the question. Why did the Americans bomb the second city a mere 72 hours after the first bomb when they had time to leverage that first bombing against the Japanese?
11.9.2010 | 4:09pm
emeldee says:
Asa Kraut " I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why America dropped that second atom bomb".
If you wait long enough I'm sure the Obama administration will put together a government-sponsored community education program that will explain it to you.
If you wait long enough I'm sure the Obama administration will put together a government-sponsored community education program that will explain it to you.
11.9.2010 | 4:18pm
Buzz says:
Asa
Because, as others have noted, our intelligence intercepts indicated that the Japanese thought the first bomb was a one-off, the only one we had. They thought they could wait us out.
We had to convince them that we had more and could produce more. The second bomb, dropped shortly after the first, demonstrated this.
Why wait? If you send a messge and it becomes clear that the recipient did not get it or did not understand it, do you wait around to resend? Of course not.
Because, as others have noted, our intelligence intercepts indicated that the Japanese thought the first bomb was a one-off, the only one we had. They thought they could wait us out.
We had to convince them that we had more and could produce more. The second bomb, dropped shortly after the first, demonstrated this.
Why wait? If you send a messge and it becomes clear that the recipient did not get it or did not understand it, do you wait around to resend? Of course not.
11.9.2010 | 4:25pm
JP says:
Asa, your pretext for using Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a way to get a jab at Bush is quite telling. After almost 3 years, you still haven't got over him. Oh well, I suppose there are still some Republicans that never got over Bill Clinton.
Oh, BTW here are some facts. First, after the bloodbaths of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the US Marines were a depleted force. McArthur didn't have enough troops to stage an invasion on such a scope. In Europe, we still had to maintain a large occupation force. But, plans were afoot in transferring at least 2 Army Groups to Asia. But, logistics were a big concern. Based upon the casulties we took at Okinawa, Marshall figured that we would need anywhere from 4 to 5 Army Groups. Again, using Okinawa as a model, the Pentagon estimated total US casulties would go beyond what we suffered in Europe (Remember, we suffered our largest amount of casulties during the final 5 months of war in Europe). The total destruction of so many cities, villages, and towns drove civilian casualty estimates over 1 million. Do the math.
Being a latter day armchair moralist is easy. You should count yourself lucky not to have been born a male in 1925.
Oh, BTW here are some facts. First, after the bloodbaths of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the US Marines were a depleted force. McArthur didn't have enough troops to stage an invasion on such a scope. In Europe, we still had to maintain a large occupation force. But, plans were afoot in transferring at least 2 Army Groups to Asia. But, logistics were a big concern. Based upon the casulties we took at Okinawa, Marshall figured that we would need anywhere from 4 to 5 Army Groups. Again, using Okinawa as a model, the Pentagon estimated total US casulties would go beyond what we suffered in Europe (Remember, we suffered our largest amount of casulties during the final 5 months of war in Europe). The total destruction of so many cities, villages, and towns drove civilian casualty estimates over 1 million. Do the math.
Being a latter day armchair moralist is easy. You should count yourself lucky not to have been born a male in 1925.
11.9.2010 | 4:32pm
Towering Barbarian says:
"11.9.2010 | 10:42am Patrick says:
In 2004, the crowd of morality and responsibility voted for a fellow who invaded a country, tortured people, handed public money to big corporations, and ended up handing even more over to failed banks. That sort of makes liberal condescension look like small potatoes, eh?"
Patrick,
Yeah, the libs did vote for John "Winter Soldier" Kerry who by his own account was quite guilty of those first two items and by his conduct as a Senate Democrat did indeed do the other two, didn't they? :P
Good thing America did the moral thing by rejecting Mr. Kerry and bringing President Bush back into office! :)
And it can't be denied that watching all those little Democrats apologize to Saddam and Bin Ladin for how the 2004 election turned out (Or didn't they realize that Saddam and Bin Ladin are both part of the "world" they apologized to?) really was quite amusing. Perhaps the reason they didn't do it this time is that some of the liberals are finally on their way towards becoming adults? We can always hope! ;-)
In 2004, the crowd of morality and responsibility voted for a fellow who invaded a country, tortured people, handed public money to big corporations, and ended up handing even more over to failed banks. That sort of makes liberal condescension look like small potatoes, eh?"
Patrick,
Yeah, the libs did vote for John "Winter Soldier" Kerry who by his own account was quite guilty of those first two items and by his conduct as a Senate Democrat did indeed do the other two, didn't they? :P
Good thing America did the moral thing by rejecting Mr. Kerry and bringing President Bush back into office! :)
And it can't be denied that watching all those little Democrats apologize to Saddam and Bin Ladin for how the 2004 election turned out (Or didn't they realize that Saddam and Bin Ladin are both part of the "world" they apologized to?) really was quite amusing. Perhaps the reason they didn't do it this time is that some of the liberals are finally on their way towards becoming adults? We can always hope! ;-)
11.9.2010 | 4:52pm
Asa Kraut says:
@John Davies “Asa Kraut, you may say that you haven't heard a reason to justify dropping the second bomb. What is closer to the truth is that you haven't heard a reason that was sufficient for you, living in a post-WWII world. It is so easy to watch the History Channel and know the good guys win in the end. But is was a whole different thing to the people living then. Your lack of empathy says more about you than it does about them.”
My father and my uncles took to the European floor against Hitler in 1940. Where was that army friend of your father’s then? How come he and all other Americans were late to the cause? If the Japanese had not bombed Pearl Harbor would they have continued to sit it out? Perhaps you are right about one thing, though. I have little empahty with a certain class of American and their ridiculous view of themselves as the “good guys.”
My father and my uncles took to the European floor against Hitler in 1940. Where was that army friend of your father’s then? How come he and all other Americans were late to the cause? If the Japanese had not bombed Pearl Harbor would they have continued to sit it out? Perhaps you are right about one thing, though. I have little empahty with a certain class of American and their ridiculous view of themselves as the “good guys.”
11.9.2010 | 5:35pm
Don Roberto Hill says:
Right on, Steve (7:16am), Gringo, COOPER52, BAW, Ritchie, coggieguy, et al. The left-wing libertines—er, Dems—are probably smart to remain silent. Those comments about guns, trucks and religion a couple of years ago hurt their poll numbers.
DonM (7:49am), and Mark: Your comments following up on the earlier digression vis-à-vis Nagasaki (admittedly a backup target, but, still, the most Christian city in Japan) are excellent; nevertheless, IMHO, which I fear is not shared by enough people of good conscience (who must also disagree with Faramir's decision to reject the evil ring when it came into his hands): Firebombing cities, filled with tens of thousands of women and children, is not what Christian men do. (Hard-hearted, calculating, utilitarian, post-predestinarian Calvinists, on the other hand, perhaps.) Though Japan's behavior was arguably as evil as Germany's, America had other options—very difficult options, to be sure—including negotiated surrender and the sacrifice of [1 million] troops. I know it is "easy for me to say," but I believe this view is in line with Catholic teaching and natural law. And I must note that we left the Chinese and Russian communists in power, and many other evil regimes. (The mistakes of Weimar were unreasonable terms and a weak-willed failure to follow up when Germany broke the treaty.)
DonM (7:49am), and Mark: Your comments following up on the earlier digression vis-à-vis Nagasaki (admittedly a backup target, but, still, the most Christian city in Japan) are excellent; nevertheless, IMHO, which I fear is not shared by enough people of good conscience (who must also disagree with Faramir's decision to reject the evil ring when it came into his hands): Firebombing cities, filled with tens of thousands of women and children, is not what Christian men do. (Hard-hearted, calculating, utilitarian, post-predestinarian Calvinists, on the other hand, perhaps.) Though Japan's behavior was arguably as evil as Germany's, America had other options—very difficult options, to be sure—including negotiated surrender and the sacrifice of [1 million] troops. I know it is "easy for me to say," but I believe this view is in line with Catholic teaching and natural law. And I must note that we left the Chinese and Russian communists in power, and many other evil regimes. (The mistakes of Weimar were unreasonable terms and a weak-willed failure to follow up when Germany broke the treaty.)
11.9.2010 | 5:43pm
Gabriel Hanna says:
@Asa Kraut:
My father and my uncles took to the European floor against Hitler in 1940. Where was that army friend of your father’s then? How come he and all other Americans were late to the cause?
Where were your father and uncles in 1939? Why did they give Hitler Czechoslovakia and Austria for free? Where were they in 1937?
You're really trying to "chickenhawk" dead people?
You castigate the US for killing Japanese people with atom bombs in 1945 when they should have been killing German people with regular bombs by whatever arbitrary date you decided gives moral authority?
My father and my uncles took to the European floor against Hitler in 1940. Where was that army friend of your father’s then? How come he and all other Americans were late to the cause?
Where were your father and uncles in 1939? Why did they give Hitler Czechoslovakia and Austria for free? Where were they in 1937?
You're really trying to "chickenhawk" dead people?
You castigate the US for killing Japanese people with atom bombs in 1945 when they should have been killing German people with regular bombs by whatever arbitrary date you decided gives moral authority?
11.9.2010 | 7:06pm
richard40 says:
To Alan:
Saying the health care bill was moderate because it was done in MA (one of the most far left states in the nation, which interestingly enough still repudiated Obamacare in the Brown election) or because it did not go as far left as you liked by not including the public option (because of opposition from moderate DEMS), does not make it moderate. It places 1/7 of the US economy under the complete control of gov burocrats, and greatly expands gov power and gov spending.
The dems that have been saying they lost because Obama did not go to the left ENOUGH, are either lying through their teeth, or are totally deluded. Obama had control of both houses, by wide margins, with a filibuster proof majority in the senate, and pushed a health care bill that was so far left that even many moderate dems could not stomache it, and you say he is moderate???
Saying the health care bill was moderate because it was done in MA (one of the most far left states in the nation, which interestingly enough still repudiated Obamacare in the Brown election) or because it did not go as far left as you liked by not including the public option (because of opposition from moderate DEMS), does not make it moderate. It places 1/7 of the US economy under the complete control of gov burocrats, and greatly expands gov power and gov spending.
The dems that have been saying they lost because Obama did not go to the left ENOUGH, are either lying through their teeth, or are totally deluded. Obama had control of both houses, by wide margins, with a filibuster proof majority in the senate, and pushed a health care bill that was so far left that even many moderate dems could not stomache it, and you say he is moderate???
11.9.2010 | 7:12pm
Abe Delnore says:
I am posting under my actual name. My late grandfather, Col. Victor E. Delnore, Sr., served as governor of Nagasaki after the war. (He had served during the war with distinction as a tank battalion commander in the European theater, receiving, among other decorations, the Silver Star, the Bronze Star with "V" device, and the Purple Heart.) Some of my father's earliest memories are of growing up in Nagasaki. My aunt Patty was born in Nagasaki and baptized in the cathedral.
You can read something about him here: http://www.uwosh.edu/home_pages/faculty_staff/earns/delnore.html
My late grandfather always told me that he regarded the atomic bombing of Japan as a great mistake. We had already beat the Japanese and needed to tell them the one thing that would have allowed them to surrender: that they would be allowed to continue their lives (except for the war criminals) and that the emperor would be allowed to keep his throne. As everyone knows, that is exactly what we did after the war: we punished a few war criminals, helped the country rebuild, and left Hirohito as a figurehead.
Furthermore, as a Catholic he did not believe that the atomic bombing, nor indeed much of the conduct of the war, comported with principals of just war. He told me that, although Patton (his army commander) had suggested that units like his not be afraid to shoot up German towns they were driving though in 1945, he told his men not to do this, both because it was not right and because it would just make dealing with the Germans harder after the war.
This was quite in keeping with his personality. Late in life he suffered from Parkinson's disease. He refused to try a medicine his doctor recommended because he believed it was made with abortion by-products. He did not wish to benefit from that practice.
Given his stance on that issue, I firmly believe that my late grandfather, whose armored division was slated for a follow-on wave in Kyushu, would rather have invaded Japan and faced death as he had in Europe than benefit from the ghastly bombing of civilians. That is the sacrifice a soldier is sometimes required to make: to die not only for his comrades or country, but also for decency in war.
At any rate, that sacrifice was not required and would not have been asked, because we were not going to explain Japan. In that connection, I have no doubt that men like John Davies's dad's friend (alas, nameless) believe the atomic bomb saved their lives. (Although we can be certain that he was never literally on a ship headed for Japan.) This narrative has become the accepted G.I. version of history: virtually our entire armed forces would have been committed to the invasion of Japan and suffered extraordinary losses, but the atomic bomb gave all those men a reprieve. But that does not make it so.
Rather, as military historians such as Richard Frank have shown, after the bloodbath on Okinawa and the realization that the Japanese would put up an even tougher fight at home. the United States was not actually going to invade Japan. As several have stated above, we knew very well what was going on in Japan. One of the things we knew was that the Japanese had fortified our planned landing sites in Kyushu so well that we would have suffered unacceptable losses and made no headway landing there. We also knew that we had defeated Japan and it was only a matter of time before the Japanese people would either starve or revolt. A ground invasion would have been militarily irresponsible. It is extremely difficult to imagine the United States in 1945 actually going through with the invasion. I recommend Frank's book "Downfall" on this topic.
If any lives were saved by the bombing, they were predominately civilians and other noncombatants living in Asia: Japanese who were not starved or conventionally bombed, and Chinese (and others) suffering under Japanese occupation. We also got to our POWs faster. So if you are going to make what is essentially a consequentialist argument that by bombing thousands of Japanese civilians we saved many more lives elsewhere, at least get the details right.
I do not expect to check this discussion again; it is an interesting tangent from what is frankly a disappointing piece to read in this magazine.
You can read something about him here: http://www.uwosh.edu/home_pages/faculty_staff/earns/delnore.html
My late grandfather always told me that he regarded the atomic bombing of Japan as a great mistake. We had already beat the Japanese and needed to tell them the one thing that would have allowed them to surrender: that they would be allowed to continue their lives (except for the war criminals) and that the emperor would be allowed to keep his throne. As everyone knows, that is exactly what we did after the war: we punished a few war criminals, helped the country rebuild, and left Hirohito as a figurehead.
Furthermore, as a Catholic he did not believe that the atomic bombing, nor indeed much of the conduct of the war, comported with principals of just war. He told me that, although Patton (his army commander) had suggested that units like his not be afraid to shoot up German towns they were driving though in 1945, he told his men not to do this, both because it was not right and because it would just make dealing with the Germans harder after the war.
This was quite in keeping with his personality. Late in life he suffered from Parkinson's disease. He refused to try a medicine his doctor recommended because he believed it was made with abortion by-products. He did not wish to benefit from that practice.
Given his stance on that issue, I firmly believe that my late grandfather, whose armored division was slated for a follow-on wave in Kyushu, would rather have invaded Japan and faced death as he had in Europe than benefit from the ghastly bombing of civilians. That is the sacrifice a soldier is sometimes required to make: to die not only for his comrades or country, but also for decency in war.
At any rate, that sacrifice was not required and would not have been asked, because we were not going to explain Japan. In that connection, I have no doubt that men like John Davies's dad's friend (alas, nameless) believe the atomic bomb saved their lives. (Although we can be certain that he was never literally on a ship headed for Japan.) This narrative has become the accepted G.I. version of history: virtually our entire armed forces would have been committed to the invasion of Japan and suffered extraordinary losses, but the atomic bomb gave all those men a reprieve. But that does not make it so.
Rather, as military historians such as Richard Frank have shown, after the bloodbath on Okinawa and the realization that the Japanese would put up an even tougher fight at home. the United States was not actually going to invade Japan. As several have stated above, we knew very well what was going on in Japan. One of the things we knew was that the Japanese had fortified our planned landing sites in Kyushu so well that we would have suffered unacceptable losses and made no headway landing there. We also knew that we had defeated Japan and it was only a matter of time before the Japanese people would either starve or revolt. A ground invasion would have been militarily irresponsible. It is extremely difficult to imagine the United States in 1945 actually going through with the invasion. I recommend Frank's book "Downfall" on this topic.
If any lives were saved by the bombing, they were predominately civilians and other noncombatants living in Asia: Japanese who were not starved or conventionally bombed, and Chinese (and others) suffering under Japanese occupation. We also got to our POWs faster. So if you are going to make what is essentially a consequentialist argument that by bombing thousands of Japanese civilians we saved many more lives elsewhere, at least get the details right.
I do not expect to check this discussion again; it is an interesting tangent from what is frankly a disappointing piece to read in this magazine.
11.9.2010 | 7:16pm
richard40 says:
To joe the huiman:
You made one very good point. The repubs did not win this election, the Tea Party did. You are wrong though that the dems did not lose. Loses in the house, and in statewide offices were unprecendented, worste in over 40 yrs. the senate losses were less only because only 1/3 of the senate was up, and most of the dem seats were in dem leaning states.
The real contest will be in 2012. There will be twice as many senate dem seats in play that year as in this one, plus the presidency. If the repubs can follow the lead of the Tea Party, and make a real effort to reign in bloated government, and nominate somebody decent for pres, they will make more gains in 2012. Whether they will or not is still an open question.
You made one very good point. The repubs did not win this election, the Tea Party did. You are wrong though that the dems did not lose. Loses in the house, and in statewide offices were unprecendented, worste in over 40 yrs. the senate losses were less only because only 1/3 of the senate was up, and most of the dem seats were in dem leaning states.
The real contest will be in 2012. There will be twice as many senate dem seats in play that year as in this one, plus the presidency. If the repubs can follow the lead of the Tea Party, and make a real effort to reign in bloated government, and nominate somebody decent for pres, they will make more gains in 2012. Whether they will or not is still an open question.
11.9.2010 | 7:18pm
M. Simon says:
Asa Kraut says:
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why America dropped that second atom bomb.
Because one was not enough to get the Rapists of Nanking to surrender.
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why America dropped that second atom bomb.
Because one was not enough to get the Rapists of Nanking to surrender.
11.9.2010 | 7:28pm
omega sequence says:
What does this thread have to do with the A-Bomb?
All these posts should be deleted.
All these posts should be deleted.
11.9.2010 | 7:34pm
Asa Kraut says:
@Gabriel Hanna
- Where were your father and uncles in 1939? Why did they give Hitler Czechoslovakia and Austria for free? Where were they in 1937? -
In 1937 they were living in the north of England. In 1939 their country declared war on Germany. In 1940 they were mobilized. As it happens, they didn’t give Czechoslovakia and Austria to Hitler for free. That Chamberlain tried to appease Hitler over the Sudetenland was motivated by seeking to avoid a war that he felt he was not in a position to win and which, win or lose, would have crushed Czechoslovakia in the event. That Hitler did crush Czechoslovakia anyway lead to the treaty with Poland and eventually to Britain and her commonwealth partners’ fight with Hitler. So he didn’t get it for free.
- You're really trying to "chickenhawk" dead people? -
No, I wish to chickenhawk America.
-You castigate the US for killing Japanese people with atom bombs in 1945 when they should have been killing German people with regular bombs by whatever arbitrary date you decided gives moral authority-
I castigate the US for using the second atom bomb at Nagasaki. It was not morally defensible. After the first bomb America had time to press for Japan’s surrender without rushing to drop a second one. They should have used that time.
September 1939 was no arbitrary date. It marked a point in a chain of events when the search for peace tipped into the decision for war. That decision was not arbitrary. I castigate the US for not joining Britain and her commonwealth allies in that decision. It was indefensible, just like that second bomb.
- Where were your father and uncles in 1939? Why did they give Hitler Czechoslovakia and Austria for free? Where were they in 1937? -
In 1937 they were living in the north of England. In 1939 their country declared war on Germany. In 1940 they were mobilized. As it happens, they didn’t give Czechoslovakia and Austria to Hitler for free. That Chamberlain tried to appease Hitler over the Sudetenland was motivated by seeking to avoid a war that he felt he was not in a position to win and which, win or lose, would have crushed Czechoslovakia in the event. That Hitler did crush Czechoslovakia anyway lead to the treaty with Poland and eventually to Britain and her commonwealth partners’ fight with Hitler. So he didn’t get it for free.
- You're really trying to "chickenhawk" dead people? -
No, I wish to chickenhawk America.
-You castigate the US for killing Japanese people with atom bombs in 1945 when they should have been killing German people with regular bombs by whatever arbitrary date you decided gives moral authority-
I castigate the US for using the second atom bomb at Nagasaki. It was not morally defensible. After the first bomb America had time to press for Japan’s surrender without rushing to drop a second one. They should have used that time.
September 1939 was no arbitrary date. It marked a point in a chain of events when the search for peace tipped into the decision for war. That decision was not arbitrary. I castigate the US for not joining Britain and her commonwealth allies in that decision. It was indefensible, just like that second bomb.
11.9.2010 | 8:06pm
Matt Karnes says:
Wow, Asa. You've been waiting for that? Really? Forgive me for saying this so bluntly, but, there is no other way. You are either ignorant and helpless or a liar. Even my 7 year old son knows why the U.S. used the second bomb.
11.9.2010 | 10:10pm
rosmerta says:
Elizabeth, I do hope that after the 2012 election you'll re-visit and update this essay. After the trouncing I'm expecting Obama and his minions to get in two years (the electorate willing), I think you'll be seeing a whole lot more lefty angst then. Someone above said it's "still 2 to 1" (Pres & Senate vs. the House) and there's probably a lot to that. Wait for an Obama loss, and the loss of several key Senators, and see what happens next.
11.10.2010 | 12:09am
Margaret says:
The good news is that the Democrats kept the Senate, and some real extremists like Carly Fiorina and Ken Buck lost. Buck is one of those wild-eyed conspiracy theorists who believe climate change is a hoax, but he couldn't pass a 10th grade science test. I wouldn't curl my lip so in contempt at the "reality-based" community, Ms. Scalia. Science IS reality, and we owe much of our current and future quality of living to the efforts of the truly reality based, scientists and engineers, which continue to help us despite the ignorance and ingratitude of the likes of Ken Buck.
11.10.2010 | 7:19am
Ritchie The Riveter says:
Margaret, I am a degreed electrical engineer with over 27 years experience ... actual design experience, not pushing paper ... and I stand against the Cult of Human Climate Change, like Mr. Buck.
It is just another Trojan horse for the Progressive agenda, masquerading as science ...
They're tellin' me the world is warmin' up
And my minivan's part of the cause
And the science is settled so it's time for big change
To our economy and our laws
Well if the science is settled then tell me why their
Computer models can't agree
And why the world's cooled down for the past several years
While they're hidin' their data from me
Despite their erudition
And academic pedigree
The Best and the Brightest look instead
Like a box of dim bulbs to me
They'd put us in the soup lines over
Parts-per-billion probabilities
The Best and the Brightest look instead
Like a box of dim bulbs to me ...
... Like a box of dim bulbs to me
(If you want to hear this as originally written, click on my website link)
And as for ingratitude ... Progressive profit-phobia gets in the way of delivering a lot of gratitude to those who should have it.
There's some reality for ya ... as opposed to blind faith in one's own omniscience, which is endemic among Re-, er, Progressives.
It is just another Trojan horse for the Progressive agenda, masquerading as science ...
They're tellin' me the world is warmin' up
And my minivan's part of the cause
And the science is settled so it's time for big change
To our economy and our laws
Well if the science is settled then tell me why their
Computer models can't agree
And why the world's cooled down for the past several years
While they're hidin' their data from me
Despite their erudition
And academic pedigree
The Best and the Brightest look instead
Like a box of dim bulbs to me
They'd put us in the soup lines over
Parts-per-billion probabilities
The Best and the Brightest look instead
Like a box of dim bulbs to me ...
... Like a box of dim bulbs to me
(If you want to hear this as originally written, click on my website link)
And as for ingratitude ... Progressive profit-phobia gets in the way of delivering a lot of gratitude to those who should have it.
There's some reality for ya ... as opposed to blind faith in one's own omniscience, which is endemic among Re-, er, Progressives.
11.10.2010 | 8:19am
pdn Michael says:
"a play-dough-pounding, Zoloft-eating frenzy of bitterness and recrimination."
Hee-hee-hee, I love it!
Hee-hee-hee, I love it!
11.10.2010 | 8:30am
roger says:
No "Who's sorry now"?
Perhaps the reason is that the democrats are not sorry, they are relieved. Having created such a mess that is literally impossible to repair, they are happy that the republicans will be held accountable for:
A) Taking the necessary remedial action and so causing massive civil unrest.
Or:
B) Not taking the necessary action and so causing massive civil unrest.
Perhaps the reason is that the democrats are not sorry, they are relieved. Having created such a mess that is literally impossible to repair, they are happy that the republicans will be held accountable for:
A) Taking the necessary remedial action and so causing massive civil unrest.
Or:
B) Not taking the necessary action and so causing massive civil unrest.
11.10.2010 | 9:27am
Margaret says:
Ritchie, so you know more than all the PhDs and Nobel prize winners supporting human-caused global warming? Uh huh. Got it.
11.10.2010 | 10:08am
Ritchie The Riveter says:
Margaret ... I remember some of the best minds of an earlier age ... very learned men ... coming against some upstart named Galileo.
I also remember the revelations about the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia ... and about some faulty observations regarding glacier melt that made their way into an UN report, much to the embarrassment of that august body.
I also remember the cool reception to the Climate Change Cult's agenda in Copenhagen, by people who would have to live with its implementation ... as opposed to those making a living off its promotion. I also remember to follow the money ... to Franklin Raines, to Al Gore, to GE ... to those who would also make a living off its implementation.
And finally, I remember from my high-school geometry class that if even ONE exception to a theorem is found, it is INVALID.
The Climate Change Cult is just another manifestation of the Watermelon Left ... green on the outside, red on the inside ... who in turn are being "picked" by the purveyors (non-profit and for profit) of this snake oil.
Appeals to authority mean NOTHING (see my reference to Galileo, above) ... and there isn't enough PROOF of human-induced climate change to justify turning the economy upside down for that reason alone, so what is driving this is the "synergy" between it and the Re-, er, Progressive agenda.
Ironically, by trashing the economy, you may end up, on balance, doing more harm to the environment ... because when people start to wonder where they're next meal is coming from, they're more likely to fillet Willy than free him.
I also remember the revelations about the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia ... and about some faulty observations regarding glacier melt that made their way into an UN report, much to the embarrassment of that august body.
I also remember the cool reception to the Climate Change Cult's agenda in Copenhagen, by people who would have to live with its implementation ... as opposed to those making a living off its promotion. I also remember to follow the money ... to Franklin Raines, to Al Gore, to GE ... to those who would also make a living off its implementation.
And finally, I remember from my high-school geometry class that if even ONE exception to a theorem is found, it is INVALID.
The Climate Change Cult is just another manifestation of the Watermelon Left ... green on the outside, red on the inside ... who in turn are being "picked" by the purveyors (non-profit and for profit) of this snake oil.
Appeals to authority mean NOTHING (see my reference to Galileo, above) ... and there isn't enough PROOF of human-induced climate change to justify turning the economy upside down for that reason alone, so what is driving this is the "synergy" between it and the Re-, er, Progressive agenda.
Ironically, by trashing the economy, you may end up, on balance, doing more harm to the environment ... because when people start to wonder where they're next meal is coming from, they're more likely to fillet Willy than free him.
11.10.2010 | 10:13pm
Margaret says:
Ritchie, I think you will find that the IPCC climate scientists ARE modern-day Galileos, and history will show that Big Oil and an uninformed media played the part of the (back then) bullying Catholic Church. Understandings of climate science in fact appear to be following the same pattern that understanding of the science of Copernicus and Galileo followed -- initially met with skepticism, but eventually accepted as proof became incontrovertible.
The East Anglia email "controversy" has been shown to be meaningless and does not affect the state of the art science.
I don't know if you intend to suggest that we should ignore the science and fail to look into adaptations? The claim that taking care of the planet will ruin the economy is bogus. There are people on this planet ingenious enough to make responsible changes to protect us all environmentally AND to make doing so economically viable. We're still working our way along this path. The longer we delay addressing global warming, the more it's going to cost us (in every way!).
The East Anglia email "controversy" has been shown to be meaningless and does not affect the state of the art science.
I don't know if you intend to suggest that we should ignore the science and fail to look into adaptations? The claim that taking care of the planet will ruin the economy is bogus. There are people on this planet ingenious enough to make responsible changes to protect us all environmentally AND to make doing so economically viable. We're still working our way along this path. The longer we delay addressing global warming, the more it's going to cost us (in every way!).
11.11.2010 | 10:10am
rosmerta says:
Margaret et al., check out the Global Warming Petition Project. Over 31,000 American scientists have signed so far, signifying agreement that there is no sound scientific basis for the concept of anthropogenic global warming.
11.12.2010 | 12:21am
Ritchie The Riveter says:
Margaret ... phuleeze. Don't insult my intelligence.
Y'all almost permanently embedded human-induced climate change into the conventional wisdom ... my grandkids have been taught about it in their schools as accepted fact ... a never-ending number of media presentations made it their underlying assumption.
Conversely, those who questioned the conventional wisdom were labeled as ignorant, uninformed "deniers" with nefarious ulterior motives (usually involving money, as you try to project re: Big Oil).
But the scandal at East Anglia is anything but meaningless ... for it exposes the compromised analysis that underlies the "hockey stick" model and other "evidence" of human-induced climate change. Remember what I said about even ONE exception to a theorem renders it invalid?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
The ONLY way this got as far as it did, is because it exhibited synergy with the profit-phobic, soft, cuddly, fascism of the Progressive Left ... another justification for a few Best and Brightest to dictate our choices "for our own good".
I agree that taking care of the planet does not have to bankrupt the economy ... problem is, "taking care of the planet" is used the same way as "it's for the children" to justify actions that have little or no effect on the planet ... but are the vehicles for further power grabs by the Progressive Left to jam their morality down our throats.
A morality that is willing to impoverish people over parts-per-billion probabilities ... a morality that is based upon a cult belief in the omniscience of those who went to the "right" schools and think the "right" way as determined by simplistic litmus tests that attempt to prove the presence of "free-thinking" attitudes and "open minds" through lock-step conformity with Progessive ideology.
BTW, your heroes are now cutting their losses ... like any cult leader, they are cutting and running when the truth comes out.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/553236/201011091851/The-Crash-Of-The-Climate-Exchange.aspx
So much for those who seek to "save the planet" being more trustworthy and noble than us "deniers" ...
Y'all almost permanently embedded human-induced climate change into the conventional wisdom ... my grandkids have been taught about it in their schools as accepted fact ... a never-ending number of media presentations made it their underlying assumption.
Conversely, those who questioned the conventional wisdom were labeled as ignorant, uninformed "deniers" with nefarious ulterior motives (usually involving money, as you try to project re: Big Oil).
But the scandal at East Anglia is anything but meaningless ... for it exposes the compromised analysis that underlies the "hockey stick" model and other "evidence" of human-induced climate change. Remember what I said about even ONE exception to a theorem renders it invalid?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
The ONLY way this got as far as it did, is because it exhibited synergy with the profit-phobic, soft, cuddly, fascism of the Progressive Left ... another justification for a few Best and Brightest to dictate our choices "for our own good".
I agree that taking care of the planet does not have to bankrupt the economy ... problem is, "taking care of the planet" is used the same way as "it's for the children" to justify actions that have little or no effect on the planet ... but are the vehicles for further power grabs by the Progressive Left to jam their morality down our throats.
A morality that is willing to impoverish people over parts-per-billion probabilities ... a morality that is based upon a cult belief in the omniscience of those who went to the "right" schools and think the "right" way as determined by simplistic litmus tests that attempt to prove the presence of "free-thinking" attitudes and "open minds" through lock-step conformity with Progessive ideology.
BTW, your heroes are now cutting their losses ... like any cult leader, they are cutting and running when the truth comes out.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/553236/201011091851/The-Crash-Of-The-Climate-Exchange.aspx
So much for those who seek to "save the planet" being more trustworthy and noble than us "deniers" ...
11.12.2010 | 10:54am
Margaret says:
Rosmerta, that petition was a joke. Anyone could sign, scientist or not. Signatories include several companies, people who signed several times, the Spice girls, and people whose identities could not be traced.
Ritchie, I suggest you go to scientific journals rather than the tabloids for your information. The research is now beyond the point of whether or not human-caused global warming is occurring and instead it's about refining the process to determine rate and effects of the changes. You won't find many qualified people under the age of 55 who aren't on board with this. There are still a few scientists, mostly older people, who haven't kept themselves current and who still believe otherwise, but they're now outside the mainstream.
Ritchie, I suggest you go to scientific journals rather than the tabloids for your information. The research is now beyond the point of whether or not human-caused global warming is occurring and instead it's about refining the process to determine rate and effects of the changes. You won't find many qualified people under the age of 55 who aren't on board with this. There are still a few scientists, mostly older people, who haven't kept themselves current and who still believe otherwise, but they're now outside the mainstream.
11.13.2010 | 12:02pm
Ritchie The Riveter says:
Margaret, I suggest you stop the appeals to authority ... and have a little more respect for your (and my) elders.
Consider that the older scientists are also the ones who remember all the dire predictions over man-made global COOLING ... and also the predictions of worldwide famine due to limits on what the earth could support ... in their younger days; predictions that were WRONG, no matter the "science" that supported them.
Today, it's even worse ... we now have evidence that many of the scientists at the heart of human-induced global warming advocacy were working to fit the data to their conclusions, not the other way around.
And as I said, their political/economic allies are now cutting their losses and scaling back their pursuit of the socio-economic changes they once considered "urgent".
Show me CONCLUSIVE, bottom-line proof that human-induced global warming exists ... much less is a threat to our existence ... before you expect me to support policies that pose a clear threat to my grandaughters' economic future.
And question your own support for them, as well ... see if, deep down, you're saying, "even if they're wrong about the science, it's still the right thing to do ... so let's keep pushing the science".
Consider that the older scientists are also the ones who remember all the dire predictions over man-made global COOLING ... and also the predictions of worldwide famine due to limits on what the earth could support ... in their younger days; predictions that were WRONG, no matter the "science" that supported them.
Today, it's even worse ... we now have evidence that many of the scientists at the heart of human-induced global warming advocacy were working to fit the data to their conclusions, not the other way around.
And as I said, their political/economic allies are now cutting their losses and scaling back their pursuit of the socio-economic changes they once considered "urgent".
Show me CONCLUSIVE, bottom-line proof that human-induced global warming exists ... much less is a threat to our existence ... before you expect me to support policies that pose a clear threat to my grandaughters' economic future.
And question your own support for them, as well ... see if, deep down, you're saying, "even if they're wrong about the science, it's still the right thing to do ... so let's keep pushing the science".
11.14.2010 | 1:31am
Margaret says:
Ritchey, the next IPCC report will take out all conditional language. No longer will the contributors be speaking of x% probability with confidence interval, y. The research is only moving toward greater certainty as the science grows. Not appeal to authority? We're not talking about opinions anymore; we're talking about hard science. Why reject the authority of the best experts in the field? And bear in mind, you invoked the authority of a British tabloid (The Telegraph,) so please don't object when I refer you to the peer-reviewed literature. You might want to question your own need to believe in conspiracy theories, rather than mine to uphold state of the art science.
11.14.2010 | 7:50pm
Ritchie The Riveter says:
I don't consider the Climate Change Cult a conspiracy ... I consider it the delusion of people trying to make the data fit their idealistic preconceptions and their profit-phobia, sinking into intellectual dishonesty in order to do so ... and TOTALLY diminishing or ignoring the negative side effects of implementing policy based on junk science.
Wasn't a lot of what the East Anglia CRU doing also peer-reviewed? These days peer review, when it is controlled by those with an agenda, does not necessarily guarantee sound science.
I invoked the reporting of an alternative viewpoint to yours ... a viewpoint you wish to dismiss in the name of "certainty" that reasonable people -- as opposed to those whose careers are invested in your agenda -- do not see as "certain" to the degree necessary to justify the societal costs of the proposed "solutions".
I also invoked the reporting of how those who would profit (GREATLY!) off this are now turning away from implementing the economic system that would facilitate the changes you want.
Guess they aren't so "certain", either.
It's not enough to satisfy peer review -- you have to satisfy intellectually-honest, ordinary citizens like myself, that AGW is conclusively proven ... and not a Trojan Horse for the imposition of Re-, er, Progressive socio-economic principles that will infringe upon our liberty and pursuit of happiness ... before we will drop our opposition.
Wasn't a lot of what the East Anglia CRU doing also peer-reviewed? These days peer review, when it is controlled by those with an agenda, does not necessarily guarantee sound science.
I invoked the reporting of an alternative viewpoint to yours ... a viewpoint you wish to dismiss in the name of "certainty" that reasonable people -- as opposed to those whose careers are invested in your agenda -- do not see as "certain" to the degree necessary to justify the societal costs of the proposed "solutions".
I also invoked the reporting of how those who would profit (GREATLY!) off this are now turning away from implementing the economic system that would facilitate the changes you want.
Guess they aren't so "certain", either.
It's not enough to satisfy peer review -- you have to satisfy intellectually-honest, ordinary citizens like myself, that AGW is conclusively proven ... and not a Trojan Horse for the imposition of Re-, er, Progressive socio-economic principles that will infringe upon our liberty and pursuit of happiness ... before we will drop our opposition.
11.14.2010 | 8:23pm
Margaret says:
Ritchey, the East Anglia email "scandal" was a manufactured hullabaloo. There are several proxy studies that prove that prove the accuracy of the hockey-stick graph.
Here are a few web sites that might interest you:
http://www.truth-out.org/the-real-climategate-why-ipcc-stands-stronger-than-ever-part-265035
http://www.realclimate.org/
http://climateprogress.org/
You can find a list of academic journals dealing with climate science here:
http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/journals.html
Here's a list of some of the organizations that support climate change:
http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm
If you want to think ALL these people are wrong, fine. You can even believe the earth is flat if you like.
Here are a few web sites that might interest you:
http://www.truth-out.org/the-real-climategate-why-ipcc-stands-stronger-than-ever-part-265035
http://www.realclimate.org/
http://climateprogress.org/
You can find a list of academic journals dealing with climate science here:
http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/journals.html
Here's a list of some of the organizations that support climate change:
http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm
If you want to think ALL these people are wrong, fine. You can even believe the earth is flat if you like.
