Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci | Twitter
Sean Fallon | Twitter
Jack Loftus | Twitter
John Herrman | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Danny Allen | Twitter
Rosa Golijan | Twitter
Chris Jacob
@zjmuse: It's just all that wild hair being backlit that makes his head look alien-like. Although, now that I think of it, I never have seen a pic of Matt without some kind of eye covering. Hmm...
OK, Matt, you alien fiend, quit hiding behind those shades and reveal to us your enormous, black football-shaped eyes!
Just because you don't like Roseanne and her three bratty kids, that's no reason to kill off John Connor. Fictional blue-collar sitcom families have enough to worry about without bloggers threatening to kill them.
@Texas, Texas yee haw_Nick: You're right. And I confused the character name. His name was Dan but he was played by John Goodman. I stopped watching when they replaced the oldest daughter.
@TheTriStatesBestSide_GitEmStev...: You're confused. She got a DUI in Hawaii, so they had Michael kill off her character when he went in to rescue Ben.
So wait, please tell me if I have this right. You wear this thing which makes you look like you have red eyes, then you have to wave your arms around? Do you have to run around as well? B/c that would complete the picture.
@TheTriStatesBestSide_GitEmStev...: I'm thinking to get maximum benefit you would also need to make chicken clucking noises. Or, at the very least, bob your head up and down.
Hmm, photic stimulation with flashing lights. So this is essentially like that Japanese cartoon which accidentally induces seizures--except you're doing it on purpose.
@TheTriStatesBestSide_GitEmStev...: Thanks for that. I was debating which way to go--newsy/informative or Simpsons/funny--when I found the CCN link first.
@the bends: Thats what I saw too, and since it was posted at Giz, I didnt find that strange or unusual. I had pegged a lot of these people as sheep shaggers already.
I just returned from Hiroshima. After being there, it pretty much changed my opinion on the whole thing.
I understand these people who talk about how it stopped the war etc, etc, etc...
But it's not as easy as all that.
What about the 20,000 koreans that were killed instantly who were living in the city at the time? Or all the children who were born with birth defects even decades later?
After seeing all that I saw & read, I just can't be down with killing hundreds of thousands of people with a single bomb ever...
@Rory1: I respect your opinions and your feelings on the matter, but I don't think you're seeing the real choice. You're only asking half the question when you ask "What about the 20,000 Koreans". The other half of the question is "were their lives more valuable than the lives that would have been lost in the alternative?" People -- lots of people -- were going to die no matter what. Vast numbers of Hiroshima residents probably would have died during an invasion. Vast numbers of US and Japanese troops would have died as well. You're right that it's not as easy as "drop bomb, stop war, everything's great". It's far, far more complex than that. And part of the problem is we only know the consequences of what DID happen. We don't know the consequences of what DIDN'T happen.
If we had perfect knowledge of all possible outcomes, and we knew with 100% certainty that dropping the bomb cost 50,000 Hiroshima lives, but that not dropping the bomb would have cost 1.5M lives on all sides, then dropping the bomb would clearly have been the superior choice, both morally and tactically. But we don't know the alternative with 100% certainty, and we never will. And that's why it's a difficult subject.
@pixelchild: The atomic bomb was meant to be dropped on Germany. The B-36 (which was conceived in 1941) was designed to be able to drop it (or conventional bombs) on Berlin from bases within the US should England fall to the Nazis. By the time it was an operational weapon, Germany had already surrendered, of course.
If Germany had hung on until that point, though, I think that consideration would have been given to droppin an a-bomb on Berlin, for precisely the same reason it was used on Japan: to shock the country into surrender. I don't know that it would definitely have been done, but I'm sure it would have been considered.
05/12/09
05/12/09
OK, Matt, you alien fiend, quit hiding behind those shades and reveal to us your enormous, black football-shaped eyes!
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
(and, sorry, that was the best version I could find of the Robocop catchphrase)
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
I've got to stop buying "circus tickets".
05/12/09
Which time?
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
Now, who does the screaming?
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
yeah bro. yer here. there's beer in the fridge.
05/11/09
I understand these people who talk about how it stopped the war etc, etc, etc...
But it's not as easy as all that.
What about the 20,000 koreans that were killed instantly who were living in the city at the time? Or all the children who were born with birth defects even decades later?
After seeing all that I saw & read, I just can't be down with killing hundreds of thousands of people with a single bomb ever...
05/11/09
If we had perfect knowledge of all possible outcomes, and we knew with 100% certainty that dropping the bomb cost 50,000 Hiroshima lives, but that not dropping the bomb would have cost 1.5M lives on all sides, then dropping the bomb would clearly have been the superior choice, both morally and tactically. But we don't know the alternative with 100% certainty, and we never will. And that's why it's a difficult subject.
05/11/09
05/11/09
If Germany had hung on until that point, though, I think that consideration would have been given to droppin an a-bomb on Berlin, for precisely the same reason it was used on Japan: to shock the country into surrender. I don't know that it would definitely have been done, but I'm sure it would have been considered.