This from a recent article in Foreign Policy (bolding mine).

Political scientist James G. Blight and former U.S. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara suggested earlier that year that we could look forward to an average of 3 million war deaths per year worldwide in the 21st century.

So far they haven't even been close. In fact, the last decade has seen fewer war deaths than any decade in the past 100 years, based on data compiled by researchers Bethany Lacina and Nils Petter Gleditsch of the Peace Research Institute Oslo. Worldwide, deaths caused directly by war-related violence in the new century have averaged about 55,000 per year, just over half of what they were in the 1990s (100,000 a year), a third of what they were during the Cold War (180,000 a year from 1950 to 1989), and a hundredth of what they were in World War II. If you factor in the growing global population, which has nearly quadrupled in the last century, the decrease is even sharper. Far from being an age of killer anarchy, the 20 years since the Cold War ended have been an era of rapid progress toward peace.

Armed conflict has declined in large part because armed conflict has fundamentally changed. Wars between big national armies all but disappeared along with the Cold War, taking with them the most horrific kinds of mass destruction.

Crossposted to the News Events of the Day and Afghanistan War threads.

Comments?

Originally Posted by RyanJH

This from a recent article in Foreign Policy (bolding mine).
Political scientist James G. Blight and former U.S. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara suggested earlier that year that we could look forward to an average of 3 million war deaths per year worldwide in the 21st century.

So far they haven't even been close. In fact, the last decade has seen fewer war deaths than any decade in the past 100 years, based on data compiled by researchers Bethany Lacina and Nils Petter Gleditsch of the Peace Research Institute Oslo. Worldwide, deaths caused directly by war-related violence in the new century have averaged about 55,000 per year, just over half of what they were in the 1990s (100,000 a year), a third of what they were during the Cold War (180,000 a year from 1950 to 1989), and a hundredth of what they were in World War II. If you factor in the growing global population, which has nearly quadrupled in the last century, the decrease is even sharper. Far from being an age of killer anarchy, the 20 years since the Cold War ended have been an era of rapid progress toward peace.

Armed conflict has declined in large part because armed conflict has fundamentally changed. Wars between big national armies all but disappeared along with the Cold War, taking with them the most horrific kinds of mass destruction.

Crossposted to the News Events of the Day and Spiral of Violence threads.

Comments?

Turning issue?

Other than that, I'll bet that most of people killed in the 2nd half of the 20th were civilians, either by their own totalitarian governments, or by guerilla oragnizations. We currently have fewer loud and proud totalitarian governments (the ones which still exist have pretty much killed off everyone who they needed to kill), while guerillas haven't been as effective as they once were.

Originally Posted by Odin

Scabs deserve the crap they get, they are traitors to their fellow workers.

-Yeah. Providing a service at a better price is "treason." You could just as easily clim that being overpaid is treason.

This what you had in mind?

http://www.nlpc.org/stories/2009/08/...gnores-his-own

A multistate UMW strike in 1993 provides a good example of union persuasion, Trumka-style. As union president, he ordered more than 17,000 miners to walk off their jobs. Among his goals was to ensure that nobody would find work in a mine without paying dues or agency fees to the union. Violence was frequent. That wasn't surprising given Trumka's explicit call to strikers to "kick the shit out of" employees and mine operators resisting demands. Trumka's enforcers vandalized homes of opponents, fired shots at a mine office, and cut power to another mine, temporarily trapping 93 miners underground.

Union goons in that strike also committed another act: murder. On July 22, 1993, heavy-equipment operator Eddie York was shot in the back of the head as he drove past strikers away from a work site. He died instantly. UMW heavies proceeded to beat York's would-be rescuers. Several weeks later, he offered this rationalization: "I'm saying if you strike a match and put your finger in, common sense tells you you're going to burn your finger." In other words, if you don't show solidarity with the union, you'll pay the price. The following June, a federal jury found Mine Workers strike captain Jerry Dale Lowe guilty on conspiracy and weapons charges in the death of York. Sometime before that, York's widow, Wanda York, had filed a $27 million wrongful death suit, naming Trumka and several other UMW officials as co-defendants. For four years, Trumka and his allies fought the suit, all the while claiming Lowe was innocent. Then in June 1997, federal prosecutors announced they would release evidence from Lowe's criminal trial to the attorneys of the York widow. Alarmed, UMW lawyers settled out of court.

Even after leaving his union presidency for his current AFL-CIO post, Trumka gave a nudge and a wink to criminal violence. In April 1998, he and his United Mine Workers successor, Cecil Roberts, came to Bentleyville, Pennsylvania to explain union policies. Some 50 union members showed up to protest. Exercising constitutional rights turned out not to be a smart move. Here's an account by a progressive-Left journalist, Paul Sherrer, of what transpired:

Within minutes a group of UMWA officials and their supporters attacked the protesting miners, ripping leaflets and protest signs from their hands. Several miners were punched, knocked to the ground and kicked repeatedly. [Richard] Cicci was hit with a piece of lumber and suffered a large gash on his head...Richard Trumka refused to answer questions about the assault.

Richard Trumka's denunciation of mob rule by opponents of the Obama health plan, to put it gently, lacks moral consistency. As a socialist, possibly even more of one than John Sweeney, he can be expected to support a radical expansion of government control over the health care sector. But his own history indicates that he has no objections to mob rule - as long as unions make the rules.

Originally Posted by Odin

...Just because he was cleared does not mean he isn't a violent jerk. Do you think OJ isn't a murderer, too?

-Strange. This wasn't the standard which the Self-Proclaimed One-Eyed God Of Wisdom's sused when a pair of SEIU thugs (who were caught on tape) got off the hook for attacking a guy handing out Tea Party stickers:

Originally Posted by Odin

NOT GUILTY!!!

Remember when I wrote all of the reasons why the tea party conspiracy theories about "two union thugs assaulting a black man in parking lot" at Carnahan's town hall were probably false? Well, after two years, a jury of twelve peers finally has reached a conclusion confirming what I've been saying. Elston McCowan and Perry Molens have been found NOT GUILTY of misdemeanor assault...

... Subjective standards based on partisanship. Go figure.

Assault with a deadly weapon (baseball bats) Kidnapping and Felony malicious mischief...these union THUGS need to be thrown in prison. Outragious!

http://news.yahoo.com/longshoremen-s...144921214.html

Originally Posted by Weave

Assault with a deadly weapon (baseball bats) Kidnapping and Felony malicious mischief...these union THUGS need to be thrown in prison. Outragious!

http://news.yahoo.com/longshoremen-s...144921214.html

The article sez...

No one was hurt

So no, no "thuggery" here. Protest is not "thuggery".


I bet you think Jimmy Hoffa is out to kill you, too.

Originally Posted by Odin

So no, no "thuggery" here. Protest is not "thuggery".

For the most part, I agree. Part of the question is how one defines "thuggery". Some would only include actual physical violence and not merely threats or insinuation. Some would include any strong-arm tactics, intimidating actions designed to cower people into getting what the group wants. So when it comes to making economic threats to some entities unless they tow the line, I can see how some would consider that a form of thuggery even if there was no *physical* threat or intimidation. In this economy, economic threats are sometimes more damaging than physical threats. I'm not sure my definition would be that inclusive, but I can understand why some would.

Originally Posted by Odin

The article sez...



So no, no "thuggery" here. Protest is not "thuggery".


I bet you think Jimmy Hoffa is out to kill you, too.

Its not protesting to threaten police officers with baseball bats. The police officer was completely justified to shoot in that circumstance. He chose, because of the overwhelming numbers, to retreat. They also took several security guards hostage for 5 hours. That is kidnapping. They also destroyed private property and earlier made threats of violence and even threaten murder...these are all CRIMES....this is THUGGERY NOT PROTEST...

Originally Posted by Weave

Its not protesting to threaten police officers with baseball bats. The police officer was completely justified to shoot in that circumstance. He chose, because of the overwhelming numbers, to retreat. They also took several security guards hostage for 5 hours. That is kidnapping. They also destroyed private property and earlier made threats of violence and even threaten murder...these are all CRIMES....this is THUGGERY NOT PROTEST...

Yes, we know you think it is wrong for labor to fight back. The Capitalist Elites started the class war, not Labor.

Originally Posted by Odin

Yes, we know you think it is wrong for labor to fight back. The Capitalist Elites started the class war, not Labor.

They could non violently protest or go on strike, those are the only acceptable alternatives. Of course, as a Lefty, you see no problem with violence if its commited in the name of one of your causes....

Originally Posted by Weave

They could non violently protest or go on strike, those are the only acceptable alternatives. Of course, as a Lefty, you see no problem with violence if its commited in the name of one of your causes....

That's of course not really true. I have to qualify because there are times when I do think violence is justified, e.g. in self-defense, or in the rare case when it will actually advance the cause. Most of the time, violence is self-defeating.

I don't know enough of the particulars here to say one way or the other. What I will say, though, is that things are getting bad enough for working people after 30 years of a policy of plutocracy that violent protests should be expected. Perhaps that's the only way at this point. The owner class enacts reforms when it fears revolution, and fears hanging from lampposts. A little fear might go a long way.

I wouldn't say it's "OK" in the sense that people who engage in violence shouldn't be prosecuted. I would say that it's to be expected and that one should consider where the violence actually started.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

That's of course not really true. I have to qualify because there are times when I do think violence is justified, e.g. in self-defense, or in the rare case when it will actually advance the cause. Most of the time, violence is self-defeating.

I don't know enough of the particulars here to say one way or the other. What I will say, though, is that things are getting bad enough for working people after 30 years of a policy of plutocracy that violent protests should be expected. Perhaps that's the only way at this point. The owner class enacts reforms when it fears revolution, and fears hanging from lampposts. A little fear might go a long way.

I wouldn't say it's "OK" in the sense that people who engage in violence shouldn't be prosecuted. I would say that it's to be expected and that one should consider where the violence actually started.

Bryan, there is NO justification for the violence...NONE. They can strike, protest even go to court but they crossed the line. Terrorism is using violence or intimidation to advance a political goal. These THUGS are nothing less than terrorists and hopefully will be dealt with harshly. There are vast amounts of "working" people who disagree with these thugs and many on the right are armed and ready to assist the police to put down these types of terrorist activities.

Originally Posted by Weave

Bryan, there is NO justification for the violence...NONE. They can strike, protest even go to court but they crossed the line. Terrorism is using violence or intimidation to advance a political goal. These THUGS are nothing less than terrorists and hopefully will be dealt with harshly. There are vast amounts of "working" people who disagree with these thugs and many on the right are armed and ready to assist the police to put down these types of terrorist activities.

With that kind of attitude we wouldn't have revolted and broken away from Britain. You do know that the Boston Tea Party was an "act of Terrorism" right? What about Royalist governors getting tarred a feathered.?

Originally Posted by Odin

With that kind of attitude we wouldn't have revolted and broken away from Britain. You do know that the Boston Tea Party was an "act of Terrorism" right? What about Royalist governors getting tarred a feathered.?

So you support a new revolution? Is this situation even remotely like 1773? You lefty hypocrites whine and complain about Sarah Palins "bullseyes" on her website and then rush to the defense of dirtbags like Jimmy Hoffa Jr's call to "take these son of bitches out" Absolutely pathetic. Your justifications remind of the justifications used during the late 60's and 70's when radicals bombed buildings. Disgraceful......

Originally Posted by Weave

Bryan, there is NO justification for the violence...NONE. They can strike, protest even go to court but they crossed the line. Terrorism is using violence or intimidation to advance a political goal. These THUGS are nothing less than terrorists and hopefully will be dealt with harshly. There are vast amounts of "working" people who disagree with these thugs and many on the right are armed and ready to assist the police to put down these types of terrorist activities.

I highlighted the part that describes actions taken under th Patriot Act. Worse, how about the Rendition program, or just plain old Enhanced Interrogation? Shall we arrest and try the entire Bush team? They all seem to have been in on it in one way or another. In their case, people actually died.

Originally Posted by Weave

So you support a new revolution? Is this situation even remotely like 1773?

Well, there is this theory that people talk about on here . . . from time to time.

As quoted from the speech.

Originally Posted by lunacanus.com

James Hoffa spoke about getting out to vote and organizing to get people out and to the polls. He emphasized that the 2012 election is of major importance to the middle and working classes of this country. He also said labor is Obama’s troops and if the Tea Party wants war they got it because we like a good fight. He then said again we have to get every elegible voter to the polls and said “Let’s take these Sons-of-Bitches out.”

Take them out at the polls.

Nothing about second amendment solutions.
No bulls eyes painted on rattlesnake flags.
Just "take them out at the polls."

Originally Posted by herbal tee

As quoted from the speech.

Take them out at the polls.

Nothing about second amendment solutions.
No bulls eyes painted on rattlesnake flags.
Just "take them out at the polls."

You miss the context, ht. America has a grand tradition of getting into fights under the claim that "the other guy hit first". That's all this is -- and really, all the hand waving over 'second amendment solutions' and bullseye logos is just the exact same thing from the ostensibly-'other' side. They're getting ready for a fight, and want to make sure they have their "he started it" propaganda lines already laid out ahead of time. Whoever is on the side that ends up winning is going to totally buy whatever the then-settled official history holds -- be it "the violence kicked off when the ringleader of the Union thugs issued a rallying call for his troops to 'take out' the White Hats," or "the violence kicked off when the theocrat-fascist leadership issued covert rallying calls (often with direct references to firearms) to their supporters to attack the White Hats"

This will be the Established, 'True' history. Kids will study it as a simple fact of the entire era. Court personages like our own D. Kaiser will insist that only the irrational and deluded could even conceive of a different interpretation of events. This is the way it works.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

You miss the context, ht. America has a grand tradition of getting into fights under the claim that "the other guy hit first". That's all this is -- and really, all the hand waving over 'second amendment solutions' and bullseye logos is just the exact same thing from the ostensibly-'other' side. They're getting ready for a fight, and want to make sure they have their "he started it" propaganda lines already laid out ahead of time. Whoever is on the side that ends up winning is going to totally buy whatever the then-settled official history holds -- be it "the violence kicked off when the ringleader of the Union thugs issued a rallying call for his troops to 'take out' the White Hats," or "the violence kicked off when the theocrat-fascist leadership issued covert rallying calls (often with direct references to firearms) to their supporters to attack the White Hats"

This will be the Established, 'True' history. Kids will study it as a simple fact of the entire era. Court personages like our own D. Kaiser will insist that only the irrational and deluded could even conceive of a different interpretation of events. This is the way it works.

History shall be kind to me, for I intend to write it.

Originally Posted by Weave

So you support a new revolution? Is this situation even remotely like 1773? You lefty hypocrites whine and complain about Sarah Palins "bullseyes" on her website and then rush to the defense of dirtbags like Jimmy Hoffa Jr's call to "take these son of bitches out" Absolutely pathetic. Your justifications remind of the justifications used during the late 60's and 70's when radicals bombed buildings. Disgraceful......

1. It is an army of voters -- not a militia. That's the way in which we "take the bastards down" without exposing ourselves to long prison terms or a death cahmber in some state or federal prison.

2. The "sons of bitches" may be crude... after all every dog is either a bitch or the son of a bitch, literally... and it is far nicer than "fascist pigs", I suppose.

3. The "1773" references fit Governors Walker of Wisconsin, Scott of Florida, and Kasich of Ohio very well when their behavior in office begins to resemble that of George III.

4. So far I expect Democrats to use symbolism far less violent than gunsights or bullseyes. It could be something like "Show him the door!" Or if I were thinking of a musical treatment, it could be "Oops, there goes/ another rubber-stamp down!"(In How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying, a peppy musical unwatchable now because of its contemporary unreality, the line is "Oops there goes/another rubber-tree plant").

5. Nobody is suggesting the use of arson (which includes bombings) or other forms of terrorism.

6. Just admit it -- the Tea Party isn't going to make life better for most of us. It stands behind people who want Americans to work longer and harder under harsher conditions for less and with even less economic security. We have seen its legislative agenda, and it is extremely unpopular. Sure it is able to hamstring the President so that he can achieve nothing -- but it does even more harm to its favored politicians. I almost think that its financial backers want a return to the norm of the 70-hour work week and 40-year lifespan for industrial, farm, and mine workers as well as the reduction of the middle class into a small group of dependent flunkies. I don't know whether it wants a return to Jim Crow practice in the South or child labor in industry...

7. I know that you hate unions. You probably can hardly say "union" without the word "thug" attached. Tough. Unions are the only organizations capable of standing up to bureaucratic organizations owned by Pharaoh-like tycoons and bureaucratic game-players. History has shown many examples of corporate elites and feudal lords (the usual allies) supporting thug politicians and politicized militias to keep wages down. America is hardly exempt.

8. So you think yourself a conservative. If you want to preserve something, then make sure that it is good. American working people drifted Republican and conservative as they began to have the accoutrements of middle-income lives -- tract houses, cars, appliances, furniture, electronic gadgets, steak, vacations, and bank accounts. That seems to be disappearing. So what are we getting in return? A sullen proletariat is just the thing to turn upon its masters at the first opportunity, like a military debacle.

Your side of the political spectrum needs beware that many of us educated, middle-class people have read Karl Marx and rejected his call for 'socialist revolution' only because we found Lenin, Mao, Castro, and Ho Chi Minh irrelevant and objectionable. Impose a fascist dictatorship and someone like me can find ways in which to adapt Marx to the best of American traditions of politics, including the checks and balances that fascist regimes reject -- not to mention free and competitive elections and plenty of opportunity for small business as an alternative to having to be a toady to some state bureaucracy. Maybe we would nationalize entities "too big to fail" that corrupted the system, bought fascist politicians, crushed small-scale competition, and perhaps sponsored militias.

Washington State Longshore Workers Dump Scab Grain to Protect Jobs

AP: Before dawn today, 500 people broke down terminal gates, prevented security guards from interfering, and cut the train’s brake lines.

The confrontation between West Coast longshore workers and an anti-union exporter exploded as pickets massed on railroad tracks by the hundreds yesterday to block grain shipments.

Police used clubs and pepper spray on protesters in Longview, Washington, as they made 19 arrests.

Early this morning a terminal there was invaded and hoppers holding about 10,000 tons of grain were opened onto railroad tracks.

Ports in Washington shut down completely Thursday as hundreds of longshore workers rushed to Longview, in the state’s southwestern corner.

Bill Proctor, a Longshore Union (ILWU) retiree, was with fellow retirees and active workers on an early morning picket line at a Seattle grain terminal. He said, “If that facility is allowed to go non-ILWU, other facilities will be tempted to follow suit. And the grain terminals on the coast are all going into contract bargaining next month.”

A foreman came out to politely assure the picketers that no one would do their work.

EGT Development, a consortium of three companies, wants to operate its new $200 million grain terminal in Longview using non-ILWU labor, despite a contract with the port requiring it to do so. When the ILWU protested, the company signed up with an Operating Engineers local.

Every other major grain terminal on the West Coast is operated by ILWU labor, and the union asserts that EGT’s goal is to go non-union altogether, ending generations of good jobs.

Defied Restraining Order

In a series of protests since July, ILWU members and supporters sat down on train tracks and occupied the new terminal, resulting in 100 arrests. As picketing continued, no trains had attempted to bring in grain shipments since July. But last week a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order at the request of the National Labor Relations Board, which said ILWU pickets had harassed EGT workers.

Once the restraining order was in place, the BNSF railroad decided to try once more to ship grain. Justin Hirsch, a Seattle longshore worker, said grain terminals are major customers for the rail companies, who might move 500 trains a year through a terminal.

Pickets in Vancouver, Washington, 40 miles from Longview, delayed the BNSF train yesterday morning, until police cleared protesters away.

That afternoon, hundreds of port workers stood on railroad tracks at Longview to block the mile-long train. Nineteen were arrested and ILWU national president Bob McEllrath was detained briefly—as talk spread up the coast that police had broken McEllrath’s arm. Riot police used clubs and pepper spray on some protesters.

Union officers eventually urged the blockaders to let the train through. But while it sat overnight inside the terminal gates, the word went out. Workers in Seattle left their jobs before the shift ended. Proctor reported that members of Local 19 gathered at 2 a.m. to head the two-and-a-half hours to Longview.

“Overnight people started flooding into Longview,” said Hirsch. AP reported that before dawn, 500 people broke down terminal gates, prevented security guards from interfering, and cut the train’s brake lines.

Noting that a train could hold 107 carloads, Hirsch said the mess on the tracks would be “time-consuming to clean up” and noted “somebody’s not getting paid.”

Proctor said, “This struggle is central to our future because grain work accounts for 20 percent of the financing of our pension and welfare funds.”

Not the First Time

Longshore workers have a history of militant action to defend their jobs. In the 1980s a company called Pier Q tried to use non-union labor to move lumber through the small port of Vancouver, Washington. ILWU members organized a rally at the port, drawing longshore workers from as far away as Los Angeles. International President Jimmy Herman spoke to a crowd of 2,000 or 3,000 assembled in a warehouse, recalled Doug Rollins, now a clerk at the Port of Tacoma.

The crowd marched out and surrounded the terminal, and longshore workers with wire cutters ran toward the lumber bundles sitting on the pier.

“Every time you cut the bands off the lumber, the bundle would just explode and it would be like toothpicks shooting up in the air and coming down in a big pile,” said Rollins. Ten minutes after the start of the action, millions of board feet of lumber covered the terminal.

Rollins reported that a policeman asked Herman who led the action. “I don’t know, we don’t know,” Herman said. The international president was there, but the ranks were in charge, Rollins said. Since there were too many workers to arrest, the police stood by and watched as the thousands dispersed and went home.

Will It Restrain?

The restraining order, issued by a federal judge, lasts 10 days. Both sides are back in court today, when the judge will decide if the order should be made permanent.

ILWU spokesman Craig Merrilees said, “There is no formal action at either the local or International level, but large numbers of individuals appear to have taken action on their own.” He stressed that no arrests were made at this morning’s action and called the AP’s report of security guards taken hostage “ridiculous.”

“When corporations and the government turn their backs on working families,” Merrilees said, “it shouldn’t surprise anyone to see people step forward and try to fight back.”

Ports in Tacoma and Seattle are closed today, though the international said no job action has been called. One worker said work would resume at 3 a.m. Friday—unless it doesn’t.

Originally Posted by Odin

Washington State Longshore Workers Dump Scab Grain to Protect Jobs

AP: Before dawn today, 500 people broke down terminal gates, prevented security guards from interfering, and cut the train’s brake lines.

Article says that they have a history of reacting like this. Now when/if something similar happens in a Southern right to work state like mines...then I think we are heading for an uprising like the one you spoke about in the "do you believe" thread.

Good for the longshoremen. I don't have enough of a dog in this fight to care a whole lot, but at the same time, as a better polemicist than I recently said,

"When a hundred hands of longshoremen can get a federal judge in such a tizzy that he demands they act with restraint and within a "mature process," they are fucking well doing something right.

And that is worth celebrating."

The latest FBI statistics show a 14% decrease in gun related murders since 2006. This is despite a 30% rise in gun purchase related background checks done when someone buys a firearm. This of course does not include all the purchases done by private sales of firearms. This is more evidence that the availability and access to firearms does not increase the likelyhood of crime.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/28/gu...gun-ownership/

Originally Posted by Weave

The latest FBI statistics show a 14% decrease in gun related murders since 2006. This is despite a 30% rise in gun purchase related background checks done when someone buys a firearm. This of course does not include all the purchases done by private sales of firearms. This is more evidence that the availability and access to firearms does not increase the likelyhood of crime.

Another possible conclusion is that more guns mean less crime.

James50