Sunday, August 17, 2008

The Good, the Bad, and the Tweeners

Some of these calls are easy, folks; Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Pinochet, Roberto D'Aubisson, etc.. Most of the rest, unfortunately, aren't. Take, for instance, guys like Joe Kennedy Sr., Prescott Bush Sr., Averill Harriman, the Duponts, Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, et. al., who either through their words or deeds, have been associated with comforting and/or assisting Hitler's Nazi regime. Few, if any, of these men can be painted so simplistically.......................................This, I'm saying, in that, while, yes, these men clearly did make mistakes/used shaky judgement, 1) the mistakes have often been exaggerated and 2) their positive contributions ignored. Bush's case, in particular, is illuminating. His critics (many of who were not even alive during his Senate career, by the way, motivated by the hatred of his grandson, etc.) have essentially accused him of being a Nazi collaborator, of being Adolph Hitler's personal banker, for Christ! And those are some of the nicer things that people have said about him..........................................I mean, don't get me wrong here. The fact that Union Banking Corp (the company where Bush was on the board of directors) was doing business in Nazi Germany in the years leading up to (and even after Germany declared war on us) the 2nd World War can in no way be viewed positively. But (and like I stated on a previous posting) there are a myriad of mitigating factors here. Some I referred to in a previous post. Here are some others...........................................Point one. If you look at all the U.S. Companies who were doing business in Nazi Germany during this specified time-period, it's essentially a who's who of American industry. Are we going to hold each and every one of these companies (it's in the hundreds, folks) accountable for this transgression, basically accuse them all of treasonous activity? And what about the employees (possibly as many as a million)? Are we, being that there apparently isn't such a thing as being a little guilty here, going to put all of THEM on trial, too? And how about the friends and associates of these people? Might they be considered as well a part and parcel to this conspiracy? What about F.D.R. himself, folks? Was not he one of Averill Harriman's best friends (yes, THAT Averill Harriman, the Averill Harriman who allegedly owned 3,997 shares of that dreaded Union Banking Corp stock)? You do see what I'm saying here, don't you?.........................................Point two. When we strictly focus on the transgressions, not just of Bush, but of all these men, and not on their total lives, the tendency, frankly, is to miss a lot. Kennedy, for instance, at the same time F.D.R. was canning him, was also raising sons who went on to be great leaders in America. Bush went on to be one of the country's finest Senators, Harriman a vital and indispensable aid to Truman. Industrialists, such as Dupont and Ford, added greatly to the U.S. economy. These men weren't, clearly, in any way, shape, or form, pure evil..........................................Point three. When you try and reduce historical perspectives to such clear-cut dichotomies of good and evil, not only do you sometimes vilify the wrong people, so, too, can you inappropriately deify others. Winston Churchill, folks, probably the greatest man of the 20th century, he was the person who ordered the fire-bombing of Dresden, an act that not only destroyed one of the world's most beautiful cities but killed as well 200,000 civilians - an act that we now know wasn't necessary. F.D.R., probably the second greatest man of the 20th century, he incarcerated thousands of good American citizens - simply because of their nationality! Abraham Lincoln, too, damned if he didn't suspend the writ of habeus corpus. And what about Thomas Jefferson, boinking his slave-women as if it were his God-given right? Yes, all of these men in fact WERE great, but so, too, were they decidedly flawed..........................................Bottom-line, folks, shouldn't we all be getting a little tired of this gotcha shit, the sins of the father, guilt by association, etc.? I sure as hell know that I am.................................................................P.S. Correction, folks, it was not Averell Harriman who owned these shares of Union Banking Corps. It was his brother. I apologize for any confusion brought about by this error. Thank you.

15 comments:

1138 said...

Have you considered that all the time and effort you put into your posts the fact that you make no effort into formating them into a readable form for the audience renders all that work pointless?

I'd like to comment, I know you have made major errors in logic but I can't get past the disorganized and insulting imagery of your presentation.

When Bush cites the greatness and history of his family as it were his own works (and he did) then he gets the take down of the failures of those in the past as well.
As for Prescott, he was no mere employee and well aware of the actions that were taking place and how they dis served the interests of his nation. Some shame does go multi generational, esp. when the multi generations try and claim false multi generational glory.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

You're citing MY lack of mental cohesion? Lord. I've never once heard Bush (who I have never supported and never once voted for, btw) cite the greatness of his family. Prescott Bush was on the board of directors, not a part of the management team (the people who run the day to day operations). Not that this exonerates him totally but come on. And what ABOUT Roosevelt? Was he not aiding and abetting a Nazi collaborator in Averill Harriman. This is a frigging witch-hunt and the hunters frigging lunatics.

1138 said...

what ABOUT Roosevelt?
what ABOUT Harriman?
The relevance is only in your own mind, there is no President or other high level government official directly related to Roosevelt or Harriman moving forward on their web of connections.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I was being facetious, Sherlock. I was trying to show you how crazy a person can go with this stuff. ALTHOUGH, Harriman did own 3,997 shares....and Roosevelt was his buddy. What did he know and when did he know it? LOL

1138 said...

"Winston Churchill, folks, probably the greatest man of the 20th century"

A total screw up as a military leader, his success as at being a symbol not a strategist. Churchill learned only through error and seemed unable to avoid major errors.

You don't know military remember, Air Force and Navy are the same thing to you.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

My point was that he nwas NOT perfect. As vusual, you missed the point, soldier boy.

Anonymous said...

Will if you're going to SLANDER a veteran of the United States Navy you would be correct to slander him by calling him a sailor boy,

You only correctly slander a veteran of the United States Army by calling him soldier boy.

That slander would be one you could direct at me for instance since my service was in the United States Army ......

To cross the slanders makes you look even more clueless then you usually do son.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Actually, I should have called him airman, Clifffff. He was in the Air Force, or so he says (refuses to give me his resume). Oh, by the way, I think I'm going to start calling you Cliffolaus. Combine both of your personnas into one - cool, huh?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Actually, I'm not slandering a veteran, Cliffolaus. I'm slandering a dufus who just happens to be a veteran (or so he says).

Anonymous said...

Willy boy, I am NOT Nicholas,

I have NEVER posted here as nicholas;

So your a little delusional there son.

But keep slandering veterans because you CAN'T intellectually hang son.

Mike said...

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...
Actually, I'm not slandering a veteran,



More Right Wing Strawman arguments and lies.


He slanders a veteran while claiming he is not slandering a veteran.

clif said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
clif said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
1138 said...

Actually in my case it would have been Fly Boy and honestly Will can't insult me any longer.
On his last appearance on "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" John McCain talked about how at the lake where he fell into North Vietnamese hands theere is a monument that calls him a US Air Force pilot.
McCain said that he regarded it calling him Air Force instead of Navy a HORRIBLE INSULT.
Now we have the man who had it done by Will and the North Vietnamese and myself in complete agreement and Will squarely in the wrong.

I said Barr was the unthinking mans choice and I repeated said everywhere I could that a Republican as President would be APPROVAL of everything the Bush administration and the Republican rubber stamp Congress had done.
I was partisan but not Democratic partisan, certainly not Obama partisan (I once called him a screen people projected onto) - change direction partisan.

1138 said...

BTW my first comment made no reference to a lack of mental cohesion. I referred to an error in logic.
As a former international network manager and a computer programmer I know quite well how logic can fail - it isn't a "mental" thing. It's a failure of logic. If Then, True false, a binary choice that if an error is generated in one place it cascades.
In Will case it's that he seems to justify insult wrongly.