This endless quest for growth will see Greece self-destruct

Although, this article is focused on Greece & its financial & economic woes, I really liked the author's view on how there is an "inherent contradiction of capitalism". I, myself, don't have a problem with capitalism, but the modern capitalism in itself does have a problem of continuously trying to make profits (which are essentially, surpluses -- gross revenue less costs = profits), which are not being re-invested in the economy but are being filtered up to few wealthiest individuals. Profit then stops there & more profits have to made for the other 99% to survive. Of course, since, the other 99% are making minimum wage or barely scraping by in life, the economy will eventually grind to a halt. Paragraphs 6 & 7, in the opinion piece below, very succinctly summarize this.

Think of it like a machine (for example, your car engine). If you keep driving your car for longer & longer distances & keep trying to extract as many kilometers (or miles) you can extract out of it before you need to service your car, or try to slowly reduce your frequency of regular car maintenance, you will eventually destroy your car engine & its related machinery, because your car's machinery is working harder for fewer servicing. It's the same case for human labour.

Anyway, so then the government is faced with only 2 choices (kind of being stuck between rock & a hard place) that it either try to juice up the "dead" economy through stimulus (like US did) or try to save billions through harsh austerity programs like Southern European nations did or are still doing. These two solutions are interlinked & become sort of a catch-22 problem. Government's primary source of revenue is taxes, but it can't really tax the public which in itself is not earning enough to survive. So tax revenue falls off the cliff. If tax revenue is insufficient for the government to institute stimulus programs, then it's only option is to bring more money from outside; either print more or borrow more. Either of these options will reduce the value of the national currency (assuming it's not part of a regional monetary bloc), & the price of everything essential in the marketplace for the public will rise, which will cause the general public to save more, instead of spend, which is required to revive the dead economy. Hence, we are back at the start of the problem, where the economy is still dead, & neither austerity nor stimulus is working to their full potential.

However, while the government is either cutting social spending or reducing the value of the currency, few individuals in its country are still becoming wealthier by the minute. That's why, the recession didn't hit the hardest all those wealthy 1-percenters. Heck, in their own little world, they didn't even feel it. Their wealth actually grew multiple folds during the recent recession.

Problem is that this inherent problem of modern capitalism & the social inequality it causes is only going to grow until there's chaos & anarchy on the national & global levels. There's no way to resolve this problem since the governments are now controlled by those same wealthy individuals who love this "inherent contradiction of capitalism," since it makes them wealthier & wealthier, & frankly, why would they care if a few millions of the general public suffers because of inequality. Prepare yourself for much more pain & suffering if you are one of those 99%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/jul/07/this-endless-quest-for-growth-will-see-greece-self-destruct

...
For many following the crisis for ... months, it has become clear that it is not just about Greek debt. Beneath the cultural tensions & ugly stereotypes, an ideological war is taking place. This battle is happening because the current economic system has only 2 answers to debt crises, recessions & slow economic growth: stimulus & austerity.

Stimulus is about the government pumping money into the economy to encourage consumer spending, which will theoretically lead to economic growth. In recent times, stimulus efforts have taken the form of the government spending money on infrastructure & other socially beneficial projects (think the New Deal) & quantitative easing. Austerity is a set of measures that aim to cut government spending & shrink the public sector to make the economy less dependent on it, which in theory should make room for & encourage a burgeoning free market (ie neo-liberalism).

The argument against government-led stimulus asks how the economy can grow if the government has to keep expanding its debt &/or money supply in order to start new projects & stimulate the economy. Surely the stimulation it provides will never compensate for growing levels of debt? Anti-austerity advocates, on the other hand, ask how the economy can grow if people make less money & taxes are higher – people will save, not spend, & economic growth is based on consumer spending.

The issue of austerity versus stimulus is often framed as the entire debate – if you don’t support one, you must support the other, because there are no alternatives. This is the same binary debate that has been going on for more than 100 years between the state versus the market. Yet, these dichotomies distract people from thinking about what’s really important – the goal of these policies, which is to grow the economy.

No analysis I’ve read thus far has questioned the damaging role that the endless quest for economic growth plays. Neither austerity nor government stimulus will ever be able to address the debt crises & recessions of the twenty-first century because what we’re dealing with here is an inherent contradiction of capitalism.

This contradiction comes from the surplus of the system (profit) being taken out of the real economy (the economy of physical goods and services) and put into the financial sector to generate more wealth for people who are already wealthy. This requires the economy to continually grow to compensate for the extraction of profit, which is essentially the extraction of the economy’s surplus.

However, this extraction of profit is the same mechanism at the root of soaring levels of inequality. A recent Oxfam report estimates that, by 2016, the richest 1% of the world’s population will own more than the other 99%. If the average person is making relatively less every year, or struggling just to maintain the same financial state, they can’t afford to buy ever more products & services, so the economy can’t grow as it did when we had more financial equality. Thus capitalism has always carried the seed of its own demise.

We are seeing this self-destruction in Greece. The ... Syriza government wants to go back to the negotiating table & create a new bailout agreement that will cut the debt to a more manageable size & reform the public sector in ways that won’t affect the most vulnerable. This would still be austerity, albeit a much milder version than that of the past 5 years. ...

If an agreement can’t be reached, Greece might well go back to the drachma. However, the government has no clear plan for this & an unplanned exit from the euro would be painful, with the poorest hit the hardest.

In all of these scenarios, the government’s goal would still be to re-start economic growth, even at the cost of creating more inequality. None of these options gets to the roots of capitalism’s inherent contradiction. There’s no way to grow ourselves out of this crisis; not for Greece, not for the rest of the world. What we are witnessing is the beginning of the collapse of capitalism.

So what is a sustainable path forward for Greece? If the Greek government could see that it won’t be able to re-start growth, and that GDP growth is a means to an end, not an end in itself, there are steps it could take to start paving a new path to prosperity for its people.

In addition to the basics – restructuring the Greek debt, deep reforms in the public sector to make it more transparent & accountable, & the strengthening of the solidarity economy – I suggest the following:
...

2.The government should nationalise the banks & encourage people to start credit unions. This will re-align the banking sector with the needs of citizens & make the banks more resilient. Credit unions would empower people to take financial matters into their own hands.

3.Greece should keep for-profit interests from buying up its common wealth. This could be done via land trusts, not-for-profits & amending the constitution to make it unconstitutional for the government to sell off the commons.

4.The Greek government should start using a wellbeing or happiness index to measure success, as Bhutan does. In this age of inequality, working class people & the unemployed can easily slip through the cracks of GDP growth.

5.Businesses & the government should shorten the working week & encourage job-sharing, so more people can have part-time employment. This would counter the current problem of some having no work while others work 50 hours a week.

6.Finally, the government should create legislation & encourage not-for-profit enterprise in every sector to prevent the extraction of profits from the real economy & encourage social entrepreneurs & innovators to start up their own not-for-profits. These enterprises would help alleviate the humanitarian crisis in Greece, create a more stable economy & keep the financial surplus in the real economy. By building an economy around social purpose, Greece could usher in the post-capitalist era, rather than fall victim to the unavoidable collapse of capitalism we are witnessing.


Jennifer Hinton is the co-author of How on Earth: Flourishing in a Not-for-Profit World by 2050, which will be published in October 2015.

Pentagon’s new military strategy calls for preserving US dominion of the world

So, basically, US wants to keep increasing its military power & prowess, & keep projecting it on to the world. If you are one of those "rogue" nations, who think there might be another way of living life than what the Hollywood is teaching the world, then you will be branded a "terrorist nation," & will be forced, through deathly sanctions, into submission. You better kneel before your 21st Century American gods OR we will make you kneel & prostrate before us.

When people of other countries don't go along with what the US wants, the international media comes along & helps US in achieving its objectives of making others believe its false opinions & lies about other "rogue" nations. American military action is then taken, unilaterally or with allies, resulting in millions of unnecessary innocent deaths. Then, those people of that nation want to retaliate & want justice for what has been done to them; only for not going along with what America wanted them to do in the first place.

That retaliation & call for justice result in guerilla war tactics & so-called "terrorism". Innocent, albeit completely clueless & ignorant, people die in those attacks, too, except not only they are mourned on the international stage, since they were killed in a Western developed country, & an ally of US, but their deaths are exploited for more punishment through wars.

The end result for all this "my-manhood-is-bigger-than-thou" competition is innocents die on multiple fronts, while the powerful elites in military, weapons manufacturing industry, military-industrial complex, governments, lobbyists, financial services etc. enjoy ever-more wealth & power.

Besides, all of the innocent people suffering due to deaths & injuries on both sides, countries who are actively waging wars (US & its allies) also suffer the economic & social breakdown in their own societies. Reason being is that governments start cutting social spending & divert that money towards military & its related industries. Since, the governments become more financially conservative, more people starts falling into social problems like homelessness, poverty, unemployment, health, illiteracy, discrimination etc. Case in point is that since US got engaged in ever more wars around the world (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Somalia etc.), homelessness & poverty has increased multiple folds in all major cities of US; from New York to Chicago to Los Angeles.

End result for all this preservation of American dominion of the world is more misery, death, destruction, chaos & problems for everyone living on this tiny dot in the vast universe; regardless of one's active or inactive or voluntarily or involuntarily. The world will suffer & no one will be the winner; not even the powerful rich elites.

The world is entering into a very volatile period & the saddest part of all this is that people are not learning from their pasts & still continuing to forge ahead to wield their powers on others. Remember that famous quote that nations (& people) who forget their pasts are doomed to repeat it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.rt.com/usa/271099-pentagon-new-military-strategy/

The US military needs to remain engaged around the world against both rival states & non-state actors, while nurturing regional allies & promoting American values, declares the Pentagon’s new National Military Strategy 2015.

That the US is “the world’s strongest nation, enjoying unique advantages in technology, energy, alliances and partnerships, and demographics,” is the underlying assumption in the document. “However, these advantages are being challenged.”

The main challengers are the state actors of Russia, Iran & North Korea, & non-state groups – particularly the “violent extremist organizations” (VEO) such as Islamic State & the Taliban. The strategy attempts to create a unified approach to dealing with both, seeking to “deter, deny, and defeat” the states & “disrupt and degrade” the non-state groups.

The document blames Russia for violating “numerous agreements” with its “military actions.” This list of agreements includes a number of pacts that US has been also violating such as the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

Iran & North Korea, on the other hand, are accused of seeking nuclear weapons. The document explains that the US would like to see China, which is not listed as a rival, as part of the international order, rather than a regional power challenging Washington’s dominance.

“None of these nations are believed to be seeking direct military conflict with the United States or our allies,” the document summarizes. “Nonetheless, they each pose serious security concerns which the international community is working to collectively address by way of common policies, shared messages, and coordinated action.”

The Pentagon aims to address the conflicts against “VEOs” by addressing the “root causes” of conflicts in failed states, with the military helping providing security while governments & international agencies provide economic opportunities & humanitarian assistance.
...

Technological frontier

"We now face multiple, simultaneous security challenges from traditional state actors and transregional networks of sub-state groups — all taking advantage of rapid technological change," Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey wrote in the introduction. "We are more likely to face prolonged campaigns than conflicts that are resolved quickly."

Driven by globalization, technology is enabling other states & groups around the world to challenge the advantages long enjoyed by the US, such as early warning & precision strike capability, the document notes. This requires the US to embrace “greater agility, innovation, and integration” to meet these challenges, & “reinforces the need for the US military to remain globally engaged to shape the security environment and to preserve our network of alliances.”

Brian Becker, director of the ‘Answer’ anti-war coalition, says that complaints about losing technological advantages are largely targeted at the domestic public. “American are being told that there is no money for hospitals, schools and many other vitally needed social programs, but suddenly we will have a clarion call that the United States must catchup, it must not let its adversaries Russia or China become superior to America, this is precisely what triggered the arms race in the 1950s,” he said to RT.

Global presence

US military presence around the world is explained as key to the security of allies & partners, a factor of stability in promoting “economic growth and regional integration” and giving Washington the capability to react swiftly in case of a crisis.

“We are prepared to project power across all domains to stop aggression and win our Nation’s wars by decisively defeating adversaries,” the document states. “While we prefer to act in concert with others, we will act unilaterally if the situation demands.”

The strategy says that the US “will press forward with the rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region, placing our most advanced capabilities and greater capacity in that vital theater.” It also remains committed to NATO allies & Israel’s security.

“If you look at what the US is doing, not to what it says in the document, the pivot towards Asia is a pivot of containment,” Becker says. “The new military strategy, which is to take all of the non-Chinese republics and nations in the region and forge them into a US-led military alliance, cannot be perceived in China as anything else but a threat to its national interest.”

In addition to safeguarding the survival of the US & prevention of a “catastrophic attack,” the national security interests articulated in the strategy include the “security of the global economic system,” the “security, confidence, and reliability of our allies,” & the “preservation and extension of universal values.”
...

Criminal Minds, S1E15 (quote 1)

Drones kill any chance of peace in Afghanistan

A good opinion piece. When the developed countries are not actively selling arms & weapons to developing countries, they are actively bombing them through drones. Of course, US is far ahead in this activity around the world, but others are not far behind, either.

As the writer plainly states that these drone strikes kill civilians (or as we call them, "collateral damage"), which in turn, angers the surviving relatives & neighbours of those killed, & hence, force those surviving loved ones to take up arms against foreigners. The words "collateral damage" brings an Arnold Schwarzenegger's 2002 movie in my mind of the same name, in which, his family is killed in a bomb blast & his family was "collateral damage" & how he wants to avenge their deaths. Anyway, so of course, in their seething hatred, the surviving family members will kidnap & kill any foreigner, be he/she is working on a humanitarian mission in that conflict zone.

The consequence of killing even one innocent person, be it in Afghanistan or Somalia or Syria or Iraq or Libya or Yemen, that it creates hatred & anger among the survivors & then, as General Stanley McChrystal (former US & NATO forces commander in Afghanistan), said: "for every innocent person you kill, you create 10 new enemies."

Since, the drones & drone strikes result in far fewer military casualties for the country which is using drones, it becomes a much more useful option. Coupling that option with the policy of "shoot first, ask questions later" only makes life hell for all people, innocent & guilty, alike, on the ground below. American military was using napalm 40 years ago to kill innocents in Vietnam & now using drones to destroy the lives of people on the ground in large balls of fire.

The irony is that after selling military wares, supporting authoritarian regimes (who use those weapons of mass destruction on their own people), & then also using drones to make lives of poor people even more miserable & hellish, people in the West very innocently claim that Afghanis, Yemenis, Somalis, Iraqis, Syrians, Libyans etc. hate their way of living & want to destroy it.

As I have always blogged previously that the most simple solution for the developed countries to save their own countries from so-called "terrorists" & "terrorism" is become selfish, which essentially means, that stop selling arms & weapons to developing countries & stop intervening, militarily or non-militarily, in national matters of other countries. Since, you are keeping yourself to your own business, no one would then has any reason to bother you. After all, if terrorists are so hellbent on spreading Islam everywhere & want to kill anyone who is not a Muslim, then why Brazil, Argentina, Switzerland, Mexico, South Africa, South Korea etc. are not being attacked? They are all emerging or developed economies & are Christian-majority countries, but no one cares about these countries, because they keep to themselves. So, Mind Your Own Business is the perfect solution to end most, if not all, major conflicts in the world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/06/drones-kill-chance-peace-afghanistan-150628132016117.html

The use of unmanned US drones in Afghanistan has stepped up since January. With the launch of the new US counterterrorism mission, Freedom Sentinel, the ongoing & intensifying drone campaign has reportedly killed around 400 people in Afghanistan over the last 6 months.

But insurgents are not the only ones being killed.

Targeted drone attacks kill scores of civilians & armed opposition forces alike. These strikes violate Afghan sovereignty & international law, & severely undermine human rights while underscoring the ongoing threat to civilian lives in Afghanistan. Yet, the Afghan national unity government remains silent on the issue.

Beyond the civilian casualties caused by these strikes, drones also fuel terrorism, increase anti-government sentiment &, as a result, increase recruitment opportunities for the armed opposition in Afghanistan.

Extrajudicial killings

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani's government must take seriously the issue of civilian casualties from US drone strikes & put an end to the extrajudicial killings of Afghans by the unmanned machines of our so called "strategic partner".

Over the past decade, US drone missions in Afghanistan were unilateral. Unlike Pakistan, the use of drones lacked the agreement of the country's leadership. The large number of civilian casualties in drone & air strikes caused increasing tensions between Hamid Karzai, the former Afghan president, & US officials.

So why has Afghanistan become the most heavily drone-bombed country in the world? What is the legal justification for the US' drone mission in Afghanistan when there is no mention of drones in its Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) with the US?

Since the establishment of the Afghan national unity government in Afghanistan, Ghani's government has given "American commanders a freer hand on night raids & air strikes", according to a recent New York Times report.

Recent attacks show that drone operators are now authorised by "eased" counterterrorism guidelines, which permit them to hit a target even without having "the knowledge of the identities of the individuals marked for death".

Despite the US administration's repeated announcements of the end of its combat mission, US forces in Afghanistan now have "a more aggressive range of military operations" - mostly drone missions & special operations.

Several attacks a week

Focused in the south & east of the country, US drones are hitting Afghanistan frequently, at a rate of one to several attacks every week. Nangarhar, Paktia, Paktika, Kunar, Nuristan, Khost, Farah, Helmand, & Logar are all provinces that have been targeted by US drone operations.

According to international & national media reports & the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, civilian casualties are involved in most of these incidents, but these go without any acknowledgement from the current Afghan government.

Some Afghan TV channels report misleading & misinforming stories on the "effectiveness" & the "role" of drones in Afghanistan. Early this month, according to Afghan MPs & media reports, a US drone strike in the Alisher district of Khost province southeast of Afghanistan, killed more than a dozen civilians, reportedly "members of two families".

On the condition of anonymity, a government official in Khost confirmed the killings to Pajhwok, an Afghan news agency.

The media office for foreign troops in Kabul also confirmed the attack with a routine addition that "reports about civilian casualties were being investigated".

As the Afghan national unity government continues to keep silent & neglects to send any delegation to investigate the incident, Afghan MPs & the former Afghan president have "strongly condemned" the strike in Khost.

Ending the secrecy

It is time to end the secrecy on the matter. The Afghan government should conduct its own investigation & assessment of each drone incident.

Now, as the US "war on terror" in Afghanistan increasingly becomes an open-ended conflict, reports suggest that the US will "maintain an aerial capacity beyond 2017 ... to conduct air strikes".

More US drone strikes means more civilian deaths for Afghanistan. These civilian casualties can severely risk the Afghan national unity government's legitimacy & sustainability.
...

As Ann Wright, the former American deputy ambassador in Afghanistan, put it, drone killings, "because of the number of civilian casualties", are "jeopardising US national security & creating large numbers of people who despise the United States".

The US administration & the Afghan government should take the advice of former US & NATO forces commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, who once rightly said: "For every innocent person you kill, you create 10 new enemies."


Aimal Faizi is an Afghan journalist & former spokesperson for former Afghan president, Hamid Karzai from 2011-2014.

How British weapons may have been used during Israel's 2014 attack on Gaza

One of the major roots / causes of these "terrorism" related incidents, if not the sole reason, is this direct & indirect supply of arms & weapons, by developed countries (US, UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Russia & China) to developing & autocratically-ruled countries.

Now, this article has been published in a major newspaper from Britain & must be shared by thousands, thanks to social media, nowadays. Even if we assume that a Syrian or an Iraqi or an Afghani or a Yemeni or a Libyan or a Somalian or a Palestinian from Gaza or West Bank didn't have a clue about that rocket was made that killed all his family members, he may come to know about it through this article or through word of mouth or perhaps, even an "extremist" preacher, that that rocket, which wiped out my family & left me homeless was made in UK or US or Germany or France etc., then you can imagine how he would feel about that country.

As I have blogged previously that whenever this supply of arms & weapons around the world by developed countries would stop, the peace in the world would come about by itself. Spending billions of dollars on bombing campaigns in a far off land, against an enemy, which is radicalized due to these supply of weapons of death & destruction, is useless & completely fruitless.

The hypocrisy of European nations is laudable that they would arm Israel with their weapon technology on one hand, & then ban consumer products made in Occupied Territories under Israel.

Frankly, I think BDS movement (Boycotts, Divestment & Sanctions) is a useless move. What is a more effective move against Israel, against its illegal occupation? Banning a few consumer products & divesting out of a few investment portfolios or not supplying billion worth of arms & ammunition to Israel? Anyway, I digressed.

Essentially, business deals trump everything. GDP & exports from death & destruction is far more valuable than the life of a human being in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, Yemen & Palestine (Gaza & West Bank). Life of a human being is also as much important in France, US, UK, & other developed countries, but whenever "terrorists" strike in these countries, we need to think why some people, albeit "extremists", took this step. What we, ourselves, are doing, which might or might not be, radicalizing & pushing a few twisted individuals to take this drastic step? Are we involved somehow in hurting someone in their own countries? Are we, directly or indirectly, killing innocent people? Are we turning people, who may have never thought of taking up arms against us, into so-called "terrorists"?

The answers are actually very simple, lie bare & in the open. Us people in the West just have to look & examine our own actions without any predetermined bias to find the real roots of the problem & then we can end this problem of "terrorism" very easily & cheaply; by stopping the supply of all arms & weapons by developed countries to developing countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britain-still-arming-israel-despite-fear-weapons-will-be-used-against-gaza-10357621.html

The Government has been accused of ignoring its own evidence that British weaponry may have been used by Israel in its assault on Gaza last year after fresh arms deals worth £4m were approved by Britain within weeks of the conflict.

Figures seen by The Independent reveal that the UK gave the go-ahead for dozens of military exports to Israel, including components for drones & air-to-surface missiles, in the immediate aftermath of Operation Protective Edge, which claimed more than 2,000 lives, including those of hundreds of Palestinian civilians.

Campaigners said the exports showed that the Government was conducting “business as usual” in its arms sales to Israel & turning a “blind eye” to the risk that UK-made weaponry could be used in any fresh clashes between the Israelis & the Palestinians.

Last year’s bombardment provoked calls for Britain to halt all arms exports to Israel after ministers admitted they had found 12 instances where weapons containing British components may have been used in the Occupied Territory by Israeli forces.

The refusal of the Government to suspend these licences caused a split in the Coalition & led to the resignation of Foreign Office minister Baroness Warsi, who said Britain’s stance during the air & sea assault had been “morally indefensible”. She said all arms sales should be stopped with immediate effect.

Ministers pledged last year to review all existing licences to Israel to assess the risk of British weaponry being used in the Occupied Territories & publish the results.

But new figures published ... in a report on arms exports show that Britain has in the meantime continued to sell weaponry worth millions to Israel, both directly & via third party countries including Germany, America & Italy.

Andrew Smith, spokesman for Campaign Against Arms Trade, said: “More than 2,000 people died in Israel’s bombardment of Gaza, & yet in the months immediately following the conflict it was business as usual for the UK Government & the arms companies it supports.

“Even the government has admitted it’s highly likely that UK weapons were used against Gaza last year. Now it is turning a blind eye to its own evidence. These arms sales send a message that arms company profits & military contracts are more important than the human rights of Palestinians.”

In the three months between the end of hostilities in Gaza in August last year & the end of December, the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) approved 32 military exports from Britain to Israel worth £3.97m. The first licence was granted on 1 September - just 6 days after the announcement of an Israeli ceasefire.

Some £2.5m of that total was for items going directly to Israel, including components for military radars, submarines & jet engines.

The remainder was for the incorporation of UK-made weaponry, including components for military pilots’ head-up displays & military combat vehicles, into products to then be re-exported to other destinations, including Thailand & United Arab Emirates.

The data, based on the Government’s own quarterly arms export statistics, also details 36 further licences granted for British components sent to destinations including Germany, Italy & United States for incorporation into weaponry which was then to be sold to Israel.

The material included parts for air-to-surface & surface-to-surface missiles, components for combat helicopters & tank turrets, & material used for the command & control of drones.

At least two of the 12 pre-existing arms licences which the Government now admits were for weaponry which may have been used in Gaza were sent to Israel via Germany & the US.

Campaigners argue that the latest exports contain similar material which could also be used by the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) if hostilities recommence in the Occupied Territories.

The Independent revealed earlier this year that the Government also approved arms exports worth nearly £7m to Israel in the 6 months prior to Operation Protective Edge, which Tel Aviv said was necessary to halt rocket attacks from Gaza by Hamas fighters.

Ministers have previously defended Britain’s exports to Israel by saying the country has a right to self-defence & the UK only grants licences where it is satisfied material will not be used for “internal repression” or to “aggravate existing tensions or conflicts”.

But the report by CAAT, War on Want & the Palestine Solidarity Campaign alleges that Britain is flouting its own rules by continuing to allow the export of material which carries the risk of being used in any future Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

David Wearing, the author of the report & a researcher at London University, said: “Ministers’ claims that the UK enforces stringent controls on arms exports simply do not stand up to scrutiny.

“Aside from the question of how individual pieces of UK-made kit are used, the approval of £4 million of military exports in the wake of Operation Protective Edge demonstrates a strong preference to maintain business as usual irrespective of what message this sends to Israel about its behaviour.”

Critics of Britain’s arms exports control system argue there are now repeated examples of the use of British-made weaponry in the Occupied Territories over the last 13 years, including the deployment of armoured personnel carriers & the use of F-16 fighters & Apache helicopters containing UK components.

The IDF’s Hermes drone was also deployed last year over Gaza. A version of the drone, used to pinpoint targets, contains components made by British companies but it is claimed this version was not used in Gaza.
...

The Government said its review of arms export licences to Israel, ordered last year, was "due to complete shortly" & insisted its monitoring of the situation in the Occupied Territories was taken into consideration when granting licences.

A spokeswoman said: "We will only approve equipment which is for Israel’s legitimate self defence & where we are satisfied it would be consistent with our human rights commitments & other international obligations.”

Paranoia quote 3

A great line from the movie, "Paranoia," highlighting the cold hard truth of our modern times.

IMDB          RottenTomatoes          Wikipedia

I am an adjunct professor who teaches 5 classes. I earn less than a pet-sitter

Not surprised at reading this article. But I am indeed sad at what is happening to our world. The world is unfair but it is just getting to an absurdly low point. Education is becoming meaningless in this modern world. Educated people who are without any influential networks are being used as mere slaves; jobs with low pay & without much benefits, if any.

People who are making six-figures or even millions are doing it by either exploiting others or themselves. All of the rich people in the modern world have become rich by trampling the basic human dignity, for example, by paying the federally-mandated minimum wages, which are themselves quite low. Some others are making money by exploiting narcissistic trends in social media or taking off their clothes in front of the camera. For example, some gamers, fashion & media vbloggers, Miley Cyrus, the Kardashian clan, most, if not all, rappers & hip hop artists, & of course, even the porn stars.

People who are working hard to teach & build the next generation are being treated like mere pawns. What message is being shown to the young minds of next generation? That it is better to go in sales (where one doesn't really need a relevant education & just be good in hustling or lying with a straight face), start making own videos for social media on completely inane topics, start twerking & dancing in front of millions, & of course, porn industry is another great option, too.

What kind of society are we expecting when the teacher of the next generation is being paid less than the cashier or grocery bagger at your local grocery store? After all, a simple cost-benefit analysis would lay the facts bare that just graduating secondary school is far better, since it's free (at least in North America, Europe, & some Asian countries) & that young kid won't even have to waste time, money (thousands of $$$ in most cases) in university, & his/her effort, to receive minimum wages, or perhaps, even less.

Frankly, why the world keeps shouting that education is important for everyone. It is indeed important, when the educated person is treated the way he/she deserves to be treated. It is indeed important in a meritocracy. But that's not the world we are living in right now. Grads are unemployed & burdened with student loans. Whereas, people who didn't go to university, but are good in selling (whatever they are selling) are swimming in cash.

Then, how can we expect this modern world to be any better than the world of yore? Then, how can we expect any kind of fairness in this world when the people with whom we are dealing got where they are by "selling" themselves, their morals, & their ethics?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/22/adjunct-professor-earn-less-than-pet-sitter

Like most university teachers today, I am a low-paid contract worker. Now & then, a friend will ask: “Have you tried dog-walking on the side?” I have. Pet care, I can reveal, takes massive attention, energy & driving time. I’m friends with a full-time, professionally employed pet-sitter who’s done it for years, never topping $26,000 annually & never receiving health or other benefits.

The reason I field such questions is that, as an adjunct professor, whether teaching undergraduate or law-school courses, I make much less than a pet-sitter earns. This year I’m teaching five classes (15 credit hours, roughly comparable to the teaching loads of some tenure-track law or business school instructors). At $3,000 per course, I’ll pull in $15,000 for the year. I work year-round, 20 to 30 hours weekly – teaching, developing courses & drafting syllabi, offering academic advice, recommendation letters & course extensions for students who need them. ...

I receive no benefits, no office, no phone or stipend for the basic communication demands of teaching. I keep constant tabs on the media I use in my classes; if I exhaust my own 10GB monthly data plan early, I lose vital time for online discussions with my students. This, although the university requires my students to engage in discussions about legal issues & ethics six days a week, & I must guide as well as grade these discussions.

Three of my Philadelphia-area friends are adjuncts with doctorate degrees. One keeps moving to other states for temporary teaching posts. The others teach at multiple sites to keep afloat financially – one at no less than seven colleges & universities.

Having heard all my life about solid “government job” benefits, I figured I might have more stability, & still be able to handle teaching, if I worked for the Post Office. I started carrying mail in early January. As a City Carrier Assistant, I earned less pay than regular postal carriers do, though I did more than “assist”: my job was to handle absentee carriers’ routes. I had no medical insurance, no sick leave allowance & had to agree to work as much as managers deemed necessary for 360 consecutive days (whereupon I could sign up for a second 360-day contract, with no promise that it would bring me any closer to a permanent job offer). I worked on Sundays too, under the US Postal Service’s contract with Amazon.com. With human flaws – I fell on ice more than once – I was no match for the drones Amazon intends to deploy. After 2 months on the job, which was long enough to develop a lifetime fear of Rottweilers, I was behind in my university work. I turned in my cap.
In late March, I started a retail job. It offers real days off, & I expect to be eligible for health & dental benefits soon.

Last week, a friend came in to shop, saw me, & exclaimed, loud enough for all to hear: “What are you doing here?” Friends who know I hold two law degrees & teach at a university can’t fathom that my teaching doesn’t cover rent. Some writers have discussed adjuncts waiting tables or bagging groceries alongside their students as though it’s the ultimate degradation. I see things differently. I’m trained by the people who deliver parcels, serve meals & bag groceries & who might, any day, apply to take my courses. I am their equal, & I know it at a level most established faculty members do not.

Faculty members do not even interact with each other as equals. Most adjuncts aren’t included in regular faculty meetings, let alone conferences where ideas are exchanged & explored. A concept called the inclusive fees campaign seeks to make conferences affordable for adjuncts. (It focuses on PhDs, but could encompass teachers whose positions require law degrees or other alternative qualifications.) “Inclusivity” for a systematically exploited group is only a patch. But it’s good to see established professors challenged to acknowledge contingent workers, who now comprise the preponderance of the faculty community. Yes, of the 1.2 million instructional staff appointments in US higher education, 76% – more than 900,000 – are now contingent.

We are working for institutions that claim to open doors to career opportunities even as they etch contingency into their hiring practices. The significance of the inclusive fees campaign lies in its implicit question: how will the schools hear our voices over the silence of the tenured?

Even more daunting than the dearth of dollars is the fragmentation of the adjunct’s time. Recently, an editor at the University of Oregon School of Law asked if I’d be a conference panelist. Can I travel, yet still clock enough hours at my second job to stay above the threshold for health insurance?

Every day I live two people’s lives, & it’s fatiguing. Every day I need more time with students while being pulled away from them.

The best that could come of the adjunct crisis is a teaching community broadly committed to the civility & inclusivity we’ve been missing. This could lead to a new kind of education, based not on ranking, not on status, but on genuine guidance for living with decency & respect on this planet.

A conference on this is well overdue – & I don’t want to miss it while watching the time clock.

Why do people wrestle over cheap food? Because we’re desperate !!

The video in this article & the article itself is common in urban cities in all the so-called Western developed world, but we don't normally see it. The world sees the tall shiny business towers of downtown cities of New York, Paris, London, Toronto, & Chicago etc. The world doesn't see how the general public is making much more frequent rounds to the food bank & trying to get cheap food, which is also unhealthy, from supermarkets.

Although, I have personally never seen people scrambling & grabbing cut-price food in supermarkets, I do believe that day is not far. The way capitalism has gone greedy & thanks of continued automation of jobs, people are forced to work for minimum wages, which of course, will force you to fight your neighbour for that last piece of meat & fish.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/22/cheap-food-desperate-supermarket-bargains-tesco

People in Britain are battling each other for cut-price food. This is what desperation & poverty does. Video has emerged of customers at a Tesco store in Weston Favell, Northampton, scrabbling around on the floor to reach discounted essential groceries – indicative of increasing & entrenched food poverty.

It might come as a shock to anyone who imagines that writers fly to work in their own helicopter with truffle sandwiches for lunch, but I survive on food found in the supermarket reduced aisle. Occasionally dealings around the cut-price food can turn ugly.

Every day, I see shoppers who desperately need these bargains, since for many, it’s the only possibility of eating properly. After all, a huge pack of reduced mince or chicken is a good source of protein lasting across several days if cooked & eked-out properly. But this level of thriftiness is exhausting, which might explain the frayed tempers of the Northampton food-scrum.

I order my day around the rhythms of the discount hour, which is different at each of the three shops on my circuit. Food is first reduced mid-morning, then again later in the day. Bargain hunters benefit from holding their nerve, as the real reductions are made later on.

There can be a sense of camaraderie, & my fellow bargain seekers acknowledge each other with wry smiles. We even share recipes – I hear familiar voices discussing how to turn slabs of cheap smoked fish into a nutritious & inexpensive chowder. We sometimes help each other out – I reach food for shorter or older customers & in return, they help me read the labels (I have some sight problems).

The Northampton all-in, food wrestle-mania occurred, I suspect, when informal protocols which bring order to the demeaning experience of hanging around trying to look busy while waiting for the soup to be reduced, were ignored. Personally, one vital guideline, & a rule which makes me furious whenever I see it being ignored, is don’t be greedy. If you see massive packs of organic vintage cheddar for 20p (this has happened) please don’t hog them all. I’ve witnessed people loading stacks of gourmet pizzas into the boot of a new BMW, which if owned by the loader seemed to me a little unfair.

The etiquette of poverty-induced budget food-hunting decrees that you don’t barge in & grab stuff over the heads of those too polite to let go of their manners. Around the appointed hour of food reduction, a vague, straggly queue forms. When it’s just one remaining pack of prime steak, then who dares wins, but don’t knock other people over.
...

The main (unwritten) rule of food-bargain club is this: be nice to supermarket workers – they are your friend, & will occasionally give you a sly nod to indicate when they will brandish their supermarket price label guns. Besides, they are doing a hard job for low pay. Some are even on work-for-benefits schemes & privately admit they would appreciate the chance to buy cheap food themselves. So be kind not just to them, but all your fellow bargain hunters.

"Education Cuts" by David Fitzsimmons

 "Education Cuts" - David Fitzsimmons, Arizona Star, Phoenix, Arizona, US

Civilian death toll from explosive weapons soars

What to comment on this news article than to say that the human blood has become very cheap now. Killing another human being has become extremely easy with the proliferation of small arms to large weapons. Be it armed gangs or law enforcement agencies or military, access to a weapon is easy, & the mentality of "shoot first, think later" has spread everywhere. 

Killing indiscriminately another human being carries no adverse consequences. Legal & illegal sales of arms & weapons is a huge lucrative business for both smuggling groups & such developed nations as US, Canada, Russia, China, Germany, France, UK, Sweden etc.

So, when one of the most profitable industries around the world is in making weapons, then how can we not expect a constant increase in civilian deaths. It would be a bit foolish & naïve to expect a decline in human deaths with the developed countries actively subsidizing their weapons industries & actively hawking their military wares on the international stage. And then everyone wants to innocently proclaim that they are only working for peace around the world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/22/civilian-death-toll-explosive-weapons-soars-syria-gaza

The global civilian death toll from explosive weapons has increased dramatically in recent years, driven in part by the greater use of aerial bombs on populated areas, often by governments including Syria & Israel, according to a report.

Although the international community has taken concerted action to curb the use of chemical weapons, the report by advocacy group Action on Armed Violence (AOAV) confirms that conventional explosives, can be just as devastating & indiscriminate when used against towns & cities.

AOAV’s report, Explosive States, which examines data for 2014, found that when explosive weapons were used in urban areas, 92% of the casualties were civilians, compared with 34% in rural areas. In 2014, there were 32,662 civilian casualties from weapons including aerial bombs, mortars & car bombs, an increase of 5% on 2013, & 52% higher than 2011, when AOAV started collecting data.

“This is the third consecutive year that we have seen an increase in civilian deaths & injuries from explosive weapons,” Iain Overton, the director of investigations at AOAV, said. “With civilians bearing the brunt of explosive weapon harm in Gaza, Ukraine, Nigeria, Iraq, Syria & Afghanistan, the question has to be: how many more will have to die before states agree to end the use of explosive weapons in populated areas?”

More than half the civilian casualties in 2014 were caused by improvised explosive devices (IEDs) such as car bombs & suicide vests. The prevalence of such weapons in Iraq has helped make it the most dangerous place in the world for civilians, in terms of explosive weapons, with more than 10,000 casualties for the second year running. Syria was second with 6,245 recorded civilian casualties (though AOAV acknowledges that it is likely to be gross underestimate due to reporting difficulties).

Deaths by IED increased dramatically in Nigeria over the course of 2014, as Boko Haram targeted markets, bus stops & places of worship. Almost all the 2,407 casualties in the country were caused by car bombs, suicide bomb attacks or other IEDs.

The most striking and lethal development in 2014 was the increased use of aerial bombs by governments on densely populated areas. The number of civilian casualties from such weapons almost trebled from the previous year. The overwhelming majority of the casualties by aerial bombardment were caused by Syria (46% of the total) & Israel (35%).

In Syria, government forces made dramatically increased use of barrel bombs – containers filled with fuel, explosives & chunks of jagged metal typically pushed out of helicopters by hand, killing people & destroying buildings over a wide areas. In 2013, barrel bombs accounted for 20% of aerial attacks. In 2014, that proportion had doubled. The bulk of barrel bomb attacks (85%) were on urban areas.

Israeli air attacks accounted for more than half the civilian casualties in Gaza in 2014. According to UN figures, there were 2,131 deaths from Israel’s Operation Protective Edge in July & August, 69% of which were civilian. But Israel also used high explosive ground-launched & naval shells during that campaign against built-up targets. As a result, Israel outdid even Syria as the state responsible for the most civilian casualties from explosive weapons in 2014, according to the AOAV report.

“Our data shows that states were far more willing to carry out aerial bombings in populated areas, bucking a recent trend. It’s a deeply worrying development,” Overton said. “It’s almost no surprise to see Israel was the state force behind the most civilian casualties from explosive weapons. The weapons used in Gaza last year included thousands of unguided artillery shells, as well as massive aircraft bombs, which, even if guided to a target, can still impact a wide area. AOAV’s research suggests, that for artillery at least, Israel had relaxed the rules, making it easier for troops to use these weapons in or near populated areas. You simply can’t do that on such a large scale without increasing risk of death, injury & damage to civilians & civilian areas.”

Opinion on Canadian federal election result

Saw a few posts from people on my TL that today was a great day for Canada because of the new PM's swearing-in ceremony etc.
 
Really? The only reason I vote is that when I criticize a government, no one can say that since, you didn't vote, you lost your right to criticize. Although, I'm not a fan of Conservatives, deep in my heart, I already know NOTHING will change for the small guy.
 
Let me emphasize that point again (for slow people), NOTHING will change for the general public.

 
If Stephen Harper was such a bad guy that the whole country took a sigh of relief with the Liberals win, then why did people elect him back in 2011? And he had been the PM of Canada 5 years before that, too. So, the public already had a little taste of what Harper was all about. Did Harper hypnotized the public somehow in 2011? Heck, he isn't even a "hottie" like JT.
 
I remember seeing this same enthusiasm which I see for Justin Trudeau now, back in 2008, with the election win of Barack Obama. Heck, people all over the world were mesmerized with his win & there were so many hopes attached to his win. Well, we can see how much he actually achieved in his past 7 years of presidency. Except, the Affordable Healthcare Act, he has failed to achieve everything, from closing Guantanamo to controlling emissions to improving checks & balances on Wall Street.
 
Only reason Liberals won in Canada because the general public around the world only wants to keep changing political parties. Let's take a quick look at the tennis match of politics played in some countries around the world:

US: 8 years of Democratic rule (Clinton) is followed by 8 years of Republican (Bush Jr.) & then back to Democrats (Obama) & then back to Republicans (Bush Jr. II in 2016) & so on so forth.

Canada: Conservatives (Mulroney) followed by Liberals (Chretien / Paul) & then back to Conservatives (Harper) & now back with Liberals (Trudeau).

UK: They are little bit unpredictable. 18 years of Conservatives were followed by 13 years of Labour & then back to Conservatives (coming up to 6 years now).
 
Pakistan: PML-N & PPP play the match.

"Toronto House Prices" by Steve Nease

"Toronto House Prices" - Steve Nease, Oakville, Ontario, Canada

With 6,000 new warehouse jobs, what is Amazon really delivering?

It is simply common sense that a person doesn't get rich while paying living wages to its workers. You have to have "slaves" to increase your own wealth. After all, that's how the Western world became rich; with the work of millions of slaves in Australia, Europe, & North America.

The billionaires we see on the Forbes list every year didn't become multi-billionaires by caring for their fellow human beings by paying them good wages, so their fellow human being can also enjoy life. Oh, hell no !!! They became billionaires by forgoing every inch of ethics & humanity from themselves & becoming the cause of poverty in modern world by paying government-mandated minimum wages. If the government removes that wage floor, then you will see how soon those wages go down to mere pennies. Ironically enough, all those billions help them control the government, too.

Irony on top of all this is these multi-billionaire entrepreneurs are celebrated in the business community. They are invited to give talks & reinvigorate the young minds of university students. Internet is flushed with tips & tricks of doing business gleaned from these unethical & inhumane execs. Some of these famous business people include Steve Jobs (let's take the jobs out of North America & put them in Asia, & pay those workers minimum wages, which will drive them to suicides.), Jeff Bezos (well, this article pretty much lays out what he pays to his employees & how he treats them), Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey & etc.

Then, we cry foul over how bad this world has become. Well, what kind of world you were expecting when you & a majority of world population is learning how to treat their fellow human beings from multi-billionaire sharks. I am even humiliating sharks by calling these people "sharks".

Anyway, so some people will counter me by saying that well, these multi-billionaires pay higher taxes or they generously donate to charities. Well, as for the taxes, you should look into what is their real tax rate is. After all the deductions & such, it is usually far less than your average taxpayers' tax rate; these billionaires pay around 10-15% tax in US, while an average taxpayer pays around 30%.

Now, as for donating to charities, what would be a better way of doing things? Not paying a living wage & treating your employees like they are not even humans & after hoarding all that money, donating like a few percent to a charity to help a few people. Heck, those donations are also tax-deductible, & hence, there is a financial incentive to donate a little. Or, paying a living wage to your employees, so they can look after their families in a good way, & raise the standard of living of your employees & their communities. Heck, if the salaries are good enough of those employees, they will donate to charities themselves, anyway. So, charities will get their donations, but on a much larger scale & scope.

Another thing our society is looking at is more chaos in our communities in the near future. Since, these entrepreneurs can only squeeze out enough blood & sweat from their employees, now they are turning to tech to squeeze out more profits out of their operations. After robots & AI (Artificial Intelligence) has been improved or perfected over the next few more years, human employees will be laid off en masse. Why? Because robots will cost a lot less than having a human employee around.

But, hey, since these multi-billionaires achieved what every one of us want for ourselves, let's learn from them in TEDx conferences, university graduation convocations, & international conferences how much worse to treat your fellow human being, so someday I can be one of these tyrants, too.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/17/idUS199953413420150617#tRwbKHDomj1zlGzi.97 

Some people showed up before dawn. Others spent an hour waiting on a line that stretched out the door. That was the scene ... when hundreds of job seekers converged on an Amazon hiring event in Chattanooga, Tennessee. All hoped for full-time work picking, packing & shipping orders at the online retailer’s local distribution center, a warehouse the size of 28 football fields. “I’m blessed to be here!” one smiling 23-year-old applicant told television reporters.

... On May 26th, Amazon announced 6,000 new full-time job openings at 19 of its distribution centers. Many are in communities that doled out generous tax credits & other incentives — including $10.3 million in Kenosha, Wisconsin, alone — to bring Amazon jobs to town.

So it’s a good time to ask: Are Amazon’s warehouse jobs worth lining up for? Should they be subsidized with taxpayer dollars? And what do they mean to the long-term economic health of their host communities?

On his 2013 jobs tour, President Barack Obama stopped to deliver a speech at the aforementioned Amazon warehouse in Chattanooga. The audience cheered when he called for restoring the middle class through “good jobs with good wages.” But today that same warehouse is hiring at $11.25 an hour. That’s $23,400 annually, or $850 below the poverty line for a family of four.

Hourly wages at the other warehouses listed in Amazon’s recent hiring announcement range from $11 in Jefferson, Indiana to $12.75 an hour in Robbinsville, New Jersey & Windsor, Connecticut.

Even by industry standards, those are some thin paychecks. Wal-Mart pays distribution center employees an average hourly wage of $19, said a spokesman for that company.

Meanwhile, Amazon’s treatment of warehouse workers has been under scrutiny since 2011, when an investigation by the Allentown Morning Call newspaper revealed what were — quite literally — sweatshop conditions. When summer temperatures exceeded 100 degrees inside the company’s Breinigsville, Pennsylvania warehouse, managers would not open the loading bay doors for fear of theft. Instead, they hired paramedics to wait outside in ambulances, ready to extract heat-stricken employees on stretchers & in wheelchairs, the investigation found. Workers also said they were pressured to meet ever-greater production targets, a strategy colloquially known as “management by stress.”

Amazon declined to answer the newspaper’s specific questions about working conditions in the warehouse but, 8 months after the story was released, company officials announced that they’d spent $52 million to retrofit warehouses with air conditioning.

In my own interviews with dozens of Amazon warehouse workers, I’ve heard reports of repetitive stress injuries, pain & exhaustion. (Some called themselves “Amazombies.” Others said they tried to think of the job as a free fitness program.)

Those issues relate to job quality. What about job quantity?

On the same day Amazon announced 6,000 new hires, teams from around the globe competed in the first-ever “Amazon Picking Challenge” in Seattle. Their goal? Build robots that can “pick” shelved items — in this case, the objects ranged from rubber ducks to The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn – with enough dexterity to someday replace human hands. (Amazon already has some 15,000 Kiva robots that transport shelves of merchandise to human “pickers,” but the act of picking has proved much harder to automate.)

Amazon maintains a very low headcount for its sales volume, which rose to $89 billion last year. Amazon creates just 17 jobs for every $10 million in sales, according to figures in its annual report. Compare that with traditional brick-and-mortar retailers, which create jobs at more than twice that rate: 42 positions for each $10 million in sales, according to an analysis of census data by the non-profit Institute for Local Self-Reliance.

“From a regional perspective, this is clearly not a path to greater employment & more economic activity,” said Stacy Mitchell, the organization’s director. “Your particular community may come out a bit ahead in terms of job numbers, but it comes at the expense of your neighbors.”

She & other community development advocates worry that, with its low-cost merchandise & expanding same-day delivery service, Amazon will eviscerate smaller businesses that put more of their earnings into hiring workers. (The company is already famous for pursuing massive growth while accepting razor-thin profit margins.) Amazon already has an edge over traditional brick-and-mortar retailers in the 25 states where it pays no sales tax. And local governments have also strengthened its advantage, lavishing Amazon with more than $430 million in tax credits & other incentives since 2000, according to Subsidy Tracker, a database created by the economic watchdog Good Jobs First.

Tossing out tax incentives for Amazon jobs might be good short-term politics, but when it comes to lasting employment, let the buyer beware. In 1999, the city of Coffeyville, Kansas showered Amazon with more than $4 million in infrastructure improvements & cash incentives for a 1 million-square-foot distribution center. Soon Amazon was one of the area’s largest employers. But its sales strategy kept changing. Since same-day shipping requires distribution hubs that are closer to urban centers, Amazon grew out of Coffeyville. Executives announced in October that the warehouse would shut down.

Jim Falkner, then Coffeyville’s mayor, created a Facebook page pleading for help. “Please leave suggestions concerning the Amazon job-loss recovery effort,” he wrote. 5 days later, he added, “Amazon is the straw that broke the camel’s back when it comes to unemployment in the community.”