I think if the choice is between capturing this information for history, or it being shelved and locked away, or worse, forgotten entirely, then it's important for Okazaki's documentary to be out there, and for people to watch it, think about it, and learn from it. Good for the people at HBO for not flinching from it.

Certainly as the specter of nuclear proliferation looms ever larger in the 21st century, it's something we're all going to have to deal with, one way or another, and with the erosive morality of total war that is WWII's legacy. These are things we'll have to live and die with, if we pay attention to it.

Despite the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the one long-term benefit Japan gained from the atomic bomb was that it forced a new national conception upon them. I know some actual Japanese, and they say that nationalism is widely rejected by the populace, is considered in poor taste, associated as it is with the brutality of their country's actions in WWII (and before), with the neo-fascist rule of the generals, and with the shame of ultimate defeat.

In that sense, the US, as the ultimate victor of WWII, was not well-served by that war in the long run, because it vindicated our practices, let us believe that our way was best (to the exclusion of all others), and led to the kind of ideological and moral blindness that made a Bush presidency inevitable, made the Cold War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Iraq War, and the War on Terror exercises in war without victory. The US kept wanting to make those things WWII Part Two, but reality wasn't obliging us, and still isn't; we enjoy ever-diminishing returns on our policies abroad, which still seem to treat the world like it was 1945 all over again.

They always talk about generals always fighting the last war, and I think it's because of that, that the losers of a war are forced to reappraise themselves, to figure out who they are, why they lost, what they did wrong, and how to do better. The Bomb forced Japan to abandon militaristic nationalism as a policy, in favor of pacifism and trade. And they profited greatly from that path, both at home and in terms of their involvement in the UN.

General George S. Patton put it: "Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser." Winners don't question what they did wrong (if anything) -- they'll just keep doing it until they eventually lose. That's how countries end up getting in over their heads in wars. Winners don't bother with introspection -- introspection's for losers.

I'm glad you tried to deconstruct "jittery," Mr. Leonard; certainly the shotgun marriage of "jittery" to "investors" carries the meanings you sought to convey, and more.

I never know what to think about these market forecasts, in the face of 24-hour news and online investing, and a general speeding up of market information awareness and access, like whether this creates a more responsive market, or simply one more prone to panics and fads.

Maybe both? Maybe the responsiveness creates the panics and the fads to begin with, or perhaps the timely reporting of it (coupled with people's ability to act on that information) causes it. Is the market simply overvalued, too finance-driven, and is in need of actual nuts-and-bolts investment, versus just green waves of wealth washing from shore to shore at the flick of keyboards, following the jittery whims of the media market moments?

The Hypothetical Economy seems to have bolstered the ranks of paper millionaires (is that even a good thing?), but how does that translate into real progress for the majority of people? It's almost the opposite of investment, which implies commitment -- it's something else, something more fickle and fleeting, like endless speed-dating instead of marriage! No wonder folks have the jitters.

Barbara Boxer not voting

I wonder if she's laying low while trying to work out that bill with Inhofe on infrastructure funding. Disappointing, to be sure. One disappointment among many.

I agree with Goferit in worrying whether the Democrats will repeal the assorted things the Bush League has granted itself to create their executive coup of our government. I imagine it would take a Democrat of articulate principles to explain why those things need to be done away with, in the face of opposition that would likely decry them as being "soft on terrorism" or whatever other slurs they want to lob.

But clearly the GOP did serious damage to our country (of which the FISA chicanery is just one example), and the Democrats must not give into the temptation to keep those things going.

The Nation's Ari Melber did a good, discerning write-up of the Kosvention...

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070813/melber

This part was interesting, very telling in Clinton's arm's length approach...

Yet Clinton strained to mold her meeting back into a controlled event. She was the only candidate to use her staff as a buffer, tapping her Internet director, Peter Daou, to pick questions and bringing three other senior aides onstage, though none of them spoke. She filibustered most of the time, taking more than eleven minutes to answer the first question alone--a simple query about fixing the unpopular No Child Left Behind Act. That softball came from an official with the National Education Association, who either didn't know or didn't care that this scarce time was carved out for bloggers and activists without insider access, not for interest-group sponsors.

Then Clinton only took five more questions.