Re: Bush, the lesser evil?
Louis Proyect effectively demonstrates how the concept of the lesser evil becomes nonsense, even on the most pragmatic opportunist tactical level, as two bourgeois candidates for President, and their supporters, circle round each other, trying to avoid giving the other side opportunity for attack. I am not sure of the history of the concept of the lesser evil but to me it needs unpacking if it is to continue to be used right up to November. For one thing there is a difference between the day to day jostling for position which is a bit like the day to day fluctuations of supply and demand economically - a process of equilibration around an already existing set point. This is like the bourgeois sociological theoretical comparison of a two party electoral system comparison to ice cream sellers on a beach. If there are two competing ice cream sellers, they will logically position themselves both as near the middle as possible of a long, crowded beach. That is a relatively stable enduring pattern. It risks disruption if a third ice cream seller arrives, and which side this seller will position the new stall is an anxious calculation which both must contemplate. There is however a longer term jostling for position going on underneath the virtually day to day fluctuations of presidential electoral tactics: what are the underlying balance of forces. While bourgeois elections are dominated by bourgeois politics and capitalist funding, nevertheless they provide some opportunity for a shake down to occur over a period of six months. From a really radical, or even revolutionary perspective, no body would want to encourage blind faith in either such candidate. But then if a third candidate arrived, who appeared to be more than a mere lesser evil, would the danger not be even greater of creating illusions in such a candidate? The NYT editorial has now got into Monday's International Herald Tribune and I see it very carefully skirts around the C word - conscription. I read this as a highly tactical editorial, preserving its lofty dignity, guarding against any hint of lack of patriotism, playing to the our brave boys agenda but actually of course revelling in Bush's plight, and taking every opportunity of criticising the fundamental unilateralist strategy of the Neo Cons. They will leave Bush to consider the option of conscription, and then play the our brave boys agenda for what its worth again. Kerry is a bourgeois imperialist politician and so are his backers. The two penultimate paragraphs of the editorial I think illustrate my point: Much of the current trouble could have been avoided if Rumsfeld had not been so determined to disprove the doctrine named for his rival, Secretary of State Colin Powell, which posits that force, if it is to be used at all, should be overwhelming. The United States should have had a much larger military force ready to actually occupy Iraq and restore order. As much as we hope that Bush's very belated agreement to involve the United Nations in Iraq can clear the way for greater international military assistance, it would be folly to count on more than symbolic help in the near future. Any real increase in the military force in Iraq will have to come from the United States. This page felt it was a mistake to invade Iraq without broad international support, and since then we have seen few indications that Bush's notion of establishing a stable democracy there is anything but a dream. Yet leaving Iraq now would create a situation so horrific that the United States is obliged to press forward as long as there seems any hope of making progress. The only possible, but by no means certain, road to a good outcome is to stick with the plan to allow the United Nations to set up an interim Iraqi government, to expand international political support, and to work with moderate Shiite and Sunni leaders to isolate the violent radicals. The Iraqi security forces have to be made into something far better than what they are now. Chris Burford London
Re: Bush, the lesser evil?
Chris, Does this mean that you don't think it mattered whether FDR or one of his Republican opponents became President in the 30s and 40s? Cheers, Mike B) --- Chris Burford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Louis Proyect effectively demonstrates how the concept of the lesser evil becomes nonsense, even on the most pragmatic opportunist tactical level, as two bourgeois candidates for President, and their supporters, circle round each other, trying to avoid giving the other side opportunity for attack. = Love and freedom are vital to the creation and upbringing of a child. Sylvia Pankhurst http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢ http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash
Out Now -- Before It Is Too Late
Out Now -- Before It Is Too Late Now that resistance to the US occupation of Iraq has begun to unite Sunni and Shiite Iraqis across the allegedly deep religious divide and to show the sign that it may grow into a viable national liberation movement sooner than many outsiders -- including myself -- anticipated, US public opinions, in turn, have begun to change. According to the Pew Research Center, Just 50% of Americans favor keeping troops in Iraq until a stable government is established there, while 44% support bringing the troops home as soon as possible. In January, the public by nearly two-to-one favored maintaining U.S. troops in Iraq until a stable government is formed (63%-32%) (After Falluja, April 5, 2004). In coming weeks and months, the proportion of Americans who favor immediate withdrawal of US troops is likely to become larger, as 52% of Americans are more concerned that the U.S. will wait too long to withdraw its troops from Iraq, while only 36% say that they are more concerned that the U.S. will leave Iraq before a stable democracy is in place (After Falluja). Nevertheless, the Newsweek poll released around the same time revealed that a whopping 63% of Americans say that they would support increasing the number of U.S. military personnel in Iraq, if necessary, in response to the recent attacks on coalition forces by Iraqi militants, more than twice the proportion (31%) of those who would not support it (NEWSWEEK POLL: Sixty Percent Say Bush Administration Underestimated Terrorist Threat Prior To September 11, April 10, 2004). What are anti-occupation activists to make of seemingly contradictory US public opinions? On one hand, we have good news: 'There's a lot of sentiment against the war,' said Eric Swank, who has been studying the peace movement as a sociologist at Morehead State University in Kentucky. . . .'[T]he protests respond more to the political climate [in the United States]. Republicans and Democrats are starting to challenge the president more,' Swank said. 'It gives clues that if you're doing activism, someone's listening to you' (Sam Tranum, Small Group in West Palm Answers National Call from Anti-war Groups, South Florida Sun-Sentinel April 14, 2004). Though the anti-war movement predictably lost its momentum after the invasion began, its core organizers never disappeared, and the movement has been steadily rebuilding itself, having already organized two sizable mobilizations (a protest in D.C. on October 25, 2003 and an international day of action on March 20, 2004) and planning more. Continued dissent at home, in addition to Iraqi resistance, has made it possible for pundits and politicians to challenge the president from left and right; and even though much of the mainstream pundits and politicians' challenges concern only how the invasion and occupation has been handled, rather than whether Washington should have invaded Iraq or should continue to occupy it despite Iraqis' resistance, the very fact that the president's wisdom is being questioned publicly, as Swank notes, validates concerns about the occupation and allows more Americans to speak out. On the other hand, the high level of support for the idea of increasing the number of U.S. military personnel in Iraq to defeat the Iraqi resistance is worrisome. The US power elite -- committed to defense of the credibility of US imperial might and therefore unable to countenance any possibility of appearing to retreat in defeat -- may very well market the escalation of counter-insurgency by exploiting ambivalence in the public's fear of quagmire. Their propaganda might go like this: Without more troops to defeat Iraqi terrorists decisively, the occupation would become a bottomless quagmire. We must strengthen our military presence in Iraq, so we can support our troops, put down the terrorists, provide security to the people of Iraq, and help them establish a stable democratic government. Only by sending more troops now can we end the occupation and bring them home soon. Given that much of the questioning of the Bush administration in the mainstream media has focused only on the hows of the occupation, rather than the whethers and whys, it won't be easy for the anti-occupation movement, itself ambivalent on the question of lack of security, to counter such propaganda sharply. How can we effectively fight the seductive propaganda that says, Send More Troops Now to End the Occupation Sooner? . . . [The rest of the article is available at http://montages.blogspot.com/2004_04_01_montages_archive.html#108297554062990189.] -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio:
What's the difference?
Boston Globe, April 26, 2004 Kerry faces PR fight over foreign policy By Farah Stockman, Globe Staff | April 26, 2004 WASHINGTON -- If elected president, John F. Kerry would move to increase the US military by 40,000 troops. He would send more soldiers to Iraq if commanders said they were needed. He would stay in Iraq as long as it took to get the job done. Those are the policies that Kerry's inner circle of foreign policy advisers must work with every Monday at lunchtime when they meet to discuss ways to take the Democratic candidate's ideas to the American public. Their main goal: ''To show that we can protect America better than George Bush, said Rand Beers, Kerry's chief national security adviser. In a presidential race dominated by national security issues, Kerry's success may hinge on whether voters are convinced that his ability to forge ties with allies can make America safer than President Bush's more unilateral approach. Lately, the differences between the candidates have sometimes been hard to detect. But in public opinion surveys, Bush trumps the Massachusetts senator on those issues. A USA Today/ CNN/ Gallup poll released last week indicated that 41 percent of respondents said they thought ''only Bush would do a good job handling terrorism, while 20 percent said ''only Kerry would. On the situation in Iraq, 40 percent indicated ''only Bush, while 26 percent indicated Kerry. Those numbers come in one of the most troublesome news cycles for the Bush administration, as the Sept. 11 commission hearings and the rising violence in Iraq have raised questions about Bush's conduct on both issues. The poll numbers also come as Bush and Kerry have increasingly echoed each other's statements on foreign policy, complicating Kerry's struggle to distinguish himself in voters' minds and maintain the support of antiwar Democrats. Bush is beginning to adopt measures that Kerry has long advocated: giving the United Nations a far greater role in Iraq, emphasizing the importance of welcoming NATO to Iraq, and beefing up the number of US troops in Iraq. The president's moves have generated a mixed reaction among Kerry's advisers, some of whom have urged him to take credit for the change. ''It is the greatest form of flattery in a sense, isn't it? Beers said. But others see a danger for Kerry in Bush's new pronouncements. ''The nightmare for Kerry is that all of his criticisms become moot, except the woulda-shoulda-coulda criticism about the war, said Walter Russell Mead, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. ''In this sense, voters are going to say to themselves: 'What's the difference? If I vote for Kerry, I will get a war in Iraq and someone who doesn't believe in the war but is going to have to fight it anyway. If I vote for Bush, I get a war in Iraq, fought by somebody who believes in the war.' full: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/04/26/kerry_faces_pr_fight_over_foreign_policy/ -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
1,150,000 March on Washington, D.C...
1,150,000 March on Washington, D.C. to Voice Opposition to Government Attacks on Women's Reproductive Rights and Health Sunday April 25, 4:43 pm ET Official Crowd Count Largest Ever for Women's Rights Rally in The Nation's Capitol WASHINGTON, April 25 /PRNewswire/ -- An estimated 1,150,000 descended on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. today to give an urgent wake-up call to government leaders and the nation-women's lives are at risk and lawmakers stop intruding on a woman's right to access critical reproductive health services and make deeply personal decisions about her health and life. The March for Women's Lives was led by seven organizing groups: American Civil Liberties Union, Black Women's Health Imperative, Feminist Majority, NARAL Pro-Choice America, National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, National Organization for Women and Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Following are highlights excerpted from remarks given by the organization's leaders at the March: The government does not belong in our bedrooms. It does not belong in our doctors' offices. It does not belong in the bank accounts of innocent Americans, and should not have the power to monitor their e-mail, or track their bookstore purchases, or scrutinize the books they check out of local libraries, said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Our fundamental right to privacy is under serious attack by this government. This historic march is sending an unmistakable message: women's rights and women's lives are non-negotiable, stated Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority. We are building an expanded and inclusive movement that will make women's reproductive rights-just like social security-a third rail of politics. My friends -- make no mistake. There is a war on choice. We didn't start it, but we are going to win it! said Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. They're not just after abortion rights. This is a full-throttle war on your very health-on your access to real sex education, birth control, medical privacy, and life-saving research. My greatest wish is that there would never be another political debate about the right to choose, said Kate Michelman, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. But history teaches us that every right-no matter how basic-is always at risk. And I'm confident that the young people who have lead this march today will lead our movement in a new wave of activism that will keep the right to choose alive for the next generation. This March is a giant wake up call, said Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women (NOW). We won't go back to 1968 when women couldn't buy birth control; we won't go back to 1972 when women were dying from illegal abortions. We're marching for our rights before it's too late. The reproductive health of Black women is in a state of crisis. Black women are suffering and dying too often, too soon and needlessly, said Dr. Lorraine Cole, president and CEO of the Black Women's Health Imperative. When we leave here today, let's turn pain into promise, let's turn promise into partnership and let's turn partnership into power. We demand an end to coercive and punitive policies that prevent us from making informed decisions about our health, our lives and our futures! said Silvia Henriquez, executive director of the National Latina Institute of Reproductive Health. We envision a day when no Latina will live in a climate of fear and oppression, when every person has access to comprehensive and affordable health care. That is reproductive justice! Using standard crowd estimate methods, March participants were counted in designated grids on the National Mall, which are designed to hold a predetermined number of people. The March also verified this count by assigning 2,500 volunteers to stand at key entry points to the March area and at bus drop-off locations and count people by placing March stickers on participants as they entered these entry points. For more information on the March for Women's Lives, visit: www.marchforwomen.org
Re: Bush, the lesser evil?
Or, more to the point, whether Johnson or Goldwater won in 64. Kerry may get stuck as a Johnson unless he finds a face-saving exit, fighting an unwinnable war he didn't believe in. We can quote his own best line at him. But the war apart, LBJ presided over The Great Society, the expansion of the welfare state, appointed the real Warren Court, gave us the 1964 Civil Rights Act (Title VII) and the Voting Rights Act, a tolerably decent NLRB, and aggressive desegregation policies -- just for starters. I don't minimize his crimes, but there were real differences between Johnson and Goldwater, awful as LBJ's foreign policy was. Maybe these didn't justify Part of the way with LBJ in 1964 or early '68, and Kerry's no LBJ. Hell, Kerry makes Nixon look like a red. But the total balance of the decision can't rest on just the war policy. jks --- Mike Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris, Does this mean that you don't think it mattered whether FDR or one of his Republican opponents became President in the 30s and 40s? Cheers, Mike B) --- Chris Burford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Louis Proyect effectively demonstrates how the concept of the lesser evil becomes nonsense, even on the most pragmatic opportunist tactical level, as two bourgeois candidates for President, and their supporters, circle round each other, trying to avoid giving the other side opportunity for attack. = Love and freedom are vital to the creation and upbringing of a child. Sylvia Pankhurst http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢ http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢ http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash
Re: Intelligentsia and Empire - in Iraq and the world
Chris B: Now I do not know how many of the neo-cons ever had sufficiently left-leaning Democrat affiliations to think of themselves as liberals or still worse, as socialists, but ideas are only partially conscious reflections of reality according to the dialectical materialist theory of knowledge. a lot of them backed US Senator Henry Scoop Jackson (Dem-Boeing) for President back in the early 1970s, when they were in their formatie years. He combined advocacy of New Deal domestic policies with heavy Cold-War military/diplomatic attitudes. The people that I knew who were like this were very pro-Israel and anti-George McGovern. Jim D.
FW: What Daddy does for work
[forwarded and edited] David was in his 7th grade class when the teacher asked the children what their fathers did for a living. All the typical answers came up -- firefighter, police officer, sales rep, doctor, lawyer, etc. David was being uncharacteristically quiet and so the teacher asked him about his father. My father's an exotic dancer in a gay cabaret and takes off his clothes in front of other men. Sometimes, if the offer's really good, he'll go out to the alley with some guy and make love with him for money. Shaken by this statement, the teacher hurriedly set the other children to work on some exercises and took David aside to ask him, Is that really true about your father? No, said David, He's an economist, but I was too embarrassed to say that in front of the other kids. Jim D.
Iranian influence in Iraq
Analysis: Iran's influence in Iraq An official Iranian delegation is in Baghdad at Washington's request to hel= p resolve the impasse between the US occupation authorities and Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr. Middle East analyst Dilip Hiro says this underlies the influence that the predominantly Shia Iran has on the neighbouring Iraqi Shias. The Iranian influence is exercised through different channels - a phenomeno= n helped by the fact that there is no single, centralised authority in Iran. The different centres of power include the offices of the Supreme Leader an= d the President; the Majlis (parliament) and the judiciary; the Expediency Council; and offices of the Grand Ayatollahs in the holy city of Qom, and their social welfare networks throughout the Shia world. It was the decision of Grand Ayatollah Kadhim Husseini al-Hairi - an Iraqi cleric who had gone to Qom for further theological studies 30 years ago, never to return - to appoint Moqtada Sadr as his deputy in Iraq in April 2003 that raised the young cleric's religious standing. The more senior Ayatollah Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, a member of the US-appointed Iraqi Governing Council (IGC), is even more beholden to Iran. He is the leader of the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq (Sciri), which was established in 1982 in Tehran by the Iranian government. He returned to Iraq after spending 22 years in Iran. Shia militia Sciri's 10,000-strong militia, called the Badr Brigades, has been trained and equipped by Iran. Ayatollah Hakim underscored his continued closeness to Iran on 11 February, the 25th anniversary of Iran's Islamic revolution. Opening a book fair in Baghdad, sponsored by the Iranian embassy, he praised the Vilayat-e Faqih (ie Rule of Religious Jurisprudent) doctrine on which the Iranian constitution is founded. Sooner or later, the Americans will be obliged to leave Iraq in shame and humiliation Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei Then there is Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the most senior Shia cleric, who is now being routinely described by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) as a moderate, even pro-Western, even though he refuses to meet eithe= r the CPA chief Paul Bremer or any of his envoys, limiting his contacts strictly to IGC members. Ayatollah Sistani was born and brought up in the Iranian city of Mashhad, and despite his 53 years in Iraq, speaks Arabic with a Persian accent. Most of his nine charitable ventures, primarily providing housing for pilgrims and theology students, are in Iran. So too are the four religious foundations sponsored by him. Increasing influence Outside official circles, there are signs of growing Iranian influence amon= g Iraqi Shias. The religious foundations run by pre-eminent clerics in Iran are funding partially the social welfare services being provided to Iraqi Shias by thei= r mosques at a time when unemployment is running at 60%. Iran's present co-operation with Washington is a tactical move. They want t= o help stabilise the situation in Iraq to facilitate elections there so the Shia majority can assume power through the ballot box, and hasten the departure of the Anglo-American occupiers If there is any day-to-day Iranian involvement in the workings of the Sadr network in Iraq, it is in the sphere of social welfare. There is no need for Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard to train the militiamen of Sadr's Mehdi Army since all Iraq males have received three years of military training under the Baathist regime and the country is awash with small arms and ammunition. Also, Iranian Shias are pouring into Iraq, which has six holy Shia sites, across the unguarded border at the rate of 10,000 a day. They are thus bolstering the Iraqi economy to the tune of about $2bn a year= , equivalent to two-fifths of Iraq's oil revenue in 2003. Covert activities Then there are covert activities purportedly sponsored by Iran. Soon after Saddam's downfall, some 100 security specialists of the Lebanese Hezbollah arrived in Basra, at the behest of the Iranian intelligence agency, according to the Anglo-American sources. Since then two groups of Iraqi Shias calling themselves Hezbollah have emerged, one of them allegedly sponsored by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard, with its headquarters in Amara and branches in other cities. This is widely seen as a move to establish an Iranian intelligence infrastructure in Iraq. However, such a network can hardly compete with its Anglo-American rival. Until a few days ago, conceding any role to the Islamic Republic of Iran ha= s been anathema to the George Bush administration. It is hell bent on seeing that the Iraqi politicians refrain from declaring Iraq an Islamic republic. Paul Bremer publicly announced that if those writing the transitional constitution made any such move, he would veto the document. But present signs are that a large majority of Shias, led by Ayatollah Sistani, favour an Islamic entity of some sort for Iraq. About
The new Occupation Flag in Iraq
This seems to be a stupid act. Surely this a total insult to the dignity of Iraqis that they now have a flag opposed upon them. The liberation holiday didnt work out..Neither will this. Maybe some US company has the contract to make them and thus will have an endless contract as they are burned up and have to be replaced.. Cheers, Ken Hanly BAGHDAD: Iraq's Governing Council has adopted a new national flag to replace the one flown by Saddam Hussein, with emblems to represent peace, Islam and Iraq's Kurdish population, spokesman Hamid al-Kefaae said today. The new flag consists of a pale blue crescent on a white background and has a yellow strip between two lines of blue at the bottom. It will be raised over government buildings within days, he said. http://www.hipakistan.com/en/detail.php?newsId=en62743F_catID=f_type=source
Re: What's the difference?
This isn't surprising. Beers coteaches a class at Georgetown in national security issues with Richard Clarke. Joel Blau Louis Proyect wrote: Boston Globe, April 26, 2004 Kerry faces PR fight over foreign policy By Farah Stockman, Globe Staff | April 26, 2004 Their main goal: ''To show that we can protect America better than George Bush, said Rand Beers, Kerry's chief national security adviser. In a presidential race dominated by national security issues, Kerry's success may hinge on whether voters are convinced that his ability to forge ties with allies can make America safer than President Bush's more unilateral approach. Lately, the differences between the candidates have sometimes been hard to detect.
Re: Bush, the lesser evil?
Chris Burford wrote: Louis Proyect effectively demonstrates how the concept of the lesser evil becomes nonsense, even on the most pragmatic opportunist tactical level, as two bourgeois candidates for President, and their supporters, circle round each other, trying to avoid giving the other side opportunity for attack. Louis Proyect has demonstrated nothing with his post under this thread except to show that he knows how to paint images with broad strokes that are not designed to help us understand anything about the situation in Iraq or the positons that people or organizations hold about the situation in Iraq and the best way forward. The mistaken notion that an abandonment of Iraq after 13 years of war and sanctions will better the lives of anyone anywhere is completely mistaken. So let's assume that we do not favor abandoning the people of Iraq. What is the sensible and meaningful (i.e. has to be something that can be practically achievable as things are now) way forward? Best, Joel Wendland http://www.politicalaffairs.net http://classwarnotes.blogspot.com _ From must-see cities to the best beaches, plan a getaway with the Spring Travel Guide! http://special.msn.com/local/springtravel.armx
Re: Intelligentsia and Empire - in Iraq and the world
some of the neo-cons were (or are) members of Social Democrats, USA, which inherited a sectarian pseudo-Marxism from Max Schachtman (who had once been a Trotskyist). JD. -Original Message- From: Devine, James Sent: Mon 4/26/2004 8:16 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Intelligentsia and Empire - in Iraq and the world Chris B: Now I do not know how many of the neo-cons ever had sufficiently left-leaning Democrat affiliations to think of themselves as liberals or still worse, as socialists, but ideas are only partially conscious reflections of reality according to the dialectical materialist theory of knowledge. a lot of them backed US Senator Henry Scoop Jackson (Dem-Boeing) for President back in the early 1970s, when they were in their formatie years. He combined advocacy of New Deal domestic policies with heavy Cold-War military/diplomatic attitudes. The people that I knew who were like this were very pro-Israel and anti-George McGovern. Jim D.
White Whine
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 Subject: White Whine: Reflections on the Brain-Rotting Properties of Privilege White Whine: Reflections on the Brain-Rotting Properties of Privilege By Tim Wise http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2004-04/12wise.cfm To truly understand a nation, a culture, or its people, it helps to know what they take for granted. After all, sometimes the things that go unspoken are more powerful than the spoken word, if for no other reason than the tendency of unspoken assumptions to reinforce core ways of thinking, feeling and acting, without ever having to be verbalized (and thus subjected to challenge) at all. What's more, when people take certain things for granted, anything that goes against the grain of what they perceive as normal will tend to stand out like a sore thumb, and invite a hostility that seems reasonable, at least to those dispensing it, precisely because their unspoken assumptions have gone uninterrogated for so long. Thus, every February I encounter people who are apoplectic at the thought of Black History Month, and who insist with no sense of irony or misgiving that there should be no such thing, since, after all, there is no White History Month--a position to which they can only adhere because they have taken for granted that American history as told to them previously was comprehensive and accurate, as opposed to being largely the particular history of the dominant group. In other words, the normalcy of the white narrative, which has rendered every month since they popped out of their momma's wombs White History Month, escapes them, and makes the efforts of multiculturalists seem to be the unique break with an otherwise neutral color- blindness. Sorta' like those who e-mail me on a semi-regular basis to insist, as if they have just stumbled upon a truth of unparalleled profundity, that there should be an Ivory Magazine to balance out Ebony, or that we need a White Entertainment Television network to balance out BET, or a NAAWP to balance out the NAACP. Again, these dear souls ignore what is obvious to virtually all persons of color but which remains unseen by those whose reality gets to be viewed as the norm: namely, that there are already two Ivory Magazines-- Vogue and Cosmopolitan; that there are several WETs, which just so happen to go by the names of CBS, NBC and ABC; and that the Fortune 500, U.S. Congress and Fraternal Orders of Police are all doing a pretty good job holding it down for us white folks on the organizational front. Just because the norm is not racially-named, doesn't mean it isn't racialized. Likewise the ongoing backlash against affirmative action, by those who seem to believe that opportunity would truly be equal in the absence of these presumably unjust efforts to ensure access to jobs and higher education for persons of color. We are to believe that before affirmative action things were fine, and that were such efforts abolished now, things would return to this utopic state of affairs: to hell with the persistent evidence that people of color continue to face discrimination in employment, housing, education and all other institutional settings in the U.S. So if the University of Michigan gives applicants of color twenty points on a 150-point admission scale, so as to promote racial diversity and balance out the disadvantages to which such students are often subjected in their K-12 schooling experience, that is seen as unfair racial preference. But when the same school gives out 16 points to kids from the lily-white Upper Peninsula, or four points for children of overwhelmingly white alumni, or ten points for students who went to the state's top schools (who will be disproportionately white), or 8 points for those who took a full slate of Advanced Placement classes in high schools (which classes are far less available in schools serving students of color), this is seen as perfectly fair, and not at all racially preferential. What's more, the whites who received all those bonus points due to their racial and class position will not be thought of by anyone as having received unearned advantages, in spite of the almost entirely ascriptive nature of the categories into which they fell that qualified them for such bonuses. No matter their qualifications, it will be taken for granted that any white student at a college or University belongs there. This is why Jennifer Gratz, the lead plaintiff in the successful reverse discrimination suit against Michigan's undergraduate affirmative action policy, found it a supreme injustice that a few dozen black, Latino and American Indian students were admitted ahead of her, despite having lower SATs and grades; but she thought nothing of the fact that more than 1400 other white students also were admitted ahead of her and her co-plaintiffs, despite having lower scores and grades. Lesser qualified whites are acceptable, you see, while lesser qualified people of color must be eliminated from their
Facing South/April 22 2004
F A C I N G S O U T H A progressive Southern news report April 22, 2004 * Issue 79 _ INSTITUTE INDEX * Earth Day, Everyday Number of U.S. residents who live in areas the EPA considers too smoggy to be healthy, in millions: 170 Percent that federal prosecution of criminal pollution cases has dropped since 2001: 30 Acres of wetlands removed from Clean Water Act protection since 2001, in millions: 20 Number of babies born each year with enough mercury pollution to cause severe health problems including brain damage: 630,000 Number of states and territories with fish consumption advisories due to mercury pollution: 44 Percent by which current administration proposals would increase allowable mercury pollution: 500 Number of ex-National Park Service workers who last January charged Bush administration with short-changing, ignoring, or violating conservation policies: 183 Number of scientists who in April charged current administration with manipulation and abuse of science for political ends: 62 Number of senior EPA officials that have resigned in protest since 2001: 2 Sources on file at the Institute for Southern Studies. _ DATELINE: THE SOUTH * Top Stories Around the Region AIR POLLUTION COMPLIANCE LOWEST IN THE SOUTH The number of US counties that fail to meet new EPA ozone pollution standards is highest in the south of the country, according to a new report. Under the new standards, non-attainment areas have more than doubled to 474. (GreenConsumerGuide, 4/20) http://www.greenconsumerguide.com/index.php?news=1846 PROFESSORS CAUGHT DOING PR FOR NUCLEAR INDUSTRY When Sheldon Landsberger, a professor of nuclear engineering at the University of Texas-Austin, was caught signing his name to an Op Ed ghost-written by a nuclear industry group, it exposed a covert campaign by nuclear boosters to use academics to tilt public opinion. (Austin Chronicle, 4/16) http://tinyurl.com/2989t WORKERS AND SHAREHOLDERS UNITE TO REIN IN CEO POWER In the face of a stalled economy with few jobs -- yet rising pay for corporate executives -- workers and shareholders are finding common ground in challenging the growing wealth and power of CEOs (In These Times, 4/15) http://www.inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=690_0_1_0_C GREENSBORO, NC TRIES ITS OWN TRUTH COMMISSION Greensboro, N.C. -- where, in November 1979, five communist labor activists were killed by the KKK -- is moving to create a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to review documents and hear testimony to determine the truth of what happened, then suggest opportunities for the individuals involved and the entire city to reconcile and heal. (NNPA, April 04) http://tinyurl.com/yshxb U. OF ALABAMA MOVES TO ADMIT SLAVERY TIES Acknowledging its historical ties to slavery, the University of Alabama will erect a marker near the graves of two slaves on the campus at Tuscaloosa, and place others on buildings where slaves once worked and lived. President Robert Witt said the university, founded in 1831, will also commission a history that includes the early contributions of minorities, and campus recruitment tours will mention campus sites linked to slavery and integration. (Associated Press, 4/16) http://tinyurl.com/267zo PREGNANT PRISONERS IN ARKANSAS NO LONGER SHACKLED Pregnant state prisoners will no longer be shackled while they are in labor under a new state Department of Correction policy. The department reached the compromise after meeting with legislators and inmate advocates this week, following a complaint by an inmate who gave birth and said she was shackled during much of her labor and chained again shortly after she had her baby. (Associated Press, 4/15) http://tinyurl.com/2d28x THE BIBLE COLLEGE THAT LEADS TO THE WHITE HOUSE At Patrick Henry College in rural Virginia, students must sign a statement saying they believe in a literal interpretation of the bible, and they can't hold hands with the opposite sex unless they're moving. The College is also a leading supplier of interns to the Bush Administration. (The Independent/UK, 4/21) http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0421-09.htm
Plowshares 8
The Plowshares 8 Twenty years after they broke into the Martin Marietta plant in the name of peace, anti-war activists revealed the name of their secret organizer and planned a new protest -- against the war in Iraq. By Rich McKay | Sentinel Staff Writer Posted April 23, 2004 They called themselves the Pershing Plowshares, and for a time 20 years ago they were the biggest story in Orlando: long-haired peaceniks who broke into a weapons plant, poured their own blood on Pershing II missile parts and hit them with hammers to symbolically disarm machines of war. The eight of them -- including a Roman Catholic nun -- then walked out onto the damp lawn of the then-Martin Marietta Corp.'s Sand Lake Road plant, held hands and said prayers, waiting more than 45 minutes for startled guards to notice them as the Easter morning sun rose. As they swatted away fire ants, all eight knew it could be their last moment of freedom for years to come. On Thursday, the 20th anniversary of their arrest, two of the original Plowshares, Patrick O'Neill and Paul Magno Jr., returned to Orlando for a reunion with a loose-knit collection of peace activists who gave them moral support. Still in the mode of peace, love and protest at a Quaker meeting house, they were in full form. Over a potluck supper and Key lime pie, about 20 activists planned a new protest against the war in Iraq. About 8 a.m. today, they'll return to the scene of the crime with cardboard signs protesting the war as well as the company, now called Lockheed Martin, for profiting on war. At this time, when the world is imperiled by violence and war, it's just business as usual at Lockheed Martin, O'Neill said. The group, taking its name from the Biblical passage, They will beat their swords into plowshares . . . (Isaiah 2:4), said that they don't plan to break any laws today. This time, they won't snip through a chain-link fence and defile a Pershing II missile -- which at the time was being made at the Martin Marietta plant and deployed by President Reagan in Western Europe. Reagan's move touched off protests worldwide. While many today credit Reagan's policies and the powerful Pershing missile for ending the Cold War, the peace activists say the key was years later, when Reagan removed the missiles. Magno quipped: Reagan got [plaudits] for taking the Pershing missiles out of Europe, while all I got was three years in prison. But he says it was well worth it. There's never been a time in my life that I felt so focused and so at peace with myself, he said. O'Neill revealed a 20-year secret -- the name of the unknown 9th conspirator in the Pershing Plowshares -- the person who drove them to the plant. It was the late Philip Berrigan of Baltimore, who also was the brains behind the group, he said. Berrigan hand-picked the activists from various peace movements of the 1970s and '80s. He won't mind me spilling the beans, O'Neill said. While local law enforcement -- which a year earlier had sent an undercover agent to spy on religious peace protesters -- thought that locals must have planned the attack, the Plowshares said Berrigan picked Orlando because of the missiles built here to carry nuclear warheads. All we did was go out and buy a map book, Magno added. There was no local conspiracy. But some activists wanted the authorities to know that they honored the undercover cop for years after he was uncovered by the Orlando Sentinel. They would set a place at their table for him and bring Kentucky Fried Chicken dinners -- the same food the agent brought to the mostly vegetarian meals when he was spying on them. Local peace and anti-nuclear groups rallied behind the Plowshares after the fact, including local activist Jim Willard, 58, of Winter Haven. Jim, you've gotten too old since I last saw you, O'Neill told him, although O'Neill, now 48 and the father of seven children, also feels the years that have grayed his ponytail, wrinkled his brow and swelled his once-trim waistline. Magno, also a bit grayer and heavier, recalled when he first saw Willard, at the Orange County Courthouse, watching from the audience as the eight Plowshares were marched in all handcuffed together. Mango said the world today is even more dense and impervious to our peace action. Kristine Iverson, 25, of Orlando who came to the meeting to meet them, said, I bet if it happened today they'd be called terrorists and shipped off to Guantanamo [Bay, Cuba]. In July 1984, all eight were sentenced to three years in prison for destroying government property, a sentence considered harsh even by longtime court observers. They were sent to federal prisons in several states. Over the years, many of them remained active in the peace movement. Mango said he wished he had brought his old hammer down from D.C. so he could hand it off to some of the newer faces in the peace movement who showed up. Looking at this 20 years later, it's still up to us to protest and to teach our children and
Women of Color Expand Movement Beyond Pro-Choice Agenda
Date: Fri, April 23 2004 Subject: Women of Color Expand the Movement Beyond Pro-Choice Agenda Women of Color Take Lead in Pro-Choice Rally By Ginger Adams Otis WeNews correspondent Run Date: 04/22/04 Women of color are joining and taking a leadership role in this Sunday's major rally for reproductive rights. In doing so, they have broadened the agenda to include such goals as better access to health care, day care, nutritious food and clean water. (WOMENSENEWS)--In cities and towns across the country, students, unionists, environmentalists and others are gearing up to attend the March to Save Women's Lives, a massive reproductive-rights rally in Washington, D.C., this Sunday, April 25. Unlike previous pro-choice rallies, this one is being led by women of color and organizations that represent them and this new approach is expected to greatly boost attendance. But the real impact of this historic change will extend beyond the crowd count of the march itself. The leadership role of the women of color has pushed the focus of the rally beyond a defense of a women's legal right to terminate a pregnancy and created a call for a broader range of goals, such as better and broader access to day care and child care. Loretta Ross, executive director of the National Center for Human Rights Education and the first African American woman to co-direct a national protest for choice, says that putting the reproductive issues that matter most to women of color on center stage Sunday is going to forever change the women's movement. Women of color are going to be joining other women in really large numbers to show their outrage at what's being done to their reproductive rights, Ross says. When we approached the principal organizers about being included, they invested a lot of money in mobilizing among communities of color and making sure the message got out to a lot of people. That hard work is going to pay off on Sunday. Broad Spectrum of Issues A key rallying point is, of course, to defend Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that guaranteed women the right to decide--free from government interference--whether to end a pregnancy. But all agree the march is about more than that. The right to have a child and get health care, an education, safe drinking water, day care--these are the issues Latinas link to reproductive rights, says Silvia Henriquez, director of the Brooklyn- headquartered National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health. It's as much about taking care of their families as it is being able to terminate a pregnancy. Many of the immigrant women who turn to the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, according to Henriquez, come from countries where reproductive healthcare was profoundly constrained. They come from countries where forced sterilization is still common and where an abortion is really dangerous and can land you in jail. They've seen their health care providers criminalized and jailed just for giving them birth control pills. As a result, Henriquez says, many Latinas are anxious to attain reproductive justice in this country and see it as an integral human right. With the Hispanic population set to be the largest U.S. minority within the next several decades, says Henriquez, the women's movement has much to gain by broadening its agenda to include this very large population of women. Also marching with the Women of Color delegation-- bearing a large Women of Color for Reproductive Justice banner--will be members of the National Asian Women's Health Organization and some key activists within Native American communities. Men are invited too. Marcus Scott, director of The Fre Foundation, a D.C.-based organization dedicated to promoting human-rights awareness in public schools, was asked by Loretta Ross to write a letter to black men explaining why they need to come out and show their support for black women on Sunday. Black men have to be consistently present in support of black women's health and reproductive efforts as well as all facets of their work, leadership and lives, says Scott, who mailed his letter to more than 50 organizations nationwide, including those who organized and participated in the 1995 Million Man March. So far he has gotten more then 500 letters of support in return. More Similarities Than Differences Some activists would prefer to keep sights sharply focused on last fall's passage of the so-called partial-birth abortion ban, which outlaws most abortions beyond the first 12 weeks of pregnancy and makes no exception to protect the health of women. It gives parents little chance to make decisions based on fetal health, because the most common test for birth defects--an amniocentesis--is not usually performed until 15 to 18 weeks after a woman's last menstrual period. Those results can take two more weeks. President Bush signed the ban into law even though the Supreme Court had previously labeled a similar ban unconstitutional. Activists
2000 GOP Warnings of Gore Victory
The GOP (Republicans) warned us what would happen if Gore was elected in 2000: 1. We would go to war. 2. The national debt would soar. 3. The US economy would plummet. 4. The stock market would plunge. 5. Unemployment would be rampant. 6. The US dollar would quickly decline in value. 7. We would have a huge budget deficit. They were right. Gore won and all those things happened.
Re: 2000 GOP Warnings of Gore Victory
what's the source of this, Michael? Jim D. (Alas, I can't get to my office because they found a 2000 pound bomb nearby (left over from WWII in the old Hughes Helicopter land). I can't get to my car to leave campus, either. War is Hell.) -Original Message- From: Michael Hoover [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mon 4/26/2004 1:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: [PEN-L] 2000 GOP Warnings of Gore Victory The GOP (Republicans) warned us what would happen if Gore was elected in 2000: 1. We would go to war. 2. The national debt would soar. 3. The US economy would plummet. 4. The stock market would plunge. 5. Unemployment would be rampant. 6. The US dollar would quickly decline in value. 7. We would have a huge budget deficit. They were right. Gore won and all those things happened.
Re: Bush, the lesser evil?
- Original Message - From: Mike Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 9:54 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Bush, the lesser evil? Chris, Does this mean that you don't think it mattered whether FDR or one of his Republican opponents became President in the 30s and 40s? Cheers, Mike B) I was mainly making the point that the small manoeuvres between bourgeois, imperialist, candidates are trivial as a lesser evil argument. I did however point out that other aspects of the NYT editorial suggested to me, a strategy to put the skids under Bush's unilateralist war of aggression against Iraq, over a period of months, by studiously not using the word conscription, but bringing the argument up to that point. No I don't know about FDR. The truth is always concrete. But when I listen to some of Paul Robson's songs from that era it seems to me there was a scope for progressive politics that there was not at other times. I have a soft spot for Ken Livingstone, even though he makes alliances with the finance capitalism of the City of London for some of his more socially coherent initiatives. I cannot see from Google that Lenin ever advocated a lesser evil type argument for choosing one bourgeois party over another. He did famously in one concrete political formation call for support as a rope supports a hanging man. I do myself think there are sometimes arguments for supporting the election of one bourgeois party over another provided this is not done in such a way as to promote any faith or illusion in the bourgeois party, but for reasons that actually shift the balance of power in some way towards working people. A far more difficult concrete situation was at the time of the rise of Nazism when in retrospect perhaps all progressives got it wrong. Google brings up the following argument by Trotsky in FOR A WORKERS' UNITED FRONT AGAINST FASCISM by Leon Trotsky Written in exile in Turkey, December 8 1931 IS BRUENING THE LESSER EVIL? The Social Democracy supports Bruening, votes for him, assumes responsibility for him before the masses-on the grounds that the Bruening government is the lesser evil. Die Rote Fahne attempts to ascribe the same view to me-on the grounds that I expressed myself against the stupid and shameful participation of the Communists in the Hitler referendum. But have the German Left Opposition and myself in particular demanded that the Communists vote for and support Bruening? We Marxists regard Bruening and Hitler, Braun included, as component parts of one and the same system. The question as to which one of them is the lesser evil has no sense, for the system we are fighting against needs all these elements. But these elements are momentarily involved in conflicts with one another and the party of the proletariat must take advantage of these conflicts in the interest of the revolution. In my opinion the difference between Kerry and Bush is not of this magnitude. It is a policy difference not a class difference. They are both imperialists and both hegemonic imperialists. But Bush's policy has been to use the massive preponderance of US military might unilaterally to impose its hegemony. Kerry would obviously use this, but appears by his background, his utterances, and his position on Iraq to favour a more multi-lateralist hegemonic position. This may matter more outside the US than within it. Even outside it is a matter of judgement whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages for the progressive forces of the world versus international finance capital headed by US capital, to have Empire consolidated under the more complex hegemonic leadership of a Kerry type figure rather than fragmented and dramatised by a Bush type figure. Chris Burford
Re: Bush, the lesser evil?
I don't see what we can learn from the anybody but Bush debate. Kerry is atrocious -- Bush is a danger to humanity; Kerry may be better on a few issues, such as abortion. But we know all that. Our choice seems to be whether to vote for someone to the right on Clinton so that things don't get that much worse, while helping the Dems move further to the right or whether we demand an opposition party, even if it means more Bush. I can't imagine that we could come to an agreement here and even if we did, we have to face the question as to whether elections matter. I would rather we try to learn from each other rather than rehash old stuff -- unless we have something very new on the subject -- which I doubt. I would rather hear from David Barkin on Mexico or from Johathan or Steve about Mexico or from one of the many people from other parts of the world rather than rehash Kerry. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Bush, the lesser evil?
But at the present juncture both Kerry and Bush take a multilateralist stand. Bush is not multilateralist just in terms of a coalition of the billing but also wants the UN to participate and bless US control of security through a UN force with the US in command. Bush also seems to have accepted the State department line rather than the Pentagon and is not complaining that the UN will sideline Chalabi and many of the present IGC. For his part Chalabi and others are no doubt trying to use the UN oil for food scandal as a means to discredit the UN and advance their own agenda. Obviously the hiring of some former Baath generals will not sit well wtih the INC which always pushed for a wholesale de_Baathification. Chalabi spouts off that allowing Baathists element back in is like allowing Nazis to govern post-war Germany. Well heck Heisenberg was OK for US rocket programmes Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Chris Burford [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 4:23 PM Subject: Re: Bush, the lesser evil? - Original Message - From: Mike Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 9:54 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Bush, the lesser evil? Chris, Does this mean that you don't think it mattered In my opinion the difference between Kerry and Bush is not of this magnitude. It is a policy difference not a class difference. They are both imperialists and both hegemonic imperialists. But Bush's policy has been to use the massive preponderance of US military might unilaterally to impose its hegemony. Kerry would obviously use this, but appears by his background, his utterances, and his position on Iraq to favour a more multi-lateralist hegemonic position. This may matter more outside the US than within it. Even outside it is a matter of judgement whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages for the progressive forces of the world versus international finance capital headed by US capital, to have Empire consolidated under the more complex hegemonic leadership of a Kerry type figure rather than fragmented and dramatised by a Bush type figure. Chris Burford
Re: Bush, the lesser evil?
Joel Wendland wrote: C The mistaken notion that an abandonment of Iraq after 13 years of war and sanctions will better the lives of anyone anywhere is completely mistaken. So let's assume that we do not favor abandoning the people of Iraq. What is the sensible and meaningful (i.e. has to be something that can be practically achievable as things are now) way forward? I suppose you also want rape-crisis centers to be 'manned' by rapists? This line of argument will justify eternal war. All the U.S. has to do is bomb the hell out of some country, send in some troops to do more damage and to kill a few thousand random civilians, and all the leftist of your sort will turn into rabid defenders of _this_ particular crime, because the criminal must stay to make up for the crime. Disgusting. Carrol
Re: mixed economic signals
Tim: If the vast majority of the traders behave irrationally and deny the uncertainty through conventional forecasting practices that make their actions predictable by the small number of traders able to behave rationally (i.e able to understand and predict the irrationality), then for the latter rational trading will be possible as speculation in Keynes's sense of forecasting the psychology of the market and aping unreason proleptically. Thank you Tim, As a Turkish saying goes: You have been the translator of what I have been thinking! However, I am not even sure if forecasting the psychology of the market is possible. At least, I am not the one who can do that. This bloody housing bubble is still not bursting and I have been waiting for it like waiting for Godot. Am I the rational one now? Best, Sabri
52 British diplomats publicly criticise Blair
For diplomats, British career diplomats, it is remarkable. They are retired, and they can be amiably dismissed by Blair's supporters as Arabists - people who often had worked in embassies in Arab countries, but the overall picture is severe. It is presented as a policy question but really it comes close to articulating a fault line between two imperialist blocs. Britain (and Europe) has little interest in maintaining Israel as a garrison state in the near and middle east. The USA has domestic political pressures plus regional strategic reasons for doing so. The USA has or had the military and economic power both to arm a garrision state, and to buy off its rivals. Now that the USA has overstretched itself, this is coming into question even within the USA's closest apparent ally, Britain in the most public way - even by elements that by class position would be closer to the British Conservative party. It is remarkable that there should be such a public challenge from within the Establishment to what is normally a given of Brtish foreign policy since the end of the Second World War: however much teeth may be ground in private, it is in Britain's geopolitical interests to be in strategic alliance with the USA. This letter is therefore an unprecedented public attack on Bush by implication. Chris Burford London
Talk Left, Walk Right
A short entry on corrupt conservatives and neoliberals who talk left and walk right (borrowing the title of Patrick Bond's new book): Talk Left, Walk Right, http://montages.blogspot.com/2004_04_01_montages_archive.html#108304110866702307. -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
