One must understand them

So often we hear about Israeli "atrocities," about all the evil they supposedly do and these "poor Palestinians" (though one must admit, they are in poverty) who are sitting right under their thumb. In this narrative, Israel was taken from "peaceloving" Arabs.

The reality though is that the people who say these things have never once tried to understand Israels actions. Never once have they put themselves in Israels shoes before they judge. Instead, they use their own European mores, made from a totally different history and social fabric, while judging a nation that they could not possibly understand in a time and place they could not possibly know.

Not once but three times since 1945 have the Arab states tried to squish Israel, and two of those were when they were staying within "appropriate borders." In 1968, after yet another attempt on them, Israel went ahead and took the "lands of others" that had been used as bases and fortresses for the attack on them.

Since 1973 however, the Arabs have realized that attacking Israel militarily is not the way to get anywhere, so instead of attacking straight on, they amass tremendous monetary funds for the families of suicide bombers so they may encourage one of their starving children to blow himself up to continue the war against Israel, without endangering themselves. The result being that because their least favorite child has blown himself up and taken Jews with him, the rest of the family can eat.

With the exception of Jordan, their previous overlord, none of the Arab states have allowed Palestinians to immigrate to their soils and away from the violence. Yet they will rant on and on about the suffering of these Palestinians at the hands of Israelis.

The Jews, meanwhile, are left in a world where nothing is certain, where behind every streetcorner is a bomb waiting to destroy them, and in this world, the rest of the Earth demands that they behave normally. They are left in a world where, because of constant threat of attack from many nations at once, they must resort to a conscription army, which has never led to low civilian casualties (including when America did it in Vietnam) and causes anger against them to rise as a result. Meanwhile, the obvious solution is rejected, simply because the rest of the world wants to fell "good about it self." The obvious solution, of course, is removing the Palestinians to somewhere far away.

On their own land, the Jews have created one of the most brilliant, prosperous shining lights of civilization the world has ever seen in the middle of a desert. Here in their small desert homeland, they have excelled in Agricultural Genetics, built a tremendous education system that Microsoft trusts as one of only three sites worldwide (Tel Aviv) for coding, created a huge middle class, and, perhaps most importantly, a democratic government that protects the rights of all those involved. They've done all this while the Arabs have been shooting at them from every direction and every way, every day of the year. The Isrealis are a true blessing to humanity, while Palestine continues to stagger in non-development, even with its generous gifts of land that they certainly did not deserve for pursuing a constant, unending war with Israel, and ever more bitter poverty.

I do believe that the Palestinians should have a homeland, but it should not be anywhere near Israel. Perhaps Canada or Amazonas can accommodate them? The Sea of Ohktosk is a possibility, even has rich grounds for fishing, and certainly more land then they presently have. The proof is in the pudding, a very bloody pudding filled with the blown off parts of human beings, whole lives snuffed out for no purpose besides Arab greed.

Tattered battle flag of Jerusalem, photo by David Shankbone, license c.c. a.s.a. 3.0 unported

Selling the UN to Reduce the Deficit

Sitting on six blocks of top notch Mannhattan riverfront, the UN Headquarters has overseen active attacks on the United States, massive continuing demands in terms of money and prescence from the US treasury, and helped aid and abett organizations, such as the various Sustainability organizations behind Agenda 21, that are impoverishing and ruining the world as we speak with windmills and other stupidity. They continue to embarass and harass not only the United States, but the poor countries of Africa, making irrational demands in terms of notions of "modernity" that are not desirable and maybe not even possible for the so-called "dark continent." They also have stood by and abetted the slandering of George W. Bush during the run up to the Iraq War, claiming, despite every piece of evidence to the contrary, that there was no reason to think Saddam Hussein had weapons. In addition, the IMF and the EU, two other "world government" organizations, have together impoverished 4/5 of the world.

The UN is, frankly, a rat, and an expensive one. Even the tiniest piece of Mannhattan real estate can fetch top dollars and motivate tremendous economic development. We are 1.5 trillion in debt. May I suggest a sale of 6 ideal building sights for skyscrapers?

Abolish Property Tax Now!

Thames Tow Boat Company, New London, CT, 1975. Source: Wikimedia, public domain.

Imagine you are a rancher, on 10,000 acres, about what is needed to have a profitable Cattle ranch. You and your fathers have lived on this land for many generations, essentially since there were Europeans in the area. You don't have any debt, and you wake up every morning to a Montana sunrise against the rockies before a hard day of work.

Unfortunately, a bunch of wealthy Los Angelinos find out about these beautiful Montana sunrises, and move in to megahouses just next door. Your property values go through the roof. The government forces you to sell, as otherwise you can't pay your taxes. You never really owned the land to begin with.

Then we cry and scream about poor people who can take out loans that they can never pay off, but if those poor peoples property values ever went up, they would be driven off their land anyways, and at least they KNOW how much the bank will charge them (or think they know.) But why should they have a balanced checkbook? What benefit do they get? Why should they work hard and save when nothing truly qualifies you as an owner.

And then there are city councils that limit what you can do with your land, telling you you can't raise chickens, you can't raise horses, you can only have two dogs. People next to you decide that because they want high property values, they can tell you what to do with YOUR land. I think if George Washington saw modern suburbia, he would be perfectly ashamed.

And no, I'm not a property owner myself. I live in a 15 by 15 foot room that I rent, and I am offended and ashamed that my country, which call itself the "land of the free, home of the brave" destroys freedom and cowardly avoids productive activity in the name of land values. This is cowardice, and slavery, both.

These behaviors finally culminated in the Kelo decision. The city of New London, a long eclipsed New England city that was once a powerhouse of industry, decided it was going to make "hard choices" to improve its economy. Naturally, these choices were made with other peoples land. They took, by eminent domain, land from many owners, including Kelo, who challenged the constitutionality of this decision. By a narrow majority, the Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional for the "public use" of reselling to a developer who will make "better purpose" of the land. In a twist of irony, the taken lands are now unused and fenced off, a decaying brownsfield, and I cannot help but think that the wrath of God is at work.

But then there's practicality. Supporters will argue that property taxes are neccesary for the funding of city coffers, but in reality property taxes are a very unreliable source of revenue that have impoverished far more cities then they have made wealthy. The desolation of the inner cities in the 1950's occurred because of wealthy whites fleeing the city, causing land values to fall rapidly. The city then raised property taxes, driving out business, and impoverishing it further. And it is not high property values that define a city. Rather, a city is defined by being the best place for business, a place to buy and sell, manufacture, import and export, a distribution center is the essence of a city, so why not tax THAT? The overall tax burden need not increase, in fact a thorough review of city budgets in the current political climate will likely lead to cuts.

In reality, property taxes serve no one but the wealthy attempting to eliminate the "riff raff" of their town, and those with a vested interest in delegitimizing the right to property. It violates the natural and legitimate right of property, harms the poor by providing subpar, underfunded city services, and encourages a mentality that can lead only to tyranny.

Dear NYC,

Bandah Acehs Grand Mosque, Indonesia, by Wikimedia user Plugwash, public domain.

I've heard that some giant troll is attempting to build a 15-story mosque two blocks from the World Trade Center. It is true that the 1st Amendment protects the right of Muslims to worship. It is also true that the 5th Amendment specifies that "private property taken for public use" must include just compensation, and that court cases like "Kelo v. New London" have held that there really aren't too many limiations on a municipalities right to take your land for, whatever is held to be, "public use."

Now consider the potential of a 21st Century Railroad Station to replace Penn in a strategic, easily reachable portion of lower Mannhattan. The Subway Service is great, and there's tons of pedestrian traffic! It could be a major economic boon to the area, and since the land is currently being used for a wholly non-economic activity, it is totally in the public interest to take said property instead of something that actually creates jobs and commerce! It could also be outfitted with advanced rail platforms that can support Acela, and other high speed trains. It's even more just then taking the land for private development.

See, it's sort of like when someones car has broken down by the side of the road and you refuse to give them your carjack. Sure, it is your right to not give them a carjack - you do own the carjack - but frankly, if you don't, and you don't have a good reason not to give them the carjack, you're probably a big jerk. Rights are not ethics or morals, they are simply what society is not allowed to do to you. This is to protect all individuals from the exact kind of bullying that this mosque constitutes, albeit from people with far more power to harm you then these Imams.

We must consider this great economic opportunity and the huge potential it has created for the people of New York. I sincerely hope that you consider giving that Islamic bully the slap in the face he deserves for using his constitutional rights in such a horrible way, while getting a wonderful little train station out of it and giving those folks the money to build themselves a mosque somewhere else. So let us wait until they are done building the mosque, and then condemn it to build a new train station, giving them "just compensation" of course.

Your southernly cousin,


Jeremy Janson

The Gospel of Joseph Stalin, Episode 3: Parable of the Talented Manipulators

Secretary General and Loving Father Stalin, who only sends those who really need it to Siberia to be worked to death. Photo taken by CCCP, public domain for all good comrades. Here

"The federal system is like a slightly violent and paranoid man who travelled to a far away arab nation in need of asskicking, leaving all his various powers to take your money to three servants, assigning it based upon their ability, with the instruction to generate more.

"To Obama he left 10 special interest groups,

"To Reidosi he left 5 special interest groups,

"To Bush, he left only one, the Christian Right.

"Obama came up with 10 more special interest groups, Pelosi used her 5 to get 5 more, but Bush took his and refused to look in to television cameras.

"When the federal system came back, he saw that Obama had generated so much special interest and said, 'Well done my faithful servant, I'm giving you the White House.'

"When he saw how much Reidosi had interested, he said, 'Well done my faithful servant, I'm giving you the Congress.'

"But Bush came to him and said, 'I was afraid, for I knew you were a hard man who reap where other people sow, thus I buried my speical interest group in the ground. Here, take what is yours!'

"But he said, "So you knew I was a hard man who reaps where other people sow! Therefore, you should've used the IRS to pay for other peoples earmarks!"

"'But I did do that!'

"'No you didn't damn it! Everyone loves earmarks!'

"'I honestly did do that! Haven't you talked the budget office lately? Look at how high the debt is! Aren't you proud of me?'

"'NO! I'm never proud of failures! And besides, what kind of idiot uses OTHER PEOPLES interest groups to advance himself?'

"And then they took the worthless servant, and cut him in two, and there was much rejoicing.

"Assuredly, I say unto you, whoever has much in this year will have much in the election to come, and to him who has little, even what he has will be taken away!"

Thatcher the Wrong Comparison for Palin

Eva Peron at the Casa Rosada Expired copyright, source unknown.

One was known for her mastery of statistics and facts, the other for her combativeness and passion. One was the "Iron Lady", the other the symbol of her nation at a time when it was losing itself. One rose at a time of practical problems, declining economies, overweened labor unions and eminent possible wars (one of which could not in the end be prevented) with Argentina (sic) and the USSR. The other at a time when her nation, let alone its practical issues, didn't even know who it was any more. So why do we always compare Palin to the wrong great leader?

Thatcher is one of my heroes, and indeed, she is the hero of many. So is Evita. They are totally different people, and when one considers who these great leaders really were, one realizes who really is the model for Palin.

Let's think about what Palin has done well: she put fear in to lawless oil companies sufficient to get them to actually keep their contracts with Alaska, she cleaned house in Juneau of great corruption (something that, in many places like Chicago, never occurs) in a very short amount of time, she inspires people even now with her life story and the very kind of person she is, and it is through her EMOTIONAL actions, her pointing to values, illustrating grotesqueness of character and thought rather then particular points of policy, that she takes power to the degree she does. Palin is all heart, and all America. She would not govern by bullet points and statistics - higher values suit her better. And just as the European elegance of Evita suited Argentina at a terrifying moment of decline, Palins rugged indivdiualism, honor, antielite anger and religious fervor represent America at a time when, for every reason imaginable, America is losing its very identity.

The fact that Evita was on the left-wing while Thatcher was on the right probably doesn't help, but nonetheless, the most talented political citizen of the United States today has much to offer, and it's not exceptionally like Thatcher.

A Very Special Conversation

Image by Andrew Braithwaite, license cca 2.0 generic

This is a conversation I've been tracking from the Politico community and one other source:

Obama [1]: "On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the fainthearted -- for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things -- some celebrated, but more often men and women obscure in their labor -- who have carried us up the long, rugged path toward prosperity and freedom."

Then Dodd talks about his "long, rugged path":

Senator Dodd [2]: "My patience is running out, I’ve extended the hand. I’ve written provisions in this bill to accommodate various interests. But I’m not going to continue doing this if all I’m getting the other side is a suggestion somehow that this is a partisan effort." (para. 2)

[They are spreading] "outright falsehoods” [which are] “now being repeated by people who should know better and frankly do know better." (para. 3 end)


Then these comments come flying at Dodd, and at the commenters:

Commenter 1: "Democrats...THE PARTY OF NO." [3]

Commenter 2: "Why not cut them out of the loop entirely on all issues? Their stated intransigence is equalled only by their political ignorance in condemning themselves to a long spell of superminority irrelevance."

Commenter 3: "The American people are sick and tired of the GOP's refusal to GET TO WORK."

Commenter 4: "Dodd is both a crook, and in charge of this bill."

Commenter 5: "D-day (roasted rats) is coming at a poll near you 11/7 !"

Commenter 6: "The Republican Party is not interested in governing unless it calls the shots."

Commenter 7: "How can anyone take the GOP seriously when all they're doing is trying to block reform be rehashing the same stale GOP talking points they used with health care?"

Commenter 8: "SORRY, THE PARTY OF NO LABEL BELONGS TO REPUBLICANS SOLELY!

NO TO AMERICANS BENEFITS

NO TO HEALTH CARE REFORM

NO TO BANKING REFORM"

//Caps make the world a better place.>>

Commenter 9: "REALITY BE DAMNED!"

Commenter 10: "These people aren't interested in facts, WWE. They lie, even to themselves. To recognize what Republicans are doing woudl be, for the Republican minions, the same as recognizing their own gullibility and stupidity. They MUST ignore the facts. If they didn't, they'd lose whatever little self-esttem they have left after lifetimes of being left behind and walked over and ignored because they are too stupid to understand the world."

Okay, this isn't the entire discussion, but you get the idea.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes:

Feel free to question the use of any source or context of any quote from source:

[1] Obama Inaugural Speech, paragraphs 7-9, source: CNN.com; http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/20/obama.politics/index.html

[2] Carrie Burdoff Brown, "Chris Dodd threatens to cut GOP out of financial reform talks," http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35800.html, 4/14/2010

[3] Message board for [2], http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35800.html#commentsform, first 20 comments

Hope's for Whiners!

Neve Glacier and Snowfield Peak, courtesy of the US Geological Survey. Public Domain

There's something about the traditional name for the Saturday before Easter that kind of gets on my nerves.

I always hear people talk about HOPE, as if it's some kind of penultimate important good. Usually these people think of themselves as victims, people who believe that there hope has been stripped of them by somebody else, people who believe that unless someone else gives them their change back, they won't be able to make enough money to eat. But WHY????

And further, even if we are hopeless, helpless and hapless, (. thank You, the Holy Spirit, for language, thank You for poetry, thank You for song and thank You for beauty and feeling. Amen.) why not just keep breathing and look down the road, and appreciate all the little things in your life? Why don't we take things one step at a time, not looking back, and not really looking forward either? Why don't we just accept those who are before us, and the task and work that is in front of us, and understand that no matter what is done to us, we still have the CHOICE to make the best of it. Further, without hardship, trial and, yes, suffering, you would never grow, you would never learn, you would never become strong and learn the pride and joy that comes from strength, and you could not truly have life. And without goals of YOUR OWN that you've made for YOURSELF to do YOURSELF, you eliminate the best kind!

For me, Easter is not really about Hope, it's about Love. A loving, beautiful God who, not even asking about the cost, took from our shoulders the only thing that could truly break us, the only thing that we have no choice over, the only thing that we CANNOT overcome on our own. The thing that, by it's very definition, is outside of our control. Death, and the imperfection that, by every angle and understanding be it biological, moral or otherwise, caused it. Through Christ, all of us can truly live.

Titian, Ancona Crucifixtion, 1558

Three Cheers for the Huffington Post!

First of all, we would like to thank the Huffington Post for so successfully scamming so many dozens of liberals of large amounts of their money. With less money to use for all purposes, they will be having less fun, and may perhaps be unable to send their kids to college in the near future, leading to more right-leaning university campuses. In addition, it reminds us once again which animal the Democrats picked as their symbol, and advances the cause of Social Darwinism through starvation.

Second, we would like to thank the Huffington Post for being extremely preoccupied with Glenn Beck. Not only does it make the fellow seem more important then he is, but it wastes large amounts of liberal time that could instead be devoted to rational arguments, political activism, or eventually learning to be Republicans. Then again, we would say time with family, but the extremely high levels of support for Abortion seem to indicate that Social Darwinism will score our finally victory for us! Haazaa!

Third, we would like to thank the Huffington Post for not paying their writers. It makes me feel great to know I am not the only unpaid blogger on the internet. I can just think of all the 1000's of writers that Arianna Huffington refuses to pay every day over my coffee, and go, "Ahhhh!!!!" It just makes me feel warm inside. Plus, I know that with the extensive hours they work rather then lazy bums like me who hardly ever update the site, they'll probably STARVE to death from too few paid workhours anyways! MORE SOCIAL DARWINISM!

So Hip-Hip-Hooray for the Huffington Post, Darwinian defeater of the Democrat Party! Haazaa!

(I'm not totally sure why I wrote this, but it's fun.)

Darwin Caricature from London Sketchbook 1874, by Faustin Betbeder. Copyright Expired

Who cares?

White House Photo of Bush 43 courtesy of EO-POTUS, public domain

I won't be posting much for a little while, as a major round of exams at GT just came in to study for, but before I head off to glory I wanted to post about something I've noticed in political discussion lately.

A lot of democrats, including at least one commenter on this site, continue to obsess about what Bush 43 did and how it screwed over America. My response is simple: "No one cares!" Bush doesn't have power anymore.

Regardless of who started the fire, there are people out there who believe Obama is pouring gasoline on the flames. I'm not going to say whether he is or he isn't - I'll leave that for you to decide - but what's happened with Bush is over and honestly, it is quite intelligent of the American people to disregard such quibbling in their reasoning. It doesn't matter how bad things were when Obama got them, everyone is asking, is Obama making them better?

Not everyone will answer yes.

Encouraging Lawfulness

Clip art courtesy of Open Clip Art Gallery, public domain

On Interstate 405 in Kirkland, Washington, there is a sign by the 8-lane freeway saying "Keep Right Except to Pass." It should be no surprise that ABSOLUTELY NO ONE takes that sign seriously.

I called a friend from Massacheuttsets on his cellphone. He apparently was driving. When I found out this I asked him, "isn't that illegal in your state?" And he casually said, "yeah but it's minor." By the way, this friend wants to be a preacher. That kinda means you should respect the law. (Read Romans 13, and other passages.)

In every state I've known there are so many laws on the roadways that no one (including the cops, by the way) takes all of them seriously. This is bad. I don't like people lane changing without turn signals, especially if they're not going the same speed I am and I end up REAR-ENDING them! Or they don't look to their side and they SIDE-SWIPE me. And I don't like the idea of being a pedestrian and run over and killed by a grumpy driver whose had it for the day and now wasted my life.

I also don't especially like stupid laws. They make you wonder who's running this country. Are they even paid? Where did we hire these people? WHY did we hire these people? Was it their first day? And why shouldn't I trust all the other people who come up with laws and behaviors of their own? I sometimes wonder whether corporate accounting scandals happen because businesses get tired of the Eco-lobby. Reminds me of annoying cashiers who can't count money.

Fact of the matter is, we need law. We need it to protect our property, ourselves, our children, our country against foreign invasion. We also, at times, need it to deal with collective needs, like for commerce and transportation, though here we have to be more careful, as there is always a tremendous cost to making something collective, whether it be month-long hospital waits (Canada's Healthcare System) or putting privatized mass-transit out of business and the tragedy of too many people using something free at once (America's Interstate Freeway). In both cases, legalism and collectivism, there is a cost and a benefit, always, and both must be carefully weighed.

But if we do well with these, and create things that are limited, respectful, uncorrupt, freedom-oriented, and logical, and combine them with strong-enforcement and a sense of justice, we CAN have a lawful nation.Drawn from Indiana DOT Sign by Wikimedia user "Overpush", Public Domain

Corporatism

I'm taking a quick break from my break to speak out against the hideous and deceitful misuse of a common "ism," corporatism. Random House Dictionary:

"Corporatism - n. the principles, doctrine, or system of corporative organization of a political unit, as a city or state."

The Canadian Encyclopedia:

"Corporatism was originally a 19th-century doctrine which arose in reaction to the competition and class conflict of capitalist society. In opposition to the trend towards both mass suffrage and independent trade unionism, it promoted a form of functional representation - everyone would be organized into vocational or industrial associations integrated with the state through representation and administration." [Though it is later noted that it largely devolved in to fascism.]

San Jose University, Economics Department:

"The basic idea of corporatism is that the society and economy of a country should be organized into major interest groups (sometimes called corporations) and representatives of those interest groups settle any problems through negotiation and joint agreement. In contrast to a market economy which operates through competition a corporate economic works through collective bargaining. The American president Lyndon Johnson had a favorite phrase that reflected the spirit of corporatism. He would gather the parties to some dispute and say, "Let us reason together."

F-22 - An Obituary

Photo courtesy of U.S. Air Force

"The Defense Department plans to end the F-22 Raptor fighter jet program that employs 2,000 workers in Marietta. The move is part of one of the most sweeping makeovers of defense spending in recent history." -Atlanta Journal Constitution, "Pentagon plans to ax F-22 project"

The F-22 is a magnificent aircraft capable of striking the enemy before the enemy can strike back. Carrying six missiles and internal guns for firepower, and a stealth build for avoidance, the F-22 makes up for it's size and cost with a level of survivabillity seldom seen in combat aircraft, along with some of the lightest maintenance requirements ever attained. At 44.5 feet of wingspan and 60 feet of length, it is one of the larger fighters ever built, and although not specifically mentioned, this large size no doubt leads to greater crumple and wound room to take damage. Although the F-22's max speed is only Mach 1.8, it's "supercruise" speed of Mach 1.5 can be sustained for long distances without engine damage or excessive fuel expenditure, as no afterburner is necessary. The only possible complaint one could have with this aircraft is that it can't land on a carrier.

A full report on the aircraft can be found here.



Technical Art courtesy of Wikimedia

Back in 1983, when the economy was at the weakest point it had been since 1942, Ronald Reagan spent massive, deemed unwise by some at the time, amounts of money on racing the Soviets for arms. He not only won the Cold War without firing a shot, but within a year, the economy recovered. Barrack Obama spends a similar amount of money on "Stimulus," and then says "we should not expect miracles." Meanwhile, he is ridding Atlanta of 2,000 jobs at Lockheed Martin Marietta, building one of the most incredible aircraft America has ever designed.

Perhaps saddest of all is that, in true Keynesian fashion, it would actually reduce expenditures for the Air Force in the long-run, especially if it replaced our fleet of F-16's, as it's much sturdier, hardier, more expensive but more reliable parts would make maintenance nearly "Plug and Play" (American Federation of Scientists.) It would also be, by a principle called common sense, safer to fly for this reason, saving money on training and saving the most valuable component of all, a human being.




Proletariat of the World, UNITE!

The Problem with Nuclear Disarmament

Photo: Trinity Test, 1945, US D.O.E. (Mannhattan Project)



In 1945, not long after testing this atomic bomb, America dropped dual nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, bringing to a swift end a war that the Japanese were planning to draw out for years. With these same bombs, it held down an expansionist and empowered Russia through the 40's, and created a culture of meek innocent dependency among all the other powers of the world, even England. When stable-headed Russia acquired it's own atom bomb, however, it was finally able to regain steam and act quickly to advance itself across the globe.

Now, America did not have the worst intentions. For the most part, after 4 long and bloody years of war, we just wanted peace. We were even willing to concede a little to both independence oriented peoples like the Fillipinos and expansionist empires like the Soviets, just so long as they realized we had Mr. Bang-Bang and thus fighting us was worthless; we did not wish to overuse this power, however.

And when the Soviets did acquire their own bomb, they were led by a bloodthirsty but levelheaded and slightly paranoid dictator named Joseph Stalin who realized -or at least agonized- that, even if he won a nuclear shell game against the US, he would be weakened by the fight and risk rebellion or China.

Now, let's switch roles here. Let's say that, instead of the US acquiring an atom bomb, it had been Germany. They would've tested it over Isreal, London, Moscow or New York and then imposed their will on the nations they were fighting. Even if some of the Western powers continued to fight, one of them submitting would have guaranteed a much bloodier, lenghtier conflict at the least, and chances are that the additional length would have made it possible for Hitler to build yet more bombs.

Let's switch another role. The US still made the atom bomb, but instead of cool as gun-steel Stalin at the helm, you had a hot-tempered dick like Ahmnehjahd. The US finds out that they have atom bombs, and instead of standing back and saying, "yeah, they figured us out, it's time for round two," he says, "start the countdown."

The best possible outcome of no nuclear weapons is exactly what happened before, with a single, selfish or desperate nation (preferably desperate) acquiring a nuclear weapon to threaten another nation, and a cool-headed second competitor outrunning them cooly and successfully.

The most likely outcome is global oppression. Nations willingly submit, just as they did to the US, but this nation is not as kind and had intentions far worse then anything in FDR's heart. A kind of globlal slavery ensues. The only separation between this and the best possible outcome is intention.

The worst possible outcome is the competitor acquires their competing weapon, is found out, does not react smoothly, and both nations launch, creating at the very least destruction of innocent life on a level beyond Darfur or Rwanda, at the worst, nuclear ahnillation of our species, all hinging on the effectiveness of production.

Mankind has already cheated nuclear death once. Please, Mr. President, don't put humanity through this again.