Wisconson - sign of more to come?

311 posts / 0 new
Last post
goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1110
Teachers unions?

Poet wrote:

In my opinion, only mentioning the negatives about unions - without acknowledging that there are still postiive factors currently at play (not just in the past), or to attribute some negative factors to unions that have nothing to do with unions (or are not exclusive to unions), is not helpful to figuring out the real problems going on. (I'm just as guilty of not mentioning the benefits of corporations, so I'm not trying to sound like I'm without sin here.)

Key thought about collective bargaining over working conditions - imagine if teachers no longer had any collective barganing power to bring to the table over classroom sizes. Or imagine if data entry clerks now had to input 20 inmate parole review records per hour because they couldn't resist that, whereas before it was 15... Or think about what it means if teachers decide they're no longer going to spend that extra time at home looking over students' papers or homework, nor take money out of their salaries to buy school supplies that the district won't supply, nor sponsor clubs after hours, because they no longer feel it's worth it...

Poet,

I don't think unions are necessarily bad.  If the union's leadership is honest, there are many positives to being in a union.  I also agree that many of the job exclusions you refer to also happen in the private sector but when they do they are unually called cronyism and looked down upon by outsiders.  Unfortunately cronyism is often looked at as a positive ( both in and outside unions ) by insiders.

I don't understand your reference to teachers.  My mother was a public grade school teacher and my father was a unionized public high school science teacher.  Also I currently have one son in public school and one in private school so I have a bit of familiarity with teachers, both public and private.  Are you really saying that unions are the controlling factor to class size?  Do you think that public school class sizes are significantly smaller than the comparable non-union private schools because of the union?  Do you really think that the public school teachers spends significantly more of their own money on supplies than their private school equivalents?  If so why do you believe this?  Is there data behind this or is this just your belief?  I am not saying you are wrong, I just am unaware of it.

I really don't mean to rag on unions.  I just don't see how the average non-union member is better off because of todays unions.

Poet's picture
Poet
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 21 2009
Posts: 1844
Re: Collective Bargaining To Set Working Conditions

goes211 wrote:

I don't understand your reference to teachers.  My mother was a public grade school teacher and my father was a unionized public high school science teacher.  Also I currently have one son in public school and one in private school so I have a bit of familiarity with teachers, both public and private.  Are you really saying that unions are the controlling factor to class size?  Do you think that public school class sizes are significantly smaller than the comparable non-union private schools because of the union?  Do you really think that the public school teachers spends significantly more of their own money on supplies than their private school equivalents?  If so why do you believe this?  Is there data behind this or is this just your belief?  I am not saying you are wrong, I just am unaware of it.

I really don't mean to rag on unions.  I just don't see how the average non-union member is better off because of todays unions.

Goes211

No, I said taking away their collective bargaining means they would have no power to have an influence on class sizes. The ability to have collective bargaining is not a controlling factor, but a good contributive factor in being able to set working conditions.

Private schools set class sizes based on what they can charge and what they think is appropriate, amongst other factors. Of course there is also some benchmarking going on. "Oh, they have 35 students per class, but we only have 30."  If the state has 40, "But we only have 35."

Besides, who's to say the governor won't take away all health insurance in two year's time? Because without collective bargaining ability over anything except wages - and even there it's only limited to the CPI or less - what's to keep the governor from removing that, or paid vacations, or sick time, etc?

As to what happens afterwards? Then private employers look at the new lower benchmark and say, "Hey! The unions don't have this or that. So I don't have to try give it to you anymore." And then the governor says, "Hey, private employers don't give even that! And you can't bargain, so I'll take that way, too!" It leads to a downward spiral.

So I benefit when there is visible, strong union benchmark that by its very existence shows what is possible and what is available out there. When other (private) employers in the marketplace set their benefits competitively and they look around themselves to see where they stand, without visible high benchmarks around, the standards are lowered for all.

The decline of unions parallels the decline in wages. I'm not saying it's the cause here, but it is contributive. No wonder the Koch brothers are so happy to astroturf and Walker was such an eager kiss-ass to take that prank call.

By the way Ron Paul recently said the Tea Party is now corporately owned.

Poet

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1110
Re: Collective Bargaining To Set Working Conditions

Poet wrote:

So I benefit when there is visible, strong union benchmark that by its very existence shows what is possible and what is available out there. When other (private) employers in the marketplace set their benefits competitively and they look around themselves to see where they stand, without visible high benchmarks around, the standards are lowered for all.

The decline of unions parallels the decline in wages. I'm not saying it's the cause here, but it is contributive. No wonder the Koch brothers are so happy to astroturf and Walker was such an eager kiss-ass to take that prank call.

By the way Ron Paul recently said the Tea Party is now corporately owned.

Poet

OK.  I buy that argument.  I think private sector salaries are still mostly limited by the available labor pool but certainly having concrete examples of people paid more than you is beneficial when trying to negotiate your own salary and benefits.

Ron Paul is right.  That is why I never joined a tea party or have gone to any of their events.  Although I am largely sympathetic to much of their rhetoric, I think they have been largely co-opted by mainstream Republicans and their corporate sponsors.  I also don't think many teapartiers understand the inherent contradictions between a small government and an American empire.

ejoersz's picture
ejoersz
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 24 2011
Posts: 2
why are government workers different than career military?

Career Military of all branches serve without any kind of a Union to represent them.  They count on the Administration and Congress to treat them fairly.  I don't see why other Federal and State government workers should be any different.

docmims's picture
docmims
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 17 2009
Posts: 644
I was raised in South

I was raised in South Carolina which is a right to work state.  Mom was a school librarian unionized.  Dad was a college professor nonunionized.  Their benifit plans were roughly equivalent.  State workers are going to have good benefits whether or not they are in an union.  State workers are going to have job security whether or not they are in an union.  You can't fire a state employee without a long and arduous grievance process that is unrelated to union status.  I believe in Wisconsin they will find that the benefits of being in an union where just perceptual.  State workers maintain a great political power whether or not they are unionized.

Poet's picture
Poet
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 21 2009
Posts: 1844
Military Service

ejoersz wrote:

Career Military of all branches serve without any kind of a Union to represent them.  They count on the Administration and Congress to treat them fairly.  I don't see why other Federal and State government workers should be any different.

Ejoersz

There is no union, perse. But where else do you get taken care of with health and dental benefits, housing, food allowance, clothing, etc. And afer you get out after 20 years of service you get a full pension and health benefits? Oh, by the way, 40% of Persian Gulf War veterans are on disability or partial disability.

Sounds to me if the benefits were that awesome in the private sector, no one would bother unionizing.

I'm not complaining about our military's benefits. I'm just explaining why it doesn't make sense to argue that just because the military gets excellent benefits without unions, doesn't mean that everyone else will without unions. Sorry.

Poet

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2491
Amplifying Info

Poet wrote:

There is no union, perse. But where else do you get taken care of with health and dental benefits, housing, food allowance, clothing, etc. And afer you get out after 20 years of service you get a full pension and health benefits? Oh, by the way, 40% of Persian Gulf War veterans are on disability or partial disability.

Sounds to me if the benefits were that awesome in the private sector, no one would bother unionizing.

I'm not complaining about our military's benefits. I'm just explaining why it doesn't make sense to argue that just because the military gets excellent benefits without unions, doesn't mean that everyone else will without unions. Sorry.

Poet

Poet -

Point of clarification.  Under new laws, a military member who retires after 20 years gets A pension, but not a FULL pension.  When I retired, someone at 20 years received 50% of their Active Duty pay, it is now calculated differently. 

Regarding disability - the degree of disability you retire with determines what portion of that retirement pension is not taxed.  Most retirees have some amount of service related disability - typically around 20-30%.  Combat served and/or wounded vets will likely have a much higher disability percentage.  From my experience, your 40% number seems very low for Persian Gulf vets.

Not arguing the premise of your post, just providing some amplifying information.

Wendy S. Delmater's picture
Wendy S. Delmater
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 13 2009
Posts: 1608
Poet,  Ron Paul recently

Poet,

Ron Paul recently said the Tea Party is now corporately owned.

Could you please give me a reference for your statement?

xraymike79's picture
xraymike79
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 24 2008
Posts: 2040
TEA BAGGERS = COPORATE PUPPETS

safewrite wrote:

Poet,

Ron Paul recently said the Tea Party is now corporately owned.

Could you please give me a reference for your statement?

Eeeehhhhh

Ron Paul: "Tea Party is now corporately owned" | Ron Paul 2012 ...

Poet's picture
Poet
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 21 2009
Posts: 1844
Re: Military Pension and Alleged Ron Paul Quote

Dogs_in_a_pile and XrayMike79

Thank you both for the clarifications.

Poet

Wendy S. Delmater's picture
Wendy S. Delmater
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 13 2009
Posts: 1608
Did you actually listen to

Did you actually listen to the interview? The title is misleading and he does not exactly say that. He's "uh huh right" as in whatever, lets's get back to the topic. Not really agreeing with  the interviewer.

Plus this video was posted by a guy with an agenda who has other YouTube videos with titles like "Rush Limbaugh is Stupid." (It sort of proves my contention that liberals and conservaticves get their news fron different, biased sorces)

Travlin's picture
Travlin
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 15 2010
Posts: 1322
No comparison

ejoersz wrote:

Career Military of all branches serve without any kind of a Union to represent them.  They count on the Administration and Congress to treat them fairly.  I don't see why other Federal and State government workers should be any different.

Ejoersz

There is no comparison between military service and federal and state government workers.  All military personnel have signed a contract of unlimited liability.  They are absolutely bound to kill and be killed on command.  They can literally be ordered to certain death without recourse.  In addition, everything they do, what they wear, what they eat and when, when they sleep and how much, where they can go and when, when they can see their spouses and families, and innumerable other things, are subject to orders designed for the good of the service.  Violations bring severe penalties from a separate system of military courts that judge by harsh standards compared to civilian courts.  Only prison inmates have less freedom.  Their high rate of physical and emotional injuries are testament to the sacrifices these people make.  And they can’t quit and walk away whenever they want.  It always amazes me that we can find people who will do this.

Congress recognizes this special situation and generally acts accordingly, though not always fairly.  There were widespread reports a few years ago of enlisted families collecting food stamps just to get by.

Travlin 

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2491
Accurate Comparison

Travlin wrote:

ejoersz wrote:

Career Military of all branches serve without any kind of a Union to represent them.  They count on the Administration and Congress to treat them fairly.  I don't see why other Federal and State government workers should be any different.

Ejoersz

There is no comparison between military service and federal and state government workers.  All military personnel have signed a contract of unlimited liability.  They are absolutely bound to kill and be killed on command.  They can literally be ordered to certain death without recourse.  In addition, everything they do, what they wear, what they eat and when, when they sleep and how much, where they can go and when, when they can see their spouses and families, and innumerable other things, are subject to orders designed for the good of the service.  Violations bring severe penalties from a separate system of military courts that judge by harsh standards compared to civilian courts.  Only prison inmates have less freedom.  Their high rate of physical and emotional injuries are testament to the sacrifices these people make.  And they can’t quit and walk away whenever they want.  It always amazes me that we can find people who will do this.

Travlin 

Travlin -

I can't remember from your previous posts if you ever served in the US military, but if you did, then you were extremely poorly trained.

Oaths of Enlistment and Commissioning vary slightly, but in both the servicemember swears to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. 

The enlisted oath further stipulates that the servicemember will obey the orders of the President and the orders of the officers appointed over him/her according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 

The Oath of Appointment or Commissioning has no stipulation that the servicemember obey the orders of the President or the orders of the officers appointed over him/her.  It is implied that it is up to the servicemember to determine the Constitutionality of the orders he/she is being asked to obey and/or give.  It is implicit upon the entire chain of command to ensure as the servicemember advances in rank and responsibility he/she is adequately trained and developed to be able to rapidly make that assessment as the situation develops.  The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) is the foundation of this training for US servicemembers.  Furthermore, Rules of Engagement have been implemented after great scrutiny as to Constitutionality and adherence to LOAC - and unfortunately have at times been so restrictive as to place US service men and women at risk.  I'm not saying that the rules are always followed - history is full of examples, but your post has gaping holes in its accuracy.

To state that we "can be literally ordered to certain death without recourse" or that we are "absolutely bound to kill or be killed on command" is entirely false. 

Those assertions lend drama to your post, but are 100% false.

Travlin's picture
Travlin
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 15 2010
Posts: 1322
Note to self: read twice, post once

Dogs_In_A_Pile wrote:

Travlin -

I can't remember from your previous posts if you ever served in the US military, but if you did, then you were extremely poorly trained.

Oaths of Enlistment and Commissioning vary slightly, but in both the servicemember swears to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. 

The enlisted oath further stipulates that the servicemember will obey the orders of the President and the orders of the officers appointed over him/her according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 

The Oath of Appointment or Commissioning has no stipulation that the servicemember obey the orders of the President or the orders of the officers appointed over him/her.  It is implied that it is up to the servicemember to determine the Constitutionality of the orders he/she is being asked to obey and/or give.  It is implicit upon the entire chain of command to ensure as the servicemember advances in rank and responsibility he/she is adequately trained and developed to be able to rapidly make that assessment as the situation develops.  The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) is the foundation of this training for US servicemembers.  Furthermore, Rules of Engagement have been implemented after great scrutiny as to Constitutionality and adherence to LOAC - and unfortunately have at times been so restrictive as to place US service men and women at risk.  I'm not saying that the rules are always followed - history is full of examples, but your post has gaping holes in its accuracy.

To state that we "can be literally ordered to certain death without recourse" or that we are "absolutely bound to kill or be killed on command" is entirely false. 

Those assertions lend drama to your post, but are 100% false.

Dogs

My sincere apologies if my words were offensive to you or other veterans.  They were not meant to be.  I was trying to convey my high respect for the sacrifices our military personnel voluntarily make on our behalf, and the unique nature of their commitment.  I can see now that my wording can be interpreted otherwise, but that did not occur to me when I posted.  I feel like I should elaborate on what I meant to convey, but to do so at the moment would risk inserting my other foot into my mouth and it is pretty hard to walk around that way.  I hope you will allow me some time to make a more considered reply later.

With respect.

Travlin 

wags999's picture
wags999
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 16 2009
Posts: 24
The collective bargining

The collective bargining that Walker and others want to do away with is with good reason.  For too long the Unions and the Dems have been in bed with each other. Salaries have to be paid immediately, which presents a problem for lawmakers.  If they give large raises they have to raise taxes to pay for them, and, that would cause everyone to vote them out.  But, if they give large retirements, which are not due for years, they will be long gone by the time the bill comes due.  So they give these large bennies to the unions, the unions give large "donations" as in Pay off's to the Pols and we the people lose.  By limiting the bennies the lawmakers can give the unions, but allowing them to bargin for wages, the politicians are held to the fire. If they pass large increases the current politicians have to figure out how to pay for them.  Why the unions don't like it, is because they know that most people would rise up against any politician that gave unreasonable pay increases, they can't buy politicians then. The dems are in arms cause most of their financial and much of their voting support is from the unions, the people that work for us, who can vote their bosses out.  

This is not like a private company, in government the workers can fire their boss if they don't like what they offer, and the boss has no skin in the game, they are paying with other peoples money. 

The unions and politicians have brought this on by promising large retirements, KNOWING that they would never be paid, but only putting off to some date in the future the date of reality.  Today is the day, the bill is due and we can't pay it.  

So allowing bargining on wages, but not on retirement or insurances is totally reasonable and necessary. Hopefully the rest of the people will see what a scam working for the public is and put a hault to this abuse. 

Even the union leaders admit it's not about students or even the workers, its about the power they, the union leaders persoanlly gain by these outlandish demands.   

tom.'s picture
tom.
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 345
The way I have come to

The way I have come to understand collective bargaining is the following:

Quote:

Collective bargaining is not what its name indicates. In fact, it means exactly the opposite. Collective bargaining refers to the obligation of an employer to recognize the elected representatives of a group of workers and his further obligation to negotiate with those representatives. This last part is what makes 'collective bargaining' extortion.

Under collective bargaining laws, employers have to recognize an elected union and have to negotiate with them.

Imagine if the tables were turned and employers had the right to 'employer bargaining', under which the employer could demand whatever pay reductions or workday increases he wanted, the employees had to negotiate with the employer, and employees couldn't quit!

Such an arrangement would be classified as slavery.

My understanding of Public Service Unions:

Quote:

Public sector unions and private sector unions are totally different creatures. Private sector unions push against the interests of shareholders and management; public sector unions push against the interests of taxpayers. Private sector union members know that their employers could go out of business, so they have an incentive to mitigate their demands; public sector union members work for state monopolies and have no such interest.

Private sectors unions confront managers who have an incentive to push back against their demands. Public sector unions face managers who have an incentive to give into them for the sake of their own survival. Most important, public sector unions help choose those they negotiate with. Through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout, they have enormous influence over who gets elected to bargain with them, especially in state and local races.

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2491
No Worries

Travlin wrote:

Dogs

My sincere apologies if my words were offensive to you or other veterans.  They were not meant to be.  I was trying to convey my high respect for the sacrifices our military personnel voluntarily make on our behalf, and the unique nature of their commitment.  I can see now that my wording can be interpreted otherwise, but that did not occur to me when I posted.  I feel like I should elaborate on what I meant to convey, but to do so at the moment would risk inserting my other foot into my mouth and it is pretty hard to walk around that way.  I hope you will allow me some time to make a more considered reply later.

With respect.

Travlin 

Travlin -

Arggh - Looking at my response with the clarity of 20/20 hindsight, my written post probably didn't express the train of thought that was running through my melon as clearly as I wanted to.

No need to apologize, I certainly wasn't offended, but I did feel like I needed to clarify some of the details behind the meaning of our oaths that people who haven't served might not be too familiar with.

Vanityfox451's picture
Vanityfox451
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 28 2008
Posts: 1636
War Is A Racket ~ Major General Smedley D. Butler

[Moderator's note: This post is a violation of the forum guidelines.  Corrective action with the poster has been undertaken.]

Rick,

But it's the same f*cking argument again and again isn't it??????

Maybe, just maybe I won't have my very best friend Brian The Troll sitting under the 13th of my 20 last posts, speculatively twisting the knife in and out on this one, since the dumb bast*rd dropped the ball he was running with recently with a post SUPPORTING Major General Smedley D. Butler, one of the most highly decorated members of the American Military Services. Butler wrote a highly detailed piece of literature supplied with photographic evidence that WAR IS A RACKET, or so goes the title, published in 1935.

You people absolutely astound me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What does it f*cking matter how in which way Wisconsin hits the wall, you're all hitting the wall too!!!!!!!!!!

How many which ways from f*cking Friday are we to prove without a shadow of a doubt that we're all now penned, tagged, set in lines, prodded with electrified cattle rods, and marching for slaughter???????

Who have you spoken with today about this forum - about the subjects within it - about the reliably informed upon future that Dr Chris Martenson prescribed and alluded the stark outcome of for the next 20 years - who is listening!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Look at your hands now, guarding your f*cking keyboard for retort ...

Want to march - commit violence on the steps of your Capital's political buildings - teach me something new!!!!!!!!!!!

Protecting your ass is all you're here for, for your f*cking ego to prove exactly what as a drive to act upon? Look to your left and to your right and there's none aside you to prove the need to march except yourselves. Look ahead of you, how many have already walked these footsteps years ago to the point where they show signs of an indentation, a trough if you will, well beaten and hardened.

Look for the innovation that marks the advancement of the United States, and it is nothing but fools fighting over who gets what is left of the remainder as capital by action of law or aggression - to move what they feel is theirs by right of being there first - from the energy that moves the heaviest of machinery, to the substance that allows the very reality of turning on the lights in your homes possible - and much of those resources now are plunder sought from countries held under the thumb by the legacy that Major General Smedley D. Butler was party to, and you my dear friends fight over the remaining crumbs of ...

I am so very f*cking bored of being fed the self same tripe on this forum again and again. When is something cataclysmic going to happen around these parts - nobody I see truthfully has the stomach, not even the much advertised 24 year active served "Retired Dog" has the balls to capture more than a rehash of what has been said beforehand, learned nothing more from what is said - does not throw his medals at his general in disgust - does not act in cutting his pension off in mid stream and stating full force "I AM NOT A HYPOCRITE AND I WILL NOT ACCEPT THIS!!!!"

Face the obsolescence of your supposed country of origin, it hasn't existed in more than 20 years in any form alikened to the face it wished to project in its beginnings - even then it was a fraud that rose on the back of creative mass poverty and starvation on the culture that had for thousands of years survived and prospered on its lands - what rivers of blood and poison are flowing on this land now that you could deem proud of in its last act, the shell of its former self???

Chapter One

WAR IS A RACKET

WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.

And what is this bill?

This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.

For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.

Again they are choosing sides. France and Russia met and agreed to stand side by side. Italy and Austria hurried to make a similar agreement. Poland and Germany cast sheep's eyes at each other, forgetting for the nonce [one unique occasion], their dispute over the Polish Corridor.

The assassination of King Alexander of Jugoslavia [Yugoslavia] complicated matters. Jugoslavia and Hungary, long bitter enemies, were almost at each other's throats. Italy was ready to jump in. But France was waiting. So was Czechoslovakia. All of them are looking ahead to war. Not the people – not those who fight and pay and die – only those who foment wars and remain safely at home to profit.

There are 40,000,000 men under arms in the world today, and our statesmen and diplomats have the temerity to say that war is not in the making.

Hell's bells! Are these 40,000,000 men being trained to be dancers?

Not in Italy, to be sure. Premier Mussolini knows what they are being trained for. He, at least, is frank enough to speak out. Only the other day, Il Duce in "International Conciliation," the publication of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said:

Undoubtedly Mussolini means exactly what he says. His well-trained army, his great fleet of planes, and even his navy are ready for war – anxious for it, apparently. His recent stand at the side of Hungary in the latter's dispute with Jugoslavia showed that. And the hurried mobilization of his troops on the Austrian border after the assassination of Dollfuss showed it too. There are others in Europe too whose sabre rattling presages war, sooner or later.

Herr Hitler, with his rearming Germany and his constant demands for more and more arms, is an equal if not greater menace to peace. France only recently increased the term of military service for its youth from a year to eighteen months.

Yes, all over, nations are camping in their arms. The mad dogs of Europe are on the loose. In the Orient the maneuvering is more adroit. Back in 1904, when Russia and Japan fought, we kicked out our old friends the Russians and backed Japan. Then our very generous international bankers were financing Japan. Now the trend is to poison us against the Japanese. What does the "open door" policy to China mean to us? Our trade with China is about $90,000,000 a year. Or the Philippine Islands? We have spent about $600,000,000 in the Philippines in thirty-five years and we (our bankers and industrialists and speculators) have private investments there of less than $200,000,000.

Then, to save that China trade of about $90,000,000, or to protect these private investments of less than $200,000,000 in the Philippines, we would be all stirred up to hate Japan and go to war – a war that might well cost us tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives of Americans, and many more hundreds of thousands of physically maimed and mentally unbalanced men.

Of course, for this loss, there would be a compensating profit – fortunes would be made. Millions and billions of dollars would be piled up. By a few. Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders. Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators. They would fare well.

Yes, they are getting ready for another war. Why shouldn't they? It pays high dividends.

But what does it profit the men who are killed? What does it profit their mothers and sisters, their wives and their sweethearts? What does it profit their children?

What does it profit anyone except the very few to whom war means huge profits?

Yes, and what does it profit the nation?

Take our own case. Until 1898 we didn't own a bit of territory outside the mainland of North America. At that time our national debt was a little more than $1,000,000,000. Then we became "internationally minded." We forgot, or shunted aside, the advice of the Father of our country. We forgot George Washington's warning about "entangling alliances." We went to war. We acquired outside territory. At the end of the World War period, as a direct result of our fiddling in international affairs, our national debt had jumped to over $25,000,000,000. Our total favorable trade balance during the twenty-five-year period was about $24,000,000,000. Therefore, on a purely bookkeeping basis, we ran a little behind year for year, and that foreign trade might well have been ours without the wars.

It would have been far cheaper (not to say safer) for the average American who pays the bills to stay out of foreign entanglements. For a very few this racket, like bootlegging and other underworld rackets, brings fancy profits, but the cost of operations is always transferred to the people – who do not profit.

Chapter Two

WHO MAKES THE PROFIT?

The World War, rather our brief participation in it, has cost the United States some $52,000,000,000. Figure it out. That means $400 to every American man, woman, and child. And we haven't paid the debt yet. We are paying it, our children will pay it, and our children's children probably still will be paying the cost of that war.

The normal profits of a business concern in the United States are six, eight, ten, and sometimes twelve percent. But war-time profits – ah! that is another matter – twenty, sixty, one hundred, three hundred, and even eighteen hundred per cent – the sky is the limit. All that traffic will bear. Uncle Sam has the money. Let's get it.

Of course, it isn't put that crudely in war time. It is dressed into speeches about patriotism, love of country, and "we must all put our shoulders to the wheel," but the profits jump and leap and skyrocket – and are safely pocketed. Let's just take a few examples:

Take our friends the du Ponts, the powder people – didn't one of them testify before a Senate committee recently that their powder won the war? Or saved the world for democracy? Or something? How did they do in the war? They were a patriotic corporation. Well, the average earnings of the du Ponts for the period 1910 to 1914 were $6,000,000 a year. It wasn't much, but the du Ponts managed to get along on it. Now let's look at their average yearly profit during the war years, 1914 to 1918. Fifty-eight million dollars a year profit we find! Nearly ten times that of normal times, and the profits of normal times were pretty good. An increase in profits of more than 950 per cent.

Take one of our little steel companies that patriotically shunted aside the making of rails and girders and bridges to manufacture war materials. Well, their 1910-1914 yearly earnings averaged $6,000,000. Then came the war. And, like loyal citizens, Bethlehem Steel promptly turned to munitions making. Did their profits jump – or did they let Uncle Sam in for a bargain? Well, their 1914-1918 average was $49,000,000 a year!

Or, let's take United States Steel. The normal earnings during the five-year period prior to the war were $105,000,000 a year. Not bad. Then along came the war and up went the profits. The average yearly profit for the period 1914-1918 was $240,000,000. Not bad.

There you have some of the steel and powder earnings. Let's look at something else. A little copper, perhaps. That always does well in war times.

Anaconda, for instance. Average yearly earnings during the pre-war years 1910-1914 of $10,000,000. During the war years 1914-1918 profits leaped to $34,000,000 per year.

Or Utah Copper. Average of $5,000,000 per year during the 1910-1914 period. Jumped to an average of $21,000,000 yearly profits for the war period.

Let's group these five, with three smaller companies. The total yearly average profits of the pre-war period 1910-1914 were $137,480,000. Then along came the war. The average yearly profits for this group skyrocketed to $408,300,000.

A little increase in profits of approximately 200 per cent.

Does war pay? It paid them. But they aren't the only ones. There are still others. Let's take leather.

For the three-year period before the war the total profits of Central Leather Company were $3,500,000. That was approximately $1,167,000 a year. Well, in 1916 Central Leather returned a profit of $15,000,000, a small increase of 1,100 per cent. That's all. The General Chemical Company averaged a profit for the three years before the war of a little over $800,000 a year. Came the war, and the profits jumped to $12,000,000. a leap of 1,400 per cent.

International Nickel Company – and you can't have a war without nickel – showed an increase in profits from a mere average of $4,000,000 a year to $73,000,000 yearly. Not bad? An increase of more than 1,700 per cent.

American Sugar Refining Company averaged $2,000,000 a year for the three years before the war. In 1916 a profit of $6,000,000 was recorded.

Listen to Senate Document No. 259. The Sixty-Fifth Congress, reporting on corporate earnings and government revenues. Considering the profits of 122 meat packers, 153 cotton manufacturers, 299 garment makers, 49 steel plants, and 340 coal producers during the war. Profits under 25 per cent were exceptional. For instance the coal companies made between 100 per cent and 7,856 per cent on their capital stock during the war. The Chicago packers doubled and tripled their earnings.

And let us not forget the bankers who financed the great war. If anyone had the cream of the profits it was the bankers. Being partnerships rather than incorporated organizations, they do not have to report to stockholders. And their profits were as secret as they were immense. How the bankers made their millions and their billions I do not know, because those little secrets never become public – even before a Senate investigatory body.

But here's how some of the other patriotic industrialists and speculators chiseled their way into war profits.

Take the shoe people. They like war. It brings business with abnormal profits. They made huge profits on sales abroad to our allies. Perhaps, like the munitions manufacturers and armament makers, they also sold to the enemy. For a dollar is a dollar whether it comes from Germany or from France. But they did well by Uncle Sam too. For instance, they sold Uncle Sam 35,000,000 pairs of hobnailed service shoes. There were 4,000,000 soldiers. Eight pairs, and more, to a soldier. My regiment during the war had only one pair to a soldier. Some of these shoes probably are still in existence. They were good shoes. But when the war was over Uncle Sam has a matter of 25,000,000 pairs left over. Bought – and paid for. Profits recorded and pocketed.

There was still lots of leather left. So the leather people sold your Uncle Sam hundreds of thousands of McClellan saddles for the cavalry. But there wasn't any American cavalry overseas! Somebody had to get rid of this leather, however. Somebody had to make a profit in it – so we had a lot of McClellan saddles. And we probably have those yet.

Also somebody had a lot of mosquito netting. They sold your Uncle Sam 20,000,000 mosquito nets for the use of the soldiers overseas. I suppose the boys were expected to put it over them as they tried to sleep in muddy trenches – one hand scratching cooties on their backs and the other making passes at scurrying rats. Well, not one of these mosquito nets ever got to France!

Anyhow, these thoughtful manufacturers wanted to make sure that no soldier would be without his mosquito net, so 40,000,000 additional yards of mosquito netting were sold to Uncle Sam.

There were pretty good profits in mosquito netting in those days, even if there were no mosquitoes in France. I suppose, if the war had lasted just a little longer, the enterprising mosquito netting manufacturers would have sold your Uncle Sam a couple of consignments of mosquitoes to plant in France so that more mosquito netting would be in order.

Airplane and engine manufacturers felt they, too, should get their just profits out of this war. Why not? Everybody else was getting theirs. So $1,000,000,000 – count them if you live long enough – was spent by Uncle Sam in building airplane engines that never left the ground! Not one plane, or motor, out of the billion dollars worth ordered, ever got into a battle in France. Just the same the manufacturers made their little profit of 30, 100, or perhaps 300 per cent.

Undershirts for soldiers cost 14¢[cents] to make and uncle Sam paid 30¢ to 40¢ each for them – a nice little profit for the undershirt manufacturer. And the stocking manufacturer and the uniform manufacturers and the cap manufacturers and the steel helmet manufacturers – all got theirs.

Why, when the war was over some 4,000,000 sets of equipment – knapsacks and the things that go to fill them – crammed warehouses on this side. Now they are being scrapped because the regulations have changed the contents. But the manufacturers collected their wartime profits on them – and they will do it all over again the next time.

There were lots of brilliant ideas for profit making during the war.

One very versatile patriot sold Uncle Sam twelve dozen 48-inch wrenches. Oh, they were very nice wrenches. The only trouble was that there was only one nut ever made that was large enough for these wrenches. That is the one that holds the turbines at Niagara Falls. Well, after Uncle Sam had bought them and the manufacturer had pocketed the profit, the wrenches were put on freight cars and shunted all around the United States in an effort to find a use for them. When the Armistice was signed it was indeed a sad blow to the wrench manufacturer. He was just about to make some nuts to fit the wrenches. Then he planned to sell these, too, to your Uncle Sam.

Still another had the brilliant idea that colonels shouldn't ride in automobiles, nor should they even ride on horseback. One has probably seen a picture of Andy Jackson riding in a buckboard. Well, some 6,000 buckboards were sold to Uncle Sam for the use of colonels! Not one of them was used. But the buckboard manufacturer got his war profit.

The shipbuilders felt they should come in on some of it, too. They built a lot of ships that made a lot of profit. More than $3,000,000,000 worth. Some of the ships were all right. But $635,000,000 worth of them were made of wood and wouldn't float! The seams opened up – and they sank. We paid for them, though. And somebody pocketed the profits.

It has been estimated by statisticians and economists and researchers that the war cost your Uncle Sam $52,000,000,000. Of this sum, $39,000,000,000 was expended in the actual war itself. This expenditure yielded $16,000,000,000 in profits. That is how the 21,000 billionaires and millionaires got that way. This $16,000,000,000 profits is not to be sneezed at. It is quite a tidy sum. And it went to a very few.

The Senate (Nye) committee probe of the munitions industry and its wartime profits, despite its sensational disclosures, hardly has scratched the surface.

Even so, it has had some effect. The State Department has been studying "for some time" methods of keeping out of war. The War Department suddenly decides it has a wonderful plan to spring. The Administration names a committee – with the War and Navy Departments ably represented under the chairmanship of a Wall Street speculator – to limit profits in war time. To what extent isn't suggested. Hmmm. Possibly the profits of 300 and 600 and 1,600 per cent of those who turned blood into gold in the World War would be limited to some smaller figure.

Apparently, however, the plan does not call for any limitation of losses – that is, the losses of those who fight the war. As far as I have been able to ascertain there is nothing in the scheme to limit a soldier to the loss of but one eye, or one arm, or to limit his wounds to one or two or three. Or to limit the loss of life.

There is nothing in this scheme, apparently, that says not more than 12 per cent of a regiment shall be wounded in battle, or that not more than 7 per cent in a division shall be killed.

Of course, the committee cannot be bothered with such trifling matters.

Chapter Three

WHO PAYS THE BILLS?

Who provides the profits – these nice little profits of 20, 100, 300, 1,500 and 1,800 per cent? We all pay them – in taxation. We paid the bankers their profits when we bought Liberty Bonds at $100.00 and sold them back at $84 or $86 to the bankers. These bankers collected $100 plus. It was a simple manipulation. The bankers control the security marts. It was easy for them to depress the price of these bonds. Then all of us – the people – got frightened and sold the bonds at $84 or $86. The bankers bought them. Then these same bankers stimulated a boom and government bonds went to par – and above. Then the bankers collected their profits.

But the soldier pays the biggest part of the bill.

If you don't believe this, visit the American cemeteries on the battlefields abroad. Or visit any of the veteran's hospitals in the United States. On a tour of the country, in the midst of which I am at the time of this writing, I have visited eighteen government hospitals for veterans. In them are a total of about 50,000 destroyed men – men who were the pick of the nation eighteen years ago. The very able chief surgeon at the government hospital; at Milwaukee, where there are 3,800 of the living dead, told me that mortality among veterans is three times as great as among those who stayed at home.

Boys with a normal viewpoint were taken out of the fields and offices and factories and classrooms and put into the ranks. There they were remolded; they were made over; they were made to "about face"; to regard murder as the order of the day. They were put shoulder to shoulder and, through mass psychology, they were entirely changed. We used them for a couple of years and trained them to think nothing at all of killing or of being killed.

Then, suddenly, we discharged them and told them to make another "about face" ! This time they had to do their own readjustment, sans [without] mass psychology, sans officers' aid and advice and sans nation-wide propaganda. We didn't need them any more. So we scattered them about without any "three-minute" or "Liberty Loan" speeches or parades. Many, too many, of these fine young boys are eventually destroyed, mentally, because they could not make that final "about face" alone.

In the government hospital in Marion, Indiana, 1,800 of these boys are in pens! Five hundred of them in a barracks with steel bars and wires all around outside the buildings and on the porches. These already have been mentally destroyed. These boys don't even look like human beings. Oh, the looks on their faces! Physically, they are in good shape; mentally, they are gone.

There are thousands and thousands of these cases, and more and more are coming in all the time. The tremendous excitement of the war, the sudden cutting off of that excitement – the young boys couldn't stand it.

That's a part of the bill. So much for the dead – they have paid their part of the war profits. So much for the mentally and physically wounded – they are paying now their share of the war profits. But the others paid, too – they paid with heartbreaks when they tore themselves away from their firesides and their families to don the uniform of Uncle Sam – on which a profit had been made. They paid another part in the training camps where they were regimented and drilled while others took their jobs and their places in the lives of their communities. The paid for it in the trenches where they shot and were shot; where they were hungry for days at a time; where they slept in the mud and the cold and in the rain – with the moans and shrieks of the dying for a horrible lullaby.

But don't forget – the soldier paid part of the dollars and cents bill too.

Up to and including the Spanish-American War, we had a prize system, and soldiers and sailors fought for money. During the Civil War they were paid bonuses, in many instances, before they went into service. The government, or states, paid as high as $1,200 for an enlistment. In the Spanish-American War they gave prize money. When we captured any vessels, the soldiers all got their share – at least, they were supposed to. Then it was found that we could reduce the cost of wars by taking all the prize money and keeping it, but conscripting [drafting] the soldier anyway. Then soldiers couldn't bargain for their labor, Everyone else could bargain, but the soldier couldn't.

Napoleon once said,

"All men are enamored of decorations...they positively hunger for them."

So by developing the Napoleonic system – the medal business – the government learned it could get soldiers for less money, because the boys liked to be decorated. Until the Civil War there were no medals. Then the Congressional Medal of Honor was handed out. It made enlistments easier. After the Civil War no new medals were issued until the Spanish-American War.

In the World War, we used propaganda to make the boys accept conscription. They were made to feel ashamed if they didn't join the army.

So vicious was this war propaganda that even God was brought into it. With few exceptions our clergymen joined in the clamor to kill, kill, kill. To kill the Germans. God is on our side...it is His will that the Germans be killed.

And in Germany, the good pastors called upon the Germans to kill the allies...to please the same God. That was a part of the general propaganda, built up to make people war conscious and murder conscious.

Beautiful ideals were painted for our boys who were sent out to die. This was the "war to end all wars." This was the "war to make the world safe for democracy." No one mentioned to them, as they marched away, that their going and their dying would mean huge war profits. No one told these American soldiers that they might be shot down by bullets made by their own brothers here. No one told them that the ships on which they were going to cross might be torpedoed by submarines built with United States patents. They were just told it was to be a "glorious adventure."

Thus, having stuffed patriotism down their throats, it was decided to make them help pay for the war, too. So, we gave them the large salary of $30 a month.

All they had to do for this munificent sum was to leave their dear ones behind, give up their jobs, lie in swampy trenches, eat canned willy (when they could get it) and kill and kill and kill...and be killed.

But wait!

Half of that wage (just a little more than a riveter in a shipyard or a laborer in a munitions factory safe at home made in a day) was promptly taken from him to support his dependents, so that they would not become a charge upon his community. Then we made him pay what amounted to accident insurance – something the employer pays for in an enlightened state – and that cost him $6 a month. He had less than $9 a month left.

Then, the most crowning insolence of all – he was virtually blackjacked into paying for his own ammunition, clothing, and food by being made to buy Liberty Bonds. Most soldiers got no money at all on pay days.

We made them buy Liberty Bonds at $100 and then we bought them back – when they came back from the war and couldn't find work – at $84 and $86. And the soldiers bought about $2,000,000,000 worth of these bonds!

Yes, the soldier pays the greater part of the bill. His family pays too. They pay it in the same heart-break that he does. As he suffers, they suffer. At nights, as he lay in the trenches and watched shrapnel burst about him, they lay home in their beds and tossed sleeplessly – his father, his mother, his wife, his sisters, his brothers, his sons, and his daughters.

When he returned home minus an eye, or minus a leg or with his mind broken, they suffered too – as much as and even sometimes more than he. Yes, and they, too, contributed their dollars to the profits of the munitions makers and bankers and shipbuilders and the manufacturers and the speculators made. They, too, bought Liberty Bonds and contributed to the profit of the bankers after the Armistice in the hocus-pocus of manipulated Liberty Bond prices.

And even now the families of the wounded men and of the mentally broken and those who never were able to readjust themselves are still suffering and still paying.

Chapter Four

WELL, it's a racket, all right.

A few profit – and the many pay. But there is a way to stop it. You can't end it by disarmament conferences. You can't eliminate it by peace parleys at Geneva. Well-meaning but impractical groups can't wipe it out by resolutions. It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war.

The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labor before the nations manhood can be conscripted. One month before the Government can conscript the young men of the nation – it must conscript capital and industry and labor. Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our munitions makers and our shipbuilders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all the other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted – to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get.

Let the workers in these plants get the same wages – all the workers, all presidents, all executives, all directors, all managers, all bankers –

yes, and all generals and all admirals and all officers and all politicians and all government office holders – everyone in the nation be restricted to a total monthly income not to exceed that paid to the soldier in the trenches!

Let all these kings and tycoons and masters of business and all those workers in industry and all our senators and governors and majors pay half of their monthly $30 wage to their families and pay war risk insurance and buy Liberty Bonds.

Why shouldn't they?

They aren't running any risk of being killed or of having their bodies mangled or their minds shattered. They aren't sleeping in muddy trenches. They aren't hungry. The soldiers are!

Give capital and industry and labor thirty days to think it over and you will find, by that time, there will be no war. That will smash the war racket – that and nothing else.

Maybe I am a little too optimistic. Capital still has some say. So capital won't permit the taking of the profit out of war until the people – those who do the suffering and still pay the price – make up their minds that those they elect to office shall do their bidding, and not that of the profiteers.

Another step necessary in this fight to smash the war racket is the limited plebiscite to determine whether a war should be declared. A plebiscite not of all the voters but merely of those who would be called upon to do the fighting and dying. There wouldn't be very much sense in having a 76-year-old president of a munitions factory or the flat-footed head of an international banking firm or the cross-eyed manager of a uniform manufacturing plant – all of whom see visions of tremendous profits in the event of war – voting on whether the nation should go to war or not. They never would be called upon to shoulder arms – to sleep in a trench and to be shot. Only those who would be called upon to risk their lives for their country should have the privilege of voting to determine whether the nation should go to war.

There is ample precedent for restricting the voting to those affected. Many of our states have restrictions on those permitted to vote. In most, it is necessary to be able to read and write before you may vote. In some, you must own property. It would be a simple matter each year for the men coming of military age to register in their communities as they did in the draft during the World War and be examined physically. Those who could pass and who would therefore be called upon to bear arms in the event of war would be eligible to vote in a limited plebiscite. They should be the ones to have the power to decide – and not a Congress few of whose members are within the age limit and fewer still of whom are in physical condition to bear arms. Only those who must suffer should have the right to vote.

A third step in this business of smashing the war racket is to make certain that our military forces are truly forces for defense only.

At each session of Congress the question of further naval appropriations comes up. The swivel-chair admirals of Washington (and there are always a lot of them) are very adroit lobbyists. And they are smart. They don't shout that "We need a lot of battleships to war on this nation or that nation." Oh no. First of all, they let it be known that America is menaced by a great naval power. Almost any day, these admirals will tell you, the great fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate 125,000,000 people. Just like that. Then they begin to cry for a larger navy. For what? To fight the enemy? Oh my, no. Oh, no. For defense purposes only.

Then, incidentally, they announce maneuvers in the Pacific. For defense. Uh, huh.

The Pacific is a great big ocean. We have a tremendous coastline on the Pacific. Will the maneuvers be off the coast, two or three hundred miles? Oh, no. The maneuvers will be two thousand, yes, perhaps even thirty-five hundred miles, off the coast.

The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the united States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles.

The ships of our navy, it can be seen, should be specifically limited, by law, to within 200 miles of our coastline. Had that been the law in 1898 the Maine would never have gone to Havana Harbor. She never would have been blown up. There would have been no war with Spain with its attendant loss of life. Two hundred miles is ample, in the opinion of experts, for defense purposes. Our nation cannot start an offensive war if its ships can't go further than 200 miles from the coastline. Planes might be permitted to go as far as 500 miles from the coast for purposes of reconnaissance. And the army should never leave the territorial limits of our nation.

To summarize: Three steps must be taken to smash the war racket.

We must take the profit out of war.

We must permit the youth of the land who would bear arms to decide whether or not there should be war.

We must limit our military forces to home defense purposes.

Chapter Five

I am not a fool as to believe that war is a thing of the past. I know the people do not want war, but there is no use in saying we cannot be pushed into another war.

Looking back, Woodrow Wilson was re-elected president in 1916 on a platform that he had "kept us out of war" and on the implied promise that he would "keep us out of war." Yet, five months later he asked Congress to declare war on Germany.

In that five-month interval the people had not been asked whether they had changed their minds. The 4,000,000 young men who put on uniforms and marched or sailed away were not asked whether they wanted to go forth to suffer and die.

Then what caused our government to change its mind so suddenly?

Money.

An allied commission, it may be recalled, came over shortly before the war declaration and called on the President. The President summoned a group of advisers. The head of the commission spoke. Stripped of its diplomatic language, this is what he told the President and his group:

"There is no use kidding ourselves any longer. The cause of the allies is lost. We now owe you (American bankers, American munitions makers, American manufacturers, American speculators, American exporters) five or six billion dollars.

If we lose (and without the help of the United States we must lose) we, England, France and Italy, cannot pay back this money...and Germany won't.

So..."

Had secrecy been outlawed as far as war negotiations were concerned, and had the press been invited to be present at that conference, or had radio been available to broadcast the proceedings, America never would have entered the World War. But this conference, like all war discussions, was shrouded in utmost secrecy. When our boys were sent off to war they were told it was a "war to make the world safe for democracy" and a "war to end all wars."

Well, eighteen years after, the world has less of democracy than it had then. Besides, what business is it of ours whether Russia or Germany or England or France or Italy or Austria live under democracies or monarchies? Whether they are Fascists or Communists? Our problem is to preserve our own democracy.

And very little, if anything, has been accomplished to assure us that the World War was really the war to end all wars.

Yes, we have had disarmament conferences and limitations of arms conferences. They don't mean a thing. One has just failed; the results of another have been nullified. We send our professional soldiers and our sailors and our politicians and our diplomats to these conferences. And what happens?

The professional soldiers and sailors don't want to disarm. No admiral wants to be without a ship. No general wants to be without a command. Both mean men without jobs. They are not for disarmament. They cannot be for limitations of arms. And at all these conferences, lurking in the background but all-powerful, just the same, are the sinister agents of those who profit by war. They see to it that these conferences do not disarm or seriously limit armaments.

The chief aim of any power at any of these conferences has not been to achieve disarmament to prevent war but rather to get more armament for itself and less for any potential foe.

There is only one way to disarm with any semblance of practicability. That is for all nations to get together and scrap every ship, every gun, every rifle, every tank, every war plane. Even this, if it were possible, would not be enough.

The next war, according to experts, will be fought not with battleships, not by artillery, not with rifles and not with machine guns. It will be fought with deadly chemicals and gases.

Secretly each nation is studying and perfecting newer and ghastlier means of annihilating its foes wholesale. Yes, ships will continue to be built, for the shipbuilders must make their profits. And guns still will be manufactured and powder and rifles will be made, for the munitions makers must make their huge profits. And the soldiers, of course, must wear uniforms, for the manufacturer must make their war profits too.

But victory or defeat will be determined by the skill and ingenuity of our scientists.

If we put them to work making poison gas and more and more fiendish mechanical and explosive instruments of destruction, they will have no time for the constructive job of building greater prosperity for all peoples. By putting them to this useful job, we can all make more money out of peace than we can out of war – even the munitions makers.

So...I say,

"And above all, Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace... War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the people who have the courage to meet it."

HOW TO SMASH THIS RACKET!

TO HELL WITH WAR!

~ VF ~

[Moderator's note: This post is a violation of the forum guidelines.  Corrective action with the poster has been undertaken.]

A. M.'s picture
A. M.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2351
Quote:I am so very f*cking

Quote:
I am so very f*cking bored of being fed the self same tripe on this forum again and again

There's really a very simple solution to this problem.

Cheers,

Aaron

John99's picture
John99
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 27 2009
Posts: 490
Guess Obama is enroute to

Guess Obama is enroute to Wisconsin, or is it more lies from another liar?

Vanityfox451's picture
Vanityfox451
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 28 2008
Posts: 1636
****

Aaron Moyer wrote:

Quote:
I am so very f*cking bored of being fed the self same tripe on this forum again and again

There's really a very simple solution to this problem.

Cheers,

Aaron

I believe the solution will very shortly present itself.

Goodbye ...

~ VF ~

A. M.'s picture
A. M.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2351
VF

Paul,

Hopefully the solution will include less condescention, more original thought and no chastizing ideas that don't arrive at the same conclusions as your own.

No one is even saying anything about War - they were talking about service members - and the approach you're taking isn't productive, intelligible or well-reasoned. Cursing "you people" for the idiots we are isn't sending a message that you've got an answer or contribution that simply needs to be understood. The issues you continually bring up have little to no bearing on diagnosing the issues with the 3-E's, or how to mitigate them practically. 

Smedly Butler hasn't got a damn thing to do with Unions, Wisconsin or the topic at hand. War's a racket?
Well, so is damn near everything else.

Save the vitriol boss, no one here needs a lecture! 

Aaron

Vanityfox451's picture
Vanityfox451
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 28 2008
Posts: 1636
****

Aaron,

It is a bloody war!!!!!!!!!!!! Can't you get it that the banks hold sway on the people??? Your politicians are bought and paid for by corporations, and a media, also bought and paid for, feeds the propoganda that holds the people as bovine chaff!!!!

condescension?????????? You can't even spell the word man ....

The US is being crushed inside out by the very same actions cast upon all of those nations that it stood on to rise to the height that it has. Now it is imploding in upon itself like a house of cards. Now its people are being cast out to live on its streets in poverty - the self same poverty it created upon other nations while hollering "DEMOCRACY!!!" and "FREEDOM!!!" on the subjects within them.

This is a taste of the very same medicine that has poisoned billions around the world in the name of altruism!!!

You try and battle this. You may posture, but the defeat is all around you. Only the shouting is left to complete. The wealth is already travelling east along with everything that made the illusionary wealth of the United Kingdom and Europe. Step aside, your children will earn a dollar a day, or whatever denomination counts for their ruination against the debts amounted from war, and several generations living beyond their means and borrowing from the future ...

I'm done ...

~ VF ~

A. M.'s picture
A. M.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2351
Quote: condescension?????????

Quote:

condescension?????????? You can't even spell the word man ....

There's that condesension we talked about.

To your other points - they're opinions and beliefs. Some may be right, some may be wrong.
If you believe this is a concerted effort by a global cabal to push us all into slavery, super. 
I don't. I believe that we still have enough integrity to pull through the coming collapse and rebuild in a smarter, and less centralized fashion.

Let's let this thread get back to its purpose.
Aaron 

PS: Your punctuation is all screwed up, and is NOT MLA format. Nor APA, nor any other.
Don't be a arrogant, you're not good enough to be better than everyone

Poet's picture
Poet
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 21 2009
Posts: 1844
Condescending, Man...

Vanityfox451 wrote:

Aaron,

It is a bloody war!!!!!!!!!!!! Can't you get it that the banks hold sway on the people??? Your politicians are bought and paid for by corporations, and a media, also bought and paid for, feeds the propoganda that holds the people as bovine chaff!!!!

condescension?????????? You can't even spell the word man ....

VF

Seriously, yes, you are being condescending. (Example: "condescension?????????? You can't even spell the word man......."). Aaron Moyer here is probably one of the most open-minded-seeming people in this forum, willing to consider and address assertions made by people with thoughtful consideration and reasoned rebuttals.

Now maybe you're frustrated. Okay, livid. But please, dont take it out on us. Cajoling us or being condescending will not "shock us" jaded folks into action. Rather, it will turn us off to you. I wouldn't be surprised if several have already done that.

You and I share some opinions, and I like reading some of the things you post. But sometimes I wonder where you're coming from when you say or write some of the things you do.

Poet

Travlin's picture
Travlin
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 15 2010
Posts: 1322
Dogs_In_A_Pile

Dogs_In_A_Pile wrote:

Travlin -

Arggh - Looking at my response with the clarity of 20/20 hindsight, my written post probably didn't express the train of thought that was running through my melon as clearly as I wanted to.

No need to apologize, I certainly wasn't offended, but I did feel like I needed to clarify some of the details behind the meaning of our oaths that people who haven't served might not be too familiar with.

Thanks Dogs

I was aware, and should have explicitly stated, that military personnel are required to follow only legal orders as you explained.  It is my understanding that they have a duty to refuse orders that are illegal and report them.

I have never been in the military.  I have studied military history and affairs for a long time, but I know that reading about it and doing it are very different, and that my understanding is limited.  Thanks for explaining these important points regarding the oaths and chain of command.

We’re cool.

Travlin 

Vanityfox451's picture
Vanityfox451
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 28 2008
Posts: 1636
****

Aaron,

What, and personal attacks is all you can muster!!!! Don't, heaven forbid draw upon any facts within the script of Butlers work - of course it holds no value to what is happening in Wisconsin as we write!!!!

What are you defending, your identity - this forum - what ideal is yours???

You were utterly trampled in this thread recently with your big words without substance to back them. Opinion over belief over factual, again and again and again - I bite my tongue ...

~ VF ~

A. M.'s picture
A. M.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2351
Paul, How can you say that

Paul,

How can you say that someone can be "utterly trampled" discussing opinion? 
Especially when all the rebuttals were out of context, showed a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific method, and rely almost entirely on rhetoric that is inherent to their ethos?

It's a straw argument, just like this - anyone who doesn't agree, doesn't get it. 
Which is also a critical element of religion, which you've struck out at in the past. 

Further, the fact that what you're presenting here -again- is your opinion.
I'm a pretty easy going person, but you're crossing the line again and again. 

Seek help, dude. 
Cheers,

Aaron 

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1110
Zeitgeist zealots....

Vanityfox451 wrote:

You were utterly trampled in this thread recently with your big words without substance to back them. Opinion over belief over factual, again and again and again - I bite my tongue ...

Paul,

It may be your belief that Aaron got trampled but many of us saw it differently.   What I saw was a near futile attempt at a reasoned discussion with a large influx of outside zealots.

nickbert's picture
nickbert
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 14 2009
Posts: 1125
Re: ****

Vanityfox451 wrote:

Aaron Moyer wrote:

Quote:
I am so very f*cking bored of being fed the self same tripe on this forum again and again

There's really a very simple solution to this problem.

Cheers,

Aaron

I believe the solution will very shortly present itself.

Goodbye ...

~ VF ~

VF-

Being a rather vague statement I'm not 100% sure how to interpret that, but my best guess is this is your way of saying "it's better to burn out than to fade away"?  "Suicide by moderator" as part of making one last statement? 

If that's the case, at best it's disrespectful to the moderators whom you are creating unnecessary work for, and at worst it's a sign of a need to feed your ego and play the martyr.  If you don't like the reception you get and choose to leave, then bow out gracefully and find another venue.  The strife and bad feelings you create here with this final spiteful gesture ultimately just plays into the hands of those who'd have us remain divided, whether they happen to be plotters for global control or simply groups and individuals just seeking to satisfy their greed and avoid accountability.   What your actions say to me is either your ego is more important than this community, or that you see no value in this community whatsoever and have no qualms about poisoning the well.  As 'blazes of glory' go, it falls flat.

- Nickbert

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments