His half remembered quote was from Anatole France, from his 1894 book Le Lys Rouge

La majestueuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues et de voler du pain.

(In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.)

@Lawdeedaw

There's so much factually wrong here, I don't know where to begin. Let's start with this:

"That rape and mutilation has been going on for centuries but was significant in the Second Sino-Japanese War, a distinct war in and of itself."

Japan was in a state of almost complete isolation from the rest of the world between the years of 1633 and 1853. Even after the period of isolation ended, Japan was too busy for decades industrializing to be rampaging through China, as you suggest.

Japan DID eventually get involved in Chinese politics and in fact went to war with them in the First Sino-Japanese War... in 1894. There are no reports of atrocities committed by the Japanese military during this conflict. In fact, quite the opposite, Japan would release Chinese prisoners of war once they promised not to take up arms against Japan again.

The subjugation of Taiwan (which was ceded to Japan at the end of the first Sino-Japanese War but resisted Japanese rule) is a different story. However, accounts of what exactly happened are sketchy and most of the information we have is anecdotal. What can be gleaned from these anecdotes is that the Formasians put up a fierce guerrilla resistance campaign and that the Japanese tortured and killed anyone suspected of aiding the resistance. Still, it doesn't appear to have been on the same scale as the massacres which occurred during the Rape of Nanking.

As you mentioned, some of the most awful abuses were done during the Second Sino-Japanese War between 1937 and 1945 (the Rape of nanking occurred during this war). The abuse ended Japan's defeat in WWII.

What you can see here by doing the math, is that Japan's military abuses in China lasted a grand total of 50 years--from the subjugation of Formosa (Taiwan) to the end of World War 2--not "centuries."

Next, let's talk about misrepresentation. You seem to be implying that Japanese textbooks don't say that Japan is the aggressor in WW2 (or previous conflicts). As I pointed out in my last post, that is flat-out wrong. There is ONE textbook that was approved for use that whitewashes the history but that book has been ignored an not used by the vast majority of schools in Japan.

If you want to criticize Japanese textbooks, you could criticize them on the grounds that though they mention the terrible things that Japanese forces did, they don't go into a whole lot of detail. See this article for more information.

As far as Abe goes, what exactly has he said that is so terrible? Yes, he hangs out with revisionists. Yes, he has expressed his opinion that Japan should stop apologizing for WWII and start looking to the future instead of the past. Yes, he has said that the issue of "comfort women" should be re-examined in light of claims that some of evidence of their existence was fabricated. But these are not really radical statements by any means. And many people and newspapers do strongly and openly disagree with his statements, so this idea that Japanese people don't challenge him is completely wrong as well.

Yasukuni is a total clusterfuck of a situation. It is a shrine to ALL of Japan's war dead. This includes war criminals, but it also includes regular soldiers just doing their duty. In terms of Shinto beliefs, all of their souls now reside there. Basically, if you want to pay your respects to someone who died in military service in Japan, you have to go there to "see them."

Abe is a total dumbass (and the press let him know it) for going there because he knows already how China and Korea will perceive it, but on the other hand his going there does not mean in any way that he reveres the war criminals who are interred there. I have no idea what his personal views are but publically he has stated that he and his wife go there to remind themselves about the terrible toll war had on Japan the last time Japan engaged in it.

Finally, as for the link you provided, it was to a year-old opinion piece that lacks context. Abe made that statement at a time when it was revealed that some of the evidence of the existence of comfort women in Japan had been faked. It was later decided that the apology would not be changed. In fact, The Japan Times is reporting that it is likely that Abe will mention that "comfort women" had their human rights violated by Japan in his upcoming address on the end of WWII, so the comparison of him to Ahmadinejad is a bit far-fetched.

kinda interesting regarding his speed
"The competition to create the fastest production motorcycle ended in a truce, after just over a century of one-upmanship by motorcycle manufacturers that began with the 1894–1897 Hildebrand & Wolfmüller and ended with the 1999–2000 Suzuki Hayabusa. A gentlemen's agreement was reached among the major motorcycle manufacturers to limit the speed of their machines to 300 km/h (186 mph), starting with some 2000 models, and becoming widespread by the 2001 model year" -wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fastest_production_motorcycles

This reminds me of the famous quote from Anatole France:

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and the poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." (Le Lys Rouge) (1894)

*length=4:16

^ To be honest, I'm going off of what I saw on hotforwords for the cop thing. I don't know if she's authoritative, but she did address the notion that cop was short for copper badges, but said that's not really the origin.

If you want a semantic battle, I'll waste a few brain cells on it. Let's start with the etymology of the word semantic itself:

1894, from Fr. sémantique, applied by Michel Bréal (1883) to the psychology of language, from Gk. semantikos "significant," from semainein "to show, signify, indicate by a sign," from sema "sign" (Doric sama).

In short, semantics refer to the method or process of how people communicate ideas. Normally discussions of semantics are about accurately conveying an idea or concept with words. For example, how do people know the difference between their, they're and there in spoken language? Why doesn't that kind of overloading create a lot communication issues?

A big part of the answer is context. With they're, their, and there, all you need to really know is the grammatical part of speech. Other concepts need a semantic context.

For example, let's talk about a red light. A red traffic light means stop, but a red light in other context might mean that your stereo is in standby mode, your phone is charging, or you're getting close to the whorehouse.

It can also be used metaphorically, as in "She told him she didn't want to see him anymore, but he just loves to run red lights."

I find that you can be selectively obtuse about these different ways of discerning meaning from words.

When I say "I am a liberal", I usually mean this, and not necessarily this.

However, I don't really think being a liberal necessarily is in conflict with being a liberal. I too have a strong devotion to individual liberty, I just think there are more fundamental human rights than you do. But I also think there are limits to rights, and that there's no root violation of "individual liberty" if you have taxpayer subsidized, compulsory social insurance, any more than if you have a taxpayer subsizied, compulsory fire department.

But I don't need to express all of that if what I'm really saying is "I don't think liberals like to be told to think." There's no real doubt about who I'm talking about when I say "liberals". My semantics are clear.

If one wanted to respond to such an assertion, they would take on its semantic content. In other words, they'd say "broad generalizations like that are bad", or "bullshit, liberals are all zombies that do what George Soros tells them to", or even address the implication, such as "conservatives don't like to be told what to think, either!", or "I believe what I believe, and if Rush Limbaugh agrees with me, then I suppose he's on my side."

Incidentally, here's a good etymology of the word liberal. Personally, I'm using the original root definition, "befitting free men, noble, generous," when I describe the people who believe in this. When I'm referring to anti-tax zealots, I'm usually dancing around this, but I can also come up with more scathing barbs as the situation merits.

spoco2,

I associate larger government with more oppression for as long as larger government is associated with larger, compulsory, taxation. If the populace wants to donate 80% of their income to the government making it even larger than it is today, I have no problem with that. If the government is truly formed by a rule of law, and the elected officials are sworn to uphold the constitution, it is largely irrelevant what the size or scope of government is. Perhaps it is a subtle difference, but I don't think you should just end a conversation because there was a misunderstanding. Nothing about my philosophy forbids a large, socialistic government believe it or not--if you apply my axiom of freedom, how could it? If people are free to spend their money as they see fit, they are also free to create a large socialistic "system" complete with all the welfare trimmings they desire. All I am calling for is a return to a rule of law. It is only such a government which operates and sustains itself with force that I condemn.

Jwray,

That is not the topic being discussed here. I have been discussing the long term impacts of Obamas policy, not arguing for or against the free market.

Farhad2000,

You are quite right that Bush's confidants played a large role in his rapid increase in terrorizing. However, had the country been under a proper rule of law, none of those suggestions would have reached fruition--his actions would have been successfully blocked by congress, and he would have been arrested. The president is not above the law. The size and power of government, as well as the actions of previous presidents set the stage for his consolidation of power in the executive branch.

Your basic criticism is that a socialist state equals a imperialistic state based on government expansion over the last 70 years of American history.

Not equals, precedes. Also, it is not limited to socialism--just any system which results in large increases in the power of central government. I am not claiming that all socialist governments turn imperialistic, simply that imperialism is not possible without a strong central government. Traditional socialist governments necessarily have a strong central government. I don't believe you can argue otherwise, either from a historical or theoretical standpoint. My main criticism here has been that Obama is going to centralize power in the hands of the state, and anytime you centralize power you open the opportunity for imperialism.

Throughout history, this has been true for most major powers of the world, including the United States as evidenced by Bush's last two terms. He simply could not have done what he did without a strong central government. You use Japan as an example, but you neglect to mention Japan's period of imperial expansion between 1894-1910. This was only possible because of the Meiji Restoration where power was once again consolidated in the hands of an oligarchy. The country in this time period was decidedly collectivist, with a national draft issued in 1873.

Hey thanks, My15!

In reply to this comment by my15minutes:
*promote

thanks to pinky, for reminding me to check my playlist

i have a playlist for just this reason.

oh, and apparently one of them didn't sift yet.
this one's for you, pinky.

Aldous Leonard Huxley (July 26, 1894 – November 22, 1963) was an English writer who emigrated to the United States, living in Los Angeles until his death in 1963. He was a member of the famous Huxley family. Best known for his novels and wide-ranging output of essays, he also published short stories, poetry, travel writing, and film stories and scripts. Through his novels and essays Huxley functioned as an examiner and sometimes critic of social mores, societal norms and ideals. Huxley was a humanist but was also interested towards the end of his life in spiritual subjects such as parapsychology and philosophical mysticism, about which he also wrote. By the end of his life, Huxley was considered, in many academic circles, a 'leader of modern thought' and an intellectual of the highest rank.

* On truth: "Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth. By simply not mentioning certain subjects... totalitarian propagandists have influenced opinion much more effectively than they could have by the most eloquent denunciations."

* On psychological totalitarianism (1959): "And it seems to me perfectly in the cards that there will be within the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing … a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda, brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods."

* On social organizations: "One of the many reasons for the bewildering and tragic character of human existence is the fact that social organization is at once necessary and fatal. Men are forever creating such organizations for their own convenience and forever finding themselves the victims of their home-made monsters."

* On heroin: "Who lives longer: the man who takes heroin for two years and dies, or the man who lives on roast beef, water, and potatoes till ninety-five? One passes his twenty-four months in eternity. All the years of the beef-eater are lived only in time."

* On words: "Words form the thread on which we string our experiences."

* On experience: "Experience is not what happens to a man; it is what a man does with what happens to him." – Texts and Pretexts, 1932

* After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music.- Music at Night, 1931

* "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad." - - Aldous Huxley

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldous_Huxley

Description:

Narrated by Orson Wells, this animated cartoon is an adaptation of a short story titled "Rikki-Tikki-Tavi" from The Jungle Book (1894) by Rudyard Kipling. The story focuses on an English family in India who discover a mongoose half drowned from a storm and decide to keep it. Rikki-Tikki soon finds himself confronted by two murderous cobras, Nag and Nagaina. When Nag is killed by Rikki after waiting to ambush the patriarch, Nagaina vows revenge for the death of her mate. Rikki must then come to the family's rescue again and rid Nagaina from the garden once and for all.

The story is a favorite of Kipling fans and is notable for its frightening and serious tone. Some epic features (heightened prosaic style; songs to the hero) add to the standard typology of hero defeating villain. It has often been anthologised and has also been published more than once as a short book in its own right.

The animated version first aired on CBS January 9, 1975 was directed by Chuck Jones and was released by Family Home Entertainment on both VHS and DVD. The DVD is also paired with another of Jones' cartoons, "Yankee Doodle Cricket"