Medical Marijuana

Medical Marijuana May Have Saved This Little Girl's Life

Pot successfully helps child manage severe, rare form of epilepsy

|

Charlotte Figi
CNN

Here, have a good kick in the feels, courtesy of Saundra Young at CNN: In Colorado, parents Matt and Paige Figi struggled with trying to help their daughter Charlotte, suffering from long, untreatable seizures. Eventually, she was diagnosed with an extremely rare form of epilepsy called Dravet Syndrome. Its seizures cannot be controlled through conventional medication. They tried everything. Matt, having given up a military career, searched for anything else that could help as Charlotte was slipping away from them:

He found a video online of a California boy whose Dravet was being successfully treated with cannabis. The strain was low in tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the compound in marijuana that's psychoactive. It was also high in cannabidiol, or CBD, which has medicinal properties but no psychoactivity. Scientists think the CBD quiets the excessive electrical and chemical activity in the brain that causes seizures. It had worked in this boy; his parents saw a major reduction in the boy's seizures.

By then Charlotte had lost the ability to walk, talk and eat.

She was having 300 grand mal seizures a week.

Her heart had stopped a number of times. When it happened at home, Paige did cardiopulmonary resuscitation until an ambulance arrived. When it happened in the hospital, where they'd already signed a do-not-resuscitate order, they said their goodbyes. Doctors had even suggested putting Charlotte in a medically induced coma to give her small, battered body a rest.

She was 5 when the Figis learned there was nothing more the hospital could do.

They decided to give medical marijuana a try, even though Paige said she had voted against legalizing it. They struggled to find  doctors who would sign off. Even though Colorado's medical marijuana program recognized it as a valid treatment for seizures, Charlotte was so young. Studies have shown that marijuana use while the brain is still developing can have negative impacts on IQ and other potential mental problems. Given the severity of Charlotte's situation, though, would it be worse than what she was already suffering through?

[Paige] finally reached Dr. Margaret Gedde, who agreed to meet with the family.

"(Charlotte's) been close to death so many times, she's had so much brain damage from seizure activity and likely the pharmaceutical medication," Gedde said. "When you put the potential risks of the cannabis in context like that, it's a very easy decision."

The second doctor to sign on was Alan Shackelford, a Harvard-trained physician who had a number of medical marijuana patients in his care. He wasn't familiar with Dravet and because of Charlotte's age had serious reservations.

"(But) they had exhausted all of her treatment options," Shackelford said. "There really weren't any steps they could take beyond what they had done. Everything had been tried—except cannabis."

 So they tried it:

"We were pioneering the whole thing; we were guinea pigging Charlotte," Paige said. "This is a federally illegal substance. I was terrified to be honest with you."

But the results were stunning.

"When she didn't have those three, four seizures that first hour, that was the first sign," Paige recalled. "And I thought well, 'Let's go another hour, this has got to be a fluke.' "

The seizures stopped for another hour. And for the following seven days.

Charlotte is now 6 years old:

Today, Charlotte, 6, is thriving. Her seizures only happen two to three times per month, almost solely in her sleep. Not only is she walking, she can ride her bicycle. She feeds herself and is talking more and more each day.

"I literally see Charlotte's brain making connections that haven't been made in years," Matt said. "My thought now is, why were we the ones that had to go out and find this cure? This natural cure? How come a doctor didn't know about this? How come they didn't make me aware of this?"

The marijuana strain Charlotte and now 41 other patients use to ease painful symptoms of diseases such as epilepsy and cancer has been named after the little girl who is getting her life back one day at a time.

It's called Charlotte's Web.

"I didn't hear her laugh for six months," Paige said. "I didn't hear her voice at all, just her crying. I can't imagine that I would be watching her making these gains that she's making, doing the things that she's doing (without the medical marijuana). I don't take it for granted. Every day is a blessing."

Matt added, "I want to scream it from the rooftops. I want other people, other parents, to know that this is a viable option."

Read the whole amazing story here, or this coverage from June in The Gazette in Colorado Springs. And then pass it along to any government official who insists medical marijuana has no value.

NEXT: Group Files Complaint over Mobile Apps for Babies

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Great piece. Thank you.

    1. You ever see Lorenzo’s Oil? Very similar situation and based on a true story, though no illegal drugs involved. It’s a very good movie and has the bonus of being directed by George Miller, as in “he created and directed Mad Max and The Road Warrior” George Miller.

      1. Seriously Epi, what the fuck is wrong with you? Do you have some kind of steel spike sticking in your brain that prevents you from linking to IMDb?

        1. Steel?!? It’s titanium!

          IMDB jumped the shark long ago. Their pages are busy as hell and full of ads; they’re just ugly as fuck and the relatively recent redesign makes finding shit that much harder. Just an aesthetics nightmare. And their summaries suck monkey ass, and their comments are one step above YouTube. Besides, every Wikipedia entry on a movie has a link to its IMDB page anyway.

          I don’t have to explain myself to you! So, that’s the explanation.

          1. I don’t read IMDB for the comments.

          2. But I do like how every movie in the world is between 5.8 and 6.9 stars out of 10. Every… movie.

            1. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang at 7.7 disagrees with you.

              1. Jesse. Look up “idiot” in the dictionary. You know what you’ll find?

              2. What is it with you and that movie? Is it Val Kilmer? It’s Val Kilmer isn’t it?

                1. It’s always Val Kilmer, Hugh. For good reason.

                2. What is it with you and that movie? Is it Val Kilmer? It’s Val Kilmer isn’t it?

                  It was on my mind because an acquaintance saw it in my movies and wanted to watch it last week. Have I really referenced it enough for it to be a thing?

                  It’s fat Val Kilmer, give me a little credit here. I was only in it for the Dash Mihok.

                  1. You’ve mentioned it before. I took note of it because I thought it was…odd that anyone had actually seen it.

                    Also, you haven’t seen fat Val Kilmer until you’ve seen Felon. He’s also got a weird Todd Helton face-pelt in that one. Not recommended.

                    1. DON’T TALK SHIT ABOUT VAL KILMER

                    2. What’s your problem, Kazanski?

                    3. God Epi you’re very nearly the WORST. What makes you think Val Kilmer needs the likes of you defending him. Lest you forget he’s batman.

                    4. I appreciate that it’s the bat-suit with bat-nipples.

              3. Hah! I watched it for the first time last weekend. Now I know where I likely saw it recommended.

                1. It was underrated.

                  1. It really was entertaining and never got enough play.

          3. Crazy thing, just an hour ago I was reading about the Lufthansa heist on Wikipedia, I get an ad just now for Lufthansa airlines. Uh . . . cancel that plan to duplicate the heist!

            Alo, now every side bar of Jim Croce fug ass face because I linked to one of his songs last week. Stop that! I’m not really a fan, JeSUS Krrists!

            1. Missing an entire phrase there.

              now every side bar Youtube page I visit has a picture

            2. Don’t buy anything!

      2. I can’t watch that film because I can’t stand Sarandon, even if it is George Miller.

        My wife sat next to Sarandon and her daughters at a sushi restaurant in Prague many years back. My wife said she was polite but whipped out a calculator and triple-checked the bill. This tiny anecdote just confirmed my hatred.

        1. So you’ve never seen Joe? Her part is minimal and the movie is worth it. Boyle does an amazing job.

          1. Actually, I saw it mentioned here-around quite a while back and meant to check it out, thanks for the reminder. I guess I can handle Sarandon up till around The Hunger, especially since a much older Deneuve was way hotter and managed to blow her out of all the shared scenes.

        2. One of my favorite movies features Susan Sarandon in a pretty great role.

          1. Godammit Hugh!

          2. Speaking of epileptic seizures

        3. You never saw her in Atlantic City? Where she rubbed lemons on her tits? Uhhh, lemons.

        4. She’s a redhead, so nuts is assumed. However, I’ve always liked her acting.

        5. She sucks Donkey dicks, but manges to not ruin Igby goes Down.

    2. At first I read the headline as “Could have saved this girl’s life,” and I was ready to go on a bloody rampage of murder and destruction. Glad I was wrong about that one.

  2. Urge to kill… fading.

    1. Are you kidding? All I could think while reading this story was that if that was one of my daughters and the federal government were trying to stop me from saving her, there would be DEA agents hanging from lampposts.

      1. Sorry, but fuck you. Someone might enjoy themselves.

        The kid dies.

  3. If it saves just one life, don’t we have a duty to…wait a minute, this is the DEVIL WEED! Seize the child! Throw the parents in jail! Put her on a regimen of FDA approved drugs!

    For the children!

    1. this

      The parents clearly came up with this cockamamie scheme so they could get teh weedz for themselves.

      Using their kid as a PAWN in this maniacal plot – for SHAME!

      Also, best wishes to Chharlotte going forward.

      1. “I literally see Charlotte’s brain making connections that haven’t been made in years,” Matt said. “My thought now is, why were we the ones that had to go out and find this cure? This natural cure? How come a doctor didn’t know about this? How come they didn’t make me aware of this?”

        Doctors get paid to peddle government-approved drugs. Why would they support a drug that isn’t approved by the government and makes them no money?

        1. “(Charlotte’s) been close to death so many times, she’s had so much brain damage from seizure activity and likely the pharmaceutical medication,” Gedde said. “When you put the potential risks of the cannabis in context like that, it’s a very easy decision.”

          The second doctor to sign on was Alan Shackelford, a Harvard-trained physician who had a number of medical marijuana patients in his care.

          Plenty of docs and nurses with a soul, my wife and mom included.

        2. That ain’t all. Let’s take another look at the quote, shall we:

          My thought now is, why were we the ones that had to go out and find this cure? This natural cure? How come a doctor didn’t know about this? How come they didn’t make me aware of this?

          Here’s why:

          They decided to give medical marijuana a try, even though Paige said she had voted against legalizing it.

          Good thing for Paige and her kid that the smart, humane law-breakers were there to save her from her own ass.

          1. Ya, she better vote straight Libertarian party ticket for the rest of her life, or Fuck Her.

            1. Who says anything about straight libertarian? Her vote was AGAINST LEGALIZATION. She could have voted pro or just left the ballot item alone. That’s a specific issue vote.

  4. Great, now her life is ruined.

    1. Clearly, based on the picture. I mean, you can see her RIBCAGE!

  5. “This is a federally illegal substance. I was terrified to be honest with you.”

    Therefore, the federal government is a terrorist organization.

  6. It’s called Charlotte’s Web.

    Fuck literature. It should be called Charlotte’s WEED.

  7. This just goes to show that libertarians need to be less hardline about decriminalization. Medical marijuana is clearly a viable treatment, provided all the forms have been signed by Top Men and it’s distributed by frocked practitioners ordained by the state licensing board. The only way we can ensure it’s not being abused is maintaining the narcotic classification and incarcerating recreational users.

    Now that everything is on the table, why are you libertarians still so insistent? Why are you standing in the way of progress toward medical legitimacy of this drug? Why do you hate the chillerns?

  8. Never forget, prohibitionists are evil.

    1. But their intentions are good, Marshall.

      When they arrest you, beat you, shoot you, imprison you, steal your money, time, and your very life, they are doing so with love in their hearts. Love for you.

      They only want what’s best for you, which is why it pains them so much that you keep forcing them to hurt you.

      1. How very true, Hugh.

        Libertarians are hopeless because they do not understand Newspeak. They do not understand that ignorance is strength and love is hate.

        The Figi family will likely learn about the State’s love for them soon.

        1. The Figi family will likely learn about the State’s love for them soon.

          Elder Brother will teach Younger Brother the true meaning of Christmas!

  9. This article reminds me of something I find kind of off-putting about the cannabis reform movement. All too often, I see Cannabis (or other “natural”) things touted as the perfect cure to X. Now, in this case, it may well be, but as a scientist, I find a lot of these claims ridiculous. That said, as a libertarian (and human), I find my opinion to be irrelevant to whether others have the right to use this drug, or any other. That’s the important argument: that we own ourselves, and thus can do with our bodies what we please, not some attempt to make drugs we want to legalize sound like a new age miracle cure.

    1. Yes, agreed.

      Related: the tendency of stoners to exaggerate the economic benefits of legalization.

      That said, there are cases where cannabis has been effective in treatment — and punishing people who use it for that purpose is somewhere on the order of whipping slaves for learning how to read.

      1. That said, there are cases where cannabis has been effective in treatment — and punishing people who use it for that purpose is somewhere on the order of whipping slaves for learning how to read.

        Oh, I completely agree. If it were legal, it would probably be a lot easier to do scientific studies on this, too, which would have the benefit of helping people who didn’t realize or believe that the drug works decide to use it.

        Or, hell, if it just makes you happier (and that’s subjective), cool, use it.

    2. Hemlock is the perfect, natural cure for Tony.

  10. You realize that she is now barred for life from ever owning a gun?*

    Just saying.

    *Assuming she answers the NICS question about drug use truthfully, of course.

    1. If it saves just one child’s life…

    2. Given that she has significant brain damage, that may be a good thing. I say this as a visually handicapped person who may not legally operate a motor vehicle on public roadz. It’s unsafe for me to drive due to my condition, and it may be unsafe for an otherwise wonderful young lady like Charlotte to use firearms.

      Just throwing that out there as grist for the mill.

      1. Jesus H. Christ, you always have to go there, don’t you!

        1. I do.

      2. Yeah, but at least you can walk on water.

        Fuckin show off

        1. Not only that, he can change water into wine.

          In Soviet Heaven, party comes to you!

          1. Yeah, but he only changes it into shit like Riunite.

            1. The quality of the company is reflected in the quality of the booze. Be a little more “entertaining” next time.

  11. Now that this story is public, the DEA will probably kick this family’s door is and arrest everyone.

    And if this little girl dies as a result, they’ll say FUCK HER. Broad social goals must be achieved and if a few individuals suffer for that, too bad.

    1. You can’t make an omelet without tasing a few eggs to death.

      1. Have you considered writing a cookbook?

        1. Don’t tempt him. All his recipes will taste like chicken.

      2. Just a nitpick, that little girl looks well past the ovum stage. I’m no Obstetrician, but that’s how I sees it.

        1. EGGS ARE A METAPHOR PAUL

          1. I thought the Omelet was the metaphor.

            1. It’s metaphors all the way down.

              1. These fancy literary references by Hugh are becoming increasingly confusing. I feel like I just moved from the second grade to the third grade, and I have no idea what’s going on!

                1. The only way to fight it is to embrace the blinding ennui towards Hugh that Epi has mastered.

                  1. This is how I feel about Hugh.

                    1. That cat is a great actor. WAY better than Val Kilmer.

    2. WRONG.

      If this little girl dies, they’ll blame it on the parents.

      They’ll ignore any evidence that cannabis works for anything because that’s their ironclad policy.

      1. Yup.

        “Heads, I win; tails, FYTW.”

    3. One child’s death is tragic, but consider the bigger picture: every year, literally tens of thousands of young people die from marijuana overdoses, and millions more are shot by their drug dealers purely for sport.

      1. All the more reason to keep it illegal obviously.

        1. If marijuana were legal, there would be more of it available, and people will use more of it.

          Civilization as we know it would collapse. Everyone between the ages of 4 and 85 would be forced to become enforcers or mules, enslaved by drug kingpins. The very young and very old would be useful only as sex slaves or cheap protein. The streets would be literally waist deep in blood, yea, even unto the horse bridles.

          There was a ONDCP white paper on this.

      2. The Most Dangerous Drug Game?

  12. Dr. Shackelford, huh? If that is your real name…

    1. I have his birth certificate.

  13. OT: Stupid sons of bitches hold anti-ALEC march in Chicago. They somehow blame the American Legislative Exchange Council for Trayvon Martin’s death because ALEC supports SYG laws.

    This is really just golden:

    Kit O’Connell @KitOConnell

    Chanting “#NoALEC no bourgeoisie no racist CPD” as we march on Palmer House. #ALEC #ochi #um #rtx

    Chapul @BaburRealer

    Speaker:Stand your ground kills our youth and children everyday, we are standing up against #alec pic.twitter.com/NF0xp8wqPi

    I really like looking at the type of people who attend these protests. Their average weight can only be described as ‘planetary.’

    1. Why stop and think when you can loudly and visibly EMOTE? Christ, these daft buggers.

      1. It must be cathartic for them. If only they would convert to Pentecosts or something.

    2. “…no bourgeoisie…”

      I am horrified by the ignorance of the American polity, but I am more terrified by the (slim) possibility that they do know what that means, and what they are suggesting…

      1. I’m a little more concerned as to how that chant is supposed to scan. I assume they pronounce ‘ALEC’ letter by letter so it would be ‘No A-L-E-C’ but that’s only five beats. No bourgeisie is four. No racist CPD is six. Furthermore, where are they putting the stresses to make it scan properly?

        I don’t expect my protest chants to be in iambic pentameter, but a little effort would be nice.

        1. You’re assuming that they know how to pronounce those words.

          When you assume, you make a bourgeoisie out of you and me.

          1. NO BER-GEE-OISE

    3. “Stand your ground kills our youth and children everyday”

      How does a legal principle kill someone?

    4. Furthermore, this incident is a perfect illustration of how people will believe a lie if it repeated enough. It doesn’t matter that Zimmerman didn’t use SYG as a defense, that his self-defense claim would have been applicable in any state because he did not have the ability to safely retreat, or that the prosecution explicitly stated the case was not about SYG. The media incessantly talking about it when the case first received attention was enough to permanently convince people that Stand Your Ground was the reason Martin died and the reason Zimmerman got acquitted, in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

      1. I am shocked that otherwise bright friends, even after the trial and all the evidence, still seem to be holding positions formed in the week after the event. “He was an innocent child stalked and murdered!!”

        1. And there are still letters to the editor every day in the local papers that say that. Today’s said that the country needs to rid itself of “sick minds” like Zimmerman’s, “who every time they see a black person they immediately think he is a criminal.”

          Congratulations, media. It worked! You actually have most of the country believing that a Latino guy with a black grandfather, who took a black girl to the senior prom, who started a business with a black man, and led a protest about a black man’s beating by local police, is actually a white guy, and the worst racist killer in the history of mankind.

    5. “Stand your ground kills our youth and children everyday”

      Uh…what? Every day? The evil corporate (liberal) press must be suppressing these stories in deference to their white-hispanic overlords.

      I want to be reincarnated as a lefty so I can just say and shit and know that it’s true because I said it.

      That, and a cushy government job that respects my many disabilities.

  14. But even if we save just one child’s life from marijuana prohibition, don’t we have to try it?

  15. Nice to see that things haven’t gone completely to shit yet.

  16. More news about officers who shot dog in L.A.:

    The police department re-assigned the officers Wednesday to other patrol areas and placed their families under protection.

    “These aren’t just threats off ill-will,” said Hawthorne Police Chief Robert Fager. “These are absolutely threats to life.”

    The shooting Sunday at 137th Street and Jefferson Avenue in Hawthorne was captured on at least two cameras — one video was posted on YouTube, a second released Wednesday by the Hawthorne Police Department was delivered to police headquarters by a resident, according to police.

    In the YouTube video (Warning: Disturbing Content), Rosby can be seen with the dog on a leash when he was recording the nearly two-hour police stand-off. After the subjects of the stand-off were arrested, Rosby placed the dog in a car near the street corner and officers began taking him into custody on suspicion of interfering with police activity.

    Police said he was playing “loud, distracting” music in his vehicle and walking in close proximity to the officers involved in the stand-off.

    “These acts, in totality, created an increasingly dangerous situation,” according to a police statement.

    Dog shooting: justified.

    http://www.nbclosangeles.com/n…..75441.html

    1. Oh, and not only justified, Rosby is being charged. It’s as if people don’t realize how hard it is for officers to shoot a dog. Rosby’s getting off easy.

      A court date in the obstruction case against Rosby is scheduled for next month.

    2. in totality

      Sound like anyone you know? All the cops are reading from the same script at this point, aren’t they.

      Also, I might just be reading too much into this, but the way these media writers write seems to always in the purpose of manipulating the message:

      The owner of a dog shot and killed by police in Southern California called Wednesday for threats against the officers involved in the shooting to stop.

      That is a very badly structured sentence that causes you to think the guy is calling for threats, until the last two words. I had to read it multiple times to get a clear understanding of what it was saying. Why didn’t they write:

      The owner of a dog shot and killed by police in Southern California called Wednesday for a stop to threats against the officers involved in the shooting.

      It’s far clearer.

      1. Needs more ATFPAPIC

  17. OT:
    Tesla Government Motors update.
    See here: http://www.sfgate.com/
    Headline says “Tesla posts surprise profit”

    Well, up = down for greenies: “Tesla shares jump on narrowed 2Q loss”
    http://www.sfgate.com/business…..715260.php

    And now we’re starting to lay some groundwork:
    “Tesla’s biggest foe ? car dealers”
    (third link to follow; damn squirrels)
    Those evil car dealers are the reason Tesla won’t be hitting the numbers! It’s just market failure!
    I’m betting Tesla will need an extension of that $7,500/unit tradable tax credit and certainly the subsidies, since it’s a ‘successful’ EV mfgr.

    1. Profits are evil, unless “they” make them.

      1. It’s looking like no one is going to have to worry about real profits. The Q1 profits were made by selling those tax credits to other car mfgrs.
        So the company is actually a financial business trading in gov’t rents and uses cars to generate them.
        Rent profits are *always* welcome to lefties; they show the gov’t is required for our well being.

    2. Its possible that Tesla v. car dealerships has no good guys.

      1. “Its possible that Tesla v. car dealerships has no good guys.”

        Agreed; rents both ways. The difference is that the greenies won’t claim car dealerships can’t make money ’cause Tesla, where it’s odds on they’ll claim the opposite.

  18. Before I die (I’m 70), I hope to see a war crimes trial or a “truth and reconciliation commission” dig in to the prosecutors of the War on Drugs.

    1. “Before I die (I’m 70), I hope to see a war crimes trial or a “truth and reconciliation commission” dig in to the prosecutors of the War on Drugs.”

      It would seriously embarrass nearly every politico since Nixon, not to mention show most prosecutors as venal popularity-whores.
      Not going to happen.

    2. Sweet.

  19. I presume the “thank you” note for the millions of deaths not caused is in the mail:

    “Honoring the A-bomb’s dead: Paper lanterns lit for the repose of the souls of Hiroshima’s atomic bombing victims float on the Motoyasu River near the city’s Atomic Bomb Dome. Japan marked the 68th anniversary the World War II bombing Tuesday.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/entertai…..011647.php

    1. Was this before or after they went to Yasukuni shrine to honor the architects of the Rape of Nanking?

    2. Perhaps I misunderstand the point you are making, but are you implying the people of Hiroshima should be thankful for our dropping an apocalyptic weapon on a civilian city because we could have killed more people or something?

      1. It isn’t, I suspect, a matter of what we could have done, but what we would have done without the “nuclear option.”

        1. I’m not unsympathetic to the bind officials were in facing that decision but ultimately I think the bombing amounted to ‘using’ those civilian deaths to induce a surrender. That kind of use of people, with no regard for their rights as individuals or the laws of war, to achieve some ‘greater good’ appalls me, though for the New Dealers in charge they probably saw it as business as usual.

          1. “Paging Adrian Veidt…”
            … … …
            “He must be at Karnak.”

          2. I’m not unsympathetic to the bind officials were in facing that decision but ultimately I think the bombing amounted to ‘using’ those civilian deaths to induce a surrender.

            It was a war and the projections by Churchill and the English were that hundreds of thousands of Allied troops could die in an invasion along with several million Japanese.

            I have trouble saying that we should have thrown our troops into a meat grinder in order to take an island that was currently in the grips of a raving death cult.

            1. I will just pile on and remind everyone of what the Japanese were doing to civilian populations in Asia…

              1. Frank claims (and no one yet disputes) a number of 100,000 civilian deaths/month caused by Japanese occupation and mistreatment.

              2. I’m certainly not defending the war practices of the Japanese anymore than someone who opposes drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen is defending al Qaida’s heinous practices.

                1. Bo Cara Esq.| 8.7.13 @ 9:24PM |#
                  “I’m certainly not defending the war practices of the Japanese anymore than someone who opposes drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen is defending al Qaida’s heinous practices.”

                  No, you’re just pretending that someone unicorns could have ended the war if we wished hard enough.

                  1. The supporters of drone strikes similarly charge critics with na?ve, wishful thinking, no? ‘Those people just don’t realize the danger in the world and the realities on the ground in fighting the War on Terror.’

                    Perhaps your problem is not with unicorns in general, just certain ones of a certain color or breed?

                    1. Bo Cara Esq.| 8.7.13 @ 9:48PM |#
                      “The supporters of drone strikes similarly charge critics with na?ve, wishful thinking, no?”

                      Beat on that strawman, Bo! Keep it up; it’s really amusing!

                    2. “Perhaps your problem is not with unicorns in general, just certain ones of a certain color or breed?”

                      Ah, yes. WWII is totally the same thing as the WoT.

          3. “That kind of use of people, with no regard for their rights as individuals or the laws of war, to achieve some ‘greater good’ appalls me, though for the New Dealers in charge they probably saw it as business as usual.”

            What solution do you propose that wouldn’t have “used” fewer human death to end the war?
            And I’ll expect some serious evidence.

            1. Do you generally think it is OK to violate the rights of innocent people to achieve some greater good? How was this not an example of that? Both cities were teeming with women, children, the elderly, they were significant civilian centers. The point of bombing them was to terrorize the Japanese into surrender, much like the 9/11 bombings were meant to terrorize Americans to effect policy changes, except far, far deadlier.

              1. Bo Cara Esq.| 8.7.13 @ 9:15PM |#
                “Do you generally think it is OK to violate the rights of innocent people to achieve some greater good?”

                Sorry, answer my question first:
                What alternative would have “used” fewer people?
                Now after you answer that, I’ll be happy to answer your question. But I want an answer with evidence.

                1. That question can always be posed by those who don’t recognize rights as trumps over generalized interests. ‘If we don’t do X (which violates people’s rights’) then more will die than not!’

                  1. Bo Cara Esq.| 8.7.13 @ 9:20PM |#
                    “That question can always…”

                    Answer the damn question or STFU as someone totally unqualified to speak.

                    1. I do not need a ‘qualification’ for what is a moral question. I don’t agree with your premise, which is to choose how the ‘greater good’ can be effectuated and pursue that option, individual rights and the laws of war be d*mned.

                    2. Bo Cara Esq.| 8.7.13 @ 9:26PM |#
                      “I do not need a ‘qualification’ for what is a moral question.”

                      Sorry, only idiots claim that reality can be bent to their emotions.
                      You’re an idiot; go away.

                    3. Choosing to live by principles higher than what is found in nature or even historical practice is hardly emotional or idiotic.

                      Do you oppose our drone strikes? How are they not backed by logic like that behind the decision to drop the atom bomb on those two cities? Our troops are protected, it ultimately saves lives, etc., the same arguments. If anything the drone supporters can at least allege that collateral civilian damage is less foreseen or intended.

                    4. Bo Cara Esq.| 8.7.13 @ 9:33PM |#
                      …”Do you oppose our drone strikes?”…

                      Folks, we have a new record holder for straw-man champion.
                      BCE is proving himself to be stupid beyond most all what we’ve seen before.
                      BCE, go away. You’re an ignoramus.

                    5. What do you think is ‘straw man’ about my example? This should be simple for one who understands the concept of ‘straw man’ argument so well.

                    6. Bo Cara Esq.| 8.7.13 @ 9:47PM |#
                      “What do you think is ‘straw man’ about my example?”

                      Under the clear understanding that you really are that stupid, Obozo’s drone strikes have nothing to d with ending WWII, nor are they related with any of the decisions involved.

                    7. He and others supporting them claim they are related to winning the War on Terror just as the bombings in question were claimed to be related to winning the War with Japan.

                    8. Bo Cara Esq.| 8.7.13 @ 10:16PM |#
                      “He and others supporting them claim they are related to winning the War on Terror just as the bombings in question were claimed to be related to winning the War with Japan.”

                      Asshole, the fact that Obozo claims anything is irrelevant to the matter at hand.
                      Where have you gone to school? I want to advise others not to go there.

                    9. BCE, the problem with your viewpoint (which I am more sympathetic to than Sevo is) is that the alternatives weren’t perfectly libertarian either. How would killing even more people with guns, bombs, and planes in a conventional invasion be more libertarian?

                    10. I think we should only have tried to kill enemy soldiers. Of course some actions which are just under the law of war will result in unintended civilian casualties, but dropping an atomic bomb on a city of mostly civilians cannot fall under that.

                    11. “I think we should only have tried to kill enemy soldiers.”

                      We Did. That’s why the bomb landed there.

                    12. “I think we should only have tried to kill enemy soldiers

                      As densely populated as Japanese is/was, I’m not sure how many significant military targets could have been bombed without major civilian casualties. And it’s important to remember the ultimate goal of forcing surrender. As sad as it is to say, I don’t know if attacking purely military targets could have done that.

                    13. And your stance is the same as those who support the drone strikes. It is the reason why the WoT is perpetual.

                      WW2 was effectively ended by the nuclear strikes. We understood, at that time, that war was the failure of diplomacy, that, when in war, you kill the enemy–all of them–until enough are killed that they beg you to stop. Then, after surrender is accepted, you work on fixing the horrors that are endemic to war.

                      Or, if you’re a power like the Axis, you annex the land and keep killing.

                      Either way, the war does not end until one side cannot fight anymore.

                      The WoT is not being fought this way. Enemies killed are surrounded by fellow travelers and civilians and each person (Person!) who is not a specifically avowed enemy is treated as a murder victim.

                      So we try to combine the healing that should come after the war with the war itself.

                      And we get this farce.

                      We heal and succor the enemy without surrender. And the war continues.

                      War should be as short as one can make it. It should endanger as few of one’s sides lives as possible. But brevity and victory should be the only goals.

          4. IMO your problem comes in assuming that the prosecution of a war should involve the notion of “greater good”, real or imagined. Successful prosecution of a war should be in the benefit of the nation undertaking the endeavor, not in the benefit of the world at large. In the case of a libertarian, the desires of a belligerent should only come into play where it is practical.

            Moral prosecution of a war should follow from principles of self-defense: violence is instrumentally valid to the conclusion of hostilities to the satisfaction of the defending party and worthy for that purpose, and harm to third parties (civilians, for example) should be avoided *where it is possible*. Given the alternatives to the nuclear bomb, I find it hard to argue that, say, an invasion of the Home Islands would have avoided harm to third parties. It certainly wouldn’t have avoided harm to the US soldiers participating in the action.

            1. “Given the alternatives to the nuclear bomb, I find it hard to argue that, say, an invasion of the Home Islands would have avoided harm to third parties”

              That’s the reason for the ‘civilian-soldier training’ link above; Japan at that point claimed the entire population was combatants.
              Of course that’s ridiculous, but there was not way for an invading force to make distinctions: Japan had identified the population as combatants.

            2. I am not assuming prosecution of the war should involve adherence to a ‘greater good’ mentality, in fact quite the opposite. I am arguing that it is wrong to purposely kill innocent parties to try to effect some ‘greater good.’

              1. Bo Cara Esq.| 8.7.13 @ 9:22PM |#
                “I am not assuming…”

                You’re not arguing, you’re emoting. Go away.

                1. I am arguing for principles of just war and morality that have existed for centuries.

                  1. Bo Cara Esq.| 8.7.13 @ 9:28PM |#
                    “I am arguing for principles of just war and morality that have existed for centuries.”

                    Look, you claim that the bombs were somehow horrible. It is pointed out to you that the alternatives were far more horrible. You are asked for alternatives that are less horrible and you present none. And yet you still claim the bombs were horrible.
                    So can we assume you also agree that you’re an idiot?

                    1. If in fact massive redistribution of wealth would counter a ‘horrible alternative’ would you OK it? If in fact socialized medicine would prevent a situation ‘more horrible’ in consequences than the status quo would you support it?

                      The lure of actions which violate individual rights and principles for ‘the greater good’ is strong, but should be resisted. Human beings are not units to be traded off to reach the finest numbers.

                    2. Bo Cara Esq.| 8.7.13 @ 9:39PM |#
                      “If in fact massive redistribution of wealth would counter a ‘horrible alternative’ would you OK it?”

                      Look, asshole, I’ve tolerated your stupidity for long enough.
                      Fuck you and your strawmen. Go away; you’re too stupid to breathe without assistance.
                      Is that clear?

                    3. I am not sure you understand what a straw man is. I’m identifying the principle that lies at the heart of several things, some you oppose but another you support.

                    4. Bo Cara Esq.| 8.7.13 @ 9:45PM |#
                      “I am not sure you understand what a straw man is”

                      Oh, yes I do.
                      And I’m quite sure you are not capable of instructing anyone.

                    5. MNG?

                  2. War is not just.

                    War is what happens when ‘just’ breaks down.

                    The perpetual war we see now is what all you believers in ‘just war’ have created.

                    And until this moronic idea is abandoned, war will continue.

              2. I am arguing that it is wrong to purposely kill innocent parties to try to effect some ‘greater good.’

                I don’t know what your definition of “innocent parties” or “purposely kill” are, but IMO the nuclear bombings fall short of that. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were significant industrial and military hard points producing Zeroes, naval units and small arms for the war effort. Nagasaki was one of the most important ports in Japan, and Hiroshima was at the time of its bombing the most significant industrial contributor to the war effort out of all of Japan’s urban areas. Their civilian population were armed, contributed to the war effort, and expected to fight off an invasion. The US preceded its bombing with a propaganda campaign to urge civilians to leave the city (a significant number of whom did).

                Doesn’t mean we should cheer those deaths, but I would consider both to have been valid war aims — much more so than starving the whole of Japan to surrender (which has been suggested as the “humane” alternative by some), and less costly than invasion.

                1. Two things that I would further note:

                  You have suggested that the atomic bombings were exclusively an act of terror. While I agree that the novelty and destructive power of the bomb was intended to bring the war to swift resolution, the targets chosen were not chosen to terrorize the civilian population (Tokyo was considered for that purpose but rejected in part because previous bombings had brought its contribution to nil), but because they were valid war aims and their loss would affect the military capacity of Japan and coerce them to rationally surmise that the US could demolish their military capacity with little damage to ourselves.

                  In addition, the Battle of Manila had casualties in the ~117,000 range. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both more heavily fortified and would have cost much more than that, if we’d invaded. The atom bombs cost ~150-200,000 deaths. Invading even one of those cities was projected at the time to have racked up at least that many casualties.

                2. Nagasaki and Hiroshima, like most major cities, certainly had elements that could be described as important industrially and militarily. But they were hardly primarily ‘military’ institutions, they were major civilian centers. We did not choose those targets because it would be some great military victory, but to ‘break the spirit’ of the Japanese and force them to consider surrender. Murdering civilians intentionally in that way is called terrorism when other people do it. We are talking about tens of thousands of infants, women, sick and elderly that were not going to be a threat militarily.

                  If I had to offer a counter policy I would say we should have surrounded the island in an embargo, but an embargo which allowed necessaries to pass, while perhaps continuing to attack expressly military targets with a volunteer force.

                  1. Bo Cara Esq.| 8.7.13 @ 9:44PM |#
                    …”If I had to offer a counter policy I would say we should have surrounded the island in an embargo, but an embargo which allowed necessaries to pass, while perhaps continuing to attack expressly military targets with a volunteer force.”

                    FINALLY the stupid shit answers!
                    And the answer, given the stupid shit had no business posting where he had not knowledge, is that we should have KILLED MILLIONS MORE BY STARVATION!
                    Are you stupid enough to presume a government at war will feed ‘those at need’ before the military? I really am curious as to the depth of stupidity you’ve been showing.
                    And this is somehow preferable to the bombs, ’cause, well…
                    I got a hint for you, BCE you really ought to keep your opinions to yourself when you don’t have a clue as to what the discussion entails. Such as here.

                    1. I said fairly plainly I would allow necessaries to pass. If we freely allowed, or even shipped ourselves, foodstuffs and medicines a plenty I doubt the Japanese military would have withheld them from the population.

                    2. Bo Cara Esq.| 8.7.13 @ 10:00PM |#
                      “I said fairly plainly I would allow necessaries to pass.”

                      If you do not realize how stupid that statement is, you really have no business posting here.
                      ‘Allowing necessities to pass’ is allowing the military to be armed and fed. You have already shown your inability to critically examine the posts you’ve made, confusing ‘drone strikes’ with the requirement of ending a world war with the minimum of casualties.
                      Again, you really should not post where your emotions overcome your knowledge, as in this thread. You have shown a lack of knowledge and a lack of thinking.

                    3. ‘Necessaries’ is a term used in contract and commercial law, it refers to things like foodstuffs, not weapons.

                    4. Bo Cara Esq.| 8.7.13 @ 10:12PM |#
                      “‘Necessaries’ is a term used in contract and commercial law,”

                      Thanks. I’ll keep that in mind the next time I dispute people with knowledge of contract and commercial law.

                  2. We did not choose those targets because it would be some great military victory

                    We chose the targets to eliminate war assets and to show the Japanese that we could do so quickly, one after another, without loss to ourselves. The primary goal wasn’t to “terrify” anyone; there was no rational expectation in Washington that civilian revolts and pressure against the government would be successful. You could be as rational and unsentimental as you please, but if you were a Japanese wartime leader and you saw two of your greatest military assets destroyed in the blinking of an eye, you knew it was over. It’s a testament to the fanaticism of Japanese leadership that some attempted a coup to keep fighting after this was made evident.

                    If I had to offer a counter policy I would say we should have surrounded the island in an embargo, but an embargo which allowed necessaries to pass, while perhaps continuing to attack expressly military targets with a volunteer force.

                    A political impossibility and one that would not have achieved its purpose. Why would the Japanese military government sign away control of its political power if they’re only going to be inconvenienced? How to explain to voters that you’re going to let the war drag on indefinitely, potentially having to invade Korea and Japanese-controlled China?

                    1. Are you honestly arguing that Hiroshima was Nagasaki were “two of [the] greatest military assets” of the Japanese Empire? Mind you that is a far cry from claiming they had ‘significant military and industrial value.’

                    2. At the time of the bombing, yes (at least, in the Home Islands).

                      We had bombed Tokyo to oblivion, and their navy and army were basically eliminated outside of the fleet remnants stationed at Nagasaki and Army leadership at Hiroshima. Their forward bases were almost all captured or rendered irrelevant.

                      That is what happens when you have effectively won a war but your enemy doesn’t concede: their greatest means of resistance remain in their mostly intact metropoles.

                      Do you care to suggest more important targets? I mean, the invasion plan alternatives specified Hiroshima and Nagasaki as primary targets in a hypothetical assault on the Home Islands.

                    3. From the Wikipedia page on the bombings:

                      -In both cities, most of the dead were civilians, although Hiroshima had a sizeable garrison.

                      -The Target Committee stated that “It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released.

                      This suggests to me that these were primarily civilian centers that were chosen to impress upon (terrorize?) the Japanese people and leadership into surrender and to impress upon the world our military might. ‘Trading’ hundreds of thousands of civilian lives for the latter purpose is indeed reprehensible, but I can’t find the former to justify it either.

                      I will let you have the last word on this matter, I appreciate the civil discussion on it.

                    4. The choice of weapon (atom bomb) was for psychological impact. Choice of target was not.

                      I don’t consider “shock and awe” to be qualitatively similar to terror, provided that the target is legitimate.

                    5. “I appreciate the civil discussion on it.”

                      Civil discussions are due those who have some minimal knowledge of where they speak.

                  3. “If I had to offer a counter policy I would say we should have surrounded the island in an embargo, but an embargo which allowed necessaries to pass, while perhaps continuing to attack expressly military targets with a volunteer force.”

                    Given the notorious stubborness of the Japanese government, I’m not sure how effective that would have been in ending the war, nor is there any guarantee that the Japanese government would distribute the necessaries in a fashion that would avoid starvation by civilians. They would certainly make sure the military was provided for first. Furthermore, the Japanese still occupied large areas of continental East Asia, and thousands died each month as a result. Over 90,000 died in the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, which lasted less than two weeks.

                3. I was going to let this one run on without me, but I finally feel inclined to comment:

                  I can understand the argument that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were inappropriate targets of nuclear attack, but I am always dumbfounded by how rarely that is specifically stated, as opposed to complaints about the use of nuclear weapons per se.

                  Context matters, and I see no reason to emphasize those attacks at the expense of discussing “conventional” bombing, which killed far more Japanese civilians.

                  1. I do not think I disagree. If there were a small island with the population being Japanese troops garrisoned there I would find dropping an atom bomb on it to be unproblematic. And of course my principles lead me to condemn things like the bombing of Dresden which was done with more conventional weapons. It is not that atomic weapons were used (well, apart from the fact that such weapons don’t even have a pretense of being able minimize collateral damage when dropped in a civilian-heavy area), it is the targets chosen.

                    1. Bo Cara Esq.| 8.7.13 @ 9:58PM |#
                      “I do not think I disagree. If there were a small island with the population being Japanese troops garrisoned there I would find dropping an atom bomb on it to be unproblematic…”

                      OK, this is ridiculous.
                      You have obviously not read one bit of reference material on the matter and here you presume to instruct those who have.
                      Please shut up and don’t continue to display your ignorance.

                  2. “Context matters, and I see no reason to emphasize those attacks at the expense of discussing “conventional” bombing, which killed far more Japanese civilians.”

                    And the idiotic presumption that an embargo (“blockade”) is somehow more humane remains amazing.
                    Whatever food was there was not going to infants and elderly, unless they could hold an Arisaka.

      2. “are you implying the people of Hiroshima should be thankful for our dropping an apocalyptic weapon on a civilian city because we could have killed more people or something?”

        First:
        “Hiroshima was a city of considerable military importance. It contained the 2nd Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops.”
        http://www.atomicarchive.com/D…..chp6.shtml

        Secondly:
        “The Kokumin Giy? Sent?tai would be organized, if the allied landing unit close to the Japanese homeland. Governors of Prefectures could conscript all male civilians between the ages of 15 to 60 years, and unmarried females of 17 to 40 years”
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V…..ting_Corps

        What I’m saying is that Japan in general was saved millions of additional deaths as a result of the two nuclear weapons.

        1. The city was also spared more conventional bombing because of its status as a future nuclear target.

          1. I was under the impression the second bomb was just to show Stalin we had more than one. Wasn’t the terms of surrender Japan offered after the first the same as offered after the second?

            1. SweatingGin| 8.7.13 @ 9:33PM |#
              “I was under the impression the second bomb was just to show Stalin we had more than one.”

              Nope. The Japanese didn'[t even consider surrendering until Nagasaki got it.
              ————–
              “Wasn’t the terms of surrender Japan offered after the first the same as offered after the second?”

              Yep, and they said “phooey” until the second bomb hit.

              1. Looked a little more, I stand corrected. Even the second bomb was more to show Japan that there was more than one (although I’m sure a bit of it was to let Stalin know, too.)

                1. …”although I’m sure a bit of it was to let Stalin know, too.”

                  You may be, but few others are.

                2. Sweating, the more important aspect of Japanese policy as it related to Stalin was to get to Korea and China before the Soviets could do so without more US loss of life, and that required the Japanese government relinquishing its administration of those regions to us and surrendering control of the Home Islands.

                  There is a reason that Truman was later accused of “losing” china when it was taken over by the Maoists and of being rolled by the Soviets and Red China during the Korean War.

                  1. Ah, interesting. Obviously have some reading to do on the subject.

                  2. The Immaculate Trouser| 8.7.13 @ 10:28PM |#
                    “Sweating, the more important aspect of Japanese policy as it related to Stalin was to get to Korea and China before the Soviets could do so without more US loss of life, and that required the Japanese government relinquishing its administration of those regions to us and surrendering control of the Home Islands.”

                    You mean the US policy toward the Soviets in Manchuria I’m guessing.
                    I’d have to chase it, but one of the recent books I’ve read on the issue has Truman making it quite clear to Stalin that a proposed invasion of Hokkaido was verbotten.
                    Stalin allowed the commander on site to continue preparation until Truman again made it clear that the US would not stand for it.

                    1. Yeah, I meant Manchuria. Figured people would be more familiar if I just simplified it to China and avoided the whole discussion of why Manchuria was even a thing and why we wanted to transfer it to Republican China, and why we didn’t want the Soviets “temporarily” holding on to Manchuria for too long, etc.

                      Stalin really was a rat bastard. I wouldn’t have put it past him to try to gain control of Hokkaido or some other parts of Japan if we’d tried a long-running and costly blockade.

    3. I think the atomic bombings were necessary to end the war, and ultimately saved the lives of more Japanese civilians (not to mention soldiers on both sides) than they killed. That said, I don’t see why there’s anything wrong with remembering and feeling sorry for the innocent people who died in the bombings.

      1. I agree, but as a general rule ‘remembering’ Hirosima and Nagasaki is not about actually remembering, it’s about using the situation for left-wing propaganda.

        If it weren’t, then there’d be the same sort of vigils for our firebombings of Tokyo or Dresden. The Doolittle bombing run actually killed more people than the atomic bombs did.

        1. Left wing propaganda? Might a rememberance held in Japan not be an expression of grief and reflection for their countrymen and likely many relatives who perished?

          1. Grief? Sure.

            Reflection? Hell no. Unlike Germany, Japan still has yet to come to grips with its WWII past, and continues to educate on the subject as if they were the victims — mentioning none of their war crimes, bellicosity, celebrating their military dictatorship and its war criminals, and neglecting to mention any of the context for the bombings.

            The US could do better at remembering the evil of Japanese Internment or our other wartime human rights violations, but at least we admit that they happened and that they were bad.

            1. I grant you that from what I read there is a widespread problem in Japan of coming to terms with the atrocities they committed. I don’t want to be seen as defending their practices. I am glad we won the war, and I am glad the decision in question was not mine. I don’t pretend that it would be an easy one and I don’t reject it out of a mentality of na?ve pacifism. I simply think it was a violation of the laws of war and the rights of many thousands of individuals sacrificed toward a ‘greater good’ they would never see.

              1. the rights of many thousands of individuals [were] sacrificed toward a ‘greater good’ they would never see

                This part I mostly agree with, but find inevitable given the reality of the belligerent regime and its refusal to surrender on our terms.

                it was a violation of the laws of war

                This part I don’t. Civilian casualties were inevitable under all of the realistic alternatives; I prefer that they be isolated to the biggest war targets, to the most militarized civilian populations, and with fair warning ahead of time.

                At least we could tell the Japanese living in those cities to get out ahead of time — what message do you airdrop to a rural peasant living on Hokkaido, “don’t starve”?

              2. Bo Cara Esq.| 8.7.13 @ 9:55PM |#
                …”I simply think it was a violation of the laws of war”
                Bullshit

                “and the rights of many thousands of individuals sacrificed toward a ‘greater good’ they would never see.”
                And outside of starving millions more, which you seem to find just fine, you’ve yet to offer an alternative.

              3. If I remember correctly, time was of the essence and the need to wrap up the war was paramount. The USSR was finished with Germany (hostility wise) and was wanting to get in on the action in the Pacific. I can say with some certainty that the greater good of Japan was served by sacrificing two cities as opposed to having a partitioned Soviet occupation.

                1. I will say that right or wrong, it’s horrible that humanity got to that point. That would have been a horrible decision make. I cringe when I hear ww2 referred to as “the good war” because imho there weren’t any “winners”, just varying degrees of loss.

                2. Tybus| 8.7.13 @ 10:46PM |#
                  “If I remember correctly, time was of the essence and the need to wrap up the war was paramount.”

                  I’m amazed at the number or people who post on this subject and are ignorant of the references.
                  Frank (“Downfall”) claims 100,000 asian civilians were dying per month as a result of Japanese occupation, and you say ‘time was of the essence’?
                  WIH would you post on the matter?

                  1. So you’re saying the primary reason for the bomb was to alleviate the suffering of occupied Asians?

          2. Not to a wingnut. Everything is a liberal plot to them.

          3. Bo Cara Esq.| 8.7.13 @ 9:35PM |#
            “Might a rememberance held in Japan not be an expression of grief and reflection for their countrymen and likely many relatives who perished?”

            You stupid piece of shit, might a “remembrance” be a chance to thank the US for all the people who didn’t die?
            You are a nasty piece of work; stupid and proud of it.

        2. “The Doolittle bombing run actually killed more people than the atomic bombs did.”

          Irish, don’t make statements like that.
          The Doolittle raid killed something like 50 people.
          Seriously, folks, there are many references; guessing at data is not going to make you look good to those who have researched it.

          1. I assume what he’s referring to is the firebombing of Tokyo, but that was certainly not done with one raid. I’d guess he misremembered something he heard or read at some point

            1. Calidissident| 8.7.13 @ 11:16PM |#
              “I assume what he’s referring to is the firebombing of Tokyo, but that was certainly not done with one raid.”

              Yes it was. March 9, 1945.
              Why is it that people who know nothing on the matter chose to post on it?

              1. Operation Meetinghouse, on the 9th and the 10th was by far the largest, resulting in about 100,000 deaths, but it wasn’t the only incident of it, even in just Tokyo. The US had dropped incendiary bombs on Tokyo night of the 24-25th of February. I can’t find figures for the total firebombing death toll in other raids besides Operation Meetinghouse, but total conventional bombing killed an estimated 500,000 people in Japan throughout the war. The immediate death toll from Meetinghouse was higher than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki, but it wasn’t higher than those two combined, or even just Hiroshima if you include people who died later as a consequence.

                http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=217

                Now kindly go fuck yourself. The worst kind of ignorant people are those who pretend to be all-knowing

                1. Stuff it up your ass; you just cited what shows you’re an ignoramus.

                  1. You claimed that all firebombing of Tokyo took place in one raid. I proved that false. How am I an ignoramus?

                    1. Calidissident| 8.8.13 @ 1:01AM |#
                      “You claimed that all firebombing of Tokyo took place in one raid. I proved that false. How am I an ignoramus?”

                      THE firebombing of Tokyo happened on 3/9/1945.

                    2. There was not just one firebombing of Tokyo idiot. The one on March 9th is the most famous and was the most deadly. It was not the only time the city was firebombed. End of story.

          2. “The Doolittle bombing run actually killed more people than the atomic bombs did.”

            Irish, don’t make statements like that.
            The Doolittle raid killed something like 50 people.
            Seriously, folks, there are many references; guessing at data is not going to make you look good to those who have researched it.

            I meant the firebombing of Tokyo and said the wrong thing.

            I think it’s hilarious how unable you are to actually discuss anything without insulting everybody. It’s unbelievable.

            1. It really is. I guess I never really noticed it since most of his arguments are with Tony and Shreek, who don’t really deserve respect and are usually throwing around insults themselves. But even when he’s arguing with non-troll regulars, he’s completely incapable of having an intelligent, rational argument without resorting to personal insults.

              1. Calidissident| 8.8.13 @ 12:47AM |#
                “It really is. I guess I never really noticed it since most of his arguments are with Tony and Shreek”

                Oh, poor Calidissent! Called on bullshit and now sorry about it!

                1. What bullshit? Sorry about what?

            2. Irish| 8.8.13 @ 12:30AM |#
              “I think it’s hilarious how unable you are to actually discuss anything without insulting everybody. It’s unbelievable.”

              I think it’s hilarious that people make ignorant claims regarding WWII and then get upset when it’s pointed out that they don’t know what they are posting about.
              And then gripe about it! How………..
              Stupid.

              1. It’s pretty clear Irish had a momentary lapse and said the wrong thing. And you’re the one who was proven above to not know what the fuck he’s talking about (even when he’s calling others for their supposed ignorance)

                1. Calidissident| 8.8.13 @ 1:03AM |#
                  “It’s pretty clear Irish had a momentary lapse and said the wrong thing”

                  Yes, and that’s the reason you either check first or make a statement that ‘you think’. And that’s the reason I posted ‘you shouldn’t do that’.
                  You should really try not to post bullshit; you seem very sensitive to being called on it.

                  1. “Yes, and that’s the reason you either check first or make a statement that ‘you think’.”

                    We’re on a fucking comment board for an online political magazine. This isn’t a fucking academic conference or a college debate. Irish had a brainfart making an offhand comment in a casual conversation, there’s no need to flip out about it.

                    “You should really try not to post bullshit; you seem very sensitive to being called on it.”

                    Projection much? And that doesn’t even make sense, this whole subthread is about you calling out Irish, not me. If you want to call what Irish posted “bullshit” then fine, but I’m not the one who posted it, why would I be sensitive about it?

        3. If it weren’t, then there’d be the same sort of vigils for our firebombings of Tokyo or Dresden.

          True.

          The Doolittle bombing run actually killed more people than the atomic bombs did.

          Not true, not even close.

          1. Ah, now I see you meant the Tokyo firebombing.

        4. “I agree, but as a general rule ‘remembering’ Hirosima and Nagasaki is not about actually remembering, it’s about using the situation for left-wing propaganda.

          If it weren’t, then there’d be the same sort of vigils for our firebombings of Tokyo or Dresden. The Doolittle bombing run actually killed more people than the atomic bombs did.”

          I think that’s definitely true in the US (I think the raw destructive power a single atomic bomb can have has a greater effect on the psyche of people compared to less efficient means of killing like firebombing, resulting in greater opposition, even if the latter has a similar death toll). I don’t really know how the firebombing of Tokyo is remembered in Japan compared to the atomic bombings, and it makes sense that the bombing of Dresden obviously wouldn’t hold nearly as much importance as the other three in Japan.

      2. “That said, I don’t see why there’s anything wrong with remembering and feeling sorry for the innocent people who died in the bombings.”

        Nor do I. Claiming victimhood, OTOH is inappropriate, and that is exactly what the Japanese are doing.

        1. You could have posted a better example than lighting paper lanterns

          1. Offer one, I’ll do so.

            1. I’m not the one making that argument. But the stuff IT talked about above is a better example

              1. Calidissident| 8.7.13 @ 11:47PM |#
                “I’m not the one making that argument”

                ‘Scuse me? You’re the one making the argument that it doesn’t suit you.

                1. You’re the one making the argument that the Japanese are doing this because they want to claim victimhood. If lighting lanterns is your ultimate proof of that (remember our little discussion about evidence and proof from the weekend thread? Now it’s your time to provide some), then that’s pretty weak.

                  1. Calidissident| 8.8.13 @ 12:21AM |#
                    “You’re the one making the argument that the Japanese are doing this because they want to claim victimhood. If lighting lanterns is your ultimate proof of that (remember our little discussion about evidence and proof from the weekend thread? Now it’s your time to provide some), then that’s pretty weak.”

                    Awfully sorry you find it “weak”. Your problem, not mine.
                    And yes, I remember the discussion re: evidence; you have none. Not ‘weak’ evidence; none. But that never stopped a bleever!

                    1. “Awfully sorry you find it “weak”. Your problem, not mine.”

                      Whatever.

                      “And yes, I remember the discussion re: evidence; you have none.”

                      And you even have less in this discussion.

                      “But that never stopped a bleever!”

                      I’m not a “bleever” so I don’t really see how that is relevant. I’m pretty sure I’ve told you that multiple times, but I guess you lack the mental capacity to remember simple things, or are incapable of realizing that someone can disagree with you without being a Christfag.

  20. If you like crashes, watch these 2 documentaries:
    Faster
    Fastest

    about MotoGP.
    Lots of people flying of motorcycles at high speed.

    1. off
      off motorcycles.

  21. OT and apologies if this has been brought up befoe. TSA “VIPR” teams now searching people OUTSIDE transportation hubs

    FTA : With little fanfare, the agency best known for airport screenings has vastly expanded its reach to sporting events, music festivals, rodeos, highway weigh stations and train terminals.

    1. -has vastly expanded its reach

      Wonderful turn of phrase!

    2. The average TSA screener would lose in Scrabble to a howler monkey.

      Not to mention that it takes a special kind of sadist to comfortable indiscriminately terrify and molest the general public.

      And now these turds get their leash let out a little more.

      1. comfortably*

        1. Whoa. Weird.

          But yeah, I did use the same analogy.

      2. I know someone who took a job with the TSA because he really needed the money. I would respect him more if he’d just started giving blowjobs in a truck stop restroom for $10.

        If I were an employer, I would hire a convicted felon well before a proud TSO.

        1. Yeah, I had my bag screened by a high school classmate when I flew home a few years ago.

          First off, awkward. Second, he said that this what what he was doing as a backup plan after not being able to make it into the police academy. Then I lost all the respect that I never had for him.

        2. If I were an employer, I would hire a convicted felon well before a proud TSO.

          Yeah, Trans-Siberian Orchestra sucks balls.

  22. I know most people here already realize this, but I find it worth explicitly noting that this little girl’s life was effectively saved not by some government action, but despite it.

  23. Every tried severe epilepsy…. on weeeed???

    Hm… guess it doesn’t really work for that one.

    Glad Charlotte’s doing better, though.

  24. Whenever statists want to justify a new law or regulation they trot out the “It’s for the childrenz!” and “If it saves one life!” arguments.

    Marijuana saved this child’s life. Time to legalize, no?

    1. Ratchets only go one way…

  25. New Hampshire poll released today:

    Twenty-one percent of likely Republican primary voters would support New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. Kentucky Senator Rand Paul had 16 percent; former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush had 10 percent; and Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan had 8 percent.

    http://www.startribune.com/pol…..69351.html

    1. New Hampshire is a New England state, I’m not very surprised that Christie is ahead there.

      1. Stop

      2. Me either. The very fact that Rand Paul has only a 21 to 16 deficit against Christy in New Jersey, tells me that if the primaries were held now, Paul would crush Christie like a bug in most states.

        No matter how excited ButtPlug is about the fat boy, there is no way he is getting a GOP nomination. Maybe be Hillarys running mate on the D ticket.

        1. If Rand Paul would openly support drug legalization I would donate to him.

          1. That’s one of my hangups with Rand too.

            1. Meh. He could do that, or he could have a shot at winning.

              Sorry folks, but Paul actually has a decent chance at the GOP nomination. The vast majority of the country is not ready for full-bore libertarian ideas yet. I’ll be very happy if we at least start going in the right direction, we don’t need to scare everyone off at the beginning.

              Or aren’t you seeing already how many people are trying to paint Paul as part of a lunatic fringe? How do you think that crowd would respond to “let’s legalize all drugs”?

              1. I’d rather him not involve it in his platform if it’s too risky and he’d rather focus on more pressing matters, but seeing him come out and say that he does indeed have a stance and that it’s with the drug warriors… it’s just painful.

        2. Lots of Jersey Repubs are pissed at Christy. While he did some good stuff early in his term (property tax increase cap, lift cap on charter schools) he’s basically sat on his big fat one for the past two years. We still have record unemployment (higher than the national average) and staggering unfunded public pension liabilities. He’s loud and bellicose but delivers very little. All talk, no action. He’ll easily win reelection, but his opponent is hapless.

          While he’s gained support among Dems, he’s lost nearly as much among Repubs. I can see another Repub winning the primary in Jersey – if he runs for president.

      3. Also a big Ron Paul state – he won 23% in 2012.

        Rand is underperforming his father by quite a bit. Long way to go yet.

        1. That’s ridiculous given this is an early poll with many undecided or not sure respondents and many more names available to choose than would actually be on the ballot. Do you not realize that by your logic Christie is ‘underperforming’ Ron Paul?

        2. WTF are you talking about? In the June 5, 2012, New Jersey Primary, Romney got 80% of the vote. Paul only got 10%.

          Are you just going to make up shit now?

          1. Ok, NH, yeah Paul did well there. But that’s the only NE state that he did well in.

            1. When I hear the word Christie, I automatically think of NJ. And Romney still won NH, with 39% of the vote. By that measure, Rand is doing better against Christie there than Ron did against Romney. So you’re still making shit up.

          2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R….._primaries

            Don’t challenge me on facts. I own the data.

            (Jan 10, 2012 primary)

            1. You don’t own shit, and read my post above. Ron did worse against Romney than Rand is doing now against Christie. You’re full of it.

              1. NH, 2012 primary final results, Romney 39% – Paul 23%.

                Now you say Rand is doing worse against Christie at 21% – 16%.

                That’s a 16% edge compared to a 5% edge. And we are a long ways out from the primary.

                You just don’t like Rand because he has embarrassed your dear leader. Just admit it.

                1. I like Rand Paul. He is easily the best of the rumored candidates to date.

                  Mostly I like gridlock. I prefer a (D) president and (R) House but the converse will work if it is a non warmonger R like RP.

            2. Well hello Mister Shreek. I’ve got news for you pal, you ain’t ownin’ but two things, right now: Jack and shit… and Jack left town.

      4. Give it not the sustenance it seeks in your response, but condemn it to a vile fate through ignorance.

        1. Many of you have no shortage of ignorance.

          1. You have no shortage of dishonesty. Like the bullshit that you said above about Ron doing better in NH against the front runner, than Rand is doing.

            1. Doing better “against the frontrunner”?

              Never said that.

              1. Rand is underperforming his father by quite a bit. Long way to go yet

                So if that’s not what you meant, what did you mean? You presented no other evidence for that statement besides the NH polling data, which clearly indicates that Rand is NOT doing worse than his father did, but better.

          2. No shit about the ignorance. Just last night several “intelligent” commenters were trying to convince me that in the 1960s, the Feds were every bit as officially racist in their legislation as the southern states were, and played no part in ending Jim Crow or segregation.

            Their argument? Since the FedGov was segregated/officially racist previously (at the behest of a progressive democrat, Wilson), that someone completely invalidates the fact that another democrat (Truman) desegregated the armed forces, another democrat (LBJ*) passed the Civil Rights acts, and generally the Feds got their house in order decades before the southern states did. And even when the tide of change was inevitable, they went kicking and screaming, trying to block schools, bomb black churches, etc.

            1. You see, it wasn’t federal troops in Arkansas that helped those kids get to school, because if they were, that would mean the FedGov was helping to end local tyranny on the state/muni level. That’s just a lie liberal history teachers tell. They were actually upstanding members of the Arkansas State Police. And George Wallace personally prevented LBJ from resegregating the schools. Because, you know, the southern states weren’t more racist than the FedGov at that time. I know, because the commenters here told me so.

              Actually all they would tell me was that the Feds were officially racist decades earlier, and for some reason nobody would answer the straight question: which entities were promoting and legislating segregation in 1960: the federal government, or the states? Nobody would answer that question. They just kept screaming about what happened in the teens and 20s, rather than addressing the decades under discussion. The decades that shaped much of modern black thinking about the role of the feds vis-a-vis the states. Not many left around to shake their fists about getting shafted by Wilson.

              *not that that rehabilitates LBJ in the aggregate, because mostly he was a fascist pig fucker, crooked as a fence post, and everybody knows it. Anybody who Jack Valenti thinks was awesome, is probably Hitler.

            2. “Just last night several “intelligent” commenters were trying to convince me that in the 1960s, the Feds were every bit as officially racist in their legislation as the southern states were”

              Post one comment from last night where anyone said that. Throughout the history of the country, the feds have been better on race than some of the states, and worse than others. That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement, or a record that gives the feds the right to claim that they’ve been a great friend to minorities over the years. And for the record, LBJ didn’t unilaterally pass the CRA through royal decree (and Dewey, Truman’s opponent in the 48 election, was also supportive of desegregating the military)

            3. Their argument? Since the FedGov was segregated/officially racist previously (at the behest of a progressive democrat, Wilson), that someone completely invalidates the fact that another democrat (Truman) desegregated the armed forces, another democrat (LBJ*) passed the Civil Rights acts, and generally the Feds got their house in order decades before the southern states did.

              “WAAAHHH!!! Mommy!!!! They wouldn’t let me frame the argument the way I wanted to!! They weren’t playing right!! Mommy!”

              That’s all I saw from you.

    2. It’s way too early for any poll to be meaningful, but if I had to bet on a GOP ticket, I’d say Scott Walker/Rand Paul.

  26. -Is Medical Marijuana Safe for Pets?

    http://shine.yahoo.com/pets/me…..00346.html

    1. If your pets are confirmed to be stoned on the pot, they must be shot on site by our benevolent peace officers, for their own good, and the children.

  27. This is a fucking outrage (unnecessary license).

    http://www.ajc.com/news/news/l…..all/nZHSr/

    A $350 stripper license fee?

    1. Glad to see you angry about it. Mom not able to give you an allowance this month?

    2. This is why we need a living wage for (ugly) strippers.

    3. No one wants to see you naked anyway.

    4. Payable in a pile of funky-smelling $1 bills.

  28. You know, the really sad thing is that this story, while so happy of one now, given way to the desires of our all benevolent government will turn into a nightmare. Here is what will happen if the statists get their way.

    The cops will bust down the door of this family in the middle of the night, shoot the family pets, arrest the parents and haul them off to prison, and put the little girl under the protection of the state, who will hand her off to some foster parents, where she will be deprived of her life saving marijuana, for her own good, and put on some state prescribed medication, which will promptly kill her.

    All of that will be done to protect us, from ourselves.

    1. Yeah, but you know who makes money off of drugs?

      TERRORISTS.

      Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, you pothead creep.

      1. Yeah, I know, I want the terrorists to win. They have that all recorded at the NSA.

  29. Dunno if this was linked yesterday, but New pope decries “free market economics,” suggests financial leaders focus on income inequality. I know very little about Catholicism, so maybe I’m just not aware of the pope’s economic bona fides, but this sounds par for something Melissa Harris-Perry might regurgitate from her teleprompter.

    1. Are you familiar with “Liberation Theology”?

      1. The linked article explains (with citations) how the Pope’s statements are hardly new. The Church has always advocated some government intervention to take the edge off some of the harsher aspects of capitalism. As an Argentinian, this Pope got to see poverty up close and personal, poverty of a severity many Americans aren’t used to.

        Historically, Church-bashers have focused on the Popes’ (prophetic) opposition to communism and socialism, not their approval of some regulation.

        I doubt that the Pope is going to revive Liberation Theology as such – the Vatican believes it is warmed-over theology and “political messianism.” The actual practitioners of liberation theology don’t seem to have warmed much to Francis – and he’s criticized Argentina’s socialist government.

        1. warmed-over *Marxism*

        2. I don’t disagree at all; it simply wasn’t what I was trying to say.

          He admitted knowing very little about Catholicism, and mentioned Harris-Perry… It was a natural reference.

          1. I have a bit of familiarity with the Pope’s thinking (not a lot, though), and I have little or no familiarity with Ms. Perry’s worldview, except that I probably wouldn’t like it.

        3. Argentina isn’t poor because of capitalism. They were actually one of the wealthiest countries in the world before they adopted socialism

        4. intervention to take the edge off some of the harsher aspects of capitalism

          That’s one of the things churches are for. *Cough*

      2. I wasn’t, and probably won’t be till after finals, but I bookmarked the page to peruse later.

        It’s less troubling that Francis’ admonitions aren’t some new stance the Church is henceforth taking, but coincidentally more troubling that these ideas have been knocking about in vague, aphoristic terms for over a century now. Given the longevity of the Church, several popes now have witnessed the stratospheric rise in living standards in some parts of the globe and its spread to historically impoverished corners. I realize they don’t mind-meld a la the Bene Gesserit, but of religious groups with a strong social impetus I’d expect a measure of perspective and reflection from the Vatican. Instead I’m reading the same half-baked ideas of income equality passed down over the decades, with no apparent self-consciousness. The some people are rich, and others, poor, therefore the rich must steal from the poor trope is so blithely ignorant in the face of huge social mobilization over the past century that I can’t help but attribute it to class-conflict theory: it’s a popular thing to say to appease the rabble.

        1. It’s called the Protestant work ethic for a reason, Dweeb.

          (I kid, I kid…)

    2. Who gives a rats fucking ass what some old dude in a funny hat thinks? I sure as hell don’t.

      The Pope has about as much economic bona-fides as Elvis or the Easter Bunny.

      Melissa Harris-Perry just has a different religion than the Pope, it’s called statism. The results are the same, the dumbest and most morally deficient of us trying to tell everyone else what to do.

      1. It wasn’t supposed to convince you.

        Read this as an implicit endorsement of state-controlled economies over liberalization in central America.

        1. Yeah, that’s pretty fucked up. He’s basically urging the inhabitants to continue the same economic policies that have totally impoverished them while allowing their political leaders to continue looting the public coffers.

          1. They don’t need any encouragement.

            1. Maybe, but cutting the moral legs out from under their opposition is unhelpful.

        2. I was responding to Dweebstons question about ‘I know very little about Catholicism, so maybe I’m just not aware of the pope’s economic bona fides’.

          A very large percentage of Central and South America is Catholic. My wife was raised a Catholic, but doesn’t practice it.

        3. A state-controlled economy sounds like socialism, which the Popes have consistently denounced. As Leo XIII said in 1891:

          “4. To remedy these wrongs the socialists, working on the poor man’s envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that by thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each citizen will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that were they carried into effect the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are, moreover, emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community.

          1. “5. It is surely undeniable that, when a man engages in remunerative labor, the impelling reason and motive of his work is to obtain property, and thereafter to hold it as his very own. If one man hires out to another his strength or skill, he does so for the purpose of receiving in return what is necessary for the satisfaction of his needs; he therefore expressly intends to acquire a right full and real, not only to the remuneration, but also to the disposal of such remuneration, just as he pleases. Thus, if he lives sparingly, saves money, and, for greater security, invests his savings in land, the land, in such case, is only his wages under another form; and, consequently, a working man’s little estate thus purchased should be as completely at his full disposal as are the wages he receives for his labor. But it is precisely in such power of disposal that ownership obtains, whether the property consist of land or chattels. Socialists, therefore, by endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large, strike at the interests of every wage-earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life.”

            http://www.vatican.va/holy_fat…..um_en.html

          2. Isn’t socialism an atheist religion? That’s what I always thought. In socialism/communism/progressivism, the state is god.

            1. That’s certainly what the Popes have suggested. Re liberation theology, before he was Pope he wrote this in a preface to a friend’s book:

              “”After the collapse of “real socialism” (that is, Marxism), these currents of thought (liberation theology) were plunged into confusion. Incapable of either radical reformulation or new creativity, they survived by inertia, even if there are still some today who, anachronistically, would like to propose it again.””

              http://www.catholicherald.co.u…..pposed-it/

            2. One thing to note is that communism, for a long time, had an atheist wing and a Christian wing.

              The Marxist communist state is supposed to usher in a new socialist man, essentially, it’s millennial. Do some thing, and you’ll get the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth (complete with changed people who act as Marx thinks they should). Even though it was atheist (explicitly?) it was still based on the utopian theology of a few Christian monks.

              1. The original Utopia was Thomas More’s, was it not?

                1. I was thinking Joachim. It’s very interesting stuff (dispensationalism, millenarianism).

                  Rothbard had a lot on the subject.

                  It’s amazing the things the Joachimites and their intellectual descendants started, that still went on in “modern” communist societies.

                  1. I was thinking of the Taborites, I guess.

                    The Hussite revolution broke out in 1419, and in that same year, the Taborites gathered at the town of Usti, in northern Bohemia near the German border. They renamed Usti “Tabor,” i.e., the Mount of Olives where Jesus had foretold his Second Coming, was ascended to heaven, and where he was expected to reappear. The radical Taborites engaged in a communist experiment at Tabor, owning everything in common, and being dedicated to the proposition that “whoever owns private property commits a mortal sin.” True to their doctrines, all women were owned in common, and if husband and wife were ever seen together, they were beaten to death or otherwise executed.

                    Characteristically, the Taborites were so caught up in their unlimited right to consume from the common store that they felt themselves exempt from the need to work. The common store soon disappeared, and then what? Then, of course, the radical Taborites claimed that their need entitled them to claim the property of the non-Elect, and they proceeded to rob others at will.

            3. Again, “Liberation Theology.”

              See why I brought this up, Ed?

              1. I was not in any way seeking a quarrel, and I hope you didn’t read my posts in that sense.

                1. Re Thomas More – There’s some debate over how much was serious and how much he was using his Utopia (“no-place”) as a jumping-off point to satirize contemporary England/Europe.

                  1. It is obviously a work of satire, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t serious. In fact, I find purely “farcical” readings of it to be appalling. More was obviously enamored with social engineering, to say the least…

                    As for the quarrel-seeking, I didn’t read your comment that way at all. I hadn’t actually refreshed and read everything above when I last posted.

                  2. I’ve questioned a lot of people over the years when they reveal to me their preference for one redistribution scheme or another what motivates them to believe them to be valid and moral imperatives. I find them less influenced by socialist doctrine or even political party leaning than church doctrine. This goes for Republicans raised in Catholic and mainline denominations who have expressed support for Medicare and Social Security, as well. Their answers do not differ substantially from that of an AME minister to whom I had the pleasure to talk with at length. Modern interpretation of Christianity is the leading source of socialist policy even if in some parts of the world like Europe religious influence has dampened significantly, the conversion to socialist orientation occurred when churches were dominant in the pre-war years and strongly supported welfare policies.

                    1. “the conversion to socialist orientation occurred when churches were dominant in the pre-war years and strongly supported welfare policies.”

                      Certainly, many church figures supported welfare policies – lots of Europeans were freaked out by the depression and the war and the insecurity, hunger, etc. which came with them, and thought some redistribution was just what the Dr. ordered. There were even “Christian socialists.”

                      If I could provide a partial political defense, these Christian forces were competing with the Commies for the allegiance of the poor. Across-the-board libertarianism was off the table (despite economic liberalization in some areas); the debate was hard-core Marxism vs. some kind of democratic welfare state. It was a close-fought thing.

                      After the degenerative effects of the welfare state had grown obvious, Europe had gotten secular.

                    2. In the USA, there’s certainly a redistributionist Religious Left – and if it weren’t for the cultural issues, the Catholic bishops would mostly be put in that category. It’s not their premises that are mistaken – helping the poor is a key measure of spiritual health. The question is about the best method of attaining this spiritual goal, and Christians can be as mistaken about this as anyone, and neglect the key libertarian insights.

                      But I would still compare even most of the Religious Left with the secular redistributionist types – I’ve met some, and I’ve sometimes noticed the Internet discussion on the “skeptic” forums, and I think it’s fair to say the secular types, taken as a whole, aren’t any libertarian-er than the Sky Daddy crowd.

                    3. I don’t mean just the immediate pre-war period of the thirties though I could have been more clearer in the choice of words there; I mean before WWI, well into the nineteenth century before anti-Catholicism reached Portugal and Mexico, when the churches competed with no one in terms of public influence. They were forming the basis of modern Christianity, emphasizing Christ’s good works, and how we can emulate Christ through redistributionist policies. Ironically perhaps, Ayn Rand and Richard Neuhaus have from very different vantage points characterized this as a historical failing that has produced much harm in the world.

                    4. emphasizing Christ’s good works over a literal belief in his divinity

                    5. I think you even find a strain of this in Thomas Paine’s complaints of religious fervor replacing the libertarian spirit of 1776 in his return to America later in life. We tend to blame Marx and political theorist, but they had little influence outside intellectual elites. The Christian churches laid the ground work for socialism to be publicly acceptable.

    3. This made me think of something related.

      Is there a Catholic in here who can tell me whether your church believes (still believes?) that the pope’s decrees are infallible?

      1. They are considered infallible if the pope makes a statement ex cathedra. What actually counts as ex cathedra is conveniently defined down as needed every couple hundred years.

        1. Thanks.

        2. By the way: I’m not a Catholic.

          1. Religious?

            1. It depends on who you ask.

              1. Fair enough. I’m Presbyterian which is, as a denomination, a direct result of the failure of the Protestant Reformation to reform the Catholic church.

                Anyway, that’s where the curiosity comes from. The apologetics for Catholicism seem to have grown more and more tailored to Protestant arguments (as they naturally would be, I suppose).

        3. There’s a lot of dispute, which won’t be resolved here. The consensus is that, over the past couple centuries *at least* the Marian dogmas (the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption) were pronounced infallibly.

          Thomas Woods, a Catholic of some libertarian sympathies, gives *one perspective* applicable to the economic encyclicals:

          http://takimag.com/article/tru…..z1bi7Xsdvx

          1. Thanks. Interesting.

        4. Silly pope, keeps losing his keys.

  30. I’ve always wanted to start a new religion. I want to call it the Man Church. Every Sunday you go to this fancy building that you built (guys only, besides the strippers and hookers), and you drink beer and watch sports all fucking day. Then you just tell the wife or gf that God told you to do this, and you have no choice, unless you want to goto to hell, and it’s a package deal.

    1. Denis Leary beat you to it.

      There is also his Man Bar…

      1. Ex-Catholics tend to make the best apostates. Think James Joyce. When they go out, they go out with a real flourish.

        1. I’ve wondered for a while if it isn’t an Irish thing, too…

          Eugene O’Neill, anyone?

    2. Yeah, that’ll work.

      1. Once you’ve invoked the invisible sky gods, there is no end to what is workable.

        1. And what will the wives and gf be doing during this Sunday worship time? I’m sure you have some idea of what women can get up to when they’re aggrieved and left to their lonesome.

          1. Tell me more….

            1. Wait until her novel comes out on Kindle.

  31. Pot is good man, pot is good!

    http://www.AnonMega.tk

    1. Somehow that is a buzz kill.

      1. MappRapp is no WomSom.

  32. Why does the headline say “May Have”?

    1. Because there’s always the possibility she could have endured horrible suffering for years, without dying.

      1. The article says her heart was stopping and she had a no resuscitate order so I assume she was already dying.

  33. I just want this to be clear to those who chose not to be involved in the nuclear weapons portions of the thread:

    Bo Cara Esq.| 8.7.13 @ 10:15PM |#
    “I think we should only have tried to kill enemy soldiers”

    Isn’t that sweet? I mean, it would be wonderful if in WWII, the only people who died were soldiers, right? Well, no it wouldn’t; soldiers in large part didn’t chose to die either.

    But Bo, in his ignorance, seems to think that the allies chose to kill civilians. I’m guessing is because Bo is a brain-dead idiot. Or it could be because he’s purposely misdirecting the discussion.
    If someone has an alternative theory, I’d love to hear it, including Bo; fool or knave?
    Let’s hear it.

    1. I shouldn’t bite, but…

      He’s simply mistaken, because of some confusion about weighing war aims, proportionality, etc.

      However, one part of the statement that you ascribe to him is true: The allies did choose to kill civilians at various times. Sometimes, that was justified; sometimes it wasn’t.

      1. Gozer the Gozerian| 8.7.13 @ 11:49PM |#
        “He’s simply mistaken, because of some confusion about weighing war aims, proportionality, etc.”
        I’m not sure why you presume he’s ‘simply mistaken’. He was asked many times to offer alternatives, he was corrected on his assumptions, was told of the possible alternatives and the likely results of those. The man (I presume) is simply ignorant of the circumstances and yet choses to act as some sort of moral superior regardless of the facts.
        So now I have a question for you: Why do you treat such a self-rigtheous ignoramus kindly? Is this somehow different than shithead promoting ‘intent’ over result?

        “However, one part of the statement that you ascribe to him is true: The allies did choose to kill civilians at various times. Sometimes, that was justified; sometimes it wasn’t.”
        I’d ask what you’ve read on the matter, since it is amazing the number of people who comment in ignorance.
        Now, please tell us when the choice was made to kill civilians and under what circumstances.

        1. I treat my discussants and interlocutors kindly because I have a modicum of good taste, manners, etiquette, etc. I also assume good faith in my relations with others. We have been through this…

          As for your nonsense about civilians and “what I have read,” your arrogant posturing tires: Fucking Dresden, how did it work? Moreover, we already discussed the “conventional” bombing of Japan. Do I need to elaborate?

          Honestly, Sevo, if you are going to keep playing such games…

          1. Well, Gozer:

            “As for your nonsense about civilians and “what I have read,” your arrogant posturing tires: Fucking Dresden, how did it work?”

            How did it work?
            Now, for your homework assignment, please cite the reasons for bombing Dresden, and tell us why it was wrong.
            No, Vonnegut is not a source. You seem no more informed than the idiot you defend, and I’m pretty sure it’s obvious why.

            1. Dresden was the quintessential civilian target. The reasons don’t relate to anything I have asserted. I have also made no claim about the morality of that action.

              You really are a piece of work.

              1. Gozer the Gozerian| 8.8.13 @ 12:46AM |#
                “Dresden was the quintessential civilian target. The reasons don’t relate to anything I have asserted”

                Your sophistry tires. Strange how, when called on bullshit, the assertions change.
                This ‘piece of work’ calls you on bullshit, and I’m sure you hoped to get away with it.

                1. You didn’t really dispute the quintessentiality of the Dresden bombing, though.

                  Come on, I’m following this with tepid-bordering-on-lukewarm interest. I need meatier content from you all.

                  1. Dweebston| 8.8.13 @ 1:13AM |#
                    “You didn’t really dispute the quintessentiality of the Dresden bombing, though.”

                    Uh, if that’s aimed at me, I didn’t bother since it was claimed, not shown.

                  2. Dweebston,
                    The claims re: Dresden and terror bombing are common; similar to the claims that the nuclear weapons were irrelevant to ending WWII. Similarly, the casualties are commonly exaggerated; pretty sure the most accurate Dresden ‘guess’ is ~25K.
                    Anyhow, if you remind me, I’ll chase out the books and give you page numbers. It’ll be “World at War” (Weinstein), “Clash of Wings” (Boyne) and “Downfall) (Frank).

            2. One famous example is “Bomber” Harris, who made it pretty clear that a goal of strategic bombing was to “dehouse” workers and destroy their morale.

              From the very start (and earlier), WWII involved lots of civilian slaughter. The Japanese and Germans did it aggressively, the Soviets were pretty awful to German civilians (see The Fall of Berlin 1945 by Antony Beevor), the British pretty much targeted civilians via inaccurate nighttime bombing, and after the Rape of Shanghai, Pearl Harbor, Bataan, etc., yeah, the US didn’t really go too far out of their way to avoid killing Japanese civilians. They did what was considered necessary to win the war. AFAIK, though, we didn’t aim at civilians the way the Japanese and Germans often did. E.g.: Kyoto was considered as an A-bomb target but vetoed.

              1. “They did what was considered necessary to win the war.”

                No lack of that, but they also did what was possible.
                Hansell (20th AF) tried “precision” bombing over Japan as the 8th AF had tried over Germany. “Precision” was not possible, so the alternative was not bombing or bombing as was possible.
                Allowing the AF to sit there if they couldn’t hit a pea-pod was not going to be acceptable to the governments or the populations in WWII.

                1. Precision wasn’t possible (it forced the change from high altitude conventional bombing to low-altitude fire-bombing in Japan.

                  And there’s a certain amount of leeway that needs to be given when (in Japan) some parts of the country had small residential and industrial sectors right next to each other.

                  However that doesn’t change the fact that in Europe, where that wasn’t the case most of the time, we deliberately targeted residential areas both for conventional attack and firebombing.

                  The firebombing of Dresden had no other reason for being except ‘Total War’.

                  1. I believe Japanese war material production was dispersed and often done in small workshops or even homes.

              2. “Rape of Shanghai”

                I presume you mean Nanking? I’m sure Shanghai had some atrocities occur there, but I’m unaware of anything called the “Rape of Shanghai,” and the Rape of Nanking is the quintessential example of Japanese atrocities in China

                1. Calidissident| 8.8.13 @ 1:22AM |#
                  “Rape of Shanghai”

                  Threaded comments; who referred to that? I don’t see it.

                  1. Papaya did.

                  2. Ctrl+F.

                    I find this a subject very difficult to form a cogent opinion about. I trend to split my views in two: on the one hand, bombing targets irrespective of civilian casualties is an unconscionable sin against any sense of moral decorum. It runs counter to my desire to see civilians disaggregated from the numbers given in history books, and the casualties individualized. I despise the notion of enemy civilians as blithely homogenous bunches, indistinguishable from combatants but for the rifles.

                    On the other hand, what else were we (“we”) to do? Especially since our adversaries had no such compunctions. Reconciling reality with my trifling aesthetic isn’t merely a matter of making concessions, it’s a schizophrenic effort to keep separate wartime realities from my libertarian leanings. Chris Hedges’ correspondence captures this better than I will.

                2. Oops, meant Nanking. Brain fart.

                  1. Better watch out. Sevo might call you an ignoramus who should shut his mouth about things he knows nothing about because you’re not perfect at recalling information

        2. Uh, firebombing Japan and Germany. Deliberate targeting of residential areas before that.

          WWII was fought on the principle of ‘Total War’. That to win you had to not only destroy an enemy’s military but also his industrial capacity (so no more war materiel can be produced) and attack the population (to demoralize them).

          It was a huge failure. Factories bombed were up and running again in weeks and the citizenry became *more* supportive of fighting against people committing these atrocities.

          I’m surprised you don’t know this – you’re a big supporter of the concept when it comes to killing people who are putting out fires or providing medical aid to those caught in *our* attacks.

          1. “I’m surprised you don’t know this – you’re a big supporter of the concept when it comes to killing people who are putting out fires or providing medical aid to those caught in *our* attacks.”

            Did Sevo say that? I remember Cytotoxic (of course) was enthusiastically in favor, and I believe Night Elf Mohawk defended it, but I don’t remember Sevo (not saying he didn’t, I just didn’t see it if he did) doing that

            1. You’re right, I got ‘im confused with someone else.

              So let me formally apologize to Sevo for this slur to his honor.

          2. It was a huge failure

            Exactly, as our beloved Fuhrer has made plain.

            What? The Axis lost? Oh.

  34. Gay actor Stephen Fry calls for Sochi Olympics ban

    1. Sochi it to me, mama!

    2. Did not know he was gay.

      1. All Englishmen are a little gay.

  35. Gotta find a place that still carries this

    1. The good old days, when America was truly libertarian.

      Next to that ad you might also have seen this.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.