In May 2008, I made the following comment on CT

[Jeff Verman]

Re: replies etc

You stick to your opinions with remarkable resiliency -. An old professor of mine was fond of criticizing philosophers, saying "They never let the facts get in the way of a good theory!" You remind me of exactly that kind of philosopher.

You say there aren't any serious scholars who support the claim that the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives. I could ask for your research on this - how you've managed to contact all the "serious" scholars to come to this conclusion. I could, instead, just disagree - and we would end up in a you say X and I say not X kind of discussion (which I'm sure would be fascinating). Or, I could provide you with a link proving you wrong:

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs...ec/compton.htm

Now that doesn't end the issue. The Americans didn't have to insist on unconditional surrender. They could have accepted at any time a lesser surrender. But getting it to be unconditional (which was considered paramount), even the atomic attacks could not immediately produce. The US was prepared and ready for an invasion. How an invasion couldn't take lives is a question you have avoided now several times.

Oliver Stone is a film maker of decent films. And now I've read your link, not because I was interested, but because you were using it to support your position. The position stated in that article is that he is opposed to the atomic weapons being dropped on Japan. Good for him. I haven't stated here whether I am or am not opposed to their use. I've only stated the facts and your link doesn't add anything to the facts other than his opposition to their use. Using his name, without argument for your cause, amounts to a fallacious appeal to authority. It's fallacious because a) there is no argument; b) he is not a scholar; c) his opposition doesn't address the issue of potential American casualties. I'm surprised you'd cite Oliver Stone, given his political leanings.

Anyway, I do believe this conversation has run its course.

[Nigel Hanrahan]

Bombs away!

You stick to your opinions with remarkable resiliency ... (etc)

I really doubt that you read the article. Oliver Stone outlines why he actually changed his views - which were the same as yours currently are - and he cites the scholarship, etc. If you look up his film you can, in any case, check his references.

This story of the legitimacy of using nuclear weapons on Japanese civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is really a kind of "founding myth" which is used to substantiate future use of nuclear weapons. You certainly cannot refute the continuing US government view on the use of nuclear weapons ... the US policy to this day is officially that the first use of such weapons is acceptable to the US government ... but much time has passed and many, many scholars have looked at the question of the necessity of the use of these weapons and concluded as I have outlined.



Bombs away!

[Jeff Verman]

Re: reply

Hi,

First, while serious formal debates have rules, I should point out this place isn't one governed by the rules which govern serious formal debates! It was a metaphor mostly to state that rhetorical flourishes have to be pretty clever to catch my interest. It was a nudge to stick to the point.

Second, I have nothing but sympathy for moderators of an internet chat board. Serious moderation is seriously hard to do well. And I suspect one can't earn a living off of it either. This is far from being the Wild West - at best it is a sitcom about the Wild West.

Third, I'm mainly here because my son plays chess and we come for news. A few threads beyond that are of interest.

Fourth, I don't know what a neo-liberal is! I don't recall the Neo-Liberal Party having a spot on the ballot on the last election......

[Jeff Verman]

Re: Bombs away!

1. This would be easier if you just quoted the passage in the link you presented. You doubt I read the article -really? Funny, I was having those doubts about you reading what I've linked to too! Imagine.

2. I've seen his film (but you'll doubt this too). I Don't buy into his JFK view from another film of his, by the way.

3. You continue to claim to count the number of scholars. I've seen a bunch of scholarship myself on this - people arguing all points of view - pro; con; neither. I think in general, if you've read such scholarly approaches, you are missing certain subtleties in their position. Most importantly, you are having trouble separating the facts from the judgment. You can easily maintain that dropping the bombs was wrong, even if it did stop the need for an invasion. It's a perfectly acceptable position. I don't think anyone, though, scholar or not, thinks there wasn't the possibility of an invasion. (Except perhaps you.)

4. If you google, you'll find an amazing article by a woman (a scholar, by the way! She was Professor of Philosophy at Cambridge) - G.E.M. Anscombe - called "Mr. Truman's Decree". It's a famous piece attacking Truman's decision. Because it is sympathetic to your conclusion I think you'll enjoy it. I had the good fortune to hear her speak, now, too many years ago, while I was a student, at the University of Chicago. Check it out.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: reply

Fourth, I don't know what a neo-liberal is! I don't recall the Neo-Liberal Party having a spot on the ballot on the last election......

I don't know either but the last person who insisted on calling himself a "classical liberal" (his term) was a libertarian. He was/is well known. We argued politics on a Fidonet BBS and played chess in email. He was a decent chess player. It was in the early 1990's.

Another option not having a spot on the ballot is "minority government". Something people tend to forget when they vote for a candidate who does not represent their views to simply join an "anyone but" movement.

[Ken Craft]

Re: reply

The job of an historian is to understand what happened and attempt to determine why it happened.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: small consolation

The point I thought you were trying to make is that transporting crude by rail could be made safer. I supplied a link by a think tank that agreed with you. So much so, that they think transporting it by rail regardless of the number of people involved in the process is less safe than doing it by pipeline.
The amazing thing is how so many people rail (pardon the pun) against how evil politicians are ... then want to make government bigger and more powerful. That doesn't seem very logical.

That's small consolation for the families of the people horrifically incinerated in downtown Lac-Mégantic, don't you agree?

I've already posted the following on the relevant thread but you seem to have missed it. Campbell has made very compelling arguments and the only reply I see is some reference to the market idolatry of the Fraser Institute in which it is pointed out that pipelines are allegedly safer. (What happens in the pristine waters of BC is beyond the scope of such studies, I suppose. But it is not beyond the scope of the people of BC.) None of Campbell's points have been addressed in that thread.

Did you want to continue the debate there or over here in an unrelated thread?


Lac-Mégantic: Suppressing the Truth Behind Regulatory Failure

en Français

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: small consolation

BTW, Obama is not the worst President ever, imo. But seems to me he certainly would make the top five list of the ones whose promises failed to live up to his reality. Elections are becoming more and more predictable it seems to me, or maybe it's a function of getting older and seeing more elections. The party that gives voters unicorns and fairies is probably going to win. The one that says things like "the future will probably not be much better than the present" is not very likely to get elected nor is the one that says "your problems are *your* fault" or "we are a very average, unremarkable society". No one wants that!

[Nigel Hanrahan]

Re: small consolation

The point I thought you were trying to make is that transporting crude by rail could be made safer. I supplied a link by a think tank that agreed with you. So much so, that they think transporting it by rail regardless of the number of people involved in the process is less safe than doing it by pipeline.
The amazing thing is how so many people rail (pardon the pun) against how evil politicians are ... then want to make government bigger and more powerful. That doesn't seem very logical.

Yeah, OK. It's a difficult problem, but I think the premise of transporting enormous quantities of dangerous petroleum products, whether by rail or pipeline, should also be examined. Canada, under the current regime, is looking a lot like a petro-state with all of the associated problems. Maybe the remedy is to leave it all in the ground.

Government has a duty, in any case, to protect what is called the public interest. Private corporations have no such duty. What I have been critiquing as neo-liberalism is an approach which seems to reject the very idea of public good or public interest. That's a recipie for more horrible and predictable disasters.

[Ken Craft]

Re: small consolation

Obama has been hamstrung by a Republican House courtesy of gerrymandering.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: small consolation

Elections are becoming more and more predictable it seems to me, or maybe it's a function of getting older and seeing more elections. The party that gives voters unicorns and fairies is probably going to win.

I figure if the Liberals here in Ontario can sell their bonds and they want to give the money to the citizens, let them.

When reality sets in if I don't like the results there are other provinces where I can move.

Regarding pipeline vs rail, I consider pipeline safer. However, it seems to me the reality of the time it will take to build pipelines after approval and the growing amount of demand will dictate that petroleum products by rail will increase greatly before it diminishes, if it does diminish. It's a bonanza for the rails.

[Nigel Hanrahan]

Re: reply

Second, I have nothing but sympathy for moderators of an internet chat board. Serious moderation is seriously hard to do well. And I suspect one can't earn a living off of it either.

fyi, I am paid nothing for my efforts here and when I do intervene as a contributor I often get stern lectures from those who differ with me about how unfair I am. Perhaps I should be more clear when i intervene as moderator. It's not that frequent.

Third, I'm mainly here because my son plays chess and we come for news. A few threads beyond that are of interest.

like everyone else here, you're welcome to contribute.

Fourth, I don't know what a neo-liberal is! I don't recall the Neo-Liberal Party having a spot on the ballot on the last election......

This is easily solved. David Harvey wrote a very good history of it. Neo-liberalism includes the kind of market fundamentalism as a matter of (religious) faith such as that practiced by the Fraser Institute. This juggernaut, which has developed steam since the 1970's, has invaded common sense and crowded out other thoughts altogether. The regimes in Victoria, Ottawa, Washington, London, etc. all practice it. Those who challenge it are under siege: Venezuela, etc.

[Ken MacDonald]

Re: In May 2008, I made the following comment on CT

"Obama will go down as one of the worst Presidents the USA ever had."

How did this work out? Do the "believers" think I was wrong?

An interesting poll has just come out...


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ew-poll-shows/

Yes, I recognize that current incumbents are more likely to be remembered, but, WOW!

[Jeff Verman]

Re: reply

Such diverse regimes practice this alleged "neo-liberalism"? Harvey is the guy who comes to economic views through geography, right? Comes from a long tradition of people who see things in a grand scheme, while tending to ignore the tiny details. Milton Friedman, then, would be a prime example of this kind of "religious faith"? (the idea is funny...)

[Nigel Hanrahan]

religious faith required for neo-liberal views

Such diverse regimes practice this alleged "neo-liberalism"? Harvey is the guy who comes to economic views through geography, right? Comes from a long tradition of people who see things in a grand scheme, while tending to ignore the tiny details. Milton Friedman, then, would be a prime example of this kind of "religious faith"? (the idea is funny...)

The religious aspect is that no proof would be accepted to challenge the market idolatry that private, so-called market based means of determining distribution of goods and services is always better than other means of determining distribution of goods and services. The ideological architect for privatization/deregulation of California's electricity supply, despite the horrific problems associated with that, admitted this publicly.

Despite this, many economists still think that electricity deregulation will work. A product is a product, they say, and competition always works better than state control.

"I believe in that premise as a matter of religious faith," said Philip J. Romero, dean of the business school at the University of Oregon and one of the architects of California's deregulation plan.
--New York Times, February 4, 2001

The quote is from "The God That Sucked" by Thomas Frank.

As Eduardo Galeano put things so truthfully in regard to Latin America (where neo-liberalist regimes were enforced by military dictatorships) ...

"People were in jail so that prices could be free."

I rather think that you know exactly what's meant here. Nice try.