Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, April 16, 2018

OTP 2018 Apr 16: Beto strikes out but is a hit at baseball fundraiser

“I guarantee you he didn’t just get three pitches and three strikes like his old man,” said O’Rourke.

He can afford a laugh, since he has dusted Cruz in fundraising by taking in an eye-popping $6.7 million in the first three months of this year. That’s more than twice the $3.2 million gathered by Cruz, whose tally counted money from multiple campaign entities including a political action committee.

O’Rourke won’t take PAC money, a stand that’s expected to put him at a fundraising disadvantage as the general election nears. He said Saturday that he and his supporters are “doing this 100 percent the right way. There are no political action committees, no corporations.

 

“It’s just the people, the people of Texas, and you all look awesome,” O’Rourke told supporters who filled The Long Time grounds with a laid-back vibe as they sipped beer, wine, lemonade or water, sitting on blankets, a small stand of bleachers and scattered chairs; children and amiable dogs milling around.

(As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.)

Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: April 16, 2018 at 08:18 AM | 1328 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: off topic, politics, strikeouts, texas

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 3 of 14 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›
   201. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: April 17, 2018 at 01:02 PM (#5655251)
Well, you're certainly making my point, and again ignoring that Gorsuch voted very much in the tradition of Justice Scalia, and you also seem to be quickly forgetting your own point that the decision is as much a rebuke to the Obama Administration as the current one.


Seems only fair since you ignored my point (on purpose one can only hope). I mean I am glad you got that I posted the article and I am resigned to your never realizing I updated it a long long time ago, but my point (again, more simply for the obtuse) was that I doubt GOP President Trump was too happy when the guy he appointed shot down one of his own treasured initiatives.

One of Trump's few policies he actually seems to care about is immigration and one of his few successes (other than the unloved tax cut) is his judicial appointments, and to have them collide in such an ugly way has to sting poor Donald.

Note: You are correct that I will never, ever, read the full decision. Why on Earth would I? Sounds really boring and pointless for a non-lawyer to do so.
   202. Lassus Posted: April 17, 2018 at 01:03 PM (#5655253)
Ummmm.... Joao Souza was a man.

Ah.

My own assumptions prevailed, sadly.

It applied to the first murder!


Isn't Margaret Atwood the author of "The Handmaiden's Tale"?

Yes, and various other top-flight novels. The Blind Assassin is all-world.
   203. Swoboda is freedom Posted: April 17, 2018 at 01:03 PM (#5655254)
I don't know Hannity either, but I'm fairly certain he's incapable of experiencing "shame"... and I'm further sure that 99% of his audience wouldn't care less anyway.


Shame is maybe the wrong word. He is taking heat both from the media and probably from Fox. He can look at recent history and see what happened with Ingraham and with O'Reilly and see potential damage to his reputation and that can hurt his income.
   204. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 17, 2018 at 01:05 PM (#5655255)
But that is simply NOT the role of the FBI, or the director of the FBI.
To quote the eminent lawyer Michael Cohen, "Sez who?" I mean, yeah, I know that's the ordinary course of things. But it's not like there's some law to that effect. It's not a separation of powers issue or anything.¹ Certainly Lynch outranked Comey, and therefore could do what she wanted regardless of his position, but she could also delegate to him.
He may be qualified to do any number of things, including step in as a criminal defense attorney if a friend of his was indicted. That he is qualified does not mean he should do it.
No quarrel with that general statement. I did not say, "It was a brilliant idea to handle it this way." I said it wasn't "comical" or "absurd" (or preposterous, ludicrous, wacky, screwy, or loony, to refer to thesaurus.com).
The FBI investigates, and passes the investigation on to the DOJ (or sometimes a state AG or DA) to decide whether to prosecute. The FBI does not decide whether to prosecute.
Do you think the FBI in investigations of this magnitude does not make recommendations to the applicable USA or person at Main Justice? Don't you think that if Lynch hadn't quasi-semi-recused herself, Comey would have presented the FBI's findings to her and described his view of whether prosecution would be viable or consistent with other such cases? Obviously ordinarily that recommendation would be private, and also obviously ordinarily she wouldn't have precommitted to following his recommendation. But also obviously ordinarily she would be likely to follow his recommendation. As I noted, Comey is not, contra FLTB, a "cop" or "FBI agent"; he's a former USA and DAG. His experience would give his input great weight.
Telling Comey to make that decision was wrong. Period. If she did not want to do it, she passes it down the chain to another prosecutor. Not to the investigative agency.
Telling him to make the decision was untraditional, to be sure. No idea why she wouldn't pass it to her subordinate -- except maybe the theory was that since she wasn't recused, passing it down the chain to another prosecutor would've been kind of a sham.


¹Indeed, the FBI -- unlike, the relationship between, say, a police department and prosecutor's office -- is actually part of the DOJ.
   205. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: April 17, 2018 at 01:05 PM (#5655256)
So I see Charlie Dent isn't going to bother with the remainder of his term -- likely to depart in the coming weeks.

From what I can tell, Tom Wolf has a fair bit of discretion to call a special election.... He could force one ahead of the November election, or, could just schedule it for the next regular cycle. If it were a US Senate vacancy, sounds like it has to take place within 90 days regardless but sounds like for a House vacancy, the ball is in Wolf's court to call for one.

This seat was a goner even before the courts forced a new PA map (I presume the new lines make it even more goner)... Much as flipping another seat BEFORE November would make for more fun -- and it's highly, highly unlikely any major legislation comes to pass before this fall -- probably best just to leave the seat unfilled.

Of course, the counter-argument would be that major legislation or not, there are still a fair number of 'constituent services' a Rep provides that folks of this district would go without...
   206. Greg K Posted: April 17, 2018 at 01:05 PM (#5655259)
Isn't Margaret Atwood the author of "The Handmaiden's Tale"? Or are there two.

That's the one.

Well, I mean, it's possible there is another Margaret Atwood out there, but we're talking about the author.

Thanks for the clarification Lassus! I guess I'm too hooked into Canadian academia controversies, so I assume any discussion of Atwood relates to the Galloway business.
   207. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 17, 2018 at 01:08 PM (#5655260)
Isn't Margaret Atwood the author of "The Handmaiden's Tale"? Or are there two.

That's the one.
Handmaid's Tale.
   208. Srul Itza Posted: April 17, 2018 at 01:11 PM (#5655263)
I presume there's actually a pretty healthy market for "lawyers" who also provide at least a patina of "attorney-client privilege" for certain kinds of rather shady legalesque dealings


Roy Cohn was not a "lawyer", he was a lawyer. He could actually practice law. He was also unethical and involved in a variety of criminal and shady dealings, and was eventually disbarred.
   209. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: April 17, 2018 at 01:13 PM (#5655264)
I haven't read the decision (yet), and I'm pretty sure Bitter Mouse will never get to it, but from the blurb posted, it sounds like Gorsuch voted similarly to how Justice Scalia often did in criminal cases. Those trying to simplify such matters by looking solely at who appointed the Justices only expose their own limitations.

Well, there's a difference between saying that Justices are always on autopilot and noting that most of them tend to vote the same way 90%** of the time in cases where the court is divided ideologically. In this newest decision, you'll note that Gorsuch aside, the other 4 Justices in the majority were Clinton or Obama appointees, while the 4 in the minority were appointed either by Bush II, Bush I, or Reagan. The days of Justices like White or Souter are pretty much long gone.

Well, you're certainly making my point, and again ignoring that Gorsuch voted very much in the tradition of Justice Scalia, and you also seem to be quickly forgetting your own point that the decision is as much a rebuke to the Obama Administration as the current one.


You might for once consider that in this case both of us were "right".

Gorsuch voted contrary to Trump's expectations? Check. Score one for the rodent.

Gorsuch votes with his fellow conservatives in 90% of the cases where the Court is ideologically divided? Check. Who mentioned this?

Gorsuch's vote was in the tradition of Scalia in cases like this? Check. Credit to you here.

Trump's and Obama's Justice Departments were aligned? Check. Who first mentioned this?

The point is that these comments complemented each other. Not everything is binary.
   210. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: April 17, 2018 at 01:13 PM (#5655265)
Shame is maybe the wrong word. He is taking heat both from the media and probably from Fox. He can look at recent history and see what happened with Ingraham and with O'Reilly and see potential damage to his reputation and that can hurt his income.


IDK... I remain skeptical.

O'Reilly was costing them money - in the form of a LOT of big dollar settlements (and settlements that were never going to remain secret forever, regardless of NDA). Ingraham was costing them advertisers.

I tend to suspect that Hannity has already shed all the ads he was ever going to shed over any number of controversial periods. I just can't see Fox going with any sort of "Why, this is such a breach of ethics that we must act!". The laughter would be heard all the way to Siberia.

Don't get me wrong - I don't disagree with the basic, agnostic assessment... of course it's all manner of sleazy, unethical, whatever. And applied to most people, sure, it would be a problem.

I'm just saying that's Sean Hannity. This probably doesn't make the top 10 list of sleazy Hannityisms... if none of those cost him anything, hard to see how this would.

That's the advantage of being a televised SBB, I guess... when your tank is already on E for respect - you do get the benefit of a kind of teflon on matters others wouldn't.
   211. Lassus Posted: April 17, 2018 at 01:15 PM (#5655266)
so I assume any discussion of Atwood relates to the Galloway business.

Care to elaborate in one or two sentences? Does it have anything to do with Robertson Davies? Or Paul Schaffer?


"The Handmaiden's Tale"?
Handmaid's Tale.


I was going to correct this, but as it's like my fourth or fifth favorite of her books, I just assumed maybe I was remembering the title wrong.
   212. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: April 17, 2018 at 01:16 PM (#5655267)
Of course, the counter-argument would be that major legislation or not, there are still a fair number of 'constituent services' a Rep provides that folks of this district would go without...


Yes. I have twice written to my Congressman for help with a matter. Both times they, or their aide responded in a timely manner and were helpful.
   213. Hysterical & Useless Posted: April 17, 2018 at 01:18 PM (#5655268)
a pretty healthy market for "lawyers" who also provide at least a patina of "attorney-client privilege" for certain kinds of rather shady legalesque dealings


Better call Saul!
   214. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: April 17, 2018 at 01:18 PM (#5655270)
Roy Cohn was not a "lawyer", he was a lawyer. He could actually practice law. He was also unethical and involved in a variety of criminal and shady dealings, and was eventually disbarred.


Sure - and hey, lord knows I'm not looking to pick a fight with a lawyer (no scare quotes, Srul!)...

I'm just saying that I imagine there are lawyers who have been admitted to the bar but don't really "practice law" except in a very narrow sense. Yes, yes - I'm also aware that most lawyers are also not litigators who actually spend much time in a court room.

I'd just think that even lawyers with a JD and bar card would still want some kind of distinguishing asterisk between themselves and the Michael Cohens/Roy Cohns/Tom Hagens of the world.
   215. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: April 17, 2018 at 01:18 PM (#5655269)
I was going to correct this, but as it's like my fourth or fifth favorite of her books, I just assumed maybe I was remembering the title wrong.


For the record, Margaret Atwood *is* a woman.
   216. Srul Itza Posted: April 17, 2018 at 01:21 PM (#5655272)
Telling him to make the decision was untraditional, to be sure. No idea why she wouldn't pass it to her subordinate -- except maybe the theory was that since she wasn't recused, passing it down the chain to another prosecutor would've been kind of a sham.


Untraditional is being kind. You can go "Sez who?", but there is a reason for the separation between investigators and prosecutors. They both exercise discretion -- what to investigate; what to prosecute -- but the roles and mind-set are different, and are meant to be.

At a minimum, it would set a terrible precedent. Fortunately(??), given the way it turned out, the next time it comes up, the AG will have a truly bad counter-example to explain why she should not do it.

So why did she do it? Occam's Razor -- Incompetence. I really believe she was over her head here. She should never have let Slick Willy on her plane, or talked to him at all. After that, one bad decision led to another.

So in delegating it to Comey, the decision went from one person who was busy making bad decisions, to another person who kept up that trend.

Appropriate, in a sick way, I guess.
   217. zenbitz Posted: April 17, 2018 at 01:21 PM (#5655273)
Handmaid's Tale.


Believe it or not, I did pause when typing. But not long enough to look it up, because, well, YOLO.
   218. Srul Itza Posted: April 17, 2018 at 01:23 PM (#5655274)
there are still a fair number of 'constituent services' a Rep provides that folks of this district would go without...


Actually, most of them are provided by his staff, not by the representative. It is possible that the office stays open.
   219. Omineca Greg Posted: April 17, 2018 at 01:25 PM (#5655275)
Care to elaborate in one or two sentences?

UBC prof accused of #metoo. Atwood, among others, objects to the way it was handled.
   220. Morty Causa Posted: April 17, 2018 at 01:25 PM (#5655276)
‘Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.’

Not that it's original with Atwood, but it would be more accurate to say: "Women are afraid that men will kill them; men are afraid that women will accuse them of something that will make other men kill them."
   221. . Posted: April 17, 2018 at 01:33 PM (#5655279)
Do you think the FBI in investigations of this magnitude does not make recommendations to the applicable USA or person at Main Justice? Don't you think that if Lynch hadn't quasi-semi-recused herself, Comey would have presented the FBI's findings to her and described his view of whether prosecution would be viable or consistent with other such cases? Obviously ordinarily that recommendation would be private, and also obviously ordinarily she wouldn't have precommitted to following his recommendation. But also obviously ordinarily she would be likely to follow his recommendation. As I noted, Comey is not, contra FLTB, a "cop" or "FBI agent"; he's a former USA and DAG. His experience would give his input great weight.


The dilettante is still apparently having great difficulty distinguishing between having input on a decision and having responsibility for making a decision.

Yes, "ordinarily she wouldn't have precommitted to following his recommendation." That's the whole point and always was. Concession accepted.

(And I never said Comey was a "cop" or "FBI agent." You're lying again. Although I guess it's possible that what I wrote on the subject passed over your head.)
   222. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: April 17, 2018 at 01:33 PM (#5655280)
FWIW, I guess the law is that Wolf has 10 days to decide whether to call a special election to fill out Dent's term (under the OLD district map). He could also schedule the special election to run concurrently with the November GE -- which happened previously when Dwight Evans (the congressman not the RF) appeared on two ballot when Chaka Fattah was convicted... Rather than waiting to be seated with the class in January, Evans was seated immediately to serve out the lame duck... though, in that case - Fattah resigned in late June.

   223. DavidFoss Posted: April 17, 2018 at 01:34 PM (#5655282)
Not that it's original with Atwood, but it would be more accurate to say: "Women are afraid that men will kill them; men are afraid that women will accuse them of something that will make other men kill him."

I would have guessed the quote dealt with the old-school male fear of emasculation and how out of balance that is with what women fear (physical violence). But maybe there is an Atwood book that I hadn't read or I missed some other reference in the discussion somewhere.
   224. Morty Causa Posted: April 17, 2018 at 01:39 PM (#5655286)
Let he who can read, read.
   225. Swoboda is freedom Posted: April 17, 2018 at 01:39 PM (#5655287)
He could actually practice law. He was also unethical and involved in a variety of criminal and shady dealings

Isn't that redundant? You said he was a lawyer. ;)
   226. Omineca Greg Posted: April 17, 2018 at 01:40 PM (#5655289)
"Why do men feel threatened by women?" I asked a male friend of mine. (I love that wonderful rhetorical device, "a male friend of mine." It's often used by female journalists when they want to say something particularly ###### but don't want to be held responsible for it themselves. It also lets people know that you do have male friends, that you aren't one of those fire-breathing mythical monsters, The Radical Feminists, who walk around with little pairs of scissors and kick men in the shins if they open doors for you. "A male friend of mine" also gives — let us admit it — a certain weight to the opinions expressed.) So this male friend of mine, who does by the way exist, conveniently entered into the following dialogue. "I mean," I said, "men are bigger, most of the time, they can run faster, strangle better, and they have on the average a lot more money and power." "They're afraid women will laugh at them," he said. "Undercut their world view." Then I asked some women students in a quickie poetry seminar I was giving, "Why do women feel threatened by men?" "They're afraid of being killed," they said.


from an Atwood lecture.
   227. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: April 17, 2018 at 01:43 PM (#5655292)
I'm just saying that's Sean Hannity. This probably doesn't make the top 10 list of sleazy Hannityisms... if none of those cost him anything, hard to see how this would.

That's the advantage of being a televised SBB, I guess... when your tank is already on E for respect - you do get the benefit of a kind of teflon on matters others wouldn't.


And about once a month, say when Hannity says he 'll no longer bring up Pizzagate "out of respect for the family's wishes — for now.", they'll be saying that he's positively presidential.
   228. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: April 17, 2018 at 01:45 PM (#5655293)
Congressional seat vulnerability porn based on early GOP ad reservations....

Tea leaf reading says that these 5 seats are being written off -


One name that’s glaringly missing from the robust list: Rep. Barbara Comstock (R-VA), a very vulnerable member in a Democratic-trending Northern Virginia district. Reps. Rod Blum (R-IA) and Jason Lewis (R-MN), two other members in tough swing districts viewed as vulnerable by strategists in both parties, also didn’t make the cut. The group also didn’t commit any early resources to open seats vacated by retiring Reps. Darrel Issa (R-CA) and Ed Royce (D-CA) that Democrats have been bullish about picking up.


A couple of moderately surprising seats that did make the cut (as in, surprising that the GOP sees them as vulnerable):

On the flip side, the group shows it’s legitimately concerned about holding a pair of Kansas House seats by reserving nearly $3 million to protect Rep. Kevin Yoder (R-KS) and a GOP-leaning open seat in the state, as well as protecting Reps. Andy Barr (R-KY) and Tom MacArthur (R-NJ).


Kind of surprised that MacArthur made the cut - I was under the impression that his tax cut vote pretty much doomed him (i.e., I think his district was one of the most screwed by the SALT changes)... but maybe this is his reward for the vote - the party isn't gonna give up on him.
   229. Greg K Posted: April 17, 2018 at 01:50 PM (#5655298)
so I assume any discussion of Atwood relates to the Galloway business.

Care to elaborate in one or two sentences? Does it have anything to do with Robertson Davies? Or Paul Schaffer?


Atwood and the Galloway Business

Steven Galloway was an English prof at UBC. Allegations arose of sexual harassment and bullying, which was all botched in pretty much every way imaginable. There were a lot of rumours flying around, but it seems like the only substantiated claim was from a grad student he was having an affair with. A couple other students came forward to corroborate her story.

The end result is that the university fired Galloway, the literary community rallied around him as the victim of a witch hunt, and the women who corroborated the complaint have been blackballed in the Canadian lit community.

Margaret Atwood (like many others) has taken the position that Galloway was unfairly treated. And now she's taking heat for sympathizing with Galloway, but not having any for the women.
   230. Greg K Posted: April 17, 2018 at 01:55 PM (#5655300)
Not that it's original with Atwood, but it would be more accurate to say: "Women are afraid that men will kill them; men are afraid that women will accuse them of something that will make other men kill him."

I would have guessed the quote dealt with the old-school male fear of emasculation and how out of balance that is with what women fear (physical violence). But maybe there is an Atwood book that I hadn't read or I missed some other reference in the discussion somewhere.


I think historically speaking being emasculated was far more of an existential threat than today. In the kind of atomized, individualistic society we live in now where your survival is much less dependent on status you might argue that women have lost an edge, whereas men still have theirs.
   231. BDC Posted: April 17, 2018 at 01:55 PM (#5655301)
WRT the intermittent atomic-bomb subthread: Truman's is probably one of those decisions that will remain a permanent source of ambivalence. It was expedient, militarily justified, morally indefensible, and a terrible precedent all at the same time. The Japanese government might have raised the most telling objection, on the day Nagasaki was bombed: "a belligerent does not enjoy an unrestricted right in the choice of methods of attack." Of course they would say that, being the attacked party. But they had a point. Having used the bomb, the U.S. forfeited (in some senses) the right to find its use by others – to say nothing of its mere possession – as an especially unspeakable thing.
   232. McCoy Posted: April 17, 2018 at 01:57 PM (#5655304)
Took the entrance exam for becoming a Beer Cicerone and hoo-boy was it hard, Granted I didn't study but it is 60 questions in 30 minutes and you have to get 45 or more right. Ended up getting 50 questions right. Next level costs $370 and you have to come in person to do the exams and the exams are like 4 different exams. Questions, essays, tasting, and something else that I'm forgetting. At some point I'll sign up for that but I'll have to study my butt off for it and I have no idea when I'll do that.
   233. McCoy Posted: April 17, 2018 at 02:02 PM (#5655306)
It was expedient, militarily justified, morally indefensible, and a terrible precedent all at the same time.

Uselessly expedient and I'm not sure how it was militarily justified. Dropping bombs on cities has dubious military value.
   234. BDC Posted: April 17, 2018 at 02:03 PM (#5655309)
Took the entrance exam for becoming a Beer Cicerone and hoo-boy was it hard

Why didn't you just become a Fake Beer Cicerone.
   235. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: April 17, 2018 at 02:03 PM (#5655310)
Not sure if anyone posted it -

But, assuming McClatchy's reporting about Cohen in Prague is accurate -

Did anyone mention that - perhaps just coincidentally - a long extradition battle over an alleged Russian hacker ended just a few weeks prior to the Cohen raid and after said hacker's first appearance in US court on charges?


Secondly, a little more than two weeks ago Reuters reported that Nikulin, who had been extradited to the U.S., entered a not guilty plea in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco.

Once again we are faced with a series of data points that might or might not be a coincidence. Nikulin, a Russian hacker, was in Prague at the time of the alleged meeting between Cohen and the Russians in which payment to hackers was the primary agenda. Then the McClatchy story breaks a couple of weeks after Nikulin makes his first U.S. court appearance. Coincidence? You tell me.


Might be worth watching...
   236. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: April 17, 2018 at 02:07 PM (#5655312)
Being the Anti-Clinton Won’t Work In 2018

First Read: “One of the keys to President Trump’s victory in 2016 — and to his overall political survival — has been to claim, essentially: ‘Hey, I’m not Hillary Clinton.’ Indeed, voters who disliked BOTH Clinton and him ended up siding with the Republican in 2016.”

“But that talking point doesn’t work for Trump anymore, even as Clinton remains highly unpopular, according to the latest NBC/WSJ poll… voters who dislike both Hillary and Trump make up 15 percent of voters, and they are more Democratic and prefer the Dems to control Congress.”

“NBC/WSJ co-pollster Bill McInturff (R) says that the bipartisan disapprovers are clearly different voters between 2016 and now, but it’s also clear that they won’t be Republican voters in 2018 – and maybe beyond.”
   237. Morty Causa Posted: April 17, 2018 at 02:21 PM (#5655326)
Let’s imagine that the Bomb wasn’t dropped. Instead, the US military invaded the island, suffering 10K—50k—100k—etc., killed. (Let’s not forget how the enemy fought on Okinawa.) It is later found out that all those American deaths and affiliated casualties could have been avoided. There’s the larger overarching blowback down to the very personal level. To wit:

MOTHERS everywhere: “Let me get this straight, President Truman, you could have utterly and completely defeated Japan, the country that began this horrible worldwide war with Pearl Harbor, the country that we vowed to wage war until there was a complete unconditional surrender, and this could have been attained all without a loss of one American life. Without the loss of my son's life. Instead, you chose to sacrifice Americans to save Japanese lives. Do I have that right?”

What would be Truman’s response? It’s easy to be temperate when you’re some 75 years divorced from that horrible event known as WWII, but do try to remember this was an all-out war between countries and peoples. Whose side would you be on?

The novelist William Styron recounted the time he visited Japan for some literary event. While there, he met with a Japanese novelist friend, and over drinks and conversation, Styron shamefacedly admitted he was glad the bomb was dropped. Because, he may have been in that invading force and he could have been killed. His friend, said, he was glad, too. He would have been defending his homeland and would have likely been killed.Wars like that aren't fought and concluded with moral paragons sitting in their comfy chairs at home 50-75 years later.

EDITed to add a line.
   238. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: April 17, 2018 at 02:25 PM (#5655328)
What Morty (and Styron, and Styron's Japanese friend) said.
   239. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 17, 2018 at 02:31 PM (#5655336)
. . . but my point (again, more simply for the obtuse) was that I doubt GOP President Trump was too happy when the guy he appointed shot down one of his own treasured initiatives.

You should quit when you're behind. The case originated in the Obama Administration, and involves a statutory provision from the 1980s. Having now skimmed the decision, Gorsuch indicates that the outcome is controlled by a 2015 decision, Johnson v. United States, interpreting a similar law. Who wrote the decision in Johnson? Justice Scalia.
   240. . Posted: April 17, 2018 at 02:34 PM (#5655339)
But, assuming McClatchy's reporting about Cohen in Prague is accurate -


Wasn't that the one that prompted Mueller's office to come out and warn about all the fake news out there about his investigation?

Mueller himself warned usual suspect types not to become clickbait? Will they listen? Inquiring minds want to know.
   241. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: April 17, 2018 at 02:38 PM (#5655340)
Instead, you chose to sacrifice Americans to save Japanese lives.


While nuance is often lost on the aggrieved, an invasion would have cost Japanese lives, far more than the bomb killed. Assuming the same ratio of casualties as Okinawa, 100,000 US killed would have meant about 1.2 million Japanese killed.
   242. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 17, 2018 at 02:44 PM (#5655346)

Took the entrance exam for becoming a Beer Cicerone and hoo-boy was it hard,
That's one more bar exam than FLTB ever took!
   243. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: April 17, 2018 at 02:53 PM (#5655353)
Wasn't that the one that prompted Mueller's office to come out and warn about all the fake news out there about his investigation?


Connecting dots now are you?

The supposed "statement" in its entirety - was this:

“What I have been telling all reporters is that many stories about our investigation have been inaccurate,” the Mueller spokesperson said. “Be very cautious about any source that claims to have knowledge about our investigation and dig deep into what they claim before reporting on it. If another outlet reports something, don’t run with it unless you have your own sourcing to back it up.”


And it wasn't a "statement" - it was in response to a question from the Washington Times... so... keep hope alive, I guess?
   244. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: April 17, 2018 at 02:53 PM (#5655355)
Uselessly expedient and I'm not sure how it was militarily justified. Dropping bombs on cities has dubious military value.


It was the best of 3 bad options. Drop the bomb, invade, blockade until they give up. Dropping the bomb was the most humane, in toto, than the other 2 options. I suppose if we had more than 2 bombs, we could have dropped one or 2 on relatively uninhabited ares as a demonstration, hoping that would force a surrender. But we didn't, and couldn't waste the 2 we had on a demonstration that might not work.
   245. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: April 17, 2018 at 02:56 PM (#5655356)
It was the best of 3 bad options. Drop the bomb, invade, blockade until they give up. Dropping the bomb was the most humane, in toto, than the other 2 options. I suppose if we had more than 2 bombs, we could have dropped one or 2 on relatively uninhabited ares as a demonstration, hoping that would force a surrender. But we didn't, and couldn't waste the 2 we had on a demonstration that might not work.


I'm not an expert (obviously) on WWII but my understanding is that did they really need to drop two? Wouldn't one, on the more military related target of Nagisaki worked just fine? I am in complete agreement that the bombs overall saved lives. But the "shock and awe" of one would have been enough, no?
   246. . Posted: April 17, 2018 at 02:57 PM (#5655358)
The supposed "statement" in its entirety - was this:

“What I have been telling all reporters is that many stories about our investigation have been inaccurate,” the Mueller spokesperson said. “Be very cautious about any source that claims to have knowledge about our investigation and dig deep into what they claim before reporting on it. If another outlet reports something, don’t run with it unless you have your own sourcing to back it up.”


What more would you want or expect? The guy's saying there's a bunch of fake news out there about the investigation. That's what "Many stories about our investigation have been inaccurate" means.

You're clickbait. It's better than being a widget, I guess. But widgets probably don't waste as much time.
   247. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: April 17, 2018 at 03:01 PM (#5655362)
What more would you want or expect? The guy's saying there's a bunch of fake news out there about the investigation. That's what "Many stories about our investigation have been inaccurate" means.


Yeesh, so I gotta connect the dots?

You're clickbait. It's better than being a widget, I guess. But widgets probably don't waste as much time.


Hahaha.... which makes your responses even more of a waste of time?
   248. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: April 17, 2018 at 03:08 PM (#5655366)
“What I have been telling all reporters is that many stories about our investigation have been inaccurate,” the Mueller spokesperson said. “Be very cautious about any source that claims to have knowledge about our investigation and dig deep into what they claim before reporting on it. If another outlet reports something, don’t run with it unless you have your own sourcing to back it up.”


In short, Meuller's spokesperson apparently thought they needed to explain how journalists do actual journalism to someone from the Washington Times. Which, given what the Moonie-bin publishes regularly, makes sense. The feel of that quote is more of a dad telling the kid to not trust whatever he sees an egg-bot post on Twitter.
   249. Srul Itza Posted: April 17, 2018 at 03:09 PM (#5655368)
It was the best of 3 bad options. Drop the bomb, invade, blockade until they give up. Dropping the bomb was the most humane, in toto, than the other 2 options.


This is an assumption, and one I think I agree with. But I have concerns about stating things too dogmatically.

To start, another option was something less than Unconditional Surrender. Yes, I know it goes against the grain for Americans, and it may have been better in the long run for Japan, in becoming the modern nation it is now, to have been fully taken over and re-organized as it was, but it was still an option.

Also, the assumption that a blockade would have been more costly in lives than the 2 bombs is based on assumptions about how long the Japanese would hold out. Like all alternate history, it is an unknowable.

I think an invasion would have been terrible for both sides, even if the Japanese did NOT fight to the last man, woman and child. And the Soviets would probably have ended up with some stake in the outcome, and maybe a part of the country.

I do think that any assertions about what would have been the better course has to take into account where Japan ended up in the late 20th Century (a peaceful, prosperous democracy that, outside of its former victims, was much admired around the world), from where it was just before we dropped the two bombs (a ruined country with the military holding far too much sway).

I try not to spend too much time chasing down the rabbit holes of alternate history. Given where things stand today, and the many unknowables facing them in 1945, I am willing to give Truman and his advisers the benefit of the doubt on this decision.
   250. Lassus Posted: April 17, 2018 at 03:20 PM (#5655375)
I suppose if we had more than 2 bombs, we could have dropped one or 2 on relatively uninhabited ares as a demonstration, hoping that would force a surrender. But we didn't, and couldn't waste the 2 we had on a demonstration that might not work.

Outside of the pointless debate over dropping them on cities at all, I would still echo #245 in wondering why two cities of civilians were necessary to be incinerated rather than one.
   251. Ishmael Posted: April 17, 2018 at 03:21 PM (#5655376)
I think one thing you have to remember about the bombing is that part of what is shocking and outrageous about it to us, at a remove and considered in isolation, is the civilian targets. In the context: the Allies were already firebombing cities, and had already killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in Japan and Europe. Dresden and Berlin and Tokyo were not all that far removed from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in that sense.

That's just to say, they were already pretty far down the path, morally and strategically, that leads to dropping an atomic bomb on a city.
   252. Swoboda is freedom Posted: April 17, 2018 at 03:22 PM (#5655377)
I'm not an expert (obviously) on WWII but my understanding is that did they really need to drop two? Wouldn't one, on the more military related target of Nagisaki worked just fine? I am in complete agreement that the bombs overall saved lives. But the "shock and awe" of one would have been enough, no?

Maybe not and they dropped the bomb on Hiroshima on the 6th and didn't drop the Nagasaki bomb until the 9th. The Japanese didn't rush to surrender on the 6th-8th.
   253. Don August(us) Cesar Geronimo Berroa Posted: April 17, 2018 at 03:27 PM (#5655380)
Maybe not and they dropped the bomb on Hiroshima on the 6th and didn't drop the Nagasaki bomb until the 9th. The Japanese didn't rush to surrender on the 6th-8th.


The Soviets also declared war on Japan on the 8th/9th, and the Japanese still didn't rush to surrender.
   254. Lassus Posted: April 17, 2018 at 03:27 PM (#5655381)
#251 is a good point.
   255. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: April 17, 2018 at 03:35 PM (#5655384)
I think a big problem was that even via a "conditional surrender" - it was more than just the things the US ultimately agreed to (i.e., protecting the emperor)... Japan at the time of the surrender still held pretty substantial swaths of territory. The army especially - which had the the most suicidal militant elements of Japanese leadership - still thought it might be able to keep some conquered territory.

Maybe not and they dropped the bomb on Hiroshima on the 6th and didn't drop the Nagasaki bomb until the 9th. The Japanese didn't rush to surrender on the 6th-8th.


I know we've all had this argument before - but the other event that happened on the 9th is that the Soviets cancelled their nonagression pact with Japan and began steamrolling immediately... three separate fronts to the attack, half a million troops in each attack, and it only took them a few days to effectively slice and dice Manchuria.
   256. Greg K Posted: April 17, 2018 at 03:35 PM (#5655385)
I do think that any assertions about what would have been the better course has to take into account where Japan ended up in the late 20th Century (a peaceful, prosperous democracy that, outside of its former victims, was much admired around the world), from where it was just before we dropped the two bombs (a ruined country with the military holding far too much sway).

I try not to spend too much time chasing down the rabbit holes of alternate history. Given where things stand today, and the many unknowables facing them in 1945, I am willing to give Truman and his advisers the benefit of the doubt on this decision.

It's sort of the opposite of 1914 counter-factual thought experiments. There, the tendency is to think "how could things have turned out any worse?". Considering alternate paths for Japan in 1945 (and to a lesser extent Germany) the view from today seems so rosy you'd worry about messing with a good thing.
   257. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: April 17, 2018 at 03:38 PM (#5655386)
I think one thing you have to remember about the bombing is that part of what is shocking and outrageous about it to us, at a remove and considered in isolation, is the civilian targets. In the context: the Allies were already firebombing cities, and had already killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in Japan and Europe. Dresden and Berlin and Tokyo were not all that far removed from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in that sense.


Indeed - by some estimates, the March 9-10 firebombing of Tokyo actually produced more civilian casualties than Hiroshima. I don't think anyone disputes that it definitely killed more than Nagasaki.
   258. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: April 17, 2018 at 03:45 PM (#5655391)
Sandy Hook parents are apparently suing Alex Jones for defamation due to his years long spewing of "Truther" garbage.
   259. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: April 17, 2018 at 03:49 PM (#5655392)
As expected - and we can probably close the 2018 least surprising news contest -

Fox News says Hannity has ‘our full support’ amid Cohen controversy

Like I said, once you reach a Hannity level of 'respect' - the upside is that most ethical concerns barely invoke an eyeroll...
   260. zenbitz Posted: April 17, 2018 at 04:03 PM (#5655400)
Uselessly expedient and I'm not sure how it was militarily justified. Dropping bombs on cities has dubious military value.


So, this AND the statement that it was morally indefensible I think bear some further qualification. Dropping bombs on cites (we know NOW -- mostly from the post-war II analysis) not only has dubious military value, it might have NEGATIVE military value, but at the time it was a totally standard tactic of total war. That also is an out for moral indefensibility re ATOMIC weapons per se. In 1945 atomic weapons were 100% NOT a part of the collective human psyche. They were not taboo or verboten*. They were just MOABs.

So - if dropping 2 A bombs on Japan was morally indefensible, than continuing the war BY ANY MEANS was also morally indefensible.


* Note that the primary objection to nuclear arms is the long lasting effect of radioactive fallout. This just seems way worse than it is in reality (at least until you get to the 100s of weapons at once scale). Nagasaki and Hiroshima were rebuilt and re-occupied in a few years and are more or less safe -- and this is with a 1950s era understanding of radiation. Compare the long-term effects to something like depleted uranium bullets (heavy metal poisoning, not so much radiation harm) or even land mines or agent orange (actually the carrier, not AO itself)
   261. BDC Posted: April 17, 2018 at 04:03 PM (#5655401)
Fox News says Hannity has ‘our full support’

If he was a major-league manager, that would mean he would be fired tomorrow.
   262. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: April 17, 2018 at 04:04 PM (#5655402)
If he was a major-league manager, that would mean he would be fired tomorrow.


Or a Trump cabinet member...
   263. zenbitz Posted: April 17, 2018 at 04:04 PM (#5655403)
While nuance is often lost on the aggrieved, an invasion would have cost Japanese lives, far more than the bomb killed. Assuming the same ratio of casualties as Okinawa, 100,000 US killed would have meant about 1.2 million Japanese killed.


Don't forget the 3rd option - total blockade of the home islands. This *WAS* (IIRC) considered too barbaric even for WWII allied high command, even though they did it to German in WWI.

EDIT: COKES.
   264. BDC Posted: April 17, 2018 at 04:06 PM (#5655405)
So - if dropping 2 A bombs on Japan was morally indefensible, than continuing the war BY ANY MEANS was also morally indefensible

True; but of course the bombing of Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, et al. has inspired a lot of moral queasiness, too.
   265. zenbitz Posted: April 17, 2018 at 04:08 PM (#5655407)
I would still echo #245 in wondering why two cities of civilians were necessary to be incinerated rather than one.


Army had two bombs. Army dropped two bombs. I don't think it was any more complicated than that.
   266. Lassus Posted: April 17, 2018 at 04:09 PM (#5655409)
Army had two bombs. Army dropped two bombs. I don't think it was any more complicated than that.

Well, no, but that doesn't answer the question.
   267. zenbitz Posted: April 17, 2018 at 04:09 PM (#5655411)
True; but of course the bombing of Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, et al. has inspired a lot of moral queasiness, too.


But not at the time, right?
   268. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: April 17, 2018 at 04:13 PM (#5655415)
Army had two bombs. Army dropped two bombs. I don't think it was any more complicated than that.


I'm sorta inclined to agree. They went for the max effect they could with what they had and the Japanese didn't know they only had two. When would a third bomb have been ready? IIRC correctly they had a third bomb that would have been ready in a month or so.
   269. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 17, 2018 at 04:15 PM (#5655418)
Outside of the pointless debate over dropping them on cities at all, I would still echo #245 in wondering why two cities of civilians were necessary to be incinerated rather than one.

Japan didn't surrender after the first bomb; the second was dropped to further prod them, and also suggest that we had many more (when we didn't at the time). Those willing to let the war drag on to avoid using the bomb should talk to a few WWII GIs, who were still dying on a regular basis. The last two major battles, Iwo Jima & Okinawa gave no indication that the Japanese were willing to surrender - quite the opposite. Truman made the right call.
   270. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: April 17, 2018 at 04:16 PM (#5655419)
and also suggest that we had many more (when we didn't at the time).


right, you phrased it better than I did. If they only dropped one well it kinda means they only had one right? Two however suggests to the Japanese that they had more than two, even though they didn't at the time.
   271. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: April 17, 2018 at 04:19 PM (#5655420)
Don't forget the 3rd option - total blockade of the home islands. This *WAS* (IIRC) considered too barbaric even for WWII allied high command, even though they did it to German in WWI.


I still come back to the fact that Japan in the summer of 1945 - still had several million troops still occupying China/Manchuria, parts of Burma, the Dutch East Indies, etc.

By 1945 - Japanese logistical ability to supply them was long since shot anyway, but they weren't waving the white flag.
   272. Don August(us) Cesar Geronimo Berroa Posted: April 17, 2018 at 04:21 PM (#5655422)
Those willing to let the war drag on to avoid using the bomb should talk to a few WWII GIs, who were still dying on a regular basis.


Kamikazes continued to attack up to, and after Japan's surrender on the 15th. the USS Pennsylvania was torpedoed and seriously damaged on August 12th while at anchor at Okinawa...

   273. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: April 17, 2018 at 04:23 PM (#5655423)
I'm sorta inclined to agree. They went for the max effect they could with what they had and the Japanese didn't know they only had two. When would a third bomb have been ready? IIRC correctly they had a third bomb that would have been ready in a month or so.


This was very much a topic of discussion in Japan -

The Japanese had their own nuclear program - and while they hadn't cracked it yet, were quite aware of the difficulty in enriching enough material to create one... at least immediately following Hiroshima, doubted the US had more at hand. You're correct that a 3rd bomb was expected to need another month.

The relatively quick succession was very much intended to bluff Japan into thinking the US had a larger supply at hand than it actually did.
   274. perros Posted: April 17, 2018 at 04:27 PM (#5655424)

I think historically speaking being emasculated was far more of an existential threat than today. In the kind of atomized, individualistic society we live in now where your survival is much less dependent on status you might argue that women have lost an edge, whereas men still have theirs.


Are you proposing we've reached the end of history, of status-seeking, of economics? Lower-status males have less existenttial success than high-status people of any sex or gender. As has been pointed out, men are far, far more likely to die on the job than women, and class has everything to do with that, too.

The lower one's social status, the more existential the stakes -- the more emasculation matters.
   275. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: April 17, 2018 at 04:32 PM (#5655427)
The guy's saying there's a bunch of fake news out there about the investigation. That's what "Many stories about our investigation have been inaccurate" means.
And what is your special insight that the McClatchy/Prague report was "the one"?

Or - here's a thought - maybe you were just making stuff up and pretending it's a fact.
   276. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: April 17, 2018 at 04:33 PM (#5655429)
You should quit when you're behind. The case originated in the Obama Administration...


Which has nothing to do with my point (which you are still refusing to understand, I wonder why).

Once more: GOP President Trump must have been plenty unhappy that the guy he appointed was the swing vote against his administration on one of Trump's pet issues. That sort of disloyalty has - in the past - really ticked Trump off.

Now maybe you think Trump will be mollified that the case started under Obama, but I don't share that view. Heck I doubt you share that view. The Trump administration lost because "their guy" voted against them. If you think that went over well with Trump, well I guess any fool is allowed to have any foolish opinion they want.
   277. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: April 17, 2018 at 04:37 PM (#5655432)
I think it is easier to make the sort of dry ethical considerations regarding the atomic bombing of Japan now than it was then.

Then the atomic bomb had never been dropped (and even after the second one was dropped, I don't think a few days or even weeks is enough for everyone to fully process it).
We were at war. A long and bloody war, and the US had suffered a sneak attack at the hands of Japan.
The fog of war was in effect and we know way more about the state of Japan and their military now than they did then.

I am not arguing one way or another - since I don't think it cut and dried either way - but I am suggesting it was not nearly as simple as some of the analysis might lead one to believe.
   278. perros Posted: April 17, 2018 at 04:42 PM (#5655436)

That's just to say, they were already pretty far down the path, morally and strategically, that leads to dropping an atomic bomb on a city.

And moral calculus is more than just adding up the number of deaths. Took another generation to reach the moral heights of the body count.
   279. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: April 17, 2018 at 04:45 PM (#5655437)
Is nothing sacred?

I find it interesting that Morrisey and Stephin Merritt are both kinda jackasses when it comes to race. I mean, they are both keen observers of the human condition but I guess that only extends as far as white men and women.
   280. dlf Posted: April 17, 2018 at 04:49 PM (#5655439)
I'm no scholar of the subject, but when listing the alternatives, is there a reason not to include dropping the bombs in the harbor outside of, for example, Tokyo or Kyoto or Nagasaki, etc.?

the US had suffered a sneak attack at the hands of Japan.


Is there a military attack that isn't a "sneak attack?" I mean DJT telegraphed that we were going to eventually launch a missile strike in Syria, but even this administration doesn't say when, where, how, etc.?
   281. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: April 17, 2018 at 04:53 PM (#5655443)
My goodness he loves the pomp doesn't he? If the Obama WH had produced that video I can only imagine the responses. It looks like a ####### tourism ad. What a nice chandelier they have at Mar a Lago!
   282. Count Vorror Rairol Mencoon (CoB) Posted: April 17, 2018 at 04:53 PM (#5655445)
Those willing to let the war drag on to avoid using the bomb should talk to a few WWII GIs, who were still dying on a regular basis.


Fussell says it was around 7k Allied casualties per week around that time.


On the other hand, John Kenneth Galbraith is persuaded that the Japanese
would have surrendered surely by November without an invasion. He thinks
the A-bombs were unnecessary and unjustified because the war was ending
anyway. The A-bombs meant, he says, “a difference, at most, of two or three
weeks.” But at the time, with no indication that surrender was on the way,
the kamikazes were sinking American vessels, the
Indianapolis was sunk (880 men killed), and Allied casualties were running to over 7,000 per week.
“Two or three weeks,” says Galbraith.
Two weeks more means 14,000 more killed and wounded, three weeks
more, 21,000. Those weeks mean the world if you’re one of those thousands

or related to one of them. During the time between the dropping of the
Nagasaki bomb on August 9 and the actual surrender on the fifteenth, the
war pursued its accustomed course: on the twelfth of August eight captured
American fliers were executed (heads chopped off); the fifty-first United
States submarine,Bonefish, was sunk (all aboard drowned); the destroyer
Callaghan went down, the seventieth to be sunk, and the Destroyer Escort
Underhill was lost. That’s a bit of what happened in six days of the two or
three weeks posited by Galbraith. What did he do in the war? He worked
in the Office of Price Administration in Washington. I don’t demand that he
experience having his ass shot off. I merely note that he didn’t.
   283. DavidFoss Posted: April 17, 2018 at 04:53 PM (#5655446)
The Trump administration lost because "their guy" voted against them. If you think that went over well with Trump, well I guess any fool is allowed to have any foolish opinion they want.

I can actually see Clapper's point here. Gorsuch's vote matches his replacement. The vote would have been exactly the same had Scalia been still living. One of the reasons Gorsuch was appointed was because Gorsuch saw Scalia as an idol. This is not a case of Gorsuch "going Souter".
   284. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 17, 2018 at 04:58 PM (#5655448)

Or - here's a thought - maybe you were just making stuff up and pretending it's a fact.
I assume that's the ironicest "maybe" in the history of irony.
   285. perros Posted: April 17, 2018 at 05:00 PM (#5655449)
Is there a military attack that isn't a "sneak attack?" I mean DJT telegraphed that we were going to eventually launch a missile strike in Syria, but even this administration doesn't say when, where, how, etc.?


Yes, the US knew that Japan would attack, juat not specifically. It was "sneaky" in that war hadn't been declared.

Of course, we don't even bother doing so anymore.
   286. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: April 17, 2018 at 05:01 PM (#5655450)
Given the culture of obeisance to the Emperor, all that mattered was what he said (whether he was told to say it by the military, or not). The people would have fought to the last man, woman, and child, if that's what they were told. Regardless of how quickly the Soviets were reclaiming Manchuria, an assault on the Home Islands would have been approximately as ugly as (Viet Cong * 1980 Afghanistan) ^ 3. Little kids would have gone after GIs with little bamboo shivs, and their mommies would have cheered them on. The second bomb proved that the first one wasn't a fluke, and the next one could have been on Tokyo, or Osaka, or (worst of all, culturally) Kyoto. There's some question as to whether the Emperor was swayed more by the peace elements in the ruling class, or just an innate sense of survival, but once they fully understood that the two bombs were both A) atomic, and B) repeatable, that did the trick. They thought there were more on the way.

Between the 6th and the 9th - well, remember this wasn't present day, it probably took at least a couple days simply to comprehend what had happened. After Nagasaki, the Japanese tapped out on the 10th; it just took a few days to formalize.
   287. Greg K Posted: April 17, 2018 at 05:01 PM (#5655451)
Are you proposing we've reached the end of history, of status-seeking, of economics? Lower-status males have less existenttial success than high-status people of any sex or gender. As has been pointed out, men are far, far more likely to die on the job than women, and class has everything to do with that, too.

The lower one's social status, the more existential the stakes -- the more emasculation matters.

Oh I wouldn't go that far. Status still matters.

I think the difference now is:
A] You can make a living recording youtube videos from your mom's basement, or entering data in an office. Community isn't a matter of life and death to the same degree it has been in the past.

B] Society is far more fragmented than in the past as well. You can have a tremendous amount of status in one community while in another you're a gutter punk. Again, society's always been that way. Working class masculinity in the 17th century is a fascinating subject of research. We don't have (and never will) much evidence to work from, but what little there is indicates that such men had their own way of constructing their identities that had little to do with the stuff gentlemen aimed for. [Edit: But the diversity is much wider today.]

My point is that I think emasculation is a much less straight forward thing today. If a woman makes you look like a fool in your 15th century farming village it may well ruin your standing in the community and your material well being. If a woman makes you look like a fool in a 21st century city centre, does anyone even notice?
   288. BDC Posted: April 17, 2018 at 05:02 PM (#5655453)
But not at the time, right?

Certainly there were some who approved of conventional bombing but thought that the atomic bomb was beyond the pale. William D. Leahy, naval chief of staff to FDR and Truman, was appalled by Hiroshima but saw no problem with firebombing Tokyo.

But no less a hawk than Winston Churchill had his doubts. A draft memo that he prepared in 1945 was critical of bombing civilians as "terror and wanton destruction." Churchill was also dubious about bombing the enemy so completely into the Stone Age that conquering and occupying would be worthless. In the final memo that he produced he apparently stuck to the latter rationale for limiting bombing, and in the end his scruples probably had little effect; but he had them.
   289. BDC Posted: April 17, 2018 at 05:04 PM (#5655456)
Although I should reiterate that I am not faulting Harry Truman. The decision to drop the Bomb is just something I feel isn't black-or-white or even a gray area, either. I think it's a chiaroscuro issue: both black and white at once.
   290. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 17, 2018 at 05:04 PM (#5655458)

Is there a military attack that isn't a "sneak attack?" I mean DJT telegraphed that we were going to eventually launch a missile strike in Syria, but even this administration doesn't say when, where, how, etc.?
Yes, but when, where, how isn't what makes something a sneak attack in the moral sense. What made Dec. 7 a sneak attack was that the U.S. and Japan weren't at war. In fact, they were engaging in negotiations.

Lots of things are not sneak attacks. When the U.S. invaded Afghanistan after 9/11, we said, "Turn over Bin Laden to us by X date or we attack." In the first Gulf War, similarly, we told Iraq to leave Kuwait by X date or else we attack. Etc.
   291. Greg K Posted: April 17, 2018 at 05:07 PM (#5655460)
That last note perhaps over-states it. Again I'm not saying we're living in a world devoid of status-seeking. But we live in a society where someone can say "don't worry what other people think of you" and not be put in a loony bin. We have a remarkable amount of freedom (relatively speaking) in choosing how much to care about status, or how we define status/what communities we want to have status within.

None of this eliminates status as a driver for behaviour, but it provides a much wider range of options.
   292. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: April 17, 2018 at 05:09 PM (#5655462)
FWIW - much as I tend to ultimately agree with Truman's call...

I do think people tend to overstate the "ask a GI" math... I wish I could find it online - and I don't remember the specific publication (though, given my proclivity to hoard print - I suspect it's some box somewhere) - but I do recall reading a piece in one of those historical magazines (probably around the 50th anniversary of Hiroshima) that put the contemporaneous support for the bombings as they occurred surprisingly low among GIs. Still a super-majority - I want to say it was better than 2/3 - but I was surprised reading it at the time that it wasn't more like 95%.

Another surprising - or maybe, I guess, not-so-surprising if you think about it for a minute - tidbit I recall is that civilian/domestic support for the bombings as handled was actually higher than it was for uniformed servicemen actually at risk under the alternative.

   293. McCoy Posted: April 17, 2018 at 05:12 PM (#5655465)
Let’s imagine that the Bomb wasn’t dropped. Instead, the US military invaded the island, suffering 10K—50k—100k—etc., killed. (Let’s not forget how the enemy fought on Okinawa.) It is later found out that all those American deaths and affiliated casualties could have been avoided.

There is no proof that the US needed to invade Japan to get them to surrender. The Japanese were looking for peace and with the Russians invading and the US giving reassurances that they could keep their Emperor the Japanese capitulated.
   294. BDC Posted: April 17, 2018 at 05:13 PM (#5655466)
Lower-status males have less existenttial success than high-status people of any sex or gender. As has been pointed out, men are far, far more likely to die on the job than women, and class has everything to do with that, too.

The lower one's social status, the more existential the stakes -- the more emasculation matters


As Greg says, this doesn't have much to do with the 21st century.

It may not even have much to do with the primatology it seems to be based on. I've been reading a book by Craig Stanford that summarizes current research on chimpanzees. Chimp males seem to have an elaborate dominance hierarchy, and alpha males seem to have a slight reproductive edge. But alpha status tends to be reached relatively briefly by males in their primes, and it doesn't mean monopoly on either females or other resources. The implication is almost that chimps have a culture that functions well if males know their place in a pecking order, but it's a shifting order, and more for show than strict evolutionary calculus might demand.

Alpha males (or rather, those who were alpha at some point in their "careers") do tend to live longer, but Stanford says this may be a circular observation: it could well be that only the physically healthiest chimps get to be alpha to start with. They are subject to more stress than subservient males, though, which has its functional drawbacks.

Which may mean that some human societies that have been obsessed with male honor are effectively more concerned with status than chimpanzee communities – in part because human status gets filtered and amplified through cultural mechanisms.

   295. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: April 17, 2018 at 05:14 PM (#5655468)
I find it interesting that Morrisey and Stephin Merritt are both kinda jackasses when it comes to race.


Middle aged working class white men are racist? Weird.
   296. stig-tossled, hornswoggled gef the typing mongoose Posted: April 17, 2018 at 05:18 PM (#5655472)
Middle aged working class white men are racist? Weird.


Not sure about his socioeconomic background*, but Merritt, at least, probably isn't the typical working-class white guy (not that Morrissey is, either) --

Merritt is an atheist, wears only brown clothing, is openly gay and a vegan
, per Wikipedia.

His racial views I'm unacquainted with, just as I am with virtually all of his music.


*Though I see, per Wikipedia, that he went to some fancy-ass "private, coeducational high school in Weston, Massachusetts" that asserts its "mission is to provide a progressive education that emphasizes deep learning, meaningful relationships and a dynamic program that inspires students to discover who they are and what their contribution is to their school, their community and the world." Excuse me while I throw up.
   297. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 17, 2018 at 05:22 PM (#5655476)
Once more: GOP President Trump must have been plenty unhappy that the guy he appointed was the swing vote against his administration on one of Trump's pet issues. That sort of disloyalty has - in the past - really ticked Trump off.

Again, despite Bitter Mouse's efforts at misdirection here, only politically motivated spinners think the correct headline is Gorsuch Agrees With Liberals; those who know the law would go with Gorsuch Agrees With Scalia. The Justice Department may not be thrilled at the outcome, but that hardly justifies Bitter Mouse's silly & simplistic lookie-lookie the-Government-lost-a-Supreme Court-case coverage. And it's not a case of major impact, unless one believes that there are a large number of lawful permanent resident aliens committing burglaries. Perhaps Bitter Mouse is in that camp, although I doubt that he has given it a thought beyond his "Trump Lost" silliness.
   298. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 17, 2018 at 05:24 PM (#5655477)
There is no proof that the US needed to invade Japan to get them to surrender.
How could there ever be proof of a counterfactual? That's why he said "let's imagine."

The Japanese were looking for peace and with the Russians invading and the US giving reassurances that they could keep their Emperor the Japanese capitulated.
That they capitulated after we dropped the bombs obviously cannot be evidence that the bombs were unnecessary. ("The Japanese were looking for peace" is an empty statement. They would've taken peace at pretty much any time -- on terms favorable to them.)
   299. Ishmael Posted: April 17, 2018 at 05:27 PM (#5655479)
WRT the intermittent atomic-bomb subthread: Truman's is probably one of those decisions that will remain a permanent source of ambivalence. It was expedient, militarily justified, morally indefensible, and a terrible precedent all at the same time. The Japanese government might have raised the most telling objection, on the day Nagasaki was bombed: "a belligerent does not enjoy an unrestricted right in the choice of methods of attack." Of course they would say that, being the attacked party. But they had a point. Having used the bomb, the U.S. forfeited (in some senses) the right to find its use by others – to say nothing of its mere possession – as an especially unspeakable thing.

Not to mention, the actual straits the US were in when they dropped the bombs were pretty mild, within the context of a World War. They were contemplating the invasion of a foreign country, in order to obtain an unconditional surrender. And they were at that moment the most powerful country in the world.

I think it's particularly hard for a country that has used nuclear weapons offensively to fault another for wanting them for defensive reasons. You could certainly make a moral case that it's actually better to use nuclear weapons to shorten a war than to prolong one, but we do tend to talk about nuclear arsenals as weapons of last resort. The US didn't drop atomic bombs as a last resort.
   300. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: April 17, 2018 at 05:27 PM (#5655480)
His racial views I'm unacquainted with, just as I am with virtually all of his music.


69 love songs is pretty much an institution and certainly helped myself and many other older millenials through turbulent college nights but he's kinda racist imo.

I am a huge hip hop head, it's what I listen to probably 2/3 of the time, and to hear him dismiss it the way he does seems to be centered around a deep seated prejudice (if not outright racism) around black music and culture.
Page 3 of 14 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Phil Birnbaum
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread (2018-19 season kickoff edition)
(2645 - 12:12pm, Nov 20)
Last: NJ in NY (Now with Toddler!)

NewsblogThe Sky Is Falling, Baseball Is Dying, and the Roof May Leak
(13 - 12:10pm, Nov 20)
Last: Biscuit_pants

NewsblogAmazon bids for Disney’s 22 regional sports networks, including YES Network, sources say
(14 - 12:09pm, Nov 20)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogCubs in need of major overhaul? Don't be silly
(29 - 12:05pm, Nov 20)
Last: Zonk qualifies as an invasive species

Newsblog2019 BBWAA HALL OF FAME BALLOT
(14 - 12:01pm, Nov 20)
Last: Where have you gone Brady Anderson?

NewsblogIchiro gave a surprise gift at Hitoki Iwase's retirement party ... then immediately left
(9 - 12:01pm, Nov 20)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogGriffin Conine, Jeff’s son, banned 50 games for drug test
(8 - 11:46am, Nov 20)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (November 2018)
(495 - 11:36am, Nov 20)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogOT: Wrestling Thread November 2014
(2316 - 11:35am, Nov 20)
Last: bigglou115 is not an Illuminati agent

NewsblogMLB Trade Rumors: Phillies 'Expecting to Spend Money' in Pursuit of Bryce Harper, Manny Machado
(27 - 11:32am, Nov 20)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

Hall of MeritBattle of the Uber-Stat Systems (Win Shares vs. WARP)!
(376 - 11:32am, Nov 20)
Last: Carl Goetz

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-20-2018
(6 - 11:29am, Nov 20)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

Sox TherapyLet’s Get Off-Seasoning!
(9 - 11:06am, Nov 20)
Last: Jose is an Absurd Force of Nature

NewsblogSale of Baseball Prospectus
(463 - 11:02am, Nov 20)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogAvid Barry Bonds Collector Has Amassed 5,000 Examples Of The Same Card
(24 - 10:45am, Nov 20)
Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave)

Page rendered in 0.8186 seconds
46 querie(s) executed