I agree completely, the atomic bomb is a blight on the human race. I also think that building new types of atom bombs is a mistake. To me killing is killing, regardless of the method. What is preferable, dropping a nuke or using infantry to cut, shoot, and maim? Again I have to say that nobody is justifying nuclear war - that is not the argument anybody is trying to make. You see, yet you do not perceive. It is a mistake to take our own filters and apply them to what someone else writes without trying to process exactly what it is that is being said. Furthermore it stifles honest debate on the subject because it becomes a knee-jerk, reactionary, insult-garbled tit-for-tat. Talking about what happened when and after the bombs were dropped, as well as discussing what may have happened had they not been dropped, are things that don't deserve the kind of venom-spitting that has gone on. None of it is equal to justifying a nuclear holocaust, yet that is the treatment it is getting, and people are getting their panties all up in a bunch and assuming a whole lot of things about people. This is the last time I'll say it - Nobody here thinks Nukes are good! Now are we capable of having a mature discussion about this, the good, the bad, and the ugly? If not, I'll be happy to move on to other topics that interest me.

However we may feel about it, there are nations (as well as groups of individuals who are not under a flag) who would be happy to see multiple nukes dropped on our cities, rendering irrelevant our own feelings on the subject. They have the will to pull the trigger, while we do not. It should be the effort of the entire world to eradicate nuclear weapons from our planet, lest we see London or Berlin or Rome or New York or L.A. become uninhabitable wastelands. You don't do it by offering money and oil, and you do not let rogue nations shake down the free world. It has to be a united front against nuclear weapons, and it has to have teeth. I would sleep better at night knowing that no place on the earth has to worry about it happening to them.

Jason

Cute bartenders make me go and order drinks, so at the very least I can talk to them. I feel so fucking sick. I can hear Rhonda's voice echoing in my head...."That's right Jay! Feel that shit! You deserve it for drinking!" Oy vey..good thing I don't talk to her anymore. I just drank up all of my brother's soda and immediately puked it up! Haha!

(e:Paul) I think you went over the top and read things into Josh's posts that simply weren't there - i.e. making excuses for the mass killing of civilians. I don't think anyone believes that killing civilians is O.K. - what Josh said though is technically correct. The bombs ended the war. Japan had 5,000 planes and 3,000,000 soldiers who would rather have died "honorably" than accept defeat. It would have been a knock down, drag out fight with many more casualties. That is not equal to saying that using nukes is A-Okay - clearly in hindsight we all know that using nukes is awful - but rather it is a line of reasoning that says if those nukes had not been dropped we would have seen many more deaths. We very well may have killed multiples of that number, and they may likely have done the same. There is a distinction (very hard to articulate, and very hard to understand) between excusing the use of nukes and offering a plausible alternative account of history. I really feel like you went too far in attacking Josh without trying to figure out the point he was trying to make - and I blame Josh for using language that is basically a written invitation for that kind of reaction (I was always better at articulating this shit).

There was one word in your post that stood out for me though, and I want to elaborate on it a bit. Some people don't have the stomach to embrace what I'm about to say, because it sounds preachy and perhaps too philosophical, but I believe so firmly that it is relevant to this and countless other topics. Compassion is a word that is often spoken, but rarely practiced or exercised in reality. It is so difficult for us as humans to be truly compassionate because it requires us to remove every barrier between ourselves and others which are literally pounded into our brains since birth. Instead we practice what I call "conditional compassion" - people believe in being compassionate sometimes, and not compassionate other times - with the barriers being race, gender, religion, sexuality, political affiation, you fill in the blank. I know many people who feel compassion for gays, but yet feel no compassion for the unborn, or for muslims, or for christians or jews, so on and so forth. It's not necessary to go through all the permutations, you get the idea. It is a lack of compassion that enables war, poverty, and oppression. It is a lack of compassion that allows people to disrespect the homeless, or to treat them like they are less than human. As much as I lament the lack of compassion I believe whole heartedly that we are capable of complete and true compassion - the kind that will get us over the hump and allow us to eradicate the war, the poverty, the oppression, and other such things. I can't emphasize it enough - we are capable of being 100% compassionate, but it will take some work on everyone's part! I have come to the conclusion that more than anything else I want to strive throughout my lifetime to become a completely compassionate person. My soul won't rest without that happening. Compassion, love, and belief in the unity of the human race will save us and usher in a new age of peace and prosperity.

Jason

I need to have a shiotload of tattoos. And to lose about 30 pounds, rendering me a skeleton with skin. And to wear funky glasses and have funky hair. In the circles I run with, this clean cut look just ain't going to cut it.

Jason

(e:Matthew) - I have 3.25GB of Jazz. I'll try to catalogue it.

Jason

Here's what I had to say to some jerk who is anti-gay and started using the Bible to justify his bigoted view of homosexuals.

Some of you people subscribe to the Jerry Falwell definition of what it means to be a Christian - but what is so amusing about these types is that they cling to the literal word so tightly on some occasions, and then ignore the literal word on other occasions. Hypocrites, all of them. If you believe in strictly interpreting Leviticus, then you also believe in condemning to death anyone who curses the name of the Lord. You would also wash your body and clothes before you sit anywhere your menstruating wife has sat, and also many other things. Do you do all these things as instructed in Leviticus? If not then by your own definition you are not worthy to be called Christian. Don't question my faith, look inward, read the teachings of Jesus and understand that if you condemn homosexuals or anybody else like you do, you will have a very difficult time finding the pearly gates. Worry about your own soul.

Listen, we don't use the Holy Bible as THE basis for our law, and the Christian right has to come to grips with it. There is nothing wrong, unconstitutional, or more importantly anti-Christian about letting homosexual couples have a civil union contract that gives them all of the same legal protections, benefits and such that straight married couples have. You can protect marriage and be for civil unions. Do you believe everyone in America should be equal in the eyes of the law? Isn't that the way that it's supposed to be? There are homosexual couples raising kids all over the USA and the reality of that situation renders inadequate far-right definitions of family. These people ARE families and the law should not discriminate against those families in a society where everyone is supposed to be equal under the law.

Comments?

Jason