SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
David Swanson, author of "War is a Lie", writes via CounterPunch:
The facts [of the Pearl Harbor story] do not support the mythology. The United States government did not need to make Japan a junior partner in imperialism, did not need to fuel an arms race, did not need to support Nazism and fascism (as some of the biggest U.S. corporations did right through the war), did not need to provoke Japan, did not need to join the war in Asia or Europe, and was not surprised by the attack on Pearl Harbor. For support of each of these statements, keep reading.
[...] Churchill's fervent hope for years before the U.S. entry into the war was that Japan would attack the United States. This would permit the United States (not legally, but politically) to fully enter World War II in Europe, as its president wanted to do, as opposed to merely providing weaponry and assisting in the targeting of submarines as it had been doing. On December 7, 1941, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt drew up a declaration of war on both Japan and Germany, but decided it wouldn't work and went with Japan alone. Germany quickly declared war on the United States, possibly in hopes that Japan would declare war on the Soviet Union.
Getting into the war was not a new idea in the Roosevelt White House. FDR had tried lying to the U.S. public about U.S. ships including the Greer and the Kerny, which had been helping British planes track German submarines, but which Roosevelt pretended had been innocently attacked. Roosevelt also lied that he had in his possession a secret Nazi map planning the conquest of South America, as well as a secret Nazi plan for replacing all religions with Nazism. The map was of the quality of Karl Rove's "proof" that Iraq was buying uranium in Niger.
And yet, the people of the United States didn't buy the idea of going into another war until Pearl Harbor, by which point Roosevelt had already instituted the draft, activated the National Guard, created a huge Navy in two oceans, traded old destroyers to England in exchange for the lease of its bases in the Caribbean and Bermuda, and--just 11 days before the "unexpected" attack, and five days before FDR expected it--he had secretly ordered the creation (by Henry Field) of a list of every Japanese and Japanese-American person in the United States.
[...] On November 15th, Army Chief of Staff George Marshall briefed the media on something we do not remember as "the Marshall Plan". In fact we don't remember it at all. "We are preparing an offensive war against Japan", Marshall said, asking the journalists to keep it a secret, which as far as I know they dutifully did.
[...] Congresswoman Jeannette Rankin (R-MT), the first woman ever elected to Congress, and who had voted against World War I, stood alone in opposing World War II [...] found that the Economic Defense Board had gotten economic sanctions under way less than a week after the Atlantic Conference [of August 1941]. On December 2, 1941, the New York Times had reported, in fact, that Japan had been "cut off from about 75 percent of her normal trade by the Allied blockade". Rankin also cited the statement of Lieutenant Clarence E. Dickinson, U.S.N., in the Saturday Evening Post of October 10, 1942, that on November 28, 1941, nine days before the attack, Vice Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., (he of the catchy slogan "Kill Japs! Kill Japs!") had given instructions to him and others to "shoot down anything we saw in the sky and to bomb anything we saw on the sea".
The article is very detailed and shows repeatedly the duplicity of those who have claimed that the strike on Pearl Harbor was a "surprise".
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Thursday December 08 2016, @05:53PM
I'm shocked...
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08 2016, @06:04PM
Yeah right...
Next thing they will be telling me that Churchill was an anti-Semitic drunk who advocated war crimes in colonial countries!
I stand insulted at the very insinuation that our proud and just governments could do anything of the sort.
To suggest otherwise is TREASON and should be punishable by death!
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Thursday December 08 2016, @06:12PM
Well it's public knowledge that Churchill swapped political parties several times during his political career, and that as Home Secretary in 1910 he sent tge army in to break up strikes at South Wales collieries.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08 2016, @06:30PM
Can't have the public grind industrial progress to a halt now... Seriously, modern slavery is sold as the new lifestyle that we should all want! We all have freedom, sure. Freedom to starve if we don't play the game. It becomes exceptionally clear with military/law enforcement using violence to prevent civil unrest. Get back to work or we'll bash your head in and let you sit in lockup for a month.
We all have freedom within the herd, move around and be "unique" and do your own thing, but you don't get to leave the herd unless you're one of the lottery winners in life. Keep choking on the lie that anyone can be anything. Its a lie of omission, the narrative fails to include the stats on how likely it is that your hard work will pay off big time. They don't include them because they need the millions of workers to do their jobs, keep manufacturing weapons to be sold for insane profits...
In life we take a lot of things for granted, and often we fail to question the basic assumptions we operate on every day. There is one simple explanation for our modern wage slavery, and an equally simple solution.
1. Pyramid schemes. Private ownership and the corporate structure is a pyramid, you have the owner at the top getting all the benefits (and to be fair taking the risks) and the workers getting as little in return as the owners can pay. The power goes to the top, and there are dire consequences if the workers try and change the arrangement (fired, beaten by police, arrested, even killed).
2. Worker ownership. All businesses should be owned by the workers, perhaps with an exception to allow owners/founders to keep a higher percentage that decreases over time. Details can vary, but the basic idea works.
This solution keeps the dreaded state ownership at bay while preventing the massive inequality we are seeing today.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Thursday December 08 2016, @07:52PM
That is true, but in a world where everyone questioned those basic assumptions every day nobody would ever stop fighting.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by khallow on Thursday December 08 2016, @08:32PM
1. Pyramid schemes. Private ownership and the corporate structure is a pyramid, you have the owner at the top getting all the benefits (and to be fair taking the risks) and the workers getting as little in return as the owners can pay. The power goes to the top, and there are dire consequences if the workers try and change the arrangement (fired, beaten by police, arrested, even killed).
No. That's not what pyramid scheme means. It's a form of investment scam where the money put in by would-be later investors gets paid out to earlier investors. A usual consequence is that most of the people who put money in lose everything that they put in.
Here in the usual business environment, workers get out wages for what they put in. They are paid for work done and they can choose to terminate their employment contracts at any time. And this is what makes "wage slavery" such a bullshit term. It is not even remotely like slavery.
2. Worker ownership. All businesses should be owned by the workers, perhaps with an exception to allow owners/founders to keep a higher percentage that decreases over time. Details can vary, but the basic idea works.
I'll note here that the decline of labor unions and employee-run businesses indicate that worker ownership is not as great as advertised. Sure, the basic idea works in a large number of cases, but it competes poorly with businesses run by competent owners. In case there is any doubt, workers aren't naturally competent owners.
I'll also note that no reason whatsoever was given for why worker ownership is supposed to be a good idea. The traditional shareholder owned business works too. So should all businesses be of that form? The idea that workers "should" have some supernatural claim to permanent ownership of the output of their labor and anything having to do with it, like capital, is a typical failure mode of Marxism. It's entirely without justification.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Thursday December 08 2016, @09:46PM
"wage slavery" such a bullshit term. It is not even remotely like slavery.
Current "wage slavery" is, indeed, several orders of magnitude better than being owned by a man who can do as he wishes to you, your family and children.
Today, you are owned by "the man" (referring to the larger corporate powers), you are free to quit at any time, free to move wherever you can afford, they can't legally beat you, they can't legally impregnate your wife, it's a whole lot better. However, in the end, you have to work for one of them, more or less on their terms, if you don't want to live in a slum, if you do want some form of medical care for you or your family, if you are not one of the fortunate few who have enough resources to forgo a paycheck for an extended period of time.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by moondoctor on Friday December 09 2016, @12:39AM
>several orders of magnitude better than [literally] being owned
Damn straight.
>you are free to quit at any time
Technically, yes. Practically? Different story. When the kids are hungry you go the fuck to work. For most low income people you can't quit just because you are treated like dirt.
That is where the term comes from.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Friday December 09 2016, @01:51AM
False.
There are three types of slavery. Chattle, Wage, and Indentured (servitude). All THREE were brought to compete with each other before the Civil War, which is mostly what directly lead to the Civil War.
Chattle slavery is the best slavery, save Indentured. The Indentured ones were usually accepted to be part of the same ruling "race", and guaranteed some of the same regard, but were owned because they were in debt to somebody else. This arrangement was formalized. An Indentured servant was treated as if there were human at least, meaning they were all "House Niggers".
Chattle slavery is actually better than wage slavery. You are incorrect thinking that freedom made it all better, when in fact, a slave under Chattle slavery was afforded a greater standard of living. You may have got beat, you may have lived in a dorm type building with all of the other slaves, but you got fed, clothed, housed, and limited medical care. A slave was very expensive, and IIRC, was worth at least $300 in pre-Civil War dollars. They were an investment just like every head of Cattle, Sheep, etc. Owners were always well advised to take care of their investments. As such, even a slave treated as less than human had access to medical greater than any wage slave counterpart.
Wage slavery is the worst. It's de facto Chattle slavery, sometimes combined with Indentured slavery, and the main difference is that after the slave is done with work.... the owner no longer cares. With an engendered and managed pool of desperate workers looking for jobs, owners can offer less and less in a race to the bottom. Does an owner have to worry about if a worker has enough to eat at night? If their kids have enough to eat at night? Nope. Fuck em. Open up the doors tomorrow and hire some managers to decide which workers get in the door.
A Wage slave is not guaranteed anything, especially food, clothing, housing, or medical. In a very real way it is like the Owning class needing a farm animal to pull the plow. After the animal is done, it's lead outside of the farm and kicked out after being given less food and water than what it needs. Not a problem, since the Owning class simply goes outside and looks for the most preferable farm animal they need at the time. Never needing to worry about having to take care of that animal anymore. In our times now, we suffer huge taxation for the government to take care of the animals instead of the Owning class just fucking ponying up some extra food and water (wages) instead.
ANYTIME an American Worker is paid less than what they need to survive (aka Living Wage), they ARE a Wage Slave. They don't have enough to eat and live a normal life, hence become desperate, and are willing to settle for less when no owners give a fuck enough about people over profit to pay people enough to survive. There are simply no incentives to do so.
Wage slavery is very, very, very, fucking real. Listen to that piece of shit Trump with the corporations and saying that the American Worker can get used to working for less if they move the work around the country taking away the jobs, then bring it back so the workers can, "Settle for less".
It's one massive system of collusion and duress that makes it anything but as free as yourself and that utter piece of shit, Kallow, allege.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday December 09 2016, @02:30AM
It's one massive system of collusion and duress that makes it anything but as free as yourself and that utter piece of shit, Kallow, allege.
Maybe you misread me - wage slavery is here, and it sucks. The average life of a wage slave may, indeed, be worse than the average life of a chattel slave. On the other hand, Thomas Jefferson had several children with his favorite slaves, and I doubt much whether they were allowed to marry as they chose and remain faithful to their chosen husband, not that that was necessarily part of their native traditions, but we were teaching them to be Christians after all. If your wage slave "owner" wants to physically abuse or kill you, at least you have some protection of law, not that the protection of law applies at all equally across the economic classes, but it at least tries to keep an appearance that it does.
My ancestors came to the US as indentured servants, those that didn't cross the Bearing Strait on foot at least. Hairdressers, teachers, mechanics, engineers, I think we're all pretty much wage slaves still, but I wouldn't trade this life for one in the fields picking for a master, no matter how good he might treat me - and in the South, there's still plenty of picking jobs out there, even post mechanization.
You are right, there is massive inequality - the concept of "fair" that monkeys have for cucumber vs grape rewards, that concept of fair that children teach each other when they're too young to understand class inequality, is almost completely missing from our adult society. My favorite song lines of all time from John Lennon's Working Class Hero: "You think you're so clever and classless and free, but you're still -ucking peasants, as far as I can see." More true today than when he wrote it.
So, you seem to care deeply about this topic. What are you actually doing about it besides out-shouting libertarians on techno-chat boards?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by edIII on Friday December 09 2016, @06:59PM
You stated:
What I take issue with is the presentation of freedom and equality that doesn't exist in reality. It's like explaining a game, the playing field, the players, and the rules. Anybody complaining about cheating, and that the game is unfair, is referred back to the sacrosanct game and that no such cheating *reeaaalllly* exists, it's just our failure to understand and play the game properly. Yet, everyone can see that some fuckers simply aren't playing by the same rules and suffering the same consequences and received rewards. It's bullshit. Some of the them just make up new rules.
That incenses me a bit, to perhaps understate it, hence my response. I categorically deny that as actual truth, and at a minimum, there are extreme mitigating circumstances that need to be considered. In other words, there are too many people not able to do what you say.
Freedom and Duress are two different things. When you mix the two together, but still claim Freedom as the most primary and overwhelming attribute, you've completely ignored reality. Yet, you state it outright at the end.
1) you are free to quit at any time
Are you? Really? What about probation? Benefits? Contracts? I know somebody that quit because they couldn't take it, and were 2 weeks short of the government threshold to receive any disability benefits that they needed before they could quit. There exists plenty of manipulation to create severe consequences for quitting, and that was just one example.
When you say quit, you can only quit if your healthy enough to stand on your own two feet. Otherwise, it's just struggling to survive, get better, and then hopefully, one day, quit. It's stepping stones, and if there is extreme manipulation to make sure there are very few other "stones" to hop to, it's nigh impossible to quit one "stone" before having at least one foot on another "stone".
Where are all the jobs to go to? Where are the magical free fields of food to eat with commodity prices being so high as to make food almost unaffordable? Where are the open fields to grow your own veggies and raise small animals for subsistence farming? Quitting work is akin to quitting breathing. Unless you have a cultivated oxygen supply before doing so, it's absolutely fucking ridiculous to say you have the freedom to quit breathing around the rest of people.
2) free to move wherever you can afford
Ahhhh, where you can afford! Rent prices have gone up by 48% in 5 years here in Northern California. That means that avaricious hell bound investors are sucking up all the property from our Great Depression and JACKING UP THE FUCKING PRICES. So for every 100 miles away that you have to move, there are gas costs, food costs, travel costs, etc. AirBNB is just bringing this shit to a business model where all space is now sold at an ultra premium, and surprise, the American worker CANNOT FUCKING AFFORD to spend HOTEL/MOTEL prices every night just to sleep. We aren't on fucking vacation, but trying to live.
It's not just affording this new place, but affording the moving to it. Not to mention, 1st, last, and security deposit. When the Elites have jacked up the prices so fucking much, all of the sudden you are looking at near $7,000 FUCKING DOLLARS just to move in to a new HOVEL. Add everything up, and a *modest* move can be 10k-15k. Those moves of the past so enjoyably presented in movies like Richard Pryor's with huge tractor trailers cost THOUSANDS on their own. Do you think the average family just has 20-40k laying around to move? An average family in an average home, with an average life, needs that kind of help to move. It can't be done with two cars and cheap U-Haul unless you don't have anything to begin with, or are willing to abandon your cheap ass Ikea furniture.
So moving quite often means having to escape as refugees to fly-over country where their *might* be some cheaper land and housing. You DO NOT get to move as freely within one city, or even on whole fucking area like Northern California. Affordable housing is become extinct deliberately through the actions of some people that need to be brutally murdered in the streets, combined with the actions of people that couldn't pay a living wage to save their souls.
3) they can't legally beat you
No, but they can get the police to do it. They can get with corrupt politicians, good ol' boys, and send military equipped police to suppress you. They may not hurt you directly, but they can make your job very dangerous, give you the shit work assignments and shifts. I believe you mean to imply that there exists no methods of consequences and abuse against workers. That's false.
You have pieces of shit like Jmorris advocating that any protests or standing up for yourselves with employers is "economic terrorism" and you would need to be treated as a traitor. Pinkertons. Look them up.
4) they can't legally impregnate your wife
That's a bit of hyperbole, but they DO control your wife's pussy. It's not like we have equal votes or representation, and it doesn't directly come from employers per se, but your wife's pussy ain't free in America. For some reason, it *has* to be controlled by those in power.
5) it's a whole lot better.
Marginally better. Yes, the relationship between employer and employee is rather fucked, but that Freedom you claim is an illusion. We're free to be slaves.
So we agree that duress exists? Excellent.
We agree that only a few that are fortunate have the resources to stand up for themselves? Check.
In general Maximum resistance, Maximum Volume, Absolutely zero cooperation with the White Nationalist agenda including near constant work towards organizing additional resistance through education and discussion with the community.
I wear a safety-pin now to strongly indicate that I will beat the living fuck out of any White Nationalist piece of shit that dares attack somebody in my presence. They will pay in pain and blood before my feet. If one wants to beat up a "towel head" in front of me, they need to be prepared to have my foot surgically removed from their ass.
I attend Progressive and/or Libertarian meetings in my area and participate. I now vote Progressive, but my feelings haven't changed about voting. It's the most pointless thing we do, and when it finally got destroyed.... we didn't get anything but a fucking useless idiot that is the opposite of the American Worker's Great White Hope as heavily advertised.
I've slowed down some due to illness, but I'm pretty good at putting in 15-20 hours per weekend in the community via outreach programs to the homeless, soup kitchens, and grassroots organizations that work with and organize low-income and vulnerable populations such as those with disabilities. Where possible, I take them visits with their doctors, help them get food, things like that. When required, I execute limited power of attorney documents and strongly represent their interests to local government and the programs they must navigate.
I work with supporting and developing disruptive technologies and platforms such as zero-knowledge data backups and end-to-end encrypted communications. Additionally, I only support blob/binary free computing platforms and FOSS with some Open Source projects too.
I strongly support grassroot organizations and political ones like the EFF, and other pro-Democracy outfits this election. While poor (in Northern California where a meal costs more than 20 bucks before tax and tip), I donated to Bernie Sander's, and donated my time and effort to help push Progressive government.
I am writing a second Declaration Of Independence. I hope others will start to contribute to it, and once decent enough, start getting signatures on it. If this document was signed by the voting majority this election, that would be 50 million people at least declaring their grievances and what WILL be done about it.
I work towards creating a future where I can safely strike and stop working for at least 18 months, the entire time trying to teach others how to do so as well. The goal is for enough of us to become self sufficient with home grown food and cultivated supplies to initiate a MASSIVE GENERAL STRIKE WAVE ACROSS THE WHOLE USA. If greater than 40-50 million people in the work force went on strike all at the same time, we would have our living wages, and quite possibly, our entire country back from the Elites by putting in enough effort.
Yes, I quite loudly beat back the offensive vile bullshit coming out the mouths of hell bound pieces of shit like JMorris and Kallow. I do it in real life too. Every single opportunity I have to fight those ideals and expound upon the virtues of actual Freedom, I fight.
I'm constantly educating myself about history and pursuing an intellectual solution to the problems created by extreme avarice, political and regulatory capture, and the apathy and hopelessness of the American citizen.
What are you doing? Do you have any suggestions on how I can be working harder and more effectively towards the goals of actual Freedom for our people?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday December 10 2016, @12:46AM
MASSIVE GENERAL STRIKE WAVE ACROSS THE WHOLE USA
Sorry, I don't have time to completely read, much less respond to, your whole post tonight... workin' for the man, chasing renewal of my insurance and license to drive, you know the BS.
Goals like the above will ALWAYS be resisted by the powers that be, even if they are benevolent and good hearted toward all, they will never relinquish such power to control against disruption and chaos.
Keep up the good fight, try to keep reality in view. It is easier to move from the current reality to a nearby potential reality, hopefully moving in a net positive direction, than it is to attempt a leap direct to your picture of utopia. There will always be trade-offs, unforeseen consequences, and setbacks, but change that is attempting to go in the right direction is preferable to stagnation.
Also, as narrow minded as Khallow appears to be, he is an open and frank sounding board for the views that so many of my coworkers apparently hold, but are often guarded about revealing - there's value in hearing those views out to understand better what so many people think is evil about regulation and equality.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by edIII on Saturday December 10 2016, @03:12AM
Interesting how disruption and chaos are perceived by the execution of one's Constitutional rights.
Disruption? Absolutely not assuming you speak about technologies. That's what THEY bring. We have a right to privacy and anonymity as a fundamental human right. Period. Anything that takes that away is doing so with an argument for control and specific abrogation of our rights. Anything else that dramatically changes the game like "Mr. Fusion" is a disruptive technology to be fair, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with us gaining the strength to stand quietly on our own property, minding our own business, surviving of our own production, and choosing who and what we support with it.
We also have a human right to good food and clean water. Otherwise, what the hell are we doing with each other right?
If enough of us drop out of their economy, we can form our own economy. That initial 18 months will be filled with a lot of barter, but also Union like organization and resource distribution to survive a strike. That's what a general strike and even the 2nd DOI are, our act of leaving them behind without us.
It can be peaceful though, and I have a hard time seeing the sowing of disruption and chaos simply because we cooperated with each other and accomplished something 100% legal. Through Union like support of striking employees with food, water, and other supplies that chaos you state is THEIR CHAOS. That's how they feel about the loss of us dropping out of their economy. Not participating, not producing, not making obscene profits for the Elites. There isn't anything they can do because we became strong. It won't be the next morning filled with despondent, hungry, desperate workers with mouths to feed exhibiting that disheartening pragmatism of settling for the Owning Class's low ball offer. Instead it will be *crickets*. The workers are at home in their affordable housing, pantries stocked full of home canned food coming from local farms and good ol' backyard gardens, and warm and properly fed children still in their beds. Without duress, confident that they have at least a year before they have to tighten their belts, they figure out just how we got here, and what we can all create again together. The top of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is opened, and everyone can experience a greater sense of self-actualization. It's worth stating that it includes morality, creativity, problem solving, lack of prejudice, and acceptance of facts. It's hard to cultivate prejudice when sides are not being played against each other.
Through strength, not action, but just being strong enough again that we can choose not to work for awhile, not to buy products and services from the corporations, not purchase as much energy, and not provide any taxation revenue for the politicians to have lavish lunches with.
Yeah, I guess that would create real disruption and chaos in the Elites. All of us being in a good enough position to not need them for an extended period of time. They live, breathe, and play at our grace and mercy. Yeah, I would be scared too if the abused all of the sudden realized they could stand up and put a stop to it, if only they cooperated and worked together..
There is strength in numbers.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday December 10 2016, @05:40AM
Interesting perspective, and if you get enough buy-in it might be possible. Remember that others will view this "legal, peaceful" movement differently. Remember Waco. Remember the 1% protests. Your "right" to grow your own food will be challenged by those who would rather sell you food. Your "right" to barter will be challenged by those who would rather tax, control, and otherwise profit from commerce. Your "right" to home-school your children will be challenged by inspection and performance requirements, including new social learning curriculum targeted against the movement. The bigger the movement gets, the stronger the resistance to it will become.
It might be possible, you'd need tens of thousands committed to the cause and close enough to each other to make it really work long term. We had an "intentional living community" as neighbors for a few years, they had 15-20 people living on 80 acres, mostly off-grid, mostly out of the economy, somewhat outside county health and zoning codes, but nobody gave them trouble for that. The real-estate valuation boom seems to have gotten them to sell out and move on, they probably made $500K capital gain on the 80 acres they held from 2004 through 2008. They were growing their own food, but not enough for everyone without having to buy from the market too. They were part of a network of such communities, I didn't run the details to ground, but it felt like maybe 6 to 12 sites, maybe a couple of hundred people altogether. They seemed to come from mostly moneyed backgrounds - our particular neighbors were mostly from the Boston area, and mostly Jewish from their facial structures, but there weren't signs of the religion influencing the lifestyle. Nice people, in some ways I'd like to have joined them, in others I'm actually happier as high-mid level wage slave.
At one time, I entertained the thought of accepting a job opportunity at a similar intentional living community in Costa Rica on the Bahia de Ballenas. Live on the beach, grow your own food, do some electrical engineering and software development for solar power, get part ownership in the company and virtually zero salary. I was too afraid of going there and getting stuck with no financial capacity to get back. That was 2003, by 2006 or so the venture had folded up with little gain for the participants. At least as a wage slave, I was able to negotiate myself a 15% raise for work in a place I'd rather live, and a $5000 moving allowance (no, it didn't cover the cost, but it was at least something) after the economy recovered a bit in 2006. As an ex-commune member, I think the job hunt would have been more challenging.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 09 2016, @08:11AM
However, in the end, you have to work for one of them, more or less on their terms, if you don't want to live in a slum, if you do want some form of medical care for you or your family, if you are not one of the fortunate few who have enough resources to forgo a paycheck for an extended period of time.
Or choose some other employment option like self-employment, investment, or starting a business. There is a bit of tunnel vision here.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday December 09 2016, @02:03PM
Or choose some other employment option like self-employment, investment, or starting a business. There is a bit of tunnel vision here.
You know you're an outlier, right? Do you know how far out?
Take a realistic look at median income households. Now take a realistic look at the startup cost of self-employment, investment, or business income as a household income strategy. What do you, realistically, think the success rate of these endeavors would be at meeting basic income needs - not replacing median income as success, just staying out of abject poverty - above the level where current federal social support services would kick in to keep these people from dying of starvation and exposure?
A "median income family" kid who has been educated to whatever level is most appropriate for them, starting with the $10K bankroll that a median income might be able to provide them when their education is complete and they're ready to start this bootstrap venture is, in my opinion, >50% likely to fail at any given venture due to insufficient startup capital. Especially fresh out of high school or even college with an MBA. I've actually watched more than one freshly minted MBA follow this dream out of school, burn close to $100K of mommy and daddy's money chasing that vision, then come back to wage slave reality to work for $20K per year with whatever friend took pity on their sad circumstance.
That's median, $10K startup funds, not $100K, I'd say less than 10% are fortunate enough to have parents who are both capable and willing to back the independent income dream for their children with $100K or more. Somewhere not too far below median you come to the hand-to-mouth crowd who will be bootstrapping with 0.
Irrelevant, right? If you start from such unfortunate circumstances, go be a wage slave and save that startup capital, soon (realistically: 5 to 10 years) you've got the startup capital you need, go out and grab that financial independence brass ring, hold on tight with both hands and make it work! Real world success stories I've seen for this involve parents who can afford something like a Dunkin Donuts franchise for their kids, set them up with closer to $250K of bankroll to get rolling, and still they've only got a 50/50 shot at success, then 5 to 10 years to be able to get far enough ahead to even consider paying back mom and dad. If they fail, they'll need another $250K to take another realistic shot at success. And, guess what: if they manage to succeed at this bottom rung entry level own your own business thing, what have they become? Wage slave masters, one or two people who run a team of 50 or so minimum wagers who are all dependent on social services or other outside sources to put food on their table and keep a roof over their heads.
One simple metric from one "independent" industry: if you want to make a living at selling real-estate, an industry guideline is to have enough saved to be able to "float" on zero income for at least a year, and also to have a plan for something else to do in the event of failure in your self-employed sales venture. Failure rates are far higher than 50%. So, realistically, how much surplus income do most wage slaves make? Maybe 20%? Work for 5 years, give a self-employment attempt a shot, fail, then go back and work for 5 more to save up to make your next attempt.
Is that a game that smart people would play?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 09 2016, @04:10PM
Take a realistic look at median income households. Now take a realistic look at the startup cost of self-employment, investment, or business income as a household income strategy. What do you, realistically, think the success rate of these endeavors would be at meeting basic income needs - not replacing median income as success, just staying out of abject poverty - above the level where current federal social support services would kick in to keep these people from dying of starvation and exposure?
Or I can simply note that people do this and are often quite successful, sometimes to the extent that they actually employ many other people, indicating it is an option you continue to ignore.
A "median income family" kid who has been educated to whatever level is most appropriate for them, starting with the $10K bankroll that a median income might be able to provide them when their education is complete and they're ready to start this bootstrap venture is, in my opinion, >50% likely to fail at any given venture due to insufficient startup capital. Especially fresh out of high school or even college with an MBA. I've actually watched more than one freshly minted MBA follow this dream out of school, burn close to $100K of mommy and daddy's money chasing that vision, then come back to wage slave reality to work for $20K per year with whatever friend took pity on their sad circumstance.
So what? That isn't the only way to start a business. And I don't care that there's a high failure rate. When there are successes, they can be extended to a great deal to your problem of avoiding starvation. And people can try more than once, if they don't get it right the first time.
My view is that this is much like complaining that agriculture doesn't work because there's too little corn coming out of a particular season's crop on a particular speck of land while ignoring that one can plant corn using seeds to grow more corn on more land, or one can grow some other crop that might be more appropriate for the land in question.
As I've noted before, there is a basic problem here. The developed world is eating its seed corn. What is important here is business creation and expansion, not some standard of living level. There are too many workers and not enough employers. I think that's because social and government policies emphasize the worker's benefits and comfort over having an economy which can support that. If you ignore, except when you're taking from it, a fundamental part of the economy, then don't be surprised when it withers.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Friday December 09 2016, @05:10PM
Self-employment / small to medium business bootstrap startup is not an option to ignore - it's good, we should have it.
The problem I see with it as currently implemented in the economy is exactly the Dunkin Donuts franchise case (and so many more like it) - not because it's inherently evil to sell Donuts, french fries, or hookah, but because the economics are sharply two-tiered. When an enterprise like that succeeds, it gives good income to an single "investor class" family, they put in several hundred thousand dollars, they create several dozen jobs, and they have a fair chance of getting good return on their investment. But, the jobs they create do not provide any significant upward mobility paths to go from being one of those ~50 employees to being one of those "next tier" self-employed. Significantly, the 45/50 minimum wage-ish employees in such an enterprise are a load on society, the business succeeds and enriches the owners on the backs of the taxpayers who support the underpaid employees.
Yes, there are success stories in the world, the chances aren't zero, hundreds of people around the world win million dollar lotteries every month, but, realistically for the people on the bottom rung of this system, and they are massive in number, their chances are about as good to win a 1:14,000,000 lottery as they are to "work their way up" from entry level to store owner. Seriously, play the lottery every working day for 30 years, consistently, that's 6000 chances at a 1:14,000,000 hit, one chance in 2,333 of wining. Now, look around at the fast food restaurants in your city, collect 2500 employees from that group, and tell me how many are going to bootstrap up from that level, without outside assistance, to the level of store owner within 30 years. Remember that they will be competing against more fortunates who do get a $50K inheritance from a dead uncle, or money from their parents, a lucky legal windfall, whatever, those will be the majority of the winners, and the rest are more likely to win the lottery if they play it every day.
The ratio of well compensated people to poorly compensated people is too skewed for bootstrapping to work without some outside help.
You can call bullshit, and just say that 99% of people are too lazy and that's why they fail. I call bullshit and say that it doesn't matter how hard they work at it, they still have poor chances of success.
Religion has been selling stories of paradise in the afterlife for being a good whatever before you die, with reincarnation you can hope for better the next time you return - these things exist because life really does suck for the masses, and there's not a realistic route to make it better. Through the social revolution of the late 1960s/early 70s things were getting better on that front, but starting around 1980 the pendulum swung back around. Me, personally, I think it didn't go far enough before turning, and it has been retrograde for far too long.
If you're happy that life sucks for the majority of people and that no matter how hard they try, only a small minority have a realistic chance of succeeding in significantly improving their position, that's your perspective. I think it's a clear failure of democracy that this condition has persisted and worsened for so long.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 09 2016, @05:57PM
If you're happy that life sucks for the majority of people and that no matter how hard they try, only a small minority have a realistic chance of succeeding in significantly improving their position, that's your perspective. I think it's a clear failure of democracy that this condition has persisted and worsened for so long.
What I'm not happy with is your story. I don't buy that it is true or that we're any better off by considering it.
What I think is going on is the cure is so bad, that one has to play up the supposed disease in order to sell the snake oil. "Wage slavery" sounds bad while "earning a living", "raising a family", "growing up", etc doesn't have the necessary sting to it.
For the majority in the developed world, life is quite comfortable not "life sucks". And fiddling with employment, even when it doesn't make things worse, just isn't going to have much impact on the aspects that make peoples' lives less comfortable.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday December 09 2016, @10:17PM
For the majority in the developed world, life is quite comfortable not "life sucks".
Most of my perspective that "life sucks for a lot of people" comes from big city centers, especially in the late 1980s through about 2000. In those places, Miami, New York, Boston, Chicago, LA, Paris... the "angry poor" are readily visible, and it's not hard to see why they feel the way they do. The work they can get doesn't pay well and their living conditions are dramatically worse than their wealthy neighbors. Street people in 1988 New York had visible terminal medical conditions, open sores, bloating... The shops and restaurants in 1990s "middle class" Miami Biscayne Blvd. were staffed with angry locals who resented their customers who had enough money to buy their food. Even when you move out into the conservative voting countryside, the same poor people who can't get ahead are all over the place, just less concentrated and visible. These people are, statistically, more prone to violence and crime, and they make life less pleasant for the people with enough money to be more comfortable; and they provide impetus for a booming security industry for the people who have enough money to afford it.
As one of those people who sees "the other side" hurting from circumstances that they really don't have the means to correct for themselves, I'd be happier and I believe better off in a world where they do have more and better opportunities. Are there a million different ways to screw up that effort and actually make things worse for everyone? Sure there are, but that doesn't mean we should abandon all hope and just "let nature take its course." Without laws and regulations, money doesn't exist, there are no jobs. We should try to improve the laws we have to make things better for everyone. I'd be very much in favor of starting with a law that says for every new piece of legislation, 2x that amount of old legislation needs to be repealed or reduced in complexity equal to 2x the new proposals. Doubtful that would work very well with the current political system, but I think it would be better for society overall if we worked toward a system where anyone could become 100% conversant in the law and tax codes without devoting years of study to it.
Along the way, the new simpler laws should improve provisions for leveling of the playing field - not preventing the Elon Musk's of the world from starting their own space launch companies; but not keeping the working class' noses so firmly pinned to the grindstone that they can't improve their lives if they choose, while simultaneously leaving large portions of the population unemployed and/or underemployed and dependent on tax based aid.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 10 2016, @07:53PM
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday December 11 2016, @12:40AM
Just a zinger from the recent election: H won the popular vote... largely in the cities.
The population is continuing to concentrate in the cities.
You don't need 51% of people to be miserable in order to benefit from doing something about it. One alienated, abused, marginalized person can significantly negatively affect many people - the mass shooters are the dramatic examples, but for every mass shooter there are thousands (millions?) of pissed off poor. Most of them aren't typhoid Mary spitting in your food, but they get their digs in all sorts of ways.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08 2016, @11:10PM
Ownership of the means of production by the workers AKA Socialism is based on the concept of DEMOCRACY.
That is, those affected by a decision should be the ones making that decision.
Even a mind as simple as yours should be able to grasp the concept of DEMOCRACY EVERYWHERE.
...but you are stuck on the Hobbesian top-down model which claims that without an overlord class "the life of man [is] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish[1], and short".
N.B. Thomas Hobbes was (anti-Democracy) advisor to Charles I, a monarch who claimed a "divine right" to rule.
Anyone with the slightest bit of sense realizes that both Hobbesian philosophy and monarchy (Saudi Arabia; Thailand) are bullshit.
[1] When I went to Google the exact quote, I mistyped that as "british". Heh.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by JeanCroix on Friday December 09 2016, @05:28PM
(Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Friday December 09 2016, @01:32AM
You're a piece of fucking shit. Die in a fire.
What wages for WHAT THEY PUT IN?!!!! Fuck you, mother fucker. If we weren't showing up to put in what we put in, you and the fucking Elites would have NOTHING. So burn in hell in bitch.
The working class CREATES THE WEALTH. Period. I understand that you're so fucking arrogant that you think cocksucking avaricious parasites (aka executives) are the ONLY ones "putting in enough" to the corporation to deserve a LIVING WAGE MULTIPLIED BY A DISGUSTING FACTOR.
Do you seriously think that a janitor, or anyone else in a service worker position deserves LESS THAN A LIVING WAGE for whatever reason? Do you even realize how offensive it is to tell people that they are not putting in enough to deserve to live?
Fuck you. If we work, we deserve to get enough out of it so that we can live. Period. That way we don't have to depend on government, and we can get back to limited government. WHY do you think people should work for less?
It IS wage slavery. You put forth the fucking bullshit argument that they can just walk away. THEY CAN'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We've had a Great Depression and lack of living wages for so long, combined with INSANE fucking increases in commodity and energy prices. Not to mention hell bound groups of Elites investing in housing for the explicit purpose of MAKING IT UNAFFORDABLE. You CANNOT afford rent when it is > 100% of the minimum (really maximum) wage. Even slightly above that what you see is people paying 60-80% of their monthly income just to live in fucking hovels. It's long been understood that the American worker shouldn't be spending more than 30% of income on rent or a mortgage payment. So how the fuck can we leave when we might have nowhere to go? Right now I'm 100% stuck where I am. In Northern California there is a disgusting hovel (1 bed, 1 bath) going for $2200. There are no wages around here that support that, and nearly everyone is a service worker lucky to take home that amount per month, making it 100% of monthly income, or THREE FUCKING TIMES THE RECOMMENDED AMOUNT. So how can anyone by a home again? Forget home ownership since those fucking bankers aren't loaning you anything above that magic 30-40% mark.
Where is this magical pot of resources (which is what you must be smoking you offensive fuck) that the American worker can draw on when you damn well fucking know that the average savings is less than 30 days? Huh? Where fucker? Where?!!!!!
When the Elites CONSPIRE to create huge pools of desperate and unemployed people, it's not so simple to say that environment is completely free of duress as you wish to imply. You stupid fuck.
If there was actual equality, especially income equality, and everyone had living wages for 5-10 years, THEN, and ONLY THEN, would I agree with you that a worker can just get up and leave. You act as if SCABS don't affect the working class, and some unfortunate wage slave down in Mexico is a de facto SCAB that we compete with.
Wage slavery is fucking real. Fucker.
Again, you stupid offensive fucker, you cherry pick from reality. The reason why labor unions have declined is directly related to the decline of well paying union jobs in the U.S that have been replaced with service jobs and a huge temporary workforce with no fucking benefits.
OUTSOURCING you offensive bitch, is what has brought union membership to its knees, and anti-union laws and corporate corruption and collusion creating regulatory and political capture did the rest. Before the NLRA, Unions where doing just fine. Government came in and took away all the really useful tools of protests and striking, implemented MANDATORY fees and SALARIES, and THEY CORRUPTED THE UNIONS. You want to get rid of regulations? START WITH THE ENTIRE National Labor Relations Act and gut every single act after it that has anything to do with it. Let's go back to zero guarantees from the government, but full fucking freedom to protest and do whatever the fuck we want with businesses.
Whether or not they make protesting a terrorist act, we will continue to protest, continue to strike, and continue to make progress towards MASSIVE GENERAL STRIKES DESIGNED TO BRING THE WHOLE FUCKING COUNTRY TO ITS KNEES. Fuck you. The more you help push the American worker into the dirt, the faster we get to REVOLUTION. That can very easily begin with the extraordinarily effective method of a general strike.
Don't forget the dock worker's unions at the ports. You've supported the authoritarian violence against them, but they will rise with us. So importing shit for cheap won't work in a general strike when the dock workers bring back "hot cargo". Sister strikes and hot cargo are a real bitch, and in a massive general strike, nothing gets in and out of the U.S anymore.
As for worker owned businesses, they need to compete with LOSS LEADERS and incredibly toxic companies like Walmart that utterly destroy them by MAKING THEM COMPETE WITH CHINA, COMPETING WITH MEXICO, COMPETING WITH THE PHILIPPINES.
It's unreasonable to expect any business in the U.S to do well under toxic trade agreements and the complete lack of all reasonable tariffs. How the fuck can any of us compete with some poor soul in a 3rd world country essentially run by UNAOIL type corruption? We can't you stupid fuck, so stop acting LIKE THE GAME IS A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.
You can make ZERO FUCKING ASSUMPTIONS without factoring in how U.S Elites have gamed the system.
Die in a fire. The traditional shareholder owned businesses don't work. Combined with regulatory and political capture, not to mention the ridiculously offensive profit over people, and you have businesses run by people that don't give a fuck about anything but profit and short term gains. That's bad. You need to engender long term visions, support of local and national economies over foreign ones, and LIVING FUCKING WAGES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is a reason why worker ownership is a good idea. THEY BECOME SHAREHOLDERS. So, you stupid, stupid, stupid fuck, there is ZERO difference between worker owned businesses and shareholder owned businesses, so take your Marxism comment and shove it up your fucking ass.
Worker owned businesses can be ENTIRELY Capitalistic. The difference is a shareholder will not put up with getting less than they want..... or they sell their stock and leave. So workers that own their businesses have direct representation and voting rights, and therefore, THEY get decide their pensions, wages, and BENEFIT PACKAGES PAID TO THE EXECUTIVES. In those businesses, the executives and managers are re-elected every single day by the workers... because the workers have power and choice. Exactly what they don't fucking have now.
Stop saying they failed when if we had a reasonable government not suffering from total regulatory and political capture tariffs would be in place and we would greatly disincentive outsourcing of jobs. How the fuck would we ever know what labor could have accomplished, when their legs were cut off in the late 70's and the trade agreements till today have made all the jobs fucking disappear? Stupid fuck, you conveniently leave that part of reality out!
It's not permanent ownership of output like some fucking Communist ideal, it's the fact they are a shareholder in a mostly Capitalistic venture. It's nowhere near Socialist, Communist, or anything else. What offends you and the Elites is that they can't exploit us below a living wage and actual fucking future of prosperity. Why? Well, how does that lead to ~60 people owning 90% of the wealth?
Die in a fire you stupid fuck.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 09 2016, @03:11AM
gracious would you like a cigarette now?
but in all honesty ed, i fink i wuv uuuuuuuuuuu!!!!
so my little petite chou and just outta in'erest, what is it you propose?
serious question.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Friday December 09 2016, @10:31PM
Umm, no tobacco, but after dealing with Kallow I usually go take a toke to calm down :)
Well, truth be told, I really fink I wuv all of uuuu too. I can even envision a happy future with pieces of shit like Jmorris and Kallow living peaceably and prosperously. That would be a great "revenge" against them, to take back our lives and in doing so, make theirs better as well. The rising tide raises all ships.
Keep talking to me in French like that. I love it. It's so romantic and passionate, and reminds me of how the French literally rose up and killed the fucking rich to take their country. You invented the guillotines, and quite frankly, you've set the tone for what a real revolution is.
This is what I'm doing about it. It's at the bottom. [soylentnews.org]
Ultimately I'm proposing scapping/evolving/modifying the U.S government and our Constitution. This can be accomplished patriotically through several methods:
- An Article 5 Convention would allow us to rewrite the Constitution as a people. That's entirely within the current framework, so no terrorist connotations are possible. Even though they will of course be leveled at us. I mean, shit, JMorris wants us in GBay just for burning a flag, so I doubt this will be seen as patriotic.
- 2nd Declaration Of Independence. We literally use the same playbook of our Founding Fathers. That's very fucking patriotic, and as it is WORDS, again not a terrorist or treasonous act. That's a large group of people stating their grievances and demands.
- A plebiscite [merriam-webster.com] which is distinctly different from an A5 Convention because it happens outside of that process. It's all of us together using a 2nd DOI to quite literally create a new Constitution and vote on it.
- Massive general strikes. Our history, especially when viewed from Labor (American Workforce), shows us that the only way to get anything out out the Elites (aka Owning Class) is by bringing production to its knees. In other words, until if financially hurts them, they won't mitigate their own avarice influenced decisions. When we had massive strikes all across the USA, which is why it is called a General, that is what resulted in the NLRA and government finally getting involved. It was necessary to bring peace, and the workers DID win for awhile.
- CLOSE THE LOOPHOLES. One of the major reasons why the gains from the general strikes went away is that the Elites heavily gamed the economies with toxic trade agreements purely designed to allow them to outsource the work. Outsourcing is a good word, but it doesn't represent the fact that an American worker is now competing with a worker elsewhere. That competition is impossible to win from our side. If we CLOSE THE BORDERS economically speaking then the Elites are again forced to deal with us. In a physical sense they went to the other side of the room and started lobbing grenades at us, and we need to close distance and get on the ground with those fuckers Jiu Jitsu style.
- ORGANIZING. I cannot emphasize this enough. With a well organized populace, a 2nd DOI, and resources to conduct activities it's inevitable that would take back our government. We need to simultanously help people to stand up though, hence why it is so damn hard to get any traction. We're all slaves, so how do we do this while barely staying above water? ORGANIZATION!!! That's how. We organize all of our skills and resources together, representing each other interest's, and in general refuse to accept that poverty will exist in our country.
- Feet to Pavement. Online is fine and all, but it's heavily monitored by the Elites and used to crush dissent. Get off the Internet, get physically involved with people, and get moving!
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Friday December 09 2016, @09:26PM
i don't always agree with edcubed, but when i do, i really do...
thanks for deserved slap down of the power elite toady...
i would add that one of the 'benefits' is that Empire has plenty of IED fodder when the sheeple can't even get a shitty mcjob, and their ONLY recourse is to kill and die for Empire...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jdavidb on Thursday December 08 2016, @06:09PM
Wars are always started by lies. Always. Always! There are no exceptions. Stop believing your government.
Richard Maybury's books WWI and WWII The Rest of the Story, along with his book The Thousand Year War in the Middle East, contain a lot more information and insight about this.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Thursday December 08 2016, @06:10PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Thursday December 08 2016, @06:16PM
You don't need to be smart to question the government - or any form of authority for that matter. You just need to have the reflex of wondering who has what to win when they you something, and be a bit of a cynic.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08 2016, @06:19PM
Nerd is also more than just a subset of tech culture, it's a mentality. There are history nerds, political nerds, music nerds, computer nerds, literature nerds, car nerds, space nerds, and a million others. The defining feature is curiosity and near-obsession levels of information intake and thought. Consuming and processing info at high levels gives a perspective that makes many niche viewpoints worth looking at.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday December 08 2016, @07:56PM
> Because nerds are some of the people smart enough to actually question the government and received government wisdom.
Drunks too. Does that tell you anything?
(Score: 3, Touché) by jdavidb on Thursday December 08 2016, @09:15PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by JeanCroix on Friday December 09 2016, @05:42PM
(Score: 3, Informative) by requerdanos on Thursday December 08 2016, @10:41PM
It's not just that, there is a definite nerd component here.
The Japanese intended Pearl Harbor to be a surprise attack, but the (nerds in the [slate.com]) American military had largely broken their codebook encryption and some historians believe that the Americans were therefore intercepting Japanese transmissions at the time, making the surprise attack planned by the Japanese not as much of a surprise. This is referred to as "simply what happened" by some, and referred to as The Pearl Harbor Advance Knowledge Conspiracy Theory [wikipedia.org] by others.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Thexalon on Thursday December 08 2016, @07:13PM
I'm not so sure of that. Back in ancient times, there were plenty of wars that amounted to some guy saying "Hey, we're desperately poor, there are those other guys over there that are quite rich, so why don't we go to their place, take all their stuff, and beat them up if they try to stop us?" Heck, there are still wars that are pretty honest about that motive. It's those weird "democracies" with their whole "consent of the governed" thing that they really get into lying about what they're trying to accomplish.
Take, for instance, the Gallic Wars of Julius Caesar: He was quite clear that the reason he started it was to loot as much as he could from Gaul. If he didn't do that, the people he owed a lot of money to back in Rome were going to kill him off. And he told his troops, that if they won, he was going to give them land in the newly conquered provinces and part of the booty, which he did. The Gauls, for their part, fought back because some strangers just showed up and were taking all their stuff.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Friday December 09 2016, @12:18AM
yeah, but...
wasn't it more often than not, that a 'tribe'/city/state was ruled by a person claiming divine right of some sort, if not a literal god/demi-god ? ? ?
um, doesn't that make their wars -whether for wheat or booty or conversions or land or whatever- based on a gigantic lie of divine right ? ? ?
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday December 09 2016, @01:35AM
Julius Caesar definitely wasn't claiming anything resembling divine right of kings, more like "I'm the boss, I'm paying the bills here, how would you guys like a raise?" He'd served as a priest a couple of times, but most politicians did that at some point or another. The divine descent thing was mostly Augustus' idea, doing things like commissioning Virgil to write the Aeneid so the Caesar family could claim descent from Venus via Aeneas.
The Gaulish leader, Vercingetorix, is much harder to pin down, because the only writings we have about him were his Roman opponents, but if he was like most Celtic warriors they typically didn't claim any kind of divinity, just skill in combat. The druids were really the guys who did the religion stuff in that society.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday December 08 2016, @06:19PM
Then you'll really want to read how jet fuel can't melt steel beams...
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday December 08 2016, @07:14PM
...or about how what hit the Pentagon was small, white, and about the length of a pickup truck. Can't wait for Wikileaks to get the real story on that one.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08 2016, @08:37PM
You mean it was big enough to clip the light poles on the 14th St bridge, and it happened during the heart of rush hour with all the people who saw it? WTF are you talking about? The size of a pickup truck? That pickup truck made a hell of a sound as it flew feet above the cars sitting in traffic on the bridge, not to mention all the people on the highways and parking lots. What about the World Trade Center planes captured on video. Are those super-duper pickup trucks too? And that was one hell of a big pickup truck that crashed in PA.
This, at least, explains a lot of your positions on things.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday December 09 2016, @05:05AM
A guy who worked for me previously worked for ABC News. He built their video archival system. He had the raw footage of cameras pointing at the world trade center and at street level in DC that they would typically use for those weather or traffic cutaway shots. The WTC stuff didn't have anything that contradicted the official accounts (except for the horrible shots of people throwing themselves out that were sanitized from most coverage). The Pentagon street-level shots i saw were from a cross street on the approach to the strike. there were 2-3 frames that showed an object flying. It was blurry and you couldn't make out details, but you could tell scale because it was right over a pickup in one of the frames and it was about the same length. I thought it might be consistent with a cruise missile. Why it would be a cruise missile i have no idea, because why would anybody in the US armed forces shoot a cruise missile at a passenger plane, or how would terrorists get their hands on a cruise missile? But the object was not a passenger jet. Much too small. That's what i saw and it's what i know.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 09 2016, @05:10PM
So it was "right over" a pickup truck... for some values of "right over."
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08 2016, @08:41PM
I wasn't aware they built those buildings out of jet fuel.
So all these years you were figuring it was lighter fluid that cooked your steaks? Those black briquette-shaped things were there just to hold the lighter fuel, right?
For all the self-congratulatory statements made around here about how "smart" everyone is about tech and science, I see the most dumbass statements made from people who have an interesting view of how the world works, and it sure don't much align with physics.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday December 09 2016, @02:06AM
You're comparing steel beams to charcoal briquettes? If we know nothing of physics, you have even less of a grasp on Chemistry.....
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday December 09 2016, @10:35PM
No, I think he's comparing carpeting and drywall and stacks of office paper to charcoal briquettes.
Not sure which of those would burn hotter than aviation fuel though. Maybe plastics and electronics?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 09 2016, @06:20PM
And there is no way that someone would ever use sub-standard steel in construction... I mean that is unheard of.
(Score: 2) by Bogsnoticus on Friday December 09 2016, @05:56AM
Then you might want to read what happens to load bearing steel beams holding up a few hundred tons of concrete and steel when they are subject to intense heat.
Hint: they don't need to melt, just heat up enough to soften, then the weight from above will cause catastrophic failure.
Genius by birth. Evil by choice.