An essay on Wales

[Louis Proyect]

(posted to Marxmail by Mike Pearn)

Ed George, Marc Jones and myself exchanged views on this list as to how 
socialists should relate to the national question in Wales both in the 
present and as an historical question. Contributions on this list have 
been polite, all too rare on some lists, and perhaps even served to 
clarify our respective positions a little. Therefore I hope comrades who 
hail from nations other than Wales will bear with this latest installment.

Ed George has argued, following GA Williams, that the nation of Wales 
only came into being with the rise to global hegemony of British 
Imperialism in the nineteenth century. By way of contrast and it is a 
stark contrast Mark Jones argues that Wales is an ancient nation having 
its roots in the Romano-British Principalities which cohered in the six 
to eighth centuries C.E. Both take too simplistic a view with one 
placing the emphasis on continuity and the other on the breaks within 
the historical record. As is often the way with these things both are 
wrong and both  right.

To argue that a Wales existed prior to the nineteenth century is not to 
concede legitimacy to Welsh nationalism as Ed fears but is to recognise 
the facts of the continuity of community in this country. As GA Williams 
argued there have been many different Wales in history but it was only 
with the triumph of Britain that a nation in the Marxist sense came into 
being here. The creation of this nation being within the British polity 
and as a part of it. Prior to this development the position of Engels 
that such communities as the Welsh were the detritus of history unable 
to construct stable states and therefore lacking any meaningful history 
stands as an accurate description.

There is nothing condemnatory in such a description of Wales as a 
history-less nation contrary to Mark’s defence of the medieval princes 
and their society. For the facts are that Wales was a backward 
economically retarded area within Britain during the era of the princes. 
Pummelled by the Irish, by Vikings and confined to a large degree to 
impoverished hill territories it is remarkable that any literate culture 
survived. Such survival of culture was confined to the Church in the 
Heroic age and even after did not enjoy any significant revival due to 
the backward nature of the economy. Backward that is in comparison to 
the larger more prosperous economy in England.

One notes that by the time of the Norman conquest England had become a 
prosperous unified state, which is why it was such a target for Norse 
Kings and Norman barons alike, while Wales remained a divided and 
impoverished land. In England slavery was fading away; but in Wales 
remained a major economic factor. Land holdings and the area under 
cultivation were increasing in size in England; but in Wales land was 
divided time and time again with ever generation, and this in an already 
retarded economy. Certainly this meant that for the peasant majority 
such freedoms as some had enjoyed in an earlier period were lost as more 
were reduced to serfdom with the rise of the feudal mode of production 
but in Wales the freedoms that remained for the gentle born were nominal 
when the parcelisation of land reduced them to penury.

Considered dispassionately the enterprise of most of the Princes in 
Wales can be seen to be no more laudable than that of their peers 
elsewhere in Europe. These were brutal men in a brutal age despite which 
some do stand above the brutish scramble for power. For example one 
might cite Hywel Dda, and what a title to bear, Hywel the Good - history 
is kind to some - who codified Welsh law. But the law could only be 
codified as he had defeated so many of his rivals and was temporarily 
top of the heap commanding a great enough proportion of the surplus 
value accrued from exploitation and the spoils of war to be able engage 
in such a state building project. Significantly with his death his 
Princedom was divided and fell back into the internecine wars that 
marked the age. Following which Gwynedd in North Wales achieved a place 
at the heart of any state building project as its princes sought to 
build their domain into a state free of the English King. For modern day 
nationalists this struggle has been portrayed as a fight for a national 
state.

In reality the struggle of the Princes of Gwynedd could not be national 
in character as there was at this time no sense of nationhood as a 
political and cultural entity to which all in a given polity belonged. 
Whether or not Pura Wallia, that part of Wales ruled by the petty 
princes, could even be truly described as feudal is a moot point before 
the final demise of Gwynedd in 1285 and is very dubious before the first 
Norman incursions which came after 1067. Rather we see a society 
dominated by kinship networks and the common ownership of land. Slavery 
too remained an important institution far more so than in the English 
Kingdoms to the east 

Re: War and property tax

[Tom Walker]

So what ever happened to the old custom of the king personally leading the
troops into battle?

Tom Walker

Re: Resnick and Wolff on USSR (from A List)

[Waistline2]

 In a message dated 11/18/02 3:34:57 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

John Gulick wrote:

the "state capitalism" thesis (advanced by both the News and Letters gang
and the Rethinking Marxism crowd, among others) is a sorry artifact of
political convenience and intellectual laziness. Basically, the line is
argued by the type of person who (for reasons good or bad) acknowledges that
the USSR was never a classless society, and at the same time (for reasons
good or bad) worries that acknowledging this will discredit socialism as
inherently authoritarian-bureaucratic, hence the not-so-clever device of
"state capitalism." But holy hell, how could the USSR be capitalist? This
is an utterly absurd proposition. We could probably argue until we're blue
in the face about what the underlying organizational principle of a
capitalist economy and society are, but let it be said that a capitalist
economy and society requires some combination of the following institutional
features, none of which the USSR (to my admittedly scanty knowledge) had.

See http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/a-list/2002w36/msg00035.htm

-

Stan Goff also raised this book a while ago, but no one has come back to
provide a review of it, yet. Maybe I can encourage someone to do so. The
latest Monthly Review features a page advert for Resnick Wolff's study of
the USSR, "Class Theory and History", featuring laudatory quotes from
prominent Marxist academics including Howard Sherman, Victor Lippit, Bertell
Ollman and Guglielmo Carchedi -- author of what I think must be the most
tedious and unnecessarily scholastic book I have ever read, cover to cover
("For Another Europe"). Carchedi describes it as "class analysis at its
best". Since "For Another Europe" was supposed to be a class analysis of
European integration, this endorsement ranks lowly on my scale, but Ollman's
strong recommendation makes me wonder. Has anyone here taken the plunge?

Michael





Comment

Those claiming a Marxist approach or standpoint to examining the material life of society are burdened with the task of referencing Karl Marx and Frederick Engels writings to substantiate their assertion. Marx and Engels were of course revolutionaries, dividing their activity between study - theoretical work, and the practical activity of various social groups in society striving to reform or recast the "system" in their perceived favor. Marx and Engels took part in joining or forming organizations fighting to improve the lot of working people. 

This division between practical theoretical work and practical organizational activity means that Marxism as the science of society can be understood as consisting of theory - the historical abstraction or abstract understanding of why society changes, and a doctrine - the set of policy one uses to effect social change at a given point in time. 

Marx theory or approach to the self movement of matter has triumphed in every field of scientific thought and the term "dialectic" have entered the world lexicon on the street level. The world masses speak of "contradictions" as part of the world culture and revolutionary and reactionary alike openly embrace materialist dialectics. 

The doctrine of Marx, that is the policy aimed at giving organizational direction within the class struggle has not faired as well as Marx's theory. The reason is simple: as society changes in its fundamentality one policy must change in conformity. Then there is the very real question of the ideological sphere or the specific manner in which large groups of people in various countries and cultures think things out. Policy must speak in terms that people think things out or one ends up with an ineffective policy. 

It is of course absurd to present as a form of Marxist theory the proposition that the Soviet Union was a capitalist country or the ideological category called "state capitalism."  From the standpoint of the historical abstraction Marx is rather clear about the specific make-up of a society that is passing from the industrial production of the social product to a new mode of production wherein the sell and purchase of labor power is no longer the underpin for societal production. 

>From the standpoint of Marxist doctrine, J.V. Stalin's "Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR," describes in detail the policy of the proletariat in power, as it fights to give direction to the evolutionary development of the material power of the productive forces within the framework of industrial production. 

An industrial economy by definition is a value producing social formation - in transition, due to its historical emergence. Industrial society emerges from manufacturing, which emerges within the framework of a society undergoing transition in forms of wealth and societal production. All the revolution of the 20th century contains a common content: they were social responses to the transformation from agricultural society to industrial society. This 

Manufacturing a massacre

[Louis Proyect]

Salon.com, November 19, 2002 Tuesday

Manufacturing a massacre

By Eric Boehlert

Initial reports said Palestinian gunmen brazenly fired on Jewish 
worshipers in Hebron. The reports were wrong -- but the U.S. media has 
yet to correct them.

The headlines over the weekend were startling, even for the Middle East, 
where the Israeli-Palestinian war seems trapped in escalating cycles of 
violence. On Friday evening in the predominantly Palestinian city of 
Hebron, gunmen hiding in houses and olive groves ambushed Jewish 
worshipers as they walked home from Sabbath prayers, spraying them with 
gunfire and even tossing grenades into the unarmed crowd. Israeli 
soldiers, who escort the worshipers every Friday night, rushed into a 
dark dead-end alley to try to help. After a four-hour gun battle, 12 
Israelis were dead. Government officials, led by the hard-line foreign 
minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, quickly dubbed it the Sabbath Massacre.

The gun battle was alarming -- and made headlines worldwide -- not only 
because Israel's military suffered its heaviest one-day loss in years 
but also because of the demented idea that gunmen would open fire on 
unarmed worshipers as they walked home from prayer.

No doubt that's what provoked outrage from Pope John Paul II, who 
expressed anger over the vile attack, just as people had finished 
praying. Also, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan leveled one 
of his strongest attacks against Palestinians and the despicable 
terrorist attack that killed Jewish worshipers on their way to the 
Sabbath Eve prayers. The American press rushed to report the gruesome 
details. Ambush; 12 Israelis Murdered at Prayer, read the New York 
Post's Saturday banner headline. According to the Post news account, 
The attack began when Palestinian snipers hiding in houses fired 
automatic weapons and tossed grenades at dozens of Jews on their way to 
one of Judaism's holiest sites.

The New York Times, citing Israeli army officials, reported that 
Palestinian snipers ambushed Jewish settlers walking home from Sabbath 
prayers. So, among others, did the Boston Globe: Militants ambushed a 
group of settlers. So did Newsday: Palestinian gunmen in the West Bank 
city of Hebron ambushed Jewish settlers.

It's now clear that none of those initial press reports from Hebron were 
accurate. In truth, Jewish worshipers returning home were not fired upon 
by Palestinian gunmen, who instead waited until the civilians were 
behind settlement gates before they started shooting at Israeli 
soldiers. None of the worshipers died. The 12 Israelis killed were 
security guards or soldiers. Three Palestinian gunmen were also killed.

It's one thing if the early, erroneous press accounts simply reflected 
confusion surrounding a chaotic event like an ambush. But over a 
three-day period, American news outlets had a chance to correct or at 
least clarify what happened in Hebron, but few of them did.

With a dozen Israelis dead, the distinction between who the Palestinian 
gunmen shot at may seem trivial. But there is an important difference, 
particularly in how the world sees the conflict, between opening fire on 
unarmed worshipers and targeting trained soldiers, who many Palestinians 
see as part of an illegal occupying force. It's crucial that the press 
be able to make clear distinctions between armed combat and acts of 
terrorism against civilians, especially as the United States leads a 
global war on terrorism.

What became clear by Saturday in Israel was that the ambush did not 
occur as originally described by government officials. Or as described 
by one self-professed witness who phoned Israel's Army Radio and, in a 
live interview, insisted the group of Jews were slaughtered. His 
early, vivid accounts lent credence to the idea of a civilian massacre. 
On Monday, however, the man admitted that he'd been in Tel Aviv during 
the Hebron attack and had misled the media with his phony accounts.

Even before the man's arrest, Amos Harel, writing Sunday in the Israeli 
daily Ha'aretz, declared: What happened in Hebron on Friday night was 
not a 'massacre,' nor was it an attack on 'peaceful Jewish worshippers' 
returning from prayers. The attack actually began several minutes after 
all of the worshippers had already returned safely. Those killed Friday 
were killed in combat. All of the victims were armed fighters, who were 
more or less trained.

The Jerusalem Post reported that the first ambush shots did not ring out 
until after the all clear had sounded on the soldiers' radios, 
meaning worshipers had been safely escorted to their homes after 
Shabbat prayers. Speaking with the Israeli press, Matan Vilnai, a 
former Israeli general, told reporters over the weekend: It wasn't a 
massacre, it was a battle.

And in Sunday's Washington Post, which was virtually alone in putting 
the Hebron events in perspective for U.S. news consumers, the paper 
quoted the leader of the Israeli settlement in Hebron, 

Birds of a feather

[Louis Proyect]

(Sooner or later it had to happen. Peter Singer, an animal rights 
leftist, who also argues that handicapped children should be killed for 
their own good, has written a new book promoting globalization in the 
Thomas Friedman Lexus and the Olive Tree mold. What's next? A proposal 
to turn famine victims in Africa into cattle feed? The reviewer Gregg 
Easterbrook is a knucklehead of long standing who has made a career out 
of debunking such hysterical fears that nuclear power, DDT, GM crops, 
etc. might be bad for you.)


Washington Monthly Online

Greatest Good for the Greatest Number

Philosopher Peter Singer will anger his traditional lefty fans with a 
clear-eyed account of the benefits of globalization.

By Gregg Easterbrook


Yes, it's that Peter Singer. The one who has suggested that animals 
sometimes have the same rights as people, that the old should be 
euthanized to divert resources to the young (though he would spare his 
own infirm mother), that Americans should give away almost everything 
they possess to the developing world and live themselves like the 
developing world's poor (Singer donates to charity but he hasn't given 
almost everything away, as he advised others to do, and won't give to 
bums on the street). The Peter Singer who has said that utilitarian 
arguments can justify killing the innocent if benefits to others are 
large (a chilling thought, but also U.S. policy, as it is on utilitarian 
grounds that U.S. forces have killed some innocent people during the 
campaign against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan; presumably, Singer supports 
this). The Peter Singer who has suggested that severely handicapped 
infants should be killed for their own good (strangely, only people who 
were not born severely handicapped take this view), whom The New Yorker 
has called the world's most influential living philosopher (which 
mainly tells us how little anyone cares about living philosophers, a 
state of affairs which the profession has largely brought on itself), 
and whose appointment to a chair at Princeton University aroused 
considerable alumni protests and the cancellation of some pledges. 
People have even protested the name of the chair he holds--Singer is now 
the Ira DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human 
Values of Princeton. How can Singer have a chair at the University 
Center for Human Values, the line goes, when he is inhuman?

Yes, that Peter Singer. Since his views are much hashed over, it may be 
best to skip beyond his prior statements here, other than to make two 
points. First, as I wrote in the previous paragraph, Singer has 
suggested most of his notorious positions. There is, in fact, an awful 
lot of high-class weasel-wording in his work, indicating either that he 
can't make up his mind or that he wants to have it both ways, grabbing 
attention by saying stark things, then indignantly claiming misquotation 
and pointing to some buried caveat when attacked. Second, when The New 
Yorker called him out on how he can say that other people's aging 
mothers should be put down like old horses but that his own should 
receive only the very best care in an expensive nursing home, Singer 
replied, Perhaps it's more difficult than I thought before, because it 
is different when it is your mother. So my grand pronouncements apply 
to everyone else but not me! There's a word for this. And, as Peter 
Berkowitz has written, someone who presents himself to the world as an 
ethicist is supposed to have thought through the practical consequences 
of his ethics.

These points aside, One World is a pretty good book; if it did not come 
with Peter Singer baggage, I might say a darn good book. Singer, 
generally a hero to the loony left, struggles with the issues of 
globalization in a rigorously hard-headed manner rarely seen on this 
topic. Singer discards, or even shreds, much anti-globalization cant, 
focusing on which international economic policies will have the 
utilitarian outcome of raising living standards for the developing 
world's poor. (Singer does not much care for the term utilitarianism, 
but it is the best shorthand for his value system, whose fine points 
cannot be fit into this space; broadly, he wants to raise the standards 
at which the human race lives as a whole to the highest aggregate level, 
which entails focusing upon the disadvantages of the developing world, 
and thinks our obligations to all members of genus Homo have about the 
same standing as obligations to our nation, to our ethnic group, and 
even our own children.) He proposes that formation of a global ethical 
community roughly along U. N. lines should be a sustained, long-term 
historic objective, but is realistic about the need to work within the 
existing framework of nations and borders pretty much indefinitely. And, 
crucially, he is not opposed to economic globalization. He asks the big 
question 

STOP YOUR FORECLOSURE.............................................................................................................................................................................................. ttt

[StopForeclosure208]

CLICK HERE

Unsubscribe click here



ctccwssnqddimpdymbuen

Re: Re: Hi Joanne- re 2WW - I almost forgot

[joanna bujes]

When is the quarter/semester over?

Joanna

At 04:29 AM 11/19/2002 +, you wrote:

Gar Lipow wrote:

 Hi Joanna - I'm an anarchist leaning
 independent socialist myself. (I would
 explain why I'm not an anarchist, but I
 doubt it would be of great interest to
 anyone.)

This makes the three of us! Good to see that I am not alone.

Best,

Sabri

Re: derailing trade talks

[Peter Dorman]

I for one am irritated with the new correct line on trade in 
agricultural goods: agricultural subsidies are bad, and free trade is 
the solution for impoverished farmers in the third world.  (1) If we 
want to reverse the continuing transformation of agriculture into 
unsustainable and de-cultured exploitation of nature, there is no 
alternative to large-scale subsidies.  There are legitimate questions, 
of course, in how the subsidies should be administered.  (2) Export-led 
development is no more the answer for third world agriculture than it is 
for third-world industry.  Even worse, it erases opportunities for 
subsistence at a time when extreme poverty is ubiquitous.  (3) What 
empirical research there is suggests that, even in narrowly-specified 
market terms, there is a very small gain to be had to third world 
farmers from free trade in agriculture.

Let's work to build a vibrant, sustainable rural culture in our own 
countries, and healthy domestic markets and egalitarian access to 
resources in the third world (and vice versa).

Peter

Ian Murray wrote:

Short takes a tilt at CAP

EU subsidies will wreck trade talks and drive up poverty, says development
secretary

Larry Elliott, economics editor
Tuesday November 19, 2002
The Guardian

Clare Short, the international development secretary, will today attack the
common agricultural policy with a warning to the European Union that failure
to cut huge farming subsidies will deepen poverty in developing countries by
wrecking global trade talks.

Her intervention is a clear sign of Britain's belief that last month's deal
between Germany and France to ring-fence spending on the CAP for the next 10
years will harm poor countries. She will say that resistance to measures
that would prevent over-production and the dumping of excess crops on world
markets will destroy the chances of trade liberalisation talks succeeding.

She will urge today's meeting of the EU general affairs and external
relations council in Brussels, which is finalising Europe's policy on trade
and development, to join opposition to production subsidies that lead to
goods being sold on world markets at prices lower than they cost to produce.

The World Trade Organisation launched the current round of talks in Doha
last No vember, but progress has so far been stymied by the failure of the
West to make good promises on agricultural reform. Pressure from seven of
the EU's 15 member states - France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Austria
and Ireland - has resulted in any mention of CAP reform being omitted from
the draft to be discussed by ministers today.

Ms Short will tell the meeting that any money Europe spends on agriculture
must be diverted into support for rural communities rather than be used to
finance over-production. We must be committed to reform of the CAP to
deliver on the Doha measures. Failure to do so would cause fatal damage to
the prospects of Doha succeeding, she said last night.

Developing countries had only signed up for a new round of talks in Doha a
year ago because they had won assurances that the EU and the US would take
steps to scale back subsidies for farmers. Developing countries made it
clear that there would be no trade round unless they made gains. That's why
the promises were made. Now the European Union has to deliver.

Ms Short said that unless the EU agreed to disconnect pro duction from
subsidies, it will be destroying Doha. We had an unprecedented consensus a
year ago when the talks were launched.

If the Doha round goes sour it will break that up, it will endanger the WTO
and it will lead to the further marginalisation of poor countries.

Her intervention in the increasingly bitter row over the future of the CAP
comes as the chancellor, Gordon Brown, plans to call on the West to support
a new deal for Africa.

He will spend the next few months seeking support among the G7 industrial
nations for a four-part package, which would include better access to rich
western markets and a doubling of aid to $100bn (£63bn) a year in return for
economic stability and proposals by poor countries to root out corruption.

Britain was furious at last month's deal between France's Jacques Chirac and
Germany's Gerhard Schröder to maintain spending on the CAP, which costs
Europe £25bn a year. Sources said that France's avowed concern about the
plight of Africa and Spain's interest in Latin America were at odds with
their point-blank refusal to discuss meaningful CAP reform.
 

Re: protection rents, part 1

[Peter Dorman]

It's beginning to look like, financially, Iraq II will be the opposite 
of Iraq I.  Ten years ago, the US fought the war as a mercenary and was 
repaid by other capitalist powers; we ended up with an approximately 
$100B transfer on the current account.  This time around, the US will 
have to be the one to shell out for acquiescence to an unpopular war.

Peter

Ian Murray wrote:

U.S. Discusses Aid for Turkey to Defray Costs of an Iraq War


By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 19, 2002; Page A20


The United States has begun discussions about compensating Turkey for
economic losses and other costs likely to be incurred in a U.S.-led war
against Iraq, according to American and Turkish officials.

Both sides described the discussions as still at an early stage and marked
by a wide gap in what the Turks would like to receive and what the United
States is willing to pay. But the mere existence of the talks, which
participants said were initiated by the United States within the past two
months, reflects the importance that U.S. officials place on Turkey in any
war with Iraq.

A longtime NATO ally bordering northern Iraq, Turkey is in position to serve
as a crucial base for U.S. military operations. Its bases and airfields
would likely be prime staging areas for American forces, and Turkish troops
could play a significant role policing the flow of refugees from Iraq or
guarding prisoners of war. At the same time, U.S. officials have expressed
concern that Turkish forces may attempt to take advantage of a war and
occupy northern Iraq to block the creation of an autonomous Kurdish region,
which could serve as a base of operations for Turkey's own separatist Kurds.

Preparing for possible military conflict with Iraq, the Bush administration
has launched a number of diplomatic and military moves to secure basing,
overflight rights and other crucial assistance from countries in the Persian
Gulf region and elsewhere. But U.S. officials described the offer of
economic assistance to Turkey as unusual, saying similar discussions have
been initiated with only one other ally in the region -- Jordan.

We've told them that if there is military action against Iraq, we would
recognize that Turkey would have some losses and we would have to move in
some fashion to help them, a senior administration official said.

As another sign of the high-level attention that Turkey is receiving within
the administration, President Bush got involved yesterday in furthering
Turkey's bid to join the European Union. He phoned the EU president, Danish
Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, and stressed the importance of
advancing Turkey's evolution toward membership when EU leaders convene in
Denmark next month, according to a White House spokesman. Bush also plans to
meet with Turkish President Ahmet Sezer on Wednesday while the two leaders
are in Prague for a NATO summit.

Turkey already allows U.S. and British warplanes to use an air base at
Incirlik to patrol a no-fly zone over northern Iraq established after the
1991 Persian Gulf War. U.S. authorities express little doubt that Turkey
would support the United States in another war with Iraq.

But Turkish officials fear the potential economic and political
consequences. Turkey lost billions of dollars in tourist revenue and trade
with Iraq as a result of the 1991 war and confronted a surge in Kurdish
refugees. With their economy now in recession, many Turks see another war as
undercutting the prospects of recovery and further straining their country's
massive debt burden, which is being helped by $16 billion from the
International Monetary Fund. They also express concern that a war could
reignite unrest in Turkey's mainly Kurdish southeast, where the military has
spent much of the last two decades fighting Kurdish separatists.

It was public outrage over the state of the economy that helped fuel a
victory in Turkey's national election earlier this month by the Justice and
Development Party, whose leaders hold strong Islamic beliefs. So far,
however, U.S. officials say they have been encouraged by some of the new
leading party's initial moves. We're favorably impressed with the quality
of people being mentioned for the top economic posts and other ministerial
jobs, another senior administration official said.

U.S. and Turkish officials familiar with the discussions over a war
compensation package said several options have been mentioned, including
outright grants, preferential trade terms for Turkish exports to the United
States, U.S. military equipment transfers and contracts for Turkish firms to
help in the reconstruction of a post-war Iraq.

We've heard a wish list from the Turkish side, a senior official said.
There's a whole host of ways it could be structured.

Turkish authorities said they also hope for a significant boost in U.S. aid
even if no war comes. They say just the talk of war has shaken Turkey's
economy, discouraging tourism and trade, raising oil 

Re: Re: protection rents, part 1

[Michael Perelman]

In both wars, the US shelled out before the war to bribe acquiescence, but
Peter is correct -- it looks like the US will have trouble collected
afterwards.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 09:45:16AM -0800, Peter Dorman wrote:
 It's beginning to look like, financially, Iraq II will be the opposite 
 of Iraq I.  Ten years ago, the US fought the war as a mercenary and was 
 repaid by other capitalist powers; we ended up with an approximately 
 $100B transfer on the current account.  This time around, the US will 
 have to be the one to shell out for acquiescence to an unpopular war.

-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: economics on pen-l

[Eugene Coyle]

I share Soula Avramidis' insight and worry about natioanl chauvinism.
Separately, I see an environmental calamity close at hand, but I think 
that it will tear humanity apart rather than bring it together.

Gene Coyle

soula avramidis wrote:
 

I refer back to an item that says that the conservative desocialising 
agenda is at work under George w. if so and I am sure cuts in social 
spending are abound, then to what degree is a fall in the average level 
of education of the American working class fosters ultra nationalism and 
imperial aggression abroad, or does it really matter how social spending 
goes in America since the ideological framework of education and 
everything else fosters a sort national chauvinism sentiment across 
classes, and therefore, in the absence of a strong counter 
internationalist ideology, nothing short of an environmental calamity 
will bring humanity together. at least in the foreseeable future.

Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Business Week recently had an article that seemed to agree with
Peter. I did not save the ref, but it was from the last few
weeks.

Peter Dorman wrote:

  Devine, James wrote:
 
  Peter D writes:...
  I'm wondering whether foreign central banks are already
  financing the
  US current account deficit, in light of the weakness in US
  financial
  markets. 
 
  don't you think that it's foreign financiers that are doing
  so, rather than central banks? they're buying up US assets,
  allowing the US to run a current account deficit. If the CBs
  are doing anything, it's accumulating dollars and
  dollar-denominated short-term assets because they are useful
  reserves (since the dollar acts as world money). Do you think
 ! ; that the CBs play a big role?
 
  My suspicion is that the private inflow of investment has not
  kept up with the US need for half a trillion a year. Certainly
  not in equities, and perhaps also not in debt assets, due to
  possible exchange rate risk. The dollar is indeed the world's
  liquidity, but its days (OK, years) are certainly numbered, and
  sensible investors would want to avoid too much exposure. As I
  recall, there was also a year during the early 80s when foreign
  CB's stepped in to cover for the reluctance of private
  wealth-holders. I'm guessing that 2002 will also turn out to
  be such a year, but I could be wrong.
 
  As to why the CB's would do this, you could take your pick from
  (1) it's not in anyone's interest to have the dollar crash and
  bring down the global economy with it, (2) they are protecting
  the private positions in the dollar taken by t! heir own
  nationals in particular, (3) they are supporting the US as a
  bastion of free-market rectitude, and (4) they are supporting
  an overvalued dollar to sustain their own export surpluses.
 
  ... If so, what implications, if any, does this have for
  global
  political economy? How can we explain Bushite unitaleralism
  and
  in-your-face hegemony in light of the increasing fragility of
  the US
  external position?
 
  the role of the dollar as world money is based on the power
  of the US. Bushite hegemonism seems just one way to maintain
  and extend that power, centering on the military side. The
  Clintonoids put greater emphasis on the financial/economic
  side of US power along with trying to encourage consent among
  the governed, don't you think? But these are variations on a
 ! theme.
 
  The strength of the dollar depends entirely on the willingness
  of the rest of the world to accumulate them at the rate of
  one-half trillion a year. Private wealth-holders will do so
  based on expectations of risk (exchange rate and liquidity) and
  rate of return. Public dollar repositories (CB's) will do so
  for either economic (including liquidity) or political
  reasons. It seems to me that the Bushies cannot afford to
  alienate the interests that govern CB decision-making. The
  current military power buildup may be seen as a basis for
  supporting the dollar (an implicit quid pro quo if you will),
  or it may be seen as reckless and overly unilateral. How would
  you analyze the effect of US militarism on the willingness of
  CB's to accumulate dollars?
 
 
  Moreover, if we assume that serious money is now
  international
 ! ; (international portfolios and their mirror-image,
  international
  ownership of corporations, financial institutions and
  tradeable funds),
  how do we think about the constraints, if any, on US economic
  policy?
  (It doesn't look like we have vehicles for domestic
  constraints at the
  moment.) Or is US policy really reflective of a global
  consensus among
  the rich?
 

cutting privatizing state services

[Devine, James]

Title: cutting  privatizing state services 





[was: RE: [PEN-L:32376] Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: economics on pen-l]


In addition, cutting state services such as education means that religious groups fill in the gap. Maybe Catholic education is pretty harmless (except to those students hit by nuns or sexually abused by priests), but Bob Jones University and similar fundamentalist organizations (e.g., Pepperdine University) are clearly not. The madrassas of Pakistan encouraged Wahhabbi (sp?) religion, while the fundamentalist religious groups provision of needed social services in Palestine encouraged the political power of Hamas and the like. 

In the US and Western Europe, social-democratic parties and labor unions often provided the social programs that the state didn't. Maybe we'll see something like that in the future. Of course, I've always suspected that a major reason for welfare-state programs was to take them out of the hands of popular or leftist forces that threatened the status quo. 

Jim


Gene Coyle:
I share Soula Avramidis' insight and worry about natioanl chauvinism.
Separately, I see an environmental calamity close at hand, but I think 
that it will tear humanity apart rather than bring it together.


soula avramidis wrote:
 I refer back to an item that says that the conservative desocialising 
 agenda is at work under George w. if so and I am sure cuts in social 
 spending are abound, then to what degree is a fall in the average level 
 of education of the American working class fosters ultra nationalism and 
 imperial aggression abroad, or does it really matter how social spending 
 goes in America since the ideological framework of education and 
 everything else fosters a sort national chauvinism sentiment across 
 classes, and therefore, in the absence of a strong counter 
 internationalist ideology, nothing short of an environmental calamity 
 will bring humanity together. at least in the foreseeable future.



Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

Re: cutting privatizing state services

[Michael Perelman]

Privatizing education also tends to reinforce the fragmentation of
society into separate islands of experience.  Public schools, at their
best, bring all sorts of people together in ways that they would not have
otherwise experienced.

-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Conference on the Environment / London, June 17-19, 2003

[Helen Kantarelis]

--=_3459654==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii;
format=flowed

CALL FOR PARTICIPANTS. The 9th International Interdisciplinary
Conference
on the Environment will be held in London, England, June 17-19, 
2003
at Royal National Hotel. You may participate as session organizer, 
presenter of one
or two papers, chair, moderator, discussant, or observer. The early 

deadline for
abstract submission and participation is April 30, 2003. All papers
will
pass a peer review process for publication consideration in the
Conference
Proceedings. For more information, please contact Kevin L. Hickey 
or
Demetri Kantarlelis through
Regular Mail: IEA/Hickey-Kantarelis
Assumption College
500 Salisbury Street
Worcester, MA 01609-1296, USA
Tel: (508) 767-7296 (Hickey), (508) 767-7557 (Kantarelis)
Fax: (508) 767-7382
E-mail:
(Hickey) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Kantarelis) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
or the World Wide Web at:
http://www.desu.edu/mreiter/iea.htm


--=_3459654==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

CALL FOR PARTICIPANTS. The 9th International Interdisciplinary
Conference
on the Environment will be held in London, England, June 17-19, 2003

at Royal National Hotel. You may participate as session organizer,
presenter of one 
or two papers, chair, moderator, discussant, or observer. The early
deadline for
abstract submission and participation is April 30, 2003. All papers
will
pass a peer review process for publication consideration in the
Conference
Proceedings. For more information, please contact Kevin L. Hickey
or
Demetri Kantarlelis through
Regular Mail: IEA/Hickey-Kantarelis
Assumption College
500 Salisbury Street
Worcester, MA 01609-1296, USA
Tel: (508) 767-7296 (Hickey), (508) 767-7557 (Kantarelis)
Fax: (508) 767-7382
E-mail:
(Hickey) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Kantarelis) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
or the World Wide Web at:
http://www.desu.edu/mreiter/iea.htm


--=_3459654==_.ALT--

Re: Birds of a feather

[Peter Dorman]

In his first paragraph, Easterbrook reveals he hasn't read Singer, but 
rather the people who write about Singer.  Given his rather loose 
standards of  intellectual accountability (also revealed in his past 
writings on environmental issues), his endorsement of this latest book 
is of little interest.

Singer is not my favorite philosopher, but he's not bad for a utilitarian.

Peter

Louis Proyect wrote:

(Sooner or later it had to happen. Peter Singer, an animal rights 
leftist, who also argues that handicapped children should be killed 
for their own good, has written a new book promoting globalization in 
the Thomas Friedman Lexus and the Olive Tree mold. What's next? A 
proposal to turn famine victims in Africa into cattle feed? The 
reviewer Gregg Easterbrook is a knucklehead of long standing who has 
made a career out of debunking such hysterical fears that nuclear 
power, DDT, GM crops, etc. might be bad for you.)


Washington Monthly Online

Greatest Good for the Greatest Number

Philosopher Peter Singer will anger his traditional lefty fans with a 
clear-eyed account of the benefits of globalization.

By Gregg Easterbrook
 


Yes, it's that Peter Singer. The one who has suggested that animals 
sometimes have the same rights as people, that the old should be 
euthanized to divert resources to the young (though he would spare his 
own infirm mother), that Americans should give away almost everything 
they possess to the developing world and live themselves like the 
developing world's poor (Singer donates to charity but he hasn't given 
almost everything away, as he advised others to do, and won't give to 
bums on the street). The Peter Singer who has said that utilitarian 
arguments can justify killing the innocent if benefits to others are 
large (a chilling thought, but also U.S. policy, as it is on 
utilitarian grounds that U.S. forces have killed some innocent people 
during the campaign against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan; presumably, 
Singer supports this). The Peter Singer who has suggested that 
severely handicapped infants should be killed for their own good 
(strangely, only people who were not born severely handicapped take 
this view), whom The New Yorker has called the world's most 
influential living philosopher (which mainly tells us how little 
anyone cares about living philosophers, a state of affairs which the 
profession has largely brought on itself), and whose appointment to a 
chair at Princeton University aroused considerable alumni protests and 
the cancellation of some pledges. People have even protested the name 
of the chair he holds--Singer is now the Ira DeCamp Professor of 
Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values of Princeton. How 
can Singer have a chair at the University Center for Human Values, the 
line goes, when he is inhuman?

Yes, that Peter Singer. Since his views are much hashed over, it may 
be best to skip beyond his prior statements here, other than to make 
two points. First, as I wrote in the previous paragraph, Singer has 
suggested most of his notorious positions. There is, in fact, an 
awful lot of high-class weasel-wording in his work, indicating either 
that he can't make up his mind or that he wants to have it both ways, 
grabbing attention by saying stark things, then indignantly claiming 
misquotation and pointing to some buried caveat when attacked. Second, 
when The New Yorker called him out on how he can say that other 
people's aging mothers should be put down like old horses but that his 
own should receive only the very best care in an expensive nursing 
home, Singer replied, Perhaps it's more difficult than I thought 
before, because it is different when it is your mother. So my grand 
pronouncements apply to everyone else but not me! There's a word for 
this. And, as Peter Berkowitz has written, someone who presents 
himself to the world as an ethicist is supposed to have thought 
through the practical consequences of his ethics.

These points aside, One World is a pretty good book; if it did not 
come with Peter Singer baggage, I might say a darn good book. Singer, 
generally a hero to the loony left, struggles with the issues of 
globalization in a rigorously hard-headed manner rarely seen on this 
topic. Singer discards, or even shreds, much anti-globalization cant, 
focusing on which international economic policies will have the 
utilitarian outcome of raising living standards for the developing 
world's poor. (Singer does not much care for the term utilitarianism, 
but it is the best shorthand for his value system, whose fine points 
cannot be fit into this space; broadly, he wants to raise the 
standards at which the human race lives as a whole to the highest 
aggregate level, which entails focusing upon the disadvantages of the 
developing world, and thinks our obligations to all members of genus 
Homo have about the same standing as 

Re: Re: Birds of a feather

[e. ahmet tonak]

How did you conclude that Easterbrook hasn't read Singer?

Peter Dorman wrote:
In his first
paragraph, Easterbrook reveals he hasn't read Singer, but  rather the people
who write about Singer. Given his rather loose  standards of intellectual
accountability (also revealed in his past  writings on environmental issues),
his endorsement of this latest book  is of little interest. 
 
Singer is not my favorite philosopher, but he's not bad for a utilitarian. 
  
 
Peter 
 
Louis Proyect wrote: 
 
  (Sooner or later it had to happen. Peter Singer,
an "animal rights  leftist," who also argues that handicapped children should
be killed  for their own good, has written a new book promoting globalization
in  the Thomas Friedman "Lexus and the Olive Tree" mold. What's next? A  proposal
to turn famine victims in Africa into cattle feed? The  reviewer Gregg Easterbrook
is a knucklehead of long standing who has  made a career out of debunking
such hysterical fears that nuclear  power, DDT, GM crops, etc. might be bad
for you.) 
 
 
Washington Monthly Online 
 
Greatest Good for the Greatest Number 
 
Philosopher Peter Singer will anger his traditional lefty fans with a  clear-eyed
account of the benefits of globalization. 
 
By Gregg Easterbrook 

  
 
Yes, it's that Peter Singer. The one who has suggested that animals  sometimes
have the same rights as people, that the old should be  euthanized to divert
resources to the young (though he would spare his  own infirm mother), that
Americans should give away almost everything  they possess to the developing
world and live themselves like the  developing world's poor (Singer donates
to charity but he hasn't given  almost everything away, as he advised others
to do, and won't give to  bums on the street). The Peter Singer who has said
that utilitarian  arguments can justify killing the innocent if benefits
to others are  large (a chilling thought, but also U.S. policy, as it is
on  utilitarian grounds that U.S. forces have killed some innocent people
 during the campaign against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan; presumably,  Singer
supports this). The Peter Singer who has suggested that  severely handicapped
infants should be killed for their own good  (strangely, only people who
were not born severely handicapped take  this view), whom The New Yorker
has called the world's "most  influential living philosopher" (which mainly
tells us how little  anyone cares about living philosophers, a state of affairs
which the  profession has largely brought on itself), and whose appointment
to a  chair at Princeton University aroused considerable alumni protests
and  the cancellation of some pledges. People have even protested the name
 of the chair he holds--Singer is now the Ira DeCamp Professor of  Bioethics
at the University Center for Human Values of Princeton. How  can Singer have
a chair at the University Center for Human Values, the  line goes, when he
is inhuman? 
 
Yes, that Peter Singer. Since his views are much hashed over, it may  be
best to skip beyond his prior statements here, other than to make  two points.
First, as I wrote in the previous paragraph, Singer has  "suggested" most
of his notorious positions. There is, in fact, an  awful lot of high-class
weasel-wording in his work, indicating either  that he can't make up his
mind or that he wants to have it both ways,  grabbing attention by saying
stark things, then indignantly claiming  misquotation and pointing to some
buried caveat when attacked. Second,  when The New Yorker called him out
on how he can say that other  people's aging mothers should be put down like
old horses but that his  own should receive only the very best care in an
expensive nursing  home, Singer replied, "Perhaps it's more difficult than
I thought  before, because it is different when it is your mother." So my
grand  pronouncements apply to everyone else but not me! There's a word for
 this. And, as Peter Berkowitz has written, someone who presents  himself
to the world as an ethicist is supposed to have thought  through the practical
consequences of his ethics. 
 
These points aside, One World is a pretty good book; if it did not  come
with Peter Singer baggage, I might say a darn good book. Singer,  generally
a hero to the loony left, struggles with the issues of  globalization in
a rigorously hard-headed manner rarely seen on this  topic. Singer discards,
or even shreds, much anti-globalization cant,  focusing on which international
economic policies will have the  utilitarian outcome of raising living standards
for the developing  world's poor. (Singer does not much care for the term
utilitarianism,  but it is the best shorthand for his value system, whose
fine points  cannot be fit into this space; broadly, he wants to raise the
 standards at which the human race lives as a whole to the highest  aggregate
level, which entails focusing upon the disadvantages of 

Good News 4 Computer Dealers

[BIOS Computers]

Dear SIR !

 NOW IN ISLAMABAD :-)

BIOS COMPUTERS

We deals in motherboards repairing and BIOS copying. Also IC programming and data 
feeding on eproms and memory chips through your source.
We deals in repairing of monitors, power supplies, cdroms, harddisk, fax machines, UPS 
and all other industrial equipments at very reasonable rates.
We also sale and purchase the new and old systems.

  if u r not satisfied tell us--if u r satisfied tell 
others

Please contact !

Khurram (Chief Executive)
BIOS Computers
Basement No 1-A, Al-Rehman Chamber, Blue Area Islamabad.
Ph : 051-2272349Mob : 0333-5105233

dem dim Dems' dead

[Dan Scanlan]

Attention, Small-D Democrats: The Party's Over

 by James Ridgeway

(Village Voice, Nov. 12) -- Since last week's election, liberals have 
been melodramatically wringing their hands, while the pundits have 
rushed to expound upon the deeper meaning of the Republican sweep. 
The Democrats lost, they say, because they no longer stand for 
anything. From the pundits' portentous tones, you'd never guess that 
they were beating a horse that's been dead for more than 30 years.

 In fact, this party has been disintegrating since it nominated 
Hubert Humphrey in the bloody streets of Chicago in 1968. The 
Democrats haven't had a shred of original ideology since the New 
Deal, or a spark of fire in their bellies since the nominally liberal 
momentum of the Kennedy-Johnson years ran aground on the party's 
cowardly refusal to oppose the Vietnam War.

 And it was Jimmy Carter who provided the spark that fired up the 
right wing. His decision to abandon the Panama Canal helped result in 
the founding of the New Right. That, in turn, went hand in hand with 
Ronald Reagan's march to power. Flailing wildly, Carter tried to beat 
the right by co-opting its economic plan, doing such things as 
embracing deregulation of the energy industry and other businesses.

 Charting new ground with an allegedly centrist support base, Clinton 
tried to outfox conservatives by adopting halfhearted versions of 
their own plans. Clinton put the final nail in the New Deal's coffin 
-- embracing welfare reform, screwing up and then abandoning 
healthcare, even letting it be known that his administration would 
look kindly on experiments to reform Social Security by handing 
partial control to Wall Street brokerages. He managed to leave his 
greatest mark on history by giving the Republicans an opportunity to 
impeach him because of an ill-timed blowjob.

 Today's Democratic Party is less a party than an entrenched 
Washington apparatus, which operates as a sort of simulacrum of 
itself, bellowing the names of past icons, while it carries on the 
business of responding to the interests of one lobby group or 
another. It is what William Greider calls a managerial party, 
exemplified by the technocratic fussbudgets in the Democratic 
Leadership Council.

 Now, some say, there may be a real shakeup in the party in the wake 
of the midterm defeat, the failed Dick Gephardt stepping down as 
minority leader, and the Democrats turning to new leadership in the 
form of California Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi. But this is sham. 
Gephardt is not quitting as a failure, but to prepare for a 
presidential run in 2004.

 As of late, Pelosi is best known for her role as senior House 
Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, where with the rest of this 
deadbeat crew she ignored or covered up the U.S. intelligence 
fiascoes that led to 9-11.

 Pelosi hails from a Baltimore Democratic political family and says 
she traces her roots to FDR. Currently she's known as the mother of 
documentary filmmaker Alexandra Pelosi, who traveled with George Bush 
during his campaign, and whose filmmaking, among other things, 
apparently spurred the two families to meet for lunch.

 The Republicans, on the other hand, have, since the days of Barry 
Goldwater, articulated a clear ideology. Beginning with the Nixon 
campaign of 1968, they have carried out an elaborate plan of action 
to muster the silent majority and bring what was a splintered and 
broken party to power. They have successfully positioned themselves 
as the party of conservative principle, with a mission to roll back 
the ever encroaching federal government -- shutting down agencies and 
privatizing others, returning power to the states, crushing the New 
Deal welfare state -- while restoring old-fashioned Christian 
morality to civil society.

 There is some substance to these political claims, but not much. 
Right now, the Republican majority is using its power to expand, not 
contract, the role of the government, replacing the welfare state 
with a far more costly and intrusive police state, with an economic 
program based on Keynesian pump-priming for the defense industries.

 Power may be wielded to advance ideology, but more often, ideology 
is a front for the simple protection of power. Bush may pose as a 
Texas wildcatter, a Bible-thumping Christian zealot, a war-ready 
patriot, and a champion of the common man. But in reality, he's a 
blue-blooded New England Methodist who dodged the draft by joining 
the National Guard and pledged for Skull and Bones at Yale.

 And he's never had anything remotely like an ideology, with the 
possible exception of the 12-Step Program. If Bush succeeds in spite 
of an elitist pedigree, it's because he heads -- and epitomizes -- 
today's Republican Party. This is a party that wields the money and 
power of Big Business, shrewdly woven into a populist, patriotic 
ideology designed to appeal to a country so desperate for passionate 
ideals that in return it will give them 

Ghani

[Doug Henwood]

I've just posted my October 4, 2001, interview with Ashraf Ghani, the 
anthropologist who is now finance minister of Afghanistan (surely one 
of the least enviable jobs in the world), but who then was a former 
Johns Hopkins professor and World Bank consultant. It's at 
http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Radio.html#Individual.

There's nothing earth-shattering about the interview, but it is a 
brush with fame. Apologies for the bad sound quality - it's a 
combination of very cheap tape that was hanging around WBAI and some 
strange tape speed anomalies that make us both sound like we'd 
visited Putin's multiconfessional circumcision clinic.

Doug

Re: Re: Re: Hi Joanne- re 2WW - I almost forgot

[Gar Lipow]

joanna bujes wrote:

When is the quarter/semester over?


This question, in the context of what is below confuses me.



Joanna

At 04:29 AM 11/19/2002 +, you wrote:


Gar Lipow wrote:

 Hi Joanna - I'm an anarchist leaning
 independent socialist myself. (I would
 explain why I'm not an anarchist, but I
 doubt it would be of great interest to
 anyone.)

This makes the three of us! Good to see that I am not alone.

Best,

Sabri

Re: Re: Re: Birds of a feather

[Peter Dorman]

Singer doesn't take the positions Easterbrook has attributed to him. 
You don't have to agree with Singer (I often don't) to appreciate this. 
There was an article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed about a year ago 
that was fair-minded, I thought, on Singer and his critics.  The man is 
not a monster...

Peter

e. ahmet tonak wrote:

How did you conclude that Easterbrook hasn't read Singer?

Peter Dorman wrote:


In his first paragraph, Easterbrook reveals he hasn't read Singer, 
but rather the people who write about Singer.  Given his rather loose 
standards of  intellectual accountability (also revealed in his past 
writings on environmental issues), his endorsement of this latest 
book is of little interest.

Singer is not my favorite philosopher, but he's not bad for a 
utilitarian.

Peter 

Re: Birds of a feather

[Waistline2]

In a message dated 11/19/02 8:27:15 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


(Sooner or later it had to happen. Peter Singer, an "animal rights 
leftist," who also argues that handicapped children should be killed for 
their own good, has written a new book promoting globalization in the 
Thomas Friedman "Lexus and the Olive Tree" mold. What's next? A proposal 
to turn famine victims in Africa into cattle feed? The reviewer Gregg 
Easterbrook is a knucklehead of long standing who has made a career out 
of debunking such hysterical fears that nuclear power, DDT, GM crops, 
etc. might be bad for you.)





Shades of "'Solent' Green."

 "Globalization" is a 13 letter word and means everything and anything, depending upon the ideological bent of the individual. The in-dividual is "in" and "divid-ed" based on what is meant by their utterances. 

Kill handicap kids is a cop-out. 

Why are kids - people, handicap or rather what gives rise to a deviation in human biology that ascends to a qualitative level that prevents what is perceived and is, equal functioning or equal productive capacity? 

I looked at this "biology thing" for about six years Lou and some dialectics is needed in unraveling the basis of deviation. 

Lou, 90% of what we call science is alchemy. 


Melvin P.

FW: HU'S ON FIRST

[Devine, James]

Title: FW: HU'S ON FIRST






forwarded from pen-l alumnus Mike Lebowitz -- 


Playwright Jim Sherman wrote this today after Hu Jintao was named chief
of
the Communist Party in China.

HU'S ON FIRST

By James Sherman

(We take you now to the Oval Office.)


George: Condi! Nice to see you. What's happening?

Condi: Sir, I have the report here about the new leader of China.

George: Great. Lay it on me.

Condi: Hu is the new leader of China.

George: That's what I want to know.

Condi: That's what I'm telling you.

George: That's what I'm asking you. Who is the new leader of China?

Condi: Yes.

George: I mean the fellow's name.

Condi: Hu.

George: The guy in China.

Condi: Hu.

George: The new leader of China.

Condi: Hu.

George: The Chinaman!

Condi: Hu is leading China.

George: Now whaddya' asking me for?

Condi: I'm telling you Hu is leading China.

George: Well, I'm asking you. Who is leading China?

Condi: That's the man's name.

George: That's who's name?

Condi: Yes.

George: Will you or will you not tell me the name of the new leader of
China?

Condi: Yes, sir.

George: Yassir? Yassir Arafat is in China? I thought he was in the
Middle East.

Condi: That's correct.

George: Then who is in China?

Condi: Yes, sir.

George: Yassir is in China?

Condi: No, sir.

George: Then who is?

Condi: Yes, sir.

George: Yassir?

Condi: No, sir.

George: Look, Condi. I need to know the name of the new leader of
China. Get
me the Secretary General of the U.N. on the phone.

Condi: Kofi?

George: No, thanks.

Condi: You want Kofi?

George: No.

Condi: You don't want Kofi.

George: No. But now that you mention it, I could use a glass of milk.
And then get me the U.N.

Condi: Yes, sir.

George: Not Yassir! The guy at the U.N.

Condi: Kofi?

George: Milk! Will you please make the call?

Condi: And call who?

George: Who is the guy at the U.N?

Condi: Hu is the guy in China.

George: Will you stay out of China?!

Condi: Yes, sir.

George: And stay out of the Middle East! Just get me the guy at the
U.N.

Condi: Kofi.

George: All right! With cream and two sugars. Now get on the phone.

(Condi picks up the phone.)

Condi: Rice, here.

George: Rice? Good idea. And a couple of egg rolls, too. Maybe we
should send some to the guy in China. And the Middle East. Can you get Chinese food in the Middle East?

Re: Re: Birds of a feather

[Doyle Saylor]

Greetings Economists,
Peter Dorman writes,
There was an article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed about a year ago
that was fair-minded, I thought, on Singer and his critics.  The man is
not a monster...

Doyle,
Writings on an Ethical Life, Peter Singer, Harper Collins books, 2000,

page 163,
We might think that we are just more civilized than these primitive
peoples.  But it is not easy to feel confident that we are more civilized
than the best Greek and Roman moralists.  It was not just the Spartans who
exposed their infants on hillsides: both Plato and Aristotle recommended the
killing of deformed infants.   Romans like Seneca, whose compassionate moral
sense strikes the modern reader (or me, anyway) as superior to that of the
early and medieval Christian writers, also thought infanticide the natural
and humane solution to the problem posed by sick and deformed babies.

Doyle,
So is that what we ought to do Peter expose babies on the hillside above the
towns to show our moral superiority we've gained from an ethical insight?

page 207
We will have to give up hope of finding better treatments for stroke
victims, because we will be unable to try out these treatments on patients
who have just suffered a stroke and are unable to give consent to taking
part in a research program

page 207 down a sentence,
For me, those choices are not difficult, and I am not at all persuaded that
the practices Dorner criticizes have any tendency to lead to Nazi-like
attitudes.  But there are some questions that are more difficult.  Among
them are questions concerning the treatment of infants with Down syndrome.
...
When Down syndrome is detected and abortion available, the overwhelming
majority of women, in most countries in excess of 90 percent, choose
abortion.  The fact that so many women carrying fetuses with Down syndrome
choose not to give birth to the child surely tells us something about their
attitude to life with Down syndrome, and their desire to avoid, if possible,
being the mother of such a child.

page 313
A sinister aspect of this atmosphere is a kind of self-censorship among
German publishers.  It has proved extraordinarily difficult to find a
publisher to undertake a German edition of Should the Baby Live?-The
updated and more comprehensive account of my views (and those of my coauthor
Helga Kuhse) on the treatment of severely disabled newborn infants.

page 315
Germans, of course, are still struggling to deal with their past, and the
German past is one which comes close to defying rational understanding.
There is, however, a peculiar tone of fanaticism about some sections of the
German debate over euthanasia that goes beyond normal opposition to Nazism,
and instead begins to seem like the very mentality that made Nazism
possible.  To see this attitude at work, let us look not at euthanasia but
at an issue that is, for the Germans, closely related to it and just as
firmly taboo: the issue of eugenics.  Because the Nazis practiced eugenics,
anything in any way related to genetic engineering in Germany is now smeared
with Nazi associations..  This attack embraces the rejection of prenatal
diagnosis, when followed by selective abortion of fetuses with Down
syndrome, spina bifida, and or other defects, and even leads to criticism of
genetic counseling designed to avoid the conception of children with genetic
defects

Doyle,
So the Germans are fanatics because they are concerned with bigoted
anti-disabled attitudes.  You say Singer isn't a monster?  He thinks killing
a month old infant who is disabled is perfectly reasonable approach.  Since
the majority of women will abort their baby who has Downs Syndrome, then
have a cop come over to the house and put a bullet in the infant.  Or
perhaps a clinic for lethal injections that is pain free for the child.  As
long as the atmosphere is clinical and antiseptic and we have violins
playing rock music to sooth the parents during their ordeal.

Or organ harvesting, that will make a lot of money won't it?  We've got a
lot of stroke patients out there taking up nursing home space that aren't
producing value, lets do a little surgery.  What they don't know won't hurt
them, besides the damage is irreversible.
thanks,
Doyle Saylor

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: economics on pen-l

[soula avramidis]

i found myself once next to a wealthy man in a cold war peace rally, i asked him what he was doing there since it was something the commies put together in part, he says a nuclear bomb or an ecological disaster will poor and rich alike.i think there in international culture a heavy humanist heritage for change not to be influenced by it, but on the other hand, you maybe right if neccessary elements are missing.
Eugene Coyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I share Soula Avramidis' insight and worry about natioanl chauvinism.Separately, I see an environmental calamity close at hand, but I think that it will tear humanity apart rather than bring it together.Gene Coylesoula avramidis wrote:   I refer back to an item that says that the conservative desocialising  agenda is at work under George w. if so and I am sure cuts in social  spending are abound, then to what degree is a fall in the average level  of education of the American working class fosters ultra nationalism and  imperial aggression abroad, or does it really matter how social spending  goes in America since the ideological framework of education and  everything else fosters a sort national chauvinism sentiment across  classes, and therefore, in the absence of a strong counter  internationalist ideology, nothing short of an environmental calamity  will bring humanity together. at least in the foreseeable future.  Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:  Business Week recently had an article that seemed to agree with Peter. I did not save the ref, but it was from the last few weeks.  Peter Dorman wrote:   Devine, James wrote:   Peter D writes:...  I'm wondering whether foreign central banks are already  financing the  US current account deficit, in light of the weakness in US  financial  markets.don't you think that it's foreign financiers that are doing  so, rather than central banks? they're buying up US assets,  allowing the US to run a current account defici!
t. If the CBs  are doing anything, it's accumulating dollars and  dollar-denominated short-term assets because they are useful  reserves (since the dollar acts as world money). Do you think ! ; that the CBs play a big role?   My suspicion is that the private inflow of investment has not  kept up with the US need for half a trillion a year. Certainly  not in equities, and perhaps also not in debt assets, due to  possible exchange rate risk. The dollar is indeed the world's  liquidity, but its days (OK, years) are certainly numbered, and  sensible investors would want to avoid too much exposure. As I  recall, there was also a year during the early 80s when foreign  CB's stepped in to cover for the reluctance of private  wealth-holders. I'm guessing that 2002 will also turn out to  be !
such a year, but I could be wrong.   As to why the CB's would do this, you could take your pick from  (1) it's not in anyone's interest to have the dollar crash and  bring down the global economy with it, (2) they are protecting  the private positions in the dollar taken by t! heir own  nationals in particular, (3) they are supporting the US as a  bastion of free-market rectitude, and (4) they are supporting  an overvalued dollar to sustain their own export surpluses.   ... If so, what implications, if any, does this have for  global  political economy? How can we explain Bushite unitaleralism  and  in-your-face hegemony in light of the increasing fragility of  the US  external position?   the role of the dollar as worl!
d money is based on the power  of the US. Bushite hegemonism seems just one way to maintain  and extend that power, centering on the military side. The  Clintonoids put greater emphasis on the financial/economic  side of US power along with trying to encourage consent among  the governed, don't you think? But these are variations on a ! theme.   The strength of the dollar depends entirely on the willingness  of the rest of the world to accumulate them at the rate of  one-half trillion a year. Private wealth-holders will do so  based on expectations of risk (exchange rate and liquidity) and  rate of return. Public dollar repositories (CB's) will do so  for either economic (including liquidity) or political  reasons. It seems to me that the Bushies cannot afford to  alienate t!
he interests that govern CB decision-making. The  current military power buildup may be seen as a basis for  supporting the dollar (an implicit quid pro quo if you will),  or it may be seen as reckless and overly unilateral. How would  you analyze the effect of US militarism on the willingness of  CB's to accumulate dollars?Moreover, if we assume that serious money is now  international ! ; (international portfolios and their mirror-image,  international  ownership of corporations, financial institutions and  tradeable funds),  how do we think about the constraints, if any, on US economic  policy?  (It doesn't look like we have vehicles for domestic  constraints at the  moment.) Or is US policy really reflective!