2016: Obama's America

I saw the Obama movie tonight. Very well done Neoconservative election year propaganda - it may succeed where 2004's Progressive election year propaganda film, Fahrenheit 911, failed: it may help defeat an incumbent president.

Much of the content was accurate - Obama has radical, socialist roots, and the anti-colonial mindset of many Progressives (though that term isn't used) is about punishing the rich more than helping the poor.

Nevertheless, the message conveyed by "2016: Obama's America" is very misleading, chiefly on account of what it omits. Example: the peril of our nation's escalating debt is rightly heralded. However, it is presented as exclusively the result of Obama's policies, echoing a theme of this year's GOP convention.  The fact is our journey into bankruptcy has been a bipartisan project with many villains, from Democrats Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ, and Ted Kennedy to Republicans Teddy Roosevelt, Nixon, Bush, Billy Long (my congressman) and many, many others.

Likening our country to a ship, I observe that both Democrats and Republicans are diligently drilling holes in the boat. Democrats drill on the port side, Republicans on the starboard. Both are sinking us! The former oft remind us that Bush presided over the first $trillion dollar deficit, but ignore the fact that he couldn't have done so without a compliant Democrat run Congress during his last two years. The latter point out that Obama has added more debt than any president in history, omitting the fact that they currently control the House, where all spending bills originate, and that they voted to expand the debt ceiling another $2.4 trillion. Democrats cite half a truth in pointing out Bush's fiscal carelessness, but ignore the fact that they did absolutely nothing to reduce spending during the two years they controlled both Congress and the White House. Republicans rightly condemn "Obamacare" as unconstitutional, and far more expensive than advertised, yet they passed "Bushcare" - the ill conceived prescription drug plan - which, besides being unauthorized by the Constitution, burdens our posterity with $16 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

Both parties support bailouts of the uber-rich, a massive and inefficient Welfare State and an interventionist foreign policy that is both immoral and  unsustainable. Their rhetoric differs, but the fact is Paul Ryan's plan only reduces spending by $300 billion the first year, leaving intact a $trillion dollar plus deficit.  Ryan counts on future Congresses, not to be elected for decades, to finally bring spending under control. For his part, Obama promised to reduce the deficit during his first two years. He lied - his party controlled the government during that time and didn't even address spending except to increase it.

Both parties voted for the odious detention clause in the 2012 NDAA, which grants power to the president to detain any American whom he deems a  threat - indefinitely, without a trial or legal representation.  A few principled Democrats dissented, like Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders, but their party leaders supported it, and President Obama signed it. Republicans claim to not trust Obama, but they too went along with this attack on liberty, with only a few exceptions, like Rand Paul and Tom Coburn.

The Democrat and Republican parties are as different as the American League and the National League. You can argue about whether the designated hitter is good or bad, but both leagues play the same game and have more in common with each other than they do with your local softball team.

The Democrat and Republican parties are as different as McDonald's and Wendy's. Each touts its own food as the ultimate value, but continual reliance on either makes us fat and lethargic.

My recommendation in the 2012 Presidential election:

Vote NO.

Steve Maxwell vs. Danny Strahan

Due to the outcome of the August 7th GOP primary, I'm opposing Danny Strahan*, the Republican nominee, for Taney County Commissioner, Eastern District.

For those on Facebook, here is my candidate page, which features updates on the campaign, position statements, personal information, and online discussions.

What are the chances of an Independent candidate winning in red, red Taney County? That depends on how many people are ready to quit doing what has always been done - I believe thousands in our county are ready for new leadership.

In the 2008 General Election, about 8,600 voted in the eastern district. In 2012, I expect a turnout of as many as 10,000. The increase will be due to population increase, redistricting, and high interest in the Presidential and U.S Senate races.

Ergo, 5,000 votes ought to be enough for me to win. In the GOP primary, there were 5,224 votes cast. The winner, Danny Strahan, got 30% of the them (1,585 votes), followed by Tim Connell at 24% (1,236), Alan Lawson at 17% (900), and the remaining 1,503 votes taken by Mike Scofield (502), Travys Saffle (426), Charlie Stiffler (411), and Walter Rogers (164).

Please note that the anti-Strahan vote was 70%. Were Missouri a runoff state (some states require a runoff between the top two candidates if nobody garners 50% of the vote) it is nearly certain that Tim Connell would beat Danny Strahan, and be the nominee. (Although I publicly endorsed Alan Lawson, and stated my intent to stand down if he had won, it is also likely I'd have withdrawn had Tim Connell won.)

For me to win 5,000 votes, I'll need most of the 3,600+ who voted against Danny Strahan in the GOP primary, plus a great majority of the 4,000+  Democrats, Libertarians, and Independents who will vote on November 6th.

Doable, I say!

*NOTE: I DON'T MEAN TO DISMISS THE CANDIDACY OF PHIL BEVERS, WHO WILL ALSO BE ON THE BALLOT - I SIMPLY DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT HIS VIEWS TO COMMENT. FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IF HE TAKES,  SAY 1,000 VOTES FROM STRAHAN, THEN I ONLY NEED 4,500 VOTES. 

Corruption, cronyism and the Taney County Commission

The Taney County Commission has decided to move forward with plans for Enhanced Enterprise Zones. The Commission apparently is unaware of any downside to the potential blight designations for several areas of our county, or of any hardships established businesses might face. It's the yellow brick road, leading to the magnificent Emerald City, where industry is plentiful and everyone is happy.

Here's a guy concerned about a  downside (scroll to the bottom of the page) to this rapidly advancing trend. But the wizards on the county commission would prefer he stay away from the curtain behind which they hide, and of course the wizards say "pay no attention to the men behind the curtain!"

Sorry to say, we have been compliant sheople, and have paid no attention to the men behind the curtain. I am as guily as anyone, and more than most.

Shame on us. However, let us now follow Toto's good example, and begin to pull on that curtain, endeavoring to ignore all the smoke and mirrors employed by the wizards.

The EEZ plan has the potential to punish some established businesses, while purporting to boost others. It is local government emulating the national government by attempting to stimulate the economy, and will likely have the same net result: it will worsen the situation rather then help. Why do I say this? Because you cannot create a net gain in capital by manipulating tax policy to the detriment of some and the benefit of others. Such schemes redistribute wealth - they do not create it.

Our local economic malaise has been foisted on us from higher up, by the likes of Barack Obama, George Bush, and Ben Bernanke. Their foolish monetary policies of credit expansion, "stimulus" spending, and increasing the number of bureaucrats overlooking our affairs have debased our currency and scared investors. Local economic enterprise zones are not the solution to this problem - the problem of a shortage of capital. A return to sound money, and a departure from central planning, are what is needed to restore free enterprise. This calls for changes at the national level. The best thing local government can do is to move towards weaning itself from federal largesse (I realize that isn't going to happen overnight, but a mindset towards that end MUST be adopted), and concentrate on providing services citizens have traditionally expected: police, fire, libraries (yes, a county library system would be a good thing in Taney County), etc.  Providing tax incentives to one enterprise, to the detriment of another, is antithetical to America's foundational principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Our economy is weak because central planning "experts" have presumed to pick winners and losers, counting themselves as wiser and more just than the free market. These planners, historically operating out of the federal bureaucracy, are now appearing at the local level with no apparent affiliation to the national government - until one looks a little closer.

The EEZ is no grassroots effort - it is part of a national trend to promote a symbiotic relationship between government and business, to the detriment of free market capitalism. It is a grave threat to property rights, as shown here, and the fact that a third of the state of Missouri has already been classified as "blighted" should have any freedom loving person - "liberal" or "conservative" - alarmed, as it portends massive future abuses of eminent domain, to the benefit of businesses who are cozy with their government. The loser is the free market. The fact that an all Republican County Commission is all agog about it demonstrates that FDR and LBJ would feel right at home in today's Republican Party, while stalwart free market advocates like Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater, and Ron Paul would be/are marginalized.


It is likely that Presiding Commissioner Ron Houseman is the driving force behind the expansion of local government oversight of business, given his oft touted connections to Washington, D.C. Remember that Mr. Houseman, prior to being elected presiding commissioner, received the honor of being hired by the County Commission to help our area obtain its portion of federal stimulus funds through his marvelous connections. Commissioners Strafuss and Strahan bestowed that honor on him.

A little historical review regarding Mr. Houseman is in order at this point:

Houseman was the Taney County Clerk for several years, until his involvement in a money scandal resulted in his defeat in the 1998 GOP primary.

As County Clerk, Houseman appropriated hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to himself. He did this along with then County Collector, Dwain Basham, by taking commissions from taxes collected on behalf of municipalities around the county. Houseman's salary was in the 40-45 thousand per year range in those days. But the involuntary contributions of Taney County taxpayers gave him a six figure income.

The court case against Houseman was dismissed, and I'll be happy for legal scholars to explain that event. I'm not arguing the legality of what Houseman did, but that it was egregious enrichment of himself at taxpayer expense, notwithstanding the success of renowned defense attorney Dee Wampler in extricating him from legal consequences.

I've actually heard locals here justify Ron Houseman's actions, or say they were "legal." But I'll donate $100 to the favorite charity of any elected official who will publicy affirm the following statement, and allow me to quote him/ her: "It would be right and proper for the current clerk and collector to prosper themselves the same way Houseman and Basham did in the 1990's."

The point in rehashing old history?

Several points:

1. It is relevant to note that current commissioners Strahan (running for reelection) and Strafuss, (running for the State Senate) honored Houseman with a paid position, despite the aforementioned scandal.

2. Due to a lame local media, an influx of new people to the area, a substantial number of people who live in a state of denial, and the help of his cronies, the egregious actions of Houseman were out of the public mind enough for him to win a very close election in 2010 to the position of Presiding Commissioner.

His cronies provided valuable assistance. Commissioners Strahan and Strafuss helped by trying to frame previous presiding commissioner Pennel as a liar (Strahan) and/ or a criminal (Strafuss) during the "check controversy." (In fairness, it must be said that Pennel did greatly err in that matter, albeit not criminally, as Strafuss apparently hoped). A couple of years previously, before Strafuss became a commissioner, Houseman informed the commission that there was evidence of nepotism involving then Presiding Commissioner Pennel. Houseman used the term "egregious" to describe Pennel's misdeeds. What was this "egregious" nepotism? Commissioner Pennel's wife, experienced kennel owner and animal lover, was caring for stray, sick dogs on weekends when the county had no resources to do so. Mrs. Pennel did this on her own time, in her own vehicle. Houseman and his former nemesis, turned lapdog, Bob Shanz, knew their accusations were groundless, as subsequent investigation showed them to be. The purpose was to damage Pennel's reputation. Houseman lost two close elections to Pennel in 2002 and 2006. By engaging in a smear campaign against his once and future opponent, he succeeded in swaying enough votes that the third faceoff between the two men went his way.

3. Houseman wanted to be elected to the commission so badly, that he was willing to destroy the man who stood in his way.

4. Given the history of scandal, and the lust for power exhibited by Houseman, it is not unreasonable to be extremely suspicious of which devils might be in the details of any major change advocated by him and cronies such as Strahan and Strafuss.

It is an unfortunate fact that incumbents are very difficult to remove from office, even in the face of blatant cronyism. This year is no different. While western commissioner Strafuss is not running for reelection, opting to run for the State Senate, eastern commissioner Strahan is up for a third term, so as to help promote Houseman's agenda for our county. It is most unfortunate that instead of one good opponent, Strahan is being challenged in the primary by six opponents, of various levels of suitability for office. Since a plurality, not a majority, is all that's required to win the primary, this gives Strahan a real advantage. Of the seven running, the candidate most able to change the direction of county government is clearly Alan Lawson.  For one thing, he is the only one of them to publicly voice the possibility that the EEZ may not be an unassailable panacea. Please give a listen to him on the matter here.



I will vote for Alan Lawson in the primary. It saddens me that his chances are diminished by the split in the anti-Strahan vote. It encourages me, though that he seems to be gaining support as we approach primary day.



I've filed nominating petitions as an independent candidate for eastern commissioner. Should Alan win the primary on August 7th, I will be delighted to stand down.I really urge you to vote for Alan.





Otherwise, I'll be on the November ballot. I don't have an impressive resume of business experience, but I'm not a potted plant either. I have politics in my blood, and an ability to receive input from a variety of perspectives and interests. I believe in the safety of a multitude of counselors, and do not think anyone can be an expert in all matters with which the County Commission deals.  Common sense and an innate savvy about politics will serve me well, enabling me to serve you well.  I know, for instance, that when something sounds too good to be true, like the proposed EEZ, it probably isn't true.

Anyone but Obama?

The meme is being recycled again this election: "Voting third party is the same as voting for Obama."

We've heard it before. You have to vote for whichever big government statist the GOP establishment has chosen...or you'll get the socialist put forth by the Democrats.

Conservatives tell me that Romney isn't who they wanted, but not voting for him is "doing nothing."

"Doing nothing?" Au contraire.

Ceasing to enable an addict isn't "doing nothing." In fact it is very proactive.

The GOP has established a pattern of forcing big government candidates on us: Nixon, Bush, Dole, Bush, McCain, Romney. It is because the GOP promotes all the awful things over which it claims to oppose the Democrats that increasingly worse candidates from that party are made electable: Carter, Clinton, Obama. Obama couldn't have been elected had not the Republicans made much of his agenda the norm.

Plainly stated: George W. Bush made Obama electable. Mitt Romney may very well make Lucifer electable.

Therefore, I respectfully disagree that refusing to vote for someone just because he's "not Obama" is "doing nothing."

Ignorant Christians against Ron Paul

DISCLAIMER: The title of this post will strike some as overly harsh. It is meant to be severe, because the consequences of the sort of ignorance exposed here are severe for our country and for the church of the Lord Jesus Christ. I DON'T mean to imply that principled opposition to Ron Paul is ignorance; but rather to remonstrate against those who, though DEMONSTRABLY ignorant about issues pertaining to Dr. Paul, insist on maligning the character, intelligence, faith, or patriotism of us who support him. Mr. Petrovic is representative of hundreds of such detractors I have conversed with over the last few years. To him and those of his ilk, who persist in misrepresenting their opponents, an admonition: "Thou shall not bear false witness." - Exodus 20:16.

The following letter was published in the March 14th, 2012 edition of the Taney County Times:

On March 17th the Taney County Republican Party will hold its Caucus to appoint delegates for Missouri's Presidential Delegation to the convention in Florida. [sic]

All registered voters from Taney County are invited and if you value your country you should make an effort to be there.I have been hearing that a 501c4group [READ: Tera Sukman told me Ron Paul supporters would be there] is planning to try a takeover of the Caucus to promote a candidate that would allow Israel to be thrown under the bus, allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, would legalize drugs and basically take the United States into isolationism.

Yes, our beloved country is in trouble but this is not the way to solve the problem.This man is not electable and would only insure [sic] that the real problem is re-elected!

Please if you value this country come out Saturday morning to the Forsyth High School between 8:30 and 10 a.m. and help us elect honorable, thinking patriotic delegates to represent Taney County and Missouri at the National Convention!

Bill Petrovic
Christian, Conservative, Life NRA Member
Rockaway Beach

I replied on Facebook, and invited Bill Petrovic to respond. My first post (edited for syntax):

Mr. Petrovic:

I'm a "true American Patriot" and supporter of Ron Paul. Also, a Christian, and served seven years in the U.S. Air Force.

Non-interventionism isn't isolationism. A strong advocate for free trade (like Dr. Paul) can't logically be an isolationist. Dropping bombs on countries, especially while ignoring the constitutional requirement for a declaration of war by Congress - that's isolationism.

Abolishing the federal Drug Enforcement Agency doesn't legalize drugs - it removes the Federal Government from an area it has no authority to be in, constitutionally. Missouri's drug laws will be determined by Missourians, not by President Ron Paul.

Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons, and would turn Tehran into a toxic waste dump if Iran somehow built a nuclear weapon and miraculously got it delivered. Far more dangerous is North Korea with nukes - whatever happened to that issue?

Due to America's long history of intervention in the mideast, Christians are now fearing for their lives in Egypt and Iraq, and Iran has more influence than they ever would've had we not foolishly overthrown their government in the early 50's and installed the Shah. Predictably, Iranians finally succeeded in overthrowing our stooge, the Shah. So we backed Saddam Hussein in war against them. Hundreds of thousands died.

I can't for the life of me see why Iran would think of America as an enemy!

We also backed the future Taliban against the Soviets, and hobknobbed with Osama bin Laden.

So, yes, we have a very impressive record in foreign affairs - let's go to war with Iran, and see if we can start WW III.

And if I don't like the idea - I'm not a patriot?

We tolerate nukes in Pakistan - you know, our good friend to whom we gave $billions, and in return thay gave safe harbor to bin Laden.

And what about the nukes in China? And India? Oh, and Russia?

One nuke in Iran is not a good thing by any means. But compared to North Korea, Russia, China, Pakistan, and India...well I don't see the threat. What I see is Iran selling oil to other countries using currencies other than the dollar - which is not to be tolerated. Our government can't admit that the war it's started (REALITY CHECK: trade sanctions are acts of war, not diplomatic gestures) is about preserving the American Empire - hence the massive myth machine excretes copious helpings of fear and angst to the effect that Iran is capable of nuking Israel and threatening our shores. Sadly, Neoconned Christians help promulgate such nonsense with eschatological superstitions emanating more from televangelists' imaginations than from Scripture.

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge..." Hosea 4:6a

By the way, the promised land extended from the Nile to the Euphrates (Gen 15:18). Israel achieved suzerainty over this area during the height of Solomon's rule (1 Kings 4:21),and actually God fulfilled His promise to Abraham four centuries earlier (Joshua 21:43-45). This I found when looking to Scripture rather than to John Hagee.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there is a prophetic restoration of NATIONAL Israel yet to come. In that case, it would involve a Christian Jewish group, not a secular movement like Zionism (cf. Romans 11:23), and it wouldn't be a little swath of land along the Mediterranean, but rather a large area extending from present day Egypt to Baghdad.

You characterize Ron Paul as anti-Israel; my guess is you are unaware of the following: "Ron Paul was one of the only Congressmen who voted against condemning Israel for bombing Iraq's nuclear reactors in 1981. '[A]lmost the entire US Congress voted to condemn the act, but Congressman Paul was one of the few Republicans who stood up and said Israel should not have to answer to America for how she defends herself. Remember, this was the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan that had condemned Israel, a coalition that included the most hawkish anti-Communists and the most fervent Christian conservatives. ' "

Other myths about Ron Paul's foreign policies are rebutted here: http://www.ronpaulmyths.com/foreign-policy.php

Please stop with the jingoism and pretending that other Christians aren't patriots if they don't share your eschatology.

Bill Petrovic's nonreply:

Steve, I can't as a Christian support anyone who is pro choice which Paul is! He is also for Same Sex Marriage. And I've stated that I can't support him for his views on Iran. Let me ask you a question, Will you support whoever the Republican Party Nominates even if it isn't Paul????

Note the complete failure to engage: all transmission, no reception. Bill didn't address even one (1) of my points, which were direct responses to claims made in his letter. This is very typical of Ron Paul's opponents. They freely report hearsay as fact, ignore all facts cited against their position, and then proceed to introduce yet more hearsay. In so doing, anti-Paulite Christians routinely bear false witness, apparently with no regard for God's word (Exodus 20:16). They ignore questions posed to them, but insist that their questions be answered.

This is a lamentable state of affairs in the Church purchased by Jesus Christ. Christians disagree about eschatology, a prime factor in ensuing disagreements over politics. This is no license to lie about each other.
Anyway, my response to Bill Petrovic, talebearer:

Bill,

You're mistaken. Ron Paul is against both abortion and homosexual marriage.

As President, Paul would ask Congress to take abortion out of the jurisdiction of federal courts. Since the Supreme Court has only appellate jurisdiction, Roe v. Wade would be nullified. This is a different approach then conservatives have been using. Have you noticed that the attempts to overturn Roe v. Wade by getting the right judges in office haven't worked?

Do you trust Santorum on the abortion issue? If so, do you know he voted for an appropriations bill that included funding for Planned Parenthood? Do you know that he supported Arlen Specter for President, when Specter's campaign started with a diatribe against pro-lifers in the Republican Party?

Do you believe that Romney was pro-choice when he ran for office in Massachusetts, but when he decided to run for President he became pro-life? Isn't that a bit much to swallow?

Do you believe Santorum is far more conservative than Romney? If so, why did Santorum endorse Romney in 2008, instead of say, Huckabee?

RE: homosexual marriage. Ron Paul believes marriage is a sacrament, and that the government should stay out of it. He would not interfere if states want to regulate it, or ban homosexual marriage, but he personally thinks the government should have nothing to do with marriage. If you think government is right to be in the marriage business, that is your opinion - it doesn't give you the right to misrepresent the views of Dr. Paul.

Will I support the Republican nominee? As of now, absolutely not! But I will reconsider when you address my points about our history of involvement with Iran, and explain to me why Billy Long and Roy Blunt voted to give President Obama power to have me arrested by the military with no right to habeas corpus, if Obama thinks I'm a threat. The "Tea Party Headquarters" in Branson supported both Long and Blunt. And Long and Blunt support Romney, as Santorum did in 2008. I want my kids to live in a free country, and vote accordingly.

More thoughts came, that I hoped Bill would address, especially GOP complicity in the pernicious clause hidden in this year's Defense appropriation:

Bill,
Your letter also claimed that Ron Paul is unelectable.

Ron Paul is the most electable of the GOP candidates. That's because the others are very similar to Obama, who is smart enough to use that fact against them.
Imagine Santorum trying to denounce Obama's wild spending, and Obama comes right back and reminds everyone that Santorum voted to raise the debt ceiling five times, and supported "No Child Left Behind."

Imagine Barack Obama saying this to Rick Santorum:"Senator Santorum, I agree with you that spending needs to be reigned in, but how do the American people take you seriously when you voted for George Bush's unfunded prescription drug bill that now costs taxpayers $60 billion per year. And far, far worse than that plan projects $16 Trillion, that's trillion with a T, in unfunded liabilites, according to the ultra-conservative Club for Growth."

How's Santorum going to answer that?

How?

Now, imagine Ron Paul attacking Barack Obama for his wreckless spending.

Obama responds: "Yes, you've earned the name 'Dr. No', 'cuz you know how to say 'no.' But folks are hurting, and 'no' doesn't help the single mom who can't afford daycare so she can look for work, or the young woman who's birth control pills are going sky high because of cruel restrictions supported by Republicans."

Dr. Paul responds by sharing about the times he delivered babies for free, and then gives a short tutorial on the Constitution, and how irresponsible it is to promise to take care of people with unsustainable entitlement programs.

Then Dr. Paul points out the hypocrisy of Obama's airstrikes against Libya his push for war with Syria and Iran, after campaigning on opposition to Bush's wars.

Paul already polls competitively against Obama. If the American people had a chance to focus on the differences between them, they'd be much more enthused about Paul than anyone is about either Romney or Santorum. </>

Just as the crickets prepared to start their symphony, Bill Petrovic, caught VWI (voting while ignorant), issues another bit of hearsay, while carefully avoiding every point I raised:

Sorry Steve, I've heard with my own ears Paul say Same Sex Marriage is OK.

Unsuccessful thus far in my attempts to get Bill off his script and into a dialogue, I go all provincial on him:

Bill,

This is Missouri. Show me!

Another appeal by me...

It would be nice if a Santorum supporter - Bill, anyone - would address some of the points of my first post in this thread.

...Results in an Edith Ann moment, courtesy of Bill:

Steve, you can't change my mind about Ron Paul. He can't win the nomination so don't push Him to me! Let Eric vote for him, I Won't..

And that's the truth! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJMKupYF14I

Nuking Japan: Bloody Evil

The last issue of The Taney County Times ran a jingoistic piece justifying the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I was provoked to send a response (the TCT printed it on 11-23-11).

Mr. Groman’s defense of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki expressed the politically correct version of history so replete in textbooks and so confidently asserted by both Conservatives and Liberals.

The dilemma of whether to end the war by nuking Japan, or permit many more people to die by continuing the war was resolved in favor of the former option, thereby saving many lives. This narrative provides true comfort in the face of our having caused hundreds of thousands of children, women, and old men to die horrific deaths by fire.

Correction: This narrative provides FALSE comfort in the face of our having caused hundreds of thousands of children, women, and old men to die horrific deaths by fire. False, because there was a third option besides, 1.) nuking Japan, and 2.) continuing the war.

Option three was as follows: Instead of holding to our demand for Japan’s unconditional surrender Truman could’ve offered peace feelers granting one concession - that being an assurance that Emperor Hirohito would be allowed to remain enthroned. This likely would’ve resulted in Japan’s earlier surrender, particularly in the aftermath of the massive conventional firebombing of Tokyo by B-29s.

Of course, allowing the Japanese to keep their Emperor would arguably have been too much to concede.

Except for one fact. That’s what we ended up doing, anyway. Emperor Hirohito remained Japan’s figurehead ruler until his death in 1989.


(see quotes from American leaders who disagreed with the decision to use atomic bombs on Japan here:)

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

The Apostle - great movie

If you have any interest in Fundamentalism, and more particularly Pentecostalism, Robert Duvall's The Apostle http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi1183383833/ is a film worth seeing. Duvall wrote the script, produced, directed, and played the lead role of Euliss F. “Sonny” Dewey. Such was his passion for this project that he used his own money to finance it when he found no takers in Hollywood .

The Apostle Sonny embodies the dilemma faced by the Apostle Paul: “For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do” (Romans 7:19).

As a work of art, the film is a nuanced presentation of a mostly stereotyped part of our cultural landscape. It conveys affection for Pentecostals - yet the characters have unflattering quirks. Its portrayal of zealous faith strikes a middle ground between the gaudiness of a televangelist's program and the hatefulness of Bill Maher's mockumentary, Religulous. It's not a hit-piece or a puff-piece. Pentecostal power wins the heart of a hardcore racist redneck. Pentecostal petulance has grown women quarreling childishly on the church bus.
In the flesh, the Pentecostal preacher clubs his wife's lover with a baseball bat. In the spirit, he shows poor folks on the wrong side of the tracks how to work together and love each other.

Pentecostals are worthy of respect as part of America. You don't have to choose between adoring them and loathing them.

Some personal background information about myself might explain why I so appreciate this movie.

After my conversion to Christianity in 1976, I spent twenty years in Fundamentalist, Pentecostal, and Holiness churches, including over ten in the notorious Community Chapel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Chapel_and_Bible_Training_Center

Those two decades were the best and worst years of my life. During them, I saw and experienced extremes of both: joy and despair; friendship and betrayal; affirmation and abuse; enlightenment and deception; revelation and confusion. I met the love of my life, my wife, and came to know God as my very best friend.

Fundamentalists and Pentecostals were there with encouragement and friendship for me at several key times in my life. They taught me many good things that will always be part of my foundation.

During those years, I also met tremendously gifted people who committed suicide, and others who did unspeakable things.

I wouldn't trade those experiences for anything. Nor would I want to go through them again.

Today, I'm just a Christian, not a Fundamentalist or a Pentecostal. I find their views of the Bible and Christian faith to be truncated. Nevertheless, I'll defend these good people against scurrilous attacks, and denounce the bigotry so often directed at them from those who claim to stand for tolerance and diversity.

And recommend The Apostle as a worthy approach to the subject.