[PEN-L:1170] help needed
Dear PENers, I need e-mail or phone numbers of either one of these: John Charles Pool, Stephen C. Stamos, Patrice Franko Jones, who published a text: "THE ABCs OF INTERNATIONAL FINANCE." If you know, please respond directly to me. Thank you in advance. Fikret Fikret Ceyhun Dept. of Economics e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Univ. of North Dakota voice: (701)777-3348 office University Station, Box 8369(701)772-5135 home Grand Forks, ND 58202 fax:(701)777-5099
[PEN-L:1171] why get rid of the Commerce Department?
In addition to the reasons that Doug mentions for why the GOPsters want to abolish the Commerce Dept, I would bet that one -- never spoken -- reason is that the Dept. is currently being run by a black man (and one who wasn't a Clarence Thomas). I'd bet that this was also one of the reasons for the antagonism toward Jocelyn Elders and Henry Foster (plus the general GOP attitude that if Clinton likes something the GOP must be against it). BTW, the GOPsters want to get rid of the Labor Dept. next. Along with the other reasons, I bet they don't like Robert Reich. The ultra-opportunists at the White House are probably willing to sacrifice him so they can look more "presidential," i.e., more Republican. As for Peter Burns' question about the GOP actually stimulating private investment and thus the economy: yes, they can do that. But such a profits-led boom encourages investment to get further out of line with consumer demand, implying greater tendency toward recession. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
[PEN-L:1172] Re: Gilder's delusions
Gilder's delusions are this nation's spectacles.
My first and totally ignored post on the MMM ('the cult of the
male')pointed out the link between Farrakhan and the 'independent' right as
I quoted from Gilder's Men and Marriage, critically reviewed by the way in
a helpful comparative study of Britain and the US by Pamela Abbott and
Claire Wallace, *The Family and the New Right* (London: Pluto, 1991).
By independent right, I mean those working from powerful institutions
which are able to foist upon the public the vilest propaganda without any
sort of peer review. The independence of these right-wing thinkers was for
example underlined and lamented in the *American Economic Review's*
critical piece on the *Bell Curve*.
Murray's earlier shit was discredited in many reviews; at any rate, Clinton
only recently suggested that Murray was indeed correct--in other words,
Clinton showed all the potential of a social-fascist. This speaks to my
point that Murray and Gilder need to be taken seriously, no matter how
vacuous one finds their analysis.
Gilder of course concludes today's WSJ article with the most resounding
applause for the MMM.
I won't reproduce the last two paragraphs; I trust that those who are
interested will read it.
What are the political implications of Gilder's 'delusions' in the context
of today's economy? I don't think it is simply to cut AFDC and any job
training for women, so as to force them to become dependent upon men and
restore the patriarchal family through which boys are to be socialized as
hard-working proletarians. Of course, undercutting women's independence may
not lead them into marriage, and it won't establish men as economically
powerful enough to become patriarchs. The "Leave it to Beaver" family,
then a fantasy, is even more of one now.
So the real agenda now is both to round up the boys into boot-camps in
which they are to receive this patriarchal socialization (see James Q
Wilson) and to commence the sterilization of women on the grounds that it
is a "menace to society" to allow them to have children without fathers.
Tellingly, Charles Murray has openly supported full abortion rights for the
so-called underclass. In other words, the agenda is quickly moving from
neglect to further and deeper coercion, and the NOI is being set up to play
a very important role in this.
For the threat of sterilization, see the disturbing book by UC Berkeley
sociologist Troy Duster, *The Backdoor to Eugenics*. Routledge.
Rakesh Bhandari
Ph.D. Candidate
Group in Ethnic Studies
UC Berkeley
[PEN-L:1173] steel experts?
A subscriber of mine, Tom Lehmann, is looking for someone who knows the steel industry well and who is sympathetic to labor to talk about the industry and the general economic environment for a joint union-management seminar to be held in Lorain County, Ohio. Anyone interested in volunteering, or if you have any suggestions of people you'd be happy to volunteer, please contact Lehmann at 800-227-7113, ext. 2412 during business hours, Ohio time. Thanks. Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
[PEN-L:1175] Re: Gilder's...
Just to add a couple of minor points to Rakesh Bahandri's post, which I think is very good: 1. The sterilization of poor and non-European women has been around for years and years, it is just gaining popularity again. NARAL -- For example, (the National Abortion Rights Action League) has had policies opposing forced sterilization since the group's inception in the early 70s. Opposition from the right to abortion has always contained strong class and race elements. When pushed, most right wingers would probably admit that they oppose abortion for middle and upper class white women, not all women. The gynecology business also has clearly racist trends. According to Gail Sheehy in "Silent Passage" the majority of African American women in this country have had full hysterectomies before menopause while for women of other races, a full hysterectomy is rarely ordered. 2. The history of social welfare policies in this country is full of methods to track the poor back into jobs with sub-standard wages. Generally, most Americans see that women with children are deserving of help. Once those women do not have children, then they are no longer deserving of help and can be forced into minimum wage or less than minimum wage jobs. Thus, we now have judges ordering welfare mothers to have Norplant implants against their will -- and judges who refuse to reverse their rulings even when women have severe complications from the Norplant. [Norplant is a series of small tubes filled with contraceptive which are surgically implanted under a woman's skin in her upper arm]. Of course, none of these judges order men to wear condoms maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:1174] Re: Gilder's delusions
Excellent post, Rakesh! Rakesh makes two extremely important points: Farrakhan is Gingrich in blackface; and the right's policy proposals are pointing towards genocide from several directions. Let's not forget that Murray and Herrnstein have floated the idea of turning the ghettos into reservations--as Perot did somewhat earlier. What makes the Farrakhan thing so troubling is that Black folk in this country have been a consistent voice of opposition, for freedom, against racism, for new social relations, against poverty and unemployment. At a time when other voices of opposition are not loud, the voices raised in the LA rebellion seem even louder. Now that the right is so ascendant and so powerful, it seems like they're engaging in a mop-up operation--having gotten so much of their agenda accomplished and having squelched so much other opposition, they are now in a position to try to divide and conquer, the Black community. Now is the time to focus on divisions between Black masses and Black "leaders," and within the Black leadership. Now is the time to focus on how the right is trying to separate the Black middle class from the proletariat and "underclass" (Farrakhan speaks for a section of the Black petty bourgeoisie, mostly ghetto businessMEN). Above all, we must be on the alert for fascism and genocide. The Gingriches will not be able to solve this country's, much less the world's, problems. They will not make things better for even the native-born, white, male part of the working class. The global economic slump is too intractable, and too serious for that. (Anyone who thinks the US economy is in great shape, like Lucas, should reflect on why the prosperity can only exist by virtue of the impoverishment of working people, devastation of Africa and Latin America and the reverse flow of finance connected to it, and an uncontrollable public and private debt.) So what is next? Outright fascism is a real possibility. Automation, drugs, and falling wages have already devastated the ghettos; the cuts in welfare--in addition to a decade or more of cutting--will do more damage. So genocide is already taking place, in a fashion. If the need for a scapegoat to deflect attention from capitalism as a system becomes greater, though, things will be even worse. The uppermost need today is to develop an alternative, liberatory IDEA of the future that can serve as a pole of attraction against the right. The Left has concentrated on programs, expose's, strategies and given the right the ability to dominate in ideas, which is the most dangerous thing. The Left used to tailend the liberals' ideas, but the economic slump has long ago bankrupted the economy and bankrupted the liberalism that was founded on a growing economy. Now, only the right seems to be giving people a *comprehensive* explanation for their suffering. It is balme-the-victim bullshit and worse, but we all do need to make sense of our experience as a whole, and in the absence of a better alternative, the right's crap does possess an attraction for many. Andrew Kliman
[PEN-L:1176] Repub budget
I've just gotten the Democratic staff of the Joint Economic Committee's estimates of the distributional effects of the Republican budget proposals. Combining tax and spending changes yields the following effects by income quintile in FY2002: CHANGE IN INCOME BY QUINTILE, 2002 dollars % of income poorest -2,497 -23.3% second -1,085 - 3.9 middle - 419 - 0.9 fourth + 17 + 0.0 richest + 760 + 0.4 These numbers are from the House proposals. Senate numbers are pretty much the same. They include only benefit changes that can be allocated to specific income groupings; they exclude spending on RD, environment, transportation, etc., that are difficult if not impossible to allocate. Every income class is hit by spending cuts; only the top 40% get an appreciable tax break. Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
[PEN-L:1177] Re: Gilder's...
Maggie Coleman, as seen 10/30, hangs around different rightists and leftists than I do. Contrary to what her assumption appears to be, the right-to-lifers I know oppose abortion among poor black women just as among rich white. (They may, separately, think that the poor blacks are unfit mothers, and may do so for uncontestably racist/sexist/classist reasons, but few anti-abortionists would except poor blacks. To the contrary -- the thorough-going racists among them _favor_ abortions among poor women, especially blacks.) You see, anti-abortionists don't think of an abortion that didn't happen as a diminution of someone's right; they think of it as a life saved. So opposing abortions is not _harming_ someone, in their view. On the other hand, it is a dirty little secret that not a few liberals approve abortion precisely because it reduces the number of undesirables. Just as Ms. Sanger wanted in the first place. Boy, real life gets in the way of slogans, doesn't it? Michael Etchison [opinions mine, not the PUCT's]
[PEN-L:1178]
Here's an article (from a speech) I wrote last fall which has new significance tonight. Elaine Original message A Quick Background to the Quebec Sovereignty Issue for American Progressives by Elaine Bernard Harvard Trade Union Program As general background and context to a discussion of the Quebecois nationalist movement in Canada, it's useful to begin with some general comments on Canadian society, the Anglophone (English-speaking) Canadian identity, and the Canadian federal state. Canada, similar to the US, was established as a colonial settler state by European colonial powers. England and France fought over the territory for many years with the British finally winning in 1759 in the battle of the Plains of Abraham (Quebec City). This rather obscure battle between two imperial powers over possession of the Northern most colonies in North America has lived on in popular culture as an epithet flung at Quebecois whenever Quebec seeks rights or recognition of its unique character. "Don't they know they lost the battle of the Plains of Abraham?" Beyond the historic imperial battles, there is a clear recognition that Canada as an emerging state has always had to tread very carefully, surviving first as a colony of Britain, the greatest imperial power of the last century, and then coming of age next door to the new major imperial power, the U.S. Never far from the mind of Canadians was the threat to their existance by the giant to the South, though this threat played out somewhat differently for each nationality. Quebecois, as a Francophone nation within North America, have been concerned with preserving their language and culture against the pressure of English language and cultural dominance in both the US and Canada. Historically, the fear of assimilation has generally pushed the Francophones into an uneasy alliance with English Canada as a weaker assimulationist force. For example, when the British permitted Quebec to maintain its religion, language and civil code -- this fact was listed as a grievance by the rebellious 13 colonies in their Declaration of Independence. As is so often the case when dealing with issues of nationalism -- one nations liberty was anothers grievance. Britain's policy towards Quebece assured the loyalty of the newly conquered colony during the American revolution. Anglophone Canadians take great pride in their national identity and see themselves as quite distinct from Americans -- in culture, political institutions and community. But lacking the barrier of a separate language, Anglophone Canadians often find themselves on the defensive being required to explain how they are "different" from Americans, as if the US constituted the norm and all others are required to explain deviations. Accordingly many Canadians engage in humorous quibs about their society by referencing US themes -- for example, Canada is the "kindler, gentler nation" evoked by President George Bush, or Canadians are simply "Minnesotans with universal health care," or "Americans without guns." Countries and nations are, of course, conscious socially constructed communities. A limited but sharp contrast of the different beliefs and goals of Canadian society in comparison to the US can be found in the values outlined in the founding documents of the two countries. While the US founders proclaimed a country dedicated to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," Canadians united under the promise of "peace, order and good government." Countless history books describe the development of the Canadian state as the peaceful passage from "colony to nation," though since the adoption of the Canada/US Free Trade Agreement some have suggested it might better be characterized as "colony to nation to colony." While the "peaceful" characterization of the development of the Canadian state is somewhat exaggerated -- the settlement of Canada was hardly a peaceful process when view from the perspective of indigenous people -- in contrast to the US, however, there was no revolutionary break from the colonial power, no civil war, and few battles with the indegenous people. Canada's founding document, the British North America Act of 1867, was an act of the British Parliament which unified British North America into a single federal state and set out the division of power between the federal state and the provincial governments. In contrast to the U.S., Canadian provinces are relatively strong with considerable legislative power and have been innovators in public policy. Most social policy areas, including education, health care, labor law, and welfare are provincial responsibilities. The federal government is in charge of "peace, order and good government," but the residual powers go to the provinces. The Canadian federal government has been able to establish national programs through the use of its considerable
[PEN-L:1179] New book on racism
I highly recommend a new book by my colleague Paul Kivel--"Uprooting Racism: How White People Can Work for Racial Justice." It tackles all the hard issues--affirmative action, immigration, whiteness, multiculturalism, interrupting personal remarks, the police--while giving white people practical steps to take to intervene in workplace, school, institutiional and interpersonal interactions. It is filled with stories, suggestions, advice, exercises and approaches for working together to fight racism. Uprooting Racism is easy to read, accessible, supportive, and challenging. Endorsements include Howard Zinn, Ron Davis, Highlander Center, and Morris Dees, Southern Poverty Law Center, among others. Uprooting Racism should be available in local bookstores, or directly from the publisher, New Society, at 800-333-9093. Paul Kivel would appreciate feedback at pkivelnetcom.com.
[PEN-L:1180] Re: AFL-CIO's New Era
Friends, I just joined these lists (pen-l and labor-l) because I discovered you were talking about me. I wrote the message to Doug Henwood and Nathan Newman about their possible copyright infringement that has been discussed here. First, I sent the this followup on the 25th, right after their "bullshit" and "jackboot" messages: --- That's not what I said, guys. Please just listen to what I said: Sometimes you distribute copyrighted materials without permission. The penalties for that can be severe. If you're not going to stop, you should educate yourselves about the law and protect yourselves as best you can. That's all that I said. As far as free distribution on the Internet goes, the way libraries do it is very different from the way that you do it. Libraries pay copying fees, mainly to the Copyright Clearance Center. This gives them the right to distribute copies to lenders. You don't pay those fees, so, as I said, you're laying yourselves open to severe penalties. And as far as the Writers Union is concerned, maybe you don't understand how a freelance writer makes a living. It isn't by selling an article once; it's by selling it several times. Your publishing our articles makes it more difficult for us to get those additional sales. For a freelancer, the first sale of an article is the most important, but subsequent sales, sometimes involving rewrites, are critical to earning more than the minimum wage. A writer puts in many hours on the first version of a story but is paid by the word or with a straight fee, not by the hour. Translating the payment into an hourly wage shows freelancers usually earn less than the minimum wage. Subsequent sales are extremely important, then, because we don't spend as much time writing them. Our hourly wage increases to a decent level, and some of us can even afford to buy our own homes. Of course, your distribution of articles doesn't harm subsequent sales very much, but it's galling for writers that you, whom we generally view as allies, harm us in a way that's so central to our livelihoods, especially since publishers are beating hell out of us in exactly the same way-- distributing our articles online without permission. Do you see? It's not the money. It's having enough control over our work that we can earn a living from it. You take some of that control away. It's not fair. --- I'd like to add just a few notes. - Doug and Nathan keep attacking the Writers Union as though my message were an official union position. It isn't, of course. I only included my union membership to provide context for my remarks. I should have made that clear in the original message. The union repeatedly and energetically defends fair use for, guess who, writers and libraries. How could it do otherwise? Writers need fair use and libraries for our very survival. On the other hand, we are also, like it or not, entrepeneurs whose product is intellectual property. We're not always comfortable or successful in our dual roles of consumer and producer, but the Writers Union takes a back seat to no one in its efforts to balance the two. - Doug's and Nathan's insults about me, other list writers and the union are flat out unacceptable, and they show an appalling lack of solidarity. - Jim Westrich on the pen-l list made the comment that copyright law is largely a question of power. I thought that was a useful insight. Without intellectual property and copyright law, writers would have been savaged by more than one publisher long ago. But Doug and Jim suggest that I was trying to use copyright law to stifle criticism of the AFL-CIO. Hardly. I'm well to the left of the AFL-CIO and feel that it needs much more criticism from the labor movement. Jim also wrote this: Would the Wall Street Journal sue some grade school newspaper? (well, Disney would but that's a different matter) Would they sue Barron's? Left Business Observer? LaborNet? I think the answer to his questions is an unqualified "Yes!" That's why I was concerned for Doug and Nathan. Corporations and the federal government are being very aggressive, making life miserable not just for BBSs operators who distribute pornography, but for copyright infringers as well. If Doug and Nathan want to take the risk, more power to them. I was just concerned that it be an informed risk. Nuff said. Solidarity, Mike Bradley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:1181] Re:
Elaine's recent post on the background of the Quebec referendum was quite succinct and gives a reasonably accurate picture of the situation within a short post. However, it should be added that a large area of northern Quebec is inhabited by (and claimed by) aboriginal groups-- who also claim they are nations and want some form of self-government. The Cree of the James Bay area have already had a referendum in which the vote was 90 some percent in favor of remaining in Canada. The Inuit will no doubt take the same position. If the vote tonight is NO there may be at least some possibility for assymetrical federalism. If the vote is YES (for sovereignty) I don't think there is a snowball's chance in hell of any political federation. However, when emotions cool in the ROC (rest of Canada) no doubt there will be economic linkages worked out. Elaine should have noted that the referendum question is not all that clear. It holds out the hope to those who vote yes that there may be a new POLITICAL arrangement worked out between a sovereign Quebec and ROC. In fact twenty percent of those who intend to vote YES think that they will continue to have representatives in the Canadian parliament and even larger percentages think that they will use the Canadian dollar and have Canadian passports. This is completely unreal. I expect genuine separatists are well aware of this and use the political bargaining as a clever hook to reel in soft sovereigntists. While ELaine is correct that many progressives plump for assymmetrical Federalism to me this seems to be completely out of the question and to have minimal public support. Cheers, Ken Hanly ..
[PEN-L:1182] Re: AFL-CIO's New Era
At 3:44 PM 10/30/95, Mike Bradley wrote: - Doug's and Nathan's insults about me, other list writers and the union are flat out unacceptable, and they show an appalling lack of solidarity. A lack of solidarity with myself? I pay dues to the damn National Writers Union, and one reason your post bugged me was because of your touting your NWU label. Carrying water for Dow Jones isn't my idea of a high priority in organizing the working class, if you can call us inkstained wretches working class. This has grown tedious. Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
[PEN-L:1183] Interest Rates the Deficit
Pen-L'ers I think what Burns asks are some darn good questions for those concerned about an ananlysis of captialism today. 1. Does cutting the deficit reduce interest rates? 2. Would a reduction in interest rates cause an increase in investmnet? I've go to think about these questions. Anybody got answers? John On Sun, 29 Oct 1995 Robert Peter Burns [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: In the midst of the current Republican savagery against the poor and working classes of America, I am haunted by a nagging worry. It goes like this: Suppose the socially callous budget-cutters do succeed in substantially reducing the deficit. Will that, as they claim, really result in significantly lower interest rates? Might not "the markets" reward the GOP bastards with lower interest rates, even if only out of a sense of political solidarity? If this happens, won't many people such as homeowners, etc, enjoy lower mortgage and other interest sensitive payments, and won't they then think the strategy is working for them, even as the poor and the unemployed go to the wall? And might not the lower interest rates induce a boom in private investment? In other words, might the Republican strategy, despite its manifest unfairness, nonetheless "work" for a large enough segment of the population to ensure their definitive political triumph? End of nagging worry. Now the question: is there any good reason--theoretical or empirical--to believe that fiscal conservatism really does result typically, in general, etc. in reduced interest rates? Peter Burns SJ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
