I am surprised by the complete absence of sympathy toward the many dead Palestinians (including massive numbers of young and old males and females) who have died because their unelected leaders committed an atrocity in the comments on the people who make up the dissidents in the Democratic Party. Is it inconceivable to your correspondents that there are Democrats who mourn Israeli and Palestinian dead and want the killing to stop? After all, a person can mourn the victims of the Dresden fire bombing and Hiroshima and Nagasaki without being pro-Axis .
I don't mourn a single victim of Hiroshima, Nagasaki & especially Dresden. All got what was coming to them! Japan started the war with the US with the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, saw it lose all those islands in the Pacific to the Marines, saw its navy reduced to a few hulks sinking in Tokyo Bay & as for Dresden, I can assure you, the people there were 99% behind Hitler until the pleas for warm clothing came in 1943, when the Wehrmacht troops were stuck in that freezing Russian winter with no cold weather gear the bombings started & people were told to give their fur coats to them. And exactly where did the people of Dresden think all their Jewish neighbors went? The French Riviera? Miami Beach?
Japan refused to surrender after Hiroshima & even after Nagasaki, a group of Japanese army officers tried to seize the recording of the emperor's surrender speech, so they could fight until the end of every person in Japan, because that was their actual goal! The American generals in charge of planning Operation Downfall was so scared of the American casualty numbers they expected from an insane & futile suicidal defenses, that were planning to ask Truman to violate the Geneva Conventions & use poison gas on the Japanese, to limit US casualties [they had no idea of the Manhattan Project]. Had the invasion actually happened, how many of you wouldn't exist now, because your fathers & grandfathers died on the shores of Kyushu & Honshu before they even met your mothers?
Those citizens and their families deserve our respect and sympathy—and I absolutely cannot imagine the destruction there. Or in Ukraine. Or in Gaza, or anywhere else. I firmly believe most people are inherently good and care about their neighbors and don’t want to be involved in a war and don’t deserve the repercussions and sadness of any war. So far I am blissfully unaware of the reality of war—and hope to stay that way.
Yes, you really are unaware of the reality of war, especially WWII!
Watch a really good documentary about the Battles of Iwo Jima or Okinawa, or visit Auschwitz.
Or get Clint Eastwood's "Letters From Iwo Jima", which he made at the same time he made "Flags of Our Fathers". "Letters" is told from the Japanese side of that battle & is fascinating to see the utter stupidity of the Japanese fighting until almost every one of them were killed by the Marines. "Flags" is about the six Marines who raised the flag on Mount Surabachi, focusing especially on Ira Hayes, the American Indian who was overwhelmed but the enormous publicity about it & became an alcoholic.
Garry, I think it is you who are unaware of the reality of war, especially WWII. My uncle fought in the battle of Okinawa. At Thanksgiving some 65 years later he broke down in tears telling about young Japanese girls who he watched as they jumped over a cliff to their deaths, afraid of what might happen to them as a result of the American victory. I never served in combat and don’t know if you did. But it really bothers me when people who haven’t experienced the horrors of war first hand talk with enthusiasm and gung ho verve about glorious victories, those who “had it coming” and the like.
I’m not sure what you meant by “afraid of what might happen to them as a result of the American victory”, but this is a good link to the mindset during that time. “Military propaganda had warned the civilian population that if they were captured, the Americans would torture, rape, and murder them.”
The people my uncle saw jump off cliffs were girls who had been told they would be raped repeatedly by the Americans. There is a link below dealing with this precise situation.
It was on Saipan where all those Japanese women jumped to their deaths, not Okinawa. They were told by the authorities the Americans were going to rape all of them & suicide was the thing to do.
And on Okinawa, the Japanese army murdered a hundred thousand Okinawans.
And never forget the Rape of Nanking, where another Japanese army raped, tortured & murdered several hundred thousand!
That doesn't justify American actions. Sometimes both sides are wrong. I can point out many times, historically, when America was wrong. Ask Vietnamese what they think of Agent Orange, which JFK was warned not to use. Everyone here is taking political sides. War is bad. That's the point, no matter who does it. We try to justify it based on the cause. As I asked earlier, was fighting Hitler and Tojo wrong? It may have been necessary. But it's not a good thing. And unfortunately, innocents die. Garry, I regret that. I wonder how many innocent Japanese would have been happy to see the Emperor surrender earlier? How many Germans opposed Hitler but worried about being killed- by both sides? War cannot be justified. We need to use it only under the most dire circumstances. Israel feels it is fighting for its very existence. I'm quite sure there are Gazans caught in the middle. Talk to Hamas about it. I am most definitely not a Netanyahu supporter. But he didn't wake up one morning and declare " Let's kill Gazans!"
Your comment is idealistic, but very unrealistic. War is bad. Okay, I buy that. Sell that to the despot rulers of the world trying to take what belongs to others and impose their rule. Yes, before someone tells me, the US doesn't have clean hands like when they tried to kill Castro and killed some in South Vietnam. My point is that intil the world figures out a way to share basic human needs and deter those that feel like grabbing power because they think they know better how to run things, war will happen. It can't be justified. It simply sometimes becomes necessary. Were we wrong to fight Hitler and Tojo?
Read the comments of several here. Some believe there are no innocent victims and deserved what they got. I'm not on their side. I'm just telling you that you won't win your argument with them.
Japan refused to surrender after the first A-bomb, it took the second to convince there were many more to come, except there was only one more, which only the US military knew.
The second bomb finally convinced that idiot emperor to step in & surrender & even then, some of their army officers tried to stop that!
You have a charming way of expressing yourself to people who do not agree with. I do not on this matter, and I suspect many others but I do not choose to engage in conversations on your terms
So I am riding in a helicopter heading for Saigon…ping, ping ping! What is that I ask the gunner? Small arms fire from the VC., we should be okay as long as they don’t use RPGs.
And then he commences to lay down suppressive fire on the rice paddies below.
Bullets hitting nothing, animals, VC and perhaps civilians.
He was trying to save his ass, my ass and get us into Saigon in one piece.
At the time, my reaction was whatever it takes baby.
I did not have respect and sympathy for the folks below, neither was I hoping that he would kill as many folks as possible. Just get us to Saigon.
War creates visceral reactions that make you act now. No time to sit back, sip your tea and contemplate the correct moral choice from the comfort of your soft chair.
I do not believe people are inherently good or bad, they come into this world a blank slate.
And people who are blissfully unaware of war scare me, because they need to know the human toll it takes on society.
That's an extremely, extremely callous and inhumane view. It's one thing to say that the bombings of civilian population centers were justified (which I might agree with, at least on some days), it's a totally different thing to say that children living there deserved to get vaporized or maimed. "Got what was coming to them"? Wow. Makes me think of Grave of the Fireflies.
So the non-combatants in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, including women and children who were incinerated in the nuclear bombings or died from radiation sickness thereafter “got what was coming to them”? In Dresden, when Kurt Vonnegut, who was a prisoner of war, was cleaning up after the fire-bombing, they found a group of school girls who had climbed into a water tower to escape the flames and were boiled alive. They “had it coming”? Man, you have some weird ideas. Intentionally killing civilians is a war crime.
So, if Trump gets elected and bumbles his way to starting a war the American casualties had it coming? Or maybe through Trump affection for North Korea they are able to develop long range missiles, and one is dropped on an American city they had it coming and deserve it because of the action of someone they may not have voted for nor supported?
This isn't a perfect analogy, but my point is we can extend sympathy to the victims of war without approval of the leader's actions that got them into the war.
Actually, I think the idea that civilian non-combatants "got what was coming to them" in Gaza, Hiroshima, Dresden etc. is not only the dumbest sentiment of the day, but the most inhumane. Even most warmongers find the deaths of children to be regrettable. And even in those cases where a majority of citizens chose a leader who led them into a ghastly war, that doesn't mean significant portions of the population have any agency whatsoever about the prosecution of that war or, indeed, about changing leadership. There has not been an election in Gaza for 18 years.
I don’t want the killing to stop unless it’s on the right terms. Same as in WWII - unconditional surrender, occupation, and reconstruction. If the killing stops without that, there’s minimal likelihood that it won’t start right back up as soon as Hamas thinks it’s ready - zero chance of lasting peace. Palestinians need to renounce their position on Israel, lay down all their weapons, and all their leadership needs to be in prison.
That's missing the point. There is a hard time separating those that merely want a halt to the violence to those actively supporting Hamas. Let's try to remember there are many in the Arab world that deny the right of Israel to exist. Is Israel land stolen from Palestinians by the United Nations? Jews don't think so. Abraham lived there. So did many others until enslaved or kicked out. And after World War II, they weren't welcome anywhere, especially in what used to be Hitler's Europe. So even if one is opposed to current Israeli policies, do they support the violence that goes on against Israel on a daily basis or the constant threat of destruction by their neighbors? How would protesters in America respond to Mexico demanding back California and the entire southwest or Putin wanting to take back Alaska? Also keep in mind that as I write this, Israelis are marching in the streets for peace. So maybe there is a protester reading this that can answer me just what they want? Is is just an end to violence by Israel or an end to violence on both sides? Do you support the right of Israel to exist?
I know that. $67 million. But at least one member of Putin's cabinet has suggested taking it back, by force if necessary. Is that okay with you? That is how many Arabs see Israel.
If you write about Broderick, as Moira Donergan did without even mention her under oath statement that Clinton never assaulted her, then you aren’t writing in good faith. Sure you can explain it away but to ignore it weakens the argument so much that I can’t take what is written seriously. And to include Paula Jones without a description of what she said occurred after she said “no way” to Clinton also to me lacks good faith. Why did Jones lose her lawsuit? Not because the Court thought she was was “lying.” That’s a “ strawman” argument by Donegan. It was because the Court assumed she was telling the truth. That when she said “ no” there was no cajoling, no “ come on” according to her it was “ I don’t want you to do anything you don’t want to do . “ Did he act crudely and ickiky? Yes. And her story made it clear that Clinton had thought she had assented to an assignation when asked by the state troopers if she wanted to go to his room. When he was disabused of that notion, he, according to her, immediately stopped. As for Lewinsky it was incredibly poor judgment but to not mention that she made it 100 percent clear in her testimony to the special prosecutor that the first move was made by her lifting her skirt to show her thong to a surprised Clinton and that she would call begging him to see her ( her own testimony found in special prosecutor’s report) means you don’t want to tell the full story because it detracts from your argument . In fact, it was Jones ’ story found in the court papers that made me doubt Broadericks change of story. It and Lewinsky‘s accounts were not of a man whose MO was violence , to me. One can disagree with my assessment in good faith. But it’s not good faith to avoid all the facts.
So Amy Jacobson apologized? What kind of attitude does she have that caused her to make the comments in the first place? Is she sorry she said it or sorry she was caught and the fuss that occurred? I'm not convinced. She wants to lead young people, especially in an urban multicultural city, then let her display an even attitude toward all students. Cancel culture has nothing to do with it. She mocked a young person in public. That's not the type of person to be in charge of young people. Cancel culture assumes a political stance. This was not about her politics. It was about her mocking a teen that didn't earn it.
Last night I read a couple of Letters To the Editor in the Sun-Times complaining that the city looks bad by letting Greyhound lose its station & it's the city's job to get them a new one.
Why?
The sole city I know of with a publicly owned bus station is New York City & even then, the city doesn't own it, the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey owns it, a bistate agency controlled by the governors of both states.
Now I'm totally baffled as to why Alden, the same company that owns the Tribune is so anxious to get rid of the bus station as I know the area well & it's very undeveloped now, despite its closeness to the Loop. It's filled with empty lots, empty buildings & mostly one or two story buildings of small businesses that supply other businesses.
And Alden just made a huge profit from selling off the Trib's huge printing plant to Bally's. The Trib had one year to go on its lease on the property, with an option to renew for ten more years. So Bally's paid Alden at least $200 million to cancel the lease & option & Alden then spent probably no more than $50 million to buy the Daily Herald's printing plant in Schaumburg, thus generating a massive profit. The Trib's plant was the largest newspaper printing plant in the country, printing the Trib, Sun-Times, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, plus some ad sections. That the Daily Herald plant, which is a third of that size, can now print all of that, plus the Daily Herald, shows how many of us, myself included, who no longer get a printed daily paper. I even stopped the free Trib on Sundays they gave me with my digital subscription, because it no longer has an ad or coupon sections in it.
Which brings me back to the inanity of Alden kicking out Greyhound with the weird idea they're going to build something big there, when it's like Oakland, there's no there, there!
And of course the absolute stupidity & hope for greed from Bally's, thinking their billion dollar casino/hotel complex will make them hundreds of millions, when their temporary one, just off of Michigan Ave on the Near North Side, with excellent public transportation to it, is just two steps above a flop. Bally's is run by idiots & I agree with you EZ, but I give it far less than five years to fail. The sole logical location for a casino was McCormick Place's Lakeside Center, the Gene Summers masterpiece of a design that replaced the burned down one! Yet another disastrous decision by the truly incompetent Lori Lightfoot! And her even more incompetent successor Brandon Johnson keeps doubling down on her mistakes, whether it's this one or keeping that massively disruptive & money losing mess called the NASCAR race!
Loved your "follow up" column on the Clinton mess. Spot on.
That is the point I was trying to make. (Unsuccessfully I guess.) I stated in the shortened exchange you posted that:
"But even Stanford scholars can make remarks that are funny to some, offensive to some and bullying to others. I leaned toward the "funny" on this one, which I guess puts me in the "bully" category (of some)."
Yet Karlan felt it necessary to apologize stating: “If I can say one thing, I want to apologize for what I said earlier about the president's son. It was wrong of me to do that." She realized her attempt at wit and cleverness is not going to work in these times, as you pointed out so eloquently in today’s PS.
That apology sounds forced and probably insincere. What did she SAY about the president's son? Not a damn thing. She invoked his name -- not anything he'd done, and not in a mocking way -- to make a point about the president.
Her quip wasn’t denigrating to Barron in the least, regardless of the feigned outrage of snowflakes Gaetz and Melanie. It was however, as a stab at wit, very lame, and that’s the only thing she should have apologized for.
"I'm intrigued by the question of what sort of speech, conduct or belief system would make a person ineligible or inappropriate to be teaching or coaching high school students."
I don't think a belief system should make a person ineligible for employment, as long as your beliefs are kept to yourself. It's "public" conduct or speech that may not include specific words but clearly contain intent to insult/disparage that's over the line. And Ms. Jacobson was very public with her comments on a "fairly obscure radio program"? Come on. It's interesting how you're still trying to excuse her behavior.
Keep it to yourself? So those who follow faiths that don't believe in gender equality or gay rights should not voice those views except in the privacy of their own homes? Those who are thrall of the Republican determination to do mass deportations of undoumented immigrants should be similarly constrained? I'm not excusing her behavior, Wendy, as an even cursory reading should have told you, I'm contextualizing it and putting it into perspective. For about five seconds on a radio show she did an imitation of Gus Walz. That was not good. Re-read what I wrote if you don't remember. But I don't think it was necessary for her to quit her job as a coach as a danger to children over it, and that there could have been stronger remedial steps taken that could have resulted in less bullying, more understanding.
1. I held my nose and voted for Clinton, but his crudeness and vulgarity don't rise to the level of Trump, who on top of it is just plain stupid. People are not eating bacon because of windmills?!
2. I find it hard to feel sorry for any right wing media person who gets hoist in their own petard. If no one had called her and Proft on it right away, they'd have made a meal of it for days. Mistake, my @$$.
3. So, no sympathy for children or babies killed by bombs in Gaza, Dresden or Hiroshima? BTW, in the case of Japan, a minority right wing group (sound familiar?)in control of the military was behind the refusal to surrender. Even after Fat Man and Little Boy were dropped, it took an extraordinary effort by the emperor to force the surrender. Japan was not a democracy. (BTW 2, both my grandfather and father served in the Pacific and would have been involved in the invasion of the mainland. My father was still distinctly ambivalent on the use of atomic weapons against Japan. I'm rather proud he wasn't as bloodthirsty as some of the commenters.)
4. A pre-recorded video by a Palestinian-American speaker seems like an appropriate compromise.
I agree, and I wonder if the dems offered the pre-recorded option and were turned down. Does anyone know? Because, for SURE, it would have been risky to give them an open mic on live prime time TV.
Having been outspoken, amplified and countered by EZ some time ago on the issue of what constitutes an appropriate job dismissal (Purdue Cal prez), I’ll stand down on whether Jacobsen should have been allowed to keep her job. Actually what interests me more in this case is that her radio gig requires her to be an active, vocal irritant to left-wing causes. “Angry conservative” talk radio and social media is a performative business requiring its players to act accordingly—mock the libs to entertain their audience, and the reward is in a paycheck, not political victory. So, perhaps Jacobsen simply should tell the truth: “Whether or not I truly believe that a crying teenager in public should be mocked, it is my job as a conservative radio host to serve my listeners and employers, who very much require us to react strongly and immediately to noteworthy incidents involving Democrats. If you are offended by the show’s content, please contact management.”
Check out former “Tea Party” Congressman Joe Walsh’s recent comments about the requirements of earning a paycheck from conservative media in light of Trump owning the GOP.
Amy Jacobsen: I'm guessing that Amundsen H.S. has standards of behavior for their entire staff that includes coaches (whether paid or volunteer.) Maybe those standards are written in a handbook or prospective employees or volunteers are required to sign a form where they agree to abide by those standards. If so, then it would seem to me that Ms. Jacobsen violated those standards in a public forum and does not deserve to remain as coach. If she stayed, what message does that send to her team or other students?
What she and Proft (and others) said regarding Gus was bullying and aren't schools and other institutions working to eliminate bullying? This is a perfect way to tell students that bullying has consequences, no matter who you are.
I asked in another commenter’s post if anyone knew whether the Palestinian Uncommitteds were given the option of a pre-recorded statement. I’m genuinely curious. Does anyone know?
Eric, you wring your hands over Amy Jacobson and then bring up Bill Clinton and his behavior.
I think you should concentrate on current folks doing damage to our society in a big way.
Joe Biden and the media downplayed Anita Hill’s testimony and thus helped to facilitate Clarence Thomas joining the Supreme Court.
And Clarence has gone on to be the most corrupt Justice in the history of the Supreme Court. He presents a direct threat to our justice system and belief in fairness in the judiciary.
We, the media and the American public must create pressure 24/7 for his removal and for an enforceable set of ethics to the Supreme Court.
I watched part of the hearings. I do think Biden erred by not calling the three additional witnesses who would have testified to the sexualized nature of Thomas management style. I don’t recall Biden “downplaying” Hill’s testimony. I think that the 48 Senators who voted not to confirm Thomas, including Biden, probably gave appropriate weight to Anita Hill’s testimony in that they voted against Thomas’s confirmation. I recall that Illinois Senator Alan Dixon’s biggest political mistake was voting in favor of Thomas’s confirmation, and that that mistake cost him his Senate seat when Carol Moseley Brown beat Alan Dixon and Al Hofeld in the Democratic primary in 1992.
My view is that Biden and fellow senators did not push hard enough in having Clarence Thomas specifically answer Anita Hill’s allegations.
They let him rant about “racist lynchings” and how unfair things were to him rather than answer specific allegations.
And frankly, if they held his feet to the fire as well as having further witness testimony (which you correctly pointed out) the close vote would have gone the other way and we would not have him on the Supreme Court.
By the way, you do not mention your views on Justice Thomas…are you a fan?
Me? A Justice Clarence Thomas fan? Hell no. I’m a John Paul Stevens fan. I did argue in the U.S. Supreme Court once, and Thomas is the only judge who didn’t ask me a question.
I saw another tweet that said something like "I put it on the stereo and my dogs came to me begging for me set off fireworks." But I think most of that is partisan nonsense. She's a decent singer and the song is saccharine, but no, it's just not horrible.
There is something else I want to add to the Jacobson debate. So many are making it a political issue, as of those that oppose Jacobson are only doing it because she is a conservative. I'm a retired teacher that still works as a substitute. I have been in the teaching business since 1978. I think that qualifies me to have a reasonably legitimate view on the matter. Being a good teacher is as much about attitude as anything else. One either likes and wants to do good for students or doesn't. Over the years, I have known and associated with fabulous teachers. I have also known more than a few that never should have become teachers or have deteriorated to the point they should consider retiring or doing something else. This seems to be the point Jacobson defenders are missing. It doesn't matter who Proft is or what his views are. We know who he is. She should never have been caught up in any kind of tirade about a teen either online or on the air. She tried an apology after finding out he was special needs. I don't accept it. Why would she do that to any teen in a public forum? What are her volleyball players and their parents supposed to think about her attitude toward teens after this? The parents did not line up to support her afterwards. Why, are they all liberals? Or are they concerned over how she treated a teen simply showing love and appreciation for his father? Would the reaction of her defenders have been different if she had been mocking Trump's kids? There is no cancel culture involved. Coaches can support any candidate they want. But supportive teachers and youth coaches don't publicly make fun of young people. That's why I support her removal as coach. If she had the right attitude for the job, it never would have happened. This was not a simple mistake on her part. She doesn't deserve the job.
I think the bottom line is that working as a teacher - or any profession that requires empathy and understanding - is incompatible with a gig as a political troll.
my choice for the visual joke of the week is a runaway winner - 100%!😂
I am surprised by the complete absence of sympathy toward the many dead Palestinians (including massive numbers of young and old males and females) who have died because their unelected leaders committed an atrocity in the comments on the people who make up the dissidents in the Democratic Party. Is it inconceivable to your correspondents that there are Democrats who mourn Israeli and Palestinian dead and want the killing to stop? After all, a person can mourn the victims of the Dresden fire bombing and Hiroshima and Nagasaki without being pro-Axis .
I don't mourn a single victim of Hiroshima, Nagasaki & especially Dresden. All got what was coming to them! Japan started the war with the US with the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, saw it lose all those islands in the Pacific to the Marines, saw its navy reduced to a few hulks sinking in Tokyo Bay & as for Dresden, I can assure you, the people there were 99% behind Hitler until the pleas for warm clothing came in 1943, when the Wehrmacht troops were stuck in that freezing Russian winter with no cold weather gear the bombings started & people were told to give their fur coats to them. And exactly where did the people of Dresden think all their Jewish neighbors went? The French Riviera? Miami Beach?
Japan refused to surrender after Hiroshima & even after Nagasaki, a group of Japanese army officers tried to seize the recording of the emperor's surrender speech, so they could fight until the end of every person in Japan, because that was their actual goal! The American generals in charge of planning Operation Downfall was so scared of the American casualty numbers they expected from an insane & futile suicidal defenses, that were planning to ask Truman to violate the Geneva Conventions & use poison gas on the Japanese, to limit US casualties [they had no idea of the Manhattan Project]. Had the invasion actually happened, how many of you wouldn't exist now, because your fathers & grandfathers died on the shores of Kyushu & Honshu before they even met your mothers?
Those citizens and their families deserve our respect and sympathy—and I absolutely cannot imagine the destruction there. Or in Ukraine. Or in Gaza, or anywhere else. I firmly believe most people are inherently good and care about their neighbors and don’t want to be involved in a war and don’t deserve the repercussions and sadness of any war. So far I am blissfully unaware of the reality of war—and hope to stay that way.
Yes, you really are unaware of the reality of war, especially WWII!
Watch a really good documentary about the Battles of Iwo Jima or Okinawa, or visit Auschwitz.
Or get Clint Eastwood's "Letters From Iwo Jima", which he made at the same time he made "Flags of Our Fathers". "Letters" is told from the Japanese side of that battle & is fascinating to see the utter stupidity of the Japanese fighting until almost every one of them were killed by the Marines. "Flags" is about the six Marines who raised the flag on Mount Surabachi, focusing especially on Ira Hayes, the American Indian who was overwhelmed but the enormous publicity about it & became an alcoholic.
Garry, I think it is you who are unaware of the reality of war, especially WWII. My uncle fought in the battle of Okinawa. At Thanksgiving some 65 years later he broke down in tears telling about young Japanese girls who he watched as they jumped over a cliff to their deaths, afraid of what might happen to them as a result of the American victory. I never served in combat and don’t know if you did. But it really bothers me when people who haven’t experienced the horrors of war first hand talk with enthusiasm and gung ho verve about glorious victories, those who “had it coming” and the like.
I’m not sure what you meant by “afraid of what might happen to them as a result of the American victory”, but this is a good link to the mindset during that time. “Military propaganda had warned the civilian population that if they were captured, the Americans would torture, rape, and murder them.”
https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/history/japanese-mass-suicides/
The people my uncle saw jump off cliffs were girls who had been told they would be raped repeatedly by the Americans. There is a link below dealing with this precise situation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himeyuri_students
It was on Saipan where all those Japanese women jumped to their deaths, not Okinawa. They were told by the authorities the Americans were going to rape all of them & suicide was the thing to do.
And on Okinawa, the Japanese army murdered a hundred thousand Okinawans.
And never forget the Rape of Nanking, where another Japanese army raped, tortured & murdered several hundred thousand!
It was on Okinawa as well.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himeyuri_students
That doesn't justify American actions. Sometimes both sides are wrong. I can point out many times, historically, when America was wrong. Ask Vietnamese what they think of Agent Orange, which JFK was warned not to use. Everyone here is taking political sides. War is bad. That's the point, no matter who does it. We try to justify it based on the cause. As I asked earlier, was fighting Hitler and Tojo wrong? It may have been necessary. But it's not a good thing. And unfortunately, innocents die. Garry, I regret that. I wonder how many innocent Japanese would have been happy to see the Emperor surrender earlier? How many Germans opposed Hitler but worried about being killed- by both sides? War cannot be justified. We need to use it only under the most dire circumstances. Israel feels it is fighting for its very existence. I'm quite sure there are Gazans caught in the middle. Talk to Hamas about it. I am most definitely not a Netanyahu supporter. But he didn't wake up one morning and declare " Let's kill Gazans!"
Your comment is idealistic, but very unrealistic. War is bad. Okay, I buy that. Sell that to the despot rulers of the world trying to take what belongs to others and impose their rule. Yes, before someone tells me, the US doesn't have clean hands like when they tried to kill Castro and killed some in South Vietnam. My point is that intil the world figures out a way to share basic human needs and deter those that feel like grabbing power because they think they know better how to run things, war will happen. It can't be justified. It simply sometimes becomes necessary. Were we wrong to fight Hitler and Tojo?
Even when war is necessary, one can and SHOULD have sympathy for the innocent victims.
Thanks, Aviva. That is my exact point. I never said war is avoidable. But the innocent victims don’t “deserve” what happens.
Read the comments of several here. Some believe there are no innocent victims and deserved what they got. I'm not on their side. I'm just telling you that you won't win your argument with them.
The firebombing of Dresden had no military purpose other than terror. The bombing of Nagasaki had no military purpose other than terror.
Absolute bullshit!
Japan refused to surrender after the first A-bomb, it took the second to convince there were many more to come, except there was only one more, which only the US military knew.
The second bomb finally convinced that idiot emperor to step in & surrender & even then, some of their army officers tried to stop that!
You have a charming way of expressing yourself to people who do not agree with. I do not on this matter, and I suspect many others but I do not choose to engage in conversations on your terms
So I am riding in a helicopter heading for Saigon…ping, ping ping! What is that I ask the gunner? Small arms fire from the VC., we should be okay as long as they don’t use RPGs.
And then he commences to lay down suppressive fire on the rice paddies below.
Bullets hitting nothing, animals, VC and perhaps civilians.
He was trying to save his ass, my ass and get us into Saigon in one piece.
At the time, my reaction was whatever it takes baby.
I did not have respect and sympathy for the folks below, neither was I hoping that he would kill as many folks as possible. Just get us to Saigon.
War creates visceral reactions that make you act now. No time to sit back, sip your tea and contemplate the correct moral choice from the comfort of your soft chair.
I do not believe people are inherently good or bad, they come into this world a blank slate.
And people who are blissfully unaware of war scare me, because they need to know the human toll it takes on society.
That's an extremely, extremely callous and inhumane view. It's one thing to say that the bombings of civilian population centers were justified (which I might agree with, at least on some days), it's a totally different thing to say that children living there deserved to get vaporized or maimed. "Got what was coming to them"? Wow. Makes me think of Grave of the Fireflies.
So the non-combatants in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, including women and children who were incinerated in the nuclear bombings or died from radiation sickness thereafter “got what was coming to them”? In Dresden, when Kurt Vonnegut, who was a prisoner of war, was cleaning up after the fire-bombing, they found a group of school girls who had climbed into a water tower to escape the flames and were boiled alive. They “had it coming”? Man, you have some weird ideas. Intentionally killing civilians is a war crime.
Are we to conclude that all the dead in Gaza "had it coming to them"?
So, if Trump gets elected and bumbles his way to starting a war the American casualties had it coming? Or maybe through Trump affection for North Korea they are able to develop long range missiles, and one is dropped on an American city they had it coming and deserve it because of the action of someone they may not have voted for nor supported?
This isn't a perfect analogy, but my point is we can extend sympathy to the victims of war without approval of the leader's actions that got them into the war.
Without a doubt, the single dumbest reply of the day!
Actually, I think the idea that civilian non-combatants "got what was coming to them" in Gaza, Hiroshima, Dresden etc. is not only the dumbest sentiment of the day, but the most inhumane. Even most warmongers find the deaths of children to be regrettable. And even in those cases where a majority of citizens chose a leader who led them into a ghastly war, that doesn't mean significant portions of the population have any agency whatsoever about the prosecution of that war or, indeed, about changing leadership. There has not been an election in Gaza for 18 years.
In total war, which is what that was, you care only about your own people, not the enemy!
I don’t want the killing to stop unless it’s on the right terms. Same as in WWII - unconditional surrender, occupation, and reconstruction. If the killing stops without that, there’s minimal likelihood that it won’t start right back up as soon as Hamas thinks it’s ready - zero chance of lasting peace. Palestinians need to renounce their position on Israel, lay down all their weapons, and all their leadership needs to be in prison.
That's missing the point. There is a hard time separating those that merely want a halt to the violence to those actively supporting Hamas. Let's try to remember there are many in the Arab world that deny the right of Israel to exist. Is Israel land stolen from Palestinians by the United Nations? Jews don't think so. Abraham lived there. So did many others until enslaved or kicked out. And after World War II, they weren't welcome anywhere, especially in what used to be Hitler's Europe. So even if one is opposed to current Israeli policies, do they support the violence that goes on against Israel on a daily basis or the constant threat of destruction by their neighbors? How would protesters in America respond to Mexico demanding back California and the entire southwest or Putin wanting to take back Alaska? Also keep in mind that as I write this, Israelis are marching in the streets for peace. So maybe there is a protester reading this that can answer me just what they want? Is is just an end to violence by Israel or an end to violence on both sides? Do you support the right of Israel to exist?
Yes, California was taken by the US through conquest, but Alaska was sold by Russia to the US.
I know that. $67 million. But at least one member of Putin's cabinet has suggested taking it back, by force if necessary. Is that okay with you? That is how many Arabs see Israel.
If you write about Broderick, as Moira Donergan did without even mention her under oath statement that Clinton never assaulted her, then you aren’t writing in good faith. Sure you can explain it away but to ignore it weakens the argument so much that I can’t take what is written seriously. And to include Paula Jones without a description of what she said occurred after she said “no way” to Clinton also to me lacks good faith. Why did Jones lose her lawsuit? Not because the Court thought she was was “lying.” That’s a “ strawman” argument by Donegan. It was because the Court assumed she was telling the truth. That when she said “ no” there was no cajoling, no “ come on” according to her it was “ I don’t want you to do anything you don’t want to do . “ Did he act crudely and ickiky? Yes. And her story made it clear that Clinton had thought she had assented to an assignation when asked by the state troopers if she wanted to go to his room. When he was disabused of that notion, he, according to her, immediately stopped. As for Lewinsky it was incredibly poor judgment but to not mention that she made it 100 percent clear in her testimony to the special prosecutor that the first move was made by her lifting her skirt to show her thong to a surprised Clinton and that she would call begging him to see her ( her own testimony found in special prosecutor’s report) means you don’t want to tell the full story because it detracts from your argument . In fact, it was Jones ’ story found in the court papers that made me doubt Broadericks change of story. It and Lewinsky‘s accounts were not of a man whose MO was violence , to me. One can disagree with my assessment in good faith. But it’s not good faith to avoid all the facts.
I also remember reading that Broadrick was said to have left Clinton with a big shit eating grin on her face!
So many women have said that when they turned down Clinton, he just said OK & found another one who gladly agreed to have sex with him.
So Amy Jacobson apologized? What kind of attitude does she have that caused her to make the comments in the first place? Is she sorry she said it or sorry she was caught and the fuss that occurred? I'm not convinced. She wants to lead young people, especially in an urban multicultural city, then let her display an even attitude toward all students. Cancel culture has nothing to do with it. She mocked a young person in public. That's not the type of person to be in charge of young people. Cancel culture assumes a political stance. This was not about her politics. It was about her mocking a teen that didn't earn it.
Last night I read a couple of Letters To the Editor in the Sun-Times complaining that the city looks bad by letting Greyhound lose its station & it's the city's job to get them a new one.
Why?
The sole city I know of with a publicly owned bus station is New York City & even then, the city doesn't own it, the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey owns it, a bistate agency controlled by the governors of both states.
Now I'm totally baffled as to why Alden, the same company that owns the Tribune is so anxious to get rid of the bus station as I know the area well & it's very undeveloped now, despite its closeness to the Loop. It's filled with empty lots, empty buildings & mostly one or two story buildings of small businesses that supply other businesses.
And Alden just made a huge profit from selling off the Trib's huge printing plant to Bally's. The Trib had one year to go on its lease on the property, with an option to renew for ten more years. So Bally's paid Alden at least $200 million to cancel the lease & option & Alden then spent probably no more than $50 million to buy the Daily Herald's printing plant in Schaumburg, thus generating a massive profit. The Trib's plant was the largest newspaper printing plant in the country, printing the Trib, Sun-Times, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, plus some ad sections. That the Daily Herald plant, which is a third of that size, can now print all of that, plus the Daily Herald, shows how many of us, myself included, who no longer get a printed daily paper. I even stopped the free Trib on Sundays they gave me with my digital subscription, because it no longer has an ad or coupon sections in it.
Which brings me back to the inanity of Alden kicking out Greyhound with the weird idea they're going to build something big there, when it's like Oakland, there's no there, there!
And of course the absolute stupidity & hope for greed from Bally's, thinking their billion dollar casino/hotel complex will make them hundreds of millions, when their temporary one, just off of Michigan Ave on the Near North Side, with excellent public transportation to it, is just two steps above a flop. Bally's is run by idiots & I agree with you EZ, but I give it far less than five years to fail. The sole logical location for a casino was McCormick Place's Lakeside Center, the Gene Summers masterpiece of a design that replaced the burned down one! Yet another disastrous decision by the truly incompetent Lori Lightfoot! And her even more incompetent successor Brandon Johnson keeps doubling down on her mistakes, whether it's this one or keeping that massively disruptive & money losing mess called the NASCAR race!
Loved your "follow up" column on the Clinton mess. Spot on.
That is the point I was trying to make. (Unsuccessfully I guess.) I stated in the shortened exchange you posted that:
"But even Stanford scholars can make remarks that are funny to some, offensive to some and bullying to others. I leaned toward the "funny" on this one, which I guess puts me in the "bully" category (of some)."
Yet Karlan felt it necessary to apologize stating: “If I can say one thing, I want to apologize for what I said earlier about the president's son. It was wrong of me to do that." She realized her attempt at wit and cleverness is not going to work in these times, as you pointed out so eloquently in today’s PS.
That apology sounds forced and probably insincere. What did she SAY about the president's son? Not a damn thing. She invoked his name -- not anything he'd done, and not in a mocking way -- to make a point about the president.
Well I think her next line, “I wish the president would apologize for the things he’s done wrong…” would support your hypothesis.😂
I’m pretty sure a kid named Barron when I was in grade school would have gotten “The Claw” at every recess.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HWyTK5xcVpc
Her quip wasn’t denigrating to Barron in the least, regardless of the feigned outrage of snowflakes Gaetz and Melanie. It was however, as a stab at wit, very lame, and that’s the only thing she should have apologized for.
Yeah, but she’s still probably getting high fives in the Stanford faculty lounge…😂
"I'm intrigued by the question of what sort of speech, conduct or belief system would make a person ineligible or inappropriate to be teaching or coaching high school students."
I don't think a belief system should make a person ineligible for employment, as long as your beliefs are kept to yourself. It's "public" conduct or speech that may not include specific words but clearly contain intent to insult/disparage that's over the line. And Ms. Jacobson was very public with her comments on a "fairly obscure radio program"? Come on. It's interesting how you're still trying to excuse her behavior.
Keep it to yourself? So those who follow faiths that don't believe in gender equality or gay rights should not voice those views except in the privacy of their own homes? Those who are thrall of the Republican determination to do mass deportations of undoumented immigrants should be similarly constrained? I'm not excusing her behavior, Wendy, as an even cursory reading should have told you, I'm contextualizing it and putting it into perspective. For about five seconds on a radio show she did an imitation of Gus Walz. That was not good. Re-read what I wrote if you don't remember. But I don't think it was necessary for her to quit her job as a coach as a danger to children over it, and that there could have been stronger remedial steps taken that could have resulted in less bullying, more understanding.
Too many winners in this weeks visual joke. Need to save some of the losers for another week.
ha ha 😂 - true!
1. I held my nose and voted for Clinton, but his crudeness and vulgarity don't rise to the level of Trump, who on top of it is just plain stupid. People are not eating bacon because of windmills?!
2. I find it hard to feel sorry for any right wing media person who gets hoist in their own petard. If no one had called her and Proft on it right away, they'd have made a meal of it for days. Mistake, my @$$.
3. So, no sympathy for children or babies killed by bombs in Gaza, Dresden or Hiroshima? BTW, in the case of Japan, a minority right wing group (sound familiar?)in control of the military was behind the refusal to surrender. Even after Fat Man and Little Boy were dropped, it took an extraordinary effort by the emperor to force the surrender. Japan was not a democracy. (BTW 2, both my grandfather and father served in the Pacific and would have been involved in the invasion of the mainland. My father was still distinctly ambivalent on the use of atomic weapons against Japan. I'm rather proud he wasn't as bloodthirsty as some of the commenters.)
4. A pre-recorded video by a Palestinian-American speaker seems like an appropriate compromise.
I agree, and I wonder if the dems offered the pre-recorded option and were turned down. Does anyone know? Because, for SURE, it would have been risky to give them an open mic on live prime time TV.
Having been outspoken, amplified and countered by EZ some time ago on the issue of what constitutes an appropriate job dismissal (Purdue Cal prez), I’ll stand down on whether Jacobsen should have been allowed to keep her job. Actually what interests me more in this case is that her radio gig requires her to be an active, vocal irritant to left-wing causes. “Angry conservative” talk radio and social media is a performative business requiring its players to act accordingly—mock the libs to entertain their audience, and the reward is in a paycheck, not political victory. So, perhaps Jacobsen simply should tell the truth: “Whether or not I truly believe that a crying teenager in public should be mocked, it is my job as a conservative radio host to serve my listeners and employers, who very much require us to react strongly and immediately to noteworthy incidents involving Democrats. If you are offended by the show’s content, please contact management.”
Check out former “Tea Party” Congressman Joe Walsh’s recent comments about the requirements of earning a paycheck from conservative media in light of Trump owning the GOP.
Amy Jacobsen: I'm guessing that Amundsen H.S. has standards of behavior for their entire staff that includes coaches (whether paid or volunteer.) Maybe those standards are written in a handbook or prospective employees or volunteers are required to sign a form where they agree to abide by those standards. If so, then it would seem to me that Ms. Jacobsen violated those standards in a public forum and does not deserve to remain as coach. If she stayed, what message does that send to her team or other students?
What she and Proft (and others) said regarding Gus was bullying and aren't schools and other institutions working to eliminate bullying? This is a perfect way to tell students that bullying has consequences, no matter who you are.
"Dad, just Google it" practically made me choke on my coffee.
Me too!
yup I dig Uncle Duke
I asked in another commenter’s post if anyone knew whether the Palestinian Uncommitteds were given the option of a pre-recorded statement. I’m genuinely curious. Does anyone know?
I don't know if they were given an option to pre-record but they were given the option to vet and edit. See my post from 15 minutes ago.
Eric, you wring your hands over Amy Jacobson and then bring up Bill Clinton and his behavior.
I think you should concentrate on current folks doing damage to our society in a big way.
Joe Biden and the media downplayed Anita Hill’s testimony and thus helped to facilitate Clarence Thomas joining the Supreme Court.
And Clarence has gone on to be the most corrupt Justice in the history of the Supreme Court. He presents a direct threat to our justice system and belief in fairness in the judiciary.
We, the media and the American public must create pressure 24/7 for his removal and for an enforceable set of ethics to the Supreme Court.
Joe Biden voted against Clarence Thomas’s confirmation as a Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
Please read what I wrote, I did not say he voted for Thomas.
I said he downplayed Anita Hill’s testimony and did not require Thomas to fully reply to Hill’s accusations.
I watched the hearings…did you?
And did you think Biden and the rest of the male senators gave appropriate weight to her testimony?
I watched part of the hearings. I do think Biden erred by not calling the three additional witnesses who would have testified to the sexualized nature of Thomas management style. I don’t recall Biden “downplaying” Hill’s testimony. I think that the 48 Senators who voted not to confirm Thomas, including Biden, probably gave appropriate weight to Anita Hill’s testimony in that they voted against Thomas’s confirmation. I recall that Illinois Senator Alan Dixon’s biggest political mistake was voting in favor of Thomas’s confirmation, and that that mistake cost him his Senate seat when Carol Moseley Brown beat Alan Dixon and Al Hofeld in the Democratic primary in 1992.
My view is that Biden and fellow senators did not push hard enough in having Clarence Thomas specifically answer Anita Hill’s allegations.
They let him rant about “racist lynchings” and how unfair things were to him rather than answer specific allegations.
And frankly, if they held his feet to the fire as well as having further witness testimony (which you correctly pointed out) the close vote would have gone the other way and we would not have him on the Supreme Court.
By the way, you do not mention your views on Justice Thomas…are you a fan?
Me? A Justice Clarence Thomas fan? Hell no. I’m a John Paul Stevens fan. I did argue in the U.S. Supreme Court once, and Thomas is the only judge who didn’t ask me a question.
Glad to hear you are not a fan. And having read a number of decisions/ dissents by John Paul Stevens, I totally understand why you are a fan.
Totally off topic: Mrs Betty Bowers on Lara T's singing:""every note is a violation of the Geneva Convention."
I saw another tweet that said something like "I put it on the stereo and my dogs came to me begging for me set off fireworks." But I think most of that is partisan nonsense. She's a decent singer and the song is saccharine, but no, it's just not horrible.
I thought you had a sense of humor EZ?
She flat out sucks as a singer!
There is something else I want to add to the Jacobson debate. So many are making it a political issue, as of those that oppose Jacobson are only doing it because she is a conservative. I'm a retired teacher that still works as a substitute. I have been in the teaching business since 1978. I think that qualifies me to have a reasonably legitimate view on the matter. Being a good teacher is as much about attitude as anything else. One either likes and wants to do good for students or doesn't. Over the years, I have known and associated with fabulous teachers. I have also known more than a few that never should have become teachers or have deteriorated to the point they should consider retiring or doing something else. This seems to be the point Jacobson defenders are missing. It doesn't matter who Proft is or what his views are. We know who he is. She should never have been caught up in any kind of tirade about a teen either online or on the air. She tried an apology after finding out he was special needs. I don't accept it. Why would she do that to any teen in a public forum? What are her volleyball players and their parents supposed to think about her attitude toward teens after this? The parents did not line up to support her afterwards. Why, are they all liberals? Or are they concerned over how she treated a teen simply showing love and appreciation for his father? Would the reaction of her defenders have been different if she had been mocking Trump's kids? There is no cancel culture involved. Coaches can support any candidate they want. But supportive teachers and youth coaches don't publicly make fun of young people. That's why I support her removal as coach. If she had the right attitude for the job, it never would have happened. This was not a simple mistake on her part. She doesn't deserve the job.
I think the bottom line is that working as a teacher - or any profession that requires empathy and understanding - is incompatible with a gig as a political troll.