Independence Day and TUSCL.COM

If we were in Iran I would have been lined up against a wall and shot by now. I have a million criticisms of my country and especially my government (that's what makes me an American), but there is no getting around the fact that freedom beats slavery any day of the week. I am grateful for living in this country every day. It's like winning the lottery ticket of life.

I will agree with you both, and mention one other thing...

I do not feel at all guilty about being an American and living as we do. Everyone has or has had the chance, and we were lucky that our Forefathers took it upon themselves to start us on our way!

I was talking just a few days ago with a Cuban who had left the island a few years ago. He was telling me that he LOVES America and that he was working hard. I told him that I wanted to hear about Cuba. Surprisingly, he started with all the positives----which didn't make any sense at all. Here he says he LOVES America and yet somehow he makes the island sound too good to leave assuming you love a caring government.

I stop him and say you aren't making too much sense. I understand that you LOVE America, but what is all this praise for Cuba? He explained that all those that left with him wanted to return to Cuba and were very unhappy in America. That was a shocker and moreso when he complained that all they were using their freedom of speech for was to denounce America. He was stunned that I gave the thumbs up sign. So he repeats that their freedom of speech is to bad mouth America. I nod that I understand.

He says that if he ever wins the lottery he will give those from his village $$$ so that they can return to Cuba as they're so desperate to do. I said you would pay for their return? He says the people are from the same village as him and he cares very much for them and wishes the Cuban government would allow them to return without trouble. He says they're wrong about America, but it is wrong that the Cuban government won't let them apologize and return. He says they're basically very good people that made a mistake. As much as he LOVES America they HATE America.

Cuba even with all his praise didn't sound too inviting and I assume the main reason those that fled with him wanted to return to Cuba was because the culture shock and loss of friends and family was simply too much.

Hey, happy Independence day over there. I think you have a great country, unlike ours, your country is a true democracy. Your people are great, and your girls are HOT! We also are greatly indebited to how you helped us out in the past. We will never forget it. Have a GREAT day!

I am truly blessed with having been born in the greatest country in the world. Not a perfect country. But if you think that there is something better you are always free to leave. I wish that I could serve hamburgers, hot dogs and beer to the troops but I am just a little man. I am not even going into politics today. Just appreciate them.

I am so proud of being an American - and knowing that I live in the only country in the history of the world to have dropped a nuclear bomb on a civilan population - twice. Unnecessarily.

I also feel blessed knowing that our forefathers had the foresight to break with England and adopt black slavery as the economic engine of the colonies -- maintaining that peculiar institution longer than any other western civilization. Now that is leadership for you!

We are SUCH a good people. Oh, it brings tears to my eyes, knowing how much better and smarter we are than the rest of the world. After all, if we hadn't invaded Iraq, then who would?

Yes, show me a more civilized people amongst all the Western nations! My God, they've all abolished the death penalty long ago. Whereas we, like Iran and other fundamentalist states, are decent enough to embrace the necessity of capital punishment.

Yes, I love this country. And I show it every day by wearing a flag pin on my lapel. It saves me from the effort of having to think for myself.

Zerzan

Well, slamming your country and your government is one of the most American things you can do, so I guess in your post you're just fulfilling your patriotic duty.

But I think the sarcastic tone of your post suggests that you think people who love America are right wing jingoistic fools. I don't think that's a fair critcism. I can see clearly the many flaws of my country and still love my country, much the same way I can love my family and friends even though I can see they are deeply flawed individuals.

Some of your criticisms are pretty off base, in my view. The one that sticks the most in my craw are your comments about WWII. It was not "unnecessary" to drop the bomb on Japan. Please bear in mind that WWII was a battle between countries like the US who were trying to preserve a measure of freedom and democracy in the world, versus Japan, Germany and Italy. At the time, those three countries were run by governments that were the most fascistic governments in the world, indeed, in history. You are well familiar with the 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis. But it is also true that Japan committed appalling atrocities throughout Asia. To this day, many Asian countries (especially China and Korea) despise the Japanese because of the crimes committed by Japan during WWII. (By the way, you probably remember that we became involved in that war because Japan launched an unprovoked attack on our fleet in Pearl Harbor. Was that our fault too?)

During the war, it became evident that the axis powers (in particular Germany) were developing an atomic bomb. We don't need to guess what would have happened had they succeeded. Several prominent Americans (including Albert Einstein, a committed pacifist) urged the Roosevelt administration to move full speed to develop the bomb as fast as possible, before the Nazis could.

By the time we developed the bomb, Germany had been defeated (thanks, by the way, to the invasion of Normandy, which involved a catastrophic loss of human lives -- I hope you think it was ok that we defeated Nazi Germany). Despite our victory in Europe, and despite the fact that it was clear we would eventually win, Japan refused to surrender. We specifically warned the Japanese government in advance that we had a new kind of weapon, and urged them to give up, but they refused. (Question: would Japan or Germany afforded us with a similar warning?)

Most military experts believe the loss of life would have been greater had we not dropped the bomb, because of the loss of life required to take Japan island by island. Island warfare against Japan had already proved to be incredibly deadly.

After we dropped the first bomb, we again asked the Japanese government to surrender. Even though everyone could now plainly see what a powerful weapon we had, still they refused, incredibly. Only after we dropped the second bomb did they finally give up. It's sad that their government refused to give in, but that's what we have to expect from a fanatical, fascist regime. I personally feel comfortable that we saved lives by dropping the bomb.

And, by the way, once we defeated Japan what did we do? Did we enslave them? Humiliate them? Did we act the way Western Europe acted toward Germany when they defeated Germany at the end of WWI? No, we rebuilt Japan completely, gave them a world class economy, and also gave them an even greater gift, a functioning democrary and a free society with constitutional rights. Most Japanese people will tell you, I think, that they are very glad they lost WWII, and particularly that they are glad they lost to the U.S., because they are clearly better off for having lost.

Same in Europe by the way. Who do you think was better off -- the Germans who lived in West Germany and were conquered by us, or the Germans who lived in East Germany and were conquered by the Soviets? Which side had to build a wall to keep its people from escaping?

Yes, our country is a deeply flawed country, but WWII is actually one of the best examples of our country's greatness -- a war we did not start; a war we desperately had to win; a war that helped defeat the worst fascists in history; and after we won, we did not use our victory to achieve the "spoils" of war, but instead used it to promote a better world.

Gosh, I could turn next to show why your comments about slavery are pretty mis-guided too (England was a major participant in the slave trade would be my opening salvo), but it's a holiday, so I'm going to give it a rest. No, I won't be wearing a flag pin, and yes I will keep thinking for myself, but still, I love my country.

Zerzan: I am sorry to wake up this morning and see such an immature post. I will pay your way out of here. Just tell me where you want to go.

njscfan: I had hoped to avoid politics today but Zerzan fucked that up. I have to agree with everything that you said. I just want to add one more thing. I spent 1964/65 in Japan and never met any one that hated me or the U.S. for dropping the bombs.

Zerzan,

Under most circumstances I would not even bother to reply to a post like this. But I have grown tired of the attitude you display here. Your world view has all the complexity of a punk-assed college kid with no real life experience to offer up. It is time for you to evolve and I am going to give you a little food for thought to help you along.

Zerzan: “I am so proud of being an American - and knowing that I live in the only country in the history of the world to have dropped a nuclear bomb on a civilan population - twice. Unnecessarily.”

Parodyman-->: The necessity of the use of atomic weapons in Japan is debatable. What exactly have you done to prevent another tragedy like this from happening again? Other than childish sarcasm on a strip club website what are you going to do today to promote awareness on the dangers of these weapons?

Zerzan: “I also feel blessed knowing that our forefathers had the foresight to break with England and adopt black slavery as the economic engine of the colonies -- maintaining that peculiar institution longer than any other western civilization. Now that is leadership for you!”

Parodyman-->: Are you proposing we should have remained colonies under the rule of the British Crown? Does that sound remotely realistic to you? As far as slavery goes, yes we have built a great deal of this country on the backs of slave labor. Not just African, but Chinese and European as well. Today a large part of our economy’s foundation is based on how little unskilled labor can be paid. The way we treat the poor speaks volumes about us as a nation. And let’s not forget everyone’s favorite workers, illegal immigrants. I doubt you or any of your friends are lining up to fill the positions that are typically filled by undocumented workers. So Zerzan I’d like to hear your solution to the problem and what you have done to reform labor here in the USA?

Zerzan: “We are SUCH a good people. Oh, it brings tears to my eyes, knowing how much better and smarter we are than the rest of the world. After all, if we hadn't invaded Iraq, then who would?”

Parodyman-->: I would submit that the average US citizen is a good person. I think the issues that you have brought up are created by the privileged few that hold most of the power. Personally I feel the Invasion of Iraq is an immoral power play by a President who is more interested in serving his wealthy friends than the public as a whole. That said, I do vote. I distribute information. I use my time to work on things that will help bring the soldiers home as well as make their tour of duty better. I support them 100%. The blame lies with the President not the military community. Now tell me what have you done?

Zerzan: “Yes, show me a more civilized people amongst all the Western nations! My God, they've all abolished the death penalty long ago. Whereas we, like Iran and other fundamentalist states, are decent enough to embrace the necessity of capital punishment.”

Parodyman-->: Capital punishment has its place. What I find troubling is a justice system that continually sends innocent men to death row. The number of people who are or were on death row and found innocent is obscene. One mistake in this arena is one too many. Again, I offer an opinion because I am an activist in these things. What are you doing to end the killing?

Zerzan: “Yes, I love this country. And I show it every day by wearing a flag pin on my lapel. It saves me from the effort of having to think for myself.”

Parodyman-->: I detest the Archie bunker flag waving slobs as much as I detest people like you. You are both equally adept at getting up on a soap box and mindlessly bitching about the issues. Here is the thing that pisses me off, neither of you offer any solutions. Never mind actual physical involvement to better the situation, you leave that to someone else so your time is free to run your mouth. And as far as thinking for yourself, you spout tired rhetoric. I haven't seen an original thought in anything you wrote.

Everyone have a good 4th.

The best way to be patriotic is to effect change in your own back yard first then spiral outward with it.

Maybe we could change this topic to "Zerzan gets his ass handed to him."

Zerzan wrote:

"I am so proud of being an American - and knowing that I live in the only country in the history of the world to have dropped a nuclear bomb on a civilan population - twice. Unnecessarily."

Unnecessarily? Comments like that really make my blood boil. How old are you, Zerzan? I suspect you are very young or perhaps have not read much US history. If your only experience with war has been with the first Gulf War and the current situation in the Middle East (or for that matter, Vietnam), then maybe I can understand your attitude. World War II was different. Unlike the current war in Iraq where the majority of Americans seem to forget on a daily basis that we are even at war, WW II was part of the fabric of everyday life. It was truly a WORLD war. Every facet of everyone's life was focused on winning the war. Unless you were alive then or have a parent that served during the war, you cannot understand what was a stake. I won't reiterate what others have said here - they have expressed it well. But son, you are sadly mistaken if you feel that the way the US ended WW II was wrong.

Zerzan is now on ignore

Zerzan simply proves my point. God Bless Free Speech, made possible by your forefathers that broke with England.

founder,

While I agree with your point, don't forget what Col. Nathan Jessep says in a "Few Good Men"

"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest that you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to."

The logic escapes me, but I've heard the argument for years. We are not perfect, therefore we can not be good. Since however we aspire to be better but fall short we are also uniquely evil as opposed to 8th century savages who have no pretense or allowing freedom or equality, and are hence excused from all moral judgement.

We are the freest, wealthiest, most inclusive, tolerant, most moral and noblest nation the world has ever known. Deal with it. God bless America and Happy 4th of July.

More than a few times I've heard foreign born workers legal and illegal tell me they HATE America and of course I always ask then why are you here?!? MONEY is the number one answer. It is like the 18 year old hottie sleeping with the old nasty disgusting pig---she does it for money; not for love or sympathy or even boredom.

Another reason that I hear, but less frequently is family. I had this American complaining how terrible and nasty America is and I'm listening thinking yes I definitely agree with you and I'm listening and finally she pauses. I asked her why are you here? She got real downcast. And, I said it looks like you have money to leave. She says OH, I've been gone for over a decade and loving it in Costa Rica and I thought she might cry. And, then she says she can't get her 2 adult children to leave. They don't want to learn Spanish and they don't want to move their children or sell their homes, etc. She said the worse part is she can't even get them to visit Costa Rica on an all expense paid vacation. Her husband won't even visit America (born and raised here, btw) and says if his children won't visit when all expenses are paid for then he will just have to die without seeing them. :(

I strongly believe America is a garbage country that is one government fraud after another. Freedom of speech? Yeah, right, whatever. I'll believe that fraud when I see my jury trial. I have a good buddy that is always LOVE America and he impresses me a lot more than most because he has experienced the open corruption firsthand. His freedom (he was facing significant prison time) and property were under definite government attack. Still he happily yelps about improving and LOVING America. I said to him if you got the 20 or 30 years or more behind bars being gang raped and you lost your properties would still be singing about how wonderful this stinking, vile, nasty country is??? Would you!!!----practically yelling. He says I honestly don't know---he says I'd like to think I'd LOVE America know matter what evil was wrongfully imposed. He says I do know that HATING America is NOT the answer and you need to work your butt off to make it a better country for EVERYONE.

I told him if I experienced just half of what he was put thru that I'd never forgive the country until it was made REAL RIGHT: A formal apology and real reform and financial compensation.

Who knows perhaps you LOVE America types are real tough guys who could take any abuse still smiling---that is good for you and your families.

Happy Fourth of July

Free country my ass! Maybe when we're allowed to smoke MJ in our homes without the fear of the DEA busting down the doors.

My LOVE America buddy who went thru the ordeal has the blindness to pound his fists on his chest and proclaim he is living proof that the freedom of speech exists in America.

He fails to notice that his political movement which was gaining steam effectively died. His friends ran like scared mice for the most part out of fear they'd be jailed and have their properties stolen by the government. Because of this some long time friends became bitter enemies of his---because he didn't buy their excuse of being afraid. Real friends stand by you in your time of need he yapped! I told him that I would have been running like a scared mouse too! He says YES, but you don't believe in the greatness of America and you weren't part of the movement.

The whole point is yes, he can get on his tiny soap box and speak of corruption, but his message died when he was arrested by the government. The funny thing is that his message wasn't even that radical, imo, and it was very pro-American, imo. And, he had some wealth and more importantly some of his friends behind the scenes had real wealth---and did help save his ass, imo. So, he is beat and broken and yet he thinks he won and has rights. :(

You may recall the free porn access for military photos. Soldiers were sending in gruesome pics that government would prefer that Americans not view. So of course the government brings its full "legal" might against this nobody based on all manner of alleged violations of this filthy law and that filthy law. Selective prosecution to be sure, because his "porn" images were very tame---think Playboy, imo. So is this moron who incorrectly believed he had freedom of speech rotting in a government prison? I don't know and as far as I'm concern just the initial attack by the government was more than enough silence most people. And, that was the point. You want to host "bad" pictures of murder in Iraq?, then be prepared to bankrupted and hounded and maybe even repeatedly gang-raped in America's prison system. Who knows, perhaps this story has a happier ending than I imagine. I wonder if the moron still believes he has freedom of speech in America? He might whether he survived or not.

"...The best way to be patriotic is to effect change in your own back yard first then spiral outward with it."

Parodyman, if you truly believe this, then you should start by setting the best example you can. A portion of your federal taxes is being used to pay off the interest on the debt that we borrowed to fund the immoral war in Iraq. So you are complicit in this global tragedy. Start there!

"...I use my time to work on things that will help bring the soldiers home as well as make their tour of duty better."

It's funny how you make yourself feel better by demonstrating or writing letters or sending "care packages" to the troops; at the same time your money is being used to help keep them there. And you think you are "doing" good. When really, you are not "being" good.

Henry Thoreau went to jail for purposely not paying the poll tax - monies to be used for an immoral US war with Mexico. Do you have the balls to do that? Perhaps not.

But by all means, do continue to ease your conscience by sending those care packages. That is really important. (Easing your conscience, that is.)

"A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight. If the alternative is to keep all just men in prison, or give up war and slavery, the State will not hesitate which to choose." H.D. Thoreau, Civil Disobedience

Parodyman, clog together with me, and I'll meet you in prison.

The nice thing about this country is that an idiot like Zerzan is able to speak his mind, sharing his utter bullshit with whomever will listen.

Something else that is great about this country is my ability to ignore Zerzan forever by hitting one little button.

Americans are guaranteed Freedom of Speech. They aren't promised Freedom of Action from their speech. Say something stupid, you will pay for it.

"..I strongly believe America is a garbage country that is one government fraud after another."

Garbage in --> Garbage out

Would you expect any better from a country founded on slavery and subsequent Jim Crow laws?

In 1850, half the country thought that "freedom" actually meant the freedom to hold slaves (i.e. property). So when you celebrate the 4th of July today, consider such particular "freedom" that our great forefathers were celebrating so long ago. And try not to laugh at the hypocrisy, or you might choke on your barbecued hotdog.

"...I can see clearly the many flaws of my country and still love my country, much the same way I can love my family and friends even though I can see they are deeply flawed individuals."

Unconditional love is a feeling that should be reserved for mothers toward their offspring. Frankly, I am chagrined by the zombie-like affection that seems to permeate this country. I think perhaps what you and most Americans are in love with is merely the ideal of what America stands for on paper - and not actually what America is. Can we agree that these are two different things, and apportion our love accordingly?

To nj-fans & p-mans articulate posts, I'd like to add another suggestion for Z-z: You can always exercise your freedom to leave this country. Which countries do you think you'd like to become a citizen of that would be "garbage free"?? More to the point- How many people immigrate to USA vs. US citizens that immigrate to other countries??

Hmmmm, interesting take on America there Zerzan, but I wouldn't agree that we dropped those bombs on Japan "Unnecessarily". Unfortunately, I doubt the Japanese would have surrendered without us invading them had it not been for those bombs...it's sad to say that though.

"We specifically warned the Japanese government in advance that we had a new kind of weapon, and urged them to give up, but they refused."

This I have never heard of before though.

I am not proud to be American, since I had nothing to do with being born here. I can understand why someone that worked hard to gain citizenship here would say such a thing though. I do feel very lucky to have been born in America (as opposed to anywhere else) and around-about this time in history (as opposed to 200+ years or so ago). America is FAR from perfect, but it is a human invention & humans aren't perfect.

"Capital punishment has its place."

Yea, in the trash bin, it's barbaric. I've never killed anyone, but everytime that our govt. kills someone we ALL are responsible for that horrible act (regardless of what act the person that's in the chair/on the table did before).

"Unlike the current war in Iraq where the majority of Americans seem to forget on a daily basis that we are even at war"

The American people have never been asked to sacrifice en masse for this unjust War, period.

"don't forget what Col. Nathan Jessep says in a 'Few Good Men'"

Dude, that's a fucking movie, a good movie for sure, but still just a fictional character in a movie...come on now...

"We are the freest, wealthiest, most inclusive, tolerant, most moral and noblest nation the world has ever known."

This is just blind, worthless hyperbole...

"Unfortunately, I doubt the Japanese would have surrendered without us invading them had it not been for those bombs..."

Misterguy, that's what they teach in US history books. Makes us feel better about vaporizing tens of thousands of innocent civilians. Fact is, Japan was on the verge of surrender prior to Hiroshima, and the US military knew it. What's worse, the second bombing (Nagasaki) was rushed before a surrender could even take place, so that a cautionary signal could be sent to the Soviets. Nagasaki had nothing to do with making Japan surrender - it was about keeping the Soviets in line.

On August 6, 1945, the first atomic bomb was dropped on the people of Hiroshima.

Early in the morning of August 9th Manchuria was invaded by the Soviet Union. The Soviets had notified Japan's Ambassador to Moscow on the night of the eighth that the Soviet Union would be at war with Japan as of August 9th (Butow, pg. 153-154, 164(n)). This was a blow to the Japanese government's peace-seeking efforts. The Russians had been the only major nation with which Japan still had a neutrality pact, and, as such, had been Japan's main hope of negotiating a peace with something better than unconditional surrender terms (Butow, pg. 87). To that end, the Japanese government had been pursuing Soviet mediation to end the war in response to the Emperor's request of June 22, 1945, a fact often overlooked today. (Butow, pg. 118-120, 130).

Late on the morning of August 9th, the U.S. dropped a second atomic bomb without a second thought, this time on the people of Nagasaki. Rather than wait to see if the Hiroshima bomb would bring surrender, the atomic bombing order to the Army Air Force stated, "Additional bombs will be delivered on the above targets as soon as made ready by the project staff." (Leslie Groves, Now It Can Be Told, pg. 308). Word of the second nuclear attack was relayed that day to the Japanese government (Leon Sigal, Fighting To a Finish, pg. 240).

What did Eisenhower think of all this?

"...in July 1945, Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

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

• Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

• Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63

Again. I have the money. Just tell me where want to go.

Were your family slaves? Were you? I never owned one and never did any member of my family. So why do I have to listen to this bull shit. It was Africans that captured them, transported them and sold them. I have been living in the new SOUTH for 20+ years. I do not see the man that you cry about. The U.S. even tried to right a wrong. We established a new country in Afica and paid the way for anyone wanting to go there . Why didn't YOU??

Zerzan

Japan was repeatedly asked to surrender by our government before the bomb was dropped. There were 200,000 people killed by the two atomic bombs. But there were over 100,000 soldiers killed at Okinawa, and perhaps 75,000 to 140,000 civilians who died there (many of whom died due to mass suicides, again because of the fanatical and insane nature of the resistance). So the total deaths from one island campaign exceeded that of both bombs. Were the lives lost on Okinawa less valuable?

After the first bomb was dropped, Japan again refused to surrender. Even after the second bomb was dropped the cabinet still did not want to surrender, and it was only the intevention of the Emperor himself that brought about the surrender.

Its very easy to look back 60+ years after the fact and say you would have done it differently, but at the time the Japanese government was a fascist government, not a democracy, that was not responsive to the interests of its people. They took the position that their Emperor was god, and that they would fight to the death. Why did Japan need several days or weeks to surrender? Why couldn't they just surrender? The answer is found in the fact that even after the second bomb they still did not want to give in. That's fascism for you.

And why were we supposed to wait indefinitely while they made up their minds? We were at war after all, and not one we started, one they started. How were we to know that if we waited several weeks they would not have ordered more mass suicides as they did on Okinawa? How could we possibly trust such a ridiculous and insane government?

And why do you lay the blame at the foot of a democratically elected government and free society that never wanted the war, that did everything to avoid it, and that was drawn into the conflict only due to an unprovoked attack? A government that then used the war to fight for a better and freer world, as proven by its actions in Japan and in Europe. Why not lay the blame at the foot of the government that started the war, that was a fascist government, a racist government, a government that committed horrible war crimes, and that did everything in its power to prolong the conflict and to maximize the amount of human death? All the Japanese cabinet had to do was surrender to the inevitable and they wouldn't do it.

It is ironic in the extreme that on WWII you take the side of Japan over the U.S., yet proclaim you are opposed to racism. Japan waged a racist war and was run by an utterly racist and fascist government. It is especially bizarre to me that you pick WWII of all things as the area to attack our country. WWII was one of the very best things our country ever did. We saved the world, and guys like my dad who fought in that war have nothing to be ashamed of.

Really what would you prefer to be? A person living in a country conquered by Japan or Nazi Germany, or one of the Japanese or Germans conquered by us? Which country made the world better in your opinion in that particular instance? We sacrificed enormously to save the world from fascism and we did save the world. I find it appalling that you don't recognize that. Apart from splinter Nazi hate groups and similar weirdos, you stand pretty much alone in your belief that the U.S. should apologize for winning WWII.

I'm sorry you hate your country so much. I am not telling you "America, love it or leave it," but I am perplexed as to why you would want to live here if you think this is one of the worst countries on the planet. There are lots of other places to live. At any rate, I do feel sorry for you I'd hate to spend my life living somewhere that I despise.

But I'm not a zombie for loving my country I am merely rational. Compared to any other country on earth there is no place I would rather live. It would be height of irrationality, however, to continue to live in a country you despise.

Misterguy: we leafletted the Japanese cities. Didn't do any good because in a fascist country it does not matter what the people think.

I spent the last few days watching a man die.

He was a good man in all of the traditional ways. He was a good father to his children. He was a good husband to his wife. He was a good brother to his sisters. He was a good grandfather to his grandchildren. He was a good friend to me.

His death was heinous. He starved to death. Some may say it was drug induced, but morphine does not cause death, it only makes it tolerable.

He was a hero. He was wounded twice in the service of his country and of us, its citizens. He was awarded two purple hearts, the Bronze Star with valor and the Silver Star with valor. These are among the highest wards our country can bestow.

His dignity was compromised in his death. His weight was half of his prior self. His face was drawn. As death approached his face took on the demeanor of the Edvard Munch's “The Scream”, even though he was seemingly in no pain.

An American Hero died on July 4th. Celebrate his life and his willingness to fight for our freedom. We may or not believe in the correctness of the war he fought, but he all but gave his life for us.

I encourage any who read this to contribute the cost of one lap dance (or two for one) to the American Cancer Society or your own local cancer charity. A man deserves dignity, but cancer takes it away. I hope you never see what I saw the last few days.

Zerzan, I have not read all of you posts, but I respect our right to voice your opinion. You complain about slavery that existed over 100 years ago in our country, part of a debate that caused a war that truely pitted brother against brother. Slavery is gone. The hatred over the loss of the civil war still exists in a very small and dying portion of the South (and even more prevelant in other areas).

We, Americans, our Country, have and will engaged in wars that seem wrong and immoral to many. You are welcome to your opinion. Many Americans will die to defend your right to beleive that the war they are fighting is immoral.

Thank whatever God you beleive in that you have the opportunity to live in an imperfect nation that will tolerate your opinions and defend your right to your beliefs.

I hope you rot in hell.

President Harry S Truman had instructed that the atomic bomb was to be utilized in such a manner that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. He flat out stated, "Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson and I are in accord. The target is a purely military one."

Actually, President Truman knew very well that the targets for the A-bombs were not military at all, but were instead cities full of civilians, cities that had been selected primarily because so far in the war they had not sustained significant bomb damage. He also knew very well that his Secretary of State, James Byrnes, was very much opposed to this use of the bomb on civilian populations. While he was aboard the USS Augusta waiting for the first bomb to be dropped, therefore, Truman hid out from his Secretary of State in a marathon poker game. Another player in that fateful shipboard game, United Press International reporter Merriam Smith, would report on this, that the President of the United States of America "was running a straight stud filibuster" against his own Cabinet member.

200,000 innocent civilians had to die because some pussy hid out in a card game and didn't want to be disuaded by more rational minds. Does that remind you at all of the chimp we got sitting in the White House today?

"...Again. I have the money. Just tell me where want to go."

Shadowcat, your willingness to help out a total stranger who holds contrary opinions is rare and admirable. I find it all quite un-American of you. Thanks for the sentiment.

Zerzan, neither you nor I can change what happened 60 years ago. Those who made the decisions are dead. They may have been right or wrong. We cannot know, for we will never know what they knew. If you choose to question those who made decisions in the past, perhaps you should position yourself to question them.

The written word is never a substitute for the truth. The power to second guess decisions of those in power may be the ultimate aphrodisiac to those who disagree, but a man who chooses a stripclub forum to try to change the world is the ultimate fool.

I wish I could look at this and laugh it off. I wish I could say it doesn't matter, but it does. Self styled "progressives" seem to feel, as Marx "proved" that there is an inevitable direction to history, and that any lack of perfection or nirvana, or utopian society is a willful act, by jews, neocons, pick your villain.

Civilization, my friends is a thin veneer. Look at history, study the character of man, what in any way leads you to the conclusion that mankind unrestrained will end up in some sort of utopian collective? The choice we face is not the perfect or the less than perfect, the choice is very clearly presented, by our enemies, if you care to read them and take them seriously, as our liberal democracy, which seeks to excuse their every outrage, or submission. They are quite frank.

memri.org

All they do is translate. Yet we excuse or allow through some misguided notion that they can't be held to our standard, literal and explicit calls for the destruction of everything the west, or th e "liberals" hold dear.

And yet the left claims to be "reality based". No problem, as long as you assume you don't have to take the darkies and wogs seriously.

Liberal society, liberal democracy, will last exactly as long as there are people who recognize it as important, and worth fighting for. And by fighting I don't mean criticizing Bush, that requires no courage or sacrifice. I mean people willing to die for an idea.

bobkrumm.com

Deride them, call them dupes, that is your privilege. Feel self righteous. That is your right, secured with the blood of better men than you.

Wow, that has to be one of the worst constructed sentences in history, and I apologize, sincerely and unreservedly.

"The choice we face is not the perfect or the less than perfect, the choice is very clearly presented, by our enemies, if you care to read them and take them seriously, as our liberal democracy, which seeks to excuse their every outrage, or submission."

I was editing, and apparently cut and pasted and saved at the wrong times.

"The choice we face is not the perfect or the less than perfect, the choice is very clearly presented, by our enemies, if you care to read them and take them seriously, Islam or death. Of course we laugh it off, they can't be serious, yet Theo van Gogh is stabbed in public as a message. What is the message? Criticize us and we will kill you. Yet we seek to excuse their every outrage, and portray our every submission as "tolerance, rather than surrender."

I'm glad I live in a country where a discussion like this could take place. But I'm saddened that there are people who refuse to appreciate how truly fortunate we all are. I will never understand why some people choose to spread hatred and be miserable rather than happy. Their loss, not mine. But it seems to me that the more prosperous we become, the more such people we a creating. I wonder why that is?

This kind of discussion also reinforces my belief that it was a huge mistake to discontinue the draft. My stint in the military was one of the best things that ever happened to me. Unfortunately the people who would benefit the most are precisely those least likely to volunteer. I can read this thread and guess who is and who is not a veteran and be pretty close to correct. As can any other veteran here. And like most veterans, I have little time for people who haven't served but feel compelled to criticize.

Hi FONDL,

Although I've met veterans who HATE America, generally I think you're on the money when you say you can guess who is and who is not a veteran.

So if you want a police state and citizens with eyes apparently firmly shuttered, then yes a military draft is probably an excellent idea because it seems like their is a huge correlation between LOVE of America and serving in the U.S. military. What surprises me is that it doesn't seem to make any difference whether the service was forced or truly voluntary.

Some veterans are what I would consider to be very normal in that they LOVE America until they get royally screwed. Others, it just is difficult for me to understand how a person can get abused savagely mistreated again and again and still keep up with the LOVE America nonsense.

Another point FONDL, I believe that you can go to any shit-hole government or dictatorship around the world and veterans will endless praise their government even if totally free to express a different viewpoint. It is sort of like religion---I don't understand it or why anyone would fall for it: Millions do.

Oh and anyone who thinks that I'm engaging in "freedom of speech" is truly uninformed and ignorant. They need a visit or visits from the "wonderful" government.

Even a nobody who speaks out can end up behinds bar. That was a HUGE SHOCK to me. A nobody is a nobody and thus why would the government give a shit if he yaps----not likely anyone is going to listen to him. His message will be met with don't like it, leave. Or, this is the greatest country on earth. Or, just be grateful you live in a country where you're allowed to speak out---LOL! That last one is too funny. :(

Anyway, unless you are screwed firsthand you most likely won't come close to smelling the coffee---and, even if you do get screwed it may not make a difference.

To those who believe it was a small thing that I was denied my alleged right to a jury trial (it was a civil case), then I would say the trampling of my supposed right to a jury trial is just as important if not more important than the alleged freedom to speak out against the government. NO, I don't vote---that is a worthless right, imho. Now, a jury trial and freedom of speech those would be very valuable rights and freedoms. Freedoms that would cause me to think very highly of the country.

AN: This is not about liberal vs. conservative it is about mature vs. immature, as another poster pointed out.

Zerzan: Hiroshima was the HQ of that part of the Japanese army responsible for defending southern Japan. 40,000 troops were stationed there. It also was a communications center and had several military factories. Nagasaki likewise was an important industrial center that produced a variety of war materials to support Japan's war efforts. They were military targets.

Bear in mind, also, that Japanese civilians were active in the war effort anyway. The draft had been expanded to include all men between 15 and 60, and millions of civilians had been trained in resistance (including suicide measures such as blowing yourself up under an oncoming tank).

Your concern for civilian casualties is touching but selective. Just in China, for example, deaths were at an average rate of 100,000 to 200,000 per month, mostly civilians. Even the opponents of using the bomb concede that without it the war might have lasted at least another 3 to 4 months, which would have meant civilian casualties (just in Asia) far in excess of the lives lost at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Do the Asian victims of the murderous racism of the Japanese government matter to you?

That doesn't account for the deaths an invasion would have involved. Bear in mind that official Japanese policy was to deal as crippling a blow to American forces as possible, and to make the invasion as bloody as possible. The theory was that in so doing, the Japanese would then be able to negotiate more lenient terms for peace.

[Which is why all your comments about Japan's willingness to settle the conflict are question begging -- on what terms were they willing to settle? Even after the second bomb the cabinet wanted to add terms to the Potsdam declaration, to preserve territory taken, or to prevent a military occupation, or to maintain the military regime. Most importantly, the military leaders of Japan wanted to be in charge of their own war crimes investigation, because they knew perfectly well that they had committed war crimes and did not want to be prosectuted for them. In fact, even after the Emperor intervened and was prepared to surrender, some of the military officials staged an attempted coup to keep the war going. Luckily they failed.]

At any rate, military casualties would have been very high as Okinawa shows us. Just in one week their were 80,000 combatants killed during the Soviets' invasion of Manchuria. And of course there would have been more civilian deaths with an invasion. The bombing of Tokyo, for example, cost 100,000 lives. We would have certainly used conventional bombing as part of any invasion (unless you are going to advance the proposition that it would have been immoral for us to use conventional bombing -- I guess we should have just waged the war with sling shots?).

Oh, and I almost forgot to mention that there was a standing order from 1944 to kill all 100,000 allied POWs if an invasion took place. But who cares about them -- they were mostly Americans anyway, and I guess they would have deserved to die for the immoral war we were waging on Japan.

Curiously, Japan's first defense minister said in 2007 that the bombing of Nagasaki was necessary to end the war. Hirohito said much the same thing in 1975. But you know better.

I had the privilege, by the way, of getting to know some Americans of Japanese descent who were put in concentration camps in California during WWII. This was an outrageous and sad and horrible violation of civil rights, and it has become apparent that the internment of Japanese Americans during the war was totally unjustified. These folks were not happy about being put in camps, and they clearly thought there government was dead wrong to have done that. But they remained all their lives loyal Americans, and they still loved their country. They recognized their government could sometimes do things that were wrong, terribly wrong, but it did not change the fact that they lived in what they believed was the greatest country on earth. I guess according to you, they would just be dumb saps, or perhaps "Zombies". I think they were just normal Americans. I'm not sure what I would call you.

I have never been more proud of my TUSCL brethren than I have in reading all of your posts. Unfortunately, there is a large segment who view as America as "mean" and fell as if patriotism is unsophisticated. Too bad. This country is moreso today than at any other time just a stopping point for commerce of people from varied nationalities. Usually, these people have no interest in "becoming American." Hell, they couldn't even tell you what that means. I still believe in the greatness of this nation and its people, GOD BLESS THE USA!!!

All I'm saying is that if it were absolutely necessary to drop those A-bombs to protect the USA, then I would be more open to it. But how come me and Eisenhower, and Secretary of state Byrnes, and a slew of others who were close to the situation all agree that it was a huge mistake? So Truman is right and everybody else is wrong. Very well then. As long as you can live with the fact that we are the only country in the world to have dropped nuclear bombs on civilians, then everything is cool. But I caution you that what goes around comes around.

Zerzan, I was amiss in my last post because I wanted to follow it up with a question for you. I'm just curious, do you believe that our federal gov't was directly involved in committing the attacks of 9/11/2001? I know this is a pandoras box so I hope y'all don't mind me asking it on a SC board I want to just hear Zerzans opinion about this. Thanks.

"On November 15, 2004, a report on CNN.com briefly described a clash in the Iraqi city of Baquba, including an insurgent attack with rocket-propelled grenades on members of the First Infantry Division, in which four American soldiers were wounded. CNN did not post any images of the battle, and the incident wasn't given much attention in other media.

But visitors to the amateur porn website nowthatsfuckedup.com were given a much closer view of the action: 'today in baquba we got into the shit again and got some of it on vid.....this is me and my wingman fuckin some shit up when these fucks shot 3 rpg's at us so we took down the whole spot.....look for yourself...the fight lasted like 85 mins total and they are still counting up the bodies.'"

thenation.com

Freedom speech in America? :) Well, I think this is the amateur porn site owner that learned an expensive lesson about what freedom of speech really means in America. I assume at the minimum he was bankrupted by the government's "legal" attack. Gang-raped in a government prison? Could be. A youngster, I think he was 18, got raped and murdered in a government prison here in Miami-Dade County. His big whoop dee doo crime? Allegedly he bought alcohol---I think it was a six-pack of Bud Light ;). Of course, many may applaud this result because it saves lives by sending a message! His devout Christian parents wanted him to learn to obey the law so when the police urged them to come and take the boy home because the jail was too dangerous the advice was ignored. Well, at least natural selection is working.

Post information the "wonderful" government doesn't like and don't be surprise if there is a side attack---did you forget to water your lawn?----did you rob a bank? (don't worry, evidence will be manufactured if necessary)----are your licenses in order? (well, maybe you need some administrative hearings----most people regardless of innocence are highly vulnerable to a side attack. And, if "vindicated" so what? Then you can beat on your chest claiming you have the right to freedom of speech. LOL! Meanwhile, others know to keep their mouth shut about damning facts or damning photos or harsh consequences may come raining down----sorta like playing russian roulette. :(

It's pretty clear that dropping the A-bomb was not necessary to get a Japanese surrender. Japan was completely clear of any air defense at this point, and the US and British had becoming adept at destroying cities through fire bombing. As mentioned before, Japan was already teetering on the verge of surrender. The US also had the option of letting the Russians finish the job (as we let them finish off Berlin).

However, I don't see why destroying cities with A-bombs is inherently worse than destroying them with fire bombing, and I think it was a good idea to give the Russians a live demonstration of American willingness to use A-bomb. Also

I truly doubt the A-bomb had much to do with getting the Japanese to surrender: Japan was already finished off at that point anyway, and it was just a matter of an internal decision in their society if they wanted to let every man, woman, and children die rather than surrender. But the death of every Japanese citizen was easily feasible, and they knew this, with or without the A-bomb. That being said, I don't think there was anything wrong with dropping the A-bomb, and I think was important to drop it in order to show Stalin that the US had the cajones to do it.

Oh, and I haven't even mentioned the American Indians. I assume everyone is familiar and okay with the fact that one culture had to die so that ours could expand and prosper. But it's not over by any means. Your tax dollars today are going toward the establishment of a ghetto reservation in the Middle East on which the Palestinian people in whole are expected to die slowly over several generations for the benefit of the greater state of Israel. All compliments of the USA. But I seriously doubt that even 5% of the people on this board are aware that this is going on, and that we are subsidizing it. Yes, we are so good!

By the way, this was one of Bin Ladin's top three reasons for attacking us on 9/11, as stated in an interview with him prior to 9/11, in which he declared war on the US. He didn't attack us because we are "free". All this freedom nonense (i.e. they hate us because we are free) is Bush/government propaganda to stir up hate and fear in the average American zombie. And apparently it worked pretty well.

Imagine the lackluster response if instead Bush had told the American people, "Bin Ladin hates us because we are subsidizing ghettos in the Middle East in an attempt to exterminate an entire race of poeple." Sure, we would still hate Bin Ladin, but our way of life would not feel so threatened as when told the lie "He hates us becaue we are free".

That one lie paved the way for the American people to be duped into invading Iraq, for the sake of insuring our "freedom".

"..I'm just curious, do you believe that our federal gov't was directly involved in committing the attacks of 9/11/2001?"

No, I don't believe that. I saw the evidence, and I still don't buy into it. Though I'm open to all possibilites. Maybe if more evidence comes out?

njscfan, perhaps I was too broad. I didn't mean to imply that all progressives or liberals held the views I was characterizing. I was referring to a subset of those, who while they claim to be liberal and progressive, can't seem to find any fault in cultures where women are property, homosexuals don't exist, because they are killed, and where praying to the wrong god, or even the right one in the wrong way puts your life in jeopardy. Yet evil it seems is a uniquely American attribute.

total 'em up, and the posts in this thread are proof positive of what Founder said in post #1. Very few countries, very few, would allow this type of discussion. Yet we carry on wihout giving it much of a second thought, the post 9-11 restrictions not withstanding. Our country is by no means perfect, but it is certainly among the least imperfect ever conceived.

Zerzan

Thanks for changing the subject to Native Americans and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Whew.

I know you feel the rest of us are zombies, but the reality is we are all fully aware that America is not perfect and has done a lot of things wrong. That just does not translate into hating America, at least not for most of us.

The problem with your "reasoning" is that it proves too much. You would have to hate not only America, but almost every other country on the planet. You support the Palestinians? Great, except that they teach the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is historical fact (oh, wait you probably believe that too, I guess you come from the Jew hating left), their professed policy is to destroy Israel, and they want a theocratic society where there would be state religion, women would be second class citizens and gays would be killed. Sounds great. Yeah, why can't our government get behind that? Of course, the other Arab bloc nations are just one fun place after another, assuming you love living in a theocratic monarchy like Saudi Arabia, or a theocratic dictatorship like Iran. And wasn't it fun to learn when Saddam Hussien was overthrown (I know he was a poor misunderstood fellow) that the Sunnis and Shiites have hated each other for centuries and promptly went on a bloodbath?

Maybe you think the other Western countries have a nicer history. Except for Germany killing all those Jews. Oh, and fascist Italy. And the all of the formerly communist countries (oh sorry you probably thought communism was great too). And isn't Russia doing a great job with its human rights record? Now that it's free from communism, it's become, well, it's become a one man dictatorship but whatever. And France and Finland that collaborated with the Nazis. And the eastern european countries that actively helped murder the Jews. Oh well. And wasn't it nice when former Yugoslovia exploded in a blood bath of racism and genocide. And all of Europe stood by and did nothing. I think you'll have to rule out Europe.

How about Asia? Let's see, Japan's record is not looking to good. Maybe you love communist China, nothing like being the world's largest dictatorship. Great place. It was swell when Pol Pot took over Cambodia and wiped out 1 or 2 million people. Or was that our fault too? I hear North Korea's a fun place, unless eating is high on your agenda.

Hmmm, how about the human rights record in Africa. Well, I wouldn't want to be a Tutsi in Rawanda, that's for sure. And I understand things were less than great in Uganda when Idi Amin ran the country. But gosh that Robert Mugabe is sure doing a swell job turning Zimbabwe into a bastion of fascism. And the South Africans are so nice when the poor Zimbaweans try to escape across the boarder -- they light them on fire. Darfur -- let's not talk about Darfur, too unpleasant.

Our own hemisphere? Well most of the countries south of the rio were dictatorships until quite recently, and some of them remain so. Even Mexico, a relatively forward looking place, was basically a one party state until quite recently. Notwithstanding that, AI's 2008 report says human rights abuses in Mexico remain widespread and systematic. Oh well.

Shit, even in a nice country like Australia they have a horrible history of abusing the Aborignes.

Go look at the reports of Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch, and you will see criticisms of our country, but they are pretty mild and isolated compared to what is going on in the rest of the world. And, unlike many parts of the world, when our country does do something wrong, there are often corrective forces at work. The military lawyers for the prisoners in git-mo, for example, have won victory after victory for their clients in the courts.

The problem with your "worldview" is that it is painfully myopic. If you held the rest of the world to the standard you hold America, you couldn't live anywhere. What's the plan, move to Mars? I don't know if Shadowcat will really be willing to foot the bill for that, but we can ask.

But hey, here I am trying to have a rational discussion with someone who has admitted to entertaining the possibility that our government was complicit in 9/11. Do you believe the moon landing was a hoax too? How about the easter bunny and santa claus, still believe in them? Like I said, the fulcrum of this debate is maturity, not politics.

Zerzan, actually the ghettoes in the mideast are subsidized by the UN, which 60 years on still maintains "refugee camps" for the Palestinians. At the same time the Palestinians were fleeing, and Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Egypt Lebanon, Libya, Yemen and Saudi Arabia were invading Israel (created by a UN mandate you may recall), at least as many, if not more Jews were fleeing those aforementioned arab lands in fear of their lives, also leaving behind their property, as the Palestinians did. Ask yourself why there are no Jewish refugees 60 years on asking for their property and lands in arab countries to be returned?

Now as for your indictments against our country, slavery, driving a more primitive and weaker people off their land, yeah, so what. That's kind of the history of the world. The sins you place squarely on the shoulders of the US are the sins of mankind, not in any way unique to either western society in general or the US in particular.

"that's what they teach in US history books. Makes us feel better about vaporizing tens of thousands of innocent civilians. Fact is, Japan was on the verge of surrender prior to Hiroshima, and the US military knew it. What's worse, the second bombing (Nagasaki) was rushed before a surrender could even take place"

Hey, the choice Truman was facing was to either bomb them or invade them (there are all kinds of wild estimations as to how much loss of life would have occurred if we invaded), and the Japanese didn't apparently believe that the USA destroyed Hiroshima with one bomb...hence the second bombing. Heck, there was even a portion of the Japanese military that didn't want to give up after the second bomb...there was even a coup attempt on the night before the Emperor broadcasted their surrender. I don't envy the decision that Truman had to make. The Soviets were getting plenty of German scientists to eventually make their own bomb(s) anyway, and the Soviets only started to fight the Japanese in order to try & get in on the spoils of war after Japan was defeated.

"It was Africans that captured them, transported them and sold them."

Yea, and we used them here...don't let the South off that easy scat.

"why do you lay the blame at the foot of a democratically elected government and free society that never wanted the war, that did everything to avoid it"

I dunno about that either...it's pretty apparent whose side we were on before Japan attacked us...that's one of the many reasons that they attacked us in the first place.

"Look at history, study the character of man, what in any way leads you to the conclusion that mankind unrestrained will end up in some sort of utopian collective?"

Here indeed is a key distinction, IMO, betwen liberals and "conservatives" in this country. The "conservatives" do not believe that the will of man is good, and liberals do believe that the will of man is good. There was a book written about this topic in the last few years, if the name of it comes to mind I'll try and mention it.

Anyone that describes the current conflict(s) that we are in around the world as a "clash of civilizations" is a fool IMO.

"I can read this thread and guess who is and who is not a veteran and be pretty close to correct. As can any other veteran here. And like most veterans, I have little time for people who haven't served but feel compelled to criticize."

This is just more bunk from another sorry, old man. This is America...there is no litmus test for free speech...

"the fact that we are the only country in the world to have dropped nuclear bombs on civilians"

LOL...we are the only country to drop a nuclear weapon on anyone, period...a lot of people forget that when they talk about supposed nuclear "threats" from other countries.

Sure, there will never be true peace in the Middle East unless there is a just peace in Palestine, and the USA has NOT been a neutral partner in trying to make that happen so far.

"And France and Finland that collaborated with the Nazis."

Yea, let's conviently forget the French underground eh?

"driving a more primitive and weaker people off their land, yeah, so what."

"The sins you place squarely on the shoulders of the US are the sins of mankind, not in any way unique to either western society in general or the US in particular."

Wow...you are giving the history of our country way, way too much slack IMO...wow...

njscfan, I don't think you really understand where I'm coming from. When our country does something wrong, I call a spade a spade, regardless of the misdeeds of other countries around the world. Just because Germany or Iran did something wrong doesn't negate our own wrong-doing of a totally unrelated matter. And I don't support the Palestinians. If Israel wants to kill them off like the Nazis killed their own Jewish ancestors, then I say let them do it. But not on my dime, or my concience. I am an American. Not an Israeli. But you sound like an Israel-firster to me, which makes me wonder why you care so much about the fourth of July. If you recall, what I said and meant was that our American tax dollars shouldn't be spent on the construction of genocidal ghettos in Gaza; and I get a lecture on how bad every other country is. Fine. I get it. What does that have to do with my tax dollars being spent on the construction of genocidal ghettos in Gaza?

And what is up with this "maturity" argument? Do you mean to say that anyone who happens to disagree with you is immature?

On a side note, I notice you didn't say anything bad about Iceland or Holland.

Fuck another thread destroyed buy a bunch of book readers that have never experienced the real thing.. Never been shot at. Never wounded What a bunch of bullshit.

"Wow...you are giving the history of our country way, way too much slack IMO...wow... "

I'm not sure why you think so. Saying that our history is no worse than any other nation's and a lot better than some is not a whitewash. Yes, over a 400 year period a stronger civilization displaced a weaker more primitive one. Sometimes through war and oppression, sometimes through attrition, trade, absorption, isolation, treaty, disease, and many of the other realities of human existence. This does not make us great, but it does not make us uniquely evil. It basically started with the first known civilizations in Sumeria and Egypt, and like slavery, continued as a normal part of human existence throughout the millennia.

As for slavery, do you know the first time in the known history of the world that slavery, an institution common throughout the world, was abolished? Vermont, in it's 1777 constitution was the first time a representative government of free people sat down and decided Slavery should be illegal. Pennsylvania abolished slavery in 1780, Massachusetts in 1783, and most of the northern states had done likewise by the time of the constitutional convention.

Saudi Arabia on the other hand abolished slavery in 1962, although many say it still exists in practice if not in law. Oddly that was the same year Australia decided Aboriginees were allowed to vote.

My point being that the failures of America to live up to the more perfect union we hope to form does not make us in any way unique in the world. However, we are often at the forefront when it comes to civil rights, human rights and individual liberty. I say again, we are the most free, prosperous, tolerant, inclusive and moral nation the world has so far seen, and that does make us special.

Zerzan!

You found a country you can love -- Iceland! Congrats.

Shadowcat: still willing to pay for Z's one way ticket to Iceland? I'll chip in, on the condition that Z renounces his American citizenship forever. With millions of people all over the world who would give their left nut to become an American, I don't really think it's fair to hold a place here for Z when he hates the place. We'd be doing Z a favor getting him away from this "garbage country" populated by "zombies."

Re foreign aid: Our country gives foreign aid to countries all over the world, not just Israel. Given that Israel is the only functioning democrary protecting individual freedoms in the Middle East, and given that it is surrounded by much larger enemies sworn to its destruction, I don't think it's too crazy for the U.S. to provide aid to Israel as a means to support democracy elsewhere in the world. If you think Israel is the reason Palestinians are kept in refugee camps than you have accomplished the well nigh impossible feat of proving to be an even bigger fool than I first suspected.

Zerzan: Don't forget to bundle up -- Iceland gets pretty cold!

AN: I would add another point that makes our country unique. We are also the most powerful nation in the world. As a result, we can accomplish goals other countries simply cannot achieve. Canada is a nice country, but it cannot do the heavy lifting our country is required to do again and again.

njscfan, I agree, and here is where some of the problem comes from. America is the only nation that can accomplish some things, and we are constantly held to a standard that no other nation is because of that. Yes, we could end the ongoing genocide in Darfur, but then we would be blamed for invading another country unilaterally (like we did in the Balkans by the way). The problem is that there is no international standard. Wether we act or don't act we will be pissing off half the world no matter what.

Incidentally Canada used to punch well above their weight, internationally speaking. They have retreated willingly from the international role they used to play, which is their right as a sovereign nation.

Iceland! You must be kidding! Iceland was settled by Vikings, and Vikings invaded and looted and pillaged throughout Europe! And they took slaves and drove the Irish and English and original Russians off their lands! Iceland indeed. Those bloodthirsty Vikings were sacking my ancestors villages and selling them into slavery only a thousand years ago.

Oh, and one other thing, don't question Zerzan's patriotism.

"Oh, and one other thing, don't question Zerzan's patriotism."

Of all things close friends and others have accused me of patriotism! Not as wacked-out as it seemed at first blush.

Zerzan has made the logical falacy common to much of our media, which is to judge some bygone historical period according to today's standards. That's comparing apples to oranges.

He also has bought into the factually-incorrect assertions of our media that slavery was a uniquely US and white-vs-black event. Slavery has existed for thousands of years and still exists in some countires, and all races have participated as both slave owner and slave. And as AN correctly points out, ours was the first government to outlaw it.

Wow...a lot to digest here. I like to keep my posts short and to the point. Guys like Zerzan, I feel, will never see the beauty of America, its a reflection of the bitterness they feel within themselves. They trot out the same old tired lines, we dropped A-bombs, we murdered indians, we allowed slavery, blah blah blah...people who think this way will never see the USA as a force for good, but always for bad.

I once gave a stripper $1,000.00 to help her out during a nasty divorce. No strings attached. I never fucked her. Not even a BBBJ. I have $20,000 in my checking account. I will send the ass hole out of here but even Iceland does not deserve him.

Cat, you miss the point, he's too good for Iceland, or the U.S., not the other way around. In fact by bravely criticizing America he proves his moral superiority. It's easy, just try it. Want to feel good about yourself? You don't actually need to do anything, like work in a soup kitchen like my 83 year old mother volunteers for once a week, or serve in the military like many here have done, or donate to charities, or work through your church to feed the poor of other nations, all you have to do is criticize the government for not making heaven on earth. Instant moral superiority. It's like crack.

Maybe this doesn't apply in this case, maybe Z is the most active of activists and is out there 24/7 making the world a better place. It's possible, no doubt he'll claim it's the case, but I've seen too much of this crap not to recognize it. Virtue on the cheap.

After my last post I realized I may have judged too quickly about Zerzan. So, in the interest of fairness, I would like to extend this invitiation to Zerzan. Post something about the USA that you think is great, or good, or even something about the USA you love. Only one caveat. Don't post back that you like the "people," that's the usual answer you get with this question. Maybe there has been a foreign policy administered at one time that you agreed with and did some good, etc...whatever comes to mind. what do you say?

"So, in the interest of fairness, I would like to extend this invitiation to Zerzan. Post something about the USA that you think is great, or good, or even something about the USA you love."

The U.S Patent system is something to be proud of. A very ambitious mechanism to lever the power of individual freedom. And it works.

"Modern patents originated in Europe where European sovereigns commonly awarded "letters patent" to favored inventors. These letters had their royal seal on the outside, with the writing open (or patent) for all to see. The first U.S. patent laws were enacted by Congress in 1790 as part of the Constitution. Before then, the King of England officially owned all the intellectual property created by the colonists. Prior to 1790, it was necessary for an inventor to make a special appeal to the governing body of the Colony or State to protect an invention. The first such patent on this continent was granted by the Masachusetts General Court to Samuel Winslow in 1641 for a novel method of making salt. George Washington signed the First United States Patent Grant on July 31, 1790, and the patent examiner was Thomas Jefferson. The first U.S. patent went to Samuel Hopkins of Pittsford, Vermont for a new method of making Potash, an industrial chemical used in making soap, glass, fertilizers and gunpowder. In 1790, the fee for a Patent was four dollars.

In order to ensure that the invention would be understood by all parties concerned, drawings of inventions have generally been required from applicants for patents since the first patent statute was enacted in 1790. A total of 55 patents were issued betwen 1790 and 1793 and there were nearly 10,000 United States patents granted between July 31, 1790 and July 2, 1836. These patents were not numbered but were referenced only by name and date.

After the Patent Act of July 4, 1836, patents were numbered, and patent No. 1 was issued on July 13, 1836. The patent office went back and numbered the older patents, and an X suffix was used to distinguish them from the newer patents. The first patent ever issued became patent number 1X.

That is rather surprising, maybe I've misjudged Z. Patents and intellectual property are a key part of a well functioning consensual entrepreneurial capitalist society. The recognition that a man owns the fruits of the labors of his mind as well as his back is a foundation of western capitalism. Cheers to you Z.

"...Zerzan has made the logical falacy common to much of our media, which is to judge some bygone historical period according to today's standards. That's comparing apples to oranges."

Excusing our forefathers the ownership of slaves is a total copout. Anybody with half a concience knew that it was wrong to hold somebody a slave. There is plenty of evidence that Washington and Jefferson were uncomfortable with holding slaves, and yet they did it anyway.

And by the way, to this day, there is no law on the books that says I cannot hold a slave. Amazing but true. Nobody in this country has ever been brought to trial and convicted of holding a slave! I challenge you to name one person who was ever convicted of slave-holding in this country. The worst you can be convicted of is kidnapping or wrongful imprisonment. But not slave-holding. Why? Because legally, it's not a crime.

Thank goodness IBM's "intellectual property" wasn't protected when it came to the PC in the court battle with the first PC clones. We'd probably still be sputtering with the loud weak PC XTs if thru force of government IBM was allowed a monopoly to screw consumers. Fortunately, market forces were permitted to go essentially wild with little government regulation or controls.

Wrong again. A man and his wife in New York were just sentenced to prison for several years in a federal prosecution. The charges for which they were convicted included involuntary servitude and forced labor -- that's what slavery is. Involuntary servitude -- the keeping or holding of a slave -- is a crime under federal law, 18 U.S.C. section 1584. There is a whole chapter the federal criminal code dealing with slavery -- it's called "Peonage and Slavery". It's been on the books for a 100 years.

The two people just sentenced were Mahender Sabhhani and Varsha Sabhanni. This was national news and they were just sentenced, so in addition to not reading your history books you must not read the newspaper either.

You really are a moron.

I remember calling up IBM to get a replacement floppy drive---$400!!! :(

Bought a clone floppy drive for I think it was like $18.

So many people think it is government that creates wealth when in fact getting government out of the way is what often creates real wealth. An example was Chile and the Chicago Boys---free market economists---who chopped and chopped some of this idiotic government control and that good government control and it was just chopping city for the government. :) The main predictions at the time seemed, imo, to be that Chile would collapse without its wonderful government protecting and controlling everyone.

The exact opposite happened and Chile exploded with prosperity. But, the experiment could be repeated again and again and people would still be in total LOVE for more government. :(

OK Z, you are a fuckin' moron.

"And by the way, to this day, there is no law on the books that says I cannot hold a slave. Amazing but true. "

Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865.

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

You are a moron, plain and simple. The abolition of slavery is part of the charter of the government of The United States of America. It is illegal, in all of the United States to hold a slave. It is in fact the supreme law of the land. It is absolutely beyond any question absolutely and unequivocally true. You are either a supreme idiot, or intentionally lying. If you are lying the very thought that nobody would catch you in that amazingly idiotic and transparent lie places you firmly in the previous category of supreme idiot.

Well, the 13th Amendment didn't abolish slavery.

jablake, unless you are making some esoteric argument that only the 14th amendment, incorporating the rights of citizenship of the US into the states, you are also about to go into the idiot category. Explain, please, how "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." does not outlaw slavery. The phrase "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted" is not a dodge, it is law. It is illegal for the government to kill a man, unless duly convicted, that does not legalize killing citizens.

The problem, imo, is that in the South those that didn't submit could easily face conviction for any non-crime. And, in fact, I believe (I could be wrong) that some history on this was presented/established. The law is a fearsome weapon. OK, so you can't be used as a slave unless convicted of a crime. Gee, how difficult it must have been to get convictions against blacks that dared to be too "uppity" in the old South.

Killing citizens isn't illegal for either the government or in many cases for private individuals. Generally, the government has much greater "legal" rights in killing citizens, however.

Furthermore, there was/is a jurisdictional issue that you addressed---- The SC court made certain a interpretation regarding the 14th Amendment etc. etc. etc.

jablake

Please don't take this as an insult. It really isn't meant to be. I've only met you in cyberspace, yet somehow I've grown fond of you. So I don't want to give offense.

Here's the question: Do you take drugs? I ask only because your posts are consistently the most surreal posts by anyone on this board, and so I wonder if you are on drugs when you write them, or if this is just the way your mind operates.

You're right, I haven't been keeping up with the papers. My bad. So the first slavery conviction in the history of the US takes place in late 2007.

Well Z it wasn't illegal under Federal law until 1865, and perhaps the fact that several hundred thousand Americans died to make sure the point was clear made most Americans reluctant to test the concept in court, that plus some pretty clear language in the 13th amendment, previously referenced. As for other convictions I'm, sure we could do a search of the state laws and the federal courts prior to 2007, oh and there were several dozen supreme court cases dealing with slaves from one state being free or slaves depending on their geography, culminating in Dread-Scott, all previous to the 13th amendment, but my charge stands

"And by the way, to this day, there is no law on the books that says I cannot hold a slave. Amazing but true. "

Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865.

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

No, not true. You are a moron, plain and simple. You are wrong. You are not right, this is not an opinion, it is fact. Slavery is illegal in the US. You said it wasn't. That is not true. You are wrong. Is this a concept that has any traction with you? You have stated as true things that are demonstrably and factually, and laughably apparent to anyone with a high school education, not true. I just want to make sure you understand. Do you?

Slavery by Another Name By Harper Barnes SPECIAL TO THE POST-DISPATCH 03/23/2008

In March 1908, an unemployed black man named Green Cottenham was arrested in Alabama and found guilty of the vague charge of vagrancy.

Unable to pay exorbitant fines and fees that accompanied the conviction, he was sentenced to a year at hard labor and "sold" to a mining subsidiary of U.S. Steel, which agreed to pay his debts in return for his services and sent him in chains into a coal mine.

There, as Douglas A. Blackmon writes in his groundbreaking "Slavery by Another Name," Cottenham and more than a thousand other black men "toiled under the lash." In the mines of northern Alabama, "convict slaves" were beaten viciously, shackled to their beds at night and literally worked to death. In 1908 alone, almost 60 convict slaves died in the mine where Cottenham labored.

The story of Green Cottenham, his ancestors and his family's descendents form the central thread of Blackmon's extraordinary book. The writer, Atlanta bureau chief of the Wall Street Journal, weaves a horrifying tale of Southern convict labor policies that perpetuated slavery for almost a century after the Emancipation Proclamation.

Almost as soon as the Civil War ended, powerful white politicians, plantation owners and industrialists began reinstituting slavery through laws intended "to criminalize black life," Blackmon writes.

Countless thousands of blacks were arrested on the flimsiest of charges, thrown into jail and, in effect, sold to plantations, railroads, mines, factories, mills and lumber camps.

Comment: Tell me NJSCFan, where are the convictions?

Zerzan

Jesus Christ you are a stupid shithead. It's not the only or the first criminal prosecution, it is merely the most recent. There have been plenty of prior prosecutions -- just check the case annotations to 18 U.S.C. 1584.

Shame on the US! I want to see convictions!!!

I'm sorry to interrupt but I just read on another thread that adult bookstores are havens for gay sex. IS THIS TRUE???? I will never, ever set foot in another ABS.......sober....EVER AGAIN!!!!

I withdraw my previous acknowledgement to NJSCFAN that any American has ever been convicted specifically of "slavery". And notice is now given to AbbieNormal:

"...the 13th Amendment granted the power to abolish the institution of human enslavement in the USA to the federal legislative branch --thus forever denying that power to the federal judiciary and executive branches. Subsequent to being granted the power to abolish the institution of human enslavement in the USA, the representatives of the Southern states have been allowed to return to the federal legislature, and therefore the federal legislative branch has deliberately failed to create a definition of enslavement -- with the result being that no American enslaver has ever been arrested, arraigned, tried, convicted, and punished for the crime of enslaving another American.

Why is it that no American enslaver has ever been arrested, arraigned, tried, convicted, and punished for the crime of enslaving another American? Well, before the Civil War, of course enslavement was no crime. --And then, after the Civil War, enslavement has not been a defined crime. Nobody knows what the elements of such a criminal offense might be, because the elements of such an offense have not been specified in criminal legislation.

No state judge, such as, say, in California or Massachusetts, would ever find you guilty of enslaving anyone, irregardless of what you have been guilty of doing to another human being, because under the 13th Amendment any such state action has been entirely pre-empted by federal jurisdiction.

No federal judge would every find you guilty of enslaving anyone, irregardless of what you do to another human being, because no federal judge, ever, has been given any idea, any idea at all, just what this offense of "enslavement" might consist in.

"Here's the question: Do you take drugs? I ask only because your posts are consistently the most surreal posts by anyone on this board, and so I wonder if you are on drugs when you write them, or if this is just the way your mind operates."

Back in school, when I was fairly young. The science teacher made some sweeping comments before the students that those who use drugs have NO intelligence etc. etc. etc. (For a science teacher it was disappointing---a very good man, btw.) What was shocking was that all the children turned around and in unison pointed their fingers at me and loudly exclaimed WHAT ABOUT JOE!? HE IS A DRUGGIE AND HE IS THE BRIGHTEST!!! It was weird that all the children were so in tune with each other and that their words and gestures were so natural. The teacher got all upset claiming that I in fact wasn't a druggie---he didn't know, of course, he just thought I'd be a horrible example to follow, if true.

At the time I was ABUSING Vodka & Southern Comfort & Rum, big time (not even a teenager, btw) for a very stupid reason or reasons. My people on my mother's side of the family suffered from mental illness as they got older (40 years and up) and this was independent or seemed independent of alcohol abuse. Anyway, these truely insane people could usually fool regular people---that was only part of the problem and it was a significant problem. I'm watching these lunatics, both highly intelligent as well as dumber than a door-nail, and I notice some of them can't stay away from alcohol. They're addicted like this alcohol is the greatest thing on planet Earth.

Well, I'd had plenty of alcohol---not abuse, imo,----just enough for flavor or to socialize or to get a brief buzz. But, there was NO addiction that I could detect even a little bit. It didn't make sense and I wanted to try and feel what my relatives were feeling so that I could hopefully help them or at least understand why this "nothing of a substance, ie alcohol" was important to them to the point they'd risk or destroy everything to drink. I was assured that if I drank enough alcohol, then I would definitely become addicted because alcohol was addictive. Bottom line, I increased my drinking thru the roof. It didn't seem to make any difference as far as my school work or as far my ability or lack of ability to play certain sports. At that time, it didn't seem to do much of anything MUCH. Yes, it felt good to a limited extent . . . but, if I stopped it wasn't missed. It was generally a nothing to me despite heavy consumption. I was trying to equal my mom and never beat her in that contest of volume drinking to her good humor.

At other times, different students would demand that I sell them the good drugs and they'd seem very serious. One kid said in all ernstness that no one could be like me unless they were using some really good drugs. It seemed beyond weird that children would want to be like me . . . especially considering the attacks I'd suffered both at the hands of relatives (mother's side) and those by the government.

Anyway, to answer your question I never got into the drug scene as far as using drugs except to an iota---too expensive and also I had a problem with the mental illness attacking many members of my mother's side of the family. I didn't need drugs at all----drinking did become more important to destroy memory (my memory WAS perfect), but still NO addiction. I did try and liked marijuana, but I doubt I smoked it more than a very few times and never bought it. Cocaine was pushed on me a few times, but that is a boring drug, imo, and again it was expensive and I never bought it. I did have experience staying or visiting in drug houses, but the drugs weren't why I was there. Generally, I saw too much misery in the drug houses----by too much it is hard to say . . . my standards were ruled by extremely violent people (my mother's people) so I could see a lot and just just keep going without having a "normal" response. (Also, by and large at that time I saw drugs as a HUGE negative for many reasons.)

At least one upper level police office had said to me that he had always thought that I was just pretending to be insane, but that unfortunately it wasn't an act at all; that I was insane. He told the other lower officer that he didn't care what the hell the crimes were----just stay away from me and my people. "My people" actually included more than "my people," but that wasn't negative as long as peace prevailed. :)

Before the alcohol or anything of that nature-----well intentioned people working for or with the government actually did try and help me----when I was a very young child. I don't and didn't see this government help as negative---I strongly believe it was an honest attempt to do good. It did a lot damage and almost immediately the medicine I was given was stopped because the change was so extreme and so negative----I could see the fear and true concern in the eyes of those who had tried to help me. I suffered a bad reaction that I later learned some small percentage of children suffered.

As to the governments attempted help----the problem was that the child, me, wasn't the real problem. Adults too often are quick to blame the child even a very young child-----sometimes just a little digging for information will show the real problem.

Consider this term "peonage."

There is only one reason why this term exists in federal criminal law. It exists because, without an ability to prosecute for a crime of enslavement, there was no way for the feds to deal with local southern sheriffs who were selling black men out of their local jails. They would arrest a black man for public drunkenness, or something like that, and then sell him to the highest bidder among the local white men, to work out his fine at $5 a day minus room and board, on a work crew on a plantation in the Mississippi bottomland. This sort of arrangement could last a lifetime. So, the feds enacted this law about "peonage," in an attempt to create a way to prosecute and prevent this sort of situation.

The feds made one attempt to enforce it, and the white plantation owner killed something like eleven black witnesses. The peonage case collapsed, but they were then able to get the man for multiple murder after they had dug up some of the bodies. He was sent to prison for life, and in a prison riot, the black prisoners took his rifle away from him and killed him with it.

What, you ask, how did a life convict get a rifle? The warden gave it to him! He had been functioning not as a prisoner but as a guard.

The 13th Amendment "gave Congress the power of enforcement." Since the federal legislature had never defined what slavery is, however, the courts have been powerless. In the one case that reached the Supreme Court, for instance, a case involving some white seamen, the court refused to consider that they might have been enslaved, on the sole basis that they were not black. The Supremes declared, eight over one, that whatever a freedom not to be enslaved might be, it was a freedom that black people might have maybe (they couldn't say, because they had no legal idea what it was) -- but it was not any sort of freedom that any sort of white American might claim no matter what had been done to them.

The primary fraud inherent in US history is that we have, in the Emancipation Proclamation and the XIIIth Amendment to the US Constitution, outlawed human enslavement, when in fact in the USA there has never been, and is not now, any law against slavery. 1.) The Emancipation Proclamation did not actually result in any single named person who ever received the emancipation document which it had promised. 2.) the Emancipation Proclamation, as an action of the executive branch of the federal government, was rendered null and void retroactively by the XIIIth Amendment which placed exclusive powers to regulate slavery in the legislative branch thus denying them to the executive branch. 3.) the XIIIth Amendment was merely an enabling act, empowering the federal congress to outlaw slavery, but then the southern states were allowed back into the federal union before this enabling act was acted upon, and that therefore the federal congress has never in fact actually enacted the envisioned law against slavery which it had in this amendment been empowered to enact.

Now there comes a new book, Douglas A. Blackmon's 'Slavery by Another Name,' which has been reviewed by the New York Times:

nytimes.com

slaverybyanothername.com

Mr. Blackmon is a reporter for the Wall Street Journal. What he very clearly understands is that despite this historic constitutional amendment, there has never arisen any statute law or body of precedent which would define what human enslavement is, and therefore there has never in the USA arisen any legal way in which actual slavery can be actually interdicted. We keep struggling to contain the situation by enacting various particular laws, such as dysfunctional laws against "peonage," although these various particular laws would be entirely unnecessary -- were we ever to actually do something which we are never actually going to do, which would be, to actually enact here a law against human slavery.

MORE IDIOCY FROM OUR PAL ZERZAN

“Excusing our forefathers the ownership of slaves is a total copout. Anybody with half a concience knew that it was wrong to hold somebody a slave. There is plenty of evidence that Washington and Jefferson were uncomfortable with holding slaves, and yet they did it anyway.” – the great Zerzan

Has anyone pointed out to you the fact that Washington and Jefferson are long dead? What will make this right for you? Would you dig up the bones so that they can be violated to a degree that will appease you?

“Irregardless” – a Zerzan word

So you will not sound as stupid as you have in the past consider this:

Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.

This is getting tiresome but just so no one will be confused by Zerzan's nonsense.

The part of our federal statutes that specifies criminal offenses is called Title 18 of the United States Code. In title 18, there are several specific provisions that criminalize various aspects of slavery, including, for example, the transportion of slaves. These statutes date back to 1909 (some of them date back to an earlier time). [They were re-codified in the 1940s, but they noneless originate earlier.] These statutes are all collected in one "chapter" of Title 18, specifically devoted to criminalizing slavery.

On provision in particular, 18 U.S.C. 1584, specifically makes it a federal crime to hold or keep a slave. This statute has been interpreted and applied in several reported decisions, where people have been criminally prosecuted for holding slaves. The very most recent example is the one I cited involving a couple on Long Island who were criminally prosecuted for holding slaves. They (the slave owners) were sentences to several years in prison. The sentencing happened just a few weeks ago, and it was national news.

The criminal statutes (like the 13th Amendment itself) use phrases such as "involuntary servitude" and "peonage" because they are designed to be broader than just applying to the typical example of slavery as practiced in the South. This was so because Congress wanted to reach broadly. It did not want someone to argue, for example, "oh, I didn't have a slave, he's my indentured servant." But while the statute reaches broadly, it certainly includes slavery.

Zerzan apparently does his research on the internet. That's understandable for someone who has never been exposed to books. But anyone with access to a law library can go look up 18 U.S.C. 1854 in the United States Code Annotated, and see that there have been several reported decisions applying this law making it a crime to hold slaves. There are also various state laws criminalizing involuntary servitude. In NJ, for example, such a law can be found at NJSA 2C:13-2.

"Yet as I moved from one county courthouse to the next in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, I concluded that such assumptions were fundamentally flawed. That was a version of history reliant on a narrow range of official summaries and gubernatorial archives created and archived by the most dubious sources—southern whites who engineered and most directly profited from the system. It overlooked many of the most significant dimensions of the new forced labor, including the centrality of its role in the web of restrictions put in place to suppress black citizenship, its concomitant relationship to debt peonage and the worst forms of sharecropping, and an exponentially larger number of African Americans compelled into servitude through the most informal—and tainted—local courts. The laws passed to intimidate black men away from political participation were enforced by sending dissidents into slave mines or forced labor camps. The judges and sheriffs who sold convicts to giant corporate prison mines also leased even larger numbers of African Americans to local farmers, and allowed their neighbors and political supporters to acquire still more black laborers directly from their courtrooms. And because most scholarly studies dissected these events into separate narratives limited to each southern state, they minimized the collective effect of the decisions by hundreds of state and local county governments during at least a part of this period to sell blacks to commercial interests."

slaverybyanothername.com

"He describes free men and women forced into industrial servitude, bound by chains, faced with subhuman living conditions and subject to physical torture. That plight was horrific. But until 1951, it was not outside the law.

All it took was anything remotely resembling a crime. Bastardy, gambling, changing employers without permission, false pretense, “selling cotton after sunset”: these were all grounds for arrest in rural Alabama by 1890. And as Mr. Blackmon explains in describing incident after incident, an arrest could mean a steep fine. If the accused could not pay this debt, he or she might be imprisoned.

Alabama was among the Southern states that profitably leased convicts to private businesses. As the book illustrates, arrest rates and the labor needs of local businesses could conveniently be made to dovetail."

nytimes.com

"The 13th Amendment 'gave Congress the power of enforcement.' Since the federal legislature had never defined what slavery is, however, the courts have been powerless."

Interesting, but I don't think that is how the courts interpreted the 13th Amendment. Besides, I think there is a whole kit-and-kaboodle of federal law that broadly defines "slavery" and that there have been convictions.

"Offenses against the Thirteenth Amendment have not been prosecuted since 1947."

en.wikipedia.org

It would be interesting to look at the 13th Amendment cases to see if in fact all required enabling legislation from Congress. My guess is that as far as 13th Amendment's enforcement not all courts required enabling legislation.

"1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

It may be overly cynical of me, but I would almost have to believe that most members of Congress would realize that the South would use the terror of law to keep blacks under control and morely importantly it would be used to protect the economic system of the South.

Would the complete abolition of slavery under the unique circumstances have been too radical???

Bring back the chain gangs like in the movie COOL HAND LUKE. that would be something for the libs to focus on.

Yes, I can just see my favorite dancers in a chain gang. :(

On the positive side if they get out, then perhaps they can pay society back in kind. :)

As I've probably typed many times, I was watching this news program on johns and prostitutes. Part of the "rehabilitation" was that the john had to admit that he was NOT interested in seeking sexual gratification from the prostitute. The so called prostitute in reality was usually an attractive government police officer on the streets to lure and entrap potential johns.

So if the john was required as part of "rehabilitation" to admit that he was NOT interested in sexual gratification, then what was he required to admit? He had to admit that he wanted to dominate and degrade his victims. That he wanted to hurt women. Gee, sounds just like ALL stripclub customers doesn't it? :)

So is this the so called wonderful "freedom of speech" so many believes is a secured right here in America?

I assume many of you will be yelping YAY! YAY! YAY! the government allowed the "convict" to "voluntarily" speak certain "government truths" so of course that is "freedom of speech." That is why America is the greatest country in the world!!! Hurrah!!! Hurrah!!! Now, aren't you happy veterans were protecting this "precious freedom" by dodging bullets is some far off lands?

I was thinking of how pathetic the supposed 1st Amendment rights truly are and how that thinking could be explained as it might extend to TUSCL. I'm NOT at attorney; and TUSCL's attorneys if there are any may have assure founder that he is protected. Well, if he believes in the American court system, then good for him! :)

Anyway, this information that TUSCL makes available: Is there any liability for providing access to such information??? For example, is a bookseller such as Paladin Press or Amazon or Loompanics (defunct) responsible for any harm that information sold by them causes? For example, you write a crime thriller that details how a murder is planned to escape punishment and some yahoo uses that information to commit a heinous crime: The bookseller should be financially liable right? It is like a person reads The Wall Street Journal and it gives a person insight on financial crime and the person uses that information to violate the law: The Wall Street Journal should be held liable right?

So enter good old TUSCL. Perhaps information contained on a blog or on the discussion group helps someone break the law: TUSCL should be held liable, right? And, better yet the court can "pierce the corporate veil" to go after the founder individually assuming he couldn't already be sued individually.

If the government's courts can effectively punish or impose liability for "unpopular" or "dangerous" speech, then does the 1st Amendment have real substance? I mean stripclubs are "dangerous" to local neigborhoods not to mention to dancers and customers. Go to Angels, Coco's, RolLexx, etc. and you may get gunned down. And, if reading TUSCL reviews helped you decide to go to one of these dangerous stripclubs, the founder should have to be held "responsible" and "liable" for damages, both compensatory and punitive plus "reasonable" attorneys' fees. :) Sorry, founder. I hope if you have any money it was well protected i.e. better protected than your supposed right to freedom of speech.

All of this is thus far just musings. Any actual case? Yep, and it was settled by Paladin Press because legal fees as well as potential liability were too much to accept by allowing litigation to drag on. Here is a link to the story:

loompanics.com .

theinquirer.net

The above is just a link to an interesting story about an "internet defamation" lawsuit and how "freedom of speech" was protected.

Correction:

The above is just a link to an interesting story about an "internet defamation" lawsuit and how "freedom of speech" was purportedly protected.

Oh, I'm just going by memory, but perhaps other people heard the news. I think it was a Broward case and some persons exercising their supposed "freedom of speech" were convicted on different "obscenity" charges or some such anti-speech government game. Heaven forbid you watch strippers in action in the VIP room; in the wrong community----go straight to a government prison and pay government attorneys ALL your $$$.

I think WE ALL AGREE that somewhere TUSCL violates the U.S. Supreme Court's community's decency standard. ;) Maybe get some religious wackos in Alabama to prosecute Founder. Remember the highest court has given thumbs to this fun and games of telling people what is decent or not based on a "community standard." Here is a link to a different sex obscenity case:

w2.eff.org

Freedom in America? Whatever.

"Vermont, in it's 1777 constitution was the first time a representative government of free people sat down and decided Slavery should be illegal."

Well, it's kind of easy to ban slavery when you have no slaves to begin with. I applaud what VT did, but the entire UK did the exact same thing that same year...we still waited a bit, especially down South ya'll.

"I say again, we are the most free, prosperous, tolerant, inclusive and moral nation the world has so far seen, and that does make us special."

And I say again, this is just mindless hyberbole, period.

"Given that Israel is the only functioning democrary protecting individual freedoms in the Middle East"

Come on now...you're intentionally forgetting what's been done to the Palestinians on their own land by that same country for decades now.

TUSCL: "All reviews and comments on this site should be considered works of fiction."

Mr. Z,

Nothing more we say will convince you that you are wrong. So, I'll just finish with one last statement --

I know this ain't a perfect place....there will never be such a place. But if it's such a horrible country, then you have my blessing to get the fuck outa here. When you do find that perfect country, please e-mail me and I'll join you.

Try and enjoy life you miserable asshole.

FONDL: I always miss the point and you are usually on it. The difference being that I do not read and therefore do not understand the politics behind most of it.

"I always miss the point and you are usually on it. The difference being that I do not read and therefore do not understand the politics behind most of it."

An apparent advocate of ignorantism as well as a bibliophobe, but at least the lack of comprehension is acknowledged. I've actually argued in favor of ignorantism, but at the moment I don't recall all the merits of why it could considered enlightened as compared to the mainstream propaganda of more education, more teachers, and higher teacher's pay; ad nauseam.

Strippers burning books and talking like babies seem like it would be ideal for him.

I was talking with my pharmacist buddy and coincidently she had just come back from a major company meeting concerning what types of speech was allowed in the work place as well as that NO discrimination was allowed.

As far as the NO discrimination policy she said that was a particular sore point because she feels the company not discriminates against blacks, but just as importantly against Christians. I was surprised about hearing that Christians were in her opinion being discriminated against . . . she wants the same considerations as her Muslim co-workers and workers of other faiths. Well, one person's discrimination is another's financial bonanza. :)

As far as the "freedom of speech" in the workplace pretty much everything was a real NO NO due to FEAR of all manner of possible lawsuits (in the government's courts). Well, one person's freedom of speech is another's hate speech or sexual harassment or defamation. :) Of course, most people are aware of the "freedom of speech" allowed at government schools or government supported schools; it is known as correct speech or fair speech or etc. :)

Bork was 100% right: A law prohibiting slavery takes away as much freedom as it grants---of course freedom itself is a form of slavery because then people are burden with attempting to think for themselves. :)

Correction:

company not only discriminates against blacks, but just as importantly against Christians.

Thanks, Shadowcat. I don't intentionally read much about politics either and I almsot never watch a TV show that has anything to do with politics. But I do read 2-3 novels a week and it's amazing how much factual information that you can get from a well-written novel. In fact I've come to believe that a lot of novels are more factually correct than are many so-called works of non-fiction in our politically-correct world.

"WASHINGTON (AP)—The Washington Redskins have won the latest round in a 16-year court battle against a group of American Indians, prevailing on a technicality that again skirts the issue of whether the team’s nickname is racially offensive."

sports.yahoo.com

16 years. :) My case was a joke and it went on for years and years--and the issue and facts were straight forward. The latest BS according to my attorney was that the judge told him that he ruled against me because he wanted my lawyer to make money on an easy appeal--and he wanted to know why didn't I appeal. Yes, it is an easy appeal----but, if the trial court is corrupt why would I think the appellate court was anymore honest? And, you lose in the appeal and the trial judge is free to assess "millions" in "reasonable" attorneys' fees. Just another government scam.

This is the "freedom" that I'm supposed to be grateful for? :) Yeah, I'll leave that to the dumb bunnies and or those who haven't been screwed by the government, yet.