The Kids Company mess explained by simple accountancy - they didn't build up any reserves. Batmanrelish pretty much said as much on the radio when she said the problem was that 'there wasn't enough money because there were still needy kids out there'. Well yes, there are, as there are still dogs without a home, medical conditions not fully researched and yes, kids who are disadvantaged. The charity's ethos if you listen to both the good and bad stories seems to have been to do whatever was necessary even if prohibitively costly. Which was probably why it was such a darling of government - a no questions asked mop up operation that because it was at arms' length could solve tough questions seemingly easily and offer miracles.
It's a rather good example of why the big society was never going to fly. Charities are at their best when focused on specific solvable problems where they can budget and have clear targets to achieve like funding an amount of research or having a funding target to provide something, not when they're trying to solve social problems on the hop, which is effectively pouring money down a well - there will always be plenty more disadvantaged people who need your help. To even begin to solve that (if you think it's necessary, you may not), you need the power and financial muscle of the state which a) will have the necessary funds if it's thought a priority and b) can use law, or the application of existing laws to compel better outcomes when possible.
Having checked again, on US casualties in the Pacific, I get 111,000 dead and 260,000 injured. But, if Filipino casualties are added (the Philippines then being ruled by the US) the number goes up to 1.5m.
?? When do Filipino's count as US? That still does not make them US military casualties. Its rubbish to talk about 1 million US casualties in 1 year in the pacific, as was suggested. This does not mean it was not the right thing to drop the bomb.
Many of them were fighting under US command, but I accept I misremembered the 1m figure.
Tonight's debate - one of the intriguing things is that if you attack another candidate by name, that candidate gets 30 seconds to respond.
The Republican National Convention will be in Cleveland next year.
Tonight is the start of the first of 3 major hurdles for a Trump primary victory.
If the dynamic of the first debate develops favourably for Trump then I expect him to coast easily on first place till Christmas.
- and the other two hurdles?
Gaffes and Scandals.
Trump's entire campaign can be conventionally called a gaffe by ordinary political standards, however because he actually says the same stuff that common republican voters say as well he hasn't been hurt by them (see McCain).
The Scandals are the thing that of course can derail a "man of the people" candidate, and Trump has probably done many shifty business deals as a property tycoon, however he has probably done many of those with powerful politicians who will also be caught in any scandal, and Trump has a lot of baggage for many politicians who asked for money or favours from him all these decades and he is all too happy to divulge it if he feels so. Imagine if Chris Christie attacks him and Trump reveals embarrassing if not criminal information about Christie asking him money in exchange for favours for Trump's Atlantic City casinos. That is why I believe why no one has dared to even stage proper attack adds or uncover scandals about him, Trump knows where the bodies are buried.
I thought that until recently Trump had given most of his money to Democrats. But I take your point.
The question also becomes, if such scandal material exists in a useable form, when to deploy. I guess part of that is where is the holder of the scandal evidence stand in the race and how will release of the information help him or her.
I visited Hiroshima a few years ago - as well as a few stone built buildings like the Cathedral, the tram network also survived and has been kept going as a memorial. Both my 12 year old daughter and I found the museum a bit too much and cut out after an hour or so.
In terms of the effectiveness of the nuclear bombs and Tokyo etc - I think the War and Peace parties had equal numbers of war cabinet ministers with the Emperor having a casting vote - the cabinet was in deadlock with no mechanism to get the Emperor into the room to break it. I think it was the fear of Russia invading form the East which finally broke the deadlock and brought about the surrender to the US.
I could be wrong - I'm not an expert on Japanese history - but I think it wasn't until after Japan had decided to surrender that Russia (the USSR) decided to invade, and largely so they could have some input in post-war Manchuria rather than any other reason.
The irony is of course that having declared war on Japan at literally the last minute, the two countries remain officially at war because they've never been able to agree on peace terms.
My memory (and IANAE) recalls differently: the Russians had moved vast numbers of troops east after the fall of Berlin, ready to attack three months after VE day as part of a commitment made at one of the conferences. Yalta, perhaps?
BTW, from what you wrote below, I wish I'd had you as a history teacher.
It was Yalta Agreement, yes. During their brief campaign, the Soviets seized South Sakhalin, the Kuriles (all of them), Manchuria and entered northern Korea.
Fair enough, I was wrong. Does happen. The problem with history is there is simply so much of it. Even within tightly defined areas - e.g. Russia - it isn't possible to know everything. My ideas were based on one conversation some years ago, and I clearly forgot some of the details.
Thank you for the kind words Mr Jessop.
Sadly one of the main drivers behind the Japanese surrender to the US was that the Russians would've deposed the Emperor.
The Japanese surrendered to everyone, including Russians British and Americans.
Tonight's debate - one of the intriguing things is that if you attack another candidate by name, that candidate gets 30 seconds to respond.
The Republican National Convention will be in Cleveland next year.
Tonight is the start of the first of 3 major hurdles for a Trump primary victory.
If the dynamic of the first debate develops favourably for Trump then I expect him to coast easily on first place till Christmas.
- and the other two hurdles?
Gaffes and Scandals.
Trump's entire campaign can be conventionally called a gaffe by ordinary political standards, however because he actually says the same stuff that common republican voters say as well he hasn't been hurt by them (see McCain).
The Scandals are the thing that of course can derail a "man of the people" candidate, and Trump has probably done many shifty business deals as a property tycoon, however he has probably done many of those with powerful politicians who will also be caught in any scandal, and Trump has a lot of baggage for many politicians who asked for money or favours from him all these decades and he is all too happy to divulge it if he feels so. Imagine if Chris Christie attacks him and Trump reveals embarrassing if not criminal information about Christie asking him money in exchange for favours for Trump's Atlantic City casinos. That is why I believe why no one has dared to even stage proper attack adds or uncover scandals about him, Trump knows where the bodies are buried.
It's too early for attack TV ads.
Trump has noticeably scaled back his attacks on others recently - but intriguingly even the McCain attack has not hurt him at all. In fact his ratings went higher.
He was noticeably nervous in TV interviews about the debate last night. He is now the front runner and has a lead to protect. Love him or hate him he is one smart guy.
Tonight will be fascinating. The moderators say their primary objective is to get candidates off their talking points.
Having checked again, on US casualties in the Pacific, I get 111,000 dead and 260,000 injured. But, if Filipino casualties are added (the Philippines then being ruled by the US) the number goes up to 1.5m.
Given that and the plans that we know were made for the defence of the homeland projections of massive allied casualties, into the hundreds of thousands, were probably not unrealistic.
"Prof. Albert Einstein... said that he was sure that President Roosevelt would have forbidden the atomic bombing of Hiroshima had he been alive and that it was probably carried out to end the Pacific war before Russia could participate." - Einstein Deplores Use of Atom Bomb, New York Times, 8/19/46, pg. 1.
"Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had ever seen and, in effect, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia. "I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds." - Ellis Zacharias [Deputy Direcor, ONI], How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender, Look, 6/6/50, pg. 19-21.
In early May of 1946 Hoover met with General Douglas MacArthur. Hoover recorded in his diary, "I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria." - Herbert Hoover, quoted in Gar Alperovitz, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb
"...when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs." - Brigadier General Carter Clarke, quoted in Gar Alperovitz, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb
"During his [Stinson's] recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..." - Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change
Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor." - Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power
The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that was primarily written by Paul Nitze and reflected his reasoning: "Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." - quoted in Barton Bernstein, The Atomic Bomb, pg. 52-56.
Tonight's debate - one of the intriguing things is that if you attack another candidate by name, that candidate gets 30 seconds to respond.
The Republican National Convention will be in Cleveland next year.
Tonight is the start of the first of 3 major hurdles for a Trump primary victory.
If the dynamic of the first debate develops favourably for Trump then I expect him to coast easily on first place till Christmas.
- and the other two hurdles?
Gaffes and Scandals.
Trump's entire campaign can be conventionally called a gaffe by ordinary political standards, however because he actually says the same stuff that common republican voters say as well he hasn't been hurt by them (see McCain).
The Scandals are the thing that of course can derail a "man of the people" candidate, and Trump has probably done many shifty business deals as a property tycoon, however he has probably done many of those with powerful politicians who will also be caught in any scandal, and Trump has a lot of baggage for many politicians who asked for money or favours from him all these decades and he is all too happy to divulge it if he feels so. Imagine if Chris Christie attacks him and Trump reveals embarrassing if not criminal information about Christie asking him money in exchange for favours for Trump's Atlantic City casinos. That is why I believe why no one has dared to even stage proper attack adds or uncover scandals about him, Trump knows where the bodies are buried.
I thought that until recently Trump had given most of his money to Democrats. But I take your point.
The question also becomes, if such scandal material exists in a useable form, when to deploy. I guess part of that is where is the holder of the scandal evidence stand in the race and how will release of the information help him or her.
That's why if the debates do Trump no harm then he will remain in first place till Christmas were I expect the kitchen sinks to start to be thrown. Though already I have heard that Priebus in the event that Trump wins a majority of delagates, will create as many super delegates as needed in order to nominate someone else, reverting to the pre-1972 model of selecting candidates by party machine not by voters in primaries.
Does this sorry excuse for humanity require two assistants to do an interview?
One of the assistants gets called out mid-interview by either a BBC employee or possibly a third assistant. This creature has a bigger entourage than most pop stars.
"We had a kid jumping off a bridge and the police had to grab him out of mid air"
Colour me sceptical
She is an utter fantasist (amongst many other things).
She needs called out on this. And other things.
This whole thing is the type of thing that makes me despair about society, the way it allows this sort of creature to flourish and prosper and the way it actually victimises peopled as "vulnerable". Personally, any politician who uses the phrase "vulnerable people" should be barred from public office (along with those who say "hardworking families".
The trouble with this case is that it does immense damage to the concept of charity as a whole.
I'm not even surprised about the sexual abuse allegations. We've seen so many times how predators get into positions of trust to gain access to victims.
The BBC report makes it sound more like an introduction service rather than anything being circumvented.
It just boggles belief they had (presumably) unvetted men in their twenties as clients when they are supposed to be providing a service for vulnerable children.
Yes, you'd have thought they'd have done CBR checks - unless they did, and those checks didn't pick up anything dodgy. I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case, either.
Being very hopeful there.
I don't think there is any chance they were CRBing their male clients in their twenties before letting them loose with young girls.
I am sure one could find six quotes from people who were involved in the decision that would support it and contradict the views of those you have quoted.
In trying to understand the decision that was made I think one would have to look at the information that was available to the men who made it and the imperatives that they were labouring under. The greatest of these must surely have been to bring the war to a successful conclusion as quickly as possible with the minimum of casualties, especially US ones. There was also no question of anything other than an unconditional surrender by Japan, that had been agreed by the allies at Yalta.
So in Truman's shoes, what do you do?
Starve them out? Might take months (one of you quotes suggested it might take until 31/12/45) during which on every day hundreds maybe thousands more people would die or be wounded. The death toll amongst Japanese civilians would have been horrific even if no further offensive action was taken.
Invade? Plausible casualty projections for allied troops were horrific.
Drop the bomb? Mass Japanese casualties, but no more than had already been caused in conventional bombing raids and the chance to bring the war to an end within weeks.
It was Truman's call to make. I remember reading somewhere that after the event he said words to the effect that if he had not done his best to end the war as quickly as possible he could never have held his head up in the company of the families of US casualties taken after he could have dropped the bomb.
Another view might be to turn the problem on its head and ask why if the Japanese were so eager to surrender they didn't do so? Was there a peace party in the corridors of Japanese government? Almost certainly, there was in Hitler's chancery too. Was that peace party in the ascendent and able to act? I am sceptical.
Comments
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/06/kids-company-directors-were-warned-to-build-up-reserves
The Kids Company mess explained by simple accountancy - they didn't build up any reserves. Batmanrelish pretty much said as much on the radio when she said the problem was that 'there wasn't enough money because there were still needy kids out there'. Well yes, there are, as there are still dogs without a home, medical conditions not fully researched and yes, kids who are disadvantaged. The charity's ethos if you listen to both the good and bad stories seems to have been to do whatever was necessary even if prohibitively costly. Which was probably why it was such a darling of government - a no questions asked mop up operation that because it was at arms' length could solve tough questions seemingly easily and offer miracles.
It's a rather good example of why the big society was never going to fly. Charities are at their best when focused on specific solvable problems where they can budget and have clear targets to achieve like funding an amount of research or having a funding target to provide something, not when they're trying to solve social problems on the hop, which is effectively pouring money down a well - there will always be plenty more disadvantaged people who need your help. To even begin to solve that (if you think it's necessary, you may not), you need the power and financial muscle of the state which a) will have the necessary funds if it's thought a priority and b) can use law, or the application of existing laws to compel better outcomes when possible.
The question also becomes, if such scandal material exists in a useable form, when to deploy. I guess part of that is where is the holder of the scandal evidence stand in the race and how will release of the information help him or her.
Trump has noticeably scaled back his attacks on others recently - but intriguingly even the McCain attack has not hurt him at all. In fact his ratings went higher.
He was noticeably nervous in TV interviews about the debate last night. He is now the front runner and has a lead to protect. Love him or hate him he is one smart guy.
Tonight will be fascinating. The moderators say their primary objective is to get candidates off their talking points.
- Einstein Deplores Use of Atom Bomb, New York Times, 8/19/46, pg. 1.
"Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had ever seen and, in effect, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia.
"I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds."
- Ellis Zacharias [Deputy Direcor, ONI], How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender, Look, 6/6/50, pg. 19-21.
In early May of 1946 Hoover met with General Douglas MacArthur. Hoover recorded in his diary, "I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria."
- Herbert Hoover, quoted in Gar Alperovitz, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb
"...when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs."
- Brigadier General Carter Clarke, quoted in Gar Alperovitz, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb
- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change
Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."
- Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power
The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that was primarily written by Paul Nitze and reflected his reasoning:
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
- quoted in Barton Bernstein, The Atomic Bomb, pg. 52-56.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3187137/Scientists-reveal-embarrassing-mistakes-fieldworkfail.html#ixzz3i4DrS9eI
new thread
I don't think there is any chance they were CRBing their male clients in their twenties before letting them loose with young girls.
I am sure one could find six quotes from people who were involved in the decision that would support it and contradict the views of those you have quoted.
In trying to understand the decision that was made I think one would have to look at the information that was available to the men who made it and the imperatives that they were labouring under. The greatest of these must surely have been to bring the war to a successful conclusion as quickly as possible with the minimum of casualties, especially US ones. There was also no question of anything other than an unconditional surrender by Japan, that had been agreed by the allies at Yalta.
So in Truman's shoes, what do you do?
Starve them out? Might take months (one of you quotes suggested it might take until 31/12/45) during which on every day hundreds maybe thousands more people would die or be wounded. The death toll amongst Japanese civilians would have been horrific even if no further offensive action was taken.
Invade? Plausible casualty projections for allied troops were horrific.
Drop the bomb? Mass Japanese casualties, but no more than had already been caused in conventional bombing raids and the chance to bring the war to an end within weeks.
It was Truman's call to make. I remember reading somewhere that after the event he said words to the effect that if he had not done his best to end the war as quickly as possible he could never have held his head up in the company of the families of US casualties taken after he could have dropped the bomb.
Another view might be to turn the problem on its head and ask why if the Japanese were so eager to surrender they didn't do so? Was there a peace party in the corridors of Japanese government? Almost certainly, there was in Hitler's chancery too. Was that peace party in the ascendent and able to act? I am sceptical.