Re: Not good
Greetings Economists, Doug Henwood writes, Ok, we're on the PEN-L bear watch again. What do you think we should do if the market keeps falling? Just what does it mean that it does? If it means a very bad economy ahead, what does that mean? Right now you're sounding like the color guy in the ICU, and not much else. Doug Doyle, I remember two years ago raising that there was going to be a crash in the economy from the bubble. Over time it has become clear that your position is to question the concern for this country as it is plunged into an economic debacle that was foreshadowed by the obvious bubble in the Stock Market. Here you admit that certain kinds of questions ought to be raised perhaps five years ago, but you only raise them as an opening to criticize the left for saying the obvious that Stock Market bubbles lead to economic devastation. What is to be done? I think as far as the economy is concerned to understand IT and use it to our benefit in organizing the working class in new ways. This means having the science and economics understood. I mean computing science, I mean neuroscience, I mean biological science, I mean electrical engineering science etc. I mean materialism. I mean Marxism. I ask you since I have been waiting for months to respond to your book on the New Economy about the science of the New Economy. About how to understand organizing in that sort of networked society. I believe you poopoo the Networked Society as no different economically than the time when the telegraph was invented (1860 time period) and perhaps not as glorious in terms of economic development. I want to debate about what are the directions we ought to take in a networked society? About what the working class can do to organize in an environment where telecommunications transforms work processes. Where brainwork is being subject to capitalist rationalization. It may be that given the power of the U.S. that little could have been done in the last two years, but I can tell you this, that in those two years at least in my geographical area, a real fight has been mounted against the corporatist (Clintonites) take over of Pacifica. And that a committee of disabled people emerged locally to do battle over that. That the disabled community is rising not over the economy which is always in a depression for the disabled, but in fighting for a left position. In particular the fight against Peter Singer, against Marc Cooper, and others of their ilk who stand ready to oppose the disabled. As Marc Cooper has aptly stated in his fund raising broadcasts in LA that this is a fight to the death, and the disabled are the intended victim of repression as they spearhead their Neo-Liberal agenda. I look forward to organizing against anti-disabled thought and such committed and determined foes of the disabled. Secondly in gay rights an anti-pomo position is going to be articulated and the fight for justice brought up in liberationist ways amongst my people. I am active in that arena, and we'll have much to say in the coming time. I hope to see coalition building between disabled activists like Kitty Cone (strategist for 508 legislation) and the gay community. That people with a real revolutionaries consciousness come forward and fight for working class rights. For red rights. Light the way for red rights! Thirdly amongst African Americans there is going to be a rising as this war against Muslims goes on. This racist war upon Muslims depends upon the cooperation of minorities in the U.S. to go forward. Let's see how much the Bush administration can do when the world economy is in a bubble related collapse. How far they can go in persuading this country to fight for capitalism. I think they know full well once things gets past the button pushing stage of warfare that things will be up in the air. And that time is on the side of liberation. What I hope to see is coalition building between disability firebrands like LeRoy Moore of DAMA and the broader Gay rights and African American Communities to build up a mass left movement of liberation in the U.S. Certainly LeRoy is friendly toward that coalition. That we thank George W. Bush for the opportunity to organize against the repression and mass murder of capitalism. thanks, Doyle Saylor
Re: Saudi Royal Family in Flight
At 22/09/01 00:15 -0500, you wrote: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24615 The article says The Saudi royal family has long been concerned about the rise of Islamic radicalism within its own kingdom. However the politics are much more complicated, and sections of the very large royal family undoubtedly have connections with the islamic radicals, (as if Saudi Arabia was not radical enough, in terms of strict law.) Reasonable-sounding commentators observe that there is an unwritten compact, that the islamic radicals will not challenge the constitution internally in return for a relative free hand externally. The recent strange case of some white anglo saxon Britons confessing after interrogation on Saudi television to placing bombs, is very arguably best interpreted as a cover up of the smouldering possibilities of revolution in that state. The significance of this well-spotted report, I suggest is twofold: 1) If God blesses America in its holy crusade for revenge, and carries through the logic that most of the highjackers, and bin Laden himself were Saudi (the aliases were still similar) then the US will flatten every oil installation in the state, and a fundamentalist but impoverished primitive islamic communist movement can come to power in a revolution. 2) Just possibly the USA may not do this. In which case ... any more considered policy strategy should regard the introduction of at least basic bourgeois democratic rights and freedoms in SA absolutely essential, at least to allow some sort of civil society to develop. THe USA and the West should regard it as urgent to forego some of SA's oil supplies (why not during the global recession) and insist King Fahd settles permanently in Switzerland accompanied by many of the most despotic members of his family. Meanwhile there is a constitutional conference which moves towards some sort of representative structure which compromises with islam, but at least does not depend on the murky court politics of a monarchy. Quite apart from the claims for democratic civil rights, which many on this list would in any case support, the Coalition against Terrorism from the point of view of its own interests absolutely must sort out Saudi Arabia. Any serious real politik would recognise that this is far more important than Afghanistan. Certainly bin Laden's money does not come from Afghanistan. It comes from Saudi Arabia, and so do many of his supporters. Afghanistan is just an inaccessible place. Progressive people should not be misled into thinking from this superficial news report that the Saudi royal family are somehow minor players and enemies of islamic fundamentalism. They need to be very high on the list for radical reform. Chris Burford London
Re: Chomsky must apologize
At 21/09/01 21:47 -0500, you wrote: I stand by what I've written. Andrew Hagen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yes it is presumptuous but I see some advantages to that. Certainly there must be serious debate within the left about the best way forward, even if it does not have to be totally united to be effective. The trouble with Andrew's piece was that IMHO it did not really hit the mark - possibly because the web-site does not permit cut and paste so it is not easy to have direct quotes - all right Andrew did give one. But certainly I read it to be a warning that the USA was highly likely to react with self-righteous revenge in a way that would actually be everything the terrorists would want. The trouble with Chomsky as far as I understand him, is more difficult to pin down. Basically he comes over to me as a moral critic of the USA, a seer denouncing the evil of his own side. In the broadest terms, I agree if Andrew says, that Chomsky gives this impression. But it is not a very realistic basis for developing a real political movement in the USA. It tends to assume that it is better to be isolated and moral, in your own terms, than to work with others for a change, perhaps a very radical change, in the real world. I do think Chomsky redeemed himself a year or two ago when he actually called on the USA to intervene somewhere - that was in East Timor. That gets more into the territory of what a massive global power, (Empire?) can and should do, somewhat to increase jjustice and peace in the world. That stand I saw as a materialist and realistic approach to morality. People who know Chomsky far better than I, may be able to correct me. But despite the presumptuous of Andrew's challenge, I would like to see more open and explicit debate about what should be the main direction that the left should take. My view is that it should make strenuous efforts to unite the peace tendencies with the anti-capitalist global tendencies that were fast developing before Tues 11th. Chris Burford London
Re: Not good
Doug Henwood writes, Ok, we're on the PEN-L bear watch again. What do you think we should do if the market keeps falling? Just what does it mean that it does? If it means a very bad economy ahead, what does that mean? Right now you're sounding like the color guy in the ICU, and not much else. Please don't morph into a pundit, Doug. These financial wizards have been pissing into the wind for a half-dozen years and a lot of us have been getting soaked. The protests against neo-liberalism, MAI, WTO, IMF, and the WB didn't spring up out of a material vacuum, you know. So now they are getting soaked and their instinct is to call for another round of their favorite brew. I'd hardly call pointing out the folly, gloating. What to do if the market keeps falling? FUCK the market. The market orthodoxy has been take care of the market and the market will take care of us. Or, to put it slightly more technically, promote the accumulation of exchange values and the production and distribution of use values will take care of itself. Well, the market *hasn't* been taking care of all of us. My policy proposals (I'm a policy researcher, remember) deal with concrete ways to directly deal with production and distribution to provide for people's needs. As someone who used to do policy consulting to government I have watched the evolution of the markets-R-us dogma within government. It used to be that the bureaucrats didn't want to actually do anything noncapitalist but they at least wanted to know what the options were. That was before the Berlin Wall came down. About six years ago they came to the smug conclusion that they didn't even what to HEAR about what the alternatives might be. The business prescription of low inflation, privatization, regressive taxation, free-trade, investor confidence and the occasional bail-out was the panacea. The other side of the business dogma, the part where the rubber hits the road, is flexibilization of labour. In plain terms, that is a social accounting swindle that allows the accumulators of exchange value to shift the costs and risks of the production process onto the workers. This swindle makes balance sheets look impressive. That's all. It's primitive accumulation. Meanwhile, I have developed and presented to governments concrete proposals designed to AVOID an economic catastrophe. Of course, I didn't *say* that was what they were designed to do. My proposals for reduced work time were not panaceas but focused on a specific aspect of material production. Lots of people on this list conduct analyses and develop proposals targeted at other specific aspects of the real -- not the financial -- economy. What distinguishes these proposals is that they focus on production of use values, not the accumulation of exchange values. As for the metaphor of sounding like the colour guy in the ICU, let's develop it a bit. Let's say someone has devoted a major part of his or her time and energy over the past decade or two to talking about traffic safety enforcement. What's wrong with that person going to the ICU after a major, avoidable freeway crash and saying this didn't have to happen. Do you have to call that gloating? Tom Walker Bowen Island, BC 604 947 2213
More gloating?
Thomas Duesterberg, president of the 400-member Manufacturers' Alliance in Arlington, Va., said the attacks struck at the roots of the productivity boom by exposing how vulnerable the economy was to swift disruptions of basic services like transportation. BOTTLENECKS EXPOSED ``The whole concept of a very fluid economy, which was what much of the success of the second half of the 1990s was built upon, has come under attack,'' Duesterberg said. A sensible observation. The success of the second half of the 1990s was built on the illusion that the whole economy can prosper by shifting risks. What really happens when you shift risks is that the vulnerabilities appear elsewhere. Tom Walker Bowen Island, BC 604 947 2213
More pissing
Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, interviewed on PBS Television's News Hour with Jim Lehrer, indicated that bolstering capital investment was on the minds of policymakers trying to devise ways to add stimulus to a shocked economy. O'Neill said capital spending already was waning before the attacks. ``The weakness in our economy has been on the investment side -- not on the consumer spending side,'' he said. ''So if you work from a set of principles, you ask yourself the question, what is it that we could do that would add to the investment side of our economic equation?'' This set of principles is code for dogma. It is the same old dogma that drove us off the cliff. It's time for something different. Sorry if Doug thinks that saying so is gloating. Tom Walker Bowen Island, BC 604 947 2213
Changes to Internet Surveillance
The New York Times September 21, 2001 Concern Over Proposed Changes in Internet Surveillance By Carl S. Kaplan Significant and perhaps worrisome changes in the government's Internet surveillance authority have been proposed by legislators in the wake of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Indeed, so much is happening so quickly it's hard to keep track of the legislative process, let alone follow the ongoing debate between fast-moving law enforcement experts and more cautious civil libertarians. To illuminate the huge changes afoot, it might be useful to spotlight one little corner of some proposed legislation. After all, as lawyers love to say, the devil is in the details. The proposed law that is furthest along in the pipeline is the Combating Terrorism Act of 2001, an amendment to an appropriations bill that was passed by the Senate on September 13th without hearings and with little floor debate. That legislation, which may ultimately become part of an integrated package of laws put forward this week by the Attorney General, has several provisions. Perhaps the most controversial is section 832, which seeks to enhance the government's ability to capture information related to a suspect's activities in cyberspace. Some background information is in order. With telephone conversations, a law enforcement official can tap a suspect's conversations only if there is probable cause to believe the suspect is doing something illegal and if a magistrate agrees to issue an order. The Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches have heightened the legal requirements needed for a government wiretap. But suppose an F.B.I. agent doesn't want to listen to the content of a telephone conversation. Suppose she just wants to get a list of the telephone numbers that a suspect dials, and the telephone numbers of people that call the suspect? This information, the Supreme Court has held, is not that private. Under federal law, all the government has to do in order to plant gizmos that record a suspect's outgoing and incoming telephone numbers -- so called pen registers and trap and trace devices -- is to tell a magistrate that the information is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation. There is no probable cause requirement and no hearing. The pen/trap and trace information is extremely easy to get. For the past few years, the government has interpreted the existing pen register and trap and trace laws, which were designed with telephones in mind, to allow them to swiftly garner certain information from ISP's about a suspect's e-mails -- for example, the to/from header information. In one sense, section 832 of the Senate amendment codifies the government's pro-law enforcement interpretation. Among other things, the amendment explicitly expands the pen/trap and trace law to include Internet communications. Specifically, the proposed law allows the government, under the low-standard pen/trap and trace authority, to record not just telephone numbers dialed but routing, addressing, or signalling information . According to experts on both sides of the legislative debate, the exact meaning of routing, addressing and signalling data is ambiguous. But chances are it includes not just to/from e-mail header information but a record of the URLs -- Web site addresses -- that a person visits. The legislation's language is not very narrow, said Stewart Baker, head of the technology practice at Steptoe Johnson, a Washington, D.C. law firm, and former general counsel of the National Security Agency. Conceivably, he said, federal agents under the proposed law could very easily -- and without making a showing of probable cause -- get a list of everyone you send e-mail to, when you sent it, who replied to you, how long the messages were, whether they had attachments, as well as where you went online. That's quite a bit of information, added Baker, who this week participated in a written dialog on national security in wartime on the online magazine Slate. Moreover, it's more information-rich material than a log of telephone numbers. I think if you asked anyone on the street: 'Which would you rather reveal, the telephone numbers you dialed or a list of all the people you sent e-mail to and the Web sites you visited?' I think they'd say, Go with the phone numbers,' he said. Under the proposed amendment, the government's authority to easily monitor a person's clickstream is particularly troublesome and an unwarranted enlargement of pen/trap and trace law, say some critics. After all, they point out, on the Internet the boundary between a mere address and the content of a communication is fuzzy. For example, by examining a URL, an agent may gain knowledge of a book that a person sought to purchase on Amazon.com, or perhaps learn about a person's query on a search engine. Indeed, a URL for a target's use of Google may reveal travel plans: When you look at URLs, you're getting a map of how someone
Re: Re: Re: Bertrand Russell on class war
This brings up again UN resolution 1333. Apparently there is evidence that bin Laden was associated with embassy bombing in Kenya and elsewhere. Along with sanctions against Afghansitan, resolution 1333 would empower appropriate authorities apprehending bin Laden and turning him over to authorities to be tried in a country in which the attack took place or other authorities in other countries who could bring him to trial. There doesnt seem be be a peep about this. If bin Laden were apprehended under this resolution there would be more credibiility to his being seized. If the US were concerned about acting within normal bourgeois legal norms they would never have called this a war. But all this is really irrelevant it seems to me. THere is reasonably strong evidence that an attack on bin Laden and the Taliban was planned even before the events of Sept. 11. This just moves up the timetable. Maybe I am cynical but I expect that the evidence will more likely be tailored to fit the plan then the plan to fit the evidence.. Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 4:47 PM Subject: [PEN-L:17515] Re: Re: Bertrand Russell on class war Justin Schwartz wrote: I hate to sound like the wimpy bourgeois liberal I am, but what's wrong with the usual rule that when a crime, even a very terrible crime, has been committed, the government has to gatherevidence, make a showing of probable cause that they have the right guy, then make a serious effort to have him brought to trial, tried fairly,and punished, if guilty, according to law? Hey don't be apologetic, even if only ironically so. That sort of due process is one of the best things about bourgeois society. If only they observed the standard more often. Doug
deja vu all over again
Let us take, as an example, the problem of Chechnya. The Russians have argued that the bombing in Moscow was carried out by terrorists from Chechnya. Some people have serious doubts about that and believe that it was carried out by Russian Mafia to encourage the invasion of Chechnya. Text of Yeltsin address on Moscow bombings MOSCOW, Sept 13 (Reuters) - President Boris Yeltsin urged Russians on Monday to remain calm after a Moscow apartment block blast killed at least 45 people. He vowed a tough, swift response. Following is the text of his televised address to the nation (translation by Reuters, about 350 words): Today, a day of mourning, a new disaster hit us. There has been another explosion with more victims. Another night-time blast in Moscow. Terrorism has declared war on us, the people of Russia. I have given already the necessary orders. An anti-terrorist operations headquarters has started working with Interior Minister (Vladimir) Rushailo as its head. He will coordinate the actions of the Interior Ministry and other security bodies. We are living amid a dangerous spread of terrorism and that demands the uniting of all forces in society and the state to repel this internal enemy. This enemy does not have a conscience, shows no sorrow and is without honour. It has no face, nationality or belief. Let me stress -- no nationality, no belief. The struggle with terrorism cannot remain merely the business of police and special services. The situation makes us face the tough need to show willpower and unite our forces. Power should be consolidated in the face of this terrible threat. Federal and regional bodies should work as a united body. The government, parliament and president's administration should work as a well-coordinated machine. I am paying a special attention to repelling terrorist attacks in Moscow. We understand how difficult it is now for the Moscow city authorities, for mayor) Yuri Mikhailovich Luzhkov. I will give him all the help and support he needs in these difficult days. Respected citizens, I deeply mourn for those who have died and express my condolences to their relatives and friends. Our pain is immeasurable but I ask all of you to be self-controlled. The main aim of the bandits is to scare people and spread panic. I am sure they will not live to see this. The best response to the terrorists will be your vigilance and calm. Today it depends on each of you how effective the fight with this evil will be. The authorities will reply to the bandits' challenge in an adequate, tough, swift and decisive way. On July 20, 1998, the IMF deposited $4.8 billion in Russia's Central Bank. About that time, Russian banks, some under the control of government officials, were tipped off to the Kremlin's plan to devalue the ruble. The banks and government officials, who had purchased high-interest, short-term treasury notes issued by the government and known as GKOs, began selling them before the devaluation would drastically reduce their value. The banks took their ruble proceeds from the sales of the notes - including the proceeds earned by the government officials - and exchanged them for dollars from Russia's Central Bank. Some of the dollars in the Central Bank's reserves were from that IMF deposit. The banks then transferred the dollars to overseas banks. On Aug. 17, 1998, the ruble collapsed, leaving the GKOs held by the Central Bank nearly worthless. Meanwhile, the IMF money was effectively gone. These people were tipped off, (they) speculated, cashed out and pocketed the difference, a U.S. investigator said. It was not an accident. Tom Walker Bowen Island, BC 604 947 2213
Fwd: a personal analysis
The following was a response to the responses one of the Fisk articles circulated from a friend of my sister's. It should be of interest, even for those who want war. I have been meaning to answer for a while now, but haven't had a moment to do so. Suraya Sadeed, born in Afghanistan and now an American citizen, and a humanitarian, wrote a similar (but even better) letter to Bush last Saturday. Judith, Marie, Marcia, do you still have this? I have it in hard copy, but unfortunately I deleted the electronic copy. I am quite aware of the Taliban and what it has done. Religious students, indeed! Following their own reading of the Koran - bs. Most of them can't read, and just go by what they are told. This means no rights for women - no jobs, no medical care, no education, can't leave the house. No freedom of religion or speech for anyone (there is no tv in Afghanistan any longer). When you think Taliban, think Nazis. When you think Bin Laden, think Hitler A little too simplistic. The Taliban are reprehensible, but I doubt they have the power to get rid of bin Laden, even if they wanted to. We'll have to see, won't we? He's got money; they don't. They depend on him. He's better armed than they are. Not that I have much sympathy for the Taliban, you understand, I just think it's even more complex than many people realize. On top of that there is the outlaw appeal of bin Laden. I saw a thing on one of the news mags a few nights ago - young, upper class Pakistani boys at an elite schoool - who couldn't wait to die for the cause. Yes, I think they have been indoctrinated, but they are also teenagers, with romantic views. It doesn't help. Btw, the Taliban took over in '96, not '97. And getting bin Laden won't solve everything. It's just a start. He's got bases and training camps and educated, sophisticated, well-trained lieutenants all over the world. These are not scruffy, nutso terrorists, but dedicated, well-educated fanatics. Unfortunately, I think we *must* retaliate - against the terrorists, and no one else. Not against the poor Afghans, whom we can't bomb back into the Stone Age, because the Taliban has already put them there. I would love to bring bin Laden to justice; that's my fantasy as well as Mr. Fisk's. I am afriad, however, that it is probably just that: a fantasy. If Mr. Fisk or anyone has a good idea how to get hold of bin Laden, I'm sure there are plenty of people with more power than I have who would love to hear it. In interviews, bin Laden has said that his goal is to kill as many Americans as possible and to destroy the US completely. He began his planning for the Trade Towers attack over a year ago, when it looked as though the US would succeed in brokering a peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. This is not what bin Laden wants. He wants us dead, and the US broken up at any cost. He does not care, for example, that Muslims died in the embassy bombings in Africa, because their fate was written by Allah. Kind of hard to negotiate with that sort of mind-set. I think we need some sort of Marshall Plan. The West has a lot of enemies because of poverty. Some people have been encouraged to hate the West, especially America, by their own leaders, because it takes the heat off the leaders who don't want to or can't do anything about poverty, etc. Unfortunately, those leaders in those countries are now in a tough place. They know the terrorists will target them next (bin Laden has said so), and they want to cooperate with the US, but they know their own people will not want them to. I think we have to approach this problem from several sides. We have to encourage peace, give aid to countries that need it, try to get the terrorists (and only the terrorists), and defend ourselves, all at the same time. We cannot bomb indiscriminately, or allow collateral damage (hate that phrase) among the innocent, or we become of the same character as our enemies. Then we have lost. I wish it were possible for someone to check out everything George W. says *before* he says it. When he called for a crusade against terrorism, do you suppose he disturbed moderate Islamic leaders much? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Fw: global site coverage of the crisis
My apologies for not deleting all those e-mail addresses in my forward. I'll tell Martin Shaw to bcc all on his list there, so dumbo here has not possibility of doing that again. I hope that data miners in the spam factories don't start sending more garbage to folks like Fred Halliday. Fred, visit the website address or send an e-mail to Martin in the UK. Michael Pugliese - Original Message - From: Fred B. Moseley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Michael Pugliese [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 6:52 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L:17538] Fw: global site coverage of the crisis subscribe
Re: Re: Re: Re: Garbanzos for peace!
You must be in a fortunate area of the Great Plains. Many areas of the Plains are sujbect to drought conditions from time to time. Of course they are also subject to grasshoppers, fusarium, hail, winds, and all sorts of other conditions that make for reduced yield. Nevertheless they do in the long run produce huge crops of corn, grains, lenitils, sunflowers, etc.etc. In spite of all these problems the Great Plains have been and will continue to produce large crops of various grains, etc. This surely is undeniable and perhaps this is what you meant. Those making pronouncenments about turning the plains back to grasslands are the ones who havent got a clue about agricultural matters--although more land may be turned back to pasture etc.simply for economic reasons.. As well as drought some areas suffer from floods and/or an excess of moisture. I dont know about North Dakota but next door to me in Saskatchewan the citizens call their province Next Year Country meaning that farmers always expect that great crop next year. Similarly re the weather. It is not only drought.. They say of their climate: We dont have any good weather but we sure have a great variety of bad weather. Often drought in one area will be coupled with excess moisture and floods in other areas and with excellent growing conditions in others. In this year in Manitoba and Saskatchewan alone this is the situation. The area I live in has had plenty of rain and excellent harvest conditions and this is true of quite a bit of the province but the southeast corner is so wet some areas could not be seeded. In Saskatchewan the southeast corner has good crops but most of the rest of the province suffered form serious lack of moisture. So overall you can still get a large but reduced yield over the whole Canadian prairies. Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Andrew Hagen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 9:29 PM Subject: [PEN-L:17523] Re: Re: Re: Garbanzos for peace! I'm a native of Fargo, North Dakota, and have spent quite a lot of time on farms in the Great Plains. Do you have a more specific objection to my remarks? Maybe I made some error. Andrew Hagen [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, 21 Sep 2001 19:48:29 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Obviously, Andrew doesn't live on the prairies or deal with agricultural issues. Pity. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba Most of the Great Plains does not need irrigation to produce crops with enormous yields, year after year. There are many problems such as overuse of insecticides and herbicides, and topsoil erosion, but we shouldn't stop farming the land for those reasons. Andrew Hagen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fw: [ASDnet] Wolin v. Hitchens
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 9:07 AM Subject: RE: [ASDnet] Wolin v. Hitchens There must be two Christopher Hitchens, since Wolin is responding to an article that is almost, point for point, the opposite of the "Against Rationalization" one I read. There is something especially sinister about the article you forwarded to me. By focusing on the purportedly profound question of "why" Tuesday's events came to pass instead of the question of "how" (as if this "why" is a mystery to all but the "enlightened" Christopher Hitchens), Hitchens suggests, via insinuation and innuendo, that in essence the United States brought this attack upon itself. This is the clear thrust of Hitchens's essay. But, in cowardly fashion, he refuses to state his thesis directly, for fear, no doubt, of having to take responsibility for its implications. In the recent Guardian article and elsewhere, Hitchens insinuates that this "why" is a relatively simple matter: the US is supporting a "racist" Israeli government that has brought untold and undeserved woe upon the innocently suffering peoples of the Middle East - the Palestinians in particular. But in making such claims, Hitchens makes things too easy for himself. Here, too, I'm afraid Hitchens needs another history lesson - a field that's obviously not his strong point. Leo Casey United Federation of Teachers 260 Park Avenue South New York, New York 10010-7272 (212-598-6869) Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never has, and it never will. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters. -- Frederick Douglass -- The preceding is a personal opinion. Try not to post more than daily.==^ EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://igc.topica.com/u/?b1dj8W.b2KaoW Or send an email To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: deja vu all over again
I recall that Democracy Now had some fairly convincing discussion (Kagarlisky?) to the effect that the KGB did the bombings to stir up the flagging interest in the Chechen War. Police people were working around the buildings well before the blast Tom Walker wrote: Let us take, as an example, the problem of Chechnya. The Russians have argued that the bombing in Moscow was carried out by terrorists from Chechnya. Some people have serious doubts about that and believe that it was carried out by Russian Mafia to encourage the invasion of Chechnya. Text of Yeltsin address on Moscow bombings MOSCOW, Sept 13 (Reuters) - President Boris Yeltsin urged Russians on Monday to remain calm after a Moscow apartment block blast killed at least 45 people. He vowed a tough, swift response. Following is the text of his televised address to the nation (translation by Reuters, about 350 words): Today, a day of mourning, a new disaster hit us. There has been another explosion with more victims. Another night-time blast in Moscow. Terrorism has declared war on us, the people of Russia. I have given already the necessary orders. An anti-terrorist operations headquarters has started working with Interior Minister (Vladimir) Rushailo as its head. He will coordinate the actions of the Interior Ministry and other security bodies. We are living amid a dangerous spread of terrorism and that demands the uniting of all forces in society and the state to repel this internal enemy. This enemy does not have a conscience, shows no sorrow and is without honour. It has no face, nationality or belief. Let me stress -- no nationality, no belief. The struggle with terrorism cannot remain merely the business of police and special services. The situation makes us face the tough need to show willpower and unite our forces. Power should be consolidated in the face of this terrible threat. Federal and regional bodies should work as a united body. The government, parliament and president's administration should work as a well-coordinated machine. I am paying a special attention to repelling terrorist attacks in Moscow. We understand how difficult it is now for the Moscow city authorities, for mayor) Yuri Mikhailovich Luzhkov. I will give him all the help and support he needs in these difficult days. Respected citizens, I deeply mourn for those who have died and express my condolences to their relatives and friends. Our pain is immeasurable but I ask all of you to be self-controlled. The main aim of the bandits is to scare people and spread panic. I am sure they will not live to see this. The best response to the terrorists will be your vigilance and calm. Today it depends on each of you how effective the fight with this evil will be. The authorities will reply to the bandits' challenge in an adequate, tough, swift and decisive way. On July 20, 1998, the IMF deposited $4.8 billion in Russia's Central Bank. About that time, Russian banks, some under the control of government officials, were tipped off to the Kremlin's plan to devalue the ruble. The banks and government officials, who had purchased high-interest, short-term treasury notes issued by the government and known as GKOs, began selling them before the devaluation would drastically reduce their value. The banks took their ruble proceeds from the sales of the notes - including the proceeds earned by the government officials - and exchanged them for dollars from Russia's Central Bank. Some of the dollars in the Central Bank's reserves were from that IMF deposit. The banks then transferred the dollars to overseas banks. On Aug. 17, 1998, the ruble collapsed, leaving the GKOs held by the Central Bank nearly worthless. Meanwhile, the IMF money was effectively gone. These people were tipped off, (they) speculated, cashed out and pocketed the difference, a U.S. investigator said. It was not an accident. Tom Walker Bowen Island, BC 604 947 2213 -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: More gloating?
The Wall Street Journal had an article about the disruption caused to the Just-in-Time production systems around the country. Tom Walker wrote: Thomas Duesterberg, president of the 400-member Manufacturers' Alliance in Arlington, Va., said the attacks struck at the roots of the productivity boom by exposing how vulnerable the economy was to swift disruptions of basic services like transportation. BOTTLENECKS EXPOSED ``The whole concept of a very fluid economy, which was what much of the success of the second half of the 1990s was built upon, has come under attack,'' Duesterberg said. A sensible observation. The success of the second half of the 1990s was built on the illusion that the whole economy can prosper by shifting risks. What really happens when you shift risks is that the vulnerabilities appear elsewhere. Tom Walker Bowen Island, BC 604 947 2213 -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Fw: [ASDnet] Wolin v. Hitchens
apropos of what? On Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 09:15:34AM -0700, Michael Pugliese wrote: - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 9:07 AM Subject: RE: [ASDnet] Wolin v. Hitchens There must be two Christopher Hitchens, since Wolin is responding to an article that is almost, point for point, the opposite of the Against Rationalization one I read. There is something especially sinister about the article you forwarded to me. By focusing on the purportedly profound question of why Tuesday's events came to pass instead of the question of how (as if this why is a mystery to all but the enlightened Christopher Hitchens), Hitchens suggests, via insinuation and innuendo, that in essence the United States brought this attack upon itself. This is the clear thrust of Hitchens's essay. But, in cowardly fashion, he refuses to state his thesis directly, for fear, no doubt, of having to take responsibility for its implications. In the recent Guardian article and elsewhere, Hitchens insinuates that this why is a relatively simple matter: the US is supporting a racist Israeli government that has brought untold and undeserved woe upon the innocently suffering peoples of the Middle East - the Palestinians in particular. But in making such claims, Hitchens makes things too easy for himself. Here, too, I'm afraid Hitchens needs another history lesson - a field that's obviously not his strong point. Leo Casey United Federation of Teachers 260 Park Avenue South New York, New York 10010-7272 (212-598-6869) Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never has, and it never will. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters. -- Frederick Douglass -- The preceding is a personal opinion. Try not to post more than daily. ==^ EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://igc.topica.com/u/?b1dj8W.b2KaoW Or send an email To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^ -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: deja vu all over again
Check the Johnson's Russia List archives at CDI. Kagarlitsky did write a piece alleging the FSB did bomb one of the apt. bldgs. in Moscow. Michael Pugliese - Original Message - From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 9:34 AM Subject: [PEN-L:17555] Re: deja vu all over again I recall that Democracy Now had some fairly convincing discussion (Kagarlisky?) to the effect that the KGB did the bombings to stir up the flagging interest in the Chechen War. Police people were working around the buildings well before the blast Tom Walker wrote: Let us take, as an example, the problem of Chechnya. The Russians have argued that the bombing in Moscow was carried out by terrorists from Chechnya. Some people have serious doubts about that and believe that it was carried out by Russian Mafia to encourage the invasion of Chechnya. Text of Yeltsin address on Moscow bombings MOSCOW, Sept 13 (Reuters) - President Boris Yeltsin urged Russians on Monday to remain calm after a Moscow apartment block blast killed at least 45 people. He vowed a tough, swift response. Following is the text of his televised address to the nation (translation by Reuters, about 350 words): Today, a day of mourning, a new disaster hit us. There has been another explosion with more victims. Another night-time blast in Moscow. Terrorism has declared war on us, the people of Russia. I have given already the necessary orders. An anti-terrorist operations headquarters has started working with Interior Minister (Vladimir) Rushailo as its head. He will coordinate the actions of the Interior Ministry and other security bodies. We are living amid a dangerous spread of terrorism and that demands the uniting of all forces in society and the state to repel this internal enemy. This enemy does not have a conscience, shows no sorrow and is without honour. It has no face, nationality or belief. Let me stress -- no nationality, no belief. The struggle with terrorism cannot remain merely the business of police and special services. The situation makes us face the tough need to show willpower and unite our forces. Power should be consolidated in the face of this terrible threat. Federal and regional bodies should work as a united body. The government, parliament and president's administration should work as a well-coordinated machine. I am paying a special attention to repelling terrorist attacks in Moscow. We understand how difficult it is now for the Moscow city authorities, for mayor) Yuri Mikhailovich Luzhkov. I will give him all the help and support he needs in these difficult days. Respected citizens, I deeply mourn for those who have died and express my condolences to their relatives and friends. Our pain is immeasurable but I ask all of you to be self-controlled. The main aim of the bandits is to scare people and spread panic. I am sure they will not live to see this. The best response to the terrorists will be your vigilance and calm. Today it depends on each of you how effective the fight with this evil will be. The authorities will reply to the bandits' challenge in an adequate, tough, swift and decisive way. . On July 20, 1998, the IMF deposited $4.8 billion in Russia's Central Bank. . About that time, Russian banks, some under the control of government officials, were tipped off to the Kremlin's plan to devalue the ruble. . The banks and government officials, who had purchased high-interest, short-term treasury notes issued by the government and known as GKOs, began selling them before the devaluation would drastically reduce their value. . The banks took their ruble proceeds from the sales of the notes - including the proceeds earned by the government officials - and exchanged them for dollars from Russia's Central Bank. Some of the dollars in the Central Bank's reserves were from that IMF deposit. . The banks then transferred the dollars to overseas banks. . On Aug. 17, 1998, the ruble collapsed, leaving the GKOs held by the Central Bank nearly worthless. Meanwhile, the IMF money was effectively gone. These people were tipped off, (they) speculated, cashed out and pocketed the difference, a U.S. investigator said. It was not an accident. Tom Walker Bowen Island, BC 604 947 2213 -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Fw: [ASDnet] Wolin v. Hitchens
Didn't I send that Wolin rant last night to the list? Just to show y'all that Leo can make distinctions, too.He can hate Chomsky but, see that the Hitch is closer to his p.o.v. Michael Pugliese - Original Message - From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 9:41 AM Subject: [PEN-L:17556] Re: Fw: [ASDnet] Wolin v. Hitchens apropos of what? On Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 09:15:34AM -0700, Michael Pugliese wrote: - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 9:07 AM Subject: RE: [ASDnet] Wolin v. Hitchens There must be two Christopher Hitchens, since Wolin is responding to an article that is almost, point for point, the opposite of the Against Rationalization one I read. There is something especially sinister about the article you forwarded to me. By focusing on the purportedly profound question of why Tuesday's events came to pass instead of the question of how (as if this why is a mystery to all but the enlightened Christopher Hitchens), Hitchens suggests, via insinuation and innuendo, that in essence the United States brought this attack upon itself. This is the clear thrust of Hitchens's essay. But, in cowardly fashion, he refuses to state his thesis directly, for fear, no doubt, of having to take responsibility for its implications. In the recent Guardian article and elsewhere, Hitchens insinuates that this why is a relatively simple matter: the US is supporting a racist Israeli government that has brought untold and undeserved woe upon the innocently suffering peoples of the Middle East - the Palestinians in particular. But in making such claims, Hitchens makes things too easy for himself. Here, too, I'm afraid Hitchens needs another history lesson - a field that's obviously not his strong point. Leo Casey United Federation of Teachers 260 Park Avenue South New York, New York 10010-7272 (212-598-6869) Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never has, and it never will. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters. -- Frederick Douglass -- The preceding is a personal opinion. Try not to post more than daily. ==^ EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://igc.topica.com/u/?b1dj8W.b2KaoW Or send an email To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^ -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A Bailout for the People
The Philadelphia Inquirer September 21, 2001 A Bailout for the People by Richard B. DuBoff In possibly the worst debasement of public discourse in recent years - no mean feat - George W. Bush stated last fall, and repeats as President, that when you look at taxes or the government surplus, it's not the government's money. It's your money. And yet the Bush administration plans a multibillion-dollar bailout for our airlines, already in financial trouble even before Sept. 11. So it's not your money - it's the airlines' money? America's airlines do need help - how much is something that must be carefully considered - without which there could be bankruptcies and declining capacity in the face of growing long-term demand for air travel. But if the national government can step in and help a private industry and its shareholders at a moment's notice, why is it wrong, or wasteful or a threat to freedom, for government to provide increasing and long-term support for our economic and social infrastructure? It's not the government's money. It's your money. It is also your dilapidated public school. Your frayed national parks. Your traffic jam. Your increasingly costly and inadequate medical insurance. And your catastrophically inadequate airline security system. No comparable country relies on privately hired and supervised workers to carry out basic security check-ins at airports. Our lives depend on such people - who receive barely a few hours of training, earn minimum wage, and rarely last more than six months on the job. Our lives also depend on those who teach us to read, calculate and think - and few comparable nations pay their teachers as poorly. Among high-income nations, the United States ranks far from the top. Average salaries of teachers with experience, as a percentage of per capita income, is very low in the United States - 99 percent compared to 136 percent on average for 30 countries surveyed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Amtrak is now coping with large increases in ridership on all its lines - and we are on the verge of telling it to fold up shop if it fails to become self-sufficient by 2003. Instead, it should be subsidized to the tune of $2 billion to $3 billion per year. No other country imposes a private-profitability standard on its railroads, for good reason: They are part of national capital and are needed, more than ever, to support transportation systems under enormous and essentially irreparable strain on their motor vehicle and airway modes. Social Security is alive and well. Even under the most pessimistic projections for financial adequacy over the next 75 years, Social Security will claim an additional 2.5 percent of our gross domestic product. Guess what: Social Security benefits have been paid over the past 61 years, and they have taken an additional 4.2 percent of our GDP - and over that period our nation's economic productivity has been below what it now is, far below what it will be in future decades. Social Security's real problem is - can you guess? - its inadequacy compared to its counterparts abroad. For workers with average earnings, the U.S. replacement rate is less than half those of the French and Dutch systems, less than two-thirds those of the German, Belgian, Spanish and Italian systems. The first order of business should be repeal of the Bush tax cuts - backloaded for 2005-2010 and overloaded in favor of the richest households. Then we can begin to reverse two decades of Reaganomics and the purposeful shrinkage and starvation of the federal government. If Washington can bail out a private industry - and not for the first time - it can certainly begin to reinvest in our livelihoods, our well-being and our futures. Richard B. Du Boff is professor emeritus of economics at Bryn Mawr College.
Planet saying no to US retaliation strategy
http://www.gallup-international.com/terrorismpoll_figures.htm
Re: A Bailout for the People
- Original Message - From: Ken Hanly [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Philadelphia Inquirer September 21, 2001 A Bailout for the People by Richard B. DuBoff More of this type of stuff is exactly what's needed in the current struggle of/for public opinion.. Ian
Re: Re: Re: Fw: [ASDnet] Wolin v. Hitchens
Leo has not been here for a while. All that personal stuff does not belong here. On Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 10:01:38AM -0700, Michael Pugliese wrote: Didn't I send that Wolin rant last night to the list? Just to show y'all that Leo can make distinctions, too.He can hate Chomsky but, see that the Hitch is closer to his p.o.v. Michael Pugliese - Original Message - From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 9:41 AM Subject: [PEN-L:17556] Re: Fw: [ASDnet] Wolin v. Hitchens apropos of what? On Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 09:15:34AM -0700, Michael Pugliese wrote: - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 9:07 AM Subject: RE: [ASDnet] Wolin v. Hitchens There must be two Christopher Hitchens, since Wolin is responding to an article that is almost, point for point, the opposite of the Against Rationalization one I read. There is something especially sinister about the article you forwarded to me. By focusing on the purportedly profound question of why Tuesday's events came to pass instead of the question of how (as if this why is a mystery to all but the enlightened Christopher Hitchens), Hitchens suggests, via insinuation and innuendo, that in essence the United States brought this attack upon itself. This is the clear thrust of Hitchens's essay. But, in cowardly fashion, he refuses to state his thesis directly, for fear, no doubt, of having to take responsibility for its implications. In the recent Guardian article and elsewhere, Hitchens insinuates that this why is a relatively simple matter: the US is supporting a racist Israeli government that has brought untold and undeserved woe upon the innocently suffering peoples of the Middle East - the Palestinians in particular. But in making such claims, Hitchens makes things too easy for himself. Here, too, I'm afraid Hitchens needs another history lesson - a field that's obviously not his strong point. Leo Casey United Federation of Teachers 260 Park Avenue South New York, New York 10010-7272 (212-598-6869) Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never has, and it never will. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters. -- Frederick Douglass -- The preceding is a personal opinion. Try not to post more than daily. ==^ EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://igc.topica.com/u/?b1dj8W.b2KaoW Or send an email To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^ -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Saudis Balking at Request to Use Base
This is from the Gulf States Newsletter but is based mostly upon material from the Washington Post. Cheers, Ken Hanly Saudis Resisting U.S. Use Of New Command Centre, Washington Post Reports - Posted Saturday, September 22, 2001 by Various Saudi Arabia is resisting a request to use the U.S. Air Force's new Combined Air Operations Center at the Prince Sultan Air Base in any forthcoming air campaign, the Washington Post reported today, quoting unidentified U.S. defence officials. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell is trying to convince the Kingdom to reverse its decade-old policy prohibiting the U.S.A. from staging or commanding offensive air operations from Saudi air bases. The report said that Saudi resistance to using the Prince Sultan Base had forced U.S. military planners to consider moving the operations centre to another unspecified country-which could delay for weeks any air strikes. The Combined Air Operations Center at Prince Sultan Air Base, some 113 kilometres south-east of Riyadh, became operational only six weeks ago. It integrates intelligence and information-gathering systems.
Re: Saudis Balking at Request to Use Base
I just heard my tape of Doug's interview of Tariq Ali, who was emphasizing that the Saudi state is already fragile and the war can throw it into turmoil. If the war were just bombing the Afgan's, perhaps we could kill a few thousand, declare victory, and leave. I think that Bush's demand that everyone take up sides is very dangerous. I don't know how much discontent there is in Pakistan or if siding with Pakistan will have undersirable effects in India, but the world is very complicated. Quickly reshuffling the deck is more likely to cause more harm than good. Part of it is our fault. Bush has to act because the US public opinion cannnot accept a weak-looking president. Gore would have had to bomb already. I think that more is resting on the shoulders of the US peace/rationality movement than ever before. I would like to see us learn to craft a line that could communicate the dangers. I mentioned yesterday about my colleague, George Wright's difficulty in trying to do so here in Chico. I think that there was much more doubt about the wisdom of war before the Gulf War. The hoopla began afterwards when the US got off easily -- although the Gulf War illness had not been factored in at the time. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Garbanzos for peace!
When western Canada was first surveyed by Europeans for settlement, the surveyor, Captain Palliser, deemed the northern extension of the great American desert not fit for settlement. This area is still known as Palliser's Triangle and is the area currently hit by drought. (This does not include Manitoba) As my old economics professor at Saskatchewan used to point out, the area gets only a couple more inches of rain than the Sahara desert. However in the decade or so preceding WW1, when settlement spread on the prairies, there was a period of the climatic cycle when rainfall was relatively plentiful. Hence the area was settled but it should never have been and should be returned to grazing land. Paul Phillips From: Andrew Hagen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date sent: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 23:42:55 -0500 Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Priority: Normal Subject:[PEN-L:17534] Re: Garbanzos for peace! I'm sorry to hear about your horses. You're not kidding about drought. Drought is a recurring problem for farmers and ranchers on the Great Plains. I need to qualify my previous response. On the whole, irrigation is not necessary for successful farming and ranching in the region. Drought is temporary and scattered, but when it hits, it's devastating. Either irrigation or emergency funds for drought-stricken farmers are needed, though, along with a host of well thought agricultural policies to prevent all kinds of problems, including losses of family operations, topsoil erosion, rural impoverishment, and overuse of chemicals. Andrew Hagen [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, 21 Sep 2001 21:54:14 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I just have lived for the past -- well almost 40 years on the prairies -- rode my horses, lived in my rural communtity, etc. cultimated my garden, tendered my pasture, etc, etc. Yea and we had a hell of a time with chemical crop dusters. Yea and we had a real problem with drought. Yea and we had a real problem with all the aspects of the corporate attempt to take over the ag. industry. We moved back to the city and, all of my horses are for sale (and saddles and bridles and tack). Paul Phillips Andrew Hagen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date sent: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 21:29:33 -0500 Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Priority:Normal Subject: [PEN-L:17523] Re: Re: Re: Garbanzos for peace! I'm a native of Fargo, North Dakota, and have spent quite a lot of time on farms in the Great Plains. Do you have a more specific objection to my remarks? Maybe I made some error. Andrew Hagen [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, 21 Sep 2001 19:48:29 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Obviously, Andrew doesn't live on the prairies or deal with agricultural issues. Pity. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba Most of the Great Plains does not need irrigation to produce crops with enormous yields, year after year. There are many problems such as overuse of insecticides and herbicides, and topsoil erosion, but we shouldn't stop farming the land for those reasons. Andrew Hagen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Saudis Balking at Request to Use Base
PerelmanI don't know how much discontent there is in Pakistan... http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-worldtrade-pakistan.story Copyright © 2001, Newsday, Inc. - Original Message - From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 12:23 PM Subject: [PEN-L:17564] Re: Saudis Balking at Request to Use Base I just heard my tape of Doug's interview of Tariq Ali, who was emphasizing that the Saudi state is already fragile and the war can throw it into turmoil. If the war were just bombing the Afgan's, perhaps we could kill a few thousand, declare victory, and leave. I think that Bush's demand that everyone take up sides is very dangerous. I don't know how much discontent there is in Pakistan or if siding with Pakistan will have undersirable effects in India, but the world is very complicated. Quickly reshuffling the deck is more likely to cause more harm than good. Part of it is our fault. Bush has to act because the US public opinion cannnot accept a weak-looking president. Gore would have had to bomb already. I think that more is resting on the shoulders of the US peace/rationality movement than ever before. I would like to see us learn to craft a line that could communicate the dangers. I mentioned yesterday about my colleague, George Wright's difficulty in trying to do so here in Chico. I think that there was much more doubt about the wisdom of war before the Gulf War. The hoopla began afterwards when the US got off easily -- although the Gulf War illness had not been factored in at the time. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BBC News SOUTH ASIA Pakistan protests turn violent
http://www.antiwar.com/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1555000/1555688.stm
Anti-war movement
Workers must join together in opposition to the imperialist war that is being waged against the working class. Although the pretext for this war is the terrorist attack in Manhattan and Washington the campaign being mounted by the Bush administration is ultimately a campaign against the working class. Already US imperialism's policies have led to the deaths of over 6000 people and the intensification of economic recession causing thousand of workers to loose their jobs. The imperialist policies of the Bush cabal has led to rises in the price of oil which will further eat into the living standards of struggling workers around the world. The declared war will lead to deaths and injury of workers. It will also lead to further economic hardship and pain. The anti-war movement must be organised on the basis of a workers' attack on the state. This should involve demonstrations, strikes and even occupations.
Re: Anti-war movement
of the Bush cabal has led to rises in the price of oil which will further eat into the living standards of struggling workers around the world. The declared war will lead to deaths and injury of workers. It will also lead to further economic hardship and pain. I have a student who wants to write a paper on the current crisis and the price of oil and the problem that this raises for the Canadian economy. Anybody want to send me stuff or refer him to credible websites, articles, etc. that might be useful? Please respond to the e-mail below. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Garbanzos for peace!
The triangle does include part of Manitoba. As noted it often accounts for over half of Canada's agricultural production. Maybe some parts should be returned to grazing land but grazing also produces problems. There may very well be even greater difficulties in this area because of global warming but we shall see. I would note too that some land that was broken in the early days already has been returned to range land. The remaining land is quite productive in years there is adequate rainfall. It should be noted too that in some areas such as parts of southern Alberta and around the Diefenbaker dam in Saskatchewan there is extensive irrigation. Of course many parts of the Great Plains in the US are not part of this Great American Desert.The below is from: http://sts.gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/page1/clim/palliser/ The Palliser Triangle is the driest region of the Canadian prairies, extending from southwestern Manitoba to southern Alberta. It often accounts for over half of Canada's agricultural production, despite a highly variable climate. However, future sustainable activities in parts of this region could be threatened by global climate change, which is expected to result in more frequent drought. Cheers, Ken Hanly PS. What on earth were you doing with horses? They have nothing to do with farming. They are used for riding and show by city slickers moved to hobby farms or by relatively well-off farmers for show and riding as well.. How many sections did you farm? People move out to rural areas expecting clear air only to get gassed by crop spraying as chemical sprays drift over rural residences. They are also greeted by the smell of hog barns and manure piles from feed lots, and the sweet smell of shit spread thick on the fields. Hey we didnt promise you a rose garden. Fortunately, there is a movement even among rural people to alleviate some of the worst features of industrial type farming. Stubble burning is more strictly controlled. There are fightbacks against expansion of hog barns by local residents not just environmentalists. Just a few miles up the road municipal offices were recently occupied by locals who wanted the council to address their concerns before approving any hog barns. However, some farmers seem to be rather indifferent to their actions. Last year, I was gassed by a farmer spraying just outside a small hamlet. I was able to take off in my car immediately. I have asthma. However, I spoke to an elderly couple later and their house was absolutely polluted. The wife was quite ill and had trouble breathing for some time afterward. Another farmer in the same area was caught jettisoning leftover treated seed on the road. This seed would poison any birds or wildlife that ate it. Someone spotted him and reported it and he was made to clean it up. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 2:38 PM Subject: [PEN-L:17565] Re: Re: Garbanzos for peace! When western Canada was first surveyed by Europeans for settlement, the surveyor, Captain Palliser, deemed the northern extension of the great American desert not fit for settlement. This area is still known as Palliser's Triangle and is the area currently hit by drought. (This does not include Manitoba) As my old economics professor at Saskatchewan used to point out, the area gets only a couple more inches of rain than the Sahara desert. However in the decade or so preceding WW1, when settlement spread on the prairies, there was a period of the climatic cycle when rainfall was relatively plentiful. Hence the area was settled but it should never have been and should be returned to grazing land. Paul Phillips From: Andrew Hagen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date sent: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 23:42:55 -0500 Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Priority: Normal Subject:[PEN-L:17534] Re: Garbanzos for peace! I'm sorry to hear about your horses. You're not kidding about drought. Drought is a recurring problem for farmers and ranchers on the Great Plains. I need to qualify my previous response. On the whole, irrigation is not necessary for successful farming and ranching in the region. Drought is temporary and scattered, but when it hits, it's devastating. Either irrigation or emergency funds for drought-stricken farmers are needed, though, along with a host of well thought agricultural policies to prevent all kinds of problems, including losses of family operations, topsoil erosion, rural impoverishment, and overuse of chemicals. Andrew Hagen [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, 21 Sep 2001 21:54:14 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I just have lived for the past -- well almost 40 years on the prairies -- rode my horses, lived in my rural communtity, etc. cultimated my garden, tendered my pasture, etc, etc. Yea and we had a hell of a time with chemical crop
the democratic transition in Iraq
[from Thomas the gov website for fishin' through legislation..] H.R.2506 Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2002 (Reported in the Senate) -- -- IRAQ SEC. 566. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds appropriated under the heading `Economic Support Fund' may be made available for programs benefitting the Iraqi people and to support efforts to bring about a democratic transition in Iraq: Provided, That funds may be made available through the Iraqi National Congress Support Foundation or the Iraqi National Congress only if the Inspector General of the Department of State determines and certifies to the Committees on Appropriations that such organizations are implementing adequate and transparent financial controls to ensure that funds are used exclusively for the purposes of this section, and that not more than 14 percent of the funds is used for administrative expenses, including expenditures for salaries, office rent and equipment.
Nixon to Bush
The Bush Administration should seize the opportunity to make sure that the tragedy in Vietnam is not repeated in Afghanistan. from Thomas again. ALARMING DETAILS REGARDING AFGHANISTAN -- (BY RICHARD M. NIXON) (Extension of Remarks - February 07, 1990) [Page: E215] --- HON. DON RITTER in the House of Representatives TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1990 Mr. RITTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss some alarming details regarding Afghanistan . I am disturbed that many people--including United States Government officials--are blaming the Afghan resistance for stalemate and infighting, now that the Soviets have pulled out of Afghanistan . This is unfortunate, because in reality these problems have been largely exacerbated by current United States policy implementation and the role of Pakistan's military intelligence [ISI] in the distribution of United States aid. The faulty implementation of United States policy in Afghanistan , and the manipulation of supplies to the Afghan resistance by Pakistan's ISI, is the reason that strategic and moderate elements of the Afghan resistance are being denied critical military supplies, and a major reason for stalemate and factionalism in Afghanistan . There is a rapidly growing discontent in Congress with ISI's policy of providing very limited and inadequate supplies to hard fighting elements of the Afghan resistance--like Commander Masood (Jamiat Party), General Abdul Rahim Wardak (National Islamic Front of Afghanistan ) and other Jamiat, NIFA, and Khalis commanders. Mr. Speaker, I am sure many Members are asking themselves how we can continue to consider sending large amounts of foreign aid to our good friends in Pakistan--or provide sophisticated fighter planes or AH-1F Cobra attack helicopters to our good friends in the Pakistani military--when elements of Pakistani military intelligence [ISI] can not be relied on to distribute supplies equitably and fairly to important Afghan freedom fighters like Commander Masood, General Wardak, and other strategic and important commanders? Most of the Members here in Congress, including myself, supported a large amount of foreign and military aid to Pakistan. But, now many Members here are very disturbed by ISI's pressure on Commander Masood's two brothers--forcing them to cancel their trip to the United States. The reports of the harassment of Commander Masood's brothers, and their families and friends, are also cause for great alarm here in Congress. Mr. Speaker, there is a second bit of disturbing news regarding Afghanistan . There is growing concern in Congress that Secretary of State James Baker may negotiate a defective political settlement on Afghanistan with Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze at their meeting later this week. If these rumors are true they are very disturbing. Any settlement that allows Afghanistan's Communist regime--and their notorious leader Najibullah--to remain in power, even transitionally, will be staunchly opposed here in Congress, and by the Afghan people. Mr. Speaker, I know that I speak for many supports of Afghanistan and Pakistan here in Congress when I say that I hope that Secretary Baker seizes the moment and avoids a settlement that betrays the people of Afghanistan . America cannot afford to abandon the Afghan resistance--in favor of a defective political settlement with Najibullah and the Soviets. I hope that the following excellent piece on Afghanistan , written recently by former President Nixon, will help serve as blueprint for future United States efforts in Afghanistan . [FROM THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, FEBRUARY 1, 1990] (BY RICHARD M. NIXON) When U.S. Secretary of State James A. Baker III and Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard A. Shevardnadze meet in early February, their discussions will almost certainly touch upon a major geopolitical paradox: While Eastern Europe is slipping out of Moscow's grasp, the chance to liberate Afghanistan from communism appears to be slipping out of America's hands. The Red Army's withdrawal from Afghanistan last February became the opening round in the collapse of much of the Kremlin's empire. Yet change in Eastern Europe has outpaced progress in Afghanistan . To secure the Afghan people's right of self-determination, we need to understand what's at stake, what's gone wrong and what needs to be done. Afghanistan remains a critical strategic issue. Ten years of support to the resistance has been based on a bipartisan recognition that the Soviet occupation threatened U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf. Yet if Washington abandons the resistance, and thereby leaves the Soviet-sponsored Kabul regime in power, Soviet troops will have left but Moscow will still have what the Red Army was sent in to secure: complete domination of Afghanistan . The Kremlin not only will retain the Afghan air bases that allow Soviet tactical aircraft to reach the Strait of Hormuz but will have also seized the optimal position for long-term subversion of
the Silk Road strategy
[..Thomas, againDoug, the check's in the mail :-) ] THE SILK ROAD STRATEGY ACT OF 1997, H.R. 2867 -- HON. BENJAMIN A. GILMAN (Extension of Remarks - November 08, 1997) -- -- [Page: E2240] GPO's PDF --- HON. BENJAMIN A. GILMAN in the House of Representatives FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1997 Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing the Silk Road Strategy Act of 1997 (H.R. 2867), a measure designed to focus American diplomatic and commercial attention, as well as American foreign assistance, on the important regions of the Caucasus and Central Asia. The name Silk Road is an ancient one, referring to the East-West trade route that for so long linked China and other countries in East Asia with Italy and other countries in West Europe. The countries of the Caucasus and Central Asian regions, through which travelers on the Silk Road passed, fell victim to conflict and repression as the Russian tsars pushed south and then were replaced by the brutal dictatorship of the Bolshevik Commissars. For over seven decades the eight countries of these two regions--Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan--were sealed behind the Iron Curtain, unable to move forward toward democracy and commercial prosperity with the rest of Europe and Asia. Ironically, the resources to fuel such progress lay just under the surface, in the form of vast gas and oil reserves. Mr. Speaker, the peoples of the Caucasus and Central Asia now face the challenge of rebuilding their links to Europe and Asia, and we in the United States have a national interest to help them overcome the obstacles that lay in the way of resurrecting the old Silk Road. Regrettably, these countries lie between Russia, Iran, Afghanistan and China. In Russia, they face a country that seems intent on forcing them to stay within its sphere of dominance. In Iran, they face a fundamental Islamic regime that seeks to use them to thwart efforts led by the United States to isolate Iran until it forsakes its support for international terrorism--and an Iran that hopes to forment fundamentalist Islam from Azerbaijan to the borders of China. In Afghanistan , these countries face a country in turmoil--and a violence they fear could spread northward. Finally, in China they face the world's most populous nation, controlled by a brutal Communist regime that is looking hungrily to the energy reserves and natural resources of these thinly populated countries to fuel its industrial and technological expansion in the 21st century. What is the American interest in these two far-flung regions? First, we want to see democratic government take root in these states. Stability in these regions and in the broader Eurasian region may well depend on the successful consolidation of democratic governance in these states over the next decade or two, frankly, there is a lot of work ahead of us in that regard, Second, we want to defuse the current ethnic conflicts that are destabilizing the two regions, and that are providing neighboring states, such as Iran, the leverage to gain these countries' cooperation in major commercial endeavors, such as energy export pipelines. Finally, just as it is in America's interest to help these countries open up a window to the West to lessen their manipulation by their larger neighbors, it is in America's interest to see the energy reserves of the two regions opened up to the West. As my colleagues well know, our United States military forces face an increasingly difficult task in ensuring our continued access to the energy reserves of the Persian Gulf. We need to encourage the development of other sources of oil and gas as we enter the next century to lessen our dependence on their Persian Gulf as Iran and Iraq seek to manipulate that dependence. The reserves of the Caucasus and Central Asian regions do not compare with those of the Persian Gulf, but they are indeed vast, and we should look for ways to get pipelines out to the West--avoiding routes through countries, such as Russia and Iran, that may have a geopolitical interest to choke off those pipelines at some point in the future. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this bill, H.R. 2867, a measure that, if enacted, would target our diplomatic attention and foreign assistance on these increasingly important regions. [Page: E2241] GPO's PDF Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Silk Road Strategy Act of 1997'. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. Congress makes the following findings: (1) The ancient Silk Road, once the economic lifeline of Central Asia and the South Caucasus, traversed much of the territory now within the countries of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.
Re: Chomsky must apologize
Steve says: I read Chomsky as stating that the perpetrators of this crime were at one point funded by the CIA and that that is what makes it necesary to then analyze the relationship between US foreign policy and this incident. If the perpetrators turn out to have been indeed associated with Osama bin Laden Co., as the U.S. government media have argued, the S11 bombings are classic instances of blowback (= the unintended consequences of U.S. policies kept secret from the American people, to use the words of Chalmers Johnson, though some who died at the Pentagon might have known about this fact intimately). Yoshie
Insider trading?
[this is one of the more intriguing rumors] Terror chiefs plunder stock market John Hooper in Berlin Sunday September 23, 2001 The Observer The terrorist overlords who plotted the attacks on New York and Washington appear to have made a massive financial profit out of the resulting turmoil on international markets, one of the world's top bankers said yesterday. Ernst Welteke, president of the Bundesbank, said a study by the German central bank pointed strongly to 'terrorism insider trading' in the days leading up to this month's carnage in the US. He was speaking to reporters during a break in a European Union finance Ministers' meeting in Liege at which it was agreed that regulatory agencies in the 15 member states must work together to investigate the evidence. 'Even in the financial sector, there could be a global network [of terrorists] and we are looking into this,' said Austria's Finance Minister, Karl-Heinz Grasser. He and his colleagues ordered that a joint report on the regulators' investigations should be ready by 16 October. Their decision provided by far the most authoritative support for persistent rumours that the terrorists could have funded their next strike with huge profits gained from the attacks. Welteke said: 'There is lots of speculation and rumours at the moment so we have to be careful. But there are ever clearer signs that there were activities on international financial markets, which must have been carried out with the necessary expert knowledge.' So far, doubts have centred on dealings in shares and derivatives that are based on movements in share prices. But the Bundesbank president suggested the world's commodity markets might also have been used. 'With the oil price we have seen before the attacks a fundamentally inexplicable rise, which could mean that people have bought oil contracts which were then sold at a higher price,' Welteke said. The gold market had also seen movements 'which need explaining'. Belgium's Finance Minister, Didier Reynders, who chaired the informal EU meeting, said investigations were also under way in Belgium, France and other countries, looking for suspicious trades. The idea of exploiting for profit the death of thousands of people might seem as bizarre as it is repulsive. But it would be all of a piece with the stated aim of the prime suspect, Osama bin Laden. In February 1998, he was instrumental in forging a new alliance of ultra-radical Islamist groups, the World Front for Jihad against Jews and Crusaders. A statement issued by the Front ordered all Muslims to obey 'God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money'. The emerging profiles of those accused of carrying out this month's attack show that most were highly educated men who had lived for long periods in the West and were used to dealing with state-of-the-art technology. It is by no means improbable that they had accomplices who were just as much at home on global financial and commodity markets. All that was needed to make a fortune from the slaughter was an established relationship with a futures broker or a stockbroker. Then, orders for futures contracts, options and the 'short-selling' of shares could have been placed by telephone or, in some cases, through the internet. The investment consequences of a catastrophic event like that on 11 September would not have been difficult to predict. The same movements have attended every international crisis in modern times. The price of gold, regarded as an investment of last resort, surges. At the same time, if the Middle East is involved, concern over petroleum supplies pushes up the cost of both crude oil and refined products. On the day after the attacks, oil prices leapt more than 13 per cent. Gold went up by just over 3 per cent, but has carried on rising since - and by Friday's close it stood 7 per cent higher than on 10 September. A trader knowing what was about to befall America could, moreover, have magnified his profits many times on the derivatives markets. This could be done either by dealing on margins in the futures markets (where only a fraction of the cost of the security has to be advanced) or by buying 'call' options (contracts that exaggerate the rise beyond a certain point of the prices on which they are based). In this instance, an 'insider' would also have been able to foresee that the destruction of the World Trade Centre by jets would have disastrous effects on certain types of shares, notably those of insurance companies and airlines. This, too, could have been exploited, either through 'put' options (which move in the opposite direction to 'call' options), or by so-called 'short-selling' (a mechanism that allows investors to benefit from a fall in the shares' value). Rumours of widespread 'short-selling' can be counted on to depress prices, and in the days leading up to 11 September the shares of three big European insurers, Axa, Munich Re and Swiss Re, all fell sharply. At the
Hey, watch out for the 10 million mines
Revealed: British plan for Afghan onslaught Bin Laden 'hiding in terror camp' Allied warships steam to Gulf, Spy plane downed War on terrorism - Observer special Guardian Unlimited special: terrorism crisis Kamal Ahmed in London, Peter Beaumont in Washington and Ed Vulliamy in New York Sunday September 23, 2001 The Observer British troops will lead an international coalition alongside America to wage war on Afghanistan in the next 10 days as security and intelligence sources indicated last night that the net was tightening on Osama bin Laden, the prime suspect behind the terrorist attacks on America. With an attack now imminent and American warplanes arriving in neighbouring Uzbekistan, security and military sources in Britain and America said that they were now concentrating their investigation into bin Laden and the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation in the north and west of Afghanistan. Five terrorist camps around Jalalabad will be the focus of the military campaign, which Ministry of Defence officials last night revealed was now in the 'final stages' of planning. Sources said that any action by ground troops would be preceded by bombing in the terrorist camps' region, although Tony Blair has ordered the MoD to agree only to plans that keep civilian casualties 'to a minimum'. The order appears to rule out carpet bombing large areas of the country. With America now on a war footing, 13 British warships travelled through the Suez canal yesterday to strengthen Britain's presence in the Middle East. In the largest military mobilisation since the Gulf War 10 years ago, the White House also revealed that a third aircraft carrier, B-52 bombers and warships capable of launching ground-attack Tomahawk cruise missiles had moved into the area to prepare for attack. Yesterday Bush chaired a National Security Council meeting to complete plans for military action, which could come as early as Thursday. Later today the President will join advisers from the special operations arm of the US Marines at the presidential retreat at Camp David. It is believed that the coalition force will be led by America with military support and troops from specialist units in Britain and France. Russia will provide logistical support. Tony Blair is on the verge of signing the order agreeing to the use of British troops. Britain and America now believe that bin Laden is still in Afghanistan, contrary to reports that he had fled to China or Chechnya. 'Bin Laden is in Afghanistan,' the Prime Minister's official spokesman said. 'We know he is there, put it that way.' His words reflected those of Colin Powell, the US secretary of state and key military planner in the White House, who said that there was a 'presumption' that the man who has become a hate figure for many in the West was still in the country. Although British officials said that the ultimatum to the Taliban authorities that bin Laden must be expelled from Afghanistan was 'open ended', it was made clear that with winter approaching military action needed to be rapid. It is believed that bin Laden is hiding in a network of camps in the north-west of Afghanistan. The camps at Darunta, Bhesud, Jaji- Maydan, Khost and Tani are well known to the CIA and could be bombed from the air. Senior Whitehall sources said that military programmes could only be put in place when 'the outcome was clear', a reference to Bill Clinton's policy of bombing Afghan camps with cruise missiles in 1998 - which failed to capture or kill bin Laden. Downing Street said that any action would now take a 'twin track' approach, with the first phase concentrating on finding bin Laden and breaking down the al-Qaeda organisation, and the second phase concentrating on the fight against world terrorism. In a clear indication that the Government is planning to put Britain onto a war footing, Downing Street has sent a request to all departments asking them to draw up legislation in case of 'national emergency'. Plans are being prepared in the areas of extradition, anti-terrorism legislation and crime to allow the Government to act more swiftly against people suspected of being linked to terrorist organisations. The move reflects similar action taken during the Gulf War when internment powers were used to imprison up to 100 Iraqis and Palestinians. Many later successfully sued the Government for wrongful imprisonment.The disclosure of the allied plans for war came as tensions in the region heightened dramatically yesterday. Despite earlier contradictory statements, officials from Afghanistan's ruling Taliban said they had established that their forces had downed a pilotless drone aircraft over Tashkurghan with machinegun fire as well as a helicopter near Dara-i-Suf. Both areas are in Samangan, about 150 miles northwest of Kabul, where the anti-Taliban commander General Rashid Dostum reported that his force of minority Uzbek fighters had made advances against the Taliban. Mystery surrounded the origin
Anti-Realism?
Beyond bin Laden The future of Afghanistan itself should lie at the root of Western political thinking War on terrorism - Observer special Guardian Unlimited special: terrorism crisis Special report: Afghanistan Fred Halliday Sunday September 23, 2001 The Observer Events of the past week have underlined both the importance and pitfalls that beset discussion of international affairs. All areas of political and social life involve controversy and commitment: this is as true of debates on the family, the role of the state in the economy, education and the causes of crime. But in no area of public discussion is there as high a dose of posturing, misinformation and irrationality as that of international issues. There are, in broad terms, two conventional stances that arise in regard to international issues - complacency disguised as realism and irresponsibility posing as conscience. These poles have been evident in regard to the major cases of humanitarian intervention in the 1990s (Kuwait, Bosnia, Kosovo) and are present in much of the debate on the causes of globalisation and world inequality. They are present in very specific form in the question of what can be the future political system in Afghanistan. For hard-headed realism, the international is a domain of power, mistrust and recurrence of conflict. This is the way the world, or God, or the market make it, and there is not much you can do. The most dangerous people are the do-gooders who make a mess of things by trying to make the world a better place: foreign aid, human rights, a lowering of the security guard, let alone education in global issues, are all doomed to failure. Last week, in a typical realist calumny, one that allows legitimate international action only to states, President Bush cast responsibility for the terror attacks on, among others, NGOs (he had to spell out that this meant 'non-governmental organisations'). More ominous are the voices, now pushing a realist agenda, that were already under starter's orders on the morning of 11 September and are now in full canter: identity cards, immigration controls, National Missile Defence. In the field of cultural speculation, the great winner has been the theory, first espoused by Samuel Huntington in 1993, that says we are entering an epoch that will be dominated by 'the Clash of Civilisations'. The alternative view to realism has its own, equally simplistic, answers. This assumes that there is a straightforward, benign way of resolving the world's problems and that there is one, identifiable and single, cause of what is wrong. Two centuries ago, the cause was monarchy and absolutism, then branded as the cause of poverty, ignorance and war; over the past two centuries, it has been capitalism and imperialism; now it is globalisation. More specifically, the USA is held responsible for the ills of the world - global inequality, neglect of human rights, militarism, cultural decay. It is not always clear what the 'America' so responsible is - this Bush administration, all US administrations, the whole of 'corporate' America, Hollywood or, in the implication of 11 September, the whole of the American people and, indeed, all who choose to work with, or visit, or in anyway find themselves in the proximity of such people. Both of these positions are, perhaps, caricatures, yet the themes they encompass are evident, and will be even more evident, in the crisis that has engulfed the world. There are, however, some core issues where, perhaps, an element of reason about international affairs may be sustainable. First, history: much is made of the antecedents. Some involve the Crusades, others jihad, but the image of the Crusades means little to those outside the Mediterranean Arab world; jihad is quite an inappropriate term for the proper, Koranic, reason that the armies of Islam sought to convert those who conquered to Islam. As for the Cold War, it has contributed its mite to this crisis and, in particular, to the destruction of Afghanistan but in a way that should give comfort to few. One can here suggest a 'two dustbins' theory' of Cold War legacy: if the Soviet system has left a mass of uncontrolled nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and unresolved ethnic problems, the West has bequeathed a bevy of murderous gangs, from Unita in Angola to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. A second issue that is present is that of culture. It takes two to have a 'Clash of Civilisations' and there are those on both sides who are using the present conflict to promote it. Huntington's theory misses what is the most important cause of the events of recent days, and which will define the consequences in the Muslim world of what is to come, namely the enormous clash within the Muslim world between those who want to reform, and secularise, and those whose power is threatened, or who want to take power in the name of fundamentalism. This has been the basis of the conflicts going on these past decades in
Poll on Canadian support for US war against terrorism
This is from the Globe and Mail. The NDP has not been critical of Chretien for being slow to attack it is the Alliance and Conservatives both right-wing parties. Cheers, Ken Hanly POSTED AT 11:21 AM EDTSaturday, September 22 Poll shows Canadians unwilling to put civilians at risk By SHAWN McCARTHY From Saturday's Globe and Mail Ottawa - Nearly half of Canadians would oppose joining a U.S.-led international war on terrorism if it would expose civilians here to terrorist attacks, a new Globe and Mail-CTV-Ipsos Reid poll reveals. The survey, done this week, found that 73 per cent of Canadians favour joining the United States in its battle against terrorism. But support plunges with the prospect of civilian casualties here. In that case, 43 per cent of respondents say they would oppose joining a war on terrorism. Canada's ambivalence contrasts sharply with the war fever in the United States, where polls show 85 per cent support for action on terrorism. Canadians support a war on terrorism until they have to fight one, Darrell Bricker, Ipsos-Reid's president of public affairs, said. When you talk about what it takes to wage a war, the numbers just crash. U.S. polls show 80 per cent support military action, even if it means increased taxes, oil and gas shortages, less money for education, a prolonged economic recession, more terrorist attacks in the United States and reinstituting mandatory military service. In Canada, support for a war on terrorism led by the United States is strongest in Ontario and Alberta and weakest in Quebec, where only 31 per cent support a war on terrorism if it would expose Canadians to terrorist attacks. The poll comes as Prime Minister Jean Chrétien prepares for his meeting on Monday in Washington with U.S. President George W. Bush, who is trying to build an international coalition for his all-out struggle against the terrorist networks that attacked New York and Washington on Sept. 11. Mr. Chrétien has been criticized by opposition leaders for his cautious response to the terrorist attacks. The Prime Minister has committed Canada to stand with the United States, but has not committed troops or announced specific actions to tighten internal security or to combat global terrorist networks. Mr. Bricker said Mr. Chrétien's so-called balanced approach reflects the ambivalence among Canadians. Mr. Chrétien has read the public mood quite well. The Ipsos-Reid poll surveyed 1,000 Canadians between Sept. 17 and Sept. 20 and has a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points. It found that 74 per cent of Canadians support Mr. Chrétien's handling of the crisis, despite criticism from opposition MPs and pundits for his low-key approach. Men are far more supportive of the war against terrorism than women, the poll suggests. Some 79 per cent of men said they support a war on terrorism, with a significant majority, 63 per cent, supportive even if it resulted in terrorist attacks on Canadians. Only 68 per cent of women support Canada's involvement in a war on terrorism led by the United States. That drops to just 43 per cent if it would result in terrorist attacks here. In his meeting with Mr. Bush, Mr. Chrétien is expected to offer limited, and largely symbolic, military assistance. He will make a commitment to working closely with the United States on intelligence, to cracking down on the funding of terrorist organizations and he will outline what Canada is doing to ensure it is not seen as a gateway for terrorists looking to stage attacks on the United States. Opposition leaders have slammed Mr. Chrétien for being slow to act. The Prime Minister's reaction to the foul and evil acts of terrorism perpetrated against the United States, and Canadian citizens, has been ponderous and ambiguous, Canadian Alliance Leader Stockwell Day said in a release Friday. Progressive Conservative House Leader Peter MacKay said the government has cut those security agencies that are crucial to protecting Canadians. Canadians demand leadership at this time, Mr. MacKay said. Are additional resources being allotted to protect our country and meet our obligations so that we can truly stand shoulder to shoulder with our American allies? With the images of devastation in Manhattan still fresh in their minds, Canadians feel vulnerable to terrorist attacks and more than half are prepared to give police more power to fight terrorism, even if it means having their own phones tapped and their mail and e-mail monitored. The majority of respondents, 60 per cent, said they are not confident that the government is capable of preventing terrorist attacks here. And 55 per cent of respondents believe there are international terrorists now living in Canada who are just waiting to attack Canadian civilians. As a result of that unease, a majority of Canadians would be prepared to give police and security services more power to fight terrorism at the expense of civil liberties. Nationally, 53 per cent
Re: Anti-Realism?
Has anyone compiled a history of the government use of murderous gangs? I know that the mob has been used in Europe after WW II. How common is the practice? Ian Murray wrote: the West has bequeathed a bevy of murderous gangs, from Unita in Angola to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Guardian Poll
Here are a couple of extracts from a poll in the UK. Full poll at: http://www.observer.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,556456,00.html Cheers, Ken Hanly Do you agree or disagree with the view that, in the past, the United States has been far too arrogant and selfish in the way it has treated the world's poorest countries? Agree strongly 31 Agree 39 Disagree 19 Disagree strongly 5 Don't know 6 US arrogance? Demographic breakdown Male (32-37-21-7-3) Female 30-41-17-3-9) Under 40 (34-38-17-5-6) 40 and over (27-38-24-6-4) Conservative (14-36-35-10-5) Labour (39-38-16-3-5) LibDem (46-41-7-1-4) Did not vote (33-36-17-7-8) (25) There have been articles in some newspapers opposing retaliation and criticising the US for the way it has behaved in the world. Some say such criticism is irresponsible at this time of crisis; others say it is essential to maintaining democratic debate at this vital time. Do you think that critics of the US should voice their opposition or stay silent over the next few weeks? Stay silent 23 Voice criticism 70 Don't know 7 Demographic breakdown Male (23-73-4) Female (23-66-11) Under 40 (19-74-6) 40 and over (28-66-6) Conservative (36-60-4) Labour (16-77-5) LibDem (13-83-5) Did not vote (22-68-10)
Arab/Arab American Passengers Kicked off Flights
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/22/national/22PASS.html Stephen Philion Lecturer/PhD Candidate Department of Sociology 2424 Maile Way Social Sciences Bldg. # 247 Honolulu, HI 96822
