The Goddess writes: Surely you all don't believe in this silliness...do you?

Surely, you're not going to ask us if we believe that silliness, are you?

If you have 100 Christians in the room, you're apt to find 100 different sets of beliefs. I never believed my donations were to buy my way out of hell, since I don't believe in it. My donations were intended to help pay the salaries and the upkeep of the church itself.

I'd have an easier time answering these questions if you didn't feel the need to broadbrush every believer. When you were a practicing Jew, did you believe your donations were to keep you out of hell, or wherever it is that the naughty Jews go?

In all fairnes to the pope, until capitalism was fettered with things like child labor laws, saftey stanndards, and regulations for the disposale of toxic chemicals it was cause some serious problems.

His comments about drugs and alcohol were amusing though given that wealthy people use them just as often as the poor.

> In all fairnes to the pope

Why bother? To the extent that his Sunday plate is filled with money that isn't from corrupt dictators, it comes from capitalists. This is inexcusable chatter from a particularly weak Pope, and it's great to see that Amy was offended.

And that's the point exactly, that capitalism has feedback measures that allow things (labor, environment) to improve. Communism was a shitbath all the way. We're sorry he's so dim as to think they're sides to a coin, but it would probably be better if he'd just shut up.

Can anyone who's ever learned anything about Communist states believe that alcohol isn't a problem there? I'm reading the childhood memoir of Cathy Young (of Reason magazine). The Soviet Union was all about "deceptive illusions of happiness."

When you were a practicing Jew, did you believe your donations were to keep you out of hell, or wherever it is that the naughty Jews go?

Jews don't have a concept of heaven or hell, and from the time I was about eight, best I can remember, I felt that the god thing was bullshit. My rationality has been one of the best things in my life. To say I was a "practicing Jew," my parents raised me as Jewish and I went to temple when I was under their roof. It provided me with good lessons on morality and with friends through temple, which was good, since Christianity was behind my not having friends in the neighborhood I lived in. We were "the Jews," our house was egged and toiletpapered, and anti-Jewish epithets were written in shaving cream on our garage door. And I was told I killed Jesus, and called dirty Jew, and encountered anti-Semitic bullying through junior high. God belief is a nasty, divisive thing. And the Jews are guilty of the divisiveness, too, looking down on non-Jews and calling them "goys."

About Judaism and heaven and hell -- the idea is that you're supposed to make a difference now. I liked that -- and some other things about Judaism. The highest form of "righteousness," "tzedakah," is helping somebody help themselves. Some translate it as "charity," but I believe that's incorrect. Here are the levels of tzedakah (which is decidedly not about buying one's way into heaven).

1. Giving begrudgingly
2. Giving less that you should, but giving it cheerfully.
3. Giving after being asked
4. Giving before being asked
5. Giving when you do not know the recipient's identity, but the recipient knows your identity
6. Giving when you know the recipient's identity, but the recipient doesn't know your identity
7. Giving when neither party knows the other's identity
8. Enabling the recipient to become self-reliant

Jews have a "day of atonement" every year, but there isn't this Santa-like concept of the good getting into heaven and the bad burning, or the utterly ridiculous notion that babies are born as sinners because their parents were sinners for having sex. I mean, come on! A newborn baby has a black little soul because mommy and daddy fucked?

And then the notion of god. I've never been one to believe stuff there was no evidence for. I got my only non A (and I don't think I got many Bs) in American lit in 10th grade (I got a C-plus) because I kept questioning the symbolism and the meanings everybody takes for granted. And you know what? Now that I'm older and I know novelists (who are sometimes amazed at what reviewers take out of their books) I think it's likely I was probably right.

Jews don't have a collection plate. The temple gets stuff built through ego. Rich people pay for things and they get a plaque. There's a plaque on fucking everything at the temple I used to go to, down to the benches.

And regarding criticizing Christians, I'm going to post about a book Lena showed me (and I got recently) that echoes what Daniel Dennett said about religion. People see it as prejudice to question religious belief, and Dennett said we should be as dispassionate in how we look at it as we are about animal husbandry. I'm questioning a belief system that's obviously silly -- the belief, without evidence, in god -- which is no more offensive than a Republican questioning the beliefs of a Democrat. People just get very upset when you show them their irrationality, which they don't look at, and don't like to look at, because it tells them they've been doing something very silly: Spending Sundays in church or devoting a good part of their lives to praying to a man who isn't there, and perhaps even to hating people who don't pray to exactly the same man who isn't there.

All religions are guilty of divisiveness. Its the core of their teachings derived from In Group Morality. The Pope’s latest actions is just another example of when Christians misbehave in public.

Also, His Holiness must have had a senior moment. He seems to forget what built the Vatican and St. Peters.... the sale and exchange of Indulgences. A primitive version of capitalism, where the buyer believed he or she was getting a 'free pass' from past sins in exchange financing certain public Church projects.

Presently, the Church cannot compete with real businesses that actually offer realistic goods and services to their customers.

Rock on forever, Amy - for this post (and Crid's comment was gorgeous too.)

(Not even going to add a carping little dig about the overkill of cursing the ovaries of cute dog walkers who happen to stray into your target zone. I now consider that post completely forgotten! Never read it!)

I've always held the theory that religion is for people who are afraid of going to "hell", and spirituality is for people who have already been there. But that's subject to change as well. YMMV

His Holiness seemed to learn one thing well during his brief stint in the Hitler Youth: The Gestapo'd tactic of using fear and intimidation to ensure obedience.

People see it as prejudice to question religious belief...

Hitchens mentions this tactic found among Muslim activist groups in the West during his Toronto Free Speech debate. Trying to equate criticism of Islam to a form of racial prejudice and their public appeal of legal protection under hate crime laws.

"or the utterly ridiculous notion that babies are born as sinners because their parents were sinners for having sex"

Uh, I can only speak for my religion (the one with the Pope who feels the need to provide equal time to "flaws" of Catholicism if he's going to discuss Marxism, sigh), but sex has nothing to do with the belief that babies need to be baptized. It's related to original sin - Adam sinned, and thus we are all born affected by that sin, and have to be baptized to get into heaven.

And yes, I know that this is not exactly a shining pillar of rationality compared to the sex idea, but I did want to clear the Church from the notion that it thinks marital sex is somehow sinful. You are allowed to have SOME fun under doctrine.

Must say, though, that I can't really disagree with his characterization of Marxism and the effects that it's had on the world.

"His Holiness seemed to learn one thing well during his brief stint in the Hitler Youth: The Gestapo'd tactic of using fear and intimidation to ensure obedience."

Really? So you mean he brought shock troops and threatened to throw people into concentration camps if they didn't follow his words? No? Then seems to me he's just speaking his mind on behalf of a long-standing institution with questionable direct political power, sort of like the Queen of England. If you dislike Catholicism, fine, but can we please spare the Nazi references until we find a guy with a mustache who's roundiing people up in an attempt at genocide? Leaders, religious or otherwise, were speaking their minds long before Hitler came along, and Pope John Paul II, who fought against the Nazis in WWII, gave his opinion just as often (if not more) than the current Pope.

Yes, Marion, the Nazi reference was a cheap tactic. It was mandatory for all non Jewish Austrian boys to join the Hitler Youth after the Anschluss of 1938. Joe Ratzinger joined the Hitler Youth on his 14th birthday in 1941. Membership was legally mandatory after December, 1939. So he had no choice in the matter. These particular Nazi references is just another symptom of using the proper contemporary attitude over the reality of certain past situations.

This discourse shows me how humans are unique among animals: our capacity for denial and manipulation. Other animals respond to their environments, and think, but generally don't have agendas. A dog's "honesty" makes it a refreshing companion.

Jews absolutely do have a concept of reward and punishment in the afterlife, as well as in the here-and-now. It's a basic tenet of Judaism, included in Maimonides's 13 fundamentals. Not to discount the idea that you're supposed to make a difference in this world - that's certainly an important part of what we believe - but the other is true as well.

I guess I better get a more original name.
I haven't posted for a couple weeks, but have been reading various threads. I hope jon hasn't been blemishing my good - albeit common name...

Hmmm maybe
- newjonny

Did the Pope recommend an alternative economic system to the two he found wanting?

Would I be off-base in guessing that the economic system that would work best for him would involve funneling huge sums of money to the Church?

As far as the afterlife in Judaism goes, here's a link:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/afterlife.html

Umm, not even one post exploring how Marxism, and unfettered Capitalism, each in their pure forms, are incomplete expressions of human dignity? But I'm being silly, just scream "The Church Sux!" Why bother reading, just throw mud.

Probably a better critique would be how capitalism leads to "drugs, alcohol and deceptive illusions of happiness". I thought these were the deceptive consequence of rock 'n roll. Might want to consider how Adam Smith finds capitalism inherently moralizing, while Benedict finds how this beast, unfettered capiatlism, which is rarer than any unicorn, a corrupting influence.

Probably needs to throw a sop to the socialists to mention socialism and capitalism in the same sentence.

I give love advice and read Hayek just for fun. If you're an economist, have at it, baby!

Marion and Joe

You both seem to think that Nazi was the evil force, which should not be associated with His Holiness. Then, Marxism, which the evil Nazi tried to destroy during World War II, has to be the good for the human kind. Or was it a war between the two evils? Wait, but America, capitalist, made an alliance with Marxist to fight against the Nazi. Then we all must be the evils.

I don't believe there is right or wrong in the world. There is just a winner or loser. And the winner writes the history as the loser is already dead.

> not even one post exploring
> how Marxism, and unfettered
> Capitalism, each in their
> pure forms, are incomplete
> expressions of human dignity?

Let's nitpick!

First, nobody said "unfettered." I don't know why you'd need to raise the stakes like that. Capitalism is always "fettered"... There's always courts and kings and popes and guilds trying to scratch off a piece as an economy goes rolling by. Besides, saying "unfettered" makes "pure forms" redundant.

Secondly, who said this was about "[c]omplete expressions of human dignity?" Even Ratzinger wouldn't have the balls to make that claim for Catholicism nowadays.

> Why bother reading,
> just throw mud.

If the pope didn't give thought to the fora in which he'd be summarized, then he's a fool indeed. I never followed the CNN links about his speech because there's no context by which the passage cited could be made sensible. Capitalism is so obviously superior to other economic structures --and so much more attentive to "human dignity"-- that it's observance deserves the same moral clarity as germ theory. If you're going to perform surgery, you better wash your hands. The patient may die anyway, but at least you did the right thing. Same with economics: If you're going to try to reliably feed, clothe and enoble a national population, you better be a capitalist.

Presumably Ratzinger thought he was giving an appearance of evenhandedness for some audience. I can't imagine who he thought that audience would be, or why the multitudes in his flock clearly suffering due to confusion on this matter should be expected to wait while he sorts it out.

PS- The CIA factbook describes the Holy See's financial scheme as a "noncommercial economy." So perhaps things are extra confusing in Vatican City.

"You both seem to think that Nazi was the evil force, which should not be associated with His Holiness. Then, Marxism, which the evil Nazi tried to destroy during World War II, has to be the good for the human kind. Or was it a war between the two evils?"

War between two evils. There, that was easy, wasn't it? And I think the idea that Nazism was an evil force is pretty widely accepted by everyone who's not a skinhead, batsh*t crazy, or both.

And, while I personally loathe Marxism and think that Stalin gets way too much of a pass for killing 20 million people, given that he was not trying to conquer all of Europe during WWII, I can see why we allied with him. Much as I dislike Marxism, it can be practiced without the genocide element, whereas the only thing that distinguishes Nazism from garden-variety fascism is, y'know, the whole let's-wipe-out-the-Jews thing.

"Presumably Ratzinger thought he was giving an appearance of evenhandedness for some audience."

He was speaking in Brazil; globalization is not necessarily popular in Latin America. So I'd say he was definitely tailoring his talk to his audience.

Chang,

Nazism isn't evil. People doing bad things in the name of Nazism is evil. Same goes for Marxism, capitalism or any other belief system.

I was attacking Jon's comment that having a proper attitude towards a person's past does not equate a valid argument in criticizing the Pope's current views.

I don't believe there is right or wrong in the world.

Regarding socialism, a system which presumes that people will work really hard, not for their own benefit, but for that of others, is antithetical to human nature.

That said, perhaps, in the spirit of ridiculous relativism, you'd rather not call socialism "wrong." How about we just call it idiotic?

> he was definitely tailoring
> his talk to his audience

To what effect? To whose benefit?

I think I hate this pope.

None of them have been good for much.

> I don't believe there is right
> or wrong in the world. There
> is just a winner or loser.

Can we make fun of you?

"I think the idea that Nazism was an evil force is pretty widely accepted by everyone who's not a skinhead, batsh*t crazy, or both."

Once, most of the people on the earth thought that the earth is flat. That does not make it right just because it is widely accepted. If you read the biography of Napoleon and Hitler, you will not see much difference between the two men. They both are ruthless killers and try to achieve the prosperity of France and Germany respectively by killing others.

What I cannot tolerate is the hypocrisy of capitalist, who used the atomic bomb against civilian target and attempted to make the rest of world as their slave nations. Hiter's fault seems to be minor compared to that. All of those slave nations fought against the capitalist with AK 47 and eventually achieved the independence.

Crid wrote re. chang:

Can we make fun of you?

chang then wrote:

What I cannot tolerate is the hypocrisy of capitalist, who used the atomic bomb against civilian target and attempted to make the rest of world as their slave nations. Hiter's fault seems to be minor compared to that. All of those slave nations fought against the capitalist with AK 47 and eventually achieved the independence.

Clearly, the answer is yes!

Yep, the country who was on the receiving end of our atomic bombs in WWII had clean hands and hadn't done anything to deserve that. Then we enslaved them and did nothing to help get their country on track, exploiting mercilessly (and the Germans, too!), and many years after that, they threw off the yoke of capitalist oppression using Kalashnikovs and became free and prosperous!

Hi Chang! Now here's something you'll really like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znRrGfMc700

Chang, I think I'm with you.

The genocide committed under the direction of Hitler was horrendous. But in my opinion, it was no more horrendous than all the other genocides that were committed during WWII, before it and after it. Nazism was not inherently evil and I still don't believe that the Nazis were evil - only those who committed murder and believe that what they were doing was "okay." And again, they are no more or less evil than those involved in the Rape of Nanjing, the Purges under Stalin or what is happening RIGHT NOW in Dafur.

That said, let's hit on Marxism and the concept of "good and bad." As it stands in our world today socialism exists and even so there are motivational issues which plague socialist governments' unemployment benefit systems (and more). I believe this is what Amy mentioned before - that with working "for the greater good" and having wealth totally redistributed that people are less motivated given that money is the pure motivator. I agree. For now.

Accordingly, as socialist governments and ideals spread and become more widely accepted (which is inevitable in Marxist literature. Debatable) there will be a change in sentiment. There will be a natural evolution of sorts - of higher thought and objectivity towards material things. People would be motivated by achieving a peaceful society where no one is in need. Personally, I like driving a nice car and expensive perfume. Clearly, mankind is not at a stage where materialism is melting away. And, uh, according to him there's also an uprising of the economically oppressed proletariat. Minor details, people, minor details.

The ultimate goal would be the dissolution of government control as people become self-directed and motivated to work at their maximum level of ability and in return gain only what they need to live. This would be the communist stage. In our world this seems crazy - why go to school for years and learn how to operate on brains when you'll get the same reimbursement for planting flowers in the islands in the middle of the roads around town? Well, the idea is that, eventually, people simply will stop thinking this way.

Amy, I don't think it's against human nature to achieve such a state. But I do feel it would take centuries. While I understand fully that we're still animals with instincts and all that good stuff, we're capable of high levels of thinking. It's only reasonable to assume that our thinking will continue to evolve. I don't put it past the human race to put material longings behind us.

So - why look at capitalism and socialism as "good or bad?" While I find much fault in socialism, it is only to be expected that we do in this day and age. In theory, such negative judgments towards socialism will disappear many (many, many, many, many) years down the line. I think it's more important to look at it as a natural evolution that may be inevitable. Instead of fearing something and deciding we must fight it let's examine what is really happening.**

**By the pure fact that "communism" was implemented by the government in Russia (and other places) it goes completely against the natural evolution which Marx theorized. Fighting Russian "communism" was necessary as it was an impending doom brought against the world by a crazy totalitarian dictator.

On a final note, my grandfather fought for Germany during WWII and was therefore a Nazi. Was he evil? Absoufuckinglutely not. But I am sure many people would say he is - including Margaret Gilbert, a social philosopher whose ideas about collective guilt I loathe completely.

Chang,

I have no problem or losing any sleep over the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August, 1945. Also, I would include any past historical grievances, because they are irrelevant in today's world.

Even my current field of research could be used as a potential weapon of the future. If one could enhance a human's immune system through a form of gene therapy. One could reverse the process in theory. Disguise it as a vitamin supplement or any over the counter medication within a target city. During flu season, watch the people drop like flies.

Now would I work on a project that would develop said weapon? Probably. Only if it was used as a controlled experiment in the process of finding effective alternatives to combat a genetically engineered weapon that would depreciate a person's natural immune system.

So I had my fair share of classes on bioethics, general ethics and moral philosophy. Would you like a lecture on the AIDs Cure Dilemma too???

> Was he evil?
> Absoufuckinglutely not.

Are you sorry he lost?

The Talmud discusses the afterlife often and at length. Maimonides named it a tenet of Jewish faith. These are both far greater authorities on Jewish beliefs than Joseph Telushkin.

"In theory, such negative judgments towards socialism will disappear many (many, many, many, many) years down the line. I think it's more important to look at it as a natural evolution that may be inevitable."

Gretchen, how will it become inevitable? Details?

Gretchen,
Which of the genocides you mentioned were perpetrated by modern democratic governments?

As far as the discussion of evolution toward communism fantasized by Marx, is there any evidence anywhere that this is happening at all? As far as I can tell, the exact opposite is occurring - formerly rigidly controlled economies such as China and India are rushing to embrace capitalism, and people's lives are being improved by it. Instead of some great opposition of classes, the proletariat are busting their butts to become the bourgeoisie.

Justin - I wasn't supporting Marxism, I was simply pointing out what it actually was. I do support the fact that sometimes things change and that it is the result of our attitude changing as well - as opposed to our attitudes being forced to change. I agree that it seems that quite the opposite of what Marx theorized is happening - the guy came up with this shit a long time ago. Sweden nearly imploded when the gov spending rate exceeded the taxation rate - and there was little left the people could give. Germany and France face overwhelming unemployment (you can earn more living off gov bennies than if you work at min wage) and increasing tax freedoms to encourage business growth. The people seem to be content with forking over most of their pay checks but alas demand more efficiency from their enormous governments.

Futher, Justin, you prove my point: "Which of the genocides you mentioned were perpetrated by modern democratic governments?"

Not sure what your point is about "modern democratic government" b/c the 3rd Reich wasn't modern nor democratic. It was a fascist dictatorship which came into power by questionable means - perhaps there was popular support but it was under conditions never before known to Germans of the time. And Hitler did not come to power by proposing "The Holocaust." Furthermore, my point is, and always will be, that a genocide is as equally deplorable no matter who committed it. End of story. The fact that people love to differentiate the holocaust to give it more potency is really sad to me.

Joe - not sure if it actually is inevitable. Again, I was just outlining the ideas behind Marx so we could discuss it more subjectively. I don't know if it's inevitable and I honestly don't give a rat's ass because if it were to happen it would be generations from now. I'm concerned with our country's increasing budget problems and how it will affect us in our lifetime and in our children's lifetime.

Crid - My grandfather killed Russians on the eastern front until he was eventually captured by Americans. Sorry he lost? Eh, he came to the U.S and made great things of himself. It was a war, Crid.

He was orphaned at 8 years old and put into foster care. He joined the army as soon as he was old enough because it was better than the slave labor he was experiencing on the farms whilst in foster care and he had little education or skill at that time to do much. He didn't touch any Jews so I'm pretty sick and tired of hearing that I'm guilty for the atrocities committed against them.

There are no better losers on this planet than the Germans. They feel more guilt today for things that the current generation never saw. But I'm glad you like to try and insult people personally because I guess that's more important than having an actual discussion. I wouldn't expect anything else from you.

"I think it's more important to look at (socialism) as a natural evolution that may be inevitable."

So, how hard will you be working when you're working for the benefit of your lazy neighbor and not just for yourself?

> Sorry he lost? Eh,
> he came to the U.S
> and made great things
> of himself. It was a
> war....

Right, but what I'm asking is, ....

> it was better than the
> slave labor he was
> experiencing

Better for whom?

> There are no better losers
> on this planet than the
> Germans.

Point taken... But the war went on for seven or eight years, killed millions, scorched one continent and scarred several. It'd be silly to say 'good losers' as if they'd folded their hand at first ante.

> He didn't touch any Jews

French, British, Polish and Russian historians won't let you argue that only Jews suffered. Meanwhile, of all the world's nations that had embraced factory production methods, the Germans were the ones most eager to apply modern industrial technique to killing. Some of us still haven't figured out why, and so we still talk about it.

> you like to try and
> insult people
> personally

When people offer their own (family) personalities as examples, it's game on, right?

> more important than
> having an actual
> discussion.

After reading that "I don't believe there is right or wrong in the world" and "Nazism was not inherently evil and I still don't believe that the Nazis were evil," it felt like the "actual discussion" was getting bogged down, and needed a little percussive clarity.

Always liked the name Gretchen, though.

Amy, I know you think that's a "bingo" rebuttal to the quote but it's not. Why?

Because I made it clear that I agree socialism is inherently plagued by the fact it eradicates financial motivations. I hate lazy moochers more than anything, esp. when I pay my self employment tax. I don't work because it's fun. I work b/c I like my lucite Bvlgari glasses and would like to NOT work someday in the future and maybe pick up the flute again.

I was simply attempting to present the fact that our ideals may change over time. As it stands I sure as hell ain't supporting my lazy neighbor. But who knows what could happen far into the future as far as our general attitudes towards material things and our motivators. And who knows how the "lazy people" will be dealt with.

Always liked the name Gretchen, though.

I love when you put a positive spin on things.

"When people offer their own (family) personalities as examples, it's game on, right?"

Touche, Crid. My "Opa" is dying at the moment so I'm defensively touchy - and I honestly don't believe it's possible to place collective responsibility on all Germans for the holocaust.

"Some of us still haven't figured out why..."
Efficiency and perfectionism - yes in the most disgusting application ever seen. Just can't get over placing more value on a life lost in the holocaust than one lost in Russia.

Quick/cheap theory: Despots had been killing and starving their agrarian peasants as a function of their nationalist political ambition, Stalin-style, since the dawn of time. Joseph was better at it than anyone ever, but it's not a new game. Hitler was using it against a particular minority by brewing a whole new sort of ferocity in a large population and (again) applying it with modern tech.

A human life is a human life. Many people are killed in war, but usually not with any great grudge against them. The difference was (with the Jews, the homos, and the gypsies, for example) that the Nazis methodically went about wiping them out. Nobody was putting the French or the Russians in ovens. Some, even many, got killed. And if you're among the dead, I guess the reason doesn't much matter. But, it says something about your killer or killers, and it's not just "war is hell."

While I understand the theory you are trying to develop, its application is not accurate.

Just a quick blurb on the Rape of Nanking. I'm sure that you'd be able to agree that there was a "new sort of ferocity" and a "methodical" attempt to wipe out the Chinese soldiers hiding among civilians but ended up killing known non-soldiers including women and children. It was a specific massacre of a particular group of people simply because of their nationality. It was gross. And many Japanese deny it ever happened - I'm not saying "question the validity of the numbers" I'm saying they outright deny the massacre occurred.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre

or better yet read the book
http://www.irischang.net/

Ok I've beaten the dead horse and then some, give us something good again tomorrow, Amy. Night everyone.

Nanking monstrous, but it wasn't the holocaust. I don't understand these arguments, and note that they were begun by Chang, whose tone gives an impression of youth. Hitler killed Jews in ovens; over the weekend, I was double parked for an hour. These crimes don't tell much about each other, and knowing they happened on the same planet doesn't tell us much about the universality. or generality, of evil. The fact that young people can always point to yet another series of bad events doesn't mean that an earlier one has no distinctive lessons to teach.

My "Opa" is dying at the moment

Which city did he live in? I wonder if he was one of those who used to terrrorize my Opa and Oma and their family in the streets.

"Some of us still haven't figured out why, and so we still talk about it."

People who cannot understand the actual reasons behind the systematic use of violence during the Holocaust are still stuck in the 20th Century. This same group of people probably still cling to the false notion of the ghost in the machinery or that man is some form of high ideal outside the laws of nature.

I recommend looking for a used VHS copy of the German version of the Wannsee Conference (1985), not the English-HBO version 'Conspiracy' with Kenneth Branagh. Notice how it reminds you of another boring office meeting. But instead of increasing sales.... you need to find a way of increasing the killing efficiency of a group of people that were deemed as undesirables by a political party. Watch the German actor who played Heydrich talk one moment on a proper way of emptying the various Jewish ghettos and then openly flirting with the female secretary taking the official notes of the meeting. Or during the bathroom break, some Party underlings gossiping in the restrooms on Heydrich's possible Jewish past and petty grudges with their rivals. This is a real horror movie with no violence. A movie on a simple office meeting.

The movie isn't an indictment on Germany, but on humanity. You can imagine Young Turks attending the meeting and discussing the efficient means of wiping out Armenian and Greek Christians. Hussein's underlings in discussing on how to effectively gas the Kurds. How about Rwandan Hutus planning the deaths of Tutsis and moderate Hutus? Or any organized group of individuals planning a systematic method of wiping out a group of people.

Here are the actual minutes recorded from the meeting:

http://prorev.com/wannsee.htm

Then you can understand humanity.

Speaking of the Wannsee Conference, I was in Berlin for an evolution conference, and we went on a boat past where it was held. How serenely beautiful a place it was vis a vis what was planned there really creeped me out.

Crid,

"ep, the country who was on the receiving end of our atomic bombs in WWII had clean hands and hadn't done anything to deserve that. Then we enslaved them and did nothing to help get their country on track, exploiting mercilessly (and the Germans, too!), and many years after that, they threw off the yoke of capitalist oppression using Kalashnikovs and became free and prosperous!"

The Japanese attacked the US military targets, which should be on guard 24/7 with or without warning. Do you think that legitimate military maneuver justifies the atomic attacks on civilian population without descrimination? Twice!!!! And capitalists have the nerve to criticize what the Hitler did. The crimes are committed by all sides. The ridiculous part is that only losers got tried for their crimes against humanity.

The capitalists helped or exploited the rest of the world for their best interests. It is all about saving its own interests. Germans and Japanese got prosperous with our involvement but that is all simply by products.

My "Opa" is dying at the moment so I'm defensively touchy

Which is probably why it's a dreadful time right now for you to try to honor his long life through argument in this way.

kishke, he's from Alzey. Wonder if he did? I had family die in Nazi concentration camps as well as Russian ones. My aunt was raped by a Polish solider. Her husband returned to his wife, son and new "daughter" - the result of the rape. Should I hate Russians, the Polish and myself, for these things? We could play this game forever. The only terrorizing that my grandfather mentioned was the fact that eastern "Europe" and Russia had no indoor plumbing.

Is that really all you have to add to this conversation? I'm glad to inform you that he's bleeding internally and totally senile. He will be dead shortly, and you can celebrate the death of an evil Nazi! Woot!

I'm sure the German government has your hand out check waiting if the chip on your shoulder is really that big.

Jesus Christ. Moving on.

Chang,

You never answered Crid's question. Can we make fun of you?

I ask the question again, because you are not living up to your own belief system of:

"I don't believe there is right or wrong in the world."

Here you are trying to create a value judgment on the evils of capitalists in a time of war:

"Do you think that legitimate military maneuver justifies the atomic attacks on civilian population without descrimination? Twice!!!!"

What you are doing is not arguing a case, but pamphleteering and a poor job.

What you can do is simplify everything by saying: "I hate the USA." Also, no one uses the term 'capitalist' as a negative label anymore. Its so 1917. Try using the term 'globalization' or
'social justice' in your posts. You can add three 'K' instead of a 'c' in AmeriKKKa. See what you are doing is comparing America to a dwindling and pathetic hate group filled with Caucasian bottom feeders. You can also add 'Fortress Amerikkka or Fortress Amerika'... giving it that special police state quality.

>so I'm defensively touchy

We're all sincerely sorry about your loss. But events are never really put to bed, which is why you mentioned him to us. A few years ago someone tried to open a disco at Auschwitz, and people around the world were horrified. Then someone pointed out that the actual site was a mile from the camp. Well, from where the camp had been sixty-five years earlier, as generations had passed: Was this a sort of moral Chernobyl, where the ground was so poisoned that they could never dance again? Welch made a stink a few weeks ago about how Rice won't cop to the Armenian-genocide.

Opinions are always welcome: There's no good calculus to determine when it's time to stop talking about one death and starting talking about another.

> Crid,

That was Justin. But...

> which should be on
> guard 24/7 with or
> without warning.

What could this possibly mean? If Pearl Harbor had repelled the Zeros, would their attack have been justified? Are the lives of soldiers our ante for playing in history's poker tourney?

> Do you think that legitimate
> military maneuver justifies
> the atomic attacks on civilian
> population

I think we're facing a language problem here, like maybe you're new to English, but I'd love to know what you mean by "legitimate".

> The crimes are committed
> by all sides.

That's often true, but not always. And even when it is, it doesn't always foretell the nature of life after the conflict.

> The ridiculous part is
> that only losers got
> tried for their crimes
> against humanity.

Can you propose a better scheme?

> It is all about saving
> its own interests.

You say that over and over as if it explains things.

> Germans and Japanese got
> prosperous with our involvement
> but that is all simply
> by products.

By products of what? It's the intended result of our plans to make these nations so fat, happy and competent that they'd resist investment in warmaking. 'Worked, too. I remember in the 1980's in Indiana, I was driving a Japanese car, my then-wife had a German one, and friends in the auto-parts business in the next county were trying to figure out what had happened. These nations weren't enslaved, they were sheltered. The people most likely to argue this point are teenagers who aren't yet earning their own keep, but think their dads should be buying them a better collection of video game titles. Cosh once said: "[T]he best thing a country can possibly do for its economy (and probably its general well-being) is to go back in time and get itself subjugated good and hard by the British Empire."

http://tinyurl.com/28jfzu

Joe,

"You never answered Crid's question. Can we make fun of you?"

Of course you can. I did not answer the question as I don't think Crid needed my permission to do so. You can make a fun of sitting current USA president also. Just watch Jay Leno tonight. By the way, in many other foreign countries, that will be a crime punishable by death.

That is why I love this country so much and I have a high expectation. We can do better. Better yet, we can be at least not hypocrite about it. As I said before, right or wrong is unknowable to humankind. So, next time when we try the losers, let's be honest and punish them for losing the war not because they did something wrong.

> punish them for losing
> the war not because they
> did something wrong.

I'm pleased that German and Japanese spirits were broken in '45. People who know more history than me say that an excessively punitive response to the first world war was what caused the second. We seem to have learned the lesson. After sixty years, a war in Europe is likely to come from other sources.

You know, the fact that today the Germans are semi-pacifists tells me that we did SOMETHING right during WWII. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of pacifism in general...but when you're talking about a country with a bad habit of starting world wars, I think a movement to the other extreme is a welcome development.

As for Japan - let's see, we could have invaded by ground, a move that would have gotten thousands, if not millions, of U.S. soldiers, Japanese soldiers, AND Japanese civilians killed. Instead, we told the Japanese government that we had a bomb the likes of which had never been seen before and asked them to surrender, and dropped pamphlets in Hiroshima telling people that a bomb would be dropped on X day. (I have this from a cab driver my parents met in Japan in the 1960s; he volunteered this information, and I can't see what reason he'd have to lie. He took the pamphlets seriously and decamped with his family to the mountains. The government sent schoolgirls to sweep up the supposed bomb site at the appointed time. Guess what!) When the government refused this request to surrender, we dropped the bomb, as promised, and then dropped it again. Horrible solution? Yes. But arguing that there was some other solution that would have stopped the war without killing huge numbers of Japanese is idiotic. If Japan didn't want to face such a quandary, then perhaps it shouldn't have gone to war, eh?

"I don't believe there is right or wrong in the world."

Really? That's great, because right now I'm seriously ticked off about certain things and need an outlet for my aggression. I take it you won't mind if I travel to see you and beat you into a pulp? After all, that wouldn't be wrong!

However, there is right or wrong when it comes to grammar - can we all agree on that? - so please work on yours before delivering another rant about the horrors of capitalism and the good elements of Nazism. You're leaving out words left and right. Thanks!

And don't forget we also rebuilt Europe with the Marshall plan. For capitalist pigs, we really aren't so bad, huh?

Wise words, Marion. As usual. The bomb stopped the war. It's easy to look at the little picture on that, and not the big one.

Marion,

"However, there is right or wrong when it comes to grammar - can we all agree on that? - so please work on yours before delivering another rant about the horrors of capitalism and the good elements of Nazism. You're leaving out words left and right. Thanks!"

I would like to debate you on the Korean version of Advice Goddess Blog. And I am going to tell you exactly what you just told me on the Korean version. You might have to wait about four years to respond back to my comments in Korean with good grammar. Well, I am going to cut you a break. You can still respond back to me with a broken Korean. I still believe in free speech with or without good grammar.

Chang,

I regret that you were just mocked by someone here for your lack of absolute fluency in a second language. I know this can be a dangerous blog (having been sent down in flames before), but there's no call for that kind of mockery. I enjoy your perspective although it's often different from my own---even whilst having to reread a sentence of two now and then because the grammar is a little twisted. C'est la vie. Your English is better than my French.

Tess,

You can also add that I wasn't accommodating too. Chang is a big boy and take his lumps when he criticized Marion, Crid and myself. Listing past grievances as relevant in today's world.

Wow...getting pissy at me because I feel empathy for someone else who's being treated poorly for trying to communicate on an intellectual level in a new language? That's got to be a new low here.

With your comment, Joe, this board has now crossed the line into just plain mean, and I make it a habit to avoid that in my life. I'll stick to reading Amy's column, and the rest of you can jab at each other all you like. You seem to enjoy it so much.

Outta here.

I know this can be a dangerous blog (having been sent down in flames before),

Oh, please. Are there pygmies waiting with poisonous blowguns behind every corner?

If you speak, people may disagree with what you say. Learning to respond to criticism (or think logically so your arguments aren't impeachable), seems a more productive approach than wearing a strip of duct tape over your mouth.

Me, pissy? Nah, Tess.

I was giving advice to Chang on updating the language of his critique. Yes, it was in a mocking fashion. Also, he defended himself quite well in the debate. Even though I still disagree with his line of argument.

A matter of fact, I was accommodating your argument on how unaccommodating my posts were to Chang. So I wasn't pissy. A jerk, perhaps.

"With your comment, Joe, this board has now crossed the line into just plain mean, and I make it a habit to avoid that in my life."

So, Tess, what is it like to live in a world in where you are always comforting yourself with a delusion by avoiding mean people? Personally, I enjoy toxic people of varying degrees, because they can be honest and upfront in their behavior. Unlike people who constantly need a stream of positive re-assurances and then flip out when someone disrupts their comfort level. Sound familiar?

I’ve dished it out and received my fair share in return. By many contributors. Chang can join the club. Hell, I encourage it. Anyone can attack my views. My personality quirks. Many of the regulars and visitors here have done so.

> Outta here.

No! Wait!

I thought Tess' original comment was perfect, gracious without being insincere and a good reminder that Americans are oddly and thoughtlessly ungenerous about people for whom English is a second language.

I prefer the term linguistically challenged, Jody.

Also, I find it condescending that Tess needed to defend Chang from the nasty native born Americans. One of whom is multilingual and debates others in their native language on other message boards and in the flesh.

My rules apply to message boards and real life. I've had my fair share of stuffing gauze up my nose to stop the bleeding after an interesting discussion.

Let the record reflect that I only mocked his ideas. Well, that and his youth. Also, I resent being described as a pygmy with a blowgun, but only because the image is so appropriate!

Disagree Tess was in any way condescending, Joe.

There was no hanging a welcome garland around Chang's funny little foreign neck while making a prissy moue about everyone else here.

I think Tess probably just felt the grammar comment was infra dig - even while she pointed out that yes, some of Chang's constructions were twisted and required untangling.

Never said anything about nasty Americans.

In fact, as a foreigner in these parts myself, I'm usually knocked out by generous, naturally expansive Americans. Brits can seem so terribly mimsy by comparison.

Except for the snotty attitude about poor English which I have noticed as a kind of weird failing here. I guess it's not one of yours - if you are indeed the peerless polyglot here - on the grounds you'd have some idea that such mastery requires work.

Maybe it's also because I was brought up to believe that mocking someone's poor grammar when English wasn't their first language was - like so many things - much, much worse than saying "fuck".

Jody, these were towel-snaps. Anyone who prattles about there being "no right or wrong" and the "hypocrisy of capitalists" or that America "enslaved" whole continents is not some delicate little flower who needs our loving shelter. I recognize these stupidities from my own youth, some from my own mouth. They're a backhanded request to have one's thinking clarified.

Done and done. Marion, IIRC, comes from the competitive Harvard, where the impulse to answer such requests is probably overwhelming.

Reread the thread.

British, huh? How are your teeth?

No, Crid. I. Am. Not. British - you fucking thicko!

(Tho' educated and largely dragged up there.)

However American teeth, yay!

How dare you.

Gawd, yanks and their thin skins....

Chang: The points you are making - Nazism wasn't all that evil compared to the WICKED CAPITALISTS, America is malevolent, etc. etc. - have been around for so long that I'm sure they've been translated into every language by now, including Korean. Give me a few minutes to consult with my Korean-American friends, and I'm sure I could find many such responses in Korean to throw your way.

For the record, I have studied a second language as an adult, and am well-versed in how difficult it is. But: When you choose to communicate in a *written* medium, you are going to be judged by how well you communicate in that medium. The Internet provides a LOT of information. NO ONE can read it all (and hold down a job and a real life, etc. etc.). We all sort through it one way or another, and a VERY typical sorting technique is to stick to reading those posts that aren't missing words or containing obvious grammatical errors.

One thing that helped me - and that has helped my many friends from other countries learning and studying other subjects in their second language of English - is feedback. As in, when I made a mistake, someone told me about it, providing me with the correct alternative if I asked. Once you get to a certain level of language mastery, feedback like that is CRUCIAL. If you have a friend who owes you a favor, or, say, is a native English speaker trying to learn Korean, you might try sending that friend your posts before putting them up, with a request to let you know if any words are missing or the like. That feels like drudgery at first, but it does REALLY help increase your mastery of English.

Because, if you really want to throw verbal bombs into online debates and then tussle with those who respond, then you have to be able to tussle very, VERY well. Post your initial thoughts about Nazism vs. capitalism on the wrong board, and I can see some people reacting very...poorly to it. You may well need to explain yourself very, VERY well at some point to avoid being kicked off of a board. That's not going to happen here, but it will happen elsewhere, and you will need to be prepared.

(And, for the record, if you choose to post at a board where the blogger gleefully makes fun of a church being destroyed by a storm, don't expect kid gloves. Amy mocks me, albeit indirectly, all the time, and lo, I am still here!)

Jody,

My comment about knowledge in foreign languages and debating others in their native tongues should be used as a future role model for new arrivals with further language adjustments. At one time my other language abilities were lacking among the locals. How would they interpret my mistakes?

A. Laughter?
B. Would they correct my mistakes?
C. Insults?
D. Threats of actual bodily harm and display the little threatening devices?

Answer: All the above. Which was the motivating factor in improving my language abilities? Answer: D

Now would this be the same criteria for someone in the states? Only slightly. They would receive A, B and maybe C. But on this particular site it would be A and C, because Amy hates internet slang like laughing out loud. Would you agree it is a slight improvement?

Yes, I am guilty of raising a few hyper sensitive types’ discomfort levels. All well, maybe I will lose some sleep over the incident. Nah. I've done worse and still maintained healthy sleep cycles.

Context, Joe.
It's all about context.

I can well believe one would be motivated to get to grips with irregular gerunds if a lash from a knout - or worse - from a scornful camel rustler (or similar) was likely forthcoming.

But the weapons of cruelty in the suburban landscape of civilised America are mainly words.

Most foreigners shape up very, very fast. Our Korean chum didn't appear to be slacking in his efforts to acquire fluency (tho' his opinions are something else entirely).

So let's not pretend a touch of the mocking rough stuff was intended as a motivational spur! Marion has made magnificent amends and she, at least, deserves the sleep cycle of the innocent.

(Jesus, I'm pompous today. Don't know what has got into me. I shall blame it on Crid.)

> So let's not pretend a
> touch of the mocking rough
> stuff was intended as a
> motivational spur!

God, I hate that. It's the heart of all the coddled liberal foolishness that I grew up wanting to escape. Let's count the faults!

> weapons of cruelty

They're not weapons! They're fucking words! And you're right: In suburban America, that's just about as bad as it gets! Now, there are corners of the world where you get lashed for fucking up a gerund... Catholic schools in Australia, mostly:

http://tinyurl.com/3ypnx8

But in those places where our (presumably young) Chang might get badly whipped as a matter of course, he wouldn't then expect to be spared hurtful jibes as if in consolation. It's not like our suburbs had a choice between sarcasm and the stockade, and New Rochelle just happened to choose sarcasm. And "cruelty" is overstatement. Again, why do liberals think of everyone as these fragile little animals with big hearts and big eyes in fluffy sweatshirts with big sleeves who never see sunlight?

> Most foreigners shape
> up very, very fast.

That's true wherever you go. It happens for Americans who move to Madagascar and for Danes who move to Malaysia. Americans, no less than anyone else, want to be sure they have the attention of the people they're talking to.

> intended as a motivational
> spur!

Again with the coddling: A presumptive certainty that everything that's done or said is offered to improve and educate and nurture... Or at least should be so offered. When that's the foundation of your (lefty, feminine) belief system, all that's left is the edjumication policy, right? Because we're all concerned with what's best for Chang... You're not concerned that his stupidities could make trouble for others.

> Marion has made magnificent
> amends

None of us, zero, were concerned that she was going to lose sleep over this, or that she'd deserve to even if her comment had been wildly out of bounds (and it wasn't).

> pompous today

Staggering.

> I shall blame

1. Don't be prissy.

2. Don't blame me. Lord knows I've recommended Paglia often enough.

I had no idea my Hitler Youth comment would unleash such a flurry of discussion.

No, Marion, I don't dislike Catholicism. If you visit my Web site (www.cliffandjon.com) you'll discover that I am an ordained Catholic priest (although I left active ministry long ago).

In his address to the Latin American bishops conference, the pope said that the main ideological rivals of the recent past -- Marxism and capitalism -- have failed to deliver on their promises for building a better world because they have tried to do so without reference to God. To quote the pope: “The Marxist system, where it found its way into government, not only left a sad heritage of economic and ecological destruction, but also a painful destruction of the human spirit. And we can also see the same thing happening in the West, where the distance between rich and poor is growing constantly, and giving rise to a worrying degradation of personal dignity through drugs, alcohol and deceptive illusions of happiness.” He went on to say that people who order their lives on faith naturally pursue the values of peace and justice, and "where God is absent...these values fail to show themselves with their full force, and a consensus does not arise concerning them." He indicated that he didn't mean to say non-Christians couldn't contribute to a just society, only that "a society in which God is absent will not find the necessary consensus on moral values or the strength to live according to the model of these values, even when tey are in conflict with private interests." Benedict then said that the church's role is to supply faith and values, not direct political solutions. "The church is the advocate of justice and of the poor, precisely because she does not identify with politicians nor with partisan interests. Only by remaining independent can she teach the great criteria and inalienable values, guide consciences and offer a life choice that goes beyond the political sphere." He denounced populist left-wing movements as "authoritarian forms of government and regimes wedded to certain ideologies," and listed "secularism, hedonism, indifferentism, and proselytism by numerous sects, animist religions and new pseudo-religious phenomena" as other dead-ends.

Not to worry, Amy. The pope also took on religion. He acknowledged that "emotionalism, religious individualism, an abandoment of the urgent reality of the great economic, social and political problems of Latin America and the world, and a flight from reality towards a spiritual world" can seem like putting one's head in the sand.

In other words, any system -- political or religious -- that detaches reality from the "foundational and decisive reality, which is God," is setting itself up for destruction.

His advice? He said everyone bears responsibility for building a just society, and urged young people to steer clear of "the facile illusions of instant happiness and the deseptive paradise offered by drugs, pleasure and alcohol," and to "oppose every form of violence." He then criticized currents in the Latino culture that do not recognize "the equal dignity and responsibility of women relative to men."

While it is difficult to synthesize a major address of an intellectual like the pope, if you want to grasp the depth of his remarks you must give them careful study and reflection.

I know, I know, many people will dismiss the pope's remarks because of the church's stand on women's ordination or on abortion or on gay rights or whatever. The church has long held "ex opere operato," which emphasizes that God can work through even the most sinful minister. It's quite possible, then, that Benedict had something valuable to say.

Crid,
In your race to use that knout you call a tongue, you have overlooked that I was replying to Joe and picking up on HIS points.

In particular, said Joe: "Which was the motivating factor in improving my language abilities? Answer: D"!

So when YOU say: "A presumptive certainty that everything that's done or said is offered to improve and educate and nurture... Or at least should be so offered. When that's the foundation of your (lefty, feminine) belief system, all that's left is the edjumication policy, right?..."

..I believe you've just accused Joe of being a little lefty lady?

PLUS you wrote: "Americans, no less than anyone else, want to be sure they have the attention of the people they're talking to."

Yup, that's right at least.

Ever heard a Yank grabbing attention on vacation where the natives are slow with the language back home? They YELL.

Then yer both wrong.

> They YELL

Pardon me, WRONG!!!

FINE!!!!!

Marion,

Crid said you went to Harvard, then I believe one of your alumni managed to become the president of the United States. I don't think his English skill is considered as one of his strength. Yet, many millions of people chose him as our leader for eight years. Why don't you explain the same thing to him? While you are at it, don't forget to call the governor of California as well. Maybe, my poor English skill has a lot to with a lack of role models.

While you might be offended by my comments, so that "I take it you won't mind if I travel to see you and beat you into a pulp? After all, that wouldn't be wrong!", I would mind it because it would be painful. I am not a masochist. But it would be neither wrong nor right. However, it would be illegal acts as long as the Supreme Court does not reverse its position on lynching.

I was making a point that sheer arrogance displayed by people like you turning our neighbors into our enemies. How can you condemn what the Nazi did and justify the use of atomic bombs on any body? Are you telling me the end justifies the means? Didn't Hitler think like that? This unbearable hypocrisy is very sad to me as it repeats over and over through the history.

If you have time, I would like to invite you as a motivational speaker for my English class. Also, I will let you know when is the next support group meeting for the atomic bomb survivors, so you can tell them "If Japan didn't want to face such a quandary, then perhaps it shouldn't have gone to war, eh?"

> meeting for the atomic
> bomb survivors, so you
> can tell them

At this hour, they seem to have figured it out for themselves.

My mother had this uncle who spent July '45 on Tinian, waiting for the word to go in. Projected casualities for invasion were one million (enemy and American).

Turns out it wasn't necessary, so he came home and had two daughters, and one of them had two kids, and now both of them have kids, and family reunions every June are a lot of fun. It's probably like that for a lot of Japanese, too.

"Casualties", sorry

Is someone here digging themselves into a deeper hole or is it just me?

Tu n'es pas seul, Joe.

(written from the botom of my french hole!)

...with free typos...

"Crid said you went to Harvard, then I believe one of your alumni managed to become the president of the United States. I don't think his English skill is considered as one of his strength."

He went to Harvard Business School, not the College. And I'll point out that he is mocked for his speaking skills, or lack thereof, ALL the time, in ways that make what I said to you look like words of love and devotion. Schwarzenegger takes his lumps too. Both of them have succeeded because 1) they have powerful other skills; 2) they know how to support the causes they're fighting for; 3) they have largely faced weak opponents; and 4) NEITHER ONE OF THEM IS THE LEAST THIN-SKINNED ABOUT THEIR MASTERY OF THE LANGUAGE, OR LACK THEREOF. In fact, they regularly make fun of themselves for their speaking styles. You appear to be, shall we say, far more sensitive where this is concerned. (And I'll also point out that both of them have chosen careers where they mostly communicate through spoken, rather than written, media when they're speaking spontaneously, working with speechwriters and other aides when they do produce some written work or another. My advice to you assumed that you would continue to argue and communicate through a written medium, presumably not with regular editors automatically reviewing your text for glitches.)

For the record, I'm not "offended" by your views. I just find them to be silly and poorly argued. Old and busted, as it were. And yes, I do distinguish between a movement centered around effecting genocide - wiping out six million civilians as a feature, not a bug - and regular war, however brutal. Given that Japan seemed perfectly happy to ally itself with Germany, which was dropping bombs on civilians in England left and right, I have a hard time seeing it as the one morally just participant in WWII. If you want to focus your life on believing otherwise, that's certainly your right, but I do suggest you take some courses on logic and debate before you try to convince others of the superiority of your views. Ta!

Больше более веселое. (The Russian equivalent of more the merrier.) I don’t know if Arabic script will post well on Amy’s site.

By the way, it is difficult to tag me politically. I am left handed, which was another problem in the Middle East. There are moments where I am completely dumbfounded on what was my reason for living there in the first place. Now I remember... it was the fresh figs and dates in olive oil. The fez hats and hookahs were important too.

Also, if I am feminine by Crid's standards then label me as a butch. It would be the best possible explanation for my beard.

Maybe, I need to look up a survivor's group of unintended targets of Islamic violence prior to 9-11?

This is a test.

ي وإلل برنق تهي سهفلس

Kia kaha, Joe!

(Yup, it's for real:))

Looky here, this little fella deserve a slap-down. There's no need to apologize to him for hurting his feelings, or pretending that he has nothing but friends here. When you read his comments, he's just not the brittle. He's wrong, and maybe naive, but he's not brittle.

Youth makes bones rubbery. Someone ask him how old he is. Go ahead, Jody, ask him.

That last line was very funny!

But - Looky here, this little fella deserve a slap-down. There's no need to apologize to him for hurting his feelings, or pretending that he has nothing but friends here

I don't recognize any of my attitude there. It hardly applies to Tess either. Sure tell fresh-faced Chang his opinions are jejune, and his assumptions half-baked and all the rest. Point out that his shaky grammar can make him hard to follow. No one is protected from slap downs.

But it's cultural oafishness to mock a foreign language speaker's lack of fluency. And I thought it exceedingly well mannered of Tess to say as much.

(Btw, kia kaha to you too Crid!)

I'll take the oafish remarks, Jody. Tess had every right to defend the fool. My initial comments were not an attack on Tess' reasons behind her post, but the oversensitive manner in delivering them to me. You know the deal… blood-water-shark.

I will always offend, poke fun, prod, tease and annoy anyone who uses selective logic in their arguments or has a thin skin. Also, I will happily go down in flames if I was wrong, but being guilty of boorish behavior is not going to stop future attacks.

For what it's worth, Joe, I thought your reply to Tess was hunky dory...

Are you gonna translate your pretty squiggles?

Or was that a scornful camel rustler-type comment - and best left to the oafish imagination?

My current theory is just to fill up space on post that was lacking in material and substance.

> But it's cultural oafishness
> to mock a foreign language
> speaker's lack of fluency

The extra word there is "cultural". Again there's an implication that people don't say rude things to newcomers in other lands. There's this global need to offer a putdown about America, no matter how inane it is, no matter how obvious it is that the well-traveled complainant has found their greatest happiness here. "It's not that I don't love America, but..." This best response can make one sound like a henpecked husband in the waning hours of a bad marriage: 'Honey, the toilet seat isn't lost, it's hinged. You should be able to deal with inconvenience.'

Whoever you are, there are going to be things people can say that hurt your feelings, and if you can't let the little ones roll off your back, the big ones will certainly kill you. I'm 5'7" and a little wider every day, and people at work have fun with that. Chang, if he's as young as he seems, is going to face greater insults than these. Apparently he's a person who wants to talk about the big themes. If he gets chased out of the arena by such gentle oafishness, it's because he deserves to. He wouldn't have been mocked by anyone if his ideas were stronger.

> And I thought it exceedingly
> well mannered of Tess to say
> as much.

The extra word there is "exceedingly"... Assuming you want to put up with the 'well mannered' part, and I'm not sure I do. Real life is not cotillion. The impulse to think that all interactions can be dainty and elevated is nothing holy or admirable; it's only about the need to look down on others, or to at least make distance from them.

Go to jimtreacher.com for a noisier scandal about these matters. (I disagree with Treach, clearly but just barely.)

Tia Carrera to you too, Jody. Also, Pia Zadora.

(96.)

THE best response etc...

Perfectly good metaphor shot to hell. I hate decaf.

(97.)

I agree Crid.

Well, if Chang was willing to invite Marion to speak at a A-Bomb survivors group. I would like to see Chang say the same comments at a local V.F.W. chapter on a Saturday evening in any town in America.

I'll buy the first 3 rounds of beers!!!

I get so tired of the sensitivity police - and a lot of times, you have no idea they're hard at work, but they are. People mince words because they might hurt a feeling or two. In discussing issues, I prefer balls out, in-your-face writing and speaking - and it's much healthier, too. The most fun example of this lately is Nick Gillespie's bitchslapping of Tim Cavanaugh and many others in an homage to Suck.com.

http://www.jewcy.com/dialogue/2007-05-15/return_of_the_sucksters

P.S. Gillespie's piece is the first one (even though it has Cav's photo in it). He is such a bitch...just love it. Here's an excerpt:

Before we get on to discussing a bunch of blogs that I literally need to be paid to read—life being too short on such pursuits even if we live to be 200—I want to underscore how sick and tired I am of being paired professionally with you, first at Suck, then at Reason, and then occasionally at your current perch, where you shill for big media and corporate interests. Suddenly I know how Eydie Gorme must have felt all those years, carrying a real sack of rotten potatoes around on the stage and trying to keep the smile going. You know better than anyone how lucky you were that the Los Angeles Times hired you just minutes before I was going to shitcan you at Reason for conduct unbecoming a libertarian (really, Tim, how can you not agree that Mother, Jugs & Speed makes a great case for privatizing emergency medical services?). But I do owe you for a remarkable piece of advice—"Never pass up an opportunity to have sex on TV with Gore Vidal"—that I look forward to using at some point in the future, preferably after the Rapture has begun. (Are we even allowed to make Rapture jokes at Jewcy? Writing for this site, I haven't felt this Catholic since Mark Foley stopped IM'ing me).

So I went over to Kausfiles as directed, for about the first time in about a decade (slight exaggeration) and was immediately discombobulated by the newest item, "To Wuss or Not To Wuss," in which Mickey Kaus rats out Andrew Sullivan as a hypocrite about using the term "wussy." Everything really did change on 9/11, Tim, and the stakes have never been higher. Mickey—who I know a bit and with whom, at least up until now, I have always been on very friendly and flattering terms, except for the time I likened Bloggingheads TV to a lost act from Waiting for Godot—always seems to narrating a soap opera whose storyline is absolutely impenetrable, like Dark Shadows without the implied vampire sex (and hence much less interesting).

100.

Crid, I refuse to get paranoid about the Pia Zadora reference!

Just to let you know I have a very good memory for certain meta things.

And that I'm quivering like an exceedingly polite jello at a cotillion.

Crid,

"My mother had this uncle who spent July '45 on Tinian, waiting for the word to go in. Projected casualities for invasion were one million (enemy and American)."

What you are saying is almost equivalent of this. Let's waste about 200,000 Japanese innocent lives. That will save and improve the many lives of Americans.

Now change the Japanese to Jews and Americans to Germans. You will see that the same logic was used by the Nazi. The end should never justify the means. Never!!!

Joe,

"I would like to see Chang say the same comments at a local V.F.W. chapter on a Saturday evening in any town in America."

I will take that Pepsi Challenge. But let me by life insurance first.

You are also forgetting the Chinese civilian targets the Japanese brutalized over the years since 1931. Let us not forget the infamous Unit 731 experiments on civilian populations and captured Allied POWs. The bombing and battle of Shanghai in 1937.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

The reason the Imperial Japanese forces could not target US civilian populations, because they lack the means to achieve those goals. It wasn't out of some higher Shinto-Buddhist nature or the code of the samurai. I suggest going through the public records of various projects commissioned by the Imperial Japanese government on the Unit 731 projects for bio-weapons to be used on the civilian populations of the USA. There were plenty of other dream projects such as a long range bombers for cities located on the West Coast of the States. Japan didn’t have the ability to deliver said dream weapons, because it was in the middle of a war with a highly industrialized, supplied with adequate resources and a highly motivated home population. But the Japanese had the plans, the will, but lack the technology to do so.

The projects never happened because the Allied Forces Pacific Theater offensive reached Japan first. Yes, it was a zero sum war. General Curtis LeMay (who ordered the firebombing of Tokyo, A-Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki) stated many times if the US lost the War... we (LeMay and his staff) would have been tried and executed as war criminals. So the US military leadership was well aware of what they were doing and it was the driving force to make the Japanese commit to an unconditional surrender.

Now why would I contribute some more WWII facts? Answer: No one had the high moral ground during the war. World War II is over! Japan, German and Italy surrendered! Millions died… both military and civilians on all sides!

Now lets move on and get back to 2007. There are more important things to do than relive past battles. Study the history, but never agonize over past grievances. Its irrelevant in today’s world. Move on.

Joe,

Do you think that current Middle East, African and Korean conflicts have nothing to do with WWII? How can it possibly irrelevant? You must study the history, then agonize over it and try not to make the same mistakes over and over again.

WWII ended on the paper and it opened the door for the next conflicts. To win the current war in Middle East, we have to know how the borders were drawn in the area. The victorious Allies basically drew it on the back of the napkins without any consideration to its own people's need and cultural background. Ditto to Africa, Vietnam and Korea. Now, we are basically dealing with the problems we created ourselves back then.

I don't have the answers to solve the current problems. But I continue to look for the clues in the past not to make the same mistakes.

> let me by life
> insurance first.

A concession?

> Let's waste about 200,000
> Japanese innocent lives

Who said they were "wasted? They were killed, but that's not the same thing. And who said they were "innocent"? That's a tremendously meaningful word when nations are at war, and I think you're being promiscuous with it.

I admire you for observing the conventional math about these things rather than quibbling over numbers. See Joe's comment, and note also that 72K died in conventional bombings of Tokyo that year. And that was going to happen again and again and again without a speedier resolution to the conflict.

Given the choice between dying in a conventionally aspirated firestorm and an atomic detonation, I'd toss a coin. The point is, by conclusively demonstrating the tremendous economic efficiency with which the United States could wage war, hundreds and hundreds of thousands of lives were saved... And certainly, more of those lives were Japanese than American.

If you want to quibble about Nagasaki, I'll buy you a beer over which you can chew my ear off. But given the nature of uncertain eventsin real time, and the then-unforseeable excellence of the outcome for Japan, I give Truman the benefit of the doubt in July 1945.

Basically I think you're trying to draw a simplistically clear line about the meaning of sub-atomic weaponry in history. I don't think that line can hold. Simplistic thinking almost never does.

> it opened the door for
> the next conflicts.

I'll buy another beer if you describe a conflict that was closed such that further conflict was evermore forestalled. More to the point, you're flat wrong: Why do you think a triumphant Axis in the forties wouldn't have had to deal with Islamic fascism?

> I continue to look for the
> clues in the past not to
> make the same mistakes.

Do you seriously, seriously think that you're the only one who's thought of doing that?

"Do you think that current Middle East, African and Korean conflicts have nothing to do with WWII?"

I think the current Middle East conflict has everything to do with the fact that the West's approach to the region, up until, say, 9/11/01, was "keep the oil flowing and we don't care about the rest, except for the fact that we'll arm the tiny band of survivors of one of the most effective attempts of genocide so that they can survive and flourish despite having one of the few major pieces of real estate in the region WITHOUT oil." I suppose it's also related in the sense that a hell of a lot of people there are starting to sound like Hitler, but that doesn't convince me that the Allies went too far in defeating Hitler and his allies.

Africa goes back to colonialism - read _Heart of Darkness_ sometimes.

Korea? Sure, you could connect that to WWII, in the sense that Russia and the U.S. both fought during WWII. Which means that you could connect WWII to every battle ever fought. Do tell how things would be radically different now in Korea had the U.S. not dropped the atomic bomb. Would the Soviets have allowed the U.S. to take the brunt of, or all of, the casualties incurred from invading Japan, and have used their subsequent military edge to ensure that all of Korea would be Communist? Is the idea of the entire continent being like North Korea, aka "that hellhole," your idea of a better solution? It's not my idea of mine.

"I'll buy another beer if you describe a conflict that was closed such that further conflict was evermore forestalled. More to the point, you're flat wrong: Why do you think a triumphant Axis in the forties wouldn't have had to deal with Islamic fascism?"

Well, a triumphant Axis would have had no compunctions about totally wiping out a group that was threatening government-enforced stability. Perhaps this is Chang's idea of a better alternative to the present? It's not my idea of one, but...

Chang,

If you are still reading this...I believe Korea's biggest problem was me being subject to Bae Yong Joon. I was traumatized and demand compensation from the S.Korean people.

Crid,

“The point is, by conclusively demonstrating the tremendous economic efficiency with which the United States could wage war, hundreds and hundreds of thousands of lives were saved... And certainly, more of those lives were Japanese than American. “

Here is how we are different on the subject. You are concentrating on the numbers but I am more interested in concepts behind it. War is just like a football game. We use guns instead. The rules of engagements, Geneva Convention, prohibit attacks on civilian targets. By annihilating civilians with atomic bombs, we showed the rest of the world how to stop the war most effectively and prevent the further casualties by ignoring the Geneva Convention. Monkey see, monkey do. We just taught the future generation that do whatever it takes to get the job done most effectively and screw the rules if they don't help you. But bitch like hell if your enemies do not follow the rules. Unabomber at least pointed out the issue correctly complaining the slow progress of humanity in this modern world. Sixty years later after the atomic bomb attacks, we still have not learned a thing. If we put someone who thinks like you as a leader on each nation, that will be the end of human race. After all, the Bible will turn out to be correct.

“I'll buy another beer if you describe a conflict that was closed such that further conflict was evermore forestalled. More to the point, you're flat wrong: Why do you think a triumphant Axis in the forties wouldn't have had to deal with Islamic fascism?”

There will be no country called “Israel” in the Middle East. That will make a lot of difference to them. Besides, I bet Hitler will force them to drink German beer to get them to be in better mood.

“Do you seriously, seriously think that you're the only one who's thought of doing that?”

I never said that.

> I am more interested
> in concepts behind it.

Here's a concept: One of the best ways to end a war is to win.

> Monkey see, monkey do

"The world" will be glad to know that this freshly-minted American thinks so highly of them.

The other nations have their own interests and concerns and patterns. One of the biggest mistakes young liberals make is to assume that everything happens in reaction to American chess moves. It's the best evidence that Americans are childish and solipsistic. It's not all about us.

> the slow progress
> of humanity

Compared to what? Nutrition, literacy, democracy, and women's rights are ascendant as never before. Chang, you're trying to talk like Father Time from some omniscient perspective of no better vintage than that Star Trek episode... Remember the one? That one guy was from another dimension, essentially a parallel universe, and there were these phasers and Scotty couldn't get the warp drive started, and Spock pinched this guy while Kirk was kissing the fertile green woman draped in a orange chiffon cocktail dress....

You just don't have the wisdom to make judgments like this. Kaczynski was a troubled, violent man who lived in ditches and never got laid. If dense, ranting, morbid manifestos like his are the model of your thinking, much is explained.

> no country called “Israel”
> in the Middle East. That
> will make a lot of
> difference

Israel is a problem for you? Tell us more.

Quite funny, Purple. Anyone needs to be compensated from experiencing BYJ.

Chang,

Making the connection with WWII and the current problems with the M.E. is a stretch. I would request specifics. Also, make your message clear. Avoid waxing emotions about the loss of civilians in past battles. Are you going to lament over the civilians killed during all the battles in the last 20,000 years? So junk the moral baggage when dealing with history.

My expertise in the Middle East is based on 9 years of living in the region. Learning the language and as many dialects. Knowledge of its history, customs, tribal frameworks and everything else that comes from EXPERIENCE. Also, combine it with the knowledge of reading various texts in Arabic.

Also, the M.E. borders were redrawn at the end of WORLD WAR ONE and the responsibility falls onto the British and French. The USA supported UK and French interests post WWII in the M.E., because of the diplomatic support of the newly established NATO alliance against the USSR. This is the same reasoning for US support of France over Ho Chi Mihn's Viet Minh movement during the First Indo-China War.

The possible WWII root is the establishment of Israel in 1948. I've told many of my Palestinian friends that if you want a state... support Israel. The reason is that the Arab states will never deliver a Palestinian state, nor are they interested in the endeavor. Also, I agree with Michael Oren on the Palestinians need to give up the ‘Right of Return’ and Israel needs to give up the West Bank. Perhaps Jordan should annex the West Bank. King Abdullah's security forces could effectively clean up the Islamist terrorist element in the region. Just like his daddy did to the PLO in September of 1970 to July of 1971.

I'm not saying what the US, UK or France did was right or wrong in the long run, but convenient during the time. Just like very other nation, kingdom, empire, tribe has committed over the last circa 20,000 years.

If you want further explanations of my views on the Middle East, spend a weekend and read all my posts on Amy's site.

Then debate me or offer your own solutions.

Crid,

“The other nations have their own interests and concerns and patterns. One of the biggest mistakes young liberals make is to assume that everything happens in reaction to American chess moves. It's the best evidence that Americans are childish and solipsistic. It's not all about us.”

I wish, I wrote this. We finally agreed!!!!

“Kaczynski was a troubled, violent man who lived in ditches and never got laid.”

What are you talking about? He is in prison. I bet he gets laid more often than I do.