A Free People?

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Democrats are unhappy. I daresay most criticism of President Obama these days is from the left wing --not the GOP! Much of this criticism of both party and the President is misplaced. As old West Texans might have said: "They would complain if they were being a hanged with a new rope!"

I daresay neither the party nor the President are responsible for conditions creating most of this 'unhappiness'. Primarily, I am reminded that just 1 percent own more than the rest of us combined. That outcome is not the result of Democratic policy but of GOP tax cuts going back to Ronald Reagan whose legacy it is. I am reminded that the Military-Industrial Complex has apparently set up shop on K-Street! But --I wonder --was this not noticed when it happened under Herrs Reagan, Bush and Bush?

As it was said in W. Shakespeare's 'Julius Caesar': "The fault dear Brutus lies not in our stars but in ourselves that we are underlings!" That is not said to absolve the Republican party of its many sins. It does mean that we should think clearly about a President who may not have 'undone' Bush as quickly as we might have preferred. It means that we should be loath to make the wrong reforms of the right party.

From Wiki:

"The United States has had a two-party system for over a century. Following Duverger's law, the winner take all system for presidential elections and the single-seat plurality voting system for Congressional elections have over time created the two-party system.

Until these 'conditions' are changed and until MONEY is taken out of the equation, there is NO point in talking about '3rd Parties' which have the effect of splitting what little is left of the left when the GOP has sucked up all the campaign monies from elites for whom DEMS are but a hedged bet!

I have been writing about the transfer of wealth upward since the Reagan years. I witnessed the effects of much of that in Houston where, even in 'boom town', tent cities sprang up in parks, open spaces, under overpasses. The Reagan 'Recession' was clearly the worst recession/depression since the GOP-HOOVER Depression of the 1930s. There has been a 'recession' under every GOP regime since. Even Eisenhower (whom I called the last 'honest' Republican) presided over a recession/depression. By the way, the words 'depression' and 'recession' are synonyms, though folk think 'Depressions' worse. Bottom line: every Democratic President at least since WWII has presided over greater job and GDP growth than any Republican President.

From time to time you hear names of parties ---progressives, libertarian et al. Third parties have a disastrous history in the United States. That is because only the very rich have enough money to help finance campaigns of either party. Most money is concentrated at the top --the so-called 'ruling elite' of just 1 percent of the total population. This 'elite', as a result of Reagnomics specifically, owns more than the rest of us combined. To be expected, this 'elite' will vote the party that made them richer than almost everyone else in the United States. They will vote GOP.

The responses to this outcome have been irrational. Some propose that the opposition to this state of affairs be diluted even more than it already is with third, fourth, fifth parties. That's not smart! Others propose that Democrats might get more votes following a name-change. The usual suspects make the rounds: "progressive" being used from time to time to identify various shades of liberal and/or democrat. None of these 'movements' are viable because none of them have access to money!

There is no need to change the name of the 'Democratic' party. The name comes from the Greek --'demos' --for 'people'. Now --the word 'liberal' is from the Latin 'liber' for 'free'. Therefore, I am a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT. What fascist is going to convince me that there is something wrong with being FREE PEOPLE?

Ike Warns of the M.I.C.

The Military-Congressional Complex

---

The Last Honest Republican?

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Dwight David Eisenhower, familiarly called 'Ike', may very well have been the last honest Republican. As both General and President, Eisenhower held his positions in 'good faith'; he was not a 'crook'.

Bertolt Brecht had said: "A man who does not know the truth is just an idiot but a man who knows the truth and calls it a lie is a crook." By that standard, Nixon. the progenitor of the modern Republican who lies to conceal his/her true position, was a crook. When Nixon said 'I am not a crook', we knew he was one.

Arguably a great general, it was  Ike who supervised the allied forces landing in Normandy in preparation for the final assault on Hitler's Third Reich, Eisenhower made the best case for world peace, putting forward five 'precepts' in what is often called the 'Cross of Iron Speech'. Tragically, Eisenhower's five principles have been hypocritically eschewed. It is symptomatic that the GOP leadership fell to the likes of Nixon, Reagan. Bush Sr and the Shrub --all of whom failed the economy, failed the people, failed the Constitution. All were crooks who whored themselves to the Military-Industrial Complex that Ike had warned about. The GOP has been crooked ever since.

In that spring of victory the soldiers of the Western Allies met the soldiers of Russia in the center of Europe. They were triumphant comrades in arms. Their peoples shared the joyous prospect of building, in honor of their dead, the only fitting monument-an age of just peace. All these war-weary peoples shared too this concrete, decent purpose: to guard vigilantly against the domination ever again of any part of the world by a single, unbridled aggressive power.

This common purpose lasted an instant and perished. The nations of the world divided to follow two distinct roads. The United States and our valued friends, the other free nations, chose one road. The leaders of the Soviet Union chose another. The way chosen by the United States was plainly marked by a few clear precepts, which govern its conduct in world affairs.

• First: No people on earth can be held, as a people, to be enemy, for all humanity shares the common hunger for peace and fellowship and justice.
• Second: No nation's security and well-being can be lastingly achieved in isolation but only ineffective cooperation with fellow-nations.
• Third: Any nation's right to form of government and an economic system of its own choosing is inalienable.
• Fourth: Any nation's attempt to dictate to other nations their form of government is indefensible.
• And fifth: A nation's hope of lasting peace cannot be firmly based upon any race in armaments but rather upon just relations and honest understanding with all other nations.

In the light of these principles the citizens of the United States defined the way they proposed to follow, through the aftermath of war, toward true peace.

--Cross of Iron Address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower "The Chance for Peace" delivered before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, April 16,1953.

It is not my position that I agree with every thing Ike did or said nor is it my purpose in this short article to analyze his every position with respect to a world view or my values in particular. It is, rather, important to point out that people of 'good faith' may disagree honorably. That Nixon failed the standards Ike lived up to defined the course of U.S. history and showed us a glimpse of a demise that we may very well be experiencing now.

---

Why U.S. Nukes Did Not Shorten the War with Japan

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The 'bomb' did not shorten the war, nor did it affect --in any way --Japan's insistence upon retaining its emperor. Absolutely nothing was gained by the wanton murder of some 200,000 civilians.

U.S. President Harry Truman is said to have nuked Japan because he wanted an 'unconditional surrender'! In fact, he got nothing more than what had been offered prior to the use of two nuclear weapons first against Hiroshima and, later, against Nagasaki. The Geneva Conventions which prohibit genocide were not codified until 1948. But it is the purpose of the law to codify prohibitions against acts that are --already --wrong! The law cannot make right a wrong nor can it make wrong acts that are clearly right!

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"

--Dwight David Eisenhower

It is said that Truman would accept nothing less than 'unconditional surrender' In fact, he did not get an unconditional surrender. The surrender was conditioned upon the retention of the Emperor, a request that the Japanese had made as it sued for peace.

"The Japanese Government are ready to accept the terms enumerated in the joint declaration which was issued at Potsdam on July 26th, 1945, by the heads of the Governments of the United States, Great Britain, and China, and later subscribed to by the Soviet Government, with the understanding that the said declaration does not comprise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign Ruler.

PROCLAMATION DEFINING TERMS FOR JAPANESE SURRENDER, (2) OFFER OF SURRENDER FROM JAPANESE GOVERNMENT, The Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XIII, No. 318, July 29, 1945

The bombing --the deliberate elimination of some 200,000 people --was in vain. Estimates of 150,000 killed and wounded in Hiroshima and some 75,000 at Nagasaki may be conservative. Clearly --these deaths were avoidable.

Eisenhower is vindicated by history. Indeed, as Eisenhower made clear: Japan sought terms which changed not a bit by the the use of the bomb.

The use use of the bomb is --in either case --an act of genocide against a civilian population. Genocide is now prohibited by by Resolution 260 (III) A of the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948.

Japanese leaders --military and civilian, including the Emperor --were willing to surrender in May of 1945 if the Emperor could remain in place.

The Japanese government wanted to surrender; its leaders, military as well as civilian, rationally understood that the war was lost. President Truman was fully aware? of the situation as early as May of 1945. A peace treaty could have been effected and the dropping of the bomb avoided.

But they had a determined attachment (irrational?) to? the emperor. Japan would have surrendered, very possibly as early as June 1945, had its ruling establishment received guarantees of the emperor's personal safety and continuance on the throne. This should have been the first step in an American surrender strategy.

--Journal of American History

Therefore, the U.S. use of nuclear weapons of mass destruction upon a civilian population changed absolutely nothing!

President Truman was fully aware of the situation as early as May of 1945. A peace treaty could have been effected and the dropping of the bomb avoided. Churchill and Stalin went along with the 'unconditional surrender' policy --but only reluctantly.

U.S. policy demanding an unconditional surrender was rendered moot by the fact that the surrender was not unconditional but contingent upon Japan retaining its emperor. In any case, it does not ameliorate U.S. targeting a civilian population. Japan's major cities were devastated. Casualties were already in the millions. Millions more were refugees. The fleet was lost. Merchant shipping could not leave home waters or sail from the few possessions still held by Japan.
U.S. policies and actions following the de facto defeat of Japan:

• Targeted a civilian population, an action not yet covered by the Geneva Conventions of 1948.
• Achieved NOTHING that Japan had not ALREADY agreed to.

As Japan, in fact, retained its emperor, it would appear that it was the U.S. --not Japan --that made concessions after the bombing.

Addendum:

Following is my response to a comment on facebook:

Someone had posted:

"An invasion force would have still have to go in at the cost of 1000's of American lives. Ask any vet who landed at any island we captured."

1) Thousands of American lives were already lost to Japanese fighting from caves.

2) The point missed is that peace terms agreed to had already been agreed to by Japan before the bomb was dropped. There was, then, no point in dropping the bomb if the intention was to effect a un-conditional surrender. In any case, the U.S. did NOT get an un-conditional surrender. There is no ex post facto justification for this war crime.

THE BOMB HAD NO EFFECT ON PEACE TERMS.

3) There is no evidence that people fighting in caves were in any way dissuaded by the bomb! None! Japan had already agreed to the terms that were --in fact --signed after the bombs were dropped. The bombs were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima --huge cities of civilians, not caves full of 'terrorists'!

What effect on cave guerillas did U.S. Military 'geniuses' think dropping bombs on civilian concentrations would have? Read Che Guerrilla. You may conclude that NUKES are powerless against a well-organized guerrilla force. IF folk were fighting in caves, what effect would bombs have? Clearly --no concessions were made as a result of NUKING the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki! NONE!

Today the US has been mired in Afghanistan for almost a decade! Guerrillas are fighting from caves, we are told! Do you propose that we NUKE Kabul because a rag tag band of guerillas are holed up in same caves some 100 miles away?

It would seem that if the US cannot 'win' a war against folk living in caves, then the U.S. would be well advised to get the fuck outt the war business.

Why I moderate comments

• SPAM: 'comments' that link to junk, 'get rich' schemes, scams, and nonsense! These are the worst offenders.
• Ad hominem attacks: 'name calling' and 'labeling'. That includes the ad hominem: 'truther' or variations!

_______________________________________________________________________________