That's how long it will take you to watch this video. But you should invest the time, especially if you're a Jon Stewart fan.
4 comments:
Chuckwagon Boy
said...
As an aside, I did want to say that Jon Stewart did apologize the next day for "the stupid comment he made about Truman being a war criminal." Stewart said he could completely understand that based on the times we were in why the decision was made. But watch the clip to get it verbatim.
trlitorHey, I'm a Jon Stewart fan! This post applies to me!
I watched the PJ video until the 5th the time it stopped (my dumb PC). I got to the part where the speaker was going over (and over and over) the intricacies of expensive bombs, and how you can't just waste one by throwing in the water. Nevermind that that was just some random suggestion, Jon plucking a un-self-researched option from his head!
In addition, I highly recommend watching (on the internet) Parts 1, 2, and 3 of the actual Daily Show interview with Cliff May - who at end proclaims that it was the best TV conversation he'd ever had about the torture issue. The interview is fascinating and thought-provoking. While not irrelevent ncessarily, the PJ video attempts to do exactly what those in some conservative circles aim to do - distract from from the actual torture debate.
It's not that anything they said was wrong (although I will point out that the Japanese authorities barred the citizens from reading the warning fliers, and actively worked to spread counter-propanganda - and I would be surprised the if US didn't know that - I'm sure they laid responsibility on the Japanese authorities in that respect). It's just - in my POV - pointless to the current debate. He's a talk show host, you know. That's all.
Anyway, you can absolutely make an argument that a person who does "this, this and this" is a "war criminal" - especially if one of those criteria involve killing civilians. You can make the argument just to philosophize, if anything, but to a greater point, to examine the actions of the past, to THINK about whether things could have been handled differently. In fact, I think it's dangerous to not do so. (For the recond, no, I don't really think Truman was a war criminal.) Simply making the argument doesn't automatically mean one is besmirching the reputations of the leaders who had to make these awful decisions.
4 comments:
As an aside, I did want to say that Jon Stewart did apologize the next day for "the stupid comment he made about Truman being a war criminal." Stewart said he could completely understand that based on the times we were in why the decision was made. But watch the clip to get it verbatim.
I'm glad to hear he did apologize, CB. He needed to.
I'd still recommend that everyone watch the linked video, though, because it provides something that Jon Stewart rarely does -- context.
trlitorHey, I'm a Jon Stewart fan! This post applies to me!
I watched the PJ video until the 5th the time it stopped (my dumb PC). I got to the part where the speaker was going over (and over and over) the intricacies of expensive bombs, and how you can't just waste one by throwing in the water. Nevermind that that was just some random suggestion, Jon plucking a un-self-researched option from his head!
In addition, I highly recommend watching (on the internet) Parts 1, 2, and 3 of the actual Daily Show interview with Cliff May - who at end proclaims that it was the best TV conversation he'd ever had about the torture issue. The interview is fascinating and thought-provoking. While not irrelevent ncessarily, the PJ video attempts to do exactly what those in some conservative circles aim to do - distract from from the actual torture debate.
It's not that anything they said was wrong (although I will point out that the Japanese authorities barred the citizens from reading the warning fliers, and actively worked to spread counter-propanganda - and I would be surprised the if US didn't know that - I'm sure they laid responsibility on the Japanese authorities in that respect). It's just - in my POV - pointless to the current debate. He's a talk show host, you know. That's all.
Anyway, you can absolutely make an argument that a person who does "this, this and this" is a "war criminal" - especially if one of those criteria involve killing civilians. You can make the argument just to philosophize, if anything, but to a greater point, to examine the actions of the past, to THINK about whether things could have been handled differently. In fact, I think it's dangerous to not do so. (For the recond, no, I don't really think Truman was a war criminal.) Simply making the argument doesn't automatically mean one is besmirching the reputations of the leaders who had to make these awful decisions.
He's a talk show host, you know. That's all.
I know that, and you know that too, Amanda. There are too many people out there who don't know that, though, based on what I've been able to observe.
Post a Comment