Miscellaneous Musings and Threads Worth Noting:

Briefly on a variety of threads...

Palin casts herself as Washington outsider

Just a sample:

"Here's a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion. I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country."

I have nothing at the moment that discourages me from appreciating this pick for vp on the part of Sen. McCain. I may expand a bit on what I have already written about her{1} in the coming days or weeks.

Sarah Palin's speech a series of cheapshots

My combox comments on that thread suffice to give a brief take on my view of this so I will reiterate them now.

Essentially, I am surprised at the hypocrisy of those who would rake Gov. Palin over the coals for days and then when she punches back a bit, she is the one being juvenile. Sen. Biden and Sen. Obama were throwing plenty of hooks at Sen. McCain during their DNC speeches (particularly Biden) and I do not recall these same msm talking heads launching the same criticisms. Biden can go after McCain relentlessly and that is fine, the msm can slam Gov. Palin repeatedly and that is fine yet if Gov. Palin throws some shots at Obama and now that is "unacceptable"??? What a bunch of hypocrites!!!

I have never in my life seen a political candidate for president who has gotten more of an easy ride than Sen. Obama has. I really hope Sen. McCain exposes what I view as the five factors that would sink Sen. Obama's chances with anyone who is capable of being even the slightest bit objective on these matters. There is nothing in Sen. McCain's background or in positions he has taken that are comparable to them{2} and that is all I will say on the matter for the present time.

Gov. Sarah Palin's Speech

I fail to see how this speech is full of more "cheap shots" than the one delivered by Sen. Joe Biden. But enough on that for now and onto this interesting thread on Sen. Barack Obama...

Barack Obama, Aspiring Commissar

Here is just a bit more than a taste to whet the appetite for more...

This has led Kurtz, naturally, to scrutinize the relationship between Obama and one of his early political sponsors, William Ayers. Ayers, as we have previously detailed, is a confessed terrorist who, having escaped prosecution due to surveillance violations that came to light during his decade on the lam after a bombing spree, landed an influential professorship in education at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC). As he has made clear several times before and after helping to launch Obama’s political career, Ayers remains defiantly proud of bombing the Pentagon, the U.S. Capitol, and other targets. He expresses regret only that he didn’t do more. Far from abandoning his radical politics, he has simply changed methods: the classroom, rather than the detonator, is now his instrument for campaigning against an America he portrays as racist and imperialist.

Obama supporters risibly complain that shining a light on the Obama/Ayers relationship is a “smear” and smacks of “guilt by association.” A presidential candidate’s choice to associate himself with an unrepentant terrorist would be highly relevant in any event — does anyone think the Obamedia would keep mum if John McCain had a long-standing relationship with David Duke or an abortion-clinic bomber?

But we are talking about more than a mere “association.”

Then there is the question of what the conservative talk radio hosts may be able to do to "stop Obama"...

Can conservative talk radio stop Obama?

I notice the article is weighed heavily on Sean Hannity whom readers of this weblog for some time probably know we have gone from "not that fond of" to "disgusted by.{3} But that point aside, we have to ask what we would do with Sen. Obama and that fascist so-called "fairness doctrine" he and his ideological allies are interested in reviving.

Notes:

{1} On Sen. McCain's Selection of Governor Sarah Palin as His Running Mate (circa August 29, 2008)

On Governor Sarah Palin, Recent Revelations, and Ethical Standards (circa September 2, 2008)

{2} Those familiar with past statements in the archives pertaining to Sen. McCain know he has done some things that have riled me to no small degree.

{3} It is probably the case that many would presume that I have been some major promoter of Sean Hannity over the years because on several subjects he and I are to a degree simpatico. But on reviewing my archive briefly, I found only nine references to Hannity in it and they were covered in this thread earlier in the week.[...] But having done those things, here is my view on Hannity and as is my wont I am consistent. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 3, 2008)]

Remembering a Music Legend:

As yesterday was the anniversary of the birth of blues master Freddie King{1}, I wanted to take a moment and remind readers of what I wrote on this occasion two years ago:

"Palace of the King" Dept. -A Tribute to Freddie (circa September 3, 3006)

I do not have much more to say at the moment than what was noted there though I do want to put a picture to words as well so here is Freddie in a 1973 live performance of one of his classics Have You Ever Loved A Woman. Enjoy!!!



Rest in Peace "Texas Cannonball"...

On Governor Sarah Palin, Recent Revelations, and Ethical Standards:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

[Update: Upon reading this post again today, the roughness of the text (drafted late last night) was evident to me so I tweaked it a bit in spots. -ISM 9/2/08 7:20pm]

The msm and the Democratic party partisans as a rule{1} are going to try and make plenty of hay in some recent revelations about Governor Sarah Palin once they cannot make the inexperience argument stick.{2} There will be for example attempts to claim a kind of hypocrisy in Gov. Palin supporting such things as "abstinence education" in schools when her own teenage daughter is now pregnant and that is something that we want to address right now in anticipation of the predictable barrage of msm talking points on the matter at hand.

Indeed somehow, certain parties will try to claim hypocrisy or otherwise chalk this up as some kind of moral or ethical failing on the part of Gov. Palin. I want to address this matter briefly and then set it aside as settled as far as I am concerned. For starters, I want to point to something my late father (God rest his soul) used to tell me when I was a kid about how "the first child can come at any time, it is the rest that take nine months." It was said tongue in cheek mostly but at the core of the statement is a general truism; namely that situations like this can happen. Nor does what happened in any way detract from the moral stances that Gov. Palin has personally taken on these matters.

For whether you agree with them or not, her position on this matter is at least consistent. Nor does Gov. Palin's stance on "abstinence education" receive any sullying from the situation of her daughter's pregnancy because her daughter made her own decision on the matter. Parents can tell their children a lot of things but believe it or not, children do not always follow their parent's advice and if they do not, it seems ridiculous to try and blame the parent as long as they have not been unduly negligent{3} in looking after their children.

To give a fair assessment, we should consider for example if Gov. Palin seeks to follow her own advice when unexpected situations present themselves to her and her family. And we can start by considering her reaction to being pregnant a fifth time. Gov. Palin after all had her fourth child at 37 and is 44 years old now. As fertility in women begins decreasing after the age of 35 (and even more rapidly after the age of 40), it stands to reason that this pregnancy was enough of a statistical long-shot to be safely called "unexpected." She espouses a pro life position and she showed via her example that she practices what she preaches. Furthermore, with regards to her child having Down Syndrome, she did not upon learning of this misfortune make an excuse to go against her principles but instead accepted the child as a gift from God.{4}

The additional subject of her pregnant teenage daughter will serve as an opportunity to point to part of why what we do at Rerum Novarum differs so significantly from what most bloggers do. We have stated many times over the years in various ways that our interest is to treat on the principles behind situations of circumstance as much as the situations themselves because if you think in principles, the capacity for utilizing reason and logic profitably increases exponentially. The principle here that needs to be focused on is the differentiation between public and private standards:

I am not about to try and make the argument that people are at all perfectly consistent in the views they espouse and those that they follow because we all know that is not the case with any of us. But should the fact that we all fall short of the mark in some form or another mean that we move the mark itself??? Or would it not be better for society as a whole if the mark stays where it is as a rule and we strive to conform ourselves to the mark???

...

[T]here seems to be a problem with people recognizing that public standards are important even if individuals do not meet them...

If instead of being recognized for what they are, violations of a recognized standard are ipso facto seen as calling into account the standard[...] rather than trying to conform themselves to the aforesaid standard, then we are in serious trouble as a society. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 24, 2006)]

Now Governor Palin's daughter probably went against the standards her family had with regards to sexual matters. But does that mean that Gov. Palin should endorse a lowering of the standard simply because her daughter did not meet it???

Consider also at how the fallout from the announcement has been handled: her daughter will be keeping the baby and will be marrying the father of the child. These are principles that would meet with the approval of Gov. Palin's Assembly of God Pentecostal faith so again, they are walking the walk not just talking the talk. Granted sometimes in that walking there has been some stumbling but we all stumble and fall. That should not lead to us trying to draw the standard down to us but try even if we continue to fail in meeting it ourselves{5} to promote a higher general standard for the sake of overall societal betterment.

Notes:

{1} I say "as a rule" because Senator Barack Obama has explicitly stated (to his credit) that the Palin family situation was off limits politically.

{2} The attempt to claim that Gov. Palin's limited experience cancels out that argument being used against Sen. Obama misses one key distinction between the two: executive experience. As a former mayor and current state governor, she has more experience in a role very similar albeit on smaller scales than that of the presidency. By contrast, Senator Barack Obama in his time in the US Senate and the Illinois legislature has no executive experience whatsoever.

{3} I say "unduly negligent" because it is never possible for parents to keep an eye on their children all the time. Furthermore, when it comes to child rearing because too much parental strictness can be just as dangerous as too much parental laxity. A balance needs to be struck in other words and sometimes despite the best of intentions children can turn out differently than parents might like. (Sometimes better and sometimes not.)

{4} Palin Confirms Baby Has Down Syndrome (Anchorage Daily News circa April 21, 2008)

{5} We risk in a situation such as that becoming a civilization of the least common denominator: hardly anything that could be logically viewed as either "progressive" or "enlightened" whatsoever the promoters of such a society would label it as. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 24, 2006)]

On Senator Barack Obama's Choice of Joseph Biden For Running Mate:

Though I wrote this text (sans the first paragraph and seventh footnote which were composed today) back on August 25th, the delay in posting was due to Senator John McCain's impending announcement of a running mate upon which I wanted to get my long-held prediction of whom it would be in under the line so to speak. Then, when my usual political prognosticating skills failed me when Sen. McCain chose the dark horse Alaska governor Sarah Palin, I wanted to put down some ultra-preliminary thoughts on that which I will probably expand upon in the coming days and weeks. (I am still stunned by the news on that front admittedly in more ways than one; ergo the brief nature of my still undigested first thoughts as expressed in that posting.) But now with those more immediate tasks being tended to, it is now time to weigh in on the choice of Sen. Joseph Biden by Sen. Barack Hussein Obama so without further ado...

There are going to be plenty of people who will write long threads on why Senator Joseph Biden should be rejected as vice president and second in line for the presidency. Some even have set up sites on the matter such as Steve Dillard and Christopher Blosser's latest Catholics Against Joe Biden. And while they will undoubtedly post a lot of material to point out Sen. Biden's views and how they are incongruent with Catholic principles, my approach to the subject of Sen. Biden is much simpler.

As I see it, if there is any more reason to question the fitness of Joe Biden to be either vice president or president of the United States, this is the reason why in a nutshell:

I strongly support Roe v. Wade. I wouldn't have a specific question but I would make sure that the people I sent to be nominated for the Supreme Court shared my values; and understood that there is a right to privacy in the United States Constitution.

And no, I am not saying that the reason he is unfit is because he supports Roe v. Wade though that is itself problematical in more ways than one as I have noted not a few times in the past.{1} The reason Sen. Biden is so unfit to be president or in any position to be president is his stance on a presumed constitutional right to privacy. And I say this as someone who personally believes such a right should exist at the federal level. Or as I noted last year when discussing the subject of presumed "constitutional rights" paraded around by not a few people advocating various agendas:

I cannot recall if I have said this on the weblog in the past or not (as I cannot find anything in a quick archive search) but I am not opposed in principle to the idea of a federal right to privacy. The problem is, there is no constitutional foundation for such a position; ergo those who want to see one should do what they can to amend the Constitution to reflect that right. Otherwise, they should have the decency to admit that they do not give a damn about the Constitution at all. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 29, 2007)]

The bottom line is that what is and is not "constitutional" is not a matter of personal whim but must conform itself to objective criteria. I am not saying that the constitution is a brittle document by any means but the idea that the words themselves somehow "evolve" to mean different things depending on the whims of various agenda provocateurs (regardless of whom they are{2}) does not sit well with me either. The very notion is so absurd on its face that I have sought to illustrate it via absurdity in the past but thus far no "evolving constitution" proponents have stepped up to accept my challenge.{3}

But at the same time, lest anyone think such a position of mine involves an interpretation that is too literalist, I have had a completed text on tap pertaining to how constitutional issues need to be viewed to bridge the gap between the extreme unconstitutional approaches of those who commonly consider themselves "progressives" and the extreme unworkable approaches common to many who consider themselves "conservatives." It has been mentioned probably a half-dozen times or more since the first jottings of a draft were put together earlier last year{4} and most recently mentioned in a notifications posting to this weblog.{5} But that is neither here nor there presently speaking; I merely note it there so my approach to Sen. Biden's judicial perversion{6} is properly understood in a nutshell for the time being.

Oh and as for Senator Biden's statement that "the next Republican that tells me I'm not religious I'm going to shove my rosary beads down their throat", a question comes to mind which we must put to the senior senator from Delaware; namely this:

--Does it have to be a Republican???

For though your humble servant is a longtime Independent voter{7}, we would have no problem telling Sen. Biden he is not religious and he can give it the old college try on us if he likes. Heck, we would even be willing to pose as a Republican if need be :)

Notes:

{1} Perhaps most completely in this thread:

On Fundamental Rights, Common Law Principles, and Abortion (circa February 1, 2007)

{2} No matter whom they are and I say that about those who claim that the constitution either embodies the right to an abortion or outlaws abortion: both presumptions are erroneous. And as allowing those who agree with you to engage in the same sort of constitutional manipulation as those who do not agree with you (and whom you would castigate for doing so) is both illogical as well as unethical, no more needs to be said on the matter at this time than that.

{3} The same concept has been reiterated numerous times in the past starting on this weblog with these words:

The writer of this post would like to take this opportunity to to invite anyone who believes in an evolving constitutional interpretation to email him if they are fans of Texas Hold 'Em and are interested in playing for money. For your humble servant is not only a pretty decent poker player but he also has in mind starting a game with people like you for money to illustrate by demonstration the logical absurdity of your positions: Texas Hold 'Em with "evolving rules."[...] Something tells your host that such a game would amply clarify the absurdity of the "evolving constitution" position in precise proportion to the amount of money the promoters of the "evolving constitutional interpretation" theory lost their cash in the afore-proposed card game. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 25, 2005)]

Oh and lest I forget to mention it, I owe some credit to Dr. Walter E. Williams for the germ of the idea expounded upon above.

{4} With the election on the horizon for 2008 and wanting to avoid for the sake of his own sanity too much focus on those issues beyond what is necessary to do, it seems appropriate to write as time allows on some of the systems and principles that shaped the outlooks of the Founding Fathers of the United States.[...] Part of the reason for this decision is because there is a significant imbalance in politics today and we want to propose a remedy for the common problems inherent in the political approaches of both major parties. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 17, 2007)]

{5} The long-talked about and finished[...] posting on the necessary third way in politics that is needed between the nonsense approaches of the radical conservatives and the radical liberals which are unworkable and unconstitutional respectively. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 2, 2008)]

As I noted in the above excerpt, the thread has been in a form requiring of a final review before it is ready for posting. (If memory serves I finished it in the final week of 2007.)

{6} I do not intend to go into the subject of judicial perversion at this time though suffice to say, it has been covered at sundry times and in divers manners at this weblog in years gone by and will be again as circumstances or my mood to discuss it again present themselves.

{7} Lest more recent readers think my disgust with the Republicans is something of recent vintage, here are some threads from newest to oldest via the archives:

As a twelve year independent voter...I have to look at the alternatives and put my "ideal candidate" mould aside. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 9, 2008)]

But then again, it is easy for someone such as myself who has long been independent of the two main parties to take that stance. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 3, 2007)]

Thank God the present writer is an Independent voter of ten years standing is all he will say about that at the present time. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 24, 2006)]

But one advantage to being an Independent is that I have no sense of "party betrayal" on the matter; hence I am more detached in some ways from it than loyalists are. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 10, 2005)]

Two years after the 1994 midterms, I divested myself of the Republican moniker and have remained an Independent voter. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 6, 2004)]

[F]or the record, this Independent actually has contemplated the idea that Bush needs a fight against someone like Lieberman. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 9, 2003)]

I identified myself as a Republican in the mid/late 1980's and the early 1990's. Since the 1996 elections, my eyes were opened and I stopped affiliating with the Republicans seeing in far too many of them a profound betrayal of classical conservative principles. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 6, 2002)]

On Sen. McCain's Selection of Governor Sarah Palin as His Running Mate:

Before posting the planned thread on Joe Biden, I want to take this moment to note that my usual prescience in political prognosticating went awry with Senator McCain's choice of vp this morning.{1} Susan Palin is quite unknown overall but she fits the bill of what I went over would have been preferable in a vp pick for McCain despite my view that Romney was basically in the bag as the pick. Or as I noted yesterday when referencing an early morning chat thread on the matter:

McCain has supposedly already decided the vp to be announced Friday. I think it will be Romney...

frankly a conservative vp from a state that is a tossup may be a better pick though particularly if that conservative is a woman...

I am not [saying] Romney would be a bad pick mind you, just selecting a woman from a key battleground state with solid conservative credentials would really make the Biden pick look [worse] than it is cause Biden is not change. a woman vice president has only been tried once and on a [ticket] that had no prayer of winning. and this would be a conservative woman which would be a better vp first anyway. [Excerpt from a Chat (circa August 28, 2008) as recorded in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa August 28, 2008)]

Truthfully, I did not have any particular candidate in mind when writing those words because (i) I was pretty sure the pick would have been Romney and (ii) I could not think of any conservative women who actually fit all those parameters. And Governor Susan Palin of Alaska does not fit all of them either. She is from Alaska which has 3 electoral votes which McCain was going to get anyway.

However, she is a woman and this gives Sen. McCain the chance to counter the meaningless "change" mantra of Sen. Obama with a genuine change of pace. I refer to nominating a woman as a vp running mate on a ticket that actually has a ghosts of a chance of winning{2} and as a substantive addition rather than merely trying to get attention.{3} By contrast, Governor Palin has been the governor of a state and mayor of a city: both of which are positions of executive governance. And while the msm will predictably pounce on her thin resume for governing, the fact is, she is more qualified to be president than Sen. Barack Obama is. I may supplement this posting with another from the archives which I believe was blogged last year on the issue of executive experience being important in a presidential candidate{4} but for now that is all I will say on that matter.

From a strategery standpoint, Sen. McCain added a strongly conservative woman running mate with executive experience. This will enable him to potentially attract some discouraged women voters who are angry at the way in which the Democrats and Sen. Obama disrespected Sen. Hillary Clinton{5} and will make Sen. Biden look really bad if he tries to employ his usual thuggary on her. Plus, is it wrong of me to like the idea of a conservative woman vice presidential candidate standing on stage wearing a dress instead of a pants-suit???

Excellent selection Sen. McCain: certainly better than that of Sen. Obama's pick about which I will speak of next.

Notes:

{1} And on this occasion I am very gladly be wrong with a prediction.

{2} Sen. Walter Mondale had no prayer whatsoever in 1984 as anyone who was awake at the time realized.

{3} This is basically what it was as Rep. Geraldine Ferraro had no particular standout skills for this position.

{4} I cannot remember at the moment if I blogged that thread or not.

{5} And yes, I am no fan of Sen. Clinton but she was disrespected by the DNC as well as the msm in the mania of both to proclaim the ObaMessiah.

Briefly On Senator McCain's Selection of Vice-Presidential Nominee:

I drafted a text a couple days ago on the subject of Sen. Joe Mama Biden being picked as Sen. Barack Obama's running mate but will shelve it temporarily to deal with the subject of Sen. John McCain's impending choice of running mate. It seems appropriate since it would take a lot less work to quote from some chat threads we have participated in in recent weeks to provide readers with an inside look into how we have been assessing these matters so without further ado, here are some threads from chats with Kevin Tierney{1} and some others:

Kevin: well the AP says Obama's pick is Biden

me: hmmmmm. that is better than Bayh whom some had predicted

Kevin: expect to see Biden's quote from his run in 2000 about the White House not being the place to learn experience

me: better I mean in not as strong a vp. McCain should hold off his vp selection until after the Dem convention and then make a blockbuster announcement on it. [Excerpt from a Chat (circa August 22, 2008)]

As I mentioned to another friend, I actually viewed the possibility of Obama/Bayh as being a formidable ticket:

me: I was worried when Drudge opined that it might be Obama/Bayh. I think Obama/Biden is more vulnerable.

[XXXXX]: I don't see who he'd attract with Biden.

me: precisely. Bayh on the other hand would be an asset. McCain needs a solid conservative vp to counter. [my] bet is it willbe Romney. not that he is the best out there mind you

[XXXXX]: Who would be the best (in your opinion)?

me: just that is most likely I believe at this point -Romney's business acumen would be helpful to McCain. ideally Bobby Jindal...it will not happen though.

[XXXXX]: Yeah, I was thinking Jindal except for his age.

me: Jindal is an Indian Republican prolifer Catholic: pretty untouchable there. maybe someone like JC Watts. [He is] a black former congressman who is conservative and pro life. with Obama going for an outwardly proabortion Catholic McCain needs to have a solid conservative on board: someone less controversial viz conservative credentials than Johnny Mac is but at the same time, able to reach out to non-died-in-the-wool sorts. [Excerpt from a Chat (circa August 23, 2008)]

And finally there is this thread from shortly after midnight this morning with another friend where there was no shortage of typos in it on my part due to being tired at the time:

me: McCain has supposedly already decided the vp to be announced Friday. I think it will be Romney...

me: frankly a conservative vp from a state that is a tossup may be a better pick though particularly if that conservative is a woman...

me: I am not [saying] Romney would be a bad pick mind you, just selecting a woman from a key battleground state with solid conservative credentials would really make the Biden pick look [worse] than it is cause Biden is not change. a woman vice president has only been tried once and on a [ticket] that had no prayer of winning. and this would be a conservative woman which would be a better vp first anyway. [Excerpt from a Chat (circa August 28, 2008)]

I post these threads to make it clear that I have been on the hook claiming it would be Romney for some time now{2} and though he would be a solid pick, a better one would be a conservative woman from a state with a fair number of electoral votes which has gone for the Democrats by a smidgen the past two elections. So if that candidate can be from Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, or Pennsylvania,{3} that would be the best from a strategery standpoint. But in time we shall see if that is what Sen. McCain does.

Notes:

{1} Kevin is the only one who has said he does not mind his name being used when quoting chat threads. The others have not given such permission and I will almost always due to the private nature of such communiques presume anonymity of the person I am chatting with when using chat material on this blog. (As well as omitting or slightly altering to conceal anything that would hint at whom they may be.)

{2} I have a chat thread with Kevin from May of 2008 where I first mentioned Romney as the vp but decided to not post it here due to the editing it would take to post the material and not include certain other more confidential material (as well as a darkhorse prediction Kevin made at the time that I do not want to reveal without his permission to do so first).

{3} States where the margin of victory for the Democrats the past two elections was around 3% or less.

If I wrote every year on the birthdays or the passing of those in my family, close friends, figures of varying influence in my life, there would be nothing else to write about.{1} Serendipitously, I remember some of them regularly and others not so much so but for some reason, I remembered the other day that Stevie Ray Vaughan (SRV) passed on in August of 1990 at the age of 35 when a helicopter he was flying in crashed in Alpine Valley, Wisconsin. I checked and noticed the date which happens to be today and decided it would be fitting therefore to remember him in some fashion. I will do so in two ways, the first of which is posting the lyrics to a song Jimmie Vaughan co-write with some of the Neville brothers in remembering his brother called Six Strings Down. Without further ado...

Alpine valley
In the middle of the night
Six strings down
On the heaven-bound flight
Got a pick, a strap, guitar on his back
Ain’t gonna cut the angels no slack
Heaven done called
Another blues-stringer back home
See the voodoo chile
Holding out his hand
I’ve been waitin’ on you brother
Welcome to the band
Good blues-stringin’
Heaven-fine singin’
Jesus, Mary and Joseph
Been lis’nin’ to your playin’
Heaven done called
Another blues-stringer back home
Lord they called
Another blues-stringer back home

Albert Collins up there
Muddy an’ Lightnin’ too
Albert King and Freddy
Playin’ the blues
T-Bone Walker, Guitar Slim
Little Son Jackson and
Frankie Lee Sims
Heaven done called
Another blues-stringer back home
Lord they called
Another blues-stringer back home
Lord they called
Another blues-stringer back home
Heaven done called
Another blues-stringer back home
Lord they called...

The second way is with a video of his performing. In pondering which one to use, I decided to use this one of SRV with his childhood hero Albert King{2} playing Stevie Ray's original composition Pride and Joy circa December 1983{3} from an album I reviewed here.




May they rest in peace.

[Update: I accidentally used the code for another shorter instrumental outtake jam from Blues at Sunrise rather than the one from Pride and Joy. I apologize for that and will add the code for the latter performance to this posting as well below this text. -ISM 8/28/08 10:57pm]



Notes:

{1} I do not want to discuss this matter right now except to say that I realized the other day when talking with my mother that I had significantly underestimated both the number of familia and friends deaths the past eight and a half years but also the number of funerals I had attended in that span. I may say more some other time on that but after a while it all blurs together (unfortunately).

{2} Albert died in 1992 at the age of 69 and is also mentioned in Six Strings Down.

{3} This was not long after SRV released his debut album Texas Flood.

The "points to ponder" installment from yesterday was excerpted back in June for eventual use when I decided the time was right to do so. The problem is, I could not recall whom the "he" was in the original sentence and ascribed it to Senator Barack Obama. Today I stumbled across the source I got the quote from and realized that the criticism was not aimed at something Senator Obama had said but instead something Senator John McCain had said. Despite wanting to do so otherwise, as a matter of ethics, I must note my mistake so consider that notation made with this posting which will be added to yesterday's posting in the form of an update.

Points to Ponder:

[Update: Please see an important corrective to this posting which is noted here. -ISM 8/27/08 9:15pm]

[Obama] doesn't like obscene profits being made anywhere. Is anyone talking about the hedge funds? Is anyone talking is anyone in congress talking about the hedge funds? You know why? They are not talking about the hedge funds because the hedge funds give them all kinds of money. The hedge funds, these guys Chelsea Clinton works for a hedge fund. John Edwards worked for a hedge fund. Al Gore works for a hedge fund, owns his own hedge fund. Nobody wants to talk about hedge funds. You want to talk about obscene profits. Now, I don't believe this is an obscene profit. I really don't. I think if you can make this kind of a profit, God bless America. God bless America. But here's their profit margin. Their profit margin in hedge funds is 87%. 87% profit margin. That is printing money. So you want to talk about an obscene profit margin, there it is. Again, as a capitalist I say God bless you. But that is ten times the profit margin of oil. Oil's profit margin is about 8.5%. This is ten times the profit. Why are we going after them? How about healthcare facilities? 48%. Publishing, periodicals, magazines is 34%. Information delivery services, 23%. Silver is 22%. Application software industry is 22%. Shipping, 21%. Well, not anymore. Copper is 19%. Tobacco products, 19%. Drug manufacturers, 17%. Insurance brokers, 16. Beverages, wineries, distilleries, 15%. Long distance carriers, 15.8%. I mean, railroads, railroads, 13.9%. Steel and iron, 13.8. Cigarettes, 13.7. Integrated circuits, semiconductors, 13.6. I mean, the list goes on and on and on and on. Money center banks, 10.8. Hotel/motels, 10.6. Asset management, 10.5. Beverage, Brewers, 10.5. Resorts and casinos, resorts and casinos are 10.5. Casinos are 10.5. Oil is 8.5. I mean, when a casino makes 10.5 and a hedge fund makes 81.7, you've got to ask yourself what's an obscene profit margin. Why aren't you going after those guys? That's not the way this system works, and as soon as America figures this out, these guys are toast. [Glen Beck]

Miscellaneous Musings and Threads Worth Noting:

Briefly on a few items from the recent news...

Russians dig in despite promised Georgia pullout

Russia has really had an inferiority complex since the end of the Cold War. It is ridiculous for them be so concerned about Georgia's affiliation with NATO or Poland wanting to have a missile shield for their own defense unless they have designs on reacquiring former territories like Georgia or Poland.

From a tactical standpoint the invasion of Georgia was stupid in one respect. There had been negotiations with the United States for missile defense systems for Poland but they had dragged on and popular sentiment amongst the Poles was 63% opposed. But after the Georgia invasion, all of a sudden the government of Poland and the people of Poland realized what was at stake and polling showed over 70% approval: a significant reversal in a short period of time.

The bottom line is, a sovereign nation has the right to defend itself and the idea that Poland should leave themselves open to invasion by the Russian Bear should the latter decide to do so is akin to saying that Poland's right to exist is subject to Russian whims. This is an intrinsically suicidal position to be taking and anyone with a sense of history on these matters -not only the Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939 but the near-invasion of 1980{1}- should support Poland on this matter regardless of what they may personally think about the idea of missile defense or whatever. And props to French President Nicolas Sarkozy for brokering a ceasefire in the recent South Ossetia conflict. Moving on...

Obama Picks Biden for Running Mate

I will write a bit on this shortly. And finally...

Japanese create stem cells from wisdom teeth

If ever there was a doubt that the issue of fetal stem cell research still had viability{2} this latest finding by Japanese scientists settles the matter once and for all as far as your humble servant at Rerum Novarum is concerned. God bless the Japanese scientists for this amazing and non-ethically troubling solution.

Notes:

{1} Most people probably no longer know that the Soviet Union was on the verge of invading Poland in late 1980 after the US elections.

{2} The question is, does amniotic stem cell research violate any of the fundamental rights of man -the first of which is life. I cannot see how it would considering that cells themselves do not constitute life and from all that we know about biology if these are cells which are shed by the embryo are easier to maintain in lab conditions than stem cells extracted from a fetus. Wherever or however we want to argue the issue of where life begins, it is not arguable that amniotic stem cells do not constitute life. And knowing that should make how we approach the stem cell research issue at Rerum Novarum both evident and obvious: amniotic stem cell research is fine while fetal stem cell research has more problems from a procedural standpoint and more potential Pandora's Box problems from both the moral and ethical realms. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 23, 2007)]

Points to Ponder:

The only way to gain an authentic self-esteem was through one's unswerving commitment to reason and reality. As reason is man's fundamental, defining characteristic, the one that distinguishes him from all other species, it was a man's commitment to reason as an absolute that should serve as the proper standard for measuring his stature. This was a biological fact of reality, and could not be debated. Those who had defaulted on their fundamental philosophic responsibility (namely, thinking) were of no concern to me. They were hapless individuals, who were constantly buffeted about by every chance intellectual trend that came along…When I attempted to politely explain this to the hysterics - the mystics, who were emotionally driven --...they seemed to regard it as heresy and declared me a lunatic. Not only did they not care, it frightened them, as what was most shatteringly terrifying to them was to be regarded as different, to lose approval of the pack. [Mike Mentzer]

Response to "Blackadder" on the Atomic Bombings:
(Part II of II)

Part I of this response can be viewed here. But without further ado...

On the Atomic Bombings of Japan Part II

Today is the anniversary of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki. On the anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing, I posted the first part of what was going to be a debate last year between myself and Shawn of the blog Rerum Novarum on the morality of the bombings. Prior to the debate, Shawn and I agreed that the atomic bombings would be justified only if two conditions were met:

1) the bombings did not involve the intentional targeting of noncombatants; and

2) the bombings saved lives, that is, any alternative course of action would have resulted in even greater loss of life.

Though this was covered in the previous posting, readers who for some reason have not read the first part of this thread yet are advised to do so now to see the importance of my distinction between civilians and non-combatants. (Again, credit to "Blackadder" for making this correction as he did when apprised of it.)

In my previous post, I argued that the first condition was not met.

And I countered with an explanation of why the first condition was sustained.

In this post, I argue that the second condition also was not met. Prior to the debate, Shawn had argued that the second condition, proportionality, had been met by the bombings, and had cited in support some figures on the high number of casualties (both American and Japanese) that could have resulted from a land invasion of Japan. I responded as follows:

As to the second condition, even if we assume that your figures on the likely deaths from an invasion are correct, this does not establish that the second condition is met, as it is not the case that the only two options the U.S. had at the time were to bomb Hiroshima or to invade.

There were three options actually but I will allow "Blackadder" to lay out his argument before saying more on this matter.

On this, a couple of points.

First, the Japanese were already prepared to surrender prior to the bombings. Once the Tojo government fell in July 1944, the Japanese strategy was to sue for peace once they had won one decisive battle so as to guarantee better terms.

While all of this sounds good on the surface, familiarizing oneself with some of the expected "terms" would help contextualize this strategy. But before dealing with that point, it helps the reader to remember something about the methods of the Japanese during the Second World War including the facade of the Japanese had played with regards to pretending to want peace before. After he left office, the former president Harry Truman in a several page letter to the chairman of the Hiroshima city council{1}, reminded that council of the duplicity of the Japanese government prior to the United States' entry into the Second World War:

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Your courteous letter, enclosing the resolution of the Hiroshima City Council, was highly appreciated. The feeling of the people of your city is easily understood, and I am not in any way offended by the resolution which their city council passed. However, it becomes necessary for me to remind the City Council, and perhaps you also, of some historical events.

In 1941, while a peace conference was in progress in Washington between representatives of the Emperor of Japan and the Secretary of State of the United States, representing the President and the Government of the United States, a naval expedition of the Japanese Government approached the Hawaiian Islands, a territorial part of the United States, and bombed our Pearl Harbor Naval Base. It was done without provocation, without warning and without a declaration of war. [President Harry S. Truman: Letter to the Chairman of the Hiroshima City Council (circa March 12, 1958)]

This was hardly the only example of duplicity on the part of the Japanese government during and prior to the Second World War. And this factor is of no small importance even if we exclude the Nanking Massacre and the Japanese genocide against the Chinese and numerous other peoples to the tune of millions and millions of deaths in the war of genuine civilians as well as brutal treatment of prisoners of war by the Japanese. The war crimes of the Japanese made it a genuine toss up as to which regime (theirs or Nazi Germany's) was worse: for the record I would put my marker on Imperial Japan as the estimate of their slaughter total{2} is roughly the same as that of Nazi Germany{3} but the survival rate of POW's in Nazi Germany was eight and a half times higher than the POW's of Imperial Japan. For these reasons, the Japanese could hardly be taken at face value on such things even if their position was as cut and dried as "Blackadder" presumes. (I will tend to that presumption later in this posting.)

Originally this victory was going to occur in the Philippines, then in Okinawa, then in Kyushu.

What "Blackadder" does not seem to realize is that the aforementioned "better terms" the Japanese wanted in no way whatsoever approached the American terms. I will go over this in a moment.

The problem was that by the early summer of 1945 the Japanese military was in shambles. They were short of fuel, food, and even weapons. An effective Allied blockade had cut Japan off from virtually all supplies, and the country had been reduced to using the iron fragments from U.S. bombs to make shovels. A report delivered to the Emperor on June 9, 1945 indicated that by the end of the year Japan would no longer be able to continue fighting and would face as great a threat from civil unrest as from the U.S. On June 22, 1945, the Emperor told the Supreme War Council “I desire that concrete plans to end the war, unhampered by existing policy, be speedily studied and that efforts made to implement them.”

However much the Emperor wanted to see an end to the war, there was still a rejection of surrender by anyone in a position to be able to affect one. Furthermore, those who claim that Japan merely wanted to hold onto the Emperor would do well to consider some of the information that the decision makers were privy to; namely the MAGIC transcripts from the period after the quote from Emperor Hirohito that "Blackadder" has presented to us:

Tokyo says no to unconditional surrender. On 17 July Foreign Minister Togo sent the following message to Ambassador Sato: "We have been fully aware from the outset that it would be difficult under existing circumstances either to strengthen the ties of friendship between Japan and Russia or to make effective use of Russia in ending the war... Although the directing powers, and the Government as well, are convinced that our strength can still deliver considerable blows to the enemy, we are unable to feel an absolutely secure peace of mind in the face of an enemy that will attack repeatedly. If today, when we are still maintaining our strength, the Anglo-Americans were to have regard for Japan's honor and existence, they could save humanity by bringing the war to an end. If, however, they insist unrelentingly upon unconditional surrender, the Japanese are unanimous in their resolve to wage a thorough-going war. [MAGIC Ultra Top Secret Intercept #1210 pgs. 1-3 (circa July 17, 1945)]

Now I realize this is the expected response of sorts: the idea that the Japanese would not accept "unconditional surrender." But notice what Ambassador Sato tries to do in his diplomatic role to try and facilitate in the next intercepted dispatch. With regards to the latter, the party speaking in the dispatch is Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo to Ambassador Naotake Sato but also includes both Togo's communique to Sato as well as Sato's request to Togo with regards to the issue of surrender. All underlined or italicized points of emphasis are mine:

With regards to unconditional surrender (I have been informed of your 18 July message*), we are unable to consent to it under any circumstances whatsoever. Even if the war drags on and it becomes clear it will take much more bloodshed, the entire country as one man will pit itself against the enemy in accordance with the Imperial Will so long as the enemy demands unconditional surrender...

Togo concluded by saying that he had read a long message of 20 July from Sato, but that the decision he was communicating had been made by the Cabinet and that Sato should proceed accordingly.

The long message of 20 July from Sato to which Togo was referring...constitutes an impassioned plea for the Japanese Government to surrender to the Allies with the sole reservation that Japan's "national structure" --i.e. ; the Imperial House-- be preserved... [MAGIC Ultra Top Secret Intercept #1214 pgs. 2-3; 4-5 (circa July 22, 1945)]

Here was the footnote at the bottom of page 2 of the intercept:

*In that message, Sato advocated unconditional surrender provided the Imperial House was preserved (DS 20 Jul 45).

In other words, what Sato was asking for was what those who opposed the use of the bombs often do: that if the Japanese merely were given their Emperor that they would accept that as a means of surrender. There is also the claim that we gave them what they wanted on this score anyway which is also not true but I want to avoid a tangent here before this point is reinforced.

Indeed not only did Togo tell Sato that his proposal --and the one commonly espoused by critics of the use of the bombs-- was a no-go but that Japan was "unable to consent to it under any circumstances whatsoever." This was the stance officially of Japan before the dropping of the bombs. Furthermore, that was not all that was considered "on the table" by the Japanese before agreeing to a policy of surrender.

I trust that "Blackadder" is not familiar with the ins and outs of the meeting of the Supreme War Council on August 9th about a half an hour before midnight-if he is not I will endeavour to inform him and other readers of it now. Even after the dropping of two atomic bombs and the declaration of war by the Soviet Union, the Council was deadlocked on whether to surrender or not. Among the demands being made were:

--The retention of the Emperor but also that the Emperor would have real sovereign authority.

--Retention of the military caste style of governance.

--That the issue of war criminals would be dealt with entirely by the Japanese government and not by the Allies.

--Japan was not to be occupied in the execution of the Potsdam Declaration terms.

Now these were the terms which were still being hashed out after the bomb drop on Hiroshima, the Soviets declared war on Japan, and the bomb drop on Nagasaki!!!

Certainly the Emperor on August 10th broke the deadlock and forced the hand of the Council in drafting the Imperial Rescript which the Emperor read aloud and was made into a recording.{4} But before that point, this was where the Supreme War Council was at on the subject of surrender. Even the aforementioned Foreign Minister Togo who rejected Ambassador Sato's recommendation of this course with one small provision{5} quickly changed his tune after the Hiroshima drop. He pleaded with the Supreme War Council for surrender in accordance with the Potsdam Declaration, something he previously said was "unacceptable under any circumstances whatsoever." This goes to show just how entrenched the notion of not surrendering was in the Japanese Government.

For those who would claim that the surrender was not in accordance with the Potsdam Declaration, the Emperor was retained but only with the understanding that supreme power would reside in the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers. For those who are familiar with the intention of the Japanese of retaining the "Imperial House" they would know that this did not meet with their previous condition and indeed did not detract from the Potsdam Declaration of unconditional surrender. The evidence of this is that the Emperor had no power to act of his own accord during the Occupation of Japan. It is true that General MacArthur used the Emperor as his tool to get obedience from the subjects which was a shrewd usage on MacArthur's part but the lack of the Emperor to function as a sovereign with any of the authority as outlined by the Meiji Constitution{6} shows the extent to which the Japanese wish for retaining the "Imperial House" actually existed in reality as opposed to pious fiction.

Thereafter Japan made a number of attempts to sue for peace through intermediaries, including most prominently the Soviet Union. The U.S. knew about these attempts, as they had broken Japanese codes early in the war. Examples of some of these intercepts can be found here.

Readers can judge the credibility of these attempts based on what I have gone over already in this posting.

Truman and other top officials even seem to have thought that the attempts to sue for peace were real. The notes for an August 3, 1945, conversation between Truman, Secretary of State Byrnes, and Admiral Leahy (Truman’s Chief of Staff) states that “President, Leahy and JFB agreed Japan looking for peace. President afraid they will sue for peace through Russia instead of some country like Sweden.”

The last thing the world would have needed was "Uncle Joe" (cf. FDR) being in put into a position of moral credibility on the world stage. Stalin was a murderer of an even worse degree than Hitler. The difference between them was that Stalin was at least rational whereas Hitler was not.

As my late father (God rest his soul) used to tell me when I was very young, if Hitler was not so stupid as to invade Russia in 1941 we would have been fighting the Germans possibly into the early 1950's. And considering that we just got the Germans out of the way before they could roll out their new jet fighters to any significant effect,{7} it was the good fortune of the Allies that Hitler was not a rational military planner.

That Japan was willing to surrender prior to the atomic bombings is, in my opinion, indisputable.

Japan was also willing to discuss terms of peace prior to December 7, 1941 -as President Truman reminded the Hiroshima city council in 1958- and we know what came about from those "terms of peace."

The only question is whether they would have been willing to surrender on approximately the same terms that they eventually did, or whether they would have only accepted somewhat better terms. Personally I think that even if Japan only would have surrendered on significantly more favorable terms than they ultimately did, such a surrender would have been worth it just to keep Russia out of the war.

Readers can consider what I covered above as to what Japan was willing to consider. From purely a rational standpoint and apart from the evidence I supplied, it would be absurd to presume that they would have settled for less than this prior to August 6th when they were insisting on this with thirty minutes to go on August 9th before the start of August 10th.{8}

Without Russia’s entering the war in August of 1945, Manchuria and the northern half of Korea would not have fallen under Communist domination, Mao would not have had a base of operations from which to launch attacks against the Kuomintang, and it’s quite possible China would have been spared 30 or 40 million deaths, half of Korea would have been spared the hell on earth that is life in North Korea, and more than 36 thousand U.S. solders would not have had to die to protect South Korea a few years later.

On these contingent points, I agree with "Blackadder." Something he is not considering though is that by August of 1945, Truman had gotten over his initial phase of being duped by Stalin: something his predecessor FDR never got over.

Second, even supposing you think that Japan’s surrender had to be (virtually) unconditional for some reason. Still, the bombings were not necessary.

It depends I suppose on how "necessary" is defined. It was not "necessary" to go to war with Japan either in 1941 but we did. One has to assess with any action not only what is necessary but also what the results from non-action involves. I am not arguing for consequentialism{9} here, only stating that decisions are made oftentimes without focusing on what strictly speaking is "necessary." But just because something is not "necessary" does not mean it should not be done. One has to weigh a variety of factors on these matter as I said earlier including what would result in the fewest lives being lost to one's own side primarily and to the opposing side secondarily.

Once Russia entered the war, any hope Japan had of gaining more favorable terms was completely destroyed. They would now be facing threats from two fronts, and could not simply concentrate their forces in Kyushu in anticipation of an American attack. Over 600,000 Japanese solders in Manchuria were forced to surrender to the Soviets within a week of the Russian attack, despite being better trained and better equipped that most of the solders on the mainland.

Actually, the soldiers in Manchuria were far less trained and equipped than the soldiers on the mainland by that point of the war. This is admitted to in the Wikipedia article on the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria (all links removed and all emphasis in the quote is mine):

The Kwantung Army had over six hundred thousand men in twenty-five divisions (including two tank divisions) and six Independent Mixed Brigades. These contained over 1,215 armored vehicles (mostly armored cars and light tanks), 6,700 artillery pieces (mostly light), and 1,800 aircraft (mostly trainers and obsolete types; they only had 50 first line aircraft). The Imperial Japanese Navy contributed nothing to the defense of Manchuria, the occupation of which it had always opposed on strategic grounds.

On economic grounds, Manchuria was worth defending since it had the bulk of usable industry and raw materials outside of Japan and still under Japanese control in 1945. However, the Japanese forces were far below authorized strength, and most of their heavy military equipment and best military units had been transferred to the Pacific front over previous three years. As of 1945, the Japanese army in Manchuria contained a large number of raw recruits. As a result, the Kwantung Army had essentially been reduced to a light infantry counter-insurgency force with limited mobility and experience. In the event, Japanese forces were no match for the mechanized Red Army, with its vastly superior tanks, artillery, officers, experience and tactics. [Wikipedia: Excerpt from the Article Soviet Invasion of Manchuria]

Japan had moved their best military units and equipment to reinforce the Pacific effort over a period of time which had made the front in Manchuria very poorly defended. You can point to the 600,000 troops but mere numbers is deceptive because a significantly smaller core of higher quality troops with better equipment can do damage far in excess of their numbers. The Mexicans learned this in the mid nineteenth century when their 35,000 force of troops was decimated by the better trained and equipped army of General Zachery Taylor of whom then Lieutenant{10} Ulysses Grant would say (I paraphrase) "a finer army had never faced an enemy." They numbered roughly 2300 by the way which was less than 10% of the total of the Mexican regulars but as I do not want to get off on a tangent here, that is all I will say except to summarize the point of the analogy; namely, raw military numbers do not ipso facto constitute a competent or powerful military force.

The Soviets already had plans to invade Hokkaido prior to the planned U.S. invasion of November 1, 1945. Once Russia entered the war, then, Japan faced a choice between unconditional surrender and occupation by the U.S. and unconditional surrender and occupation by the Soviets. Given the Japanese fear of the Soviets, I have no doubt what they would have chosen.

This is speculation and besides, in the Imperial Rescript of Emperor Hirohito{11} the entry of the Soviets into the war was not even listed as the reason for their surrender. This is not to say that Hirohito and company would not have had reason for some concern of course but the latter had nowhere near the number of troops and munitions in the area that we did. The Soviets to use a baseball analogy had "crushed batting practice pitching" in Manchuria -nothing like what an invasion of the homeland would have gotten them if they had attempted it. And there is good reason to doubt that Stalin would have been interested enough to invest much manpower and treasure on Japan when he was busy sucking Eastern Europe into the Soviet orbit.

Finally, even if we assume, contrary to all this, that an atomic bombing was necessary, it still was not necessary to bomb cities full of civilians.

This is a rehashing of what was covered in part one which I have already responded to.

The U.S. could have used the bomb on purely military targets (such as the Japanese troops in Kyushu) or otherwise taken steps to minimize civilian deaths.

I have dealt already with the (doubtlessly unintentional in the case of "Blackadder") misleading application of the word "civilian" to the lions share of the population of those cities in the previous posting.

This was advocated by General Marshall, who said that “these [atomic] weapons might first be used against straight military objectives such as a large naval installation and then if no complete result was derived from the effect of that, he thought we ought to designate a number of large manufacturing areas from which the people would be warned to leave - telling the Japanese that we intended to destroy such centers.” See Memorandum of Conversation with General Marshall, May 29, 1945.

The people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were warned of what was coming -both with the Potsdam Declaration but also with flyers telling them to evacuate their cities. The idea that the bombs would be "tested first" as if we had no shortage of stock was not feasible. And as I said in the first part of this response, I have on file what was delivered to Hiroshima. Though technically not necessary in justification of the use of the bomb there, it nonetheless is additional evidence against the view that the cities (particularly Hiroshima) were bombed without adequate warning.

The idea that the bombings were military unnecessary is not simply a piece of “ivory tower” revisionism, but was the view of some of the greatest military minds of the time, which are documented here.

I never said that the bombings were militarily necessary as in there were no other options and equated that with "ivory tower revisionism." But that point aside for a moment, I trust that "Blackadder" does not know that I have interacted with those proposed "experts" in detail in years past. There was also some disagreement on the use of the bombs due to agenda conflicts; namely some of them wanted their own branch of the service or some particular method of their own to be used. There is a lot more to it than one might casually presume which is all I will say on it for the present time.

Since the U.S. could have achieved the same outcome without the bombings as it did with them, the bombings cannot be said to have saved lives, and in fact represent needless loss of life on a grand scale.

If Japan had held out even until November 1, 1945, there were by estimates from some sources roughly 400,000 deaths that would occur per month by not only the Japanese people but also those who were under the yoke of the Japanese empire. Even the so-called "Strategic Bombing Survey" which itself was Air Force propaganda{12} opined that the Japanese might be able to hold out for the rest of the year. So if we pro-rate the death figure to account for a week of the month, that would mean between August 15th and November 1st, there would be a million deaths. The ending of the war just by those six weeks{13} -assuming for a moment that the Japanese would have even surrendered before that point which is controvertible at best{14} saved more lives than were lost in the use of the two atomic bombs.

The second condition is therefore not met either.

I do not see how based on what has been covered thus far that the second condition is not met; ergo that is all I will say on that matter for now except for a final word on the nature of the subject we are discussing here.

I would be remiss in not noting that this is a very gruesome subject matter to discuss as we are doing. But just as judges are supposed to leave their private opinions at the door when they enter the courtroom, we should act in like fashion in seeking to dialogue on these kinds of delicate issues to insure that we do proper justice to all sides involved. Thank you again for the civility of your treatment of this matter.

Notes:

{1} The letter from Truman was issued in response to a resolution the Hiroshima city council had passed protesting comments made by the former president on the use of the atomic bombs.

{2} The estimates I am aware of with the Japanese in this area is 30 million.

{3} The estimate I am aware of with the Germans in this area is also 30 million.

{4} A recording I might add which some fanatics who were still opposed to surrender at all costs tried to steal before it was played to the nation five days later.

{5} A point I covered in the above referenced MAGIC summaries from late July 1945.

{6} The Meiji Constitution was the primary document of Japanese governance at the time.

{7} Japan was also working on their own versions of a jet fighter in 1945 -the first prototype of which was flown on August 7, 1945 the day after Hiroshima was bombed. They were designed to be built quickly and on the cheap and would have been faster than any of the American planes which were all prop jobs at the time. How many of these they could have rolled out prior to November 1, 1945 (presuming Operation Downfall happened on schedule of course) we will never know but our planes would have been no match for them any more than the American planes were in Europe of the German jet fighters. (Again, Germany surrendered before those weapons or other ones which would have complicated matters for the Allied forces had time to have any significant effect.)

{8} Which was also five days before they actually surrendered in accordance with the Potsdam Declaration.

{9} I will explain the proper application of the concept of "consequentialism" apart from the countless misapplications I have observed in a future posting. (It was written months ago but this subject seems to make discussing those concepts timely; ergo I will do it shortly.)

{10} If memory serves at the moment, Grant had this rank during the Mexican War but I may be wrong on this point.

{11} A translation of the text of which can be read here.

{12} I do not intend to go into this point at the present time.

{13} And that is assuming the Japanese would have surrendered prior to the start of Operation Downfall of course: a proposition which itself is tenuous since there was so much uncertainty on a uniform proposal for surrender on the part of the Supreme War Council even after the bombs were dropped. Without them the likelihood of the Emperor forcing the Council's hand towards anything substantial in the area of a unified will (if we assess this based on the contents of the Imperial Rescript linked to in footnote eleven) would not have been probable.

{14} This has been touched on by logical extension in what was covered in just the present posting. Furthermore, by no means has all the evidence to sustain the controvertible nature of this proposition been dealt with either lest anyone wonder.

On the Anniversary of This Weblog's Founding:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

It is interesting to think that this experiment debuted six years ago today. I had no idea when starting it where I was going to go with it. And though where it has gone has received greater crystallization in the span of over 2500 postings{1}; nonetheless, as with all projects, they take their own direction to some extent due to circumstances of time, events, and of course how one approaches those matters intellectually and otherwise.

For when one actually strives to muse on issues, follow "wherever the evidence leads"{2} and not regurgitate talking points memorandums of one particular agenda or another, it stands to reason that one will not look at things the same way as they get older and hopefully age with some measure of grace.{3}

Certainly this weblog has taken on a variety of approaches over the years and the current approach to blogging which was made official earlier this year{4} will remain intact and even undoubtedly tightened a bit further. But anniversaries are a time of looking at the past to some extent but also for looking forward. I do not have much time for archival digging now even if I wanted to so I will revisit some comments I made in passing last year after the project of thoroughly tagging all the posts in the archive was roughly 99% done. The latter project basically forced me to look into every posting in the archives, assess it, tag it in various ways, and ultimately to notice the various permutations which this weblog has undertaken during its existence. I commented on it at the time in the following words:

[W]e would be less than fully honest if we did not admit that there are some postings in the archive which we do not find to be of value anymore for a variety of reasons which we are not going to delve into at the moment[...] except to note one significant reason which went into this determination.

For you see, your host has refused to purge his archives of stuff which in retrospect he regrets posting. Part of the reason for this is principles as we have been critical of others for trying to airbrush the historical record at their own sites to avoid telling the truth about their past actions or statements in a given point of time. But another reason is that life itself is a process of growth and development across a broad continuum. This includes weblog writing and interests.

We have no problem admitting that it took a bit of time before this weblog really started to take a discernible shape and some of the features and/or principles which have become standard or typical over time were in the "finding their feet" stage early on. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 15, 2007)]

As for how long the "finding the feet stage" goes, things were certainly running with a more noticeable degree of smoothness at the tail end of 2002 and at the start of 2003 that was lacking in the first few months of this weblog's existence. However, in some respects, the entire first year was embryonic as I was barely touching on subjects I would subsequently cover with greater frequency in later years. I also over focused on subjects in that time frame which I was not as interested in discussing as the threads of that period may at times seem to indicate to the contrary.{5}

Nonetheless, I write what my mood dictates and that has been what I have always done and intend to always do -even if sometimes things are posted some time after they are either written or substantially drafted. Basically, my mood changes and the material that is covered changes but as a rule I think long range on these matters. For that reason, the focus is on timeless principles which have contemporary applications -something that has been the pattern of this weblog almost from the beginning.

This weblog weltanschauung means that when subjects of previous intention to discuss come around again in the natural cycle of things, my interest in the subjects of discussion can (and often does) resume. And at points like those, unfinished drafts started weeks or months earlier{6} are finally finished and posted to the weblog. A few such threads will be posted in this coming cycle which ends on September 21st for example -which ones they will be{7} depends on what I want to either complete for posting before then or post from completed drafts that have not been put on the weblog yet at a given point in time.

Anyway, those are some musings I have when reflecting briefly upon today's anniversary, where this weblog has been, and where it may well be going time-willing of course.

Notes:

{1} 2502 as of the posting prior to this one.

{2} To quote former atheist and current theist Antony Flew.

{3} No one can claim to approach issues in a purely abstract way and apart from personal mitigating factors in their apprehension of reality. This is why I have focused more and more on foundational presuppositions and less on the round and round kinds of arguments that go nowhere as I have gotten older and (hopefully) aged with some measure of grace. In a nutshell, someone who is not willing to reassess themselves in this area from time to time -to (in paraphrasing Benjamin Franklin) "doubt a bit of their own infallibility" makes themselves incapable of any potential progress as a human being. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 7, 2007)]

{4} [T]here will be for the indefinite future a change in blogging approach here at Rerum Novarum with the focus being first and foremost on what will facilitate the host's ability to live part of the year in warmer climates. This means that even with more time for blogging when we finish solidifying and streamlining life overall in accordance with Pareto's Principle, that the time for blogging will by necessity be reduced as well. For the rest of the year at least if not indeed for longer still, the postings here will be not much less in number[...] even if they are overall noticeably shorter in length: following an overall pattern that longtime readers may have noticed was happening bit by bit as the last two years (particularly 2007) unfolded anyway[...] -at least as a rule. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 11, 2008)]

{5} I have what in my mind are solid reasons for having done this though and it was certainly not what perhaps most who read those words may casually presume.

{6} And sometimes a year or more earlier.

{7} I went over some of them in a notifications blog post back on August 2nd which I remind readers of at this time.

Points to Ponder:
(On Nonsense Comments By Celebrities or Anyone Else For That Matter)

Because I can say I hate the war, but why should anybody listen to me? I'm not a politician. I didn't take classes in it. I didn't study this. I don't have any classified information. Who am I to say anything? I disagree with the war absolutely but I don't know what else there is to do. I can say yeah I think, I hope the world has peace, I pray Israel and Palestine will solve their problem. Do I think they should all stop fighting? That's a stupid thing to say. Because it's not going to happen. I have no solution for it. You get out of this war and then there's gonna be another problem. I could say I agree with the war but why do I agree with the war? I could say I disagree but why do I disagree? Don't just say because innocent people are dying. You're just stating the obvious. And I agree with the fact that you're going to go to war and why doesn't a forty year old middle aged man like Bush, for instance, go to war and not an innocent eighteen year old? I agree that this is a messed up place. But I'm not gonna go in the press and say 'America's making so many mistakes'. What does that say about what I believe? Nothing. It's me stating a comment based on no fact. [Mila Kunis]

Points to Ponder:
(On Absolute Principles and the 2500th Posting to Rerum Novarum)

We cannot but be astonished at the ease with which men resign themselves to ignorance about what is most important for them to know; and we may be certain that they are determined to remain invincibly ignorant if they once come to consider it as axiomatic that there are no absolute principles. [Claude Frederic Bastiat]

"NostraShawnus" Dept.

I have a way of being rather eerily accurate in overall prognosticating if we exclude sports predictions.{1} One such example pertaining to the recent war between Russia and Georgia was this offhand quip to a friend in a short chat back on August 12, 2008:

[W]atch for some loony leftist to claim that Putin and Russia invading Georgia was a Rove and Bush ploy to help out McCain.

Readers can notice the accuracy of this prediction by reviewing the following Times Online article from August 15, 2008:

Kremlin dusts off Cold War lexicon to make US villain in Georgia

The part of the article of particular interest for this posting is this:

Russians were told over breakfast yesterday what really happened in Georgia: the conflict in South Ossetia was part of a plot by Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, to stop Barack Obama being elected president of the United States.

So folks, do not underestimate your host's prognosticating capabilities even when he is being deliberately absurd. We now return you to your regularly scheduled blogging (to the extent there is a regular schedule of course of which there is not).

Note:

{1} Where despite some pretty substantial analyses of what my favourite teams need to do to succeed nonetheless with actual predictions I am invariably almost always wrong as this list of sports related blogs will more than adequately attest to.

Miscellaneous Musings and Threads of Interest:

Some quick bon a couple stories from today's headlines so without further ado...

US, Poland OK missile defense base, riling Moscow

It would be advisable for the US to stand firm on this -particularly in light of the recent rumblings of the Russian Bear. I will have more to say on the latter in the coming days but for now I recommend perusing the above article if you have not already.

McCain Takes Lead Over Obama In Poll

By all rational accounts considering how the msm has fawned over this guy and given him three times as much coverage as Sen. McCain at times, he should be leading at this point in polling but it has until now been a dead heat within the margin of error.

This does not bode well for Sen. Obama -particularly since other polls have been general ones and this one is focused on an important element: likely voters. All the polls in the world do not help if those included are not likely to actually vote in November.

It seems that the more people see of Obama the less they are enthused about him and the saddleback forum{1} of which my friend Kevin Tierney said showed Sen. McCain looking particularly conservative and presidential compared to Sen. Obama who looked far less comfortable; ergo providing grist for the opinion that this is why Obama has resolutely refused to meet McCain in these kinds of forums up to the present time. It is still early and there is still ten weeks to go but that Obama does not have a lead by this point at least comparable to that of Carter in 1980 or Dukakis in 1988{2} does not bode well in an election year where the Republican brandname is not by all appearances selling very well.

Notes:

{1} On the accusation from leftists that Sen. McCain may have lifted a story from the works of the late Alexander Solzhentisyn, that charge has been refuted.

{2} Both of whom lost in the general elections of those years.

Response to "Blackadder" on the Atomic Bombings:
(Part I of II)

[Update: I made a few revisions to the originally posted material including the addition of a footnote. -ISM 8/15/08 1:00pm]

As a prefatory sequence of sorts, here are the threads preceding this one which are applicable in some form or another:

On the Atomic Bombings of Japan--Part I by "Blackadder" (circa August 6, 2008)

My Preliminary Musings on the Anniversary of Hiroshima, on Revisiting This Subject, and on "Blackadder" (circa August 6, 2008)

Some Additional Musings on the Subject of the Atomic Bombings Subject and the Importance of Doing My Part to Facilitate Potentially Fruitful Dialogue (circa August 7, 2007)

Principles of Proper Dialogue -Part of a 2007 Joint Declaration by Shawn and "Blackadder" (circa August 10, 2008)

There is also the second part of the response "Blackadder" which he posted on the anniversary of Nagasaki (August 9, 2008) which I will link to soon. But first is my response to his posting from August 6th in its entirety. The words of "Blackadder" words will be in dark green font with any quoted sources in that same font italicized. My sources will be in dark blue font. Without further ado...

A little over a year ago, Shawn of the blog Rerum Novarum issued a challenge to Catholics to debate him on the morality of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the close of WWII (he was pro). I accepted the challenge, and we emailed back and forth about logistics, and I prepared an initial post setting out the against side of the question. Unfortunately the proposed debate never ended up happening, for reasons that I won’t go into now.

It is not so much that I am "pro" atomic bombing but in terms of dialogual or debate positions, in the situation so noted I do take a position of advocacy for their usage. Nor will I go into the reasons at the present time for why the original dialogue did not pan except to note that the challenge was a dialogue not a debate but that is neither here nor there as long as the same principles are adhered to in either format; namely, those set down in the posting from August 10, 2008 as linked to in the preamble of this response.

Since today is the anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima, I thought I would post what would have been my initial contribution to the debate. As it is rather long, I have broken it up into two parts.

I will endeavour if at all possible to respond in two parts for the sake of uniformity.

During our email exchange, Shawn and I had agreed that, in order for the bombings to be justified from a Catholic perspective, it had to be the case both that:

1) the bombings did not involve the intentional targeting of civilians; and

2) the bombings saved lives, that is, any alternative course of action would have resulted in even greater loss of life.

I was willing to approach it from these two points this is true but these are not the only points on which I view this action as having some justification. Nor I might add did I exhaust or fully develop all the arguments that can be advanced for my position either in 2005 or in 2006. However, as "Blackadder" was willing to meet the criteria I set down for public dialogue on these matters and was least willing to present some fixed points of reference rather than a bunch of unsubstantiated emotionalist laden assertions and blatant fallacious attempts at appealing to authority (Lat. argumentum ad vericundiam){1}, I agreed to approach the subject through those prisms for the sake of seeing a productive dialogue on these matters coalesce.

I should also note that I actually did not agree with the wording of one of the above points of reference and suggested an alternative at the time. When apprised of what we agreed upon in the precise wording thereof, "Blackadder" graciously made a public correction in the following clarification posted at the end of the note which I will quote at this time:

UPDATE: References in the above post to “civilians” should refer to “noncombatants.” My apologies. Shawn, who was originally to be my interlocutor, offers responses here.

I appreciate this clarification being made when it was brought to his attention. I believed when I did so that the misrepresentation was unintentional and therefore gladly accept his apology on the matter. I will endeavour to explain a bit about why I use this distinction which to some may appear to be a matter of semantics when indeed it is anything but. But first the intentions of this part of "Blackadder's" response needs to be considered...

This post addresses the first condition, and argues that the bombings did, in fact, involve the intentional targeting of civilians. In the second part, I will argue that the second condition, proportionality, was also not met.

One of the points that I made repeatedly in 2005 and 2006 but which none of my critics wanted to deal with is the issue of military conscription. I will note in a footnote some of the bits from that point where the matter was covered in 2005{2} and 2006{3} before dealing with this factor as I decided to reinforce it further in a posting from 2007 -the latter of which I will now quote at length:

[T]here is a mistake when discussing the subject of warfare with classifying people simply as "military" and "civilian." I will admit to having done this at times in the past but I also did so under the assumption that people would properly understand the murky nature of how these categories really existed in wartime Japan. However, since this has not happened as I had hoped, it seems appropriate in lieu of a recent dialogue challenge on the subject in question to tend to this key point; ergo the reason for the post you are now reading.

There is not in many circumstances the fine line in this area that people may like. For example, there is the talk about the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as "civilians" when in fact most of them were conscripted{1} and thus properly recognized as "military." But even with those who were not conscripted, does that make them immediately a "civilian" which by its very usage implies non-combatant status??? For those who are familiar with the situation of wartime Japan, the answer to this obviously is no.

Indeed I use and have used the following principle as an acid test of sorts to know if a person I am discussing these matters with should or should not be taken seriously:

--Is a little child with bombs strapped to it who is instructed by their parents to walk up to a soldier and detonate the bomb a "civilian"??? How about if they are trained to roll under and try and blow up a tank???{2}

The brief answer to these questions is "no", the long answer to them is "hell no." The proper distinction to be made here is not "military" and "civilian" but "combatant" and "non-combatant." And the examples above as well as others which could be noted{3} coalesce to paint a reality about the situation there which the overwhelming majority of commentators on this subject do not get. [Excerpt from the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG (circa July 31, 2007)]

Here are the footnotes from that text:

{1} All males aged fifteen to sixty, and all females ages seventeen to forty-five, had been conscripted. Their weapons included ancient bronze cannon, muzzle loaded muskets, bamboo spears, and bows and arrows. Even little children had been trained to strap explosives around their waists, roll under tank treads, and blow themselves up. They were called “Sherman’s carpets.”

This was the enemy the Pentagon had learned to fear and hate –a country of fanatics dedicated to hara-kiri, determined to slay as many invaders as possible as they went down fighting. [William Manchester: American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 510-511) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa September 6, 2005)]

{2} See footnote one.

{3} See this link which was appended to a footnote in my August 17, 2005 posting on Hiroshima. (It is in footnote six and reviewing my accompanying commentary on it for the context in which it was used would also be advised.)

I will for the sake of keeping this response reasonably short not unpack all the factors involved in the above referenced material. Suffice to say, this matter is one involving a lot of factors and is not done justice by the simplistic approaches so many would apply to it. (And which "Blackadder" to his credit has not done.)

It’s true that there were military targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but this fact alone does not establish that the bombings did not target civilians. Suppose that we are in battle and you are taken captive by an enemy solder who is using you as a human shield. Unfortunately for him, I really dislike you and have been plotting your death for some time. I think to myself “Ah, here’s my chance to get rid of Shawn!” So I throw my hand grenade at you and kill you both. In this scenario, I have intentionally killed you. The fact that I also intentionally killed an enemy solder might provide a pretext for my action, but it doesn’t change the fact that I really did intend your death. Likewise, if the atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the purpose of killing civilians as well as enemy solders, then the fact that there was a military base in Hiroshima does not alter this fact, and will not serve to justify the bombing.

However well his analogy works for the first example, it does not for the second because of the precise nature of the point in which I took issue with the first of "Blackadder" theses initially: the use of the term "civilian." The readers can peruse the parts referenced in the material of my last comments to understand that this was not as simple as "targeting civilians" as "Blackadder" has (undoubtedly in good faith) presumed.

To start with, the lions share of the population (basically everyone between roughly fifteen and forty-five) were conscripted. Furthermore, even those not falling under this classification were trained to attack soldiers with anything they can get their hands on. Even small children were taught to strap bombs on themselves and roll under tanks. This is why I insisted at the outset on the distinction between "combatants" and "non-combatants" and thus be properly viewed as unlawful combatants and not "civilians" in the proper sense of the latter term.

If we look at the minutes of the Target Committee meeting where the initial list of targets for the bombing were drawn up we see that Hiroshima was selected as a bombing site not despite the civilian deaths that the bombing would cause, but specifically because of those deaths.

Here is what the report said about Hiroshima:

(2) Hiroshima - This is an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focussing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage. Due to rivers it is not a good incendiary target. (Classified as an AA Target)

There is a lot in that paragraph but I will try to avoid excessive post length and unnecessary tangents by unpacking it at this time.

The meeting minutes state that “for the initial use of the weapon any small and strictly military objective should be located in a much larger area subject to blast damage in order to avoid undue risks of the weapon being lost due to bad placing of the bomb.” The minutes also cite Hiroshima as being a particularly good target because it “has the advantage of being such a size and with possible focusing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the city may be destroyed.” Likewise, the Interim Committee, headed by Secretary of War Henry Stimson and created by President Truman to deal with the bomb planning, agreed in its May 1945 meeting that “the bomb be used without prior warning against Japan at earliest opportunity, the targets to be a military target surrounded by workers houses.”

"Blackadder" quotes the minutes of the meeting accurately but I want to briefly touch on this to contextualize them. The concern with regards to the bomb drop was insuring that it would not be wasted -this is what the report meant when it set down the principle that "for the initial use of the weapon any small and strictly military objective should be located in a much larger area subject to blast damage in order to avoid undue risks of the weapon being lost due to bad placing of the bomb." As Hiroshima was the initial usage of the weapon, this explains why it was used as it was in that respect.

Another reason it was important to inflict as much damage as possible with the weapon was that there was not a proliferation of supply of these things yet the impression needed to be given that there was. This was not only the case as far as attempting to break the will of the Japanese and hasten an end to the war but also to make a statement to the Soviet Union: yes there was more than one message being sent with the usage of the bomb.

As for not giving notice of the bombing, I will deal with this as well later on.

Far from being an unintended side effect, then, the death of a large number of civilians was part of the reason that Hiroshima was selected as a target site.

There were a variety of reasons for the selection of Hiroshima as a target site. As far as the status of the population there, again, I point the reader to the distinction on this made earlier as when the terms are properly understood.

Now it’s true that President Truman did indicate in his diary entry for July 25, 1945 that the bomb was going to be used against a “purely military” target. It’s not clear to me whether this was a rationalization on Truman’s part, or whether he was duped or just didn’t comprehend what it was that the people who planned the bombing were telling him, but the entry is clearly not an accurate reflection of how the bombing occurred.

Readers can consider a city fortified with significant military installations{4} not counting the building of various munitions which was taking place in private residences throughout Hiroshima{5}, the presence of a quarter of a million soldiers{6}, an overwhelmingly conscripted population{7}, and what was noted earlier in this thread about the training and mentality of even those who did not fall under the status of conscription{8} as to whether what was being dealt with could be rationally styled as a "purely military" target or not.

Truman says that the target was “purely military” (which it wasn’t)

This is at a minimum a controvertible proposition for reasons I noted in the previous paragraph.

[A]nd that the U.S. was going to “issue a warning statement” prior to the bombing (which it didn’t).

But indeed a warning statement was issued. If "Blackadder" would like, I will track down the pamphlet text and present it to him. I point the readers at this time to what President Truman noted in a December 1945 letter to a Dr. Compton on an article written for The Atlantic Monthly on the use of the bombs. Here is the relevant part of that correspondence:

"The Japanese were given fair warning..."

And in the case of Hiroshima, they were warned. While the evidence itself may not change his overall view on the subject, I trust at the very least "Blackadder" would revise the statement he made about there being no warning given upon being made privy to it.

Personally, I’m inclined towards the dupe scenario. When Truman saw the photographs of the Hiroshima aftermath on August 10 (the day after Nagasaki), he ordered a halt to any further bombing, saying that he couldn’t bear the thought of killing “all those kids.” And in 1948, he discussed the matter with Atomic Energy Commission Chairman David Lilienthal, who quoted him as follows:

I don’t think we ought to use this thing [the A-Bomb] unless we absolutely have to. It is a terrible thing to order the use of something that (here he looked down at his desk, rather reflectively) that is so terribly destructive, destructive beyond anything we have ever had. You have got to understand that this isn’t a military weapon. (I shall never forget this particular expression). It is used to wipe out women and children and unarmed people, and not for military uses.

The problem with this quote is it is after the fact and at a point where it is possible that President Truman was having some issues of conscience due to what happened. Who in his position would not have in the immediate aftermath of such an event??? However, Truman with the passing of time did not change his mind on what he viewed was the correctness of his action even if in the final years of his presidency he did at times lament some of the effects of the choice he made.

It appears that Truman went from a position of certainty in the heat of the war which (after it was over) he had some struggles of conscience about pertaining to the derivative effects of those events. The certainty of 1945 and 1946 was replaced by 1948 of some regret as to the effects of the bomb -a view that carried through the remainder of his presidency in 1953.

However, it is similarly evident if you review the statements and correspondence after Truman left office that he had after time and reflection ceased to have such waverings on the matter -review his writings after 1955 to see precisely what I am referring to.

In any event, since Hiroshima was selected as a bombing target specifically because of the high number of civilian deaths that the bombing would cause, the first condition is not met.

As I have demonstrated that the classification of much of the Japanese population of Hiroshima as "civilian" does not meet the proper understanding of this term, the first condition "Blackadder" presented far from not being met is actually sustained. Before moving onto part two in the coming days, I want to thank "Blackadder" for his refreshingly rational and charitable approach to this delicate and often emotionally-charged subject matter.

Notes:

{1} Essentially, I realized through experience on the issue in question the Pandora's Box that is involved in discussing it. Part of the reason for this is the emotions that an issue such as this can have. With the overall lack of anything resembling rational thought and logical analysis of issues in society at large, I should have realized that such a situation could have occurred which did but alas, I was naive in trusting friends to act as friends. And when considering the number of times this subject has been on the verge of being rehashed in the past year -and how I have managed to skirt it through a proper appeal to principled rationale[...] the time has come in my mind for a careful reappraisal of my normative approach to this matter.

As much as I tire of hearing about this issue[...] from the usual suspects[...], it also stands to reason that no subject can be shut off from being discussed indefinitely. For those reasons, and to insure that the subject is neither (i) completely neglected or (ii) handled in the embarrassing fashions to which I have unfortunately witnessed on not a few occasions, I will despite my reluctance agree to discuss it. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 22, 2007)]

{2} Again readers, I have not merely made assertions as to Hiroshima being a military target (as [XXXX] has in saying it was not) but I have actually set forth arguments and stated evidences that anyone can verify. And while I could draw out this post with yet further reinforcements of my assertions, I will remember my readers and their patience and stick to one for now: Wikipedia. This is generally a source I do not like for various and sundry reasons but I will use it as a lawyer uses a “hostile witness” in court to point out some facts on this matter that seem to elude my good (but misinformed) friend [XXXX]:

At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of considerable industrial and military significance. Some military camps were located nearby such as the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. Hiroshima was a major supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. It was chosen as a target because it had not suffered damage from previous bombing raids, allowing an ideal environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb. The city was mobilized for "all-out" war, with thousands of conscripted women, children and Koreans working in military offices, military factories and building demolition and with women and children training to resist any invading force. [Wikipedia: Entry on Hiroshima]

I will return to these points later on when delving into my copy of American Caesar and pointing out where Doug Long is deceptive in quoting the source. But before doing that, let us deal with the subject of conscription since it also changes the landscape of this issue and is a detriment to [XXXX's] argument:

The opposite of voluntary enrollment is conscription, carried out by the nation-state. The resulting military force lacks the moral characteristics of a volunteer army; it is essentially a machine requiring severe discipline, its cohesion being maintained by the threat of punishment. Its great problems, desertion and slackness among the troops, can be kept within bounds only by strong organization and leadership…

[Most often], conscription is part of a program of universal military service accepted by the public and carried out in cooperation with it. [Encyclopedia Brittanica Fifteenth Edition: Excerpt from War, the Theory and Conduct of Macropaedia Volume XXIX, pg. 705 (c. 1985)]

Obviously, where you have conscription taking place of giant chunks of the population, that changes the dynamic of a key point of the argument altogether. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 6, 2005)]

There was also this addition to the above material:

The best and most obvious place from which to start this examination in my humble opinion is with the Supreme Commander of the Pacific himself one General Douglas MacArthur. Doug Long starts his quote-fest by quoting from American Caesar which was William Manchester’s well written biography on the man. As I happen to own the very same William Manchester biography of General MacArthur being cited, I will deal with that source first. Starting on page 510, the following is outlined after discussing the inter-service rivalry between MacArthur, Le May, and Nimitz, the following words from pages 510-511 of American Caesar set the stage for putting Doug Long’s quote into proper context:

Hirohito’s generals, grimly preparing for the invasion, had not abandoned hope of saving their homeland. Although a few strategic islands had been lost, they told each other, most of their conquests, including the Chinese heartland, were firmly in their hands, and the bulk of their army was undefeated. Even now they could scarcely believe that any foe would have the audacity to attempt landings in Japan itself. Allied troops, they boasted, would face the fiercest resistance in history. Over ten thousand kamikaze planes were readied for “Ketsu-Go,” Operation Decision. Behind the beaches, enormous connecting underground caves had been stocked with caches of food and thousands of tons of ammunition. Manning the nation’s ground defenses were 2,350,000 regular soldiers, 250,000 garrison troops, and 32,000,000 civilian militiamen –a total of 34,600,000, more than the combined armies of the United States, Great Britain, and Nazi Germany. All males aged fifteen to sixty, and all females ages seventeen to forty-five, had been conscripted. Their weapons included ancient bronze cannon, muzzle loaded muskets, bamboo spears, and bows and arrows. Even little children had been trained to strap explosives around their waists, roll under tank treads, and blow themselves up. They were called “Sherman’s carpets.”

This was the enemy the Pentagon had learned to fear and hate –a country of fanatics dedicated to hara-kiri, determined to slay as many invaders as possible as they went down fighting. [William Manchester: American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 510-511)]

I have already discussed the concept of military conscription in part I of this thread so readers need to account for what was noted there when reading the above words from Mr. Manchester's book. From there the book discusses a dovish contingent that was also present. According to the book (pg. 511) everyone MacArthur talked to in the War Department believed that Japan could hold out for at least two more years. From there, the book quotes some Japanese persons with retrospect statements about how “Japan was finished” all of that is towards the end of page 511 leading into page 512 where the citation from Long is made. I will interact with these quotes shortly. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 6, 2005)]

{3} [I]t is not only arguable that more lives were saved than lost, it is an indisputable fact as anyone with a smidgen of knowledge of the war situation in Japan during WWII is well aware. Secondly, the idea that there were all of these "innocents" in Japan and that their deaths was a means to achieve the end (rather than a derivative effect of the action taken) is also misguided. All that is required is for the good effect to be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect. And with most of the populace in Japan under conscription, there were very few who could be called "innocent" and even with those that were who died it does not get in the way of a proper understanding of the principle of double effect. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 23, 2006)]

{4} To note a couple of the earliest examples from these archives:

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets as a result of the voluminous output of military equipment and munitions that was done in those cities. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 17, 2005)]

I already noted that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military centers of wartime Japan where carriers, aircrafts, torpedoes, and other munitions were built; ergo they can be properly considered military targets. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 17, 2005)]

{5} As you may know, there [were] munitions being built in individual houses as well as in plants in the towns of greater military significance (such as Hiroshima and Nagasaki). I am unaware of any similar phenomenon in America during the war -I mean there were "victory gardens" as we know and the saving of resources for the war effort. However, there is a difference between food and the materials for potential munitions and machinery and the actual construction of such things from the materials themselves in housing units. However the conventional lines are blurred by the situation in wartime Japan, this is one line that I feel is of no small importance though (due to what else was covered in my own arguments) I did not raise this issue as yet another argument for my position. (There were a few arguments I either did not include or barely touched on as I only have so much time and when virtually no one wanted to have a civil dialogue on these matters, I saw no reason to expend the additional time on the matter delving into other matters.) [Excerpt from an Email Correspondence (circa July 5, 2008)]

{6} There were 10,000 military aircraft targeted for Kamikaze missions against the US military along with roughly a quarter million or more soldiers in Hiroshima alone. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 17, 2005)]

{7} See footnotes two and three.

{8} I noted this earlier in the present posting both in the text as well as in a footnote quoting something I wrote back in 2005. (See the quote from Manchester in footnote two.)