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: 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]