(... And General Sounding Off About Stuff.)
This is my page for personal opinions (no prizes for guessing which might cause controversy). No claims are made for originality or an Ultimate Answer. But, you never know...
The Cultural Assimilation Scenario
The REAL Gun Control Conspiracy?
Conspiracy-Squared (The 'Conspiracy' Conspiracy)
Cause & Effect - All It's Cracked Up To Be?
T-Rex - Carnivore Or Scavenger?
Harry Potter & The Conspiracy Of Satan
The 'Cultural Assimilation Scenario':
Claims of governmental cover-up are almost pivotal to UFOs or the Martian Face. Assuming that there is an element of truth, why?
The popular assumption is that 'The Powers That Be' know a lot, but are worried about how the rest of us mere mortals would react to the Truth About Alien Contact. The worst case scenarios involve religious hysteria (is there any other kind?), mass panic (ditto), collapsing economies (hmmm), and loss of governmental control (!!!). So, evidence is concealed and witnesses are intimidated, all under the banner of national security.
But, despite being organized enough to supposedly keep a lid onevery government on this planet (think on that for a minute), the UFO cover-up is very slipshod. UFOs are "officially" explained away as Venus (not in the sky), clouds (doing u-turns), meteors (landing and taking off again), flocks of birds (with windows and solid metallic exteriors), spots before the eyes (detected on radar), and conventional aircraft (with unconventional capabilities). Nowadays, the popular response to such explanations is skepticism at best.
Maybe this is part of 'The Plan'. Use propaganda that will reassure the hard-core skeptics, but actively provoke everybody else. In the process, we are gradually acclimatized to the concept of Alien Contact. If / When 'The Truth' finally comes out (UFO landing at the UN, Grey skeletons found under the Sphinx, live TV broadcast of Cydonia's 'City', etc.) most of us may consider it anti-climactic. Perhaps even boring.
When I was a kid, one of my great joys was assembling plastic model kits. WW2 aircraft and tanks (1/72 scale) in particular - and I could rattle off the name and a few items of general interest about every member of my (sadly long-departed but never forgotten) personal air force. I always keep promising myself that I will return to this hobby one day and, whenever passing a reasonably-sized hobby store, like to browse through the model section. Just to see what is there.
In recent years, I've noticed something odd about the model kits produced by some companies. Specifically, swastikas are disappearing from ww2 German military vehicles - from both the box art and the actual model itself. Most German aircraft of the time sported a swastika, usually on the rudder or tail fin. All gone. Unit logos that included a swastika have been truncated. The well-known German eagle clutching a swastika is now clutching... nothing.
The zenith or nadir of this weirdness has to be a beautiful model of the battleship 'Bismarck' I saw. Nearly a metre and a half long, complete in every exterior detail. Except that the naval ensign it was flying had a blank space where the swastika should have been.
So what is going on?
Political correctness strikes again. Words, symbols, figures of speech and what have you labelled as "offensive" and thus to be erased from existance. The swastika symbolizes Nazi Germany and the horrors it perpetrated. Not something to glorify.
Now, wait a minute.
For a start, the Nazi symbol is actually a REVERSED swastika. The "proper" swastika (a mirror image of you-know-what) is a revered symbol within some decidedly NON-Nazi groups. Such as the Tibetans and some tribes of Native Americans.
Also, implicit in this editing of History is the prejudice. The prejudice of Political Correctness may be unstated, but it exists. Obviously, everybody who ever suffered under the Nazis (or is descended from people who did) will fall apart if they so much as glimpse a swastika anywhere under any circumstances. Anyone of Germanic background faced with a swastika will be embarassed and offended beyond any hope of recovery. Anybody who produces or publishes a model, picture or book with a swastika is clearly advocating Nazism - thus they should be sued for vast amounts of money and hounded out of business.
Now, THAT's fair, isn't it?
" ... Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it ... " .
We have all heard that quote. Most of us probably recognize more than a smidgeon of truth in it. Nazism, Stalinism, McCarthyism, Apartheid, the Inquisition, and so forth, were all hateful, vile things; and only the utterly stupid or souldead mourn their passing. But, preserved in various forms to be looked at, pondered and remembered; they can be of infinitely greater benefit to humanity than they ever were in practice.
Maybe Political Correctness is something that will permanently affect a few things but, for the most part, eventually pass on. I hope so. What it purports to "protect" people from tends to be self-correcting anyhow (habitually using racial epithets will, sooner or later, get the user EXACTLY what they deserve, I feel).
It is always worth remembering that most of the worst tyrannies in history (including the Nazis!) justified their actions by claiming to right past wrongs and "empower" the people they ruled.
We have all heard of the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence. Fermi's Paradox basically asks that if the Universe teems with intelligent life, then where are they? More to the point, given SETI's current emphasis - WHERE ARE THEIR DAMN RADIO SIGNALS?
Good question. We can speculate about "alternate" methods of interstellar communications that radio receivers cannot detect - such as telepathy, high-powered lasers, Star Trek's 'subspace radio', or quantum thingies. But, so far proof is hard to find. For similar reasons, I would put aside speculation that all incoming radio signals are being blocked or suppressed by UFOs or MIBs. Once again, hard evidence is lacking.
My view is that we are receiving radio signals from other civilizations, but are simply not recognizing them as such. The most fundamental difficulty is COMPATIBILITY of hardware and software. This is not always to be equated with technological progress. For instance, my digital watch has more computing power than 'Ultra' ever did. But I wouldn't expect my watch to be much help cracking the Enigma codes.
Crude analogy. Imagine discovering a fibre-optic communications cable in use, and then trying to make sense of it when you don't know precisely what it is used for. Take this one step further. Assume that you somehow make a leap of logic and figure that some of the impulses sent along it somehow correspond to sound. If so, what would be inferred from those impulses signifying the use of faxes, the Internet, and/or cable TV? I think a very similar situation could exist as regards SETI.
As well as hardware / software incompatibility, there is the cultural aspect. Consider the wide range of radio frequencies that could be in use by literally anyone, AND that the Universe seems a fairly noisy place. The so-called Hydrogen frequency is favoured by many SETI efforts, simply because it would be the most well-known. On the other hand, a durn good case has been for forgetting Hydrogen and tuning into other frequencies, like the one for Water. In any case, a lot of weird stuff is routinely picked up - most of it finding explanations as quasars, cosmic radiation, or whatever. Probably correct, but you never know. A simplistic analogy is to imagine a ham radio operator of the 1920s somehow tuning in to a transmission of MTV! Would he recognize all the racket as being (supposedly) music-related?
We could be literally bombarded with terrabytes of data from space, but simply are unable to recognize or interpret anything.
The REAL Gun Control Conspiracy?:
My sole answer to all flaming I may get for this section (or, indeed, for anything else I say) can be summed up in two small words - "Bite Me". Same response to those who make a pretence at rationality, and then rave about my "over-simplifying / misunderstanding the issue" or whatever. Heard it before. Read the book. Seen the movie. Didn't buy the t-shirt. Want to convince me that the pro-gun lobby doesn't have an over-sized share of paranoids, idiots, rednecks, fascists, screaming loonies, or combinations thereof? Trust me, this is the best impression I have of that particular belief system.
I have no problems with the private ownership of firearms. Really. OK, definite reservations about any individual possessing functional land mines, artillery pieces, SAMs, poison gas, etc., but that's kind of extreme. The fact is that there are sane responsible people who enjoy shooting and/or collecting weaponry. I just feel that, as with those who own / drive motor vehicles, practice law or medicine, build houses, etc., there has to be a system of licensing with specific (and strictly enforced!) standards. Because there are some people that simply should not be allowed to do those things - whatever one's beliefs on civil rights happen to be.
OK, there are crooked lawyers, incompetent doctors, and so forth, we all know that. But no law or system of standards is truly perfect, and matters would NOT improve if said laws / standards were removed. Just because (for instance) some people drive without valid licenses is not reason in itself to make the activity legal.
All this kind of segues into my next bit. Some people staunchly maintain that society's ills in general (and the crime rate in particular) would be cured by placing minimal limitations on the possession and carrying of firearms. The thinking being that most criminals will surely be deterred by the possibility that intended victims could be armed.
I don't see it that way. Sure, some crims may be deterred ("...a superstitious and cowardly lot..."), but many others would probably just start assuming that all intended victims could be armed, and modify their tactics accordingly. Furthermore, I am convinced that any fall-off in the violent crime death / injury rate would be more than counterbalanced by the casualty rate from accidents, "friendly fire", and so forth. Police and the military get extensive firearms training, and even then accidents / incidents are not exactly rare.
Those are my views.
'So, where's the conspiracy?' you ask.
These days, anything that could restrict gun ownership is branded 'New World Order'. To paraphrase George Orwell's 'Animal Farm': "...Gun Ownership Good, Gun Control Bad...". Figuratively speaking, I sometimes find it illuminating (no pun intended) to turn the telescope around and peer at things through the fat end. If the alleged NWO is served by disarming the civilian populace, then who benefits from this not happening?
Simple answer. The people who manufacture and distribute firearms. In the USA alone, it is Big Business in absolutely every sense of the word, pulling in billions of dollars per annum. Advertising of said products tends towards deeply masculine and patriotic (interestingly similar to the traditional advertising portrayals of tobacco and liquor). Any limitation to weapon ownership and usage is NOT in the best interests of the big gun manufacturers, and they know it.
Raise your hand if you think that 'Big Business' is incapable of manipulating the media, raising 'popular support', "spin controlling", and/or making large contributions to 'the right people' in order to safeguard their own gigantic profit margins. Anybody? Anybody at all?
Less seriously, consider all the conspiracy theories out there. It seems like every single aspect of our existance is arguably affected by at least one conspiracy - whether it is HAARP melting our brains, or food additives, suppressed technologies, UFO cover-ups, altered / hidden / forbidden history, governmental corruption, religious fakery, medical fraud, etc., etc., etc..
Now think about it. What is the follow-on effect of all this? Very simply, we humans are getting extremely cynical. We are losing faith in all of our society's institutions, and are less willing to accept anything at face value. Some may argue that this is not a bad thing, and they may even be right. But.... what if this effect is deliberate? Are we being subjected to some kind of social engineering?
Perhaps conspiracy theories are manufactured diversions. Consider all the time and effort devoted to analyzing grassy knolls or godforsaken spots in the middle of nowhere. Focussed thus, perhaps we are overlooking things that are literally under our noses....
This theory is great for messing with people's heads, but I don't take it seriously. On the other hand, maybe NONE of us are being paranoid enough!
'Cause & Effect' - All It's Cracked Up to Be?:
I'm gonna get into some deep weirdness about reality here. Nothing definite, no fancy equations to prove my point - just kicking around an idea. For the record, I don't do drugs, my hat is not lined with aluminium foil, and my religious convictions are downright boring. If quantum stuff and philosophical implications bother you, just skip over this bit and go elsewhere. I won't mind. Really.
Still here? OK, here goes...
Consider the famous 'Double-Slit' Experiment. For those who don't know, here is a rough summary of how it works (from Scott Adams's 'The Dilbert Future').
Two parallel slits are cut into a piece of cardboard. When a light is shone through, a venetian blind pattern is projected on the other side. When scientists tried to record data about this, they didn't get a venetian blind pattern, they got a blotch. One would probably think that the way the light was measured may have caused this, so the experiment was repeated - with a differance. It was done two ways, each measuring the light the same way, but in one the data was automatically erased.
When the data was automatically erased, the pattern was a venetian blind. When the data was NOT erased, the pattern was a blotch.
Conclusion: Information in the present can change the past.
Think about that.
I'll repeat it. Information in the present can change the past.
Implication: Cause and effect could be over-rated.
This led me to some extra thinking (dangerous, I know). The deeper we delve into and analyze anything (and I do mean anything), the more complex and self-contradictory the situation seems to become. This holds as true for science as it does for historical matters, Fortean subjects, social issues and so forth. Quantum Physics just LOVES this sort of thing - Schroedinger's Cat and all that.
Could "we" (Humans) somehow be causing these escalating levels of complexity ourselves? Certain famous mysteries provide good examples of this - the problem being not with a lack of data, but the exact opposite. So much that I sometimes despair that anything will ever be truly solved. For instance, solid evidence places Atlantis as being based on legends about Thera - as well as Crete, Troy, and even in South America. To say nothing of the bizarre locales that some people believe in. So where was it? They can't ALL be the right place - or, if you start thinking in quantum terms, could they? Could all of these places be "right" simply because people looked (or simply believed...?).
If one thinks in terms of alternate time lines and multiple levels of reality, it makes sense. Sort of. Perhaps. Some SF stories have suggested that false / incorrect memories may sometimes be a result of a timeline glitch rather than mere human fallibility (one of my favourite Star Trek: TNG episodes - "Parallels" - provides excellent examples of this). If you had a very clear memory of proving that X equalled Y, and this memory was later proven to be totally wrong, then maybe it is because you shifted realities without realizing it. On the other hand, it could prove that you need professional help, so don't get carried away.
I'm not suggesting that the Earth really was flat once, or that the stars began as lights on the interior of some vast dome - and that they changed only when people started believing otherwise. But beliefs and perceptions could subtly alter reality all the time, causing some timelines and possibilities to strengthen and others to wither. If one gets rid of the "one way street" view about time, these changes could also be retrospective. That is, these anomalies don't (necessarily) come out of nowhere - they can come complete with their own "history".
A snippet from Terry Pratchett's Discworld novel "The Fifth Continent" seems fitting:
"How long did you say you had that horse?"
"Ages. Won it off a bloke."
"Right?"
"Right."
"Right..."
"What?"
"Only ... did yew always have it ages half an hour ago?"
Daggy's wide brow furrowed a little.
*******
In brief, maybe the Universe somehow evolves (or changes) in response to our perception of it. Undoubtedly psychological / philosophical terms for this notion already exist (other than "crazy").
The most Fortean elements of this subject are the deep weirdness (and general scariness) of the more outspoken proponents. But there is nowhere else that I can fit this.
Anyhow, not a lot to say. My grandfather (mother's side) was a banker, solid family man, and regular (Presbyterian) churchgoer.
One of his favourite sayings - "...Two of the dirtiest books in the English language are the Complete Works Of Shakespeare and The Holy Bible...".
Tyrannosaurus Rex - Carnivore Or Scavenger?:
In Palao Peleo
Polae..., OH ****, the study of Dinosaurs,
one of the loudest debates is about whether T-Rex was a scavenger or a carnivore.
This particular academic disagreement is a waste of time, oxygen and paper. Then again, most such squabbles are. OK, I confess to bias here - T-Rex looks like a carnivore to me. The massive teeth and jaws, arguably good binocular vision, and the leg arrangement looking a lot like what one would expect of a sprinter are all solid arguments. To this, the scavenger lobby counters that T-Rex was too big and heavy to be a sprinter (yeah, right), it didn't have a good enough heart-lung system (unproven), it had an overly-developed olfactory sense (debatable), etc., etc..
Rubbish, all of it. There is absolutely no reason why T-Rex couldn't have been BOTH.
Many present-day predators are not above scavenging. Some may prefer their prey fresh, but if hungry enough they are not going to be choosy. Likewise, scavengers may be perceived as mere garbage collectors, but this ignores those that are quite capable of killing prey unassisted (such as hyaenas, sharks, and most canines). It is more a matter of dietary choice - easier to let something else do all the hard work, then step in and eat your share afterwards.
Once again drawing from modern times, regional variations seem very likely - eg. perhaps the T-Rexs in one area routinely pursued small fast herbivores, and those in another area preyed on sauropod carcasses.
I suspect that a lot of the ire in this debate stems from old-fashioned machismo and the subconscious distaste most humans feel towards scavenging. After all, which would you rather be, the scariest predator of all time, or something that raids the Jurassic equivalent of garbage cans?
Harry Potter & The Conspiracy of Satan
It was probably inevitable. The Anti-AntiChrist crowd has finally turned its attention towards Harry Potter.
They have a lot to say. Harry and Co practise magic, thus encouraging readers to follow suit (and invariably leading to Devil-worship). Harry questions and/or disobeys authority figures on a number of occasions (presumably leading to similar results). Wizardly society in general promotes racism (because non-wizards are called 'mudbloods'). In 'Chamber of Secrets', Mandrake plants (used in various potions) are shaped like particularly obnoxious human babies (and the fact that these plants are chopped up surely means that readers will have abortions or conduct human sacrifices). And so it goes.
OK. Consider this. I have not been able to duplicate Harry Potter-style magic. A "proper" magic wand is supposedly essential but, try as I might, I have not been able to find any with the necessary core of phoenix feathers or unicorn hair. Not even on e-Bay. None of the incantations in the books seem to work, but this could be either because I am a mudblood OR because I don't have the wand. Likewise, I have had problems with the potions also mentioned - there are many ingredients that seem awfully hard to get. Finding somewhere that sells 'Nimbus 2000' broomsticks has gotten me nowhere, and finding any business on Diagon Alley with a website or that handles mail order has also been fruitless.
Long and short of it is, if JK Rowling (Harry Potter's author) wanted to spark major interest in the occult, then she has seriously goofed. Because none of the methods detailed are achievable or otherwise seem to work. Hardly the sort of thing to attract new recruits. Of course, it was the same story with the 'Dungeons & Dragons' role-playing game - despite the exact same accusations from the exact same crowd of nutties, none of the 'magic' there seemed to work either. So, perhaps I am doing something wrong ....
As for Harry disobeying authority figures ... well, uh, gee, he and his closest friends are children. Show me a pre-adult who has never ever been disobedient, and I will show you a kid with a future career in serial killing (or religious studies. Possibly both.). I suppose it is possible to do a story where Harry and company never break rules and always do exactly what they are told. The only excitement would be with the inevitable horrible things happening to other people but, hey, that would not be Harry's problem, would it? Never mind helping other people or trying to do the right thing, Harry, it is far more important to set proper standards of behaviour for impressionable readers.
It cannot be disputed that wizardly society is unfair in its treatment of non-human sentients (ie. centaurs, giants, house-elves, etc.). At the same time, there is a growing realization that this is a wrong that needs to be righted. As for the whole 'mudblood' thing, the worst offenders are such worthies as the Malfoys and Voldemort. That's right - THE BAD GUYS. In contrast, nicer folks (such as the Weasleys) perceive Muggles (non-wizards) as people (just with very very odd habits - just as most of us see "foreigners" in general). Some good guys come from non-wizardly backgrounds (or have parents who do), and none of their friends think any the worse of them for it. A few even brag about their Mugglish ancestry.
Rather than promoting intolerance, I think the opposite is closer to the mark. Pigeon-holing people on the basis of parentage is something that the bad guys do. The good guys at least try to honestly judge people on their individual merits. Think about it.
Moving on, Mandrake plants are a popular folk-remedy ingredient. Folklore has long had it that the plant's roots or tubers are shaped like (miniature) humans. Some old-style pictures of Mandrake root even go so far as providing male or female characteristics. So, for a fictional "magical" setting involving immature versions of these plants, JKR's portrayal makes about as much sense as anything. Claiming that her readers might confuse plants with human beings seems dubious at best.
Reading 'Harry Potter' causes anti-social behaviour? Very unlikely. Anyone "at risk" is more likely to go off the deep end after reading some parts of the Bible. Of course, considering the mentalities making these claims, maybe that is not so far-fetched. Hmmmmm.
If anything, Harry Potter and his friends are good role-models. Yes, that sounds pretentious but it is also true. Like the rest of us, they have faults and are far from infallible. But they also display qualities such as compassion, generosity, tolerance, friendship, open-mindedness, courage, loyalty, forgiveness and ethics. In brief, the better traits of humanity.
The primary villain of the Harry Potter books is Lord Voldemort (formerly Tom Marvolo Riddle, ex-student of Hogwarts; a.k.a. "You-Know-Who"). A classic Evil Overlord type - he seeks to be the supreme ruler of everything that matters (to him, anyhow); and to utterly destroy everyone who ever has (or ever will) get in his way.
In contrast, we now have Professor Dolores Umbridge, introduced in 'Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix'. The Ministry of Magic assigns her as Hogwarts's first ever High Inquisitor. This is a character who appears harmless enough (fuzzy pink cardigan and all); but whose job is to suppress "lies" that may come out about Voldemort's "alleged" return, to enforce the Ministry of Magic's official line, and to encourage the correct attitudes in students and staff.
Now think about this. Voldemort is a vile self-centred murderous lying wacko, but there is never any question about what he ultimately wants. Whatever he does, is done without disclaimers about it "all being for the best" or "for your own good". 'You-Know-Who' has no interest in what other people think or how they behave, just as long as they do what HE wants. Refreshingly straightforward, you might say.
Contrast this with Professor Dolores Umbridge, who debuts in 'Order of the Phoenix'. She does not kill anybody, but this is definitely more through good luck than good management. But intimidation, propagandizing, concealed truth potions to extract confessions of wrongdoing, supporting corporal punishment, arranging for arrests in the dead of night and even torture are all shamelessly used by her. Ms High Inquisitor even goes so far as to have one of her more vocal critics hauled off to the mental hospital!
When the inevitable happens, and Umbridge seizes full control of Hogwarts, one of her first acts is to establish the 'Inquisitorial Squad' - a hand-picked group of students, answerable only to her. Harry's nemesis Draco Malfoy is one of the first to join this group, so we have a fair idea of how things will go almost immediately.
Of course, all of this is done in the best interests of the general public. That is what the good High Inquisitor maintains, without even a hint of doubt or shame. Stalin or Hitler would see a lot that was familiar about Dolores Umbridge - not so much in themselves but in the zealots that did their bidding.
I suspect that the Umbridge character was at least partly inspired by certain purveyors of "public morality" and "political correctness" to have arisen in the last few years. The good Professor proves one thing, however. No matter how "pure" or "well-intentioned" it seeks to be, fanaticism / extremism is ugly and, in the long run, always causes far more harm than good.
Sadly, Japan is at it again,and for no better reason than to make a quick buck. Look at the excuses used.
Whaling serves an essential scientific purpose. Yeah, right. This "research" entails whales being systematically processed into meat which is then sold to the general public at a substantial profit. Would that be market research, perhaps? Any useful findings, gentlemen?
It has all been OK'd by the International Whaling Commission. Yeah, right. Japan very deliberately stacked the vote by sponsoring a bunch of little countries (all desperately poor, and with minimal interest in whaling) as IWC members, then buying their support with "foreign aid" (read: bribes).
Eating whale meat is part of Japanese culture. Yeah, right. Whale meat is EXPENSIVE in Japan. Most citizens never get more than a taste or two of the stuff once in a great while. At least, not without heavy subsidization from Japan's Big Business (notably done recently at a couple of schools in Japan, to try and ramp up whale meat's "image"). As for the cultural thing, it also used to be that Japan's warriors routinely beheaded peasants in order to test the sharpness of their swords. As far as I am aware, this is no longer part of Japanese culture.
We have to "control" whale populations. Yeah, right. It is generally accepted that most whale populations are still a fraction of what they were a century ago.
Westerners do the same thing by eating sheep and cattle. Yeah, right. Sheep and cattle are not endangered species in the wild, they have been selectively bred for millennia and exist in very large numbers. Furthermore, we do not turn sheep / cattle into meat by first pursuing them to utter exhaustion then firing an explosive charge into their bodies.
Australians do the same thing by killing / eating kangaroos. Yeah, right. For starters, not ALL kangaroos are hunted or eaten - just the larger types, which are protected by law but most definitely not endangered. In good conditions, kangaroo populations can increase at a PHENOMENAL rate. They are also (in certain circumstances) quite dangerous to humans. If numbers in a given local area get too high, legal permission may be sought (and given) for some to be killed, but it is not labelled "scientific research". Finally, efforts have been made at commercially farming kangaroos for their meat and leather.
Ethical Treatment of Animals?:
I think of myself as being fond of animals, both domestic and wild. When I was a kid, my family had goldfish, a tropical fish aquarium, a dog, a budgie and a canary. Currently, we have two (small) cats, and also support Brushtail Possums, Blue-Tongue Lizards and assorted native birds who all like our neighbourhood. I also like eating meat, and am not (generally) opposed to animals being used for medical experimentation. Nor do I see anything wrong with animals being kept as pets or in zoos, if they are looked after properly. PETA would undoubtedly label me a hypocrite or worse, but I see no contradiction in these views.
First, however much some people may choose to deny this, humans evolved as Omnivores (ie. creatures that ate both plants and animals). Aspects of our anatomy (eg, the shape of our teeth) indicate that, like most other primates, we evolved with animal protein as part of our diet. I accept that 'maybe' Modern Man has too much meat in his / her diet, hence problems with obesity, etc..
I do NOT see that excluding all animal protein (meat, eggs, dairy) from one's diet is a rational choice for most humans. Every strict vegetarian I have ever seen looks like a famine victim, so do not try telling me it is healthy.
(Besides, no matter what the vegetarians say, their meat "alternatives" all taste like #### to me.)
Keep animals as pets? Many of us find comfort in having pets, they are often very much a part of the family and it is the best possible way for kids to learn about living things on a day-to-day basis. Keep animals in zoos? Apart from the numerous educational / conservation aspects, even in mediocre conditions, these animals have both a better quality of life and life-expectancy than in the wild.
If it came to saving the life of a loved one ... well, I have no problem with medical research / experimentation. Provided that it is truly intended for "quality / quantity of life" stuff, and that any suffering the animals undergo is minimized. Unfortunately, some people just cannot grasp this, and they tend to be the same crowd who screech and flap their arms about any possible alternatives, like HUMAN experimentation, even in the most desperate of cases. Funny thing, that - it so often seems that those purporting to be the most "pro-life" also manage to be the most cold-blooded and ruthless individuals imaginable.
I cannot help but wonder if PETA and its ilk are less concerned with the welfare of other living creatures (human and otherwise) than with displaying their own moral superiority and exercising their power over the unenlightened.
Another favourite subject for the mentally-deficient. Those horrible Americans destroyed two helpless cities.
Consider. Japan was well and truly beaten by 1945, but their leaders simply would not accept this, and there was still a lot they could do. Their own civilians were being conditioned to fight Allied invaders to the last man, as happened on Okinawa. They still held a sizable chunk of South-East Asia, along with thousands of Allied POWs and millions of civilians. They had been actively using germ warfare in China for years, and had means by which these could be used against the US. They were researching nuclear weapons, and there was a very real (but hidden) fear that they were ready to use their own.
Plus, the US only had TWO atomic bombs ready. More could be built, but it was a difficult and lengthy process. Given that, expending what little was had in harmless "demonstration" strikes was not really an option. Too much chance that the Japanese government might then do something drastic rather than surrender or negotiate.
Yes, the Japanese leadership may have talked of negotiation, but I do not believe that this was ever more than a stalling tactic, a means of buying time so defenses could be strenghtened, and maybe the Allies induced to back down and allow Japan to hold what it had seized. I do not see how the USA had any choice but to do what they did. Many more people would have died if the war had continued, either in the fighting or in the famine that Japan and its conquered territories faced..
These days, it is fashionable for Japan to speak of its shameful role in World War 2 as an "accident" and a "terrible mistake" and "a great misunderstanding". These are clearly new meanings of these words I was unaware of. The assertion seems to be that everything that happened was due to random chance, it was nobody's fault (except maybe God's).
OK. Both sides were guilty of gross misjudgement before and at the start of war but, otherwise, random chance does not describe what happened. The Rape of Nanjing and numerous other atrocities committed in China were not mistakes. The attack on Pearl Harbour and the invasion of Malaya were not mistakes. The massacres committed by Japanese forces at Bangka Bay, Timor and Ambon (amongst other locales) were not mistakes. The thousands of prisoners who died building the Burma Railway were victims of deliberate neglect and even more deliberate brutality; not accidents. When 2,400 Australian POWs were all "executed" in 1945 at Sandakan (under specific orders from Tokyo), and attempts made to conceal that a POW camp was ever there, this was not a misunderstanding.
Let's be fair. Comes to that, the atom-bombings were not accidental either. To pretend otherwise is shameful. But, distinct from other participants in WW2, Japan continues living in denial of what it did. Hopefully, this will change one day.
What happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki was ghastly (even considering that far more people died in the fire-bombings of Tokyo, Hamburg and Dresden). I hope that it is truly the last time such weapons are ever used but, frankly, I sometimes have doubts.
E-Mail Your Comments.
Fortean
Opinions
MAIN PAGE