tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post6961790704176631563..comments2024-03-06T03:15:58.539-05:00Comments on <b>THE NEW REFORM CLUB</b>: The European Parliament’s Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought 2015Hunter Bakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-30693110494572662162015-10-19T08:47:59.889-04:002015-10-19T08:47:59.889-04:00Gallifreakin wrote: “[Y]ou grow up as a physicist ...Gallifreakin wrote: “[Y]ou grow up as a physicist in what was Russia, work for you[r] nation that is the USSR and you may not know of it’s [sic] evils.” Exactly, why don’t you think Sakharov knew—and knew from day one? Maybe he knew and he just did not care, or maybe he thought that some eggs had to be broken to make the omelette: the new avant-garde world-wide communist proletarian state. Why are you making excuses for thugs or for the thuggish things otherwise decent people do? <br /><br />Anonymous: Shigera Yoshida pushed Japan’s elites towards surrender and peace as World War II progressed towards Japan’s ultimate defeat. But during the 1930s and 1940s, Yoshida was part of the imperialist movement which led Japan into disaster and destruction, and also led Japan into war with the United States. In fact, during the last year of the war, Yoshida was Japan’s armaments minister. Maybe—just maybe—Yoshida’s countrymen should think well of him. He was morally ambiguous: a mixed bag. But we of the United States and the Allies should remember: that he supported killing our people during the war and, also, that had he had the tools to prevail over us, he surely would have used those tools. Perhaps, just perhaps, he is deserving of a prize in Japan. But there should be no room for a Yoshida Prize in the United States or among the Allies. <br /><br />The same is true for Sakharov. Perhaps he is deserving of a prize in Russia and the former Soviet Union, but not in Western and Central Europe, or in the United States. What we owe our country and countrymen is different from what we owe others. The fact that Yoshida (and, Sakharov to some extent) did some things which, in a highly abstract ahistorical sense, were praiseworthy, and were motivated by selflessness—not to benefit us or humanity—for the benefit of his country and countrymen is no reason for us to recognize his or their deeds as virtuous. Yoshida was always working for Japan—which included its war aims—he just recognized, circa 1944 after millions had died, that Japan’s interests had changed from war to peace. We in the United States and among the Allies benefited from that change of heart. Sakharov too had a change of heart: from arming the USSR with thermonuclear weapons to arms control and human rights. But—as far as I know—in regard to both of Sakharov and Yoshida—their change of heart was rooted in self-interest and the interests of their polity. Sakharov stated: “I am no volunteer priest of the idea, but simply a man with an unusual fate. I am against all kinds of self-immolation (for myself and for others, including the people closest to me).” [source: Wikipedia] If anyone should honour these men it is their polity (or their successor polities). Not us; not the United States; not Europe. To the extent we have honours to give out, they should go to people who had the decency, wisdom, and courage to oppose Yoshida and Japan prior to 1944 (i.e., prior to Yoshida’s change of heart) at the risk and cost of their lives, and also to those who opposed Sakharov prior to the late 1950s (i.e., prior to Sakharov’s change of heart), at the risk and costs of their lives.Sethnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-83880498145206049892015-10-19T00:27:17.559-04:002015-10-19T00:27:17.559-04:00During the 80's, the physics community believe...During the 80's, the physics community believed that Sakharov was the person who convinced Gorbachev that the USSRs war plan to fight NATO would instead devastate Russia. Even if NATO did nothing to oppose it. The plan allegedly included large scale nuclear strikes across Western Europe. The fallout, however, would leave western Russia uninhabitable. Given that, Europeans honoring Sakharov is in their interest.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-50126242932210644952015-10-18T22:44:49.807-04:002015-10-18T22:44:49.807-04:00Lighten up, Francis. So, you grow up as a physici...Lighten up, Francis. So, you grow up as a physicist in what was Russia, work for you nation that is the USSR and you may not know of it's evils. Work to match the west in it's power of the atom. <br />When you realize what your country is, you dissent.<br />How many Americans are willing to dissent against homosexuality, against an invasion of foreigners, against Islam? Anyone who does is An Enemy of the People!<br />So, how brave do you need to be to have an award?<br />The guy who stood up to a tank doesn't have one but the inventor of dynamite does.<br />How many die in the laogai who are more courageous than Nathan Hale? They all don't get awards. The elite get awards and get them named after them. May we all have the character of G Washington, that we may act well in all circumstances. That would be a revolution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-20080181370830701292015-10-18T20:08:58.657-04:002015-10-18T20:08:58.657-04:00Quite, Seth. The prize was established by the Eur...Quite, Seth. The prize was established by the European Union and its worthy winners are largely widely-admired figures such as Nelson Mandela and Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma, or the "Argentine mothers whose children disappeared during the Dirty War."<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakharov_Prize<br /><br />Sakharov was the sort of generic "human rights" advocate so beloved by the Euroweinie center-left, but MIA against the real enemies of humanity like Communism. Indeed, one of the first Sakharov Prize winners was Alexander Dubček, the Communist "reformer" of the 1968 Prague Spring and a bit player in the Velvet Revolution.<br /><br />[again, pardon my Wiki]<br /><br /><i>During the Velvet Revolution of 1989, he supported the Public against Violence (VPN) and the Civic Forum. On the night of 24 November, Dubček appeared with Václav Havel on a balcony overlooking Wenceslas Square, where he was greeted with uproarious applause from the throngs of protesters below and embraced as a symbol of democratic freedom. Several onlookers even chanted, "Dubček na hrad!" ("Dubček to the Castle"—i. e., Dubček for President). He disappointed the crowd somewhat by calling the revolution a chance to continue the work he had started 20 years earlier, and prune out what was wrong with contemporary communist governments; by that time the demonstrators in Prague did not support the Czechoslovakian communist leadership or the planned economy.</i><br /><br />Did Dubček or Sakharov himself really do anything significant in the cause of liberty? It's at least disputable. Good post.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.com