How is it that those who are against abortion are allied with the party that wants to get involved with wars all over the world? Doesn’t war kill pregnant women and their unborn children?
How many pregnant women in England were killed German rockets? How many pregnant women were killed by the fire-bombing of Dresden? How many pregnant women were killed in Leningrad and Stalingrad? How many pregnant women were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? How many pregnant women were killed in Viet Nam by either side? How man pregnant women have been killed in Iraq, Syria, and many other places?
None of these war victims was given a choice.
Showing posts with label atomic bomb. Show all posts
Showing posts with label atomic bomb. Show all posts
Monday, November 28, 2016
Thursday, October 08, 2015
Pride goeth before the fall
The full King James Version of the title is “Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.”
Is pride always a bad thing?
Pride based on the assumption that you are better than everyone else is certainly not a good thing. This was the pride of kings and nobility who thought they were better than the “rabble” or even the lesser “nobility”. They lived lavishly, depending on the taxes and labor of those “beneath” them. Some of these “haughty spirits” had a great fall.
Do we have a new “nobility” who wouldn’t have their wealth without the labor of many others? Does this “nobility” think they earned every dollar personally, even if those who did the actual work for them lived in dire straits or worked at dangerous jobs without proper safety measures? Their pride does cause destruction; is a fall coming for them?
Pride is a good thing when it is to bolster one’s self-esteem. Think “gay pride” and “black pride”. If this pride makes people think better of themselves, despite the disdain of others, then it is definitely a good thing.
Pride is a good thing when one has created something unique or solved a difficult problem.
These kinds of pride could come under the advice “Don’t hide your light under a bushel”. Of course, one should balance between waving the light in the face of others and getting rewarded with money or fame for one’s effort.
Southern Pride has been much in the news lately. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? But is it a pride based on “we’re right and everyone else is wrong” or is it based on some real accomplishments? If it is still fighting the Civil War, it is not a good thing. If it is, then those who hold this attitude should consider the warning of George Washington in his “Farewell Address”. He warned of the dangers of south against north or east against west.
Have you heard much talk of Northern Pride or Eastern Pride or Western Pride?
National pride is something many feel, but is it really justified? I am an American but I feel neither proud nor ashamed to be an American; I just am an American. This is my country with all of its greatness and all of its faults.
I feel no pride because many Americans fought and died to help defeat Hitler. I was only seven years old at the time. About the only thing I did for the war effort was to fill my war stamp book.
I feel no shame because the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing thousands of women and children who had nothing to do with Imperial policy. Again I was only seven at the time. Interestingly, there are some who are proud of this attack, some of whom are also anti-abortion. How many instant abortions were there at Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
I feel no pride because I am not a hyphenated American.
My name may be Irish, but I don’t consider myself an Irish-American. In fact, when I visited Ireland, I was called a Yank. The earliest ancestor I can find with the name Magree was in the 1830 census. I know he is an ancestor because his son married in England and gave his father’s first name on his marriage document. For all I know, Vincent Magree could have immigrated from Italy as Vincenzo Magri! The 1830 census did not provide the detail that later censuses did.
Most of my traceable ancestors were from England or Germany, and possibly Poland. But I am not English-American or German-American or Polish-American. I am just American and happy to be so regardless of the achievements or the faults of many other Americans.
Some time ago I wrote a Reader Weekly column entitled “I live in the best house in the world”. I poked fun at myself because I lived in “the best house in the world.” I kept stepping up from best city, best state, and best country. At each step I pointed out that others felt the same about their cities, states, or countries.
Another aspect of pride is “school spirit”. I never did like the term. I went to the schools that I did because they had to let me in or I chose them for my own convenience. Sure, I participated in a couple of varsity sports and I cheered on my friends in the sports they chose. I also donate annually to the two colleges that I went to. Others paid a large portion of my tuition then, and so I support those who study there now. The pile of literature that I get from both includes what the sports teams are doing. I could care less. I do care that the students are learning important and useful stuff.
I find it amazing or amusing that so many get wrapped up in the doings of sports teams, both scholastic and professional. If the locals win, they are overjoyed; if the locals lose, they are dejected or even derisive of coaches or players.
My attitude is “who are the Bulldogs”? Yeah! Yeah! I know, but I have no idea what their schedule is. I just wish the band would play a bit quieter so that I didn’t hear it at my house three-quarters of a mile away.
Finally, when someone asks me about the Vikings, I reply, “Vikings!! Hide the gold! Run for the hills!”
OK! I have no shame! I am done rambling. You can use this page to wrap fish.
Also appears in the Reader Weekly of Duluth, 2015-10-08 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/10/07/6053_pride_goeth_before_the_fall.
Is pride always a bad thing?
Pride based on the assumption that you are better than everyone else is certainly not a good thing. This was the pride of kings and nobility who thought they were better than the “rabble” or even the lesser “nobility”. They lived lavishly, depending on the taxes and labor of those “beneath” them. Some of these “haughty spirits” had a great fall.
Do we have a new “nobility” who wouldn’t have their wealth without the labor of many others? Does this “nobility” think they earned every dollar personally, even if those who did the actual work for them lived in dire straits or worked at dangerous jobs without proper safety measures? Their pride does cause destruction; is a fall coming for them?
Pride is a good thing when it is to bolster one’s self-esteem. Think “gay pride” and “black pride”. If this pride makes people think better of themselves, despite the disdain of others, then it is definitely a good thing.
Pride is a good thing when one has created something unique or solved a difficult problem.
These kinds of pride could come under the advice “Don’t hide your light under a bushel”. Of course, one should balance between waving the light in the face of others and getting rewarded with money or fame for one’s effort.
Southern Pride has been much in the news lately. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? But is it a pride based on “we’re right and everyone else is wrong” or is it based on some real accomplishments? If it is still fighting the Civil War, it is not a good thing. If it is, then those who hold this attitude should consider the warning of George Washington in his “Farewell Address”. He warned of the dangers of south against north or east against west.
Have you heard much talk of Northern Pride or Eastern Pride or Western Pride?
National pride is something many feel, but is it really justified? I am an American but I feel neither proud nor ashamed to be an American; I just am an American. This is my country with all of its greatness and all of its faults.
I feel no pride because many Americans fought and died to help defeat Hitler. I was only seven years old at the time. About the only thing I did for the war effort was to fill my war stamp book.
I feel no shame because the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing thousands of women and children who had nothing to do with Imperial policy. Again I was only seven at the time. Interestingly, there are some who are proud of this attack, some of whom are also anti-abortion. How many instant abortions were there at Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
I feel no pride because I am not a hyphenated American.
My name may be Irish, but I don’t consider myself an Irish-American. In fact, when I visited Ireland, I was called a Yank. The earliest ancestor I can find with the name Magree was in the 1830 census. I know he is an ancestor because his son married in England and gave his father’s first name on his marriage document. For all I know, Vincent Magree could have immigrated from Italy as Vincenzo Magri! The 1830 census did not provide the detail that later censuses did.
Most of my traceable ancestors were from England or Germany, and possibly Poland. But I am not English-American or German-American or Polish-American. I am just American and happy to be so regardless of the achievements or the faults of many other Americans.
Some time ago I wrote a Reader Weekly column entitled “I live in the best house in the world”. I poked fun at myself because I lived in “the best house in the world.” I kept stepping up from best city, best state, and best country. At each step I pointed out that others felt the same about their cities, states, or countries.
Another aspect of pride is “school spirit”. I never did like the term. I went to the schools that I did because they had to let me in or I chose them for my own convenience. Sure, I participated in a couple of varsity sports and I cheered on my friends in the sports they chose. I also donate annually to the two colleges that I went to. Others paid a large portion of my tuition then, and so I support those who study there now. The pile of literature that I get from both includes what the sports teams are doing. I could care less. I do care that the students are learning important and useful stuff.
I find it amazing or amusing that so many get wrapped up in the doings of sports teams, both scholastic and professional. If the locals win, they are overjoyed; if the locals lose, they are dejected or even derisive of coaches or players.
My attitude is “who are the Bulldogs”? Yeah! Yeah! I know, but I have no idea what their schedule is. I just wish the band would play a bit quieter so that I didn’t hear it at my house three-quarters of a mile away.
Finally, when someone asks me about the Vikings, I reply, “Vikings!! Hide the gold! Run for the hills!”
OK! I have no shame! I am done rambling. You can use this page to wrap fish.
Also appears in the Reader Weekly of Duluth, 2015-10-08 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/10/07/6053_pride_goeth_before_the_fall.
Thursday, May 28, 2015
0 in 2050? 0 in 2100?
Zero nuclear weapons in 2050? Zero armies in 2100? Impossible? No, but improbable. On the other hand, if we don’t set goals, we might not even make minor steps.
I don’t think the current holders of nuclear weapons are going to make any real steps to get rid of them or even to reduce their stockpiles significantly. What it will take is many of the non-holders to put constant pressure in the U.N. and other places to get the holders to begin reducing their nuclear arsenals.
Currently, it seems the problem is getting even worse. Saudi Arabia is threatening to start its own nuclear program. China is developing multiple-warhead missiles. North Korea could get mad enough to launch a missile at somebody at anytime. And who knows what kind of deals ISIS may be seeking?
What reduction plans are possible?
A first step might be for the biggest holders to reduce their stockpiles to the level of the next biggest holders. This should be an “easy” step given the huge gap between the groups.
According to estimates published by Ploughshares, the U.S. has 8,000 and Russia has 7,800 nuclear weapons. There are 1,000 cities in the world with a population of 500,000 or more. That means that the U.S. and Russia could send over fifteen missiles to each of these cities. Too what purpose? Who dies and why?
Worse yet, they would probably launch their missiles at cities in Europe and North America. There are less than 250 cities in these two continents with populations of 500,000 or more. The U.S. and Russia could send over 60 missiles and bombs to each of these cities. What do they want to do? Watch the rubble bounce? With this kind of ridiculous power would there be anybody left to watch the rubble bounce?
As a first step away from this madness, the U.S. and Russia should reduce their nuclear weapons to the level of the third largest nuclear power – France, which has 300 nuclear weapons. That would be more than enough to obliterate the larger cities in North America and Europe more than twice over.
Any country with nuclear weapons can have a change in government, even “peaceful”, to a more bellicose government. What if Israel with its 80 nuclear weapons feels that it has to react to some threat and sends nuclear weapons to several of its Muslim neighbors? Would Pakistan, which might not be an Israeli target, then feel compelled to retaliate with its 120 nuclear weapons? Even if Pakistan didn’t retaliate, would some of the fallout come back to haunt Israel? The farthest Israeli target that I can think of is Tehran, less than 1,000 miles away. Winds may be westerly, but some of the fallout might drift back to Israel, really making the use of nuclear weapons a lose-lose idea.
I hope a large coalition of non-nuclear countries would continually bring up in the United Nations General Assembly the folly of nuclear weapons. Maybe if the pressure gets great enough, we might have no nuclear weapons in 2050.
Although the amount of war has not decreased, there are several areas that had major wars but now have peace.
Think of the centuries of wars in Europe: duke vs. duke, king vs. king, city state vs. city state. The King of Sweden doesn’t march to Prague. Britain and France have peaceful relations after centuries of fighting for dominance on land and sea. Despite Putin’s perceptions, no Knights Templar, no Napoleon, and no Kaiser or Hitler will be banging at the gates of St. Petersburg or Moscow.
There have been many wars in South America and there are still armed rebellions in Columbia and Peru, but the last war between two countries was the Cerepa War between Ecuador and Peru that ended in 1995.
The Americas have the most countries with zero active militaries – Costa Rica, Panama, and Haiti. Iceland and Mauritius also have no active militaries. Iceland has the smallest paramilitary with 130. Iceland’s paramilitary includes counter-terrorism police and the coast guard. Ironically, although Mauritius has no active military, a part that was considered part of Mauritius before independence is now leased by the United Kingdom to the United States - Diego Garcia.
You can do some of your own comparison of militaries with the Wikipedia entry “List of countries by number of military and paramilitary”. You can order the list by any of the columns.
Ordering by “Total per 1000 capita”, North Korea outstrips all others: 308.5. Almost a third of the population is in the military or paramilitary. Its active military is 47.8 per 1000 capita. Its archenemy, South Korea has 12.3, just behind North Korea’s “benefactor”, China, with 12.4. The United States is much farther down the list at 4.7, even though it has the second largest active military after China. I could go on and on. It just boggles the mind how many resources we as a species put into distrust of others of our own species.
Maybe no armies in 2100 is a difficult goal, but when you compare the hostilities of 2000 to the hostilities of 1900 or 1800, it is not an impossible goal.
Maybe we could start with reducing the arms trade. And maybe the way to reduce the arms trade is with sarcastic humor.
“Micmacs” is a great slapstick movie about a bunch of misfits fighting arms merchants by exposing their hypocrisy.
The satire section of Swedish Radio’s “Godmorgon, världen”, Public Service [sic], had a wonderful piece about Sweden not selling arms to dictators. The “prime minister” is queried about sending arms to Thailand. He calls it a “non-democracy” because Sweden doesn’t send arms to dictators. The interviewer then asks if Belgium is a dictatorship because Sweden doesn’t send arms to Belgium.
Hitler is gone, but Charlie Chaplin’s “The Great Dictator” is still popular: “the misery that is now upon us is but the passing of greed – the bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress.”
This was also published in the Reader Weekly of Duluth, 2015-05-25 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/05/28/5356_0_in_2050_0_in_2100.
I don’t think the current holders of nuclear weapons are going to make any real steps to get rid of them or even to reduce their stockpiles significantly. What it will take is many of the non-holders to put constant pressure in the U.N. and other places to get the holders to begin reducing their nuclear arsenals.
Currently, it seems the problem is getting even worse. Saudi Arabia is threatening to start its own nuclear program. China is developing multiple-warhead missiles. North Korea could get mad enough to launch a missile at somebody at anytime. And who knows what kind of deals ISIS may be seeking?
What reduction plans are possible?
A first step might be for the biggest holders to reduce their stockpiles to the level of the next biggest holders. This should be an “easy” step given the huge gap between the groups.
According to estimates published by Ploughshares, the U.S. has 8,000 and Russia has 7,800 nuclear weapons. There are 1,000 cities in the world with a population of 500,000 or more. That means that the U.S. and Russia could send over fifteen missiles to each of these cities. Too what purpose? Who dies and why?
Worse yet, they would probably launch their missiles at cities in Europe and North America. There are less than 250 cities in these two continents with populations of 500,000 or more. The U.S. and Russia could send over 60 missiles and bombs to each of these cities. What do they want to do? Watch the rubble bounce? With this kind of ridiculous power would there be anybody left to watch the rubble bounce?
As a first step away from this madness, the U.S. and Russia should reduce their nuclear weapons to the level of the third largest nuclear power – France, which has 300 nuclear weapons. That would be more than enough to obliterate the larger cities in North America and Europe more than twice over.
Any country with nuclear weapons can have a change in government, even “peaceful”, to a more bellicose government. What if Israel with its 80 nuclear weapons feels that it has to react to some threat and sends nuclear weapons to several of its Muslim neighbors? Would Pakistan, which might not be an Israeli target, then feel compelled to retaliate with its 120 nuclear weapons? Even if Pakistan didn’t retaliate, would some of the fallout come back to haunt Israel? The farthest Israeli target that I can think of is Tehran, less than 1,000 miles away. Winds may be westerly, but some of the fallout might drift back to Israel, really making the use of nuclear weapons a lose-lose idea.
I hope a large coalition of non-nuclear countries would continually bring up in the United Nations General Assembly the folly of nuclear weapons. Maybe if the pressure gets great enough, we might have no nuclear weapons in 2050.
Although the amount of war has not decreased, there are several areas that had major wars but now have peace.
Think of the centuries of wars in Europe: duke vs. duke, king vs. king, city state vs. city state. The King of Sweden doesn’t march to Prague. Britain and France have peaceful relations after centuries of fighting for dominance on land and sea. Despite Putin’s perceptions, no Knights Templar, no Napoleon, and no Kaiser or Hitler will be banging at the gates of St. Petersburg or Moscow.
There have been many wars in South America and there are still armed rebellions in Columbia and Peru, but the last war between two countries was the Cerepa War between Ecuador and Peru that ended in 1995.
The Americas have the most countries with zero active militaries – Costa Rica, Panama, and Haiti. Iceland and Mauritius also have no active militaries. Iceland has the smallest paramilitary with 130. Iceland’s paramilitary includes counter-terrorism police and the coast guard. Ironically, although Mauritius has no active military, a part that was considered part of Mauritius before independence is now leased by the United Kingdom to the United States - Diego Garcia.
You can do some of your own comparison of militaries with the Wikipedia entry “List of countries by number of military and paramilitary”. You can order the list by any of the columns.
Ordering by “Total per 1000 capita”, North Korea outstrips all others: 308.5. Almost a third of the population is in the military or paramilitary. Its active military is 47.8 per 1000 capita. Its archenemy, South Korea has 12.3, just behind North Korea’s “benefactor”, China, with 12.4. The United States is much farther down the list at 4.7, even though it has the second largest active military after China. I could go on and on. It just boggles the mind how many resources we as a species put into distrust of others of our own species.
Maybe no armies in 2100 is a difficult goal, but when you compare the hostilities of 2000 to the hostilities of 1900 or 1800, it is not an impossible goal.
Maybe we could start with reducing the arms trade. And maybe the way to reduce the arms trade is with sarcastic humor.
“Micmacs” is a great slapstick movie about a bunch of misfits fighting arms merchants by exposing their hypocrisy.
The satire section of Swedish Radio’s “Godmorgon, världen”, Public Service [sic], had a wonderful piece about Sweden not selling arms to dictators. The “prime minister” is queried about sending arms to Thailand. He calls it a “non-democracy” because Sweden doesn’t send arms to dictators. The interviewer then asks if Belgium is a dictatorship because Sweden doesn’t send arms to Belgium.
Hitler is gone, but Charlie Chaplin’s “The Great Dictator” is still popular: “the misery that is now upon us is but the passing of greed – the bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress.”
This was also published in the Reader Weekly of Duluth, 2015-05-25 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/05/28/5356_0_in_2050_0_in_2100.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Al Qaeda and Slaughterhouse Five
I have long had Kurt Vonnegut's "Slaughterhouse Five" on my reading list. I borrowed it from the library recently and finished it yesterday afternoon.
I did know that Vonnegut was a survivor of the Dresden fire bombing. I had thought that Slaughterhouse Five was about five survivors who were in a meat locker. Actually it was the address of where they were bunked as prisoners of war assigned to work in Dresden: Schlacthof fünf. There were about 100 prisoners guarded by four old or teen-age German conscripts.
They were about the only survivors of the firebombing. When they emerged from their shelter, they saw no standing buildings. Even then, they were strafed by planes attacking anything moving.
One character, a retired Air Force officer justifies the bombing because of what "the Germans" did. He also states that more people died in Dresden than in either the firebombing of Tokyo or the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. He also justifies the latter two because of all the things "the Japanese" did to other people.
Amazing the different attitudes of people in the air or far away and of the people actually on the ground.
The imposition of collective guilt is always wrong. Jewish children of the twentieth century had nothing to do with the crucifixion of Jesus. German children of the 1940s had nothing to do with the Holocaust or the bombing of England. Japanese children of the 1940s had nothing to do with the attack on Pearl Harbor or the Rape of Nanking. Yet all these children are worth killing because of the actions of some of their elders. The god Maloch still lives and we still sacrifice children to his fires.
Is it any wonder that Al Qaeda thinks it appropriate to kill Americans anywhere anytime because they don't like the actions of a few Americans?
Obama's reaching out to people around the world is not going to quench the fires of Maloch soon, but let's hope it is a start.
I did know that Vonnegut was a survivor of the Dresden fire bombing. I had thought that Slaughterhouse Five was about five survivors who were in a meat locker. Actually it was the address of where they were bunked as prisoners of war assigned to work in Dresden: Schlacthof fünf. There were about 100 prisoners guarded by four old or teen-age German conscripts.
They were about the only survivors of the firebombing. When they emerged from their shelter, they saw no standing buildings. Even then, they were strafed by planes attacking anything moving.
One character, a retired Air Force officer justifies the bombing because of what "the Germans" did. He also states that more people died in Dresden than in either the firebombing of Tokyo or the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. He also justifies the latter two because of all the things "the Japanese" did to other people.
Amazing the different attitudes of people in the air or far away and of the people actually on the ground.
The imposition of collective guilt is always wrong. Jewish children of the twentieth century had nothing to do with the crucifixion of Jesus. German children of the 1940s had nothing to do with the Holocaust or the bombing of England. Japanese children of the 1940s had nothing to do with the attack on Pearl Harbor or the Rape of Nanking. Yet all these children are worth killing because of the actions of some of their elders. The god Maloch still lives and we still sacrifice children to his fires.
Is it any wonder that Al Qaeda thinks it appropriate to kill Americans anywhere anytime because they don't like the actions of a few Americans?
Obama's reaching out to people around the world is not going to quench the fires of Maloch soon, but let's hope it is a start.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)