Hawaii Public Education CLOSED
Hawaii school teachers and college profs of the University of Hawaii system are poised to be on strike starting this morning at 6 a.m. (12 p.m. EST). It will be the only state in the union that is not offering public education at any level. Public school teachers voted 99+% to go on strike, the profs 90% + voted to strike. for details, check http://www.uhpa.org/ http://www.hsta.org/ steve Stephen Philion Lecturer/PhD Candidate Department of Sociology 2424 Maile Way Social Sciences Bldg. # 247 Honolulu, HI 96822
Putin's Economic Policy not Supported..
Poll shows most Russians back Putin foreign but not economic policy Interfax Moscow, 3 April: Over 55 per cent of Russians believe that President Vladimir Putin has succeeded in strengthening Russia's international position in the course of his one year tenure as Russian president and 38 per cent of those polled do not think so. The All-Russia centre for public opinion research provided this information to Interfax today (the day when Putin gave his annual address to the Federal Assembly). This information was obtained as a result of a representative poll held on 27 March (1,600 Russians were polled). A little less than one-third of Russians (31 per cent) believe that the president has succeeded in improving the economic situation and the country's welfare, while twice as many Russian citizens (63 per cent) believe that he has not succeeded.
Russian attitudes to democracy, markets and the west..
Carngie Endowment for International Peace www.ceip.org Russian Attitudes toward Democracy, Markets, and the West Meeting report, Vol. 3, No. 10, April 2, 2001 On March 28, 2001, Carnegie Senior Associate Michael McFaul presented his findings on Russian attitudes toward democracy, markets, and the West, based on extensive polling conducted before and after parliamentary and presidential elections in 1999-2000. The data gathered by McFaul challenge Western assumptions that portray the average Russian as anti-democratic. Instead, McFaul's figures show that most Russians have positive attitudes toward many aspects of democracy, and that Russian attitudes toward markets and the West are much more complex than commonly assumed. Order vs. Democracy: Assumptions about Russia Andrew Kuchins, Director of the Endowment's Russian and Eurasian Program, began the meeting by describing the formidable task of gathering public opinion data over a two year time span in a way representative of the entire Russian population. McFaul worked with Timothy J. Colton of Harvard to gather responses on hundreds of questions, carefully formulated to accurately gauge Russian attitudes. With such a vast array of data, McFaul noted that drawing conclusions was no easy task. The information gathered presented several contradictions: the first between Russian attitudes on order and stability versus democracy; the second between attitudes on democracy versus attitudes toward the old Soviet system. "The historical narrative on Russia has crystallized in the past year and a half," based on the assumption that the rise of Putin demonstrates that Russians prefer a strong state over democracy, noted McFaul. There are many reasons one might assume this to be true, given the dominant role a strong state has played in Russian history, the historical failure of democratic reforms in Russia, and the failure of the current Russian elite to enshrine in myth the events of the late 1980s and early 1990s leading to the collapse of the Soviet Union as a popular and democratic revolution. Also, Western analysts are prone to this assumption because of the legacy of the Cold War, during which Russia was viewed as different and separate from the West. Even the propensity of political scientists to focus more on the state than on societal attitudes causes the complex Russian state to dominate discussions of contemporary Russia. Combined with the rhetoric of the Kremlin, which has come to espouse political authoritarianism and liberalized markets, these factors reinforce the perception of Russians as preferring stability and order over freedom and democratic participation. Democracy, Markets, and the West In fact, McFaul's data show that Russians have much more positive attitudes toward democracy than might be expected. Interestingly enough, Russians are more critical of markets than is commonly thought. Russian attitudes toward the West, however, are generally mixed at best, which is no surprise to analysts of Russia in the wake of the 1998 financial crisis and Russian criticism of NATO expansion and the 1999 war in Kosovo. McFaul found that 62.9 percent of Russians supported the idea of democracy, and most Russians thought military rule would be a bad way of governing Russia and that the parliament should have equal or greater power than the president (70.4 percent and 66.5 percent, respectively). While the majority of Russians (67.2 percent) were prepared to support banning certain political parties to bring about order in the country, 79.4 percent of Russians believe freedom of the press, radio, and television is important. The freedom to elect the country's leaders is important to an overwhelming 85.7 percent of Russians, and 86.1 percent believe it is the duty of each citizen to vote in elections. A majority of Russians (73.1 percent), however, believe the Soviet Union should never under any circumstances have been dissolved. Most Russians (56.2 percent) believe that they have no say in what the current government does. Finally, 71.5 percent of Russians are dissatisfied with the way democracy works in Russia. Nevertheless, a solid majority (58.4 percent) of Russians think a democratic system is an appropriate way of governing Russia, opposed to only 24.4 percent who believe it is a bad way to govern the country. As an institution, Russians trust the military the most (76.3 percent of respondents), followed by the Russian Orthodox Church (70.7 percent). However, 80.3 percent of Russians agree that Russia should have a professional army, consisting of paid volunteers rather than conscript soldiers. In examining attitudes toward the economy, the influence of Soviet-era thinking is more apparent. According to McFaul's polling, 83.9 percent of Russians believe that all heavy industry must belong to the state and should not be given over to private ownership. An overwhelming 93.9 percent of Russians think that the government ought to guarantee a job
Ted Turner the Savior of Press Freedom.....
Well from banker to Turner. Cheers, Ken Hanly NTV Journalists Keep Vigil, Turner Faces Storm April 5, 2001 By Peter Graff MOSCOW (Reuters) - Journalists kept up a vigil on Thursday to block a hostile takeover of Russia's only nationwide independent television station, while Ted Turner rode to their rescue -- and into a full-blown Moscow political storm. Early on Thursday morning, NTV television showed pictures of police vans it said had gathered outside its studio, saying it feared they were there to keep its morning news off the air. Police could not be reached for comment. Turner, the founder of CNN, confirmed on Wednesday that he had agreed with NTV founder Vladimir Gusinsky to buy a stake in the channel, by far Russia's most influential source of information that does not answer to the Kremlin. But the U.S. media magnate made clear he could ensure the station's continued independence only if he persuades the state-dominated natural gas monopoly Gazprom, which now says it controls the station, to sell him shares as well. Gazprom, which acquired a large stake by guaranteeing Gusinsky's debts, announced on Tuesday it had sacked NTV's management and placed a 34-year-old American banker in charge, with the head of a state news agency as editor-in-chief. The station's journalists say the gas monopoly is doing the Kremlin's bidding to muzzle criticism of President Vladimir Putin. In protest they canceled all entertainment programming to show only news reports -- mostly about themselves -- making an exception late on Wednesday for a soccer match. Turner said he stands by NTVs reporters and expressed disappointment at the turmoil surrounding the station. "I am committed to the promotion of free and open media around the world, and highly value the journalistic staff that drives NTV and consider them to be highly professional and dependable," he said in the statement announcing his bid. "While we are disappointed with the recent disruptive developments regarding NTV, we look forward with enthusiasm to finalizing an agreement with Gazprom and Gazprom-Media that will ensure the ongoing independence of NTV," Turner said. His statement did not make clear whether he would go through with the deal to buy shares from Gusinsky if Gazprom does not also sell him shares. TURNER RIDES INTO A STORM Turner's bid for a stake in NTV would be remarkable under any circumstances, representing by far the most important foreign investment in the media in a country that has known a free press for only a decade. But the timing puts him in the ring at the climax of the fight for control of the station -- a flat-out political brawl that has kept Russia's leading politicians, its courts and a few of its rifle-toting police busy for more than a year. Gusinsky is now in Spain awaiting a decision on extradition to face Russian fraud charges he says are part of the Kremlin's campaign to silence him. His companies were raided some 30 times by police this year. By all accounts, Russia's media are heavily politicized. Putin says he supports free speech in Russia, but has also castigated the owners of the commercial press for working "against the state." In recent election campaigns, the state media have been drafted to lionize the president and smear his opponents. NTV has also got into its share of political dogfights, especially in the mid 1990s when it noisily backed then-President Boris Yeltsin's re-election, and later vilified Gusinsky's rivals in privatization auctions. But the station has also earned a reputation for groundbreaking journalism, especially during Russia's first Chechen war in 1994-96. It was alone in reporting major corruption scandals in the late Yeltsin years. Turner has known Putin for years: the Russian president was deputy mayor of St. Petersburg in charge of foreign relations in Russia's second city when Turner staged the Goodwill Games there in 1994. Putin hosted Turner again in Moscow last year.
Re: Russian attitudes to democracy, markets and the west..
The eXile, has been savagely funny about McFaul. See the anthology published last year. http://www.exile.ru/112/index.php Michael Pugliese -Original Message- From: Ken Hanly [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pen-l [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, April 05, 2001 10:20 AM Subject: [PEN-L:9969] Russian attitudes to democracy, markets and the west.. Carngie Endowment for International Peace www.ceip.org Russian Attitudes toward Democracy, Markets, and the West Meeting report, Vol. 3, No. 10, April 2, 2001 On March 28, 2001, Carnegie Senior Associate Michael McFaul presented his findings on Russian attitudes toward democracy, markets, and the West, based on extensive polling conducted before and after parliamentary and presidential elections in 1999-2000. The data gathered by McFaul challenge Western assumptions that portray the average Russian as anti-democratic. Instead, McFaul's figures show that most Russians have positive attitudes toward many aspects of democracy, and that Russian attitudes toward markets and the West are much more complex than commonly assumed. Order vs. Democracy: Assumptions about Russia Andrew Kuchins, Director of the Endowment's Russian and Eurasian Program, began the meeting by describing the formidable task of gathering public opinion data over a two year time span in a way representative of the entire Russian population. McFaul worked with Timothy J. Colton of Harvard to gather responses on hundreds of questions, carefully formulated to accurately gauge Russian attitudes. With such a vast array of data, McFaul noted that drawing conclusions was no easy task. The information gathered presented several contradictions: the first between Russian attitudes on order and stability versus democracy; the second between attitudes on democracy versus attitudes toward the old Soviet system. "The historical narrative on Russia has crystallized in the past year and a half," based on the assumption that the rise of Putin demonstrates that Russians prefer a strong state over democracy, noted McFaul. There are many reasons one might assume this to be true, given the dominant role a strong state has played in Russian history, the historical failure of democratic reforms in Russia, and the failure of the current Russian elite to enshrine in myth the events of the late 1980s and early 1990s leading to the collapse of the Soviet Union as a popular and democratic revolution. Also, Western analysts are prone to this assumption because of the legacy of the Cold War, during which Russia was viewed as different and separate from the West. Even the propensity of political scientists to focus more on the state than on societal attitudes causes the complex Russian state to dominate discussions of contemporary Russia. Combined with the rhetoric of the Kremlin, which has come to espouse political authoritarianism and liberalized markets, these factors reinforce the perception of Russians as preferring stability and order over freedom and democratic participation. Democracy, Markets, and the West In fact, McFaul's data show that Russians have much more positive attitudes toward democracy than might be expected. Interestingly enough, Russians are more critical of markets than is commonly thought. Russian attitudes toward the West, however, are generally mixed at best, which is no surprise to analysts of Russia in the wake of the 1998 financial crisis and Russian criticism of NATO expansion and the 1999 war in Kosovo. McFaul found that 62.9 percent of Russians supported the idea of democracy, and most Russians thought military rule would be a bad way of governing Russia and that the parliament should have equal or greater power than the president (70.4 percent and 66.5 percent, respectively). While the majority of Russians (67.2 percent) were prepared to support banning certain political parties to bring about order in the country, 79.4 percent of Russians believe freedom of the press, radio, and television is important. The freedom to elect the country's leaders is important to an overwhelming 85.7 percent of Russians, and 86.1 percent believe it is the duty of each citizen to vote in elections. A majority of Russians (73.1 percent), however, believe the Soviet Union should never under any circumstances have been dissolved. Most Russians (56.2 percent) believe that they have no say in what the current government does. Finally, 71.5 percent of Russians are dissatisfied with the way democracy works in Russia. Nevertheless, a solid majority (58.4 percent) of Russians think a democratic system is an appropriate way of governing Russia, opposed to only 24.4 percent who believe it is a bad way to govern the country. As an institution, Russians trust the military the most (76.3 percent of respondents), followed by the Russian Orthodox Church (70.7 percent). However, 80.3 percent of Russians agree that Russia should have a professional army, consisting of paid volunteers rather than conscript soldiers. In
Re: (Fwd) Complaint about violation of academicfreedom in hiring
I think all North American academics should be aware of this travesty of academic freedom and human rights. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba --- Forwarded message follows --- Date sent: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 15:07:59 -0800 To:(Recipient list suppressed) From: Sid Shniad [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Complaint about violation of academic freedom in hiring by SFU March 26, 2001 To:Jim Turk, Neil Tudiver (Fax 613-820-7244) Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) From: David F. Noble (phone 416- 778-6927/ Fax 416-778-8928) Re:Complaint to Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee about a violation of academic freedom in hiring by Simon Fraser University ...her firm had been retained by SFU to do a reference check on me. Since BC law requires employers to obtain a candidate's permission before consulting any reference, she was calling to ask me to give her permission to talk with four people... agents of activities or enterprises which I had publicly criticized. (Linda Harasim, director of the SFU Virtual U project, and Stan Shapson, York VP/Research, as avid promoters of both corporate-academic partnerships and online education, and Steven Feinberg,a statistician and former York VP, as an advocate of academic- industrial ties and, in particular, of the U.S.- based International Space University which I helped to keep out of Canada). The fourth person, Sheila Embleton, a linguist, now holds Michael Stevenson's job as York VP/Academic... I told her that the list was unambiguously political in that it included my political adversaries and antagonists and that I could not give her permission to consult them... Big, big mistake on David Noble's part. To say that your potential employers cannot talk to X provides those in the bureaucracy who want to halt the process with an excellent procedural excuse to do so. Truth to tell, I also think that David Noble's fear of "Digital Diploma Mills" is relevant to his professional qualifications, and in my view at least shows gaping holes in his ability to construct a logical argument. His central point is that one's instructional materials are one's own intellectual property that should *never* be shared or distributed unless someone pays you a healthy sum, and that the coming of the internet to the university is the same process of deskilling as that laid out in _Labor and Monopoly Capital_. I reread Noble's "Digital Diploma Mills" this morning, and found myself in a sea of phrases and sentences like: "...technology is but a vehicle and a disarming disguise "...the historic plight of other skilled workers... "...technology is being deployed by management primarily to discipline, de-skill, and displace labor... "...the new technology of education, like the automation of other industries, robs faculty of their knowledge and skills, their control over their working lives, the product of their labor, and, ultimately, their means of livelihood... "...teachers as labor are drawn into a production process designed for the efficient creation of instructional commodities, and hence become subject to all the pressures that have befallen production workers in other industries undergoing rapid technological transformation from above... "...once faculty and courses go online, administrators gain much greater direct control over faculty performance and course content than ever before and the potential for administrative scrutiny, supervision, regimentation, discipline and even censorship increase dramatically... "...once faculty put their course material online... the knowledge and course design skill embodied in that material is taken out of their possession... The administration is now in a position to hire less skilled, and hence cheaper, workers to deliver the technologically prepackaged course Their services are in the long run no longer required. They become redundant... "...the use of the technology entails an inevitable extension of working time and an intensification of work as faculty struggle at all hours of the day and night to stay on top of the technology and respond, via chat rooms, virtual office hours, and e-mail, to both students and administrators to whom they have now become instantly and continuously accessible... "...behind this effort are the ubiquitous technozealots who simply view computers as the panacea for everything, because they like to play with them... "...none of this is speculation..." washing over me. It wasn't pleasant. It wasn't persuasive. And it seemed to indicate a very different attitude--an immoral attitude--toward education and the diffusion of knowledge compared to, say, what Charles Vest was able to get his faculty to agree to in their Open Courseware Initiative: 1. What is MIT OpenCourseWare? The idea behind MIT OpenCourseWare (MIT OCW) is to make MIT
Statement on the Bush Presidency
Statement on the Bush Presidency (Issued by National Executive Committee, CCDS - 4/2/01) Introduction Many assumptions and hopes *regarding a possible Bush presidency that were voiced during the presidential campaign and in the interim when the election hung in the balance have turned out to be wrong. Gridlock, stalemate and some form of sterile bipartisanship to cushion the worst consequences of corporate-right wing control of ALL branches of government have not materialized. Widespread dismay at the illegitimacy of the Supreme Court's selection of Bush along with a 50-50 split in the Senate have not forced caution upon the Bush forces who are moving forward with the most reactionary agenda in recent memory. While corporate-right control is thin and tenuous, it is nevertheless cemented in part by Republican discipline and near-disintegration of any clear alternative stand by Democrats. With a handful of Senate Democrats voting with the Republicans and about 30 "Blue Dog" Democrats in the House doing the same, the Bush forces have for the time being bolstered their thin majority. The corporate-right alliance grouped around Bush recognizes that it has a narrow window of opportunity to impose a devastating rebuff to the social safety net and to any hope for sane foreign policy. Thus it is determined to push through its political agenda in a disciplined, relentless and speedy manner. The disputed election which Bush lost has not inhibited those forces from an aggressive "winner take all" approach to pushing their policies. They estimate that with Bush in office, the symbols and trappings of the presidency (aided by a compliant media) will appear to be a validation of his tenure. Finally, the enormous weight of the accumulation of executive power by the presidency in the last 60 years is being pursued by the Bush forces for maximum right-wing gain. This power is augmented by increasing corporate-right control of the courts as well as the Congress. With those levers of power in hand, Bush and his cohorts have demonstrated that their "compassionate conservatism" and campaign "moderation" were fraudulent in the extreme. The Impact of Bush's Policies The principal stress of the new administration has been the corporate agenda. At its heart is abandonment of any sense, no matter how tepid, of obligation to working people. Most astonishing is the fierce, concentrated and well-planned attack on every aspect of a rational and humane social and political policy in every major area -- domestic, foreign, environmental, economic, social, educational, cultural. * While the main concern of unfolding Bush policy has been corporate, it has not forsaken the far right social agenda. In retrospect, Bush's appearance at the racist, sexist and anti-Semitic Bob Jones University was a portend of a vastly reactionary program. Placing women immediately under attack, its first act was to ban funding of overseas programs which offer family planning and abortion services. Undoubtedly, there will be another effort to push a ban on so-called "partial birth abortion" which Bush, unlike Clinton, will sign. This will probably further embolden the religious right and other antiabortion forces. The administration, after retreating from an attempt to shut down the offices on AIDS policy and race after protests (it gutted the AIDS office anyway), had already shut down the White House Office for Women's Initiatives and Outreach, signaling its contempt for issues affecting women. The Bush administration's primary campaign for a massive $1.6 trillion tax cut is an ill-disguised attempt to further restructure tax policies to favor the wealthy. (See the CCDS Statement "The Return of the Reagan Tax Cut" for a full analysis.) While economic pundits, including the Wall St. Journal, now speculate openly that the nation is on the brink of Depression, Bush and his cohorts press their cuts for the rich as an elixir to combat the escalating economic slump. Tax cuts, especially geared to the wealthiest, have never done anything to spark economic revival and will do nothing other than bring about deeper cuts in social programs affecting the working poor and unemployed. * Social policy. The Bush budget priorities include privatization of $1 trillion of Social Security, and introduction of a voucher system into Medicare aimed at curtailing medical services to elderly and further enriching the insurance industry. He has threatened to veto a mild Patients' Bill or Rights in order to protect his rich benefactors in the insurance industry against malpractice claims. The so-called faith-based charity program is a fraudulent attempt to undermine six decades of government social responsibility and make social programs subject to conservative religious agendas. *It is an egregious violation of the constitutional separation of church and state. No doubt, funds will be withheld from progressive
Re: Greenspan willfully ignorant on incommensurable trade paradigms
April 4, 2001 Greenspan Wary of Trade Protection By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Federal Chairman Alan Greenspan Speaks to the Senate Finance Committee Filed at 1:21 p.m. ET WASHINGTON (AP) -- Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, declaring anti-globalization protesters ``wrong-headed,'' said Wednesday the United States must resist calls for erecting protectionist trade barriers. why is it that the Manichean (to use Ian's apt word) dichotomy between "free trade" and "protectionism" has such staying power? It seems that standard economic theory tells us that markets sometimes fail (due to externalities, etc.) so that "interfering" with them (i.e., violating the Holy Writ that says that "free trade" -- and, more importantly, free capital mobility -- must prevail) can be an efficiency-enhancing policy. Why doesn't this apply to trade between nations? Greenspan told Congress the steady removal of trade barriers over the past half century has contributed to the strong prosperity in recent decades. That prosperity could be jeopardized by barriers to protect domestic industries threatened by increased imports, he said. Last time I checked, the US real GDP growth rates during the recent "neoliberal" era (1975 - 2000, or 1980 - 1990, or even 1990 -2000) were more anemic than those of post-World War II era before that. I know that Greenspan probably doesn't give a damn, but the neoliberal era has also seen widening gaps in the distribution of income and wealth that were not seen in the 1945 - 75 era. Could this shift have anything to do with the shift to increasingly "free" trade -- and more importantly, the unmentioned rise of the mobility of capital -- that climaxed sometime around 1980 or 1985 and has accelerated since? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
BLS Daily Report
BLS DAILY REPORT, THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 2001: RELEASED TODAY: Labor productivity in manufacturing increased in 1999 in 10 of the 11 countries for which comparable data were available, according to revised data from BLS. The productivity increase in the United States was the highest among the countries compared, 6.6 percent. The next largest increases were in the United Kingdom and France. The productivity increase in Belgium was slight, and there was no change in productivity in Norway. Federal Reserve officials have been out in force this week, delivering upbeat messages about the economic outlook but tempering them with concern over weak capital spending and high energy prices. The Federal Reserve bank presidents' optimism that the current slowdown will be over by midyear suggests there is little urgency to cut interest rates before Fed policymakers meet May 15. Still, they cited enough risks that a cut couldn't be ruled out (The Wall Street Journal, page A2). Service sector growth slowed in March as employment fell, but other fundamental factors such as new orders for services continued to gain strength, the National Association of Purchasing Management reports. NAPM, a Tempe, Ariz.-based research organization, said its nonmanufacturing business activity index slipped 1.4 percentage points to 50.3 percent -- its second lowest level since the index began in July 1997. An index level above 50.0 percent indicates that the sector is expanding, while a level below 50.0 would indicate contracting business activity, NAPM says. One key factor to the decline in the nonmanufaturing index was the 0.9 percentage point fall in the survey's employment index. That index for the service sector now stands at 49.4 percent, its lowest level since the survey began, NAPM says. Industries reporting the highest rates of reduction in employment during March included transportation, communication, mining, and finance and banking (Daily Labor Report, page A-5). A gauge of business excluding manufacturers fell in March to the second-lowest level on record, and a measure of employment other than at factories contracted for the first time since the index began, the National Association of Purchasing Management says. The report "does raise all sorts of warning flags," and provides evidence that the Labor Department's report on Friday on March employment will indicate a slower pace of job growth, says the chief economist at FinancialOxygen, an information service in Walnut Creek, Calif. Even so, he and other economists cautioned that the report covered too few years to be fully reliable. There were positive signs. The index of new orders rose to 52.2 in March from 51.3 in February. The group's prices-paid index, a measure of costs for purchased materials and services, fell to 59.5 in March from 60.5 in February. But the index measuring new export orders dropped to 49.5 in March from 53.5 in February. And while the survey showed that inventories decreased for a fifth consecutive month, it also found that a rising number of purchasing executives thought inventories were still too high (Bloomberg News in The New York Times, page C7). Data compiled by the Bureau of National Affairs in the first 14 weeks of 2001 show that the weighted average first-year increase in newly negotiated contracts was 5.2 percent, compared with 3.5 percent in 2000. The manufacturing industry weighted average increase was 3.5 percent, compared with 3.4 percent in 2000, while nonmanufacturing (excluding construction) agreements showed a weighted average increase of 4.2 percent. Construction agreements reported to date in 2001 posted a weighted average increase of 3.6 percent, compared with 2.6 percent in 2000, and a median of 3.6 percent, compared with 3.8 percent (Daily Labor Report, page D-1). DUE OUT TOMORROW: The Employment Situation, March 2001 application/ms-tnef
Re: Fwd) Complaint about violation of academicfreedom inhiring
In response to Brad DeLong: David Noble's two early books, America By Design and Forces of Production, were absolute masterpieces. More recently he has taken a stronger antitechnological line. I thought that the strongest part of the Digital Diploma Mill series was not the question of professors getting to own their own material rather than giving copyrights to the university. Rather it was the use of technology in order to gain control of the work process that underlies the university. With regard to the reviewers, isn't unusual to turn to the people who have publicly displayed their hostility to the applicant? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: (Fwd) Complaint about violation of academic freedom in hiring
Brad wrote: ... David Noble's fear of "Digital Diploma Mills" . . .shows gaping holes in his ability to construct a logical argument... but then we read Brad's 'logical argument' undercutting the flaws of Noble's writing: It wasn't pleasant. It wasn't persuasive. And it seemed to indicate a very different attitude--an immoral attitude... But the above is not an argument--it is assertion followed up with a loaded term. I disagree with many details of Noble's argument and I do think he is being merely speculative in what he writes. But as I work within the California State University system--which is attempting to be in the cutting edge of the sort of thing Noble is concerned with--much of what Noble writes seems reasonable and possible. While the CSU will be unlikely to achieve what it wants, it is certainly trying its best to reduce the skill input (and cost) in the production of college degrees. Things are undoubtedly different in the University of California system. Eric .
Re: Re: (Fwd) Complaint about violation of academic freedom in hiring
It wasn't pleasant. It wasn't persuasive. And it seemed to indicate a very different attitude--an immoral attitude--toward education and the diffusion of knowledge compared to, say, what Charles Vest was able to get his faculty to agree to in their Open Courseware Initiative: You're comparing apples and oranges. Vest isn't talking about making university credentials free and open to the public, only some of its course materials. Noble, on the other hand, is talking about the way that the workers who do the uni's credentializing are displaced with the aid of technology. Noble's anti-tech rhetoric can certainly be irritating and reductive. But Vest's sing-song PR-speak is equally so. Christian
David and Goliath
RAFI Rural Advancement Foundation International http://www.rafi.org | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Geno-Types - 2 April 2001 Monsanto vs. Percy Schmeiser No Corporate Liability for Unsafe Sex and Bioserfdom On 29 March 2001 a Canadian judge dealt a crushing blow to Farmers' Rights by ruling that Percy Schmeiser, a third generation Saskatchewan farmer, must pay Monsanto thousands of dollars for violating the Gene Giant's monopoly patent on genetically modified canola seed. Under Canadian patent law, as in the US and many other industrialized countries, it is illegal for farmers to re-use patented seed, or to grow Monsanto's GM seed without signing a licensing agreement. If the Gene Giants and US Trade Reps get their way, every nation in the world will be forced to adopt patent laws that make seed saving illegal. The ruling against Schmeiser establishes an even more dangerous precedent because it means that farmers can be forced to pay royalties on GM seeds found on their land, even if they didn't buy the seeds, or benefit from them. Percy Schmeiser did not buy Monsanto's patented seed, nor did he obtain the seed illegally. Pollen from genetically engineered canola seeds blew onto his land from neighboring farms. (Percy Schmeiser's neighbors and an estimated 40% of farmers in Western Canada grow GM canola). Monsanto's GM canola genes invaded Schmeiser's farm without his consent. Shortly thereafter, Monsanto's "gene police" invaded his farm and took seed samples without his permission. Percy Schmeiser was a victim of genetic pollution from GM crops - but the court says he must now pay Monsanto $10,000 for licensing fees and up to $75,000 in profits from his 1998 crop. It's like saying that Monsanto's technology is spreading a sexually transmitted disease but everyone else has to wear a condom. The GM canola that drifted onto Schmeiser's farm was engineered to withstand spraying of Monsanto's proprietary weedkiller, Roundup. But Schmeiser did not use Roundup on his canola crop. After all, if Schmeiser had sprayed his crop, the chemical would have killed the majority of his canola plants that were not genetically modified to tolerate the weedkiller! Schmeiser didn't take advantage of Monsanto's GM technology, but the court ruling says he's guilty of using the seed without a licensing agreement. Monsanto (acquired by Pharmacia last year) is the world's premiere Biotech Behemoth. Last week's court ruling has far-reaching implications for farming communities around the world. Last year, Monsanto's GM seed technology was planted on 41.6 million hectares (103 million acres) worldwide. That means Monsanto accounted for 94% of the global area sown to genetically modified seeds in 2000. (Total worldwide area = 44.2 million hectares or 109.2 million acres.) Thanks in large part to Terminator technology, the Monsanto moniker has became synonymous with GM seeds and corporate greed. Although Monsanto disavowed "suicide seeds" in the wake of international public protest, the company has routinely employed Draconian measures to prevent farmers from re-using patented seed, including the use of private police to root out seed-saving farmers, and toll-fee hotlines to encourage rural residents to snitch on their farm neighbors. Monsanto has threatened to "vigorously prosecute" hundreds of cases against seed saving farmers, but Schmeiser's was the first major case to reach the courts. Schmeiser courageously decided to fight back and speak out against bioserfdom. Last week's anti-farmer verdict is being hailed as a landmark victory for Monsanto, but it's too soon for the Gene Giants to celebrate. Will the ruling against Schmeiser unleash a new biotech backlash in the heartland? North American farmers grew three-quarters of the world's commercial GM crops last year, and now they're showing signs of biotech battle fatigue. Illegal traces of Aventis' StarLink maize (unapproved for human consumption) have disrupted grain markets and jeopardized exports. Unsold stockpiles of US maize are at their highest level since GM crops were commercialized. The US government announced last month that it would spend $20 million in taxpayer money to bail out the biotech industry, by purchasing maize seed that was contaminated with Aventis' StarLink genes. (StarLink maize was planted on less than 0.02 percent of all US maize cropland in 2000, but cross-pollination with other maize varieties resulted in seed contaminated with StarLink genes.) To add insult to injury, the federal bailout is using money that would normally go to disaster relief for farmers. With the advent of genetic engineering and exclusive monopoly patents, the Gene Giants have abolished the farmers' fundamental rights to save and exchange seed. Now farmers are being forced to accept liability for genetically modified crops. How many bullets will they take for biotech? In North America, where many farmers have embraced GM technology, there are signs of resistance worth
Argentina's ruined middle class
The Washington Post, April 03, 2001, Tuesday, Final Edition Argentina's Economic Woes Devastate Its Middle Class Anthony Faiola, Washington Post Foreign Service DATELINE: BUENOS AIRES In a dusty colonial quarter of south Buenos Aires, Eduardo Medina takes a deep breath before lifting the receiver of a public phone for a weekly call to his elderly parents in the countryside. Then the 38-year-old unemployed law clerk starts to lie. He lies about the new job he never found, the one in a posh downtown law office that does not exist. About the apartment he no longer has. He says anything but the truth: that he has found himself reduced to living in a dingy, overcrowded homeless shelter. "The truth would kill them," said Medina, still dressed impeccably in a woolen sweater and preppy pinstriped shirt five months after moving to the municipal shelter filled with the economic refugees of the world's 10th-largest metropolis. The truth is that Medina lost his $ 2,500-a-month job at the Justice Ministry during government layoffs in 1999. And that six months ago he lost a part-time job as a waiter. And that he faced eviction from his apartment across town before resorting to the shelter to keep a roof over his head. "If I tell my parents, it would force me to accept it as well," he said. "I've told myself this is just a brief setback. But then I look at the other guys here, and I wonder if I'm not lying to myself, too." Medina's story is emblematic of a tide of homelessness sweeping Latin America's showcase city. Massive unemployment from a 33-month recession and large-scale downsizings during a decade of U.S.-backed free market reforms have wreaked havoc on the lives of residents here, especially as the once large middle class tumbles down the ladder of prosperity. Although its grand boulevards and belle epoque neighborhoods have long given Buenos Aires pretensions as "the Paris of Latin America," the city today recalls New York during the Great Depression. The number of indigents in greater Buenos Aires -- the poorest of the poor who live on less than a $ 1.60 a day in a metropolitan area of 12 million people -- rose to 921,000 people in 2000 from 324,810 in 1991, the year then-President Carlos Menem embraced the free market reforms that swept across much of Latin America in the 1990s. "We have never had to cope with a homeless population this large and diverse before," said Silvia Coralini, head of the city's Program for Families in Crisis, begun in 1997 to deal with the swelling tide. "And it's not like you can just go tell these people to get up and find a job. There are no jobs." Two government surveys on the homeless -- taken in 1997 and 2000 -- show the population living in city shelters or on the streets has almost doubled in three years, to 5,718 from 3,172 within city boundaries, where 3 million live. Aid groups place the actual figure far higher, arguing that the government does not count people living in shantytowns called "misery villages." At the same time, thousands of "afternoon homeless" pour into the city each day on boxcars attached to commuter trains from poor suburbs and the Argentine interior. Most stay on the streets for a few nights, some standing in employment lines that snake for blocks. Others come to scour trash cans in search of aluminum cans and discarded morsels. The genteel middle-class neighborhoods that were the city's heart and soul -- and which long separated Buenos Aires from most other Latin American capitals, where islands of wealth sit among seas of poverty -- are rapidly being transformed into pockets of dilapidated buildings, empty storefronts, rising crime and beggars. Meanwhile, the very rich have retreated to gated communities, exiting for work in high-rise office buildings and shopping in designer boutiques in upscale parts of town. In other words, Buenos Aires is starting to look like the rest of Latin America. This is taking a toll on the psyche of a city that has always fancied itself a First World enclave in the developing world. "We are facing a social breakdown in Argentina, and though we are trying to cope with the problem, Buenos Aires is reflecting the national crisis," said Daniel Figueroa, the city's secretary of social services. "The middle class is slipping badly, sometimes slipping straight to the bottom. Buenos Aires has become like a boat taking on water. We are helping as many homeless as we can, but there are more and more. We keep on bailing, but the boat is sinking." Argentina, a nation of 36 million, has suddenly become the new focus of Wall Street jitters following the financial meltdown in Turkey. As a result, President Fernando de la Rua is being pressured to cut the deficit by slashing expenses. At the same time, foreign creditors are encouraging Argentina to embrace reforms even more, privatizing some of the last remaining state-run institutions. The 1991 reforms at first helped stabilize the economy,
Re: Turkiye in flames
Parallels between Argentina and Turkey should be obvious. Both Peron and Kemal represented bourgeois nationalist attempts to lift semicolonial countries into the first tier of nations, but both countries have experienced nothing but grief at the hands of imperialism. Both countries had hyper-active stock markets in the 1990s, but are now being rocked by unemployment, government ineptitude and IMF blackmail. It is really excellent that we have Turkish and Argentinian comrades on these progressive mailing lists to remind us of the profound suffering in their countries which capitalism can not relieve, only exacerbate. Friends, Below is another Rueters news piece. It is from today. The situation in Turkiye is getting worse by the hour. Psychologies are fucked up, morale is low, muggins, thefts, suicides and the like are on the rise, spontaneous protests errupt everwhere daily, foreign investors are sniffing the air to smell if the bottom is reached and more... It is an absolute chaos and I fear that some people will die. I remember watching Indonesia, South Korea, Brazil and the like in similar situations but it wasn't this painful. I guess it needs to happen to you for you to realize that this is not just a tv show... Sabri Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Re: David and Goliath
This is a mixture of fact and fiction. That the left should treat Schmeiser as a hero rather than the goofball he is just shows how gullible the left is when someone no matter who gets into conflict with Monsanto. If Schmeiser were not the type of person he is Monsanto would have settled out of court. Instead he insists that Monsanto polluted his land with GM canola seed that supposedly drifted onto his land. However expert evidence is overwhelming that the amount of GM canola in his crop could not be the result of drift. That is why Monsanto has taken the trouble to charge him. This article is full of a lot of inflammatory bs. For example, a farmer's right to save seed is not touched by this decision except insofar as the farmer has saved GM seed and signed a contract obliging him not to save that seed or obtained patented seed illegally and saved that seed. Theoretically it would be illegal as well to save seed from GM plants that grew from drift but I doubt very much if Monsanto would have the slightest interest in prosecuting in this type of case. No matter what critics may think, those who run Monsanto are not complete idiots. Of course the anti-gm people try to portray the Schmeiser case as of this type. But to put it mildlythis is very very doubtful. From the evidence I have seen Schmeiser is simply a brown-bagger who bought GM seed illegally and now claims it is the result of pollution. By the way Monsanto never did have the terminator gene and it is not at all clear to me how having it would exemplify corporate greed. If the technology were used Schmeiser would not be able to complain about GM pollution since the seed would be sterile! As a recent article in the Manitoba Co-operator points out the decision is based on the rather narrow basis of patent law only. Schmeiser tried to bring up matters dear to anti-gm people of course to no avail. More interesting is his counter suit that Monsanto is guilty of pollution of his land with GM canola. This has yet to be decided. But dont hold your breath. I expect that he will fail again for the simple reason that it will not turn out to be a case of pollution. NOw if an organic farmer could show that his or her organic crop was polluted by GM plants that would be a much better case than this character has. No. Schmeiser is not an organic farmer and yes he has purchased lots of Roundup Monsanto has copies of receipts to show that. He is a goofball basking in his newfound media attention..has his way paid to speak at international fora...and has become Davidagainst Goliath. I assure he is all myth and no substance...He also has some interesting ideas about mysterious planes spraying his neighbours crops etc..as related in an article about him in a Canadian Dimension a year or so ago. Of course even then he was David..The result of pursuing this ludicrous case is a decision which will be a precedent that is not at all helpful to the left as the howls of outrage in the article show..Now they are collecting money to support his counter-suit. Don' t throw good money after bad.! CHeers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 4:03 PM Subject: [PEN-L:9979] David and Goliath RAFI Rural Advancement Foundation International http://www.rafi.org | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Geno-Types - 2 April 2001 Monsanto vs. Percy Schmeiser No Corporate Liability for Unsafe Sex and Bioserfdom On 29 March 2001 a Canadian judge dealt a crushing blow to Farmers' Rights by ruling that Percy Schmeiser, a third generation Saskatchewan farmer, must pay Monsanto thousands of dollars for violating the Gene Giant's monopoly patent on genetically modified canola seed. Under Canadian patent law, as in the US and many other industrialized countries, it is illegal for farmers to re-use patented seed, or to grow Monsanto's GM seed without signing a licensing agreement. If the Gene Giants and US Trade Reps get their way, every nation in the world will be forced to adopt patent laws that make seed saving illegal. The ruling against Schmeiser establishes an even more dangerous precedent because it means that farmers can be forced to pay royalties on GM seeds found on their land, even if they didn't buy the seeds, or benefit from them. Percy Schmeiser did not buy Monsanto's patented seed, nor did he obtain the seed illegally. Pollen from genetically engineered canola seeds blew onto his land from neighboring farms. (Percy Schmeiser's neighbors and an estimated 40% of farmers in Western Canada grow GM canola). Monsanto's GM canola genes invaded Schmeiser's farm without his consent. Shortly thereafter, Monsanto's "gene police" invaded his farm and took seed samples without his permission. Percy Schmeiser was a victim of genetic pollution from GM crops - but the court says he must now pay Monsanto $10,000 for licensing fees and up to $75,000 in profits from his
From Naomi Klein..
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 14:40:18 -0700 Subject: Re: petition from Naomi Klein Please consider signing this petition, started by Naomi Klein, to register your protest about the heavy-handed police measures being used to stifle legitimate protest in Quebec next week against the FTAA talks. Citizen Caged From Naomi Klein, [EMAIL PROTECTED] As Canadians who value freedom of expression as an essential democratic right and depend on that right to make our living, we will watch with vigilance the actions of police officers and immigration agents next week when the Summit of the Americas convenes in Quebec City. The right to freedom of expression, so fundamental to our democracy, includes the right not just to speak and communicate but to be heard. The constitutional right to peaceful assembly encompasses the right to gather in public spaces in all Canadian cities. The right to freedom of movement across borders extends not just to trade and tourism but also to political rallies, conferences and protests. Designed to keep lawful protesters out of sight and earshot, the construction of a security barrier around Quebec City tramples on such fundamental freedoms. Following the spirit of our constitution, we condemn this action. We believe that the planned presence of approximately 6,000 police officers around the summit site is not an incentive to peaceful protest. We also condemn the practice of arbitrarily refusing entry to concerned citizens of other countries, thereby preventing them from expressing their views to the world media about a free trade agreement that extends across 34 national borders. Democracy does not only take place in parliaments, voting booths and official summits. It takes place in meeting halls, public parks, and in public streets. It also includes, at times, peaceful acts of civil disobedience. When the streets are blocked off and hundreds of meeting halls in Quebec City are out of reach to citizens because they are inside a sprawling "security zone," it is democracy itself that is marginalized. And when large corporations are given the opportunity to buy access to political leaders through partial sponsorship of the Summit of the Americas, as has transpired here, it creates the impression that political accountability is for sale. We are also concerned about leaked Canadian Security Intelligence Service documents that portray protesters coming to Quebec City as "violent" yet fail to support that claim with any corroborating evidence; and that such unsupported characterizations, repeated in press reports, could set the stage for excessive use of force by police officers. Many of the activists headed for Quebec City are young people engaged in principled and peaceful expression and civil disobedience and we are gravely concerned about all the protesters' physical safety. In the past four years, we have watched the use of pepper spray become distressingly commonplace at political demonstrations timed with meetings of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, the World Economic Forum, the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation forum, as well as U.S. political conventions. We have also witnessed, from the streets of Washington D.C. to Davos, Switzerland, the escalating use of tear gas, mass arrests, water cannons, and rubber bullets by police during some of these demonstrations, as well as such increasingly common security techniques as pre-emptive arrests of protest organizers, random beatings of activists, raids on activist "convergence centres" and the seizure of harmless protest materials such as placards and puppets. Throughout this country's proud history, Canadian statesmen such as George Etienne Cartier and Robert Baldwin have fought for both civic tolerance and the democratic right of freedom of expression. It is not too late for the Summit of the Americas to be an event during which our political leaders do more than talk about democracy. They can also embody democratic principles of freedom of expression and movement by refusing to shield themselves from open criticism and debate on matters of crucial importance to citizens of the Americas. With the world watching closely, this is an opportunity to make Canada a model for democratic principles. In this spirit, we call on the security forces at our borders and in Quebec City to vigorously defend not only the safety of visiting heads of state, but the rights of political activists within Canada. Name, desired identification: Simply email your name and identification to Naomi Klein at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or fax it to: 416-504-0625 or call it in to: 416-504-1664. The letter will be made public on April 13.
Spraying, and not even a spoof...
Here is the sort of stuff that Schmeiser picks up on and is repeated with nary a smiley by the CBC. While it is possible that Monsanto did this it surely is quite unlikely. It would generate the sort of publicity that anti-gm people would just love to publicize and of course they publicise this as gospel rather than as possible paranoia..The methods Monsanto can already use are intrusive enough and subject to criticism without leaving themselves open to stuff like this. Cheers, Ken Hanly The Kram family in Raymore say planes and a helicopter have buzzed their fields. The couple says agents dropped weedkiller on their canola field, to see if the crops had the Monsanto's gene. Monsanto says they had absolutely nothing to do with it. Elizabeth Kram The Krams think otherwise: "We are honestly disgusted with the way things are going," Elizabeth Kram says "Who put the canola in? It is the farmer. It doesn't belong to Monsanto or anybody else and I don't see anybody else's name on the titles of all the land we own. It's my husband and myself. Nobody else. [We're] thoroughly pissed off. "
Schmeiser's account of his agricultural practices..
Here is Percy's own statement about his agricultural practices. Notice that although he uses as few herbicides as possible in order to do this he uses Roundup to burn off early weeds before planting. This is precisely the sort of thing that Monsanto claims is a real plus in using Roundup. Do all you critics of Roundup hear what your hero David is saying here...lol. He also likes heribicides to be incorporated into the soil. What a yuck incorporating those poisons into the soil. This material is from the court decision. CHeers, Ken Hanly [31] Mr. Schmeiser testified that it is his general practice to use chemical herbicides as little as possible. However, he does use them when necessary for weed control. He prefers to utilize herbicides that can be incorporated into the soil, unlike Roundup, or those that can be applied in the spring, as these kill weeds when they germinate, thereby preventing the substantial loss of soil moisture that is suffered with the growth of weeds. He believes herbicide incorporated in the soil will be effective up to three years. Mr. Schmeiser also testified that he has used Roundup, particularly to burn off his fields before planting, or to "chem fallow" fields, and also for spraying for weeds and volunteer plants around power poles and in road ditches. He does not like to use it on a growing canola crop. He finds that when sprayed on a growing crop it leaves a residue that kills a substantial amount of bacteria in the soil which affects the yield from back-to-back planting and increases the possibility of root diseases, such as blackleg and sclerotinia, in canola.
Final exam question
Here's a question (and answer) from the final exam for Professor Lutz Hendricks' Economics 503 course at Arizona State University: Essay Questions (30 points each). Answer 4 questions. Question 1. Unemployment and the Work Week A recent French law intends to shorten the working week from 39 to 35 hours without loss of pay for workers. It is hoped that the plan could provide an extra 1.4 million jobs. What are the likely consequences of this law for employment, unemployment, real GDP, and government revenues? Would the law create new jobs, if pay was reduced in proportion to hours, so as to hold hourly wages constant? Explain your reasoning. Answer Sketches: Essay Questions Case 1: Hold hourly wages constant. Roughly nothing should happen to unemployment. If this is true, then real GDP should fall in proportion to hours (product per hour staying the same). Government revenues would accordingly fall. Employment might also fall because the relative attractiveness of unemployment rises. Why does unemployment stay the same? Essentially because aggregate demand is reduced by exactly the same amount as the reduction in earnings. The hope that new jobs might be created is the infamous lump of labor fallacy which ignores this reduction in demand. Case 2: No loss of pay. This case is similar, except that we now add a wage hike, which further reduces employment and GDP.
Re: Final exam question
I don't understand the point. Is this an attack on or defense of the exam questions? It needs more explanation for the non-economists on the list. Carrol
