The Atomic Bomb…..Was it Necessary in 1945

There is no secret that the Atomic Bomb was used on two Japanese cities in WWII. Some say it was the end of the war and some say it was not necessary. Some say that without the United States “forcing” Japan to war, it would not have been necessary. There are theories on both sides of the isle making the claim that they are correct. But the more important question is how has the nuclear age changed the world and is it a necessary deterrent. But since it was used on Japan first and last (so far), why was it used and what effect did it have? Did Japan deserve such? Could it have been avoided? It has been widely believed that the United States forced Japan into the war. I do not subscribe to that theory but let us delve into some facts.

Imperial Japan had been on the rise for some time…long before American Imperialism. Japanese Imperialism dates back to 500 AD. American Imperialism did not really take hold until the early 1900’s when America became one of the leaders, if not, the leading industrialized Nation. But even then, the furthest that the United States had expanded any major influence was Midway Island and the purchase of Alaska and the Aleutians. Japan did, however, wish to become like the “Western Powers” in the 1930’s and the Western Powers at that time did NOT include the United States. England, France, and Germany were considered the major Western Powers at that time….even after the advent of WWI.

Japan, on the other hand, was a very aggressive Imperialistic nation and not as a result of anything that the United States did. Few are aware of, or fully appreciate, Imperial Japan’s even more vast and equally merciless aggression in Asia, which began with the 1931 invasion of Manchuria. This act was very likely the true beginning of World War II and the global upheaval that followed. “There was a holocaust-a great devastation, a reckless destruction of life -in Asia as well as in Europe. The war Imperial Japan started in one part of the world had much in common with that started by her Axis partners in the other. The Holocaust in Europe included the planned genocide of Jews and others in death camps. It also included open-air shootings and internment in forced labor camps. Death came in ghettos from fighting and starvation. Brutal death came to the Slavic peoples in Poland and the USSR. Other fighting took its toll. Likewise, the holocaust in Asia resulted in massive death and suffering from terror killing, retribution, biological weapons, and other violence against civilians throughout invaded East Asia. This included maltreatment and neglect of forced labor, refugee flight ordeals, and war and Japanese policy- caused malnutrition, sickness, and disease. “ (Holocaust, as defined by Random House Webster’s College Dictionary 1995 addition: 1. A great or complete devastation or destruction, esp. by fire.)

Japanese historian Ikuhiko Hata writes: “The Manchurian incident, the war in China, and the war in the Pacific should not be viewed separately but as one continuous war.” In this regard, an often-overlooked fact is that the United States after Pearl Harbor became allied with China and fourteen Western and Far Eastern nations and territories attacked by Japan. The Allies soon grew to 26 countries and by 1945 to at least 45. They were all part of the initial United Nations, which was formed in early 1942 to defeat and demilitarize the Axis. Of all the 1931 to 1945 Asian-Pacific War deaths, approximately 87 percent were Asian victims of Japanese aggression, one percent were Western Allies, and 12 percent were Japanese. The list of victim nations and their peoples is a long one. They include Korea (annexed by Japan in 1910), China (including Manchuria), Hong Kong, Indochina (Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam), and the Philippines. The list continues with Thailand, Burma, eastern India, Malaya (Malaysia), Singapore, the vast East Indies (Indonesia), Timor, New Guinea, and Pacific and Indian Ocean islands.

Iris Chang’s best selling book, The Rape of Nanking: the Forgotten Holocaust of World War II (1998), is the first book to successfully bring passion to the reality of a large part of the war in China. It began the overdue process of educating the American public that there was more to the Asian-Pacific War than Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima. A typical example of the state of public knowledge is illustrated in an article in the Baltimore Sun on September 1, 2000, and was entitled “War to preserve civilized world won 55 years ago.” It lists the World War II dead of the Soviet Union, Poland, Germany, Japan, and the United States. It remarks on the death camps in Europe and the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. Not a word or count is offered for other Asian war victims who perished in numbers approximating the extraordinary loss of life in Poland and the Soviet Union combined, and eight times the loss of Japanese lives.

Japan was not the poor little kid on the block. It’s appetite for the resource rich countries of Asia preceded that of ANY appetite of the United States. So, when the United States, as well as over, 30 other countries embargoed Japan, it was NOT the United States that forced Japan into war. Japan was already at war with the whole East. So, it now begs the question as to why Japan wanted war with the United States. Japan’s military leaders already knew of the industrial might of the United States, but the military hierarchy wrongly surmised that a surprise attack on the US fleet at Pearl Harbor would prevent the United States from entering the war in the East as well as stymie the US economically forcing it to rebuild its fleet and, therefore, not focus on supplying China. With Hawaii isolated, Japan could then take the Aleutian’s and Midway creating a barrier. It was a strategic gamble that did not work…the carriers were not at Hawaii and the Japanese suffered a huge defeat at Midway. After midway, the Japanese empire was in peril.

Now we fast forward past all of the battles in the Pacific and Asia to the invasion of Okinawa and succeeding plans for the invasion of the Japanese mainland and the decisions to use Atomic weaponry. The battle for Okinawa was eye opening for the American leadership at the time and proved to be one of the decisions to use the bombs. Alongside, the territorial re-conquest of land in the Far East, the Americans wished to destroy what was left of Japan’s merchant fleet and use airstrips in the region to launch bombing raids on Japan’s industrial heartland. Okinawa is the largest of the Ryukyus islands at the southern tip of Japan. Okinawa is about 60 miles long and between 2 and 18 miles wide. Its strategic importance could not be underestimated – there were four airfields on the island that America needed to control. America also faced the problem that they had not been able to get much intelligence information about Okinawa. The Americans estimated that there were about 65,000 Japanese troops on the island – with the bulk in the southern sector of the island. In fact, there were over 130,000 Japanese troops on the island with more than 450,000 civilians.

The Japanese troops on the island were commanded by Lieutenant- General Ushijima who had been ordered to hold onto the island at all costs. And in the Japanese bushido….all costs meant to the death. The attack on Okinawa had taken a heavy toll on both sides. The Americans lost 7,373 men killed and 32,056 wounded on land. At sea, the Americans lost 5,000 killed and 4,600 wounded. The Japanese lost 107,000 killed and 7,400 men taken prisoner. It is possible that the Japanese lost another 20,000 dead as a result of American tactics whereby Japanese troops were incinerated where they fought. Civilian casualties were no less. It is estimated that over one third of the civilian population died as a result of being pressed into service by the Japanese Army, used as human shields, died in artillery and air bombardments, and suicide. My own father, in the navy during that battle, even noted the scores of Japanese civilians throwing themselves off cliffs, sinking their own boats in the harbor and drowning, and ritual suicides. Out of 450,000 civilians, only 196,000 were left.

Here is the dilemma. You have to take into consideration the code of the Japanese at that particular time. They knew the American forces were coming and they set defense for it. Very formidable defense. It would have been the same or worse on the mainland. So, in the planning of the invasion of Japan, several factors all of a sudden came into play OTHER than military considerations.

Japan had sought for surrender on three different occasions. The only stumbling block was the use of the term “unconditional surrender” as it applied to the Emperor. Japan wanted to keep the Emperor as a figure head and not tried as a war criminal. But it did not end there as the military generals in control of Japan were still militant and were willing to fight to the end regardless of the fact that Japan was surrounded, cut off, and starving. For the most part, Suzuki’s military-dominated cabinet favored continuing the war. For the Japanese, surrender was unthinkable—Japan had never been invaded or lost a war in its history. Only Mitsumasa Yonai, the Navy minister, was known to desire an early end to the war. Japanese leaders had always envisioned a negotiated settlement to the war. Their prewar planning expected a rapid expansion, consolidation, eventual conflict with the United States, and then a settlement in which they would be able to retain at least some of the new territory they had conquered.

In February 1945, Prince Fumimaro Konoe gave Emperor Hirohito a memorandum analyzing the situation, and told him that if the war continued, the imperial family might be in greater danger from an internal revolution than from defeat. According to the diary of Grand Chamberlain Hisanori Fujita, the emperor, looking for a decisive battle (tennōzan), replied that it was premature to seek peace, “unless we make one more military gain”. The signals were so mixed, no one could make a definitive judgment, and therein, was another problem.

To exacerbate the problem, enter now the role of the Russians. Since peace negotiations were at a standstill with the Americans and the British, the Japanese tried to go through the Soviet Union. Security concerns dominated Soviet decisions concerning the Far East. Chief among these was gaining unrestricted access to the Pacific Ocean. The year-round ice-free areas of the Soviet Pacific coastline—Vladivostok in particular—could be blockaded by air and sea from Sakhalin island and the Kurile Islands. Acquiring these territories, thus guaranteeing free access to the Soya Strait, was their primary objective. Secondary objectives were leases for the Chinese Eastern Railway, Southern Manchuria Railway, Dairen, and Port Arthur.

Because we can trust Joe, right?

To this end, Stalin and Molotov strung out the negotiations with the Japanese, giving them false hope of a Soviet-mediated peace. At the same time, in their dealings with the United States and Britain, the Soviets insisted on strict adherence to the Cairo Declaration, re-affirmed at the Yalta Conference, that the Allies would not accept separate or conditional peace with Japan. The Japanese would have to surrender unconditionally to all the Allies. To prolong the war, the Soviets opposed any attempt to weaken this requirement. This would give the Soviets time to complete the transfer of their troops from the Western Front to the Far East, and conquer Manchuria (Manchukuo), Inner Mongolia (Mengjiang), Korea, Sakhalin, the Kuriles, and possibly, Hokkaidō (starting with a landing at Rumoi). This was very significant considering the favoritism to the Soviets in Europe allowing them to control all of Eastern Europe and part of Germany. This was a huge mistake of the allied powers but it was necessary to procure the Soviet cooperation on their Western front.

This is where it really becomes a “sticky wicket” , to coin a well-used phrase. Political considerations became more of a focus than saving lives of American soldiers and Japanese civilians. With the negotiations that created a buffer zone in Eastern and Southern Europe vastly in favor of the Soviets, Truman was saddled with the prospect of creating another “buffer zone” in Southeast Asia. With the Soviets moving quickly to attack and conquer Mongolia and eventually China and Southeast Asia, and, thusly, gaining control of the Trans Siberian Railway, creating a stronger economic advantage, soon put the Soviets in a much greater hegemony expansion. The Japanese had been fighting the Soviets since 1917 anyway, and the Soviet Union was not very interested in peace with Japan…..hence the stalling of the peace talks AND the insistence upon total and unconditional surrender. After controlling the Southeast Asian region, the Soviets had designs on turning west to conquer the old Persian Empire thus creating a total buffer zone to the Mediterranean. The amount of natural resources that the Japanese were after would have been in the hands of the Soviets.

So, did the United States use the atomic bomb indiscriminately with just the idea of annihilating Japan or was there more to it? Was the use of the Atomic bomb justifiable? Let us look at the results of the Atomic Bomb OTHER than its destructive power.

First, it did save American lives. There is no doubting that.

Second, it did save Japanese lives. There is no doubting that.

Third, it is considered to have saved a Japanese culture. I am not so sure about this one. Under McArthur, most of the Japanese culture as well as that of the Emperor would have been saved anyway, so I will discount that. Only the military dictatorship would have been dissolved and disarmed never to go on the offense again.

Fourth, it did stop the Soviet Union from its hegemonic designs and did not allow them to conquer the areas it had its eyes upon. This is probably the most significant factor in the decision to use the bomb, in my estimation.

Fifth, it established the United States as the world’s leading military power.

Sixth, it sent the message to the world that the United States would not hesitate to use the bomb since it was the first to develop and use the bomb.

Seventh, the most awesome destructive power was unleashed on a relatively small area with long range implications of health and economic recovery that it became a deterrent automatically. Remember, the conventional invasion of Okinawa proved that more military and civilian casualties occurred than the combined bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Eighth, the fact that the United States became the leading world power which allowed its own hegemonic designs to take the forefront and made future negotiations in regions much easier to accomplish than before. Right or wrong, it was the way of the world at that time.

Ninth, it sparked a remarkable economic recovery and prosperity for the United States. The spoils of war. Right or wrong, it is what happened.

Tenth, it did end the war earlier than predicted. There was no time to wait for the surrender from a starving and defeated country. It is what prompted the Emperor to get involved. I can only imagine what the feelings of futility might have been.

Was the decision to use the atomic bomb a good decision? History is still judging that, but I wanted to point out some other reasons as the decision to use it. Do I, D13, agree with the decision? I would have to say….reluctantly, I would agree, given all the consideration, it was the correct decision….from the United States point of view. I put all the factors on a scale and tried to take human emotion out of it….just a scale of the pros and cons as it pertained to America. I give no credence to the world at all and the fact that we have to live in it. I am not a one world believer. The question boils down to…..would I use it again.

The answer is I would not use it again in an offensive manner. I do believe in deterrent use and would not hesitate to use it defensively. And no, to those of you whom will ask, the use of nuclear weaponry is not to be used as a preventative measure. It has already been used as a preventative measure and the result over the last 65 years is…..it has never been used again. I will close saying, that I also believe that the use of the bomb at that time prevented an almost immediate and larger war with the Soviet Union. I believe that a larger and more destructive war was mitigated by the advent of the start of the Cold War. I think that the bomb was the sole reason for that. The Soviets could not have won a hot war and they knew it…not at that time. I believe that they stopped their aggression to the Southeast because the bomb was dropped. I actually believe the use of the bomb in 1945 has prevented further use of the bomb.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Interesting article Colonel. I would agree with it in it’s entirety. Though it was neccessary at the time, I don’t believe I would use it again UNLESS the same or very similar circumstances were to arise, which I don’t see happening.

    Truman had to make a very tough choice. I believe he made the right one. The Japanese would never have surrendered otherwise. We had to use it twice to get them to surrender anyway.

    The biggest mistake I believe we made during WW2, was not in The Pacific, but in the European Theater. We should not have allowed The Soviets to take Berlin. Hell, we shouldn’t have allowed them to do a lot of the things they did. IMO, we should have listened to General Patton. He turned out to be more right than anyone could have known. That old Bastard knew who our next enemy would be. You could say he was clairvoyant on the issue of the Russians.

    • Darn I pondered too long and you beat me by 6 minutes.

    • Esom, were we in a position to beat the Russians to Berlin? I was always under the impression we were not. We made it as far east as Leipzig. I also think that everyone was so exhausted from the war that there would have been no desire to continue eastward.

      • TRAY……yes and no to your question. We held up purposely to let the Soviet Union come on in…..The whole advance by Eisenhower was slowed. Germany was defeated…the political bullshit was in how to divide the spoils. We were stupid…..but that is the way hindsight is. It was a mistake to start a second front in the East with the Soviet Union but, on the other hand. it brought out the Soviet design quicker. There is only one reason that Stalin stopped. The use of the bomb.

    • I dont think the allies had much choice whether the Soviets were going to take Berlin. After millions of civilians and millions of soldiers were killed by the Germans saying the Russians were a little pissed would be a bit of an understatement. Heaven help anyone who would have tried to stand in their way.

  2. Wow, I get to be a first responder! Col., thanks for the information. I knew about the loss of life at Okinawa and the projected losses for the invasion. I also knew that Japan had been waging war since 1931 and controlled much of eastern Asia and the western Pacific. I was also aware that the USSR was preparing to enter the war. However, I was not aware of the territorial designs that the Russians had. I read McCullough’s bio of Truman but there was no mention of any considerations along this line. Stalin already knew about the bomb at Potsdam through his spy network. Truman went into that meeting thinking he could work with Stalin. He was a bit naive but one must consider he had been on the job for only a few weeks.

    My Dad would most likely have participated in any invasion. So he was always glad the war was ended quickly. After Dec. 7 he had no sympathy for the Japanese.

    Before I read your post, I was pondering your previous post on authorizations to assassinate US citizens if deemed enemy combatants. We are on the verge of joy stick wars and cyber wars. It reminds me of an episode of Star Trek were the civilization they visit has computer was that calculate the number of dead. The selected victims then march voluntarily into the death chambers. Neat, clean, bloodless. Is this the future of warfare?

    I too think Truman did the right thing by ending the war as quickly as possible. Protracted wars always end in more death and destruction than short decisive ones.

  3. D13, I can speculate why you posted this. Is it a prelude to how to handle Iran? My own thoughts are that any fool country can acquire the technology and the physical capability of nuclear weapons. Our problem with Iran is their active funding of Hamas and other terrorist organizations and their repeated threats against Israel. There is not much we can do to stop them from eventually getting the bomb short of starting a war. I for one, hope we do not. That said, if I were in the WH, I articulate a policy of AD (assured destruction). Not MAD as this is reserved for countries with significant counterstrike capability such as Russia and China. If the Iranians use or leak the bomb to a group that threatens or uses it, I would promise to turn their sand dunes and their cities into a sheets of glass.

    • Good morning T-Ray…..I have posted this for a variety of reasons. Most significantly, there is a mindset that hegemony is the root cause of all wars. There is a mindset that the United States caused WWI and WWII and that the United States is responsible of the Middle East turmoil. There was discussion on this blog that the use of the Atomic Bomb was not necessary and that it did not save lives and had nothing to do with the end of the war. None of the facts in my post is guess work. It is all gleaned from a variety of sources and not “cherry picked”. My post was intended to take emotion out of it. The United States did not cause Japan to enter the war….Japan already had designs on bringing in the United States. i believe, as many others, that it was a calculated gamble…they rolled the dice and it came up snake eyes.

      The Atomic Bomb was a political weapon as well as a military weapon. The use of it HELPED to end a war and it HELPED to stop another one. Hindsight is always 20/20. Like watching football and being a Monday morning quarterback, it is easy to second guess a lot of things. Politically, we created the Soviet Union. Our political decisions on dividing up Europe was, in hindsight, the wrong thing to do. We created one of the most hideous hegemonic monsters of all time.

      This article, was intended to make people think of how the Atomic to Nuclear age shaped and changed the world. Hoe the applications of of the use of it shapes the Middle East. Iran will get the bomb. That is and has always been its design over the last 10 years. The United States and the Soviet Union have already proved that having the awesome destructive power of the atom is the greatest of hegemonic weapons of all times. Iran sees this and wants this. It does not have designs on militarily conquering the United States. That is not why Iran wants the bomb. It wants it for the very same reasons the whole world wanted it……it is a hammer. Pakistan does not have hegemonic design. Neither does India…..Iran does. Iran’s GOVERNMENT is not peaceful and it is openly challenging the clerics rule. People are disappearing all over Iran…..clerics, leaders, and civilian protesters.

      When the bomb was used on Japan……..it sent a signal to the awesome destructive power and I believe has been the sole reason it has not ever been used again. It proved the futility of using it…….BUT…….it is a formidable weapon to hold as a stick over non power nations. It is a way to keep conventional warfare as the first option and it is designed as a defensive deterrent.

      The answer to the problem in the ME is not using nukes……Iran will not use it on Israel. It is pointless. Israel will not use it on Iran. It is pointless. I do not think anyone will ever use it again but do you call a bluff anywhere. It is like playing chess with another queen on the board and that is what this world is…..a chess board. To think otherwise….is folly.

  4. Buck the Wala says:

    I made a sizeable chunk of my college career on the atomic bomb – starting with royally pissing off my history prof in my very first class of law school (class title was something along the lines of History 101: The Atomic Bomb) when I wrote my term paper on the military necessity of the atomic bomb. He pulled me to the side and said “You know, you are framing your entire argument on a topic I have spent my career researching and proving otherwise”. To which I replied “That’s why I chose it.” Got an A+ and became good friends with the professor.

    All that being said, the purpose of my choice of topic was to prove that you can argue anything. From all my research, discussions with my professor, and further papers on the topic throughout college:

    Why was it used? To scare/intimidate the Soviet Union as WWII drew to a close.
    Did Japan deserve it? No – no country nor people deserve the widespread destruction and devastations the atomic bomb causes.
    Could it have been avoided? Depends on what you’re getting at — in terms of military necessity, the answer is of course; in terms of geopolitical maneuvering, American politics, etc., the answer is probably not – we needed to actually see what effects the bomb would cause and we needed to demonstrate American military power to the USSR (as well as prove we had more than one!)

  5. SK Trynosky Sr says:

    My own footnote involves the suicide of Iris Chang. I had been aware of Nanking thanks to a particularly good High School History teacher and noted that most Americans were blissfully unaware unless they had been around at the time. I read the book not long after it came out and it was brutal. Unlike most historians she wove in events from her own family history. The passion was unmistakeable. It also opened her up to criticism both of her style and her motives.

    Iris spent several years touring for the book, attending gatherings of all types and stalking the Japanese government over both the atrocities it committed and its failure to acknowledge them. She made few friends in the diplomatic or revisionist community. She had written another successful book afterwards on the history of the Chinese in America which was well received and then became involved in meeting with veterans of the Bataan Death March. She was extensively conducting interviews with survivors for her next book when she suffered a nervous breakdown.

    If nothing else, this beautiful 36 year old young mother was a workaholic. She went on anti-psychotic medications, started becoming paranoid and continued with her breakneck schedule, going days without sleep. Finally it became too much. An excellent planner and researcher to the end, she got around California’s rigid gun laws by purchasing a black powder cap and ball percussion revolver and after writing three confusing suicide notes shot herself in the head leaving behind a two year old son, a stunned husband and family, and a distraught Chinese American community as well as thousands upon thousands of supporters and admirers in Nanking itself.

    I am not the first to say it but Iris Chang was probably the last victim of the rape of Nanking. You didn’t have to be there to develop PTSD.

    RIP

  6. gmanfortruth says:

    Good article Colonel 🙂 I always liked history, although it seems to bring up some arguments at times. I look forward to Flag’s take on this subject. I do believe the use of the bombs has kept the future use in check, which is a good thing. How long will that last? I hope a very long time!

  7. D13

    Good morning Colonel.

    WELL DONE!!

    What is lost by many of those who question decisions made in the past is:

    1. We never have ABSOLUTE knowledge of motivations or thinking. Everything does not get put in writing or told to someone.

    2. Evaluation of subjective terms like, justified, deserved, necessary etc require knowledge of the CRITERIA used to make the determination. Generally we don’t know what the criteria were. Historians, especially those selling a view, tend to muddle the whole “criteria”. Meaning their BIAS tends to affect any objective evaluation.

  8. Oh before I forget to answer a couple of the questions raised by the Colonel in his article.

    Was it necessary? Criteria…stop the war ASAP with fewest Americans killed…………YES.

    Did they deserve it? Criteria……JUSTICE……Atrocities in Asia supported by the PEOPLE………….YES.

    Was Justice Served? Criteria…..Objective evaluation of facts against laws of humanity with “equal application”…………..NO. Why? Because there were no Jews in Asia the Germans were subjected to War Crimes Trials while the Japanese were not.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      JAC,

      Do you honestly believe the Japanese deserved having the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaka!? That this provides justice in any sense?

      • SK Trynosky Sr says:

        It has always been a hard one Buck. Let’s face it, pre-war Japan allowed very little citizen participation let alone influence on government and yet, those soldier boys of theirs in Asia were conscripts from the ordinary population, not Samurai. They did what they did with zeal and relish. So, did in any sense of the word they “deserve” it. I would guess in an Old Testament way, yes. They quite literally reaped the whirlwind that they had sown. Same with the other side of the world.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          You need to take a real hard look at the Japanese military culture at the time as well. Yes, those soldiers were conscripts, but they were beaten and tortured by their superiors, taught that they were the superior race, etc. etc. etc.

          I’m not saying this to excuse their behavior in the least, but the military culture provides a lot of necessary context to understand what had happened.

          • Good point Buck…. My dad was in the Navy. The USS Lander….a troop ship. His ship was one of the first to bring back Japanese prisoners from Okinawa and he lamented how the Japanese officers just beat the crap out of the soldiers….kicked them, hit them….even as prisoners. It was class warfare at its finest. It did not take the Navy long, dad said, to figure out to get anything done on the ship (washing clothes, airing bedding, etc)…they just left the Japanese officers in charge. The soldiers (conscripts) were scared to death of the officers.

        • @ Buck…..did the Japanese civilian population deserve the bomb being dropped….I would say no. Since you did the research yourself, you should know that dropping the bomb on those two cities….made the fire bombing that we were doing a moot point. Even the Emperor knew that it was futile and intervened. I cannot remember the figure off the top of my head, but I believe we firebombed (incendiary) 68 towns prior to dropping of the big banger. The incendiary bombing killed over 400,000 civilians if I remember correctly. Drop the bomb or continue incendiary bombings because the military hierarchy was not going to give in. They did not care about the population. They proved that in Okinawa. Just more facts to consider.

          No military person, especially me, likes the killing of civilians. BUT…..unfortunately, it is a by-product of war. It cannot be avoided. Especially, since your research tells you….the Japanese, like the Vietnamese, Koreans, Iraqis, etc…..used human shields all the time.

          Justified…no…..necessary…..{shrug}….logical and practical…yes…..militarily….yes…..politically….yes.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            The entire reason Hiroshima was chosen (and saved from the fire bombing) was so that the US (and perhaps more importantly, the USSR) could see the real effects of the atomic bomb.

      • Buck

        I don’t understand why so many people want to assign some special meaning to the Atomic Bomb as opposed to the millions of tons of other bombs and bullets.

        Dead is dead. What matter that it was done with a single bomb or thousands?

        So the real question is whether the Japanese, as a nation, as a nation of people who supported the warrior culture for thousands of years, DESERVED to have a RETALIATORY War waged against them. For their Nation to be attacked and beaten into submission.

        The answer is YES.

        After that it is just a matter of tactics. Which leads back to Win ASAP with minimal US casualties.

        You make a lot of assumptions that the REASON they were dropped was just to see and to show the Russians. When one takes an action there can be many other “benefits” or “objectives” tied to a decision. It doesn’t mean those a primary in the rationale.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          I agree with you that a lot went into this decision — it wasn’t merely to see for ourselves exactly what we created; it wasn’t merely to show the USSR our military strength; it wasn’t merely out of racism and hatred for the Japanese. All of these factors — and more — went into the ultimate decision.

          As far as winning asap with minimal US casualties — yes, there was a faction in the US pushing for the use of the bomb to end the war; but that was far from the primary (or secondary or tertiary) reason. Did it play some more minimal role? Sure. But the primary objective was post-war posturing.

        • JAC,

          Great point! Trying to fight a limited war is asking for more death on both sides.

    • SK Trynosky Sr says:

      Here is one of the few time that you will ever hear me scream “Racism”. The follow up on the Japanese and war crimes did not occur for the very important reason that Asians were doing it to Asians. Sorry, what goes on over there is always an afterthought. Look at Cambodia, three million dead and nary a peep from the West until after the fact and then it quickly became a yawn. . The second reason was the damned cold war. We needed to strengthen Japan as a bulwark against Communist expansion. We did a few quick trials, allowed MacArthur to do his thing with Yamashita (like blame the whole war & all it’s atrocities on him) and then let them manufacture transistor radios for us while we, the baby boomers, got to watch that nice old grandfatherly, Emperor man plant his flowers.

      The Chinese community in the US was never as vocal (for that matter, who would have listened) as The Jewish, Polish, Ukrainian and Russian populations who all demanded justice. Was justice served in the West? Not really, the big boys got nailed mostly. Some small fry got hung and an awful lot of long term prison sentences were handed out only to be downgraded and everybody paroled by the mid-50’s. Now, when guys were sent to eastern Europe for trial, justice was served.

      There were exceptions to the rule mostly where the American military acted on its own and turned a blind eye to interrogation techniques such as in the trials for the perpetrators of the Malmady Massacre or where the Brits did as in the tracking down of those responsible for the murders of the “50” from The Great Escape at Stalag Luft III. .

      • Buck the Wala says:

        SK – you’re right that racism definitely played a role in this, and that it played a role in the decision to drop the atomic bomb in the first instance.

        Afterall, the Germans looked like us; it wasn’t the German people, but the Nazis and Hitler that had to be defeated. Very different with the Japanese.

        • SK Trynosky Sr says:

          Buck, the A-Bomb wasn’t ready yet. Targets were picked in Germany. The Trinity test in NM was July 16th 1945, German surrender was May 8th, 1945. Had the Germans retreated to that redoubt as they were expected to do, they might have gotten # 1. If you look at the dates, tested in July, used in August, you get to realize just how impatient Truman and Marshall were to get this thing (the war) over with. Contrarians might say that we did it so quickly exactly because we were afraid the Japanese would surrender first. I have a lot of respect for both Truman and Marshall and don’t believe that they were that kind of men. Besides, back to my theory about keeping a secret or conspiracy. Tens of thousands knew but nobody talked in 65 years?

          Regarding racism and the individual American. I can’t link it but have you ever seen the photos and newsreels of individual American GI’s and Marines on Okinawa caring for the children and elderly? It was easy to sit home and “slap the Jap”, not so easy if the Jap was an 80 year old woman or 4 year old kid with a belly wound from shrapnel standing right in front of you.

          Those were men.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Yes, targets were picked in Germany, but I seriously doubt that the bomb actually would have been dropped on Germany. Now, I’m not saying that racism played a major role in this decision, but the view of the Japanese as sub-human didn’t hurt any.

            • Mathius™ says:

              Come on, Buck, what do you know about all this?

            • SK Trynosky Sr says:

              it’s funny, when you dredge these things up, you dredge up memories. My dad loved Truman as did my seven uncles in the service who would NOT be invading Japan because of Trumans decision. In addition, I remember an interview done back in the ’60’s for the 20th anniversary with a member of MacArthur’s staff. Doug was with his boys planning the invasion of the home islands when a message was brought to him that the bomb was going to be dropped. He thanked the aide and then went right back to the maps and the planning. Nobody was sure of anything!

              Bomber Harris would have taken your comment about not using the bombs on Germany as a personal affront. The man was like an Old Testament prophet. Interesting that he was never knighted after the war. He did what the government asked him to do regarding the strategic bombing of Germany yet, when the war was over, that very same government disowned him. Gotta love politicians.

    • Good morning, JAC……………………………..thanks. Good points.

  9. Common Man says:

    CM’s two cents:

    I would most likely not be of this earth had the bomb not been used. My father was a Pathfinder and would have been one of the first to jump into Japan. He told my brother and I that we owe our current beings to the Atomic era, because the life expentancy of a first deployed Pathfinder into Japan was 30 seconds, and that was only if he hit the ground alive.

    Now folks like Matt and Buck might argue I would still be of this earth, and that is probably true, but I would not have been afforded the nuturings of my great father; and most likely would have grown to be some kind of flaming liberal

    CM

  10. Bwahahahahahaha

    From American Thinker:

    “March 6, 2012
    Hey Mr. President. Where’s my phone call?
    Sally Zelikovsky

    In his press conference today, President Obama said he called Sandra Fluke because he thought about his daughters and wanted them to be able to take on issues as they grow up, as private citizens, and to engage in civil discourse without being attacked. He wanted Fluke’s parents to be as proud of her for speaking out as he would be of his daughters.

    Great. So where is my phone call? I’m a daughter and a mother, but I didn’t get one phone call when I was called a mobster, a terrorist, a nazi, a tea bagger, a homophobe and a racist. Where was the President when conservatives started protesting the bailouts, stimulus, jobs bill and ObamaCare and had their integrity and intellect attacked on every level? Where was the phone call to Sarah Palin for being called a MILF or to Laura Ingraham for being called a slut?

    Just admit, Mr. President, that there is a double standard and, in an uncharacteristic act of good faith to the people of this country, make a statement about it and call off the attack dogs. Better yet, return contributions you have received from those who humiliated countless mothers and daughters, fathers and sons who have been involved with the tea party movment. You might not want to judge Rush Limbaugh but your silence in regard to invectives hurled by Democrats and liberals at conservatives demonstrates your complicity in passing judgment on the rest of us as racist, homophobic, tea bagging neanderthals. I’m waiting.”

  11. D13,

    Well done sir! Love the research, explanations and presentation. I was pretty well aware of the history here but have found some things I did not know, will add that book to my list. A point SK brushed but left out, the bomb was developed for use against Germany, who we were in an arms race with. V2’s were more of a psychological weapon, but it worked. Fear that the Germans would develop the bomb first or introduce a game changing weapon was prevalent. There was real fear the Germans would win Europe, including England. Embracing Russia and the bomb were considered necessary for victory. And after you work so hard to build the first bomb, you can’t just put it on a shelf and forget it.
    At least no American that has celebrated the 4th of July could…

    “The answer to the problem in the ME is not using nukes……Iran will not use it on Israel. It is pointless. Israel will not use it on Iran. It is pointless. I do not think anyone will ever use it again but do you call a bluff anywhere.”

    I hope you are correct on this. I fear you are wrong, which changes nothing that I can see. If Iran arms terrorists and by proxy, bombs Israel, they shall reap the whirlwind. I don’t see Israel having the need, therefore desire to do a first nuclear strike. Iran and thousand of years of religious conflict, and what happens when a fanatic is in charge?

  12. gmanfortruth says:

    Here is a documentary on the subject:

    http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-rape-of-nanking/

    • SK Trynosky Sr says:

      Nice guys. I think that there is one other issue to take into account which was certainly known by and agreed to by Marshall, MacArthur and Eisenhower. The mistake of the 1st World war was in not defeating Germany and unfortunately in not punishing it physically. Most historians are now seeing WW 2 and WW 1 as the same conflict. One wonders if in private counsel, knowing of the Japanese barbarity I wonder if it was decided that the place had to leveled just to make sure they got the point.

      In the past 70 years both Germany and Japan have become great economic engines. Had they not been forced to renounce war, one can only wonder if they would have tried again because of their cultures. Had I been around at the time and known what our leaders at the time did, I might have been one of the hit them as hard as you can with everything you have advocates. Remember, even that idiot Saddam didn’t realize he got beat the first time around.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Interesting theory, but pure speculation. In actuality, statements from MacArthur and Eisenhower all point towards their views AGAINST the use of the bomb.

        MacArthur’s views as stated to his consultant Norman Cousins: “He saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.”

        Eisenhower’s views: “”During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude…”

        • Agree…..with one exception……I feel very strongly that the Soviet Union was very instrumental in keeping Japan from surrendering. Hind sight shows me, as a chess player, that the United States miscalculated the political responses. The United States does not know how to play world politics even yet. However, I do not believe that we had weeks to wait. It was a huge geopolitical game….Japan had been reduced to a mere pawn….it was sacrificed.

          As I noted in the article, Japan was defeated. All the military leaders knew that the successful conquest and saving of Japan’s culture was to let the damned Emperor remain as a figure head and not be tried as a war criminal….but that was not the strategic move……during this lull the Soviet Union moved divisions of men and material to the Manchurian border and had already taken the Kuril Islands. They were ,arching quickly and not in the direction of Japan……

          I still stand by my convictions….that Japan, rightly or wrongly, being bombed actually saved millions. Not American or Japanese lives in Japan….but lives in SE Asia. It was going to be nasty.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Not so sure about that — it’s impossible to know exactly what would have happened. True, the USSR was positioning itself for the post-war period (which again, was the primary objective in dropping the bombs in the first place). Not to mention the USSR was getting ready to enter the Pacific Theater and even invade Japan – a move that would have entitled the USSR to share in the spoils post-war (see: Germany).

            What is known though, is that Japan was ready to surrender. All Japan wanted was to allow the Emperor to remain the nominal ruler of Japan. The US demanded unconditional surrender – knowing full well that Japan would refuse absent this one condition, a condition that, after dropping two atomic bombs on the country, was granted.

            • Bamadad says:

              “What is known though, is that Japan was ready to surrender.”

              Untrue, there was a faction in the Japanese government that wanted peace but as long as the military controlled the government no peace was going to be signed. In fact after the Emperor recorded his surrender message to the Japanese people and transmitted his acceptance of the Potsdam declaration to the Allied powers, members of the military tried to kidnap him to change his mind.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Not quite, it was pretty well understood that Japan was ready to surrender and was actively looking for a way to do so while saving face (namely, maintaining the Emperor’s position). Sure there was a faction that did not want peace under any circumstances (just as there was a faction that wanted to drop the bomb out of what they perceived to be military necessity) but that was not the prevailing/dominant group.

        • SK Trynosky Sr says:

          Not a big MacArthur fan since not only did he miss an entire 400,000 man Chinese Army he had a nasty habit of ignoring any idea which was not his own. Eisenhower is a different story though.

          Thanks for the info. What were Marshall’s positions and those of Nimitz? I can assume that Arnold and the Air Force was in favor. Nimitz and MacArthur had been conducting wars against each other as well as the Japanese throughout the war.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            I know Marshall had refused to make a decision on the use of bomb, arguing that this was not a military decision, and at one point had even suggested that the US invite ambassadors from the USSR to watch the bomb be detonated. From my recollection, Nimitz did recognize that the bomb could play a role in avoiding an invasion of Japan, but also recognized that Japan was in the process of looking for a way to surrender.

            I don’t recall Arnold’s position on the matter.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            SK, from a quick search, came across the following quote:

            “It always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse.”
            – General Henry H. “Hap” Arnold

            • SK Trynosky Sr says:

              Your points are excellent. We used to discuss this in college at length. Had their been no bomb, Japan could have been embargoed and blockaded instead of invaded . It might have taken five years to accomplish but eventually they would have been so weak we could have walked in. While that was going on, their armies in China, Korea and Indo-China could have been slowly destroyed or left to wither on the vine. No invasion, no million American casualties, no quarter million British casualties.

              The big but however is and will always be, how many others would have died?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                And that is something we will never know.

                I agree with you that an embargo probably would have worked in the long run. Or, we could have worked towards accepting Japan’s surrender with the condition that the Emperor remains. That probably would have been the quickest way out with the least bloodshed. But had we done that, what would have happened with the USSR thereafter?

              • SK Trynosky Sr says:

                I’d presume that they would have continued on their own to attack Japan since they were in the land business.. They would have taken Manchuria, parts of China and all of Korea. Moved into the northernmost islands no doubt and may have butted heads with us there. All very interesting points to speculate on.

      • SK,

        “The mistake of the 1st World war was in not defeating Germany and unfortunately in not punishing it physically.”

        I think I disagree with that. No one wanted to continue the conflict and invading Germany with the tactics of the day would have been as bloody as invading Japan. You fight harder defending your home than taking your neighbors. I do think WW1’s “peace” laid the foundation for WW2. The war debt laid on Germany caused such economic hardship that a madman spewing hate took power. He used the resentment of the “peace” treaty to return them to war. Wilson proposed a peace plan, then after the Germans agreed to a cease fire and were flanked, the terms were changed. They were cheated. I blame Wilson nearly as much as Hitler for the war.

        Wilson’s speech vs. Treaty of Versailles

        President Wilson became sick at the beginning of the Paris Peace Conference, giving way to the right-wing, French chancellor Georges Clemenceau to change a lot[vague] of Wilson’s plan. Most debatable was that Germany received the blame for the whole war and that Germany should pay an astronomical amount of money for the compensation of the damage that was deliberately inflicted on the territories occupied by the Germans and the pensions of wounded soldiers and widows which was to be paid off by the year 1981. Germany was also denied an air force, and the German army was not to exceed 100,000 men. The difference between President Wilson’s rather honorable[opinion] peace offer towards the German Empire (unlike what he had to offer the Austro-Hungarian empire) and the final Treaty of Versailles led to great anger in Germany.[3]

        As of the last day of World War I (November 11 at 11:00 am), there had only been a single battle on German soil (maps of 1914), and this was in late August 1914, when two Russian armies had failed to conquer East Prussia. This made the final treaty even more suspect for many Germans.

      • No SK, the Treaty of Versailles is what caused WW2 unfortunately. Follow Hitlers political career and it all falls back to that.

        • SK Trynosky Sr says:

          Your final paragraph made the point. The Army had not been beaten. Of course it had, there were no more reserves, no more of anything. This made it awfully easy to blame the folks on the home front for “stabbing them in the back”. Versailles was just the icing on the cake. Had there been more common sense peace terms, peace might have lasted longer but Germany was still a basket case subject to the same Great Depression as everyone else and as ripe for the picking as even we were. There is no question that after WW 2 everyone acknowledged that Versailles had been a huge blunder which was not to be repeated. We were in the position at the time to dictate the result and it quickly became one of “well, we beat you, now let’s get on with life.” An excellent idea, coupled with an occupation and fairly effective De-Nazification program. I would also say that the Nuremberg trials served a real psychological purpose since it allowed both Germans and the Allies to focus their hate on the leadership rather than on the German people as a whole.

          • SK,

            No one wanted to pay the cost of punishing Germany physically. That would require an invasion. They were beaten, but not defeated.
            “two Russian armies had failed to conquer East Prussia”. Everyone was weary of the war and death. Germany was cornered. Wilson proposed a peace they could accept. They gave up strategic military positions and then when the terms were changed, could not continue fighting.

            • SK Trynosky Sr says:

              Exactly, everybody was beaten. Pershing and the American generals were willing to take a run into Germany but it was impractical. there were some warnings about not pursuing the German Army but everyone was just sick of the whole thing.

        • Bob, are you feeling well? You seem to be in agreement with me? Might want to get a quick check-up, could be a warning sine…….

          And how are things across the pond today? Did the UK get any of that record cold?

          • Nah, there was some reports of -18 C down south but its been an extremely mild winter, even more so when compared with last year. I even started cycling to work again a few weeks ago and I am a fair weather biker.

  13. Bamadad says:

    D13 good job, sorry I am so late getting in on this discussion. One thing I would like to add, if you don’t mind. Truman came into office in mid April two weeks after Okinawa was invaded. He was influenced greatly by the horrendous casualties that the American 10th Army and the 5th fleet were taking in the fighting on or around Okinawa. The casualties on Okinawa almost equaled those of the previous three years in the Pacific Theater. In fact Truman made the statement that he was “dreading an Okinawa from one end of Japan to the other”. The Japanese military expended 7830 aircraft, with the majority of those being Kamikazes in the defense of the Island. They managed to sink 33 and damage 368 ships or water craft. In fact at Okinawa the US navy suffered 20% of all naval casualties it suffered during WW2 worldwide. Truman later said “it was an untroubled choice” to use the bomb to end the war.

  14. Naten53 says:

    In the anyone but Romney race in Virginia where only Ron Paul was on the ballot to challenge Romney, Paul got 40% of the vote. If there was only one challenger to Romney instead of the current three, would Romney be winning? Currently he is winning most states with less then 50%. Santorum lost Ohio by 38% to 37%, who would the votes have gone to if it were only Santorum and Romney? I think it would be a lot closer of a race overall.

    • Romney is no change to the current Washington crowd…..just a little more middle of the road Washington insider. It is obvious that attack ads and money is what it takes to generate interest in the political arena. This is most unfortunate.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Let’s not completely discount Romney’s march to the right to at least make him seem somewhat acceptable to primary voters. But I agree, without the money, it would be a very different race.

      • Romney beat Santorum by only 12,000 in Ohio but outspent him 4 to 1. I wonder how that will play against Obama with him near billion to spend? With enough money, can you still buy the election?

      • SK Trynosky Sr says:

        Probably why he stands an excellent chance of getting clobbered in November. I’m neither happy nor enthused. If, at this point, you can’t pull more than 50% of the base, how can you reach out to everyone else? He will probably pick up independents but Reagan democrats? I can’t see a huge Conservative turn-out in November either.

        Buck, being neither a Conservative nor Republican, you don’t see how anyone dedicated to those causes can see through Romney. As I have long told the wife, I am tired of just voting against someone. Nixon, Bush 1 and Bush 2 all positioned themselves to the “right”. By and large their governing principles were not conservative. When their administrations either melted down or blew up, the left could label them as “conservatives” because of their words not their deeds which did the conservative cause no good. Within the party, the opposite was true, the party regulars looked at their pre-election rhetoric and said they failed because they were too conservative. A true principled conservative would not have gotten into the messes those folks got themselves into.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          My point here is that, by positioning himself further to the right in the primaries, Romney has made it a bit easier for some to pull the lever. Overall, I agree with the Colonel, that it comes down to the money.

        • SK

          The media has set up a FALSE narrative that everyone is accepting.

          FACT: The Republican party created this scenario in the way it changed its primary process four years ago. Proportional allocation of delegates and increased use of Caucus.

          FACT: It would be impossible for ANYONE running for Pres to get over 50% of the vote in every state when you have 3 to 4 others in the race. That is just the nature of splits in opinions among the population.

          FACT: SuperPacs have allowed Gingrich and Santorum to hang on when they would have been forced to the sidelines in past primaries. Sticking around then plays into the first two facts.

          FACT: Given the first three it was mathematically impossible for Romney, or anyone else to “Close the Deal” by now.

          • SK Trynosky Sr says:

            Obviously if you just have two to choose from you are right. What I see though is the total lack of enthusiasm for Romney. Many of us feel “burnt”: by our previous ventures with people who talk the talk but don’t walk the walk. Personally I like the fact that there will be a slugfest until the end. Everyone will be vetted no matter who gets the nomination. Perhaps, if Romney should get it and survive what Obama will throw at him (you ain’t seen nothing yet, can you spell MORMON), he might actually stick to some of the promises he made. Personally I doubt it and I will not hold my breath. If I were a predicting man, I’d say that after four years of a wishy-washy Romney and a totally Republican Congress who will follow in the footsteps of that Tom Delay congress, the next president will be Karl Marx or a close facsimile thereof. Between Bush and Obama, over the last 11 years, I think that it has been pretty much demonstrated that Congress is superfluous. They exist only to harvest their own perks.

  15. The NUKE is a political weapon more than military. I think we all get that. While it has military advantages….most professional military personnel do not like it. However, it is here to stay. The bomb was going to be manufactured whether by the United States or the Soviet Union in the 40’s. It was a matter of time and the United States crossed the finish line first. In order to have hegemony, you must first have power, whether military or economic. But economic power and military power are bedfellows. So, how do we handle the Iran and the Nuke?

    Over the years, D13 has allowed too much political correctness and middle of the road thinking influence thought patterns. One can have integrity and ethics and moral standards without compromising principles. So, with all the sword pulling and knife sharpening over Iran, let’s consider..IRAN AND THE NUKE.

    Note1: Iran wants the nuke. Iran is not peaceful. Iran exports terrorism. Iran is hegemonic. So what? If A-jad wants to be the 12th Imam…so what? If he wants to starve his people and fight the clerics…so what? That is an Iranian problem and a ME problem not a USA problem.

    Note 2: To Israel……shut up. Since the dropping of the Atomic Bomb, this world has lived under nuclear umbrellas. You are no exception, so the time worn edict of “living under the shadow” of a nuclear Iran, does not wash with me. This whole world has lived under various nuclear umbrellas since 1945, and another one has not been fired…yet. You will be no exception. To what end does Iran have to fire a nuke at you? As long as you are an ally……Iran does not fire one. Iran loses completely if they nuke you. Pretty simple. So, don’t piss US off. You are safe.

    Note 3: To USA….shut up. There is nothing that we can do to stop the Iranian Nuclear program. It wants and will get the weapon. It will be used to intimidate the ME. That is what 12th Imam’s do….intimidate.THAT is an ME problem and we need to quit being the world’s policeman. Patrol the seas, if you want, in the interest of the United States. Cool. It is tactically feasible to have bases located around the world by agreement and treaty. Cool. Instead of bullying, why don’t you engage in a game of chess or poker. Bullying is no different than bluffing in poker or sacrificing a pawn in a chess game. In poker, a seasoned player KNOWS when to bluff. The rookie will try to bluff when it is not necessary and, therefore, becomes easy to read, In Chess, the seasoned player KNOWS when to sacrifice a pawn or a rook. A rookie hates pawns and uses them in an attrition rate reminiscent of the charge of the light brigade. It is pretty and bold….but ineffective and dead is dead. So, to the USA, quit bullying and just play the game. This is the major leagues…and we, the USA, is acting like a rookie, when we do not need to act like this.

    Note 4: To the World: Take notice…..The United States will go where it wants and do what it wants within the confines of being a good neighbor. If we wish to assist economically, it will be done so by treaty on an even scale. Interference in your politics should be NONE of our business. If you wish to annihilate your own….do so. It is none of our business. But be forewarned, any attack at all on a US citizen, or asset, or military will not be met with an even response….it will be met with a greater response. You hit me with a fist, I will hit you with a club. These tit for tat measured responses are out of the window. I will leave you alone and you will leave me alone.

    Note 5: To Iran: A-jad…..if you wish to have your messiah complex…..go for it. If your neighbors will let you isolate and bully them…to bad for them. You are the leading export of terrorism in the world. You are the leading financial backing of the worst of terror organizations. Your hegemony is recognized. However, you are now held responsible for terrorism. IF a single asset of the United States is hit or destroyed, I will not send in the FBI…..you will NOT be read Miranda rights. You will be assumed guilty because you are the largest and the most powerful of terrorist nations. We know the names of all the terrorist groups you fund, your bank accounts, your methods of distribution…you are very easily tracked. ANY terrorist group that comes up with a dirty bomb that is nuke based…..you will be guilty. We do not want your country nor your assets….but we will destroy same without recompense and without emotion. Take heed.

    Walk softly…..walk determined….but do not bend….carry the big stick but do not use it UNLESS it is used upon you first. But when you decide to use it….do so swiftly and with prejudice.

    That is how the world of D13 would do it.

    • D13

      My Texican Friend.

      And that is why you are MY selection as SecDef or Sec of State when the VDLG party takes the white house.

      Tip o’ the hat and a toast of fine grog to you this morning Sir.

      • Good day to you sir……windy today but calming down. Only going to be about 25-30 MPH today….yesterday was a testy 45 mph….some gusts to 60 mph.

        Hmmmm…..always wanted to be Sec of Defense…..so in the concept of VDLG…..why not consolidate the two? Also, DPM for Sec of Interior and Navy….(Interior for his excellent grog making ability and Navy,for obvious reasons…besides he has a nifty Jack Sparrow hat he stole from Mathius.

        • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

          I decline.

          VDLG is way too much government.

          Y’AARGH!

          • Sorry..you cant decline…you are in charge…

            • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

              Fine.

              As my first act as Secretary of the Navy, I hereby disband the Navy.

              As my first act as Secretary of the Interior, I hereby disband the interior. That’s right, not just the Department of the Interior, but the interior itself is hereby disbanded.

              Now see what you’ve done?

  16. An article on Ayn Rand and the “right wingers” that displays the irrational thinking and devious nature of the Progressive Movement.

    Examples of redefining terms, changing the use of words to make communications impossible and others I have raised are all on display.

    Right now I don’t have time to show them to you so I will let those who are interested try to dissect it.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-weiss/ayn-rand-politics_b_1316441.html

    If you are interested and visit the site you might be able to find my comments.

    Back in an hour or so.
    JAC

  17. Ray Hawkins says:

    And now…..a short message from Betty Bowers – America’s Best Christian

    “Traditional Marriage”

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Oh my….

      • Mathius™ says:
        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Now Mathius – you cannot post something like this without posting 10-15 full length stories decrying the hypocrisy of the Left and the words of some lefties that think single Mommies are the root of all evil. Wait……shit……..maybe Glenn Grothman is all alone on this one. Queue the outrage!!!!

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Bill Maher blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Bill Maher blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Bill Maher blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Bill Maher

          • Let me see if I get this Ray-somehow people pointing out that the left are being hypocritical leads to “I must attack Christianity”?

            • Mathius™ says:

              If you prefer, we can attack Judaism..

              • You can attack whatever you please-I’m just curious why Ray’s anger seems to be pointed at Christianity instead of just the right.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Because that far to the left, the “right” and the “Christians” just appear to be one thing called the “Christian-Right,” so they’re pretty much interchangeable to him.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              @V.H. – huh?

              I don’t have anger towards Christianity – I just question it and question it heavily.

              I merely thought it comical that in the series of “Rush” posts, you have, I think, but one line ever so slightly not approving of the Rushmeister and then go, shall we say – overboard, in the whole hypocrisy angle, seemingly targeting Bill Maher. There are hypocrites galore on all sides V.H. – just seems to me the folks who claim the conservative mantle have a much harder time readily admitting that.

              Folks here seem to view Rush as possessing some elitist comic talent – that only a few can really see the high brow humor of using a college student as the punchline in debating a particular philosophy – its merely incidental or collateral that she is referred to as a “slut” or a “whore” – when the rest of us don’t get the joke we’re referred to as hypocrites, rather than taking the time to understand our perspective (hello JAC and LOI – I’m talking to you) that this garbage is what contributes to the amplified negativity that pervades and dominates and displaces discourse with yelling and bitching and screaming. Hardy har har har – Rush called her a slut. Bill Maher is no less culpable. I doubt he has the reach of Rush – but who cares? His pathetic “comedy” and idol worship on the cable “news” stations is a sick “joke”. But remember – ya’ll had every opportunity to raise holy bejesus hell when it happened / as it happens – and ya dropped the ball. My response to Bill Maher? I canceled my premium cable channels and turn the channel when I see his smug ass appear. Buh-bye Bill (and Keith and Ed and Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter and ……..)- you’re as much a dick as Rush.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                BTW – is traditional marriage really defined by the “good book” or just the parts we want to cherry pick from? 😉

              • Sorry Ray, I can’t cancel Rush. I don’t listen to him. Don’t much like Ann Coulter either if that helps. Works for me to say they are all frequently offensive. I just can’t with-hold something I don’t give to begin with….

              • I’ve tried and tried to respond to this and I simply find everything I write comes off too harsh. 🙂 So all I’m gonna say is Both sides may be hypocritical but when it comes to trash talk , especially about woman-the “left” at least the loud mouths we hear from-have not a leg to stand on when it comes to getting on their fake high horse and condemning anyone for calling a woman a slut. But they want us to condemn Rush-okay I condemn his statements again- but until democrats condemn how Palin and her kids and many other woman were treated including Hillary Clinton- their opinions ain’t nothin but hypocritical BS.

                I will admit to being almost crazy angry when it comes to how Palin and her kids where treated and the left can deny it all they want-but wayyy to many of them loved it. A lot of them also got a lot of enjoyment out of the word tea bagger too. Not to mention the attacks on Bachman, and even Santorum.

                But I’m not calling for Maher to loose his job-I simply don’t watch him-and I’m not gonna help them destroy Rush either. And I’m tired of the organized attack squads on the left-demanding people be fired. Has Martin come back yet-or has he not paid enough homage to our new God’s on the left. Well crap-it’s gotten harsh sounding again-don’t take it personal.

                And here’s a video just for fun-Please note how the one politician seemed more than willing to make a statement right then and there if it was about Rush but oh no, not gonna say nothin about Maher’s statements:

                http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/07/bill-maher-to-headline-democratic-fundraiser-while-obama-disses-conservative-incivility/

              • Ray

                Since you called me out personally, please tell me where I called you or anyone a hypocrite just because you/they did not see the humor in the sarcasm that I saw.

                What I said is that it is hypocritical for people to scream about Rush’s comments and not others. Especially when Rush’s were offered in the context of making a point and others seem to be just for obnoxious affect.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                @VH – who is “Martin”?

                And yes – there are hypocrites galore – its why scum like David Vitter are still in office. Our elected folk exponentially lose credibility over issues like this. Do as I say……not as I do.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                @JAC – my call out to you sir is that you seem colossally unwilling to acknowledge that with respect to Rush Limbaugh’s comments (and we could add examples from all parts of the spectrum to completely belabor the point) – his choice of words goes beyond sarcasm – his choice of words is what grows the cancer that has become the trademark of our deeply flawed and troubled political system. Ask yourself this – are those words helpful or hurtful to the issue at hand? I suppose since you think its funny then I have my answer – or – so long as the words were used in the context of making a point you agree with – then the words do not matter right?

                I guess I never really thought of you as an “end justifies the means” sort of guy.

              • Roland Martin on CNN

              • Mathius™ says:

                What’s “CNN”?

              • Depends on who you ask.

              • Ray..Why didn’t you call out the person you tend to follow quite a bit? Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone..no better lingo than the rest of them but you sure seem to like him! Double standard much?

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                @Anita – sorry Anita – Taibbi doesn’t write much for the print edition any more (maybe he is on the GOP trail? I dunno). The only thing of his I’ve read the last three months was his short blurb regarding Andrew Breitbart (slightly mild for Taibbi). I’ve always stated that Taibbi is frat-boyish at best. I critiqued his book on the Financial crisis and to sum – it had long promise but was short on delivery. Try again Grannie. 😉

  18. From your favorite sage …

    I’m pretty sure if the Colonel has the time he’ll give this book some attention: Ward Churchill, A Little Matter of Genocide. But since I suffered the torture that was Fountainhead & Atlas Shrugged, I’m curious of what JAC, LOI and USW would think about Churchill’s book. Before you all go bananas, understand that Ward exposes both socialism & communism and their intentional disregard for the genocide that occurred here in America regarding native Americans. He (to my dismay but definite enlightenment) shows how Christopher Hitchens was very callous to the Native American genocide (which I’m learning is somewhere between 112-125 million between 1492 and 1890).

    For me it would be interesting to hear what yous have to say. For you it would be a different take of what you seem to accept as an inconvenience to your support of this great land of ours.

    I am also interested in how USW can discount the negatives (to include genocide and slavery) committed by this country because what happened 200 years ago is no longer relevant to our political future, yet he clings to the Constitution. Anybody else see the absurdity of that argument?

    Hmmmm?

    • I will do so.

    • Charlie,

      I do not dispute the facts or horror of genocide practiced against native Americans. I do think your/their numbers are inflated by maybe 100 million or so….. I may take a look at it, but am put off by the false numbers you open with. Interesting that Columbus may have introduced the slaughter of five million and we celebrate a day for him.

      http://www.iearn.org/hgp/aeti/aeti-1997/native-americans.html

      You might also recall the article I wrote on native Americans was about the here and now, about today. And you would only talk about the evil committed in the past. Myself, I can’t go back and fix that, so I’m more interested in what we should be doing today. Learn from your mistakes to avoid repeating them in the future. And today we could turn the land owned by the Indians over to them to manage themselves. Did you ever answer on that? Isn’t it near slavery what is being done today by our government?

      What would you think Charlie if I was to be cheated by a business partner? Say we grew a crop and harvested it. And then he took it and sold it, keeping all the profits. It was all cash and I have no proof, so the law will not help. So I tell my ex-partner the next time I see him I will beat him severely. I see him in town a few weeks later and do so, crippling him for life. And the police, knowing he was a thief, do nothing. This was not uncommon in America for much of our history. When my grandfather did this in the 1930’s, it was not even worth a news story in a town of a few thousand. It isn’t about discounting the negatives, it’s about trying to understand judging the past from today’s perspective doesn’t work.

      And you are big on foreign films. Do you judge them by only the negatives, or by the whole? Is it so wrong for us here at SUFA to try to look at the good and the bad, the complete works accomplished by these United States? It’s such a shame how you bitterly cling to the image of the founding fathers having sex with their slaves, and you must be jealous or something. Rent a movie already Charlie!!!LOL

    • Charlie

      What I think of Mr. Ward Churchill can not be stated on this site. His use of the term Genocide is an example of why I dislike him.

      How can the early Americans be accused of committing a crime that DID NOT EXIST at the time they arrived?

      The Word/Term originates in the 1940’s.

      From Wikipedia.

      Genocide is defined as “the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group”,[1] though what constitutes enough of a “part” to qualify as genocide has been subject to much debate by legal scholars.[2] While a precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group children of the group to another group.”[3]. It can simply also be known as the intent to destroy a group, in part or in whole. Intent must be proven, otherwise the crime cannot be identified as genocide.

      Please note Charlie, Genocide requires INTENT to destroy, not just “net effect” of a long history of unrelated actions.

      And that is why I have problems with people like Ward Churchill. Their distortions should not be allowed to stand, especially by those claiming academic credentials.

      Now I might read his book someday, but right now it has nothing to do with anything we are dealing with TODAY. Including the current state of affairs among the Indian populations.

      • JAC: I read the first few chapters of that book today and you could be quoted in it (that’s how accurate his statements about genocide are). Incredible, just about everything you deny above is exactly proving his thesis.

        Absolutely amazing how blind you are to it.

        • Charlie

          Typical BS from you.

          Think about this, Churchill sets up a FALSE narrative and then explains how historians have ignored his false narrative. So when someone else points out that the narrative is false he, and you, can claim “See I told you so”.

          Your lack of logic and reason won’t even allow you to identify what it was that I denied and what I did not deny. Go ahead and try!

          You claim I am blind, because I recognize the difference between propaganda type rhetoric and motives, and the ACTUAL story told by history.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Charlie, Is there any past society/race/empire that did not commit some sort of negatives? You act as thought our country’s history is the only one with these negatives, yet you promote Communism, which has led to the slaughter of hundreds of millions. You make little sense, but if you keep hitting you head against the wall over all of this, you will just get a headache and a damaged wall.

      • USWeapon says:

        It is interesting that he sees absurdity in people supporting the idea of the US despite its negatives, but completely ignores the absurdity of supporting a different sort of governmental set-up in which the history has much greater evil and negatives….

      • Actually, G-man (how are you, brother?) … I see you as seeing this country as one that hardly ever engages in acts humanity would consider negative … look at the title of this site: SUFA)

        • gmanfortruth says:

          I’m good Charlie, I hope you and the family are doing well. Actually, I see the government of this country doing alot of wrong, and they have been for most of my lifetime. However, I can’t fix the past. What I can do is identify the problem (a totally corrupt government), how they became this way (the desire for greed and power), and how to stop it from continuing. Right now I wait. I have written articles on how things can be better, post-corrupt government. I’ve even proposed a new Constitution.

          I don’t think our Constitution is perfect, but it’s a start and can be improved on. The government has managed to pervert much of the language for political reasons, little of which are good for the people. With all that said, let me be clear. I can’t fix the past, I can only learn from it. I would like to make a better future for future generations, we shall see if that happens.

          • I’m with you G-man … but think about this: if the government was originally set up by the wealthy for the wealthy and has evolved to this level of corruption with ONLY the wealthy gaining, what is the point of going forward with the same plan? Yes, the constitution could be a decent starting point, but it would require a ton of amendments, the least of which is retaking a government owned by the 1% and giving it to the people.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Yes, the constitution could be a decent starting point, but it would require a ton of amendments, the least of which is retaking a government owned by the 1% and giving it to the people.

              Charlie, Fixing this problem will not be easy. Maybe by understanding all of the problems of today, even the one’s you see, can they be fixed if the chance happens to come along. But first we must win, and that won’t be easy at all.

    • USWeapon says:

      Again Charlie…. I would like for you to understand my position. Which is it? Am I completely in bed with BF and want no government? Or do I cling to the Constitution? You accuse me of both depending on what point you are trying to denigrate me over. I could care less what the Constitution says, for the record. What I care about is what it was meant to convey: individual liberty and equal rights for all. You can complain all day about the people who wrote it and how poor of a human being they were. My point is, and always has been, that individual liberty and equal rights are paramount. THAT is where you and I differ in philosophy. And differing opinions is fine, but I would appreciate if you ask my opinion on something before attacking what you assume my position is.

      The bottom line on this particular issue is that I absolutely do NOT discount the negatives of the past. I simply choose to not let them be the entire definition of the past. You seem to focus solely on the bad of the past. That’s understandable. Admitting to any of the good things of the past would contradict your desire scrap it all and do it in your desired way going forward. Instead, as I look to find a way forward, I choose to look at all the past, use what worked and scrap what was bad. The native American issues and slavery are absolutely bad parts of our history. I don’t discount them at all. But I can’t go back change those things. What I CAN do, is understand why they happened, take a realistic look at their impact, and choose a path forward that doesn’t repeat the mistakes of the past. But whining about those mistakes ad nauseum won’t change what happened, and it won’t help me with the path forward. Therefore, I choose not to constantly use them in arguments. THAT is why I continue to tell you that they are irrelevant to fixing this country now.

      So yes, I think that people CAN see the absurdity in that argument. Unfortunately, it has too often become the case that the absurd argument is the one you choose to insinuate that I am making instead of the one that I am actually making…

      • I do not ONLY point to the negatives of America … what I do (over and over and over) is refute the founding father/U.S. Constitution argument; show it is severely flawed on several different levels. That is a discourse strategy that seems to frustrate the heck out of those who point to it as something to worship (to defend and risk life over).

        Also, I am not a big fan of so-called patriotism for the sake of flag waving (i.e., so long as we all think in nationalistic terms, we are victim to nationalist interests (state interests, if you will). BF’s argument for absolute anarchy (no government at all) is as much a utopia as is communist utopia; it is undoable. The choices, therefore, are fairly simple. Permit the wealthy to concentrate their interests and be ruled by them (or be slaves to them, if you will) or let the people have a genuine say (socialism or communism). I think a move toward socialism is inevitable (whether it works out for the greater good or not), but having the 1% turn the US into a third world country minute by minute (as the gap widens), will guarantee a nasty revolution down the road.

        As to individual liberty and freedom being paramount … is that why you went to the middle east, to protect freedom and liberty? Think about it.

        But whining about those mistakes ad nauseum won’t change what happened, and it won’t help me with the path forward

        Like JAC’s statement above, another quote that could be inserted into the book. You treat it as nothing more than an inconvenience. How about giving them back their land and all that land is worth? Fair? It wasn’t yours to start with, was it?

        I know, “that’s absurd” …

        • Charlie

          This is where your claims amaze me. YOU have NEVER “refuted the founding father/U.S. Constitution argument”.

          All YOU have ever done is denigrate those people based on examples of hypocrisy. On the fact their values in action differed with their values expressed in support of freedom, liberty and justice. You fail to recognize the difference in the men at that time, both in their philosophy and their wealth.

          So your arguments are simply one huge FALLACY when it comes to the “founding principles”.

          • ONCE again, JAC, those pills … somehow in your world because a person expresses discontent with something like slavery, yet continues to have slaves, bed slaves, and form a government that permits slavery … how he “feels” trumps what he “does.”

            Good luck with that.

            • Charlie

              Once again, for the thinking challenged.

              Not “trumps”, but is “separate”.

              Lets use an example from YOUR viewshed. A communist dictator who writes a treatise on the virtues of freedom, liberty and justice is a hypocrite, but it does not negate the validity of the ideas expressed in the treatise. It only negates the “honesty” or “virtue” of the man himself.

              Connecting the virtue of a person to the validity of their ideas is a classical Logical Fallacy.

              • a.k.a. propaganda … I just read the passage in Churchill’s book about Christopher Columbus … Italian Americans (myself included) were taught everything but the truth about that particular Hitler … yes, I am as guilty as anybody of buying into the bullshit we were taught throughout school, including the non-teaching of America’s Lebensraum (how we expanded west at the expense of native americans–not different at all from what Hitler did) … so the validity of an idea, the intent, if you will, is meaningless when it used in the form of propaganda.

                The Kool-Aid effect, if you will …

    • USWeapon says:

      @Chaz…. I do believe, sir, that your numbers are possibly grossly miscalculated, and certainly vastly misleading. Copied from another site detailing this issue, and showing how grossly misleading it is when you insinuate that the early days of the US saw white men killing 100+ million Native Americans. The high end of estimates show that the peak population of native americans in what is now the US was 20 million:

      “Research by some scholars provides population estimates of the pre-contact Americas to be as high as 112 million in 1492, while others estimate the population to have been as low as eight million (and for the record Chaz, this is the Americas population, not just what is now the US). In any case, the native population declined to less than six million by 1650.”
      http://uwpress.wisc.edu/books/0289.htm

      Note that the population is estimated at 6 million at a time when the Colonists were still confined to a thin strip of land on the East coast.

      As for just the area of the United states the number is far below what you quote:

      “A.L. Kroeber reanalyzed Mooney’s work and estimated 900,000 individuals for the same region and period. In 1966 ethnohistorian Henry Dobyns estimated that there were between 9,800,000 and 12,200,000 people north of the Rio Grande before contact; in 1983 he revised that number upward to 18,000,000 people.”
      http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topi…

      Your “native americans had around 80 to 100 million in population” would be more accurate for the Western hemisphere then just the United States.

      There is agreement that the population decline was overwhelmingly due to disease.

      When Europeans first came to the Americas they inadvertently introduced a number of diseases. These included forms of Tuberculosis, measles, cholera, typhus, and smallpox.

      Native Americans had little immunity to any of these imported diseases. The migration route into the Americas had been through arctic regions. The cold acted as a “filter” preventing some diseases from entering. During their thousands of years of isolation, the inhabitants of the Americas had avoided the disease that swept through the rest of the world. However, this also meant that they had no immunity, protection from these same illnesses.

      As a result, fully half the population became ill when exposed to smallpox. Worse, they often contracted the diseases most virulent form, variol major. This form is hemorrhagic and attacks the heart, lungs and liver. Similar infection rates were found with the other imported diseases.

      While the diseases weren’t spread as a deliberate policy or as a form of germ warfare there are recorded instances where deliberate attempts were made to spread the disease. During Pontiac’s Rebellion in 1763, Lord Amherst is recorded as trying to spread smallpox through infected blankets.

      One estimate is that 90% of the population decrease after 1492 was due to disease. Another estimate puts the death by disease at 3,500,000 Native Americans.
      Source(s):
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_…
      http://www.uic.edu/classes/osci/osci590/…
      http://daphne.palomar.edu/scrout/disease…
      http://marauder.millersv.edu/~columbus/p…
      http://marauder.millersv.edu/~columbus/p… America,Inca)
      http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~rbell/gun… for European diseases)
      http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topi…

      • USW, read the book and look at Churchill’s sources. Chapters 1&2 explain how institutions such as Harvard & Yale not only purposely underestimated native American populations, but also promoted the Non-Holocaust theory (Nazi Germany/Jews) … literally, published papers/books, etc. defending the “there was no holocaust” argument.

        How much can it hurt to read the book? It’s loaded with documentation.

        Besides, you owe me for Fountainhead & Atlas Shrugged … 🙂

  19. Pretzel says:

    Can’t defend your own property?!
    A New Hampshire grandfather has been arrested and is facing a possible prison sentence for firing a shot into the ground and holding a burglar at gunpoint until the cops could arrive. Dennis Fleming, 61, came home on Saturday night to discover that his home had been robbed. He saw the burglar, Joseph Hebert, 27, climbing out of his neighbor’s window. Mr. Fleming yelled, “Freeze!” and fired a shot into the ground before holding the crook at gunpoint.

    When the police arrived, they arrested Hebert, but instead of a big old “thank you” and a slap on the back for Fleming, he got arrested too, on a charge of reckless conduct.

    Yes, you read that right: A grandfather of 14 was arrested for not letting a criminal escape. What was he supposed to do — hold him down? Then they probably would have arrested him for assault and battery. Besides, we are talking about a 61-year-old man versus a 27-year-old man. Fleming did the math on that one himself. He told FoxNews:

    I didn’t think I could handle this guy physically, so I fired into the ground. He stopped. He knew I was serious. I was angry … and I was worried that this guy was going to come after me.

    The police also seized Fleming’s collection of firearms including seven rifles and a .38-caliber handgun. Just in case any other bad guys out there get it in their minds to rob an unarmed house, keep in mind that Fleming still has his Louisville Slugger.

    Vigilantes can be dangerous, and people should not take the law into their own hands. But that’s not what happened here. The police were called and were on their way. Unfortunately, teleportation hasn’t become a reliable source of transportation quite yet, so the cops were not able to spontaneously appear out of thin air to arrest Hebert. Fleming did what he had to do to keep the younger man from escaping and/or harming him. By breaking-and-entering at least two homes, Hebert had already proved that he doesn’t play by the rules. I doubt he would’ve waited around to be arrested just because Fleming said, “Pretty please.”

    Americans should have the right to protect their personal property. It’s a keystone to an ordered society. What happens when crooks know that people are unable to defend themselves? Penny Dean of Gun Owners of New Hampshire says, “The fact that this man would be charged is an outrage. Burglars in New Hampshire must know it’s open season, since homeowners cannot defend themselves, as evidenced by this case. This is charging the victim.”

    Here’s to hoping County Attorney Tom Veladi shows some common sense when he reviews this case. People should not have to worry about getting arrested or going to jail for self-defense or for protecting their personal property.

    • @ Pretzel……why are you surprised at this…..it is New Hampshire. A bastion of liberal philosophy. My question was……why fire into the ground. The real target was in front of him. The other side of that question is……you used the term vigilante. Self defense does not a vigilante make. Protection of private property,no matter where located, does not a vigilante make.

      Texas has had a resurgence of cattle rustling….especially in the Johnson county area. The neighbors have all banned together with volunteers to patrol fence lines and pastures with weapons and will shoot first. This is not a vigilante style justice either.

      So, I am as perplexed as you but not surprised because it is the northeast where criminals are more important than law abiding citizens, it seems.

  20. Ok Charlie, my PLutonian friend……(by the way, how is the solar flare activity in your region). I read the book on Kindle last night and this morning. What question d you have, friend?

  21. Ray Hawkins

    @JAC – my call out to you sir is that you seem colossally unwilling to acknowledge that with respect to Rush Limbaugh’s comments (and we could add examples from all parts of the spectrum to completely belabor the point) – his choice of words goes beyond sarcasm – his choice of words is what grows the cancer that has become the trademark of our deeply flawed and troubled political system. Ask yourself this – are those words helpful or hurtful to the issue at hand? I suppose since you think its funny then I have my answer – or – so long as the words were used in the context of making a point you agree with – then the words do not matter right?

    I guess I never really thought of you as an “end justifies the means” sort of guy.

    Ray, I think you either didn’t see my entire response to this issue or missed some of the key points.

    I admitted that I found his sarcastic remarks funny. That was on DAY ONE, when I heard them live. Just because the words were harsh or shocking doesn’t eliminate the obvious sarcasm or the humor. It can certainly undermine the intended outcome by the user, but I do not think it goes “beyond” the sarcasm when those words are related to the sarcastic point being portrayed. Just as I can find Stewart, Colbert and even Mahre funny when they use harsh language in their sarcasm. So Ray, my view of what is funny is NOT dependent on whether I agree with the underlying point. It is dependent on whether the absurdity being attacked is in fact apparent, regardless of who proposed it. What I don’t find humorous is when someone like Mahre simply calls people names with no connection to an actual point. Thus the distinction between his attack on Palin and Limbaugh’s comments about Fluke’s testimony.

    I stated that his words were provocative. You could say shocking, in today’s PC climate. But honestly, I think the entire reaction is a phony Self Righteous bunch of junk. A reflection of just how out of control the PC police state has become in stifling debate itself. That does not mean that they are not counter productive to reasoned debate. Or that they don’t play into the name calling and politics of personal destruction. The entire reaction and counter reaction can be phony and still have those affects. Obviously, in this type of climate using such words will only play into the game. Thus creating more distraction instead of clarity.

    I stated that he blew it. That his words would be used not only against him but the Republican Party. That his words would actually harm the cause he claims to support. I recall I agreed with V.H. that he deserved a slap up side the head. Quite frankly, Limbaugh’s Hubris got the best of him this time.

    I did not address the bigger question of contributing to a poisoned environment in the national arena. But yes, they can harm the broader debate as well. Because it allows people to focus on Rush instead of the underlying issue, or the testimony of someone who really had no business testifying before Congress in the first place. It creates just another excuse for retaliation of the same, while of course using the “other” guy as the justification. In fact, you could argue that the reaction to Limbaugh was the result of previous poison spilled into the well.

    I agree Ray that all these types of characters harm “civil discourse” but the reality is that they have existed for a very long time. Sarcasm and cynicism have always been used to show the absurdity of various issues. The use of “shock” has been increasing and becoming ever more obnoxious in my lifetime. You might recall my prior comments about the erosion of our “moral character”. You might also recall the chastising comments I got from some folks here for “claiming that I have some moral superiority”.

    I hope you see now that your characterization of my view is misplaced.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      “What I don’t find humorous is when someone like Mahre simply calls people names with no connection to an actual point.”

      Yet, despite that, you find Rush’s statement humerous when he also simply called someone a name with no connection to an actual point, at least not an actual point rooted in reality. Me? I’d just love to see Fluke bring an action against Rush for slander.

      • Buck

        That is flat our not true Buck. Have you not heard the actual comments by Rush on the radio. He absolutely had a point and he made it BEFORE linking to the terms slut and prostitute. And that point was created by Fluke’s testimony, so I don’t know how you can say it had no basis in reality.

        You know that would be a frivolous law suit. So why would you even suggest such a thing?

        Once again you display the “relative ethical standards” of the left wing.

      • Mathius™ says:

        This should help her:

        • So what? Take away the slut and prostitute jabs and what do you have? Rush is consistent. His motto: Fighting the absurd with absurdity. Let’s not dismiss Ms Fluke who intentionally cherry picked Georgetown, a Catholic university, to pick on. But she gets a pass? That’s absurd and deserves an absurd reaction.

          • Mathius™ says:

            So your argument is that if we ignore the horribly offensive, rude, and slanderous things he said about her, then he wasn’t horribly offensive, rude, or slanderous? Did I get that right?

            • HOOOOOOOOLD UP! Start at the beginning..who did what?

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Its not even that — not only did Rush say horribly offensive, rude and slanderous things about her, but he completely mischaracterized everything she said to suit his own purposes and ‘better’ allow him to say such horribly offensive, rude and slanderous things about her….for DAYS. I’m over the ‘slut’ and ‘prostitute’ comment (for which Rush gave a very sincere non-apology for), but I’m still shocked by just how much he deliberately mischaracterized her testimony and then used that to launch a crusade against her and her character for the next few days.

              • Sorta like Rules for Radicals in reverse Target..Isolate..Ridicule… sucks doesn’t it?.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                And to think Rush could have leaned on his own experience and counseled Fluke on less controversial ways to obtain drugs.

            • OMG – you faux outrage isn’t fooling anyone Buck.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                No faux outrage here Kathy, sorry. I would just love to open my paper tomorrow morning and read that Fluke has brought a defamation action against Rush.

              • Ok Buck…but all these folks get to go first:
                The war on conservative women

                By Michelle Malkin • March 7, 2012 09:13 AM
                The war on conservative women
                by Michelle Malkin
                Creators Syndicate
                Copyright 2012
                I’m sorry Rush Limbaugh called 30-year-old Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke a “slut.” She’s really just another professional femme-a-gogue helping to manufacture a false narrative about the GOP “war on women.” I’m sorry the civility police now have an opening to demonize the entire right based on one radio comment — because it’s the progressive left in this country that has viciously and systematically slimed female conservatives for their beliefs.
                We have the well-worn battle scars to prove it. And no, we don’t need coddling phone calls from the pandering president of the United States to convince us to stand up and fight.
                At his first press conference of the year on Tuesday, the Nation’s Concern Troll explained that he phoned Fluke to send a message to his daughters and all women that they shouldn’t be “attacked or called horrible names because they are being good citizens.” After inserting himself into the fray and dragging Sasha and Malia into the debate, Obama then told a reporter he “didn’t want to get into the business of arbitrating” language and civility. Too late, pal.
                The fact is, “slut” is one of the nicer things I’ve been called over 20 years of public life. In college during the late 1980s, it was “race traitor,” “coconut” (brown on the outside white on the inside) and “white man’s puppet.” After my first book, “Invasion,” came out in 2001, it was “immigrant-hater,” the “Radical Right’s Asian Pitbull,” “Tokyo Rose” and “Aunt Tomasina.” In my third book, 2005′s “Unhinged,” I published entire chapters of hate mail rife with degrading, unprintable sexual epithets and mockery of my Filipino heritage.
                If I had a dollar for every time libs have called me a “Manila whore” and “Subic Bay bar girl,” I’d be able to pay for a ticket to a Hollywood-for-Obama fundraiser. To the HuffPo left, whore is my middle name.
                Self-serving opponents argue that such attacks do not represent “respectable,” “mainstream” liberal opinion about their conservative female counterparts. But it was feminist godmother Gloria Steinem who called Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison a “female impersonator.” It was NOW leader Patricia Ireland who commanded her flock to only vote for “authentic” female political candidates. It was Al Gore consultant Naomi Wolf who accused the late Jeane Kirkpatrick of being “uninflected by the experiences of the female body.”
                It was Matt Taibbi, now of Rolling Stone magazine, who mocked my early championing of the tea party movement by jibing: “Now when I read her stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of (redacted) in her mouth. It vastly improves her prose.”
                It was Keith Olbermann, then at MSNBC and now at Al Gore’s Current TV, who wrote on Twitter that columnist S.E. Cupp was “a perfect demonstration of the necessity of the work Planned Parenthood does” and who called me a “mashed up bag of meat with lipstick on it.” He stands by those remarks. Olbermann has been a special guest at the White House.
                Some of us have not forgotten when liberal Wisconsin radio host John “Sly” Sylvester outrageously accused GOP Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch of performing “fellatio on all the talk-show hosts in Milwaukee” and sneered that she had “pulled a train” (a crude phrase for gang sex). (Earlier, he called former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice a “black trophy” and “Aunt Jemima.”)
                Or when MSNBC misogynist Ed Schultz called talk show host Laura Ingraham a “talk slut” for criticizing Obama’s petty beer summit. Or when Playboy published a list of the top 10 conservative women who deserved to be “hate-f**ked.” The article, which was promoted by Anne Schroeder Mullins at Politico.com, included Ingraham, “The View’s” Elisabeth Hasselbeck, former Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino, GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann and others. Yours truly topped the list with the following description: a “highly f**kable Filipina” and “a regular on Fox News, where her tight body and get-off-my-lawn stare just scream, ‘Do me!’”
                And then there’s the left’s war on Sarah Palin, which would require an entire national forest of trees to publish.
                A reporter asked Obama to comment on examples of liberal hate speech at Tuesday’s press conference. He whiffed, of course. This is, after all, the brave leader who sat on his hands while his street thugs attacked tea party mothers and grandmothers as “Koch whores” during the fight over union reform in Wisconsin. (As I reported last week, his re-election campaign is now targeting the Koch brothers’ private foundation donors in a parallel effort to chill conservative speech and activism.) He’s leading by example.
                So no, we won’t get any phone calls from Mr. Civility. Acknowledging the war on conservative women would obliterate The Narrative. Enjoy the silence.

          • SK Trynosky Sr says:

            Rush was dumb. I “got” the humor but guess what, wasn’t worth the effort. He should apologize to the rest of out there who he has damaged because he certainly has. he has added gasoline to the fire over the non-issue of contraception. Now the body politic will just keep thinking of that non-issue which is exactly what Sandra Fluke and Nancy Pelosi wanted from the beginning.

            What he could, should have done was demolish her argument. His research was very sloppy and I am sure that he went full bore (unintentional pun) on her probably without reading her testimony. One of Rush’s big weaknesses is not being able to back down. Comes with the territory I guess. Once you are the big shot it tends to happen, a lot! I’ve heard a few callers over the years castigated and identified as “seminar callers”. In some cases he was spot on, in others dead wrong. A lot of that stuff about sunshine soldiers being unhappy with the war(s) which he thought came from fakes was because he A, knows absolutely nothing about the military and B, was in way too tight with the Administration, to the point where his objectivity went out the window.

          • @Anita:

            Your cmment is simply brilliant! It is the first one that I am referring too, #129550 just below the video. Furthermore, and this is for me, Jon-Paul, more than anyone else. The manner in which Ms. Fluke’s retort of Rush’s comments are so heinously out of context “…Oh who would use such language against me…(inferring a law student)…and I want to thank all of those who have remained behind me…” Goodness! It sounded like an Oscar acceptance speech, not given by one who has been hurt or otherwise. And just how those ‘significant others’ sucked it up, to me, really showed the the depth and breadth of our Congressional committees, and although I live here in Georgetown, she’s definitely not sounding out on behalf of the residents — btw I add, those of us who pay to live here.

            @Mathius: What kind of slobbering bull squat are you slinging now?

            @Buck: It’s like you lot are trying to provoke an argument! (From your post:) “Its not even that — not only did Rush say horribly offensive, rude and slanderous things about her, but he completely mischaracterized everything she said to suit his own purposes and ‘better’ allow him to say such horribly offensive, rude and slanderous things about her….for DAYS.”

            Sir, I ask you what is horribly offensive or rude about what Rush said? Moreover, what is slanderous? Furthermore, how is there a mischaracterization? You see, I am from the old-school where there isn’t being politically correct, say what you mean, have your ducks lined up and in a row; Ms. Fluke’s agenda testified to the notion that taxpayers should flip the bill for those who need contraceptives. Now although it is against the policies and dogma of the Catholic church for members to use such why then is she all high and mighty discussing her exploits as well as some friends? Lest I forget, “…We only get the summer months to work here, and we all make about $3,000.” Moronic indeed! Prior to Rush finding exact locations in Georgetown where she could procure them for no cost, he had mentioned according to his people the price of contraception ran about $952 p.a.

            The ugliest thing in this entire mess is that she didn’t hear any of that. Why? It is not in her agenda. She was set-up, used, abused, and now discarded just like the evening’s end for the worlds oldest profession.

            jps

            • Thanks Jon-Paul. I saw my name sitting there as big as the sun and figured I was going to get chewed out! The whole story is absurd! 😉

            • Buck the Wala says:

              What is slanderous?

              Look up slander per se — calling a woman a slut qualifies.

              The mid characterization is apparent when you view Rush’s comments alongside those of Ms. Fluke.

              • Hey Buck:

                I know what slander is…my question was to you…do you know what slander is? Now what is slander, what is defamation? Basically it’s a false statement made to a third person that causes you injury or harm. What is injury or harm? Well injury or harm, basically your reputation has been affected or your ability to engage in your occupation has been affected. And remember that a defense to slander or libel or defamation of any type is truth.

                Okay I could go on and on but suffice it to say that slander is a charge brought against someone else and the decision as to whether or not it qualifies as being defamed or slanderous is up to a court or jury. I just finished reading an awesome book called Freedom: From the Thought that we Hate that is a history of the “Free Speech” clause of the 1st Amendment. Notwithstanding, a person can call another person anything they so desire.

                Rush implied that that’s what Ms. Fluke was doing — asking him, you, and me — to pay for Ms. Fluke”s contraception via tax was in fact, the same as Sandra Fluke asking for those who she is with in her bedroom or elsewhere, is the same as getting or asking for money to have sex. And unfortunately for your case she has never denied that fact, but in serveral instances she admits to it. Therefore, what do you call a woman who asks or arranges for payment before, during, or after sex? Let’s see….prostitute works, slut works, whore works as does many other words.

                Interestingly enough, the burden of proof is not on the defendant (Rush) in this case, rather it is on the plaintiff (Fluke). She during her spill on CNN and other news organizations has stated, “…that she wasn’t bothered by his comments…and that they didn’t mean anything to her…” Therefore she not only is not entitled to damages – puntative or compensatory – simply because she was not slandered, or hurt or bothered in anyway with the exception of advancing her own political agenda.

                Anita is so correct when she states “…you couldn’t make this stuff up!” Here are just a few highlights pursuant to who benefits. Remember the House Committee on Government and Reform had been selected and charged for what was at issue: Religious Freedom. With precision the democrats we able to change the meeting to issues of gender bias, contraception, and blaming Rep. Issa for Chair misconduct. Why? Here’s how the meeting started: “What I want to know is, where are the women?” asked Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) before walking out. First words uttered by all in attendance. Furthermore, Democrats withdrew the name of a witness Issa had accepted, Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, because they wanted a woman to testify. Lynn submitted a written statement instead.

                Maloney pressed Issa to allow Sandra Fluke, a law student from Georgetown University, to testify about the impact of the new requirement that most health plans offer contraceptive coverage with no co-pay. Issa shot back that Fluke was rejected because she was “not found to be appropriate or qualified” to testify about religious liberty. He said liberty, not contraception, was the topic of the hearing.

                Two female Democrats walked out of a House oversight committee hearing on the contraceptive coverage rule Thursday morning, accusing Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) of manipulating committee rules to block female witnesses from testifying. Now then you tell me; the Chair says it is about liberty not contraception…who is trying to change the agenda to his committee?

                The media and press had already assembled in the corridor/hallways and get this….Sandra Fluke states to repoters about a friend’s experience that she had hoped to include in her testimony. The woman had lost an ovary to an illness that could have been treated with contraceptives that she couldn’t access and now was facing the possibility of infertility, Fluke said.

                “It’s striking that the chairman would say that the reason I cannot speak is that I’m not qualified to speak on the matter,” she said. “I feel that the women this affects are the most qualified to speak on this matter.”

                This is totally egregious! Here’s a person, who is deemed by the committee not to be qualified on Religious Liberties, who is espousing rubbish about contraception!! Yeah, it was a clear set up to get away from the agenda (religious liberties) and onto an entirely different issue (contraception).

                jps

              • Buck the Wala says:

                While much of this is accurate, certain statements fall within the category of slander per se. In these cases, the plaintiff does not need to prove harm to reputation or damages. Rather the burden switches to the defendant.

                Also, while truth is a valid defense, Rush’s statement was patently untrue and unsupported by Flukes testimony.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @JAC – I don’t think its misplaced. I think for Rush – really really bad publicity is still good publicity. He ain’t going anywhere folks. And we’re probably at least a little worse for the wear.

  22. Mathius™ says:

    • in 1991, when he was president of the Harvard Law Review, 30 year old Obama spoke in front of a rally of his admiration for radical professor Derrick Bell, and hugged him in front of the crowd and said: “Open up your hearts and your minds to the words of Professor Derrick Bell.”

      Bell was the first tenured black professor at Harvard, and a constant activist for radical positions, demonizing whites. He demanded more hiring of black radicals on the law school faculty (the rally Obama spoke at was protesting a decision not to offer tenure to a black woman), and he eventually left Harvard Law School.

      There is also a shocking tape of a lecture by prominent black Harvard Law professor Charles Ogletree, in which he boasted of covering up the tape in the 2008 election. “We hid this during the election,” he said. It is unclear exactly who is included in “we” in this case. Could one Barack Obama be part of that group?

      In fact, the footage had appeared in a PBS Frontline documentary, making no impact whatsoever upon the national conversation, a fact which the program’s underwriters ought to ponder.

      Breibart promised before his death to finally vet Obama. What the mainstream media will never admit is that the public persona of Obama they have collaborated in producing is a mere facade. We live in uneasy times, leading to skepticism about whether we are being told the truth. Certainly the public overwhelmingly distrusts the media.

      Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/03/we_hid_this_during_the_election_latest_breitbart_tapes_debut.html#ixzz1oYXzmBmJ

    • Pair this clip with Naten’s clip with Panetta below and we have huge trouble.

      • Naten53 says:

        I did what?

        • Uh Oh! Wait a second…where did the clip go with Panetta..where your comment was “we don’t need no stinking constitution”? I thought it was on this page? :blush:

          • Finally found it..it was TRay’s clip up above! …I tried to give you credit Naten. 😉

    • Common Man says:

      Matt;

      I know I am late to this discussion, but I watched and almost threw up onto my key board. The Irony of this is had he and his fellow moron’s done NOTHING, as opposed to the actions they took, we (all of us & the Nation) would be farther along the road to recovery. He, and those afore him have only prolonged the inevitable, and the actions they took over the last 20+ years have surely increased the suffering we will endure.

      As I have said before: STOP and watch the progress made

      – Leave business and the economic drive, which is inherently absolute in the American spirit alone – They will resurface and grow again
      – Remove drilling restrictions throughout the coasts and watch the price of oil / gas drop, the supply on foreign disapear, and the motivators of war significantly fade
      – Remove Federal Government from Education and watch local schools and school communities increase grade levels and overall graduation percentages
      – Elliminate every program that sends US dollars to other countries (regardless of the reason) and watch the National debt decline significantly
      – Bring all Military forces home, while telling the world that we are know longer the planet’s peace keepers, and watch terrorist threats toward us all but disapear.
      – Elliminate Unions and lobbying organizations and the financial contributions they provide in any and all forms and watch the number of power seaking, egotistic, self-loathing, indignant, evil politician’s numbers dwindle
      – Remove 60%+ of the regulations imposed upon businesses and watch the economy jump, job needs sore, and the GNP rise.
      – Close the boarders, deport the illegals and elliminate drug laws and watch the cartels take their business elsewhere.
      – Elliminate the EPA and the ecological limitations it has implemented and watch Mother Nature take care of things.

      The bottom line is that if the Federal government would just try the plan of doing Nothing we would see remarkable results. At this pint in time they only manage to worsen the circumstances.

      CM

  23. Critical Race theory, anyone? I don’t actually know what it is yet-but it looks like it is gonna be a topic of discussion in the media for awhile.

    • Mathius™ says:

      I was just looking at it on wikipedia.. I got bored after three lines and was snoring at my desk after five lines.. I’d love a concise and non-biased opinion, but Solidad seemed to think it’s pretty innocuous whereas the guy from Breitbart.com seems to think it’s about – I’m not positive, exactly – but something to do with white supremacy and the need to radically change the entire government.

      I’m all ears.

      • I’ve been reading and I think this line is a pretty concise-non-biased descriptive definition.

        “A critique of liberalism: CRT scholars favor a more aggressive approach to social transformation as opposed to liberalism’s more cautious approach, favor a race conscious approach to transformation rather than liberalism’s embrace of color blindness, and favor an approach that relies more on political organizing, in contrast to liberalism’s reliance on rights-based remedies.”

    • Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic have documented the following major themes as characteristic of work in critical race theory:

      * A critique of liberalism: CRT scholars favor a more aggressive approach to social transformation as opposed to liberalism’s more cautious approach, favor a race conscious approach to transformation rather than liberalism’s embrace of color blindness, and favor an approach that relies more on political organizing, in contrast to liberalism’s reliance on rights-based remedies.
      * Storytelling/counterstorytelling and “naming one’s own reality”–using narrative to illuminate and explore experiences of racial oppression.
      * Revisionist interpretations of American civil rights law and progress—criticizing civil rights scholarship and anti-discrimination law.
      * Applying insights from social science writing on race and racism to legal problems.
      * Structural determinism, or how “the structure of legal thought or culture influences its content.”
      * The intersections of race, sex, and class–e.g., how poor Latinas’ experience of domestic violence needs distinctive remedies.
      * Essentialism and anti-essentialism—reducing the experience of a category (like gender or race) to the experience of one sub-group (like white women or African-Americans).
      * Cultural nationalism/separatism, Black nationalism–exploring more radical views arguing for separation and reparations as a form of foreign aid.
      * Legal institutions, critical pedagogy, and minority lawyers in the bar.

      As a movement that draws heavily from critical theory, critical race theory shares many intellectual commitments with CLS and critical theory, feminist jurisprudence, and postcolonial theory.

      Recent developments in critical race theory include work relying on updated social psychology research on unconscious bias, to justify affirmative action; and work relying on law and economics methodology to examine Structural Inequality and discrimination in the workplace.[4]
      [edit] Applications

      Scholars in Critical Race Theory have focused with some particularity on the issues of hate crime and hate speech. In response to the US Supreme Court’s opinion in the hate speech case of R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), in which the Court struck down an anti-bias ordinance as applied to a teenager who had burned a cross, Mari Matsuda and Charles Lawrence argued that the Court had paid insufficient attention to the history of racist speech and the actual injury produced by such speech.[5] The Court has since adopted this historicist position in Virginia v. Black (2003), finding that cross burning with an intent to intimidate can be legally prohibited.[citation needed]

      Critical race theorists have also paid particular attention to the issue of affirmative action. Many scholars have argued in favor of affirmative action on the argument that so-called merit standards for hiring and educational admissions are not race-neutral for a variety of reasons, and that such standards are part of the rhetoric of neutrality through which whites justify their disproportionate share of resources and social benefits.[6]
      [edit] Criticisms

      Many mainstream legal scholars have criticized CRT on a number of grounds, including some scholars’ use of narrative and storytelling, as well as the critique of objectivity adopted by critical race theorists in connection with the critique of merit. Daniel Farber and Suzanna Sherry have argued that critical race theory, along with critical feminism and critical legal studies, has anti-Semitic and anti-Asian implications, has worked to undermine notions of democratic community and has impeded dialogue.[7] Judge Richard Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago has “label[ed] critical race theorists and postmodernists the ‘lunatic core’ of ‘radical legal egalitarianism.’”[8] He writes,

      What is most arresting about critical race theory is that…it turns its back on the Western tradition of rational inquiry, forswearing analysis for narrative. Rather than marshal logical arguments and empirical data, critical race theorists tell stories — fictional, science-fictional, quasi-fictional, autobiographical, anecdotal — designed to expose the pervasive and debilitating racism of America today. By repudiating reasoned argumentation, the storytellers reinforce stereotypes about the intellectual capacities of nonwhites.[8]

      Judge Alex Kozinski, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, writes that Critical Race Theorists have constructed a philosophy which makes a valid exchange of ideas between the various disciplines unattainable.

      The radical multiculturalists’ views raise insuperable barriers to mutual understanding. Consider the Space Traders story. How does one have a meaningful dialogue with Derrick Bell? Because his thesis is utterly untestable, one quickly reaches a dead end after either accepting or rejecting his assertion that white Americans would cheerfully sell all blacks to the aliens. The story is also a poke in the eye of American Jews, particularly those who risked life and limb by actively participating in the civil rights protests of the 1960s. Bell clearly implies that this was done out of tawdry self-interest. Perhaps most galling is Bell’s insensitivity in making the symbol of Jewish hypocrisy the little girl who perished in the Holocaust — as close to a saint as Jews have. A Jewish professor who invoked the name of Rosa Parks so derisively would be bitterly condemned — and rightly so.[9]

      Henry Louis Gates Jr. has written a critical evaluation of CRT.[10] Gates emphasizes how campus speech codes and anti-hate speech laws have been applied contrary to the intentions of CRT theorists: “During the year in which Michigan’s speech code was enforced, more than twenty blacks were charged – by whites – with racist speech. As Trossen notes, not a single instance of white racist speech was punished.” Gates gives several further examples such as this one: “What you don’t hear from the hate speech theorists is that the first casualty of the MacKinnonite anti-obscenity ruling was a gay and lesbian bookshop in Toronto, which was raided by the police because of a lesbian magazine it carried.”

  24. From the Desk of Richard Thompson,
    President, Thomas More Law Center

    WANTED: Lawyers Committed to a
    Higher Calling

    We are seeking full-time appellate/litigation lawyers with significant experience in federal trial and appellate courts. Applicants
    must be totallly committed to the Law Center’s mission as described below.

    The Thomas More Law Center is a leading national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Its mission is to restore and defend America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life; and to preserve a strong national defense, and a free and sovereign United States of America.

    Position: Full-Time Trial Counsel
    Salary: $125,000 plus benefits

    Position requirements:

    Fully committed to the philosophy and mission of the Thomas More Law Center as described above. Please visit the Law Center’s website at http://www.thomasmore.org for more information on the Law Center and our cases.

    At least three years of litigation and appellate experience in federal and state courts with a primary emphasis on federal courts.

    Relocation to the Ann Arbor, Michigan area.

    Willingness to travel to courts throughout the United States.

    Hiring Preferences:

    Current military lawyers or veterans.

    Knowledge of First Amendment law.

    Apply to: Letter of interest and resume should be e-mailed to the Office Manager, Fran Morello at: fmorello@thomasmore.org

    Please pass this on to a lawyer who may be interested.

    Buck, here’s a real opportunity for ya…

    • Buck the Wala says:

      I think I’ll pass.

      For one, I’m not a litigation attorney.

      For two, I disagree with its core mission (at least from what I can gleam from the snippet provided).

      For three, I don’t want to live in Michigan.

      • Buck,

        Which one(s) are you against?
        America’s Judeo-Christian heritage?
        moral values?
        the religious freedom of Christians?
        time-honored family values?
        the sanctity of human life?
        a strong national defense?
        a free and sovereign United States of America.?

        • Buck the Wala says:

          I am against what I understand to be what they mean by the above. As I said, this is what I gleam from the snippet of their mission statement provided. I would need to know more about what they truly stand for.

          • Why are all your answers in lawyerese? It’s like with Clinton, I did not have sex…. I think we both know they stand for the religious right. For the record, I would not agree with them on some issues, but there is a difference in defending the religious freedom of Christians and imposing. The sanctity of human life you know is abortion. And I was/am just having fun, so don’t take it serious…..
            What they stand for:

            http://www.thomasmore.org/cases/all

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Why lawyerese? Can’t help it — that’s what law school does to you. It’s a horrible horrible disease.

              Yes, there is a difference in defending religious freedom and imposing religious freedom. But, I’ve found that those on the religious right seem to find infringements on their religious freedom when none exist (case in point: the entire contraception/health insurance debate). And yes, I assumed ‘sanctity of human life’ meant abortion, but who knows? Maybe they are working to end the death penalty – that I’d support!

        • Naten53 says:

          must be moral values no lawyer can say they are for that because then they wouldn’t have a job

    • No hatin on Michigan there Buck!

      My sister was involved in a protest at an abortion clinic last year. The group was ticketed for ‘blocking the driveway’, as opposed to picketing on the sidewalk. Thomas Moore Law Center offered free services to the group. My sister was unimpressed with the attorneys. Said they were not much into the fight. She got the feeling they were in it more to promote their law firm than fighting the case. The case dragged on for months with nothing much getting done on either side. She still had to pay the ticket.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        I’m not hating on Michigan — I’m sure it is a very lovely place to live, albeit one I choose not to live in.

        Was the group blocking the driveway?

        • Mathius™ says:

          Of course they were, Buck.

        • If I recall correctly….A car was pulling into the driveway and a couple protesters walked up to the car to offer literature for their cause..it was then that they were ticketed…so Yes they were “IN” the driveway at that moment but they did not have the driveway blocked.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Any video on this? I’d hate to get in to a he-said she-said.

            • No. Just going on what I remember her saying. My sister and I have very different personalities (imagine that 🙂 ) She’s very low key and I don’t picture her being involved in anything close to intentionally breaking the law. But..that’s how it went down.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I never said anything about intentionally breaking the law, only about inadvertantly blocking a driveway which happens to be a ticketable offense.

              • Yeah, yeah! And she paid her ticket! Darn..I would have loved to go tease her in jail…..

  25. Mathius™ says:

    Wow. Really, just wow.

    Link.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Groan.

      • Buck I haven’t read the whole bill but I read this:

        State of Arizona

        Senate

        Fiftieth Legislature

        Second Regular Session

        2012

        SENATE BILL 1359

        AN ACT

        amending title 12, chapter 6, article 12, Arizona Revised Statutes, by adding section 12-718; relating to civil liability.

        (TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE)

        Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:

        Section 1. Title 12, chapter 6, article 12, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 12-718, to read:

        12-718. Civil liability; wrongful birth, life or conception claims; application

        A. A person is not liable for damages in any civil action for wrongful birth based on a claim that, but for an act or omission of the defendant, a child or children would not or should not have been born.

        B. A person is not liable for damages in any civil action for wrongful life based on a claim that, but for an act or omission of the defendant, the person bringing the action would not or should not have been born.

        C. This section applies to any claim regardless of whether the child is born healthy or with a birth defect or other adverse medical condition.

        D. This section does not apply to any civil action for damages for an intentional or grossly negligent act or omission, including an act or omission that violates a criminal law. ”

        I’m not a lawyer-and I haven’t made up my mind about this being law-so lets talk about it- is this allowing Doctors to intentional lie to patients. It seems from my reading that it is just protecting doctors from frivolous law suites because the baby was born with a problem that the Doctor missed or didn’t see. It will not stop law suits but it will make them harder to prove because they will have to prove his INTENT was to not tell them the truth.

        • Mathius™ says:

          E. This section does not apply to any civil action for damages for an intentional or grossly negligent act or omission, including an act or omission that violates a criminal law. (I think your lettering is off.. you missed the real D)
          Link

          Well. This line certainly makes a difference. I’m no lawyer, so I can’t speculate on the difference between a omission and a grossly negligent omission. But, yes, it does appear that the story on this one may have be overstating things.

          Though, I would add, that whether accidental or “grossly negligent” or “intentional,” if my fetus had a “birth defect or other adverse medical condition” and my doctor knew about it and didn’t tell me – for whatever reason – that I should be able to sue the pants off of him.

          • Hmmm-Just did copy and paste-maybe they added the one about being liable for conceiving after what I read was posted. I don’t know.

            Looks to me like you can sue him- they just added that intent was necessary to prove your case. Wrongful Life or wrongful Birth cases are relatively new( I’m using these words without screaming and it’s very hard)-not sure how they handle usual cases but I think it’s really hard to prove malpractice. So I figure they will make new laws to cover this fairly new type of lawsuit.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          No, let’s just take (A) for a quick second:

          “A. A person is not liable for damages in any civil action for wrongful birth based on a claim that, but for an act or omission of the defendant, a child or children would not or should not have been born.” This is not just talking about a frivolous law suit where the Doctor inadvertantly missed something, but it also seems to me that it would apply to the Doctor seeing the defect and then willfully neglecting to tell the parents.

          Point E though does seem to indicate that you could still bring an action for medical malpractice, though its not too clear on this point. I would need to look at the rest of the bill – which would be a very interesting thing to do, but one which I have no time for.

          • Maybe you’ll have time later-but I’ve read it several times and all I see is Intent has to be proved to make the Doctor liable.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Even if that is so, why shouldn’t negligence be sufficient?

              • I don’t know will have to think about it-why don’t you tell me why you think negligence is appropriate.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Negligence is the failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances. In the context of medical malpractice, that standard of care would not be that of any ‘reasonably prudent person’ but of a reasonably prudent doctor with the same background/expertise as that of the doctor in the instant case.

                Seems a perfectly reasonable standard to apply here. Why raise it to require intent? – an absurdly difficult thing to prove in this area.

              • Hmmm-will have to think about this awhile but a couple points to consider-this is an unusual charge-the doctor didn’t actually cause whatever the damage is to the child -he simply missed something on an ultrasound.

                On purely practical grounds-this type of case could seriously cause doctors not to be able to get insurance, and they might decide the liability for reading ultrasounds is to high.

              • Or the price of ultrasounds could go sky high.

              • Oh and one other thing- it said “an intentional or grossly negligent act or omission” . It mention grossly negligent -how does that fit into this discussion legally?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Not exactly certain on that difference — haven’t studied torts in a long time. Grossly seems to imply that it must be so over the top of what is considered reasonable behavior that, although not intentional, it pretty much was intentional.

    • Matt,

      For the most part, I agree. One point, I’m big on states rights and let Arizona pass their law. If it affected me, I’d move to another state.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Why is the answer always ‘move to another state’?

        • Naten53 says:

          Because of states rights. (ah-hahaha cirle loop activated)

        • Why is the answer to always force issues by the Federal Government?

          • Buck the Wala says:

            It’s not. But neither is the answer: too bad…move.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Your right Buck 🙂 It’s time to remove the idiot lawmakers and hang them on the lightpoles.

            • Begs the question, that you may have already answered somewhere……..do you approve of referendums….if not, why not? Can you answer in less than, say….100 words without filing a brief?

              I ask for this reason…. If a city, trying to produce a budget, comes up with a budget that is financially viable, and it is put to referendum and it is voted on and the budget passes, how could anyone justify saying that the majority has no say? If the citizens of a city vote on specific items that affect only the city and those that live in it, where does anyone have a right to say the majority does not rule?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I’m ok with referendums in general…with one major caveat — the majority doesn’t get to put the equal rights of a minority up for a vote.

  26. Checking in.

  27. I finally found something that the Obama administration is consistent on………they are 9 for 9 so far in green energy companies that got stimulus money…going bankrupt. They are 9 for 9 so far in these same companies giving multi million dollar bonuses to exectuves for going bankrupt and they are 9 for 9 so fat on each company giving one million or more to Obama;s super fund…from the stimulus money.

    NOW….that is consistency for you.

  28. The White House artfully pushed back Thursday on a report in an Israeli newspaper that claimed the U.S. offered Israel high-tech weaponry like bunker-busting bombs and refueling planes in exchange for a pledge to hold off on attacking Iran until 2013.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/08/panetta-us-preparing-military-options-for-iran/?intcmp=trending#ixzz1oai4pIuc

    This is laughable. Hysterical, actually. The White House caught again.

  29. Come see and hear the SAGE read from his new book Rough Riders (July 2012) at KGB (where else) bar in New York. I’m leading off so get there early, all yous whackos on the right. RR’s is a 10 year sequel to my first novel and takes place in Montana & North Dakota (mostly) … I pick on both sides of the political aisle (exposing both Obama and the tea party (you’ll really enjoy that), plus JAC, you’ll learn something about how native Americans continue to be treated and why many of them, as you put it, are still “whining”.

    By the way, I wouldn’t think of saying “stop your whining” when some of you point to the genocies/tragedies/murders of million by abortions of socialist/communist states (basically run by military dictators) … the thought to say something so callous (and stupid) never crosses my mind. I ususally just point to socialist and communist states that do not have that kind of history. You can’t do the same with this country, though, can you?

    Don’t forget, Sunday night at KGB. I’ll ever buy you a beer if you show your SUFA creds.

    http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2012/03/reading-this-sunday-at-kgb-scott-wolven.html

  30. Ok Charlie……I read: Ward Churchill, A Little Matter of Genocide. What now?

    • Buck the Wala says:

      I think you’re supposed to share your thoughts on it with the rest of us.

      • Oh…..biased or unbiased?

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Both — preferably in two consecutive posts, the first titled “BIASED” and the second “UNBIASED”. Each post should be no less than 500 words and must be in verse.

          • Good one, Buck. I like that approach a lot. Will suggest it to students so they don’t get “indoctrinated” by my libtard mentality and are forced to think from both sides of the fence.

            Colonel, yes, give us one from column A and another from B. Churchill does that quite fairly in the book (I hope you observed). I’m curious whether you agree that Hitler’s lebensraum is analogous to what was done here during America’s expansion (except, of course, expansion here went on for 400 years and Hitler was eventually stopped).

    • You tell me, Colonel. What did you think?

      JAC … take another pill, my brother. You’re falling apart.

  31. And then the Chevy Volt debacle. You get a $7,000 rebate from the government…..and then Chevy gives its employees an additional $7,000 to induce the buying o the Volt. The result…….Volt production has been stopped due to no interest. The Chevy employees used their extra inducement to buy…..pick ups, corvettes, and cavaliers. They would not even buy their own product with many Chevy employees saying that there is no way they would “get in that car”.

    Then there is my own first hand observation and experience in driving a Chevy Volt. No, I do not have one, but the Federal government, in order to boost sales for the Volt, forced the military to purchase over 5,000 of them for administrative uses. My own observations at Fort Worth NAS shows every single one of them sitting against the fence. At Fort Hood, I counted 22 of them sitting against the fence. The reason is that they are unreliable at best. So, I drove one for about an hour and parked it against the fence. First, the fully charged battery lasted all of 25 miles. Secondly, when driving up a hill the speed slowed by a third. When it came time to pass another vehicle, there was no passing gear to kick into, and using the heated/air conditioner, the battery life was decimated by a third. I parked it against the fence.

    • SK Trynosky Sr says:

      My friend who works for GE was given a VOLT as a company car. While he loves the engineering involved he feels that it is a concept car that has been put into production. He misses the Impala.

      By the way, GE makes the batteries.

  32. Buck the Wala says:
    • gmanfortruth says:

      Buck, This is nothing short of left wing hogwash. This whole contraceptive issue is also hogwash, more stupid divide and conquer crap.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Take a step back from it and look at the substance of the claims, as opposed to merely seeing it as a left-wing BS divisive strategy for the upcoming election.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Buck, I worked at a Catholic hospital for 10 years. Womans health was constantly expanding and continues to do so today. Reading the rantings of some left wing media hack does nothing but make him and his publication “Full of Shit”. It is nothing more than another attack on religion with no basis of fact, it is BULLSHIT!

          • Buck the Wala says:

            You are a bit too quick to denounce this article and these stories as BS. I don’t know how pervasive these anecdotes are, nor how true all of them are (nor, more importantly, all of the attendant circumstances even if true), which is why I posted to the article. If true at face value, it does say something, no? How true are these anecdotes? What does it say about healthcare in the US, if anything?

            • gmanfortruth says:

              For you Buck, I have now read it twice. Both times I came away with the same beliefs, it’s all Bullshit. I’m not Catholic, and many of the patients that go to Catholic hospitals are not Catholic. The healthcare given is NOT given under the Catholic doctrine. THey prescribe contraception, they will abort babies to save the mother ect. No, they do not perform abortions because a girl just wants one, but guess what, most hospitals won’t, non-Catholic and all. As I said, this is just a bullshit attack by some left winger with no grasp of reality.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I hope you’re right.

                Some of the anecdotes posted in the article I do recall reading about at the time and it absolutely sickened me to hear. Again, I don’t know the current state of affairs with Catholic hospitals and their refusal of certain procedures, other than from stories I hear and read about. That being said, no medical decision should ever be made due to the hospital’s own beliefs as opposed to as between the patient and treating physician.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Let me add 🙂 My healthcare plan from a self insured Catholic organization covered contraceptives and emergency abortions. The whole issue is mostly media spin using paid for Priests who have nothing to do with healthcare or insurance. In short, the whole story is hogwash with little basis of fact. I do laugh at how gullable the sheeple are when it comes to the crap that comes from the Corporate whore media. Now, when they cover the devaluing dollar what it really means, they will have a little validity.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                That being said, no medical decision should ever be made due to the hospital’s own beliefs as opposed to as between the patient and treating physician.

                I agree Buck, totally! In all my years on the staff, I have never heard of a medical decision being made based on the health providers religion, however, the patients decisions and their basis is another story.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                THis could be our very own Corporate Whore Media the way they lie to the sheeple 🙂

            • SK Trynosky Sr says:

              Buck, my young friend, I believe NOTHING I read in the media, not a thing since Vietnam. What was often reported as fact there bore little relation to what was actually going on. Having been a religious reader of the NY Times. Since the Tet offensive, I have not ever bought a copy again.

              If you want a better take on the history of Catholic Hospitals, look up something much closer to home for you and I, St. Vincents in Greenwich Village, Manhattan. While a lot could be said and should about mismanagement by the “expert” managers brought in from outside the system, the ultimate downfall of the hospital was because most of what they were doing, they wound up doing for free. In a lot of respects they were done in by AIDS.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I agree with you that you can’t take anything you read at face value…which is why I posted the article in the first place – to get people’s thoughts and hopefully some additional information from people who are more familiar with this topic.

    • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood

      820 facilities in the US. If a service is needed and someone can make money to provide it, someone will offer that service. In your article they even noted one hospital rented a floor out to another provider that offered abortions. That means a Catholic Hospital allowed abortions to be preformed on their property. So is the issue that they don’t bend over backwards far enough that their @ss obscures their view?

      • Why women have abortions
        1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Not to get into this debate yet again, but given those numbers, it would seem to be to be an argument in favor of taking reasonable measures to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Buck, A majority of unwanted pregnacies occur in the urban inner cities, where most of the Planned Parenthood facilities operate and offer FREE contraceptives, just what else can be done, forced sterilization?

            • Mathius™ says:

              OBJECTION: Implies causality!

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Overruled, Reality is a bitch!

              • What? Are you denying what GMan stated?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                SUSTAINED.

                Counselor, please walk it back.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Gman, you can’t overrule me. Only SUFA Judge Wala is allowed to rule on objections.

                Anita,

                gman: A majority of unwanted pregnacies [sic] occur in the urban inner cities, where most of the Planned Parenthood facilities operate and offer FREE contraceptives, just what else can be done, forced sterilization?

                A majority of gang violence occur in the urban inner cities, where most of the gang outreach programs operate and offer FREE advice and counseling, just what else can be done, forced sterilization? By this logic, outreach is futile, and that is not supported by the logic.
                I’m objecting to his implied causality. PP doesn’t cause abortion. PP goes where abortions happen, try to prevent them with contraceptives, and failing that make the abortion safer. And, because the implied relationship is that since the rate is still higher than average where the PP’s are, then they must be ineffective is nonsense (they’re decreasing an already even more elevated rate), the conclusion that “what else can be done, forced sterilization?” (as if to throw our hands in the air and declare PP’s efforts to be a failure) is also garbage. You know what can be done? Increased availability of contraceptives, especially to the impoverished. Increased PP presence. Increased sex education, especially in schools.

                LOI,
                93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).
                I object to the use of the term “social” here. Inconvenient, further, makes it seem that “oh, it’s a little bit annoying to have a kid, so I just won’t, la-de-da” (as if it’s a lackadaisical decision.. oh, it’s just not a convenient time). Especially when we link this to Gman’s assertion that the majority occur in the urban inner cities (true, by the way), the better way of putting this is that the results of having a kid would frequently be economically devastating. Further, pregnant women, especially in urban inner cities, don’t have the health care to get prenatal care, don’t have the wherewithal to afford day care / baby sitting, don’t have the health care to take care of the baby after birth, don’t have the ability to afford private schools when the public ones are total failures and they don’t want to have a child doomed to a life of poverty, etc. Many are probably concerned about the idea, the cruelty, of bringing a baby into the world in such a situation. Yet you call it “social” – they might call it a crisis of conscience, a deeply personal, terrible, difficult, ethics dilemma, or a last resort.

                The point is, that while you’re not necessarily “wrong” that 93% of all abortions occur for “OTHER” reasons, it’s disingenuous to call those reasons social. As if women are subjecting themselves to heart-wrenching, expensive, and painful procedures because it’s the “in thing to do.” “Come on, Sally, have an abortion, everyone else is doing it! All the other girls are going out to the bars to drink and sleep around because they aborted their babies and avoided having any personal responsibility! And, beside, you can always just get another abortion if you get knocked up again, hey we can have an abortion party!” Is that your impression of what the decision making process is like? Or do you think it’s closer to “oh god, I can’t do this. This kid will never have a chance, it’s be poor and uneducated, there’s no opportunities, I’ll have to leave work and I can’t afford that, I’ll get kicked out of my apartment, and then afterward, how am I going to clothe and feed this kid when I can barely take care of myself? Plus I don’t have any health care, so it’ll probably bankrupt me and put me in debt for years on top of everything. And while I stick him in those inner city schools, he joins a gang spends his adult life in jail for drug offenses? No, I can’t do this.” Maybe a little over-dramatic, but you tell me, which seems closer to reality.

                And, as a final thought, while you’re calling this a “social reason,” what does it say to you when a woman walks through a protesting mob shouting epitaphs at her, calling her a whore and a baby killer and telling her that God hates her, in order to have this done. If it’s just “social,” why would they subject themselves to this? Not to suggest that this is always what they have to deal with, but there are plenty of times/places where it is the case, and women still cross the picket line – why? “Social reasons?”

              • Mathius™ says:

                LOI,

                Just wanted to clarify that while the personal difficulty inherent in making a decision doesn’t necessarily have any baring on the morality of that decision, I think it’s unfair to treat the women making this decision as if they are doing so casually. While I’m sure that is the case for some, my inclination is to say that the vast overwhelming majority do not.

              • Matt, nice rant. Might want to check you BP….

                LOI,
                93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).
                I object to the use of the term “social” here.
                ( Noted, is there a term that works better for you?)
                Inconvenient, further, makes it seem that “oh, it’s a little bit annoying to have a kid, so I just won’t, la-de-da” (as if it’s a lackadaisical decision.. oh, it’s just not a convenient time). Especially when we link this to Gman’s Objection, let him fight his own battles.assertion that the majority occur in the urban inner cities (true, by the way), the better way of putting this is that the results of having a kid would frequently be economically devastating.
                ( Are you hanging out with Charlie on Pluto? I personally KNOW women that have/are pregnant and are doing this as a lifestyle choice. They are actively seeking an entitlement living.)
                Further, pregnant women, especially in urban inner cities, don’t have the health care to get prenatal care, don’t have the wherewithal to afford day care / baby sitting, don’t have the health care to take care of the baby after birth, don’t have the ability to afford private schools when the public ones are total failures and they don’t want to have a child doomed to a life of poverty, etc. Many are probably concerned about the idea, the cruelty, of bringing a baby into the world in such a situation.
                (Are you writing a movie script? You & I can both “imagine” why, reality IS a huge # of abortions are elective.)
                Yet you call it “social” – they might call it a crisis of conscience, a deeply personal, terrible, difficult, ethics dilemma, or a last resort.
                ( Let me tell you about this 19 yr old, has had three miscarriages since her first at 14. She is desperate to have children. She had just left her BF for beating her, then found out she’s pregnant. Her older sister has three out-of-wedlock children. They were raised by a single mother who drank heavily and had many relationships. I don’t have to imagine, I am watching this every day!)

                The point is, that while you’re not necessarily “wrong” that 93% of all abortions occur for “OTHER” reasons, it’s disingenuous to call those reasons social. As if women are subjecting themselves to heart-wrenching, expensive, and painful procedures because it’s the “in thing to do.” “Come on, Sally, have an abortion, everyone else is doing it! All the other girls are going out to the bars to drink and sleep around because they aborted their babies and avoided having any personal responsibility! And, beside, you can always just get another abortion if you get knocked up again, hey we can have an abortion party!” Is that your impression of what the decision making process is like? Or do you think it’s closer to “oh god, I can’t do this. This kid will never have a chance, it’s be poor and uneducated, there’s no opportunities, I’ll have to leave work and I can’t afford that, I’ll get kicked out of my apartment, and then afterward, how am I going to clothe and feed this kid when I can barely take care of myself? Plus I don’t have any health care, so it’ll probably bankrupt me and put me in debt for years on top of everything. And while I stick him in those inner city schools, he joins a gang spends his adult life in jail for drug offenses? No, I can’t do this.” Maybe a little over-dramatic, but you tell me, which seems closer to reality.
                ( Reality is you are just making up stories to push the emotional aspect and ignore the facts. The 93% are not rape or incest victims, they chose to have sex, likely without birth control or protection, and became pregnant. They did not exercise their social responsibility of not breeding until they were ready to have a child.)

                And, as a final thought, while you’re calling this a “social reason,” what does it say to you when a woman walks through a protesting mob shouting epitaphs at her, calling her a whore and a baby killer and telling her that God hates her, in order to have this done.
                (Really Matt? I don’t like abortion so I’m part of a hate mob? I think if you and Obama weren’t trying to get drive-thru in all the Planned Parenthood’s, maybe there would be fewer abortions. )
                If it’s just “social,” why would they subject themselves to this? Not to suggest that this is always what they have to deal with, but there are plenty of times/places where it is the case
                (any proof? If there are 3,700 abortions each day, how many protests are there? Shouldn’t there be hundreds or thousands)
                , and women still cross the picket line – why? “Social reasons?”

              • Good answers LOI

                Matt, You offer tons of justifications. You’re just like a co-dependent in an alcoholics life or an enabler in a drug addicts life If you keep helping them along they will not change. And along the way you want the rest of the country to keep enabling too. Sooner or later they have to fall on their own sword. Where is that line for you?. Bottom line..they choose to have sex knowing full well the consequences…it’s not my problem.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Kindly back up your claim with some numbers.

          • Buck, remember I’ve taken some heat because I am pro choice. Flag has said really mean things to me. Reasonable measures only work with reasonable people. Using abortion as a form of birth control seems unreasonable, but that seems to be the reality. I think it comes back to removing all consequences of having an abortion. Get the government involved where it’s a “right” and provided free. Then remove “guilt”, it’s a fetus, not a baby. It’s a medical procedure, not murder. If some states want to require a conscience by requiring they view an ultrasound and heartbeat, it’s an invasion of some sort.

            My source say’s there are 3,700 abortions a day…..

            http://abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Who here is arguing to make abortion a form of birth control?

              As Clinton (at least I believe it was Clinton) famously said: “Abortions should be SAFE, LEGAL and RARE.” So rather than put in all sorts of restrictions and roadblocks to a woman’s right to have what (at least today) is a legal medical procedure (which doing so, by the way, threatens the legality of abortion which in turn can result in a less safe procedure), maybe we should focus on means to make it more rare? The question then becomes….how?

              • Buck, I’m with you (and Clinton) (damn you for that). I do think Obama & Pelosi want to make it into birth control. They don’t quite say it, but that would be the end result of their actions. How to make it more rare? How did it grow? Reverse what caused it to expand and become common. De-fund Planned Parenthood. Allow states to pass their own laws as long as they don’t prohibit abortion. Some cannot be resolved. My wife knows a drug addict who is pregnant, again. She has/will use during the pregnancy. Like GMan says, makes you wish for forced sterilization as an option.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I don’t know how best to make it rarer — but I do believe:

                Defunding PP: This will not make it rarer, but will arguably have the inverse effect as well as making it less safe for many women.

                Allow states to pass their own laws: We do, and that’s one of the problems, in the sense that many of these state laws do nothing but to humiliate women in an unsuccessful attempt to convince them to carry to term. Meanwhile, as the states pass these patenalistic laws, they simultaneously look to cut funding of such organizations as PP and comprehensive sex education….

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Coincidentally, one other way of making abortion rarer would be to kickstart the economy — while not an absolute correlation, the abortion rate is somewhat inversely tied to the economy at large.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Because, conversely with the suggestion that abortion is a “social” decision, it’s also a huge economic one. Babies are expensive. Mine has already cost me hundreds (if my in-laws weren’t so tremendously generous or if I didn’t have such great insurance, this number would probably be in the thousands).

                Adding, guess who learned how to install baseboard and crown moulding? That’s right. It turns out that I’m pretty handy.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I’m pretty handy myself — I can just pick up my phone at anytime and call my guy for that.

              • Mathius™ says:

                For the last time, stop calling me to do your housework.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Not like you ever show up to complete the job…

              • Mathius™ says:

                That’s because you live in Jersey.

                And it’s not like you’d actually pay me anyway.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I’d buy you a beer.

                By the way, don’t forget about our little Peter Luger’s cheeseburger lunch. I’m salivating just thinking about it.

              • Wow-long rants filled with totally irrelevant reasons why abortion is okay. I wonder what else I can justify on the basis of financial problems or just because I choose to take the easy way. I’ve got a new slogan for PP- Avoid hard times -KILL a Baby.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Actually VH, we were talking about ways to keep abortion rare — to reduce the number of abortions. But in the discussion, yes, it is also important to recognize the difficulty in making the decision to have an abortion and some of the factors that go into that decision.

                In the meantime, I’ll get to work making those t-shirts! 🙂

              • Really-seemed to me you were talking down every single idea that might make them happen less often.

                And no-if the baby isn’t a baby-all these reasons shouldn’t matter-but they do-that ought to tell you something.

                And if one doesn’t believe that the baby isn’t a baby-then they’re not pro-choice-they’re not pro-abortion-they are Pro-Murder. And they’re isn’t a reason in this world that justifies that stance.

                Here’s another T-shirt idea:

                Pro-Choice/We have many options

                1.Ripped apart
                2.Knife stab w/Crushed skull
                3.Chemical burning
                4. Induced labor-so you can flush it
                down the toilet like a piece of shit.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                In my humble opinion, taking such actions as to defund planned parenthood and other such clinics which provide family planning services, contraceptives, etc., will not do a thing towards reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions. That isn’t talking down any ideas, but expressing my belief that doing so will not bring about the desired effect.

    • bamadad says:

      “Which makes for the final, tragic irony of the expansion of Catholic hospital networks across the United States. In refusing to provide basic reproductive services and even life-saving care, more and more they will be neglecting the “least of these.”

      Actually the final tragedy will be when the Catholic hospitals decides to hell with it and close up shop because they are continually forced to do things by government that they are morally opposed to. Then where will all those abused patients go for health care.

      • bamadad says:

        Sorry wrong spot, should have been above for Buck.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Figured as much. But your statement (“when the Catholic hospitals decides to hell with it and close up shop because they are continually forced to do things by government that they are morally opposed to”) kind of goes back to my core argument here — that medical decisions, treatments, etc. should only be made between the patient and their doctor.

  33. March 9, 2012
    The Girl Scouts: Planned Parenthood’s ‘Tactical Arm’
    By Catherine Glenn Foster

    (See also: Girl Scouts: The Awful Truth)

    People often talk about growing up in a time when they didn’t have to lock their doors, when their children could go out and play without fear, and when everyone knew (and talked to) their neighbors. It was a time when groups like the Girl Scouts flourished — when they were viewed as a wholesome club parents could allow their daughters to join without concern that their little girls would be corrupted by feminists with an agenda. As a matter of fact, parents and their daughters would often learn about the Girl Scouts from their churches.

    But times change, and now we lock our doors, we don’t let our children out of our sight, and many get their introduction to Girl Scouts from a proud supporter of Planned Parenthood — like former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

    It certainly is a paradigm shift.

    A watershed moment for the Girl Scouts came in 1993, when they amended their “promise” so as to omit the word “God.” Since then, there has been a slow but steady slide that has landed the organization in the not-so-loving arms of Planned Parenthood, and the feminists and hard-left politicians whom Planned Parenthood attracts.

    Indiana State Representative Rob Morris (R-Ft. Wayne) sounded a clarion call on these matters last month, when he noticed that out of fifty role models the Girl Scouts currently provide for their members, “[o]nly three have a briefly mentioned religious background — all the rest are feminists, lesbians, or communists.”

    Morris went so far as to refer to the Girl Scouts as the “tactical arm” of Planned Parenthood.

    And although the Girl Scouts bemoaned Morris’s reference, it was made at about the same time that Pelosi was boasting of the “valuable” and strong relationship between the Girl Scouts and Planned Parenthood. Moreover, it came on the heels of a teenage Girl Scout employee being order to turn her “T-shirt inside out or leave” when she wore a “Pray to End Abortion” shirt to work during off-duty hours.

    Some former Girl Scouts have parted ways with the organization because of brochures like one labeled, “How to Know You Are Ready for Sex.” It’s a Planned Parenthood brochure with the Girl Scout logo on the back. Others are appalled that Girl Scouts of the USA is a member organization of the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts (WAGGGS), which publicly advocates for abortion, contraceptives, sexual diversity, and “comprehensive” sexual education.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/the_girl_scouts_planned_parenthoods_tactical_arm.html#ixzz1od1Wqag9

  34. Ok….D13’s evaluation of Ward Churchill, A Little Matter of Genocide.

    Biased: This man has had too much grog.

    Unbiased: I read his book as a theory that he has proffered. Global genocide against all minority groups. He defines a minority group as anything but European whites. He compares the United States to Hitler’s Germany. He believes that the United Nations is in conspiracy to do ethnic cleansing. He uses the American Indian as the base line but throws in other race and country origins to bolster his theory of global domination and genocide. He wants to redefine the term genocide and says that if the United Nations does not agree to the redefining of the term, it proves that they are complicit. He coins a phrase that he likes…”exclusivism”….( the belief that the Jews are the only ones that have had a true holocaust). He points to the Korean War and the Vietnam War as hidden genocide agendas of the American belief. His definition of genocide is “coordinated and planned annihilation of a national, religious, or racial group by a variety of actions aimed at undermining the foundations essential to the survival of the group as a group.” ( Actually this definition comes from Raphael Lemkin, who believes in a more comprehensive view. This idea of genocide included attacks on political and social institutions,culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of the group. Even nonlethal acts that undermined the liberty, dignity, and personal security of members of a group constituted genocide, if they contributed to weakening the viability of the group.” ) He goes on to say that if the United Nations did not accept his more broad definition, then that proves that there is a conspiracy. He likens anyone who does not accept the comprehensive explanation is the same as a “backslider”.

    He comes up with unproven conclusions that are impossible to ascertain…thereby, in my opinion, rendering his whole line of thinking in the theory mode. For example, he cites the US census as saying that, in 1892, there were fewer than 1/4 million indigenous people. Then he extrapolates from that there were 125 to 150 million indigenous populations in North America. He offers no proof nor documents nor a hypothesis as to how he gets to this number. He then further ascertains, that Columbus was actually a forerunner of death and that the colonial aspirations of Europe was to exterminate. He offers, without proof, that 90% of the American Indigenous population was exterminated by being hacked apart with axes and swords, buried alive and trampled under horses, hunted as game and fed to dogs, shot, beaten, stabbed, scalped for bounty, hanged on meat hooks and thrown over the sides of ships at sea, worked to death as slave laborers, intentionally starved and frozen to death during a multitude of forced marches and internments, and, in an unknown number of instances, deliberately infected with epidemic disease.” He says that upwards from 207 million American Indians have been systematically exterminated since 1492 and that it is still being done. He says that Hitler has nothing on the Americans.

    D13 Conclusion: Knowing who Ward Churchill is and how he lost his job as a professor and that none of the courts have seen it his way so far, that this is a further reason for the conspiracy to the American Indian. Most of his references are from like minded people. He has several references to his book but you have to read the bio’s of his references. He extrapolates using hypothesis but offers no conclusions. Even one of the most liberal college’s in the United States fired him. One thing of note that was not pointed out in this book and that was the historical facts that the world over as far back as 500 BC, nomadic populations were always the victim of slavery and genocides. So, it cannot be pinned upon one set of facts…..unless you want to assume that the conspiracy of global minority genocide originated back then. When the colonial expansion started in this hemisphere, I see no difference. This hemisphere was populated by nomadic tribal populations. As unfair as it was, it was the way of things. The weaker nomadic populations were systematically conquered…right or wrong….it is fact. As to 205 plus million….no one knows. Atrocities happened on all sides but the end result was that the nomads were beaten. So, if you believe that there is a global conspiracy…then his book makes sense. To me….it is just another theory where facts were aligned in the way of the author.

    So, I read it Charlie….and I do not agree with it as written. I see facts twisted to fit his theory of global extermination of minorities. BUT, my friend, I did read it as promised.

    • The 125 to 150M population numbers for Indians in NA is a stre….tch. The current population of the US and Canada is 311 + 35M or 346M. If you include Mexico, that adds another 113M for a total NA population of 459M. Think about the density of people currently on the continent and on the agriculture (fruits, vegetables, grain, dairy, beef, pork, chicken, cotton, wool, etc.) that it takes to feed and clothe this horde. Now think a society that does basic hunting and gathering along with some gardening. Think about its needs for fuel, heating and cooking. If such a population were 1/4 to 1/3 the current population of NA, it would strip the forests of game and edibles. Significant quantities of wood would be collected and burned. All of this without iron tools or even horse power. Where are the ruins of their cities in NA (excluding Mexico). There are some pueblos in the SW and a few mounds throughout the Midwest, but there is little evidence of large cities.

      The European diseases did come to NA before settlement. They were spread by the explorers, fisherman, Norse, and others that visited these shores. So some of the native population had already succumbed before English and French settlement started.

      Simple logic says the native NA populations were much less than those being quoted.

  35. @ Buck….. you say ” I’m ok with referendums in general…with one major caveat — the majority doesn’t get to put the equal rights of a minority up for a vote.”

    In the advent of balancing a budget, and a referendum is put forth and voted upon, and some services have to be eliminated and said elimination has a disparate impact upon a minority group (not race based but economically based), what say you? Example: School Districts. Wealthy districts vs poorer districts and the tax base. That the referendum proposes a fixed tax base as it pertains to property values and those values render X dollars. All other expenditures must be raised, and spent, within the specific district themselves. In other words, the Robin Hood approach is eliminated. Comments?

    • Buck the Wala says:

      I wouldn’t like it, but as long as the state/locality allows for such referendums, and there was no evidence of foul play or intent to harm the minority group, etc. etc. etc.

      Doesn’t mean I won’t work to/support changing it going forward.

      • Interesting.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          How so?

          • I knew that you were left of center but I confess you surprise me a little on this particular subject. Texas is going to eliminate the Robin Hood scheme (and that is what it is…a scheme) and we are going to try to do it through referendum. Local school districts want control of their own districts and spending. The argument is, of course, that less affluent school districts do not have the same advantages of more affluent school districts and the current Robin Hood tax system is supposed to even that out but it is not. More affluent school districts have a much higher tax base because of the size of their homes and/or assets. They are paying upwards of ten to fifty times more in property taxes than less affluent districts simply because of their success. In addition, more affluent school districts are successful in raising more funds through private donations to build larger stadiums and better athletic facilities and field trips and things and the less affluent districts are now trying to tap into that fund raising and wanting a share of that as well. In addition to that, the less affluent districts are wanting to raise the property taxes on the affluent while lessening the property taxes in their own districts. The more affluent districts have done private fund raising and are putting money into teachers salaries over and above the State regulated salaries and that is under fire. so, there is a huge fight brewing now and the referendum is picking up a lot of steam.

            The objective is to put the control back to the local school districts and that the only influence that the State Department of Education should have is in curriculum. We shall see…..but you surprised me a little.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Not sure why I surprised you — if the law permits such a referendum on this issue, then so be it. Doesn’t make me happy with the result and, being my liberal self, I would certainly vote against such a proposal due to the (hopefully) inadvertant effect it has on the poorer and/or minority districts. Clearly I would need some additional information on the topic though.

            • Mathius™ says:

              Tell me, Colonel,

              If the right have more money for education, their children will have better education. Correct?
              If the poor have less money for education, their children will have inferior education. Correct?

              If you remove the “robin hood” effect, then the rich will have even better education. Correct?
              If you remove the “robin hood” effect, then the poor will have even worse eduction. Correct?

              When these children grow up, the poor will compete with the rich for jobs and opportunities. Correct?
              As a potential employer, you will generally favor the better educated workers. Correct?

              Because they had less education and less opportunity, the poor are more likely to stay poor. Correct?
              Because they had more education and more opportunity, the rich are more likely to stay rich. Correct?

              In other words, is there a reading of this which doesn’t lead to the conclusion that this will further stratify populations into haves and have-nots? Where the rich stay rich for generations like landed gentry while the poor get poorer like feudal serfs. Do you not see this ending with one group moving underground and eating the other for food?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I agree with you completely Mathius — which is why I would very much disagree with this proposal.

                But, out of curiousity, where do you stand on the initial question — referendums? Is the referendum a viable means of enacting this proposal?

              • Mathius™ says:

                It depends on the matter at hand.

                Generally speaking the people can be counted on to vote in their own interests, but The People are also kneejerk reactionaries.

              • @Mathius

                You ask: “If the right have more money for education, their children will have better education. Correct?
                If the poor have less money for education, their children will have inferior education. Correct?

                Incorrect on both accounts..here is why. It does not impact the curriculum or the level of education. The curriculum is the same as enacted by the State Department of Education. The curriculum and the number of teachers for the classroom is the same.

                You ask: “If you remove the “robin hood” effect, then the rich will have even better education. Correct?
                If you remove the “robin hood” effect, then the poor will have even worse eduction. Correct?

                Incorrect on both accounts for the same reasons above.

                You ask: “When these children grow up, the poor will compete with the rich for jobs and opportunities. Correct?
                As a potential employer, you will generally favor the better educated workers. Correct?

                Correct on both items.

                You ask: “Because they had less education and less opportunity, the poor are more likely to stay poor. Correct?
                Because they had more education and more opportunity, the rich are more likely to stay rich. Correct?

                Incorrect on both accounts.

                Here is why you are incorrect. The Robin Hood approach has not worked at all. The high school drop out rate and grades DID NOT improve..it actually worsened. The State Department of Education has control of the curriculum. It is the exact same. The State Department of Education also controls the teacher salaries. They are the exact same. This would not change. The segregation is higher now than it was because children of their own race…..seek their own race.

                The only difference DOES come into play on the extra curricular activities. Sports collectives are not educational. (please, do not throw teamwork as a point). A football team, for example, does not make for better grades. Some schools can afford a high caliber football team and some cannot. Some can have a swimming team and some cannot. It has already been proven that throwing the money at the schools did not increase the education. Nothing changed. The higher caliber teachers do not go to the rural areas or the less affluent towns or townships. So they are still manned by sub-caliber teachers on higher salaries. It is not the money..it is the location. The Robin Hood approach did not lessen gang activity. It did not create cohesiveness.It is a dismal failure.

                Houston, Texas is among the highest drop out rates in the country but among the highest in per capita expenditure.

                It takes local leadership and school boards that give a damn. Local school boards can better effectively administer its own programs. A local school board should have the right to set a higher standard for its students than what the State says it is. If a school board wishes to set passing grades at 75 instead of 60, it should have the right to do so.

                Education is in the mind of the parent and the student. There are plenty of dirt poor students that have the highest of grades so it is not a reflection upon money….it is a reflection upon the individual.

  36. “Fannie Mae, its directors, servicers and lawyers appeared to have an institutional policy of turning a willful blind eye to evidence of mortgage origination and servicing fraud,” Lavelle told the Times.

    “When confronted directly with this evidence, Fannie not only failed to correct and remedy the abuses, it assisted in continuing the frauds via institutional practices that concealed fraudulent foreclosures.”

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/07/meet-the-man-who-predicted-the-mortgage-crisis/#ixzz1oeFIWBqz

  37. Wait, Mr. President, why are YOU and your administration, who is against any type of religious ceremony on public issues……………..suddenly are organizing prayer vigils in public, using public funds, to support your health agenda? REALLY?

    • Okay, I really expected to read some left condemnation about this. Where are the atheist? where is the condemnation and the outrage? -where are all the offended people???????

  38. “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” -Paul Watson, Co-founder of Greenpeace
    “Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” -Sir John Houghton, First chairman of the IPCC
    “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony … climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” -Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/climate_deniers_are_giving_us_skeptics_a_bad_name.html#ixzz1oeemgg16

  39. Okay, I know some people want this woman to sue Rush for defamation-but is this woman kidding me-based on this statute-

    ” Section 836.04 of Florida Statute, which says that “whoever speaks of and concerning any woman, married or unmarried, falsely and maliciously imputing to her a want of chastity, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree.” ”

    Wouldn’t using this statute require that the woman would have to prove she wasn’t wanting of chastity 🙂

    Gloria Allred to West Palm Beach prosecutor: You really should go after Rush, you know
    posted at 4:15 pm on March 9, 2012 by Tina Korbe

    Go figure: Gotcha lawyer Gloria Allred has proved herself more than willing to embroil herself in the controversy that continues to plague radio host Rush Limbaugh. The president of the Women’s Equal Rights Legal Defense and Education Fund sent a letter to the county prosecutor of West Palm Beach, Florida, to call for an investigation into whether Limbaugh violated Florida defamation law. From TPM:
    Allred cites Section 836.04 of Florida Statute, which says that “whoever speaks of and concerning any woman, married or unmarried, falsely and maliciously imputing to her a want of chastity, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree.”

    “Mr. Limbaugh has publicly acknowledged that his reference to Ms. Fluke as a ‘slut’ and ‘prostitute’ were baseless and false,” Allred writes. “In view of the fact that Mr. Limbaugh resides in your county and allegedly made the false statements concerning Ms. Fluke in your county as well, this letter is directed to your office.”

    Limbaugh might have spoken falsely — in case the question lingers, Sandra Fluke is not actually a prostitute — but whether he spoke maliciously is another matter. His apology could be construed to bolster the case either for or against him. For him, in that his apology states clearly that he had no intention to cause harm to Ms. Fluke. Against him, in that his apology might be taken as evidence that he thinks he did cause harm to her — and that might be used to suggest he originally spoke with the intention to harm her.
    Limbaugh’s point in calling Fluke a “prostitute” was not to discredit Fluke herself or to imply that she actually takes money for sex, but to illustrate the grubbing nature of her argument for the administration’s contraception mandate. Limbaugh’s argument was not particularly refined, but it was also not malicious in either the normal or legal sense of the word.
    No matter — that I’m parsing the legal definition of malice in this case indicates just how overblown it has become. Limbaugh has become — for the time being at least — a liberal whipping boy and Sandra Fluke has become a sainted martyr.
    As further proof of the latter, the PR firm of former Obama adviser Anita Dunn on Monday started to represent Fluke pro bono. The left is clearly invested in her as a campaign prop, as Bill O’Reilly explained on his program last night.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/09/gloria-allred-to-west-palm-beach-prosecutor-you-really-should-go-after-rush-you-know/

    • You just can’t make this stuff up. She waits all week, til Friday afternoon to start complaining.

      Bring it Gloria! Be careful what you wish for. As O’Reilly pointed out last night, this has set-up written all over it. Ms Fluke has connections at least as far as Capitol Hill (Nancy Pelosi) and right into the White House (Anita Dunn). How much farther up does it go? Obama himself gave her a sympathy phone call. I’m all for letting this get to a courtroom. Pass the popcorn!

      • Buck the Wala says:

        I’m curious — what is the set-up here?

        Dailykos had an entry the other day on this topic — basically, if this was all a set-up, if the Dems and Obama had Fluke testify on the need for contraception for medical reasons to goad Limbaugh to call her a slut to change the national discussion to this issue so that the GOP contenders would then fall into this utter distraction and lose the female vote and the election, then the GOP may as well just throw in the towel now since clearly Obama is an utter political genius!

        • gmanfortruth says:

          THe fact that the Repubs, Dems and the media keep bullshitting the sheeple into believing them is political genious. Or maybe the sheeple are just plain ignorant?

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Oh, don’t get me wrong I agree this is a complete distraction from the much more important issues out there right now. But the longer this goes on, the more the GOP shoots itself in the foot, which given the general caliber of these candidates, to me, is a good thing!

            • Set up is my word. Couldn’t come up with something better on the fly. Distraction is the better word. This is really an attack on 1) originally religious beliefs and now 2) with Gloria wanting to step in…freedom of speech. Take it to court all you want…let the sun shine in! It won’t be about Rush in the courtroom.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Freedom of speech does not mean you can say whatever you want absent consequences. Hence, defamation. Fluke has every right to sue Rush for slander based on his comments. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

              • heehee..Mark it on the calendar! Buck is advocating personal responsibility. I’ll put this one in my bag of tricks for when I need it. But we’re not talking about personal responsibility are we? It goes beyond that. Do you really think that Pelosi, Dunn, Obama and all want this anywhere near a courtroom. Even if Rush would have to pay his pittance..it doesn’t hurt him, but the WHOLE scam would come out…and so what if it gets spun as irrellevant to the case..the backyard gang is outted. It would look totally different than some frail college student advocating for a cause..it’s a whole regime (haha Rush’s fav word), acting as though it’s looking out for women’s health, when the bigger catch is total control of our lives. And that is why the word ‘set up’ came to mind. Cuz it is a set up!

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I’ve never been against personal responsibility, Anita. We just have very different ideas on what that entails in certain instances.

  40. SK Trynosky Sr says:

    In many ways, I see abortion and education as two sides of the same coin. We are, I think, lulled into stupidity by the idea that the amount of money, given to or rather thrown at the problem makes a difference. When either discussing pre-natal health care and its availability or school budgets we are far off the mark.

    My eldest, now a dad is immersing himself in all things education (and the baby isn’t even 6 months old yet!). He continuously e- mails or snail mails me articles about the latest successes or failures in charter schools, the Finnish experiment or just anything by Diane Ravitch. Generally speaking the articles are clear and thought provoking and there are few things I can disagree with. However, in 2012 America, they just won’t work.

    What is missing from the equation is that sense of responsibility in either having or raising a child. Years ago the Newtster was severely castigated (and ridiculed) by the main stream for proposing orphanages for the lost children. The idea struck a chord with me because I did not see Dickensonian workhouses that the mainstream wanted me to see. What I saw was a structured environment for unwanted kids where they would get three hots and a cot as well as structure in their lives and an education (think Spencer Tracy in “Boystown”, if you can’t think that because you have never heard of it, rent the movie). These folks, are very, very dangerous ideas. When you have worked in the inner city and have seen bands of kids out past 11 on a school nights. When you have seen kids literally throw out school books rather than carry them home, you have a problem.

    We are pushing something like 70% out of wedlock births in some minority communities. Most result in fatherless families. If your eyes and ears are open and you are not delusional, you know that in some of these communities being a “man” involves nothing more than carrying a “nine” and impregnating as many young females as possible. Once the babies are born, they are on their own. As a conservative, I would and should be attacked for saying these things. I am, choose one: heartless, a racist, a fascist or whatever. I would deny that but, who is listening? The mere fact I point out that the Emperor has no clothes is enough for a death sentence.

    The result of these no father families we see all around us every day. No love, no education, no hope and a quick ticket to a dead end. Short of those abovementioned orphanages, what else does anyone have to offer? Other than throwing money to hire people to babysit these kids for six or eight hours a day, Monday through Friday with long summer breaks and a lot of holidays what other solutions are being offered? I really direct this question to Buck and Math, they are the young, they like my children, will be dealing with this long after I am gone.

    I remember back in grad school being involved in a project as a volunteer regarding solutions to the problem of high school drop outs. At the time, (early ’70’s) one of the big concerns, believe it or not was the Italian community where education was not prized as highly as in other ethnic communities. I remember that the stats were atrocious. This was a great concern,. The interesting thing was that the concern centered around the mere fact they were dropping out, not that they then had wasted lives. The difference between then and now was, in that community that there were fathers and father figures who might not have had any great love for education but had a tremendous love for work and a work ethic. Those dads preached their own gospel of responsibility. Nobody dropped out at 16 and then “hung” out all day and all night in the streets. Junior went to work. It could have been as a trash man, a go-fer on a construction site, or an apprentice but Junior went to work. Ultimately he, lacking an education, earned what he earned through the sweat of his brow but he did earn it and he did respect it and he did pass on those values to his children. That was the gift of fathers. In the odd situation where the dad was a deadbeat, there was always an uncle Nick or uncle Tony to step in and set the course. Funny, thinking about it now, I knew some of these guys growing up.

    Today, the society has basically told young men especially that they are valueless, an unnecessary vestigial anachronism, useful only as a sperm donor if that. Again, if you are honest and can look beyond the “feel good” propaganda and can develop a sense of history, you see what is going on. Some have called it “a war on men” . I don’t think it is intentional. My wife, the teacher, who has taught the gamut from the worst Title I areas, (Bed-Stuy and Red Hook, Brooklyn) to Bergen County NJ (Whitelandia) has become painfully aware of it. Education is now centered on women. Boys are an afterthought. If they act up which genetically they will, they are medicated or rather, medication is strongly urged usually by a female psychologist. Gradually, if you follow the statistics the irresponsibility numbers have crossed over, out of the ghetto and inner city and into the suburbs, middle and upper classes. How many of you have gone to a mall and watched the young, well off white boys emulate inner city behavior? It’s not just the clothes and mannerisms, it’s the whole nine yards and, based on my own admittedly biased observations, it doesn’t go away. Start checking out illegitimacy growth in middle and upper class communities or, abortion numbers.

    In a nutshell, we cannot change behavior, improve education, reduce abortions unless we somehow rediscover responsibility and a way to inculcate it back into society. Bad behavior has consequences but if society mitigates those consequences and says they don’t matter, then things only get worse. If they get worse when do they finally reach the breaking point when there is no more money to just plaster overt the problem and make us feel that we are doing something good? Up above, someone mentioned more sex education. I am not being the least bit snippy when I point out we have been educating on sex thoroughly for the past 40 years. We have with the condoms on cucumbers program (during the aids epidemic) merely created “how to” manuals. More effective, even for encouraging contraceptive use might be graphic footage of abortions from early to late term including partial birth. Think of that! What better education could there be? Then, after thinking about it ask yourself what a wonderful can of worms this would open up.

    Sorry for the length, probably should have expanded the topic into an article. This all came about because of an experience I had this week. On a truly wonderful Bright, sunny, 70 degree springlike day I headed into NYC to wrap up a consulting gig. Afterwards, headed up to the old hood for two of the best slices of pizza one could want ( free ad. Exclusive Pizza, 181st Street off Ft. Washington Avenue, make sure it is fresh). Since it was so summery, the front windows were open. While enjoying this treat the local color/entertainment were a group of young tattooed 20 somethings, mostly Hispanic but a few young whites thrown in. I daresay, these fellows would not get through a metal detector, (note: not the jewelry). Here they are in the middle of the day, standing around, doing nothing but talking and taking numerous phone calls and text messages (can you spell drugs) . The entire conversation I heard revolved around “bitches” and the N-word as in “Yo N—–“, or “That N—–“. Kinda ruined the ambiance of the day and set the stage for this ramble.

    • I think this is just fine for an article-Maybe LOI or whoever can will put this on a new page.

      • I’m very interested in your statement that they don’t teach Boys anymore-could you expand on this?

        • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

          There are really some excellent books on the subject. One is “the War against boys” by Christina Hoff Summers. There is another series of books by I believe a Michael Gerun (sp.). I will have to see if I can find the titles again. Problem centers around a formerly real problem. Girls were not given the advantages boys had. Out of the woman’s movement came “take your daughter to work day”. Great idea but also need “take your son to work day”. Check out stats on male college attendance. Numerous articles these days written on girls having to “marry down”. They have taken advantage, gotten the education and jobs and are marrying guys with no college. Actually when I see wedding announcements in the paper these days, I kinda automatically scan for that. Ms Jones is a Graduate of Blah-blah university and her husband is an auto body repairmen at Bob’s Auto Body. Mind you, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that but, the snobbery in our society creates a problem for them. That plus the difference in drive based on educational attainments can doom the marriage.

          • I’ve read many of those articles-but what I haven’t gotten out of them is why-it had that affect. Bringing girls up-on it’s own is a good idea-so I wonder just what they did or didn’t do that caused this to happen. Although I know that this is only one piece that makes up the new attitude that has been created. Thanks for the book titles I’ll look for them.

            • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

              http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_schools_boys.html

              Another interesting piece. Another book, Leonard Sax, “Boys Adrift”.

              My wife , the expert, refuses to get on the computer period. So, I merely pass on what she says. Some of this is not for the squeamish and is blunt.

              Teachers, especially in the primary grades are predominantly women and probably should be. My wife is suspicious of men who want to teach K through 4. Unlike the old days however, younger teachers are victims of the educational establishment and current pedagogical theory. Rather than rely on instinct and on reality that boys and girls are different for example, they have been exposed to “equality”. So the classroom is a shock to them. Boys are naturally boisterous and aggressive. This is, in the modern establishment to be avoided at all costs. Anything other than identical behavior must indicate something wrong with the child. From the beginning boys “learn” that there is something “wrong” with them. Not different mind you, but wrong.

              A teachers job is to control the classroom. Boys act out, they must be “directed” but they are not. Instead their natural instincts are now classified as being abnormal. They then start entering into the magic land of “special education.” This, of course is also the road to Ritalin and a mark on that ‘permanent record’ that supposedly doesn’t exist.

              Now who are the boys who are liked by the teachers? In our experience in raising three boys, it is the boys who act effeminate and frankly wind up being gay. They do act to please, why, by gosh, they act just like girls! Now a normal healthy boy looks at this and either revolts or conforms. Either way its a disaster.

              Good teachers are awfully hard to find. Ones who think for themselves, who use common sense are almost impossible to find and when found, to keep. They will find no support in the administration.

              • Now who are the boys who are liked by the teachers? In our experience in raising three boys, it is the boys who act effeminate and frankly wind up being gay. They do act to please, why, by gosh, they act just like girls! Now a normal healthy boy looks at this and either revolts or conforms. Either way its a disaster

                Oh, Christ, I obviously spoke too soon. “Normal healthy boy?” Really?

              • From another part of your article-I think you can put the out of wedlock children problem firmly on the shoulders of the new and not-improved woman’s movement working hand in hand with the nanny state.

              • SK Trynosky Sr says:

                Nah Charlie, if you are gonna follow me, you have to realize I use words that have a specific meaning, normal means following the “norm” meaning an established standard or the median. I am sure that you will agree with that usage. Properly using words should never be considered pejorative, ever. Without “norms” there is no standard to judge, of anything. I threw in healthy I guess only because it flows, I will agree to drop that since it is really irrelevant so, now it’s “Now a normal boy”. You have to watch that hair trigger of yours.

                You may remember the incident a few years ago when a public official with a decent vocabulary was forced to resign because he used the word niggardly, correctly.

                And to think, I was touched by your positive comments and was about to thank you for them. Actually, I do anyway. The important thing, I think, in these discussions is NOT, repeat NOT to get sidetracked into non-issues. The issues here was and is the coarsening of the culture, the guaranteed failure of the educational system and the total absence not only of responsibility but anyone calling for responsibility. Being a Gestaltist, I think that there are many reasons. The one I was exploring was what is perceived by some as the war on boys and men.

                Glad your son is enjoying the Heights. Unfortunately you have a point on the gentrification issue. When we created the Neighborhood Preservation program for the area back in 1973, it was designed to prevent the slide into chaos of the housing stock. We actually succeeded beyond our wildest dreams exactly because we were allowed to operate in the field with minimum restriction from the central office and tailor make our program for the community. The folks at the City Planning Commission, especially John Zuccotti, despite being loyal liberal Democrats, learned from the failure of Model Cities that central planning does not work. There is no one size fits all. Ultimately there were 13 Neighborhood Preservation offices in the City and all were allowed to design their own battle plans. Several were placed in already devastated communities and had limited success (if any) but the bulk really worked.

              • SK Trynosky Sr says:

                VH, Actually, in the minority community, it took off in the early ’60’s during the war on poverty. The rules were so weird for welfare that you could draw benefits without a husband but not with. Moynihan went on about this. The subsequent “woman’s movement” just piled on.

              • Your right of course-welfare came first-but in a lot of ways it seems like everything started in the 60’s, some good, some bad-but the longer they fight for these causes the worse things seem to get. I’m not sure when I stopped supporting the woman’s movement-I know it was when everything they said seemed to promote the idea that it was good to hate men. And in some areas(no offense guys)to go down to the mans level to achieve equality -didn’t seem like a particularly good idea for anyone. I can have equality without actually participating in every stupid idea just to prove I have the right to be stupid.

                You remember that cigarette slogan-“You’ve come a Long Way Baby” with the woman standing there smiling while she smoked a cigarette.

            • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

              While I am rambling on, lets not fail to remember that the very concept/thought/word “guns” will initiate a lock-down in most schools. Kids are not allowed to play with toy guns nor to even draw them. There is a ridiculous “no tolerance” policy which actually gets little kids suspended. This includes light sabers, toy swords or making Lego blocks into a facsimile of a gun.

              When my guys were little, we were HQ for a lot of their classmates. Mr. “T” had these antique Winchesters up on his rec room wall. Kids were great about it, nobody touched anything but the wife and I noticed, some kids never came back. Turned out that once it was discovered we had “guns”, we became irresponsible parents.

              My wife actually counsels some young mothers who are concerned because the kids like to play cops and robbers, army or cowboys and indians. She tells them that all ours turned out fine and that she in the classroom will look the other way when the boys (and some girls) turn the Legos on each other. She also controls those classes and tells the kids that there are times and places. She is 64 now and that era is coming to an end. I pity the school when she leaves.

              • When we moved to CA from NJ twenty years ago, the school system was a shock. My daughter spent one month in 7th grade before we realized she was bored to tears. After consulting with the principle, she moved up to 8th. Jersey schools were that much better. Note, I did not say good just better. For the younger ones, we noticed a difference as well. There was much more emphasis on making the kids feel good than on performance. Most kids know when they are doing well and being challenged and when they are being conned. As a result, they lose interest in school, hence the high drop out rates here. There are other reasons but this sets a pattern of mediocrity for life.

                I coached soccer in NJ both rec and select for many years. When I came to CA, I again volunteered. My first experience with CA soccer was a select team tryout for my daughter. In the scrimmage, she was the only one playing position soccer as she had been taught. All the rest were play bunch ball. These girls were much too old to be playing bunch ball. My daughter was playing right wing when she got the ball and made a perfect run up the line followed by a cross into center. None of the other girls read the play and were in position. She did not get selected because she was not aggressive enough. That was my introduction to CA soccer.

                When we had our coaches meetings, I learned the CA philosophy of letting the kids have fun above learning the game. So the feel good philosophy permeated the society. After coaching a few more years I finally had had enough of the philosophy and the parents. Hopefully my kids learned something about the game. My teams did not play bunch ball at any level.

    • SK, I don’t think we agree very often (or often enough) but this is a particularly good read this fine Saturday (as in thoughtful, articulate and very honorable). There’s so much good here I thought I’d just address what I could for now.

      We are pushing something like 70% out of wedlock births in some minority communities. Most result in fatherless families. If your eyes and ears are open and you are not delusional, you know that in some of these communities being a “man” involves nothing more than carrying a “nine” and impregnating as many young females as possible. Once the babies are born, they are on their own. As a conservative, I would and should be attacked for saying these things. I am, choose one: heartless, a racist, a fascist or whatever. I would deny that but, who is listening? The mere fact I point out that the Emperor has no clothes is enough for a death sentence.

      The result of these no father families we see all around us every day. No love, no education, no hope and a quick ticket to a dead end. Short of those abovementioned orphanages, what else does anyone have to offer? Other than throwing money to hire people to babysit these kids for six or eight hours a day, Monday through Friday with long summer breaks and a lot of holidays what other solutions are being offered? I really direct this question to Buck and Math, they are the young, they like my children, will be dealing with this long after I am gone.

      I agree with the bulk of the above wholeheartedly. One of the problems with getting out of the mess you so accurately describe above was having so many born into it (generation after generation). Yes, there are always exceptions to the rule, but they are way too few and do not address the “why” others don’t follow suit (i.e., not everyone has the same drive and rarely for the same progress). I don’t think tossing money at it solves much, but ignoring it doesn’t either. I honestly don’t know what can be done … or how to do it aside from education with consequences (i.e., those who refuse to participate, don’t pass go, do not collect $200, etc.)

      I remember back in grad school being involved in a project as a volunteer regarding solutions to the problem of high school drop outs. At the time, (early ’70′s) one of the big concerns, believe it or not was the Italian community where education was not prized as highly as in other ethnic communities. I remember that the stats were atrocious. This was a great concern,. The interesting thing was that the concern centered around the mere fact they were dropping out, not that they then had wasted lives. The difference between then and now was, in that community that there were fathers and father figures who might not have had any great love for education but had a tremendous love for work and a work ethic. Those dads preached their own gospel of responsibility. Nobody dropped out at 16 and then “hung” out all day and all night in the streets. Junior went to work. It could have been as a trash man, a go-fer on a construction site, or an apprentice but Junior went to work. Ultimately he, lacking an education, earned what he earned through the sweat of his brow but he did earn it and he did respect it and he did pass on those values to his children. That was the gift of fathers. In the odd situation where the dad was a deadbeat, there was always an uncle Nick or uncle Tony to step in and set the course. Funny, thinking about it now, I knew some of these guys growing up.

      I am one of those father’s sons … top tier work ethic (if I do say so myself) yet at one point I opted for the Italian neighborhood version of a street life) … back then I was about making money, but eventually veered toward something more important to me. Many of my friends from the old neighborhood (with impeccable work ethics themselves) didn’t have something different in their lives and wound up in the same place many from the ghetto do … the big house or cemetery. I think much of the difference in the two version has to do with the years that have passed, advances in technology. A “little” less bling and forced integration (i.e., italian street kids having to deal with other “whites” and not inside an actual ghetto).

      Today, the society has basically told young men especially that they are valueless, an unnecessary vestigial anachronism, useful only as a sperm donor if that. Again, if you are honest and can look beyond the “feel good” propaganda and can develop a sense of history, you see what is going on. Some have called it “a war on men” . I don’t think it is intentional. My wife, the teacher, who has taught the gamut from the worst Title I areas, (Bed-Stuy and Red Hook, Brooklyn) to Bergen County NJ (Whitelandia) has become painfully aware of it. Education is now centered on women. Boys are an afterthought. If they act up which genetically they will, they are medicated or rather, medication is strongly urged usually by a female psychologist. Gradually, if you follow the statistics the irresponsibility numbers have crossed over, out of the ghetto and inner city and into the suburbs, middle and upper classes. How many of you have gone to a mall and watched the young, well off white boys emulate inner city behavior? It’s not just the clothes and mannerisms, it’s the whole nine yards and, based on my own admittedly biased observations, it doesn’t go away. Start checking out illegitimacy growth in middle and upper class communities or, abortion numbers.

      Word.

      Sorry for the length, probably should have expanded the topic into an article. This all came about because of an experience I had this week. On a truly wonderful Bright, sunny, 70 degree springlike day I headed into NYC to wrap up a consulting gig. Afterwards, headed up to the old hood for two of the best slices of pizza one could want ( free ad. Exclusive Pizza, 181st Street off Ft. Washington Avenue, make sure it is fresh). Since it was so summery, the front windows were open. While enjoying this treat the local color/entertainment were a group of young tattooed 20 somethings, mostly Hispanic but a few young whites thrown in. I daresay, these fellows would not get through a metal detector, (note: not the jewelry). Here they are in the middle of the day, standing around, doing nothing but talking and taking numerous phone calls and text messages (can you spell drugs) . The entire conversation I heard revolved around “bitches” and the N-word as in “Yo N—–”, or “That N—–”. Kinda ruined the ambiance of the day and set the stage for this ramble.

      One of my sons lives in Washington Heights these days (which is quickly becoming gentrified), but I heard/felt and saw your pain on the subways almost daily when I lived and/or worked in Manhattan. Schools have cut athletic programs because they are underfunded. Athletic programs kept this kid in school and sent him to college where ONE teacher made the difference in his life (no matter how many detours along the way he made). Athletic programs can’t save every kid (which is my point about those who make it out of a ghetto–not for everybody), but the way education is treated (especially in inner cities), whether it is cutbacks in general or social promotion; politicians blaming unions or unions being irresponsible about tenure (which I believe NO ONE should EVER have) … the bottom line is the program is amplified by an economy that tanked much of the middle class (28%) below a national poverty level (while Wall Street was bailed out).

      Put those factors all together and you have an America quickly slipping into third world status (if it isn’t there already).

      How that is acceptable while 1% of the population continues to thrive is something I just can’t swallow nor understand. My own view of their wealth (the vast majority of it) is that it was as much ill gotten gains as the money they take from drug dealers after a narcotics bust.

      • SK Trynosky Sr says:

        Charlie, forgot to mention that I too have a son in the Heights. In the 170’s and on the wrong side of Broadway. When he got back from the service he was looking for a cheaper apartment while he went to Grad school. Called an old boss of mine who gave him a 2 1/2 room in a walk-up for $ 750.00 per month, a bargain in the city these days (go figure).

        Fortunately he handles culture shock well. Best thing I ever did was when he was in Sophomore year in college during summer vacation he had a one month layover before his regular job started. I was running a gut rehab in the Heights at the time. Put him on as a cleaner-upper, wheelbarrows and garbage coming down the chute from the 6th floor. paid him the same as the Dominican guys got. He was the only non Hispanic on the job. Some of the older Dominican guys told me I was abusing my son. After all, he was “the bosses son”. Anyway, eleven years later he still thanks me for it. When he was a young lieutenant, that exposure to the real working class helped a lot. The younger Dominican guys used to take him over to the B’way mall on lunch break where they taught him the finer points of girl watching, Dominican style and introduced him to “Presidente” beer (none better).

        I absolutely bet you and I agree on one thing. I believe that Chairman Mao was right when he decided to send the brightest and the best into the rice paddies every five years. As my Dad never failed to remind me, never forget your humble beginnings.

    • Sr.

      I came across this article.

      Root Causes: 2/3 of Britain’s Dysfunctional Families are Fatherless

      John on March 10, 2012 at 11:21 am

      In looking for the “root causes” of last summer’s riots, investigators discovered something:

      About 72,000 of the most troubled families, 60 per cent of those being targeted by the Government, are headed by a single mother. The rate is about triple the national average.

      An official review into the causes of last summer’s riots is expected to highlight the lack of “male role models” for many of the youths arrested in the wake of the widespread disturbances.

      The riot panel, set up to investigate the problem, is thought to have become frustrated that few details of the family backgrounds of problem children have previously been recorded, despite it being such an important influence on their behaviour…

      Britain’s problem families are estimated to cost the taxpayer £9?billion annually – an average of £75,000 each in benefits and the costs of other public services.

      In the UK, politicians are taking this issue seriously as a major drain on public resources. Last October the Telegraph reported just how serious the problem was:

      “It’s a story of futility and waste. Waste of money. Waste of people. And it has simply got to stop. We are going to stop it. We can no longer afford the luxury of fruitless, uncoordinated investment. The damaged lives and communities.”

      Mr Pickles highlighted the case of one family in Salford which was visited by 250 government officials in a single year, including 58 police call-outs and five arrests, five 999 visits to the local casualty unit, two injunctions and a council tax arrears court summons. The cost of the family to the taxpayer was calculated at about £200,000 a year.

      Illegitimacy and fatherless households are just as big a problem here in the US as they are in the UK. But there’s a reason we never have this same discussion here in the states. The reason is that here in the US illegitimacy strongly correlates with race. As a result, any conservative–like Santorum–who raises this issue in public is suspected or accused of using “dog whistles” or coded language. In short, the left demagogues this issue by playing the race card every time it comes up. As a result, we can’t do anything about what is probably the #1 driver of dysfunction among young people–crime, drugs, gangs, failure to graduate from high school, etc.

      The left in this country will not let us talk like adults about the real problems we face. This is perhaps the most egregious example.

      http://www.verumserum.com/?p=39143

      I think the point about stopping a real conversation about this problem is spot on. People either scream racism or change the discussion to gay marriage.

      • SK Trynosky Sr says:
      • SK Trynosky Sr says:
        • SK Trynosky Sr says:

          http://www.blackpast.org/?q=primary/moynihan-report-1965

          Neat stuff. The warnings were all there and ignored. Some interesting stuff here for Charlie where Moynihan talks about American Slavery being worse than all others. That surprisingly comes from the Protestant experience where slaves were chattel only. In Catholic countries slaves were miserably unfortunate beings but they were human beings. Well worth the read by liberals and conservatives alike. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, totally lousy Senator, absolutely brilliant academician.

      • There is no real conversation about anything anymore. The media jam pack their time slots with too many topics, most of the bloggers only speak in one sentence or one paragraph blurbs, there is not enough time given to any one subject.. ever. There’s an idea for Fox. Have someone like Huckabee or Judge Napolitano moderate some real discussions. One topic per show. Don’t let it get into a shouting match. Keep the discussion on topic and let’s try to get some things discussed out.

  41. Anybody watch Game Change?

    • NO I haven’t-and I probably won’t. Did you enjoy it?

      • I did not read the book and I understand the Democratic leaning media in general (I won’t call it liberal media because from where I stand, the Democrats are far from true liberals), but it was okay. I thought they treated McCain probably more fair than he was (at least I hope he was that decent about it all), but Palin’s portrayal, I suspect, was probably very accurate. It was clear she had no business being on that ticket (although it makes perfect sense they tried it–after Bush, the GOP didn’t stand a chance). The problem, I think, for the GOP now is the spark Palin provided became viral within their party and now they’re seeing the results of that in the Presidential primary. You have 4 candidates that couldn’t beat a dog catcher, never mind the well-oiled machine they’ll be up against. The key word being “oiled” because none of these clowns from either party deserves the power they wield. Then again, they don’t really wield it, the 1% does.

        The most profound moment of the film, I thought, was something Schmidt was alleged to have said (and something I doubt will get much coverage): (paraphrasing) how can a guy with no major accomplishments be ahead of a man with so many? Obama was the celebrity dejour but unlike Palin, he was well informed enough to appear to know what he was doing. Palin was crushed in those interviews and it had nothing to do with gotcha questions. she was clearly uninformed and speaking in sound bytes she didn’t control.

        Our political system has become nothing more than a form of reality tv entertainment.

  42. “98 advertisers pull their support not just from Rush but from Hannity, Beck, Savage, and other programs deemed to have “content… deemed to be offensive or controversial”

    I read this in several articles this morning-I would like to know people’s opinions about this-are we witnessing the power of the voice of the people or just the over-reaction of a few organized attack dog groups(obviously my opinion is clear from my choice of words) Content deemed to be offensive or controversial-I get reprimanding-I even see an individual taken off the air -if people quit listening to him. But I personally find the above words -Scary as hell!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • It’s temporary. Imus was yanked and before long was back on the air (cable). The money behind the shows are showing their loyalty (to the dollar), but that will die quick enough. What I don’t understand (unless I’m just not seeing it–I haven’t been watching much tv), is why the piece that Mark Levin did on his show last week (while I was driving home–and I am not a fan of Levin–I think we’re pretty polar on the vast majority of issues) … he played the clip from CK Lewis (or Lewis CK?) talking really nasty about Palin and her special needs kid and apparently that guy is going to be the white house press thing host (or guest)? I understand he’s a comedian, but you don’t get to call a woman for political reasons and ignore what Bill Maher (who’s often asked political questions on MSNBC and CNN and his show couldn’t be more political) or this guy Lewis CK (or CK Lewis?) said. Why the GOP isn’t hammering that hypocrosy for the sake of women voters is kind of baffling. Maybe they are and I’m not hearing/seeing it. Could be.

    • VH..Read this..it’s only in regards to Rush’s show but it tackles the big picture too.

      Clearing Up Misinformation on Our Sponsors
      http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/03/07/clearing_up_misinformation_on_our_sponsors

      • You and Charlie are probably right about it being temporary . But what bothers me is how quick these organized groups are to stop free speech just because they disagree with it. Rush gave them an excuse-but they are moving right along to others and they have no reason other than they disagree with what they are saying.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          I thought that was how the free market is supposed to work…

          • Someone else can address whether or not it is the Free market at work. What I’m concerned by is the possible outcome. By what it is saying about our attitudes about free speech-just because we have the right to do something-doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do-especially if what we are doing is the direct opposite of promoting freedom. It’s one thing to object to just crude useless nastiness but one needs to be careful even in that arena.

            Do you really believe that the right way to go-is to try to stop these people from having an outlet to voice their beliefs-then just get prepared to lose the voices you agree with too.

            But as far as the free market-I don’t believe a totally free market is possible-but freedom is essential and it comes with some responsibility-and looking at the possible consequences before you use that freedom is important.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Actually I agree with you in that this isn’t necessarily the right way to go — as absolutely disgusting as I find much of what Rush says (and especially in this instance), and as much as I love the idea of him paying a price for his comments, I don’t think the answer is silencing him nor anyone else.

              But it is a bit funny to see people on the right in a hissy fit decrying this whole thing as an infringement of free speech, all it is is a bunch of people (and groups) launching a campaign to convince advertisers to pull their ads from Rush’s show. This, to me, represents the free market, the ability of people to speak out and effectuate change through non-violent ‘force’. Something you would think the right would support in theory.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Buck,

                I think it’s great that companies are pulling their adds! It is amazing how stupid the politically correct can be, but fear not, they will come crawling back and pay even more to run there adds, happens all the time.

              • Stop for a minute and think about what you are saying -you seem to want to say it is hypocritical to support freedom and still hold to the belief that people who are free and want to stay free should employ a little common sense in using it-is it your stance that believing in the free market means one must support every action people take based on their right to do it.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                VH, no, not support every action, but not go overboard in declaring the whole thing as anti-freedom of speech. Even of you don’t support what is being said, or how this freedom is being used, you can support their right to do so.

              • I don’t question their right to do it-I do question their motive, method, and how much they actually care about freedom of speech.

      • March 11, 2012
        More Boycott Boomeranging
        Russ Vaughn

        The liberals’ threatened boycotting of Rush Limbaugh advertisers continues to boomerang back and smack ’em in the mouth. First we had word that some of the threatened advertisers who knee-jerked and dropped Limbaugh are now trying to get back on the show. Now we are told that the incident has caused one of liberalism’s favorite potty-mouth comedians to lose his gig at a prominent national forum.
        0

        Marvin Olasky atWorldMag.com is reporting that rabid lefty comedian, Louis C.K., whose foul-mouthed misogyny was directed at Sarah Palin in several particularly vile rants during the 2008 campaign, has been forced to cancel his appearance at the annual big-bash, Radio and Television Correspondents Association dinner. If you are interested in seeing precisely how vicious this guy is, you can here at GretaWire. Apparently it was the action of Greta van Susteren and Media Research Center president, Brent Bozell, that shamed the liberal association into giving potty-mouth Louis the boot.

        And Big Hollywood reports that pressure is building on the White House for the Obama campaign to return the $1,000,000 campaign contribution given to its superpac by another liberal foul-mouth, Bill Maher.

        Meanwhile, Democrat activist, Sandra Fluke, who famously created this whole mess by claiming she needed Georgetown law School’s health insurance to cover the $3,000 cost of her and other students’ contraceptives during their tenure there, turns out to be flying cross-continent to spend spring break with her beau. Bill O’Reilly made the interesting observation that she can’t pay for her own contraception, which is actually available for nine bucks a month, not the grand per year she claimed in her congressional testimony (isn’t there a criminal penalty for giving false testimony to a congressional committee?) but that the fetching Ms. Fluke can afford to fly across America for a holiday.

        More importantly, O’Reilly also revealed that Fluke’s boyfriend is the son of a wealthy Democrat contributor with ties to the White House. OpenSecrets.org shows tens of thousands of dollars donated to various Democrat politicians and Democrat political organizations. A day earlier, O’Reilly reported that Fluke is being represented by former Obama White House advisor, Anita Dunn. Seems that Ms. Fluke sure has a lot of unusually close ties to the White House for an ordinary, concerned, Georgetown coed. Imagine that.

        As I said in an earlier piece, Ms. Fluke appears to have been the Democrat’s well-trained and well-positioned, Trojan mare. And our too-trusting, Republican House leadership just opened the election gates wide and let Pelosi roll her in.

        Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/03/more_boycott_boomeranging.html#ixzz1oqopJ683

        • gmanfortruth says:

          I waited to comment on Fluke and her actions. First, Rush called her a slut, so what? She is nothing more than a Liberal whore mouthpiece, so slut seems rather nice. The media is full of crap and that will not change. Get away from the Corporate Whore media and find a better more reliable source of information.

          • I’d say the left is pimping her out pretty good. Not sure what you call someone who allows themselves to be pimped????

  43. Fair enough, SK.

    I do sometimes have a hair trigger.

    Tonight I’m reading in an area of Manhattan I’ve seen turn dramatically torward gentrification. The last time I read near Little Italy, I was shocked by who was sitting in front of me. I didn’t expect the 28-35 crows with strollers, etc. It was fun, but the change in even the physical buidings upset me. I’m old school when it comes to that; hate to see buildings with character transformed to glass and metal … I cringe typing it.

    Until parents can take control at the home (and I believe this whole heartedly), I suspect we’re all fighting a losing cause. Generation after generation born into poverty, etc., makes it difficult to effect the kind of home environment change required (I think). But you’re right, tossing money at the problem isn’t the answer either (too many available ways to scam the system). Babies having babies … I have some of those in my family and I don’t see anything good coming from it down the road (probably more of the same). I do think it’s education that has the best chance, but without a home environment conducive to supporting that, it becomes a kid’s responsibility (but kids brought up without it … vicious cycle).

    I’m off to the gym … when diets fail, I return to powerlifting … one big copout.

  44. gmanfortruth says:

    It is official! 🙂 I now am the proud parent of 7 hens and 2 roosters. Cock a doodle do 🙂

  45. Ed Schultz literally on the union payroll?
    posted at 5:25 pm on March 9, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

    This is one story I’m going to need some help with, because clearly some of my preconceived notions about the nature of the media universe have been tossed into the dust bin. Jack Coleman did a little digging into the Department of Labor, which reports the financial activities of labor unions, including who is on their payroll. What he came up with regarding one very lucky “employee” should have some jaws dropping across the political world. The “employee” in question is none other than MSNBC shouter and syndicated radio host Ed Schultz.
    In fiscal 2011, Schultz received $190,000 from the Communications Workers of America for what the U.S. Department of Labor categorized as “representational activities.”

    For swag like that, you’d think Schultz could at least get it right about the CWA name. Instead, he invariably refers to it as the “Communication” Workers of America when its president, Larry Cohen, is a guest on Schultz’s radio show, as Cohen often is.

    Schultz also received $9,900 in fiscal 2011 from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), putting his union haul for the year at almost $200,000.

    This represented a fivefold increase over the $37,350 Schultz received from unions in fiscal 2010 — $15,000 from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), $14,850 from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and $7,500 from the Communications Workers of America.

    Click through for the full list of payments which Schultz had been pocketing from a variety of unions going back to the earliest days of his radio career. The grand total is well over a quarter million dollars. There is little indication as to precisely what Schultz is doing which qualifies as “administrative work” for the unions in question. The guy is on the air pretty much constantly, so I’m not sure how he finds time to zip over the local union hall and sort time cards or fill out insurance forms or whatever it is he’s supposed to be doing.

    Now, maybe I’m totally off base here, but if there’s isn’t something going on in this story that’s illegal, isn’t there at least something that’s against the rules? Schultz talks about unions constantly in his “reporting” on MSNBC, and has gone so far as to fly out to Minnesota to lead the union faithful in a rally against Scott Walker. I’m no expert, but if you’re reporting and providing expert opinion commentary on a story like that, shouldn’t you be mentioning that they gave you two hundred grand?

    I’m just a blogger, and nobody else is paying me, but when an outside interest – such as an energy company – even pays for travel and lodging expenses to go cover a story somewhere, I can’t even put up a post here without stipulating that they covered such expenses. Doesn’t that apply to the political media? I seem to recall MSNBC suspending Scarborough just for writing some contribution checks to friends and family members running for local offices. But they don’t make Schultz disclose taking in this kind of a haul from groups which he then goes out and uses a very large national megaphone to support?

    My first thought was, this has to be a different Ed Schultz, right? I mean, it’s not that uncommon of a name, after all. But the author apparently contacted the labor department for confirmation and got it. Also, in addition to “administrative” duties, some of the payments list Schultz’s work as “broadcasting.” But we’ll leave the door open for now to the possibility that it’s a mix-up.

    I hope someone else can explain this better than I. I honestly don’t know how anyone can get away with this and keep their job.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/09/ed-schultz-literally-on-the-union-payroll/

    Seriously, isn’t this at the very least unethical? If not out right illegal-it should be-I wonder if this is a common practice. I know he’s just a commentator but aren’t his comments supposed to be his own-not bought and paid for propaganda. I didn’t realize when ED talked for the Union -he was actually being paid to do a commercial. Seems like the station should have to pay taxes on this income.

  46. Life of Illusion

    LOI, if you can would you please check to see why my posts are getting locked in moderation for most of the day.

    Has wordpress decided to black list me?

    🙂

    Send me an email if you find out something. justacitizen1787@gmail.com

    • gmanfortruth says:

      JAC,

      I checked and you have nothing in waiting that I could see. Not sure why you are having a problem. Otherwise, I hope you and your family are well!

    • USWeapon says:

      I have been trying to figure it out JAC… I assume you are logged in to wordpress. I am going to send you something here in a few minutes. It will register you as an editor here at SUFA. As a result you will be able to go into the moderation and approve your own comments. Let me know if this role doesn’t allow you to do so. If it doesn’t I can change your role to one that does.

  47. Too funny! (Hope the injured are OK)

    Alan Grayson Runs Red Light En Route to Fundraiser, Hits Bus, 2 Injured

    http://michellemalkin.com/2012/03/11/grayson-bus/

%d bloggers like this: