Some points from the discussion about the chronology
Let me give a few answers to some comments made on my chronology of Russian-Chechen relations. * I refered to a Russian puppet government set up in 1996. Chris Doss took this as a typo or an odd reference to the Maskhadov govt. Actually, it was a reference to the puppet Chechen parliament that Russia had tried to set up in 1996. This parliament had no power as the Russian occupation collapsed, and Russia had to sign the Khasavyurt accords with the actual Chechen government that existed since 1991. In 1999, the Russian government withdrew its recognition of the Khasavyurt accords, withdrew its recognition of the Haskhadov govt., and claimed that the puppet Chechen parliament from 1996 was the real government of Chechnya. This shows a definite continuity between Yeltsin and Putin's war on Chechnya (even if we ignore that Putin was Yeltsin's hand-picked successor). * Chris Doss asked to provide evidence that Putin used the Dagestani events as a pretext. The fact that Putin renounced the Khasavyurt accords and immediately sought to recognize a puppet government in Chechnya is sufficient proof. This is not a simple response to the Dagestani events -- it is the full resumption of the war. * Chris Doss claimed that I say everything is due simply to the wreckage of the first Chechen war of 1994-6. Actually, I pointed to a continuing pressure on Chechnya from 1991 to the present which took place without interruption. The first war, 1994-96, was one of its high points, but I pointed to a campaign of the Russian government to destabilize Chechnya from 1991 on. This included attempts at military intervention, the use of the half-force option, backing of attempts coups, economic pressure and so on. This reached a high point in 1994-6 with the first Chechen war, but Russia did not recognize Chechen sovereignty in the Khasavyurt Accords that ended the war. Instead Russia continued economic pressure until Putin resumed the war itself. I also pointed to the general policy of the Yeltsin/Putin governments of regarding the entire Caucasus, including Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia as their sphere of influence and referred to their attempting to stir up trouble in these areas in order to present Russian interference as the alleged peacekeeper. This has some similarities to what Putin did with Chechnya, using the Dagestani events as a pretext. By an answer to the Dagestani issue, however, Chris Doss seems to understand a way for the Russian government to deal with the Dagestani situation while preserving an imperialist policy in the Caucasus. * Chris Doss says that Russia simply wanted to forget about Chechnya after 1996. That's bull. * Chris Doss doubts that Anatol Lieven is an apologist for Russian imperialism. I suggest that anyone who doubts this might read my review of Chechnya: Tombstone of Russian Power. Note that the significance of Lieven being an apologist for Russian imperialism isn't that Lieven is never worth reading. No, Anatol Lieven is a serious person as bourgeois writers go. I examined Lieven's book precisely because it was of interest. But his attitude shows that there isn't anything anti-imperialist in being an apologist of the Russian bourgeoisie, since Lieven is very much a supporter of Western imperialism as well. *Chris Burford writes that we should put the deportation of the Chechens in the context of other massive population clearances which we have all condoned...thinking of the deportation of 14 million Germans, and the clearing of eastern Pomerania, Silesia and Prussia. This is a significant point. Stalinism resulted in a whole series of deportations as part of the settlement of World War II. Besides the ones mentioned by Chris, there were also other mass deportations in other Eastern European countries, and not simply of Germans. If I remember right, one country would deport the population of people who were ethnically of the nationality of their neighbor. I think this happened, for example, in Yugoslavia and either in Hungary or one of its neighbors, and probably in other places too. In short, a whole system of socialist-deportationalism arose. I hope Chris B. reconsiders whether such deportations should be condoned (or perhaps Chris raises these examples precisely because he already has reconsidered them), what effect they had on the world proletariat, and whether they made a mockery of either socialist or even democratic principles. Stalinism in fact engaged in an orgy of socialist-deportationalism. *Chris Burford also raises that we should look at matters not just from the viewpoint of the international unity of the working people but also from the point of view of the economic viability of political structures. It is quite possible for a small state to exist. There are quite a few of them. The actual fact is that the denial of the right to self-determination may well retard the
Re: Thomas Sowell
David, I cannot help noticing that you have written close to 1000 words about what a fantastic chap Thomas Sowell is, and not a single word about the actual (IMO lousy) boilerplate free trade hackwork that was forwarded to the list. This also, is a form of argumentum ad hominem. dd -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David B. Shemano Sent: 30 June 2004 02:26 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Thomas Sowell Laurence Shute writes: I agree with both: Jim's analysis of Sowell's article was great. And some of Sowell's early stuff was quite good. For example, Marx's 'Increasing Misery' Doctrine, American Economic Review, March 1960, pp. 111-120. I think I recall that Sowell had trouble finding a job. Wasn't he teaching at Cornell for a while, then out of work? It looks like he made his right turn around then. Are you implying that Sowell does not believe what he writes? Do you have any evidence for this? Charles Brown writes: That the Left has not the same is not a matter of luck. The bourgeoisie do not pay people to be revolutionary propagandists and agitators or public intellectuals, unsurprisingly. Nonsense. The bourgeoise would sell the rope to a revolutionary if it would make a profit, would they not? What is the No. 1 movie in America? Who financed it? Why do the bourgeoise fund universities which employ Profs. Perelman and Devine? The answer must lay elsewhere. Jim Devine writes: Once or twice, I've jokingly told my department chair (who's African-American) that he could have made Big Money if he'd gone right-wing. There's truth there, though it's very rare that someone actually chooses their political orientation as one would choose a dessert. The conservatives _love_ affirmative action if it fits their needs. Clarence Thomas and Thomas Sowell have benefited mightily by being right-wing _and_ Black. The conservatives can say look -- we're good-hearted too. We've got a Black man (or woman) on our side! There's no way we're racist. Of course, appointing Thomas was one of George Bush Senior's few Karl Rove moments, choosing an ultra-con who would get support from some African-Americans simply because he's Black (and making it hard for guilt-laden liberals to oppose him). At least Prof. Devine does not think Sowell is a careerist. It is unavoidably true that part of Sowell's success is that he is black. It is also true that conservatives like putting foward minorities to advocate policies that raise allegations of racism. However, that does not mean that the conservatives are wrong, i.e., that the conservative love (and I mean love) for Sowell and Thomas does in fact demonstrate that conservatives truly believe their own rhetoric, which is simply old liberal rhetoric (treat everybody as individuals, do not judge by the color of skin, etc.). Michael Perelman writes: I think that Sowell, like Powell, has Caribbean roots. Sometimes, they look down on those whose ancestors were slaves here. I am sure someone here knows more about this than I do. To the extent this has any relevancy, I do not think this applies to Sowell and certainly does not apply to Thomas. Again, this highlights the very point repeatedly raised by Sowell and Thomas -- the refusal of Lefties to treat them as real people with their own mind who believe what they say based upon honest reflection. David Shemano Larry Shute Economics Cal Poly Pomona
Re: The presidential election and the Supreme Court
I thought only Congress can declare war. It's in the Constitution. (One of the main excuses of the ABB crowd for backing the pro-war, DLC, Joe Lieberman wannabe John Kerry is that we need to reverse the rightward drift of the Supreme Court. Leaving aside the question of John Kerry announcing that he is amenable to the nomination of ultraconservative judges, this rather startling landmark decision should make you think twice about all this.) LA Times, June 29, 2004 SUPREME COURT / DETAINEES' RIGHTS Wartime President Is Again Outflanked By Doyle McManus, Times Staff Writer WASHINGTON Ever since Sept. 11, 2001, when terrorists seized four jetliners and caused the deaths of nearly 3,000 people, President Bush has declared that the United States is at war and in wartime, presidents assume emergency powers they would not claim in times of peace. Bush and his aides said they had a right to imprison suspected terrorists, including U.S. citizens, without court hearings. They asserted a prerogative to keep more secrets than before from Congress, the media and the public. And at one point, the Justice Department claimed the president could ignore laws prohibiting torture, under his inherent authority as commander in chief. But in an unusual series of reversals in recent weeks, the Supreme Court, Congress and public opinion all have intervened to draw new limits on the president's wartime authority. On Monday, the court ruled that the federal government could not hold suspected terrorists indefinitely without allowing them to challenge their detention in legal hearings, a significant setback for the administration. Earlier this month, the administration was embarrassed by a 2003 memo that claimed a presidential right to override laws regulating torture or, for that matter, any other military conduct. The White House, facing a public-opinion storm, promptly disavowed the policy. Before that, the administration sought to withhold documents and witnesses from a congressionally created commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, claiming they were sheltered by the right of executive privilege. But after protests from members of both parties in Congress, the administration backed down. For a year after 9/11, the executive branch got the benefit of the doubt, said Norman J. Ornstein, a political scientist at the predominantly conservative American Enterprise Institute. That was the case, for example, when Congress voted to authorize the war in Iraq. But it's not the case anymore. Part of it is time passing since the terrorist attacks, he added. I couldn't say the court's decisions would have been different if it were, say, three months after 9/11, but they very well might have been. Douglas W. Kmiec, a Justice Department official in the Reagan administration who is now at Pepperdine Law School, agreed. It would have been interesting to know how different the outcome would have been if we had more recently suffered an attack on the homeland, he said. I do think the 9/11 commission and the furor over the administration's decision-making on interrogation policy affected the court's judgment. Kmiec said the decisions were an appropriate reminder of the importance of civil liberties, even in wartime. Earlier presidents also claimed emergency powers in wartime. The Supreme Court has rarely intervened and then, only after the combat was over, Kmiec noted. full: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-assess29jun29,1,5997448.story?coll=la-home-headlines -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Interim Results Are In
A short time ago, some participants were arguing that immediate US withdrawal from Iraq would "destabilize" the country and damage the inhabitants. The GAO has issued a report, available at:http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04902r.pdf that shows just how beneficial the occupation has been, (and willcontinue to be). I am not so foolish to think that those arguing for "stabilization" under US occupation will, having read this report, change their view, but I think it would be nice for them to explain the dismal reality in light of their previous arguments.
the Democratic Leadership Council wing of the Green party
American Prospect No Tie -- Cobb! The true story of how a man you've barely heard of beat Ralph Nader for the Green Party nomination. By Garance Franke-Ruta Web Exclusive: 06.28.04 MILWAUKEE -- For Ralph Nader campaign spokesman Kevin Zeese, the map explains it all. Hand drawn in black ballpoint pen, the rough state-by-state depiction of the United States is covered in hatch marks and polka dots. Florida, California, and New York are filled in with diagonal lines. The middle of the country is a blotchy block of similar-colored states, drawn dark with circles. It's just like the red and blue map, Zeese says Saturday, June 26, around 10 p.m., standing with other disappointed Nader For President supporters joking about committing hara-kiri in the Midwest Airlines Center while newly selected Green Party nominee David Cobb gives a rousing final speech accepting the party's nomination. Except that it's not a map of Democratic-voting states versus Republican ones; it's a hastily drawn representation of where delegates to Forward 2004!, the Green National Convention in Wisconsin, cast their votes during the second round of balloting to nominate a Green Party candidate for president. Cobb, a lawyer from Texas who now lives in northern California, won that balloting against the none of the above and no nominee options, equivalent to votes for the party to endorse Nader. And just as in the country at large, voting patterns among the Greens reflect regional and geographic differences. Those differences, and Nader's 100-vote loss because of them, suggest that the eco-friendly third party that many blame for Al Gore's narrow loss in 2000 will be far less likely to play a spoiler role in swing states come November. Nader drew support primarily from California Greens, who, with 132 delegates and more elected officials than any other state, made up about a sixth of those in attendance. He also did well in New York and Vermont, and gained the backing of many other Greens living in blue states. But Cobb won the election with 408 of 770 ballots cast, based on the strength of his support in places like Montana, Nebraska, Wisconsin, South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, and, of course, his native state of Texas. The number of state Green parties grew from 21 in 2000 to 44 today, and with the party's expansion from the coasts into the interior of the country has come an influx of Red-state Greens -- call them the Democratic Leadership Council wing of the Green party. Indeed, Cobb went out of his way to court the South -- his campaign explicitly advocated a southern strategy, promising to devote considerable resources to the newly formed state parties in places like Mississippi, Green since April 2002 -- and campaigned the old-fashioned way. He built alliances, visiting 41 of the state Green Parties since announcing his bid last October. He worked inside the party, making sure it adopted rules favoring his election, such as a mandate that a candidate must be registered as a Green in order to receive the party's nomination. More than any other single change since 2000, that rule forced Nader into a bind: Either the famously independent candidate, who Cobb knew was unlikely to commit to any party, would have to declare his allegiance to the Greens, or else the homegrown candidate, Nader's former state director in Texas, would mount a challenge to Nader as the only strong candidate with true party loyalty. Make no mistake: Had Nader chosen to fight for it over the past year, he could have easily walked away with the Green Party nomination on Saturday. But he didn't. The Nader campaign has intentionally avoided trying to influence the outcome, said Zeese as the balloting was about to start. We'll see what the outcome is. His words suggested a kind of equanimity, but he sounded nervous. Into the political vacuum left by Nader's arms-length campaigning jumped Cobb, running on a platform of support for state parties and local candidates. For a party that draws heavily from the ranks of the alienated and disaffected -- people who already feel ignored by politicians -- Nader's decisions to eschew Green membership, not participate in the presidential-primary process, and avoid the Milwaukee convention were decisive. Nader, perhaps thinking himself a sure thing, or so outsize a figure that a fair fight would require him to tie one hand behind his back, failed to mount a campaign sufficient to win. As late as two days before the balloting, Nader's supporters were urging him to reconsider his refusal to court the Green Party nomination in favor of the high-risk endorsement strategy, which was contingent on the expectation that Cobb would fail to win a simple majority of delegate votes. Internal polling of the party delegates last week had shown the race neck and neck, with the momentum favoring Cobb. While Nader waited to be handed the Green crown, Cobb buttonholed delegates, rushed around the Milwaukee Hyatt Regency, cell
FW: no-returns policy shocker
by Andy Borowitz-- IRAQ TRIES TO GIVE SOVEREIGNTY BACK No Way, Says Cheney One day after the United States transferred sovereignty to Iraq, Iraq unsuccessfully attempted to give sovereignty back to the United States. The decision to return sovereignty to the U.S. surprised many in diplomatic circles, since most had expected the Iraqis to keep sovereignty for at least two days and possibly even longer than that. But in an official statement to reporters today in Baghdad, Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said that one day of sovereignty was more than enough, thank you very much. Mr. Allawi said that he had been sold a bill of goods by former Coalition Provisional Authority chief Paul Bremer III, who had led Mr. Allawi to believe that Iraq was in much better condition than it actually was. The Iraqi said he had been persuaded by Mr. Bremer to attend a travelogue-like slide-show about Iraq with the promise that he would receive a new set of Samsonite luggage and a 13-inch color television in exchange for forty-five minutes of his time. Once Mr. Allawi realized that Iraq was nothing like the country depicted in the slide-show, the Iraqi leader tried to return sovereignty to Mr. Bremer, but found that he had not left a forwarding address or phone number. In Washington, Vice President Dick Cheney responded to Mr. Allawis request to give sovereignty back with a curt, No way, adding, All I can say to Mr. Allawi is, be careful what you wish for, pal. Elsewhere, attendees at the NATO summit in Turkey said they would reserve judgment on President Bushs speech there until they had time to read the English translation.
Re: Thomas Sowell
David Shemano writes: Why do the bourgeoise fund universities which employ Profs. Perelman and Devine? The answer must lay elsewhere. I work for a branch of the Catholic Church, the Jesuits. In general, academia is not simply capitalist (i.e., funded by rich Catholic folk). There's a big admixture of feudalism and workers' control (control by the professors themselves, not the staff). The mix depends on the college. It's interesting that those that are the most capitalist (i.e., profit-seeking) in their principles are also the worst. Also, I don't know if Sowell is a careerist or not. I also wasn't saying that conservatives are wrong, though that's true. (Thanks for bringing that issue up!) They often don't believe in their own rhetoric. The leaders, such as Karl Rove, are quite cynical. On the other hand, many of the rank and file _do_ believe the rhetoric. A lot of it is so abstract that almost anyone can believe it. As with most ideologies, there are contradictory elements (i.e., the combination of lip-service both to libertarianism and traditionalism). Of course, then there's the issue of what a _true_ conservative is. I'll let David define that. jd
Re: FW: Redneck Awards
Jim, please don't send pictures to the list. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Thomas Sowell
David makes a good point, but with so much money and so many resources flowing to amenable conservatives, careerism is a legitimate suspicion. To raise such a suspicion is not to deny that conservatives are real people. I do not mean to imply that careerism is a part of most conservatives mindset, but the suspicion does seem legitimate for the movement conservatives, such as Sowell. On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 06:26:09PM -0700, David B. Shemano wrote: To the extent this has any relevancy, I do not think this applies to Sowell and certainly does not apply to Thomas. Again, this highlights the very point repeatedly raised by Sowell and Thomas -- the refusal of Lefties to treat them as real people with their own mind who believe what they say based upon honest reflection. David Shemano Larry Shute Economics Cal Poly Pomona -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Thomas Sowell
by David B. Shemano That the Left has not the same is not a matter of luck. The bourgeoisie do not pay people to be revolutionary propagandists and agitators or public intellectuals, unsurprisingly. Nonsense. The bourgeoise would sell the rope to a revolutionary if it would make a profit, would they not? What is the No. 1 movie in America? Who financed it? Why do the bourgeoise fund universities which employ Profs. Perelman and Devine? The answer must lay elsewhere. CB: But they aren't going to make any profit off of a radical newspaper columnist, so... Michael Perelman and Jim Devine are not given the public prominence that Sowell is. Michael Moore did creep up on them, as a sort of clown. I don't know all the specifics of his financing. He comes out of the alternative newspapers ( small business) in Michigan. He is not in the monopoly/mainstream media like Sowell. The answer , in general, is right where it seems to be. With very rare exceptions (if Moore is really one), the right , not the left will get gigs like Sowell's because of the right has money and the left doesn't, natch, obviously. Why do you think Sowell switched ? Hey , on an old thread, I haven't seen you since Enron. What to you think about bookcooking on Wall Street,now ?
query: teaching undergrad micro?
No doubt this question has been asked before. Is there a FAQ? Anyway, here goes. This Fall I am teaching freshman undergrad micro at the University of Illinois-Urbana. I have not taught this course before. After some consultation with various folks, I have ordered Stiglitz' text, and also Hahnel's (ABC's of Political Economy,) intending to use the second as a supplement to the first. After I committed, I think I saw on the heterodox econ web site that there is a text forthcoming associated with Weisskopf, but my impression is that it is not out in the world yet. Anyway, I would be happy to get any advice that anyone has to offer, including any syllabus that anyone wants to share, and any ideas for fun special projects/topics, etc. The set-up for this class is a bit alternative, it's in a dorm in a program that was set up as a result of student protests in the 70s, so I have a little bit of leeway. - Robert Naiman
Re: Interim Results Are In
sartesian wrote: I am not so foolish to think that those arguing for stabilization under US occupation will, having read this report, change their view, but I think it would be nice for them to explain the dismal reality in light of their previous arguments. I've just taken to ignoring leftists who quibble with the Out Now slogan on which all real opposition to U.S. aggression has to be based. Most of them will come back to their senses as the chaos in Iraq grows worse and worse and as the anti-war movement grows. It's pointless to argue with them now. Carrol
Re: query: teaching undergrad micro?
The book is by Goodwin, Nelson, Ackerman, and Weisskopf and its title is MICROECONOMICS IN CONTEXT. Its focus is to not just give the standard neoclassical stuff but also alternative theories. It's not radical like Hahnel. Rather, it's more sophisticated than the standard textbook. Thus it tells the student about MR=MC -- and then about situations where marginal decision-making doesn't work. jd -Original Message- From: PEN-L list on behalf of Robert Naiman Sent: Wed 6/30/2004 8:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: [PEN-L] query: teaching undergrad micro? No doubt this question has been asked before. Is there a FAQ? Anyway, here goes. This Fall I am teaching freshman undergrad micro at the University of Illinois-Urbana. I have not taught this course before. After some consultation with various folks, I have ordered Stiglitz' text, and also Hahnel's (ABC's of Political Economy,) intending to use the second as a supplement to the first. After I committed, I think I saw on the heterodox econ web site that there is a text forthcoming associated with Weisskopf, but my impression is that it is not out in the world yet. Anyway, I would be happy to get any advice that anyone has to offer, including any syllabus that anyone wants to share, and any ideas for fun special projects/topics, etc. The set-up for this class is a bit alternative, it's in a dorm in a program that was set up as a result of student protests in the 70s, so I have a little bit of leeway. - Robert Naiman
Re: the Democratic Leadership Council wing of the Green party
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/30/04 9:34 AM American Prospect No Tie -- Cobb! The true story of how a man you've barely heard of beat Ralph Nader for the Green Party nomination. By Garance Franke-Ruta Web Exclusive: 06.28.04 Make no mistake: Had Nader chosen to fight for it over the past year, he could have easily walked away with the Green Party nomination on Saturday. Into the political vacuum left by Nader's arms-length campaigning jumped Cobb, running on a platform of support for state parties and local candidates. For a party that draws heavily from the ranks of the alienated and disaffected -- people who already feel ignored by politicians -- Nader's decisions to eschew Green membership, not participate in the presidential-primary process, and avoid the Milwaukee convention were decisive. Nader, perhaps thinking himself a sure thing, or so outsize a figure that a fair fight would require him to tie one hand behind his back, failed to mount a campaign sufficient to win. In short, though the Greens may be way outside the mainstream of American political opinion, in the end the same laws of politics that govern the two major parties held: In order to win, it helps to outfox the other guy -- and to fight hard. maybe there is place for poli sci people after all, many could have written above article beforehand... i posted comments yesterday about why electoral campaigns are not good vehicles for building mass movements, above article reflects those remarks... have never understood green party's desire for nader, he stiffed them in 96 by refusing to campaign, his 'party of person' campaign in 2000 failed to reach 5% minimum in votes to qualify greens for matching funds in 04... of course, he's a non (even anti) party guy and always has been, a 'common cause' type, he's never been a member of green party, his prez campaigns have not been about building a green party... i'm not big green party fan myself, prefer politics of class to that of inequality (latter gives no sense of belonging to group that can take collective action, individuals are 'unequal'), but rejection of nader is 'good thing' if party is to have legs as 'party of idea'... michael hoover
Re: FW: Redneck Awards
Hi Michael, Sorry about that. Just thought I would share. I'll not do it again. Hope you are well. Jim -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Perelman Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 7:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] FW: Redneck Awards Jim, please don't send pictures to the list. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: FW: Redneck Awards
boy are they politically incorrect, though! jd -Original Message- From: PEN-L list on behalf of Craven, Jim Sent: Wed 6/30/2004 9:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: [PEN-L] FW: Redneck Awards Hi Michael, Sorry about that. Just thought I would share. I'll not do it again. Hope you are well. Jim -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Perelman Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 7:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] FW: Redneck Awards Jim, please don't send pictures to the list. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Thomas Sowell
As a Lefty myself, I have never really thought very much about whether Sowell and Thomas really believe what they say or not. My criticism of them is not based on their insincerety , but on the atrocious content of their political positions in general and on racism in particular. As a Black person, for me there is an added factor that they are anti-Black racists, which adds an element of their being a type of traitor. When I say racists , I mean objectively speaking. Their subjective mindset that conservative policies are good for Black people (and their sincerety or lack thereof) is a minor issue. It doesn't much matter that they really believe something that is false. The objective impact of their actions is to bolster and preserve racism. Charles ^^^ by Michael Perelman David makes a good point, but with so much money and so many resources flowing to amenable conservatives, careerism is a legitimate suspicion. To raise such a suspicion is not to deny that conservatives are real people. I do not mean to imply that careerism is a part of most conservatives mindset, but the suspicion does seem legitimate for the movement conservatives, such as Sowell. On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 06:26:09PM -0700, David B. Shemano wrote: To the extent this has any relevancy, I do not think this applies to Sowell and certainly does not apply to Thomas. Again, this highlights the very point repeatedly raised by Sowell and Thomas -- the refusal of Lefties to treat them as real people with their own mind who believe what they say based upon honest reflection. David Shemano
Naomi Klein on Iraq Reconstruction
Time to hear from a left hack, radical chic jab from the left... Cheers, Ken Hanly www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15ItemID=5786 ZNet | Iraq June 26, 2004 The Robbery of Reconstruction by Naomi Klein Good news out of Baghdad: the Program Management Office, which oversees the $18.4bn in US reconstruction funds, has finally set a goal it can meet. Sure, electricity is below pre-war levels, the streets are rivers of sewage and more Iraqis have been fired than hired. But now the PMO has contracted the British mercenary firm Aegis to protect its employees from assassination, kidnapping, injury and - get this - embarrassment. I don't know if Aegis will succeed in protecting PMO employees from violent attack, but embarrassment? I'd say mission already accomplished. The people in charge of rebuilding Iraq can't be embarrassed, because, clearly, they have no shame. In the run-up to the June 30 underhand (sorry, I can't bring myself to call it a handover), US occupation powers have been unabashed in their efforts to steal money that is supposed to aid a war-ravaged people. The state department has taken $184m earmarked for drinking water projects and moved it to the budget for the lavish new US embassy in Saddam Hussein's former palace. Short of $1bn for the embassy, Richard Armitage, the deputy secretary of state, said he might have to rob from Peter in my fiefdom to pay Paul. In fact, he is robbing Iraq's people, who, according to a recent study by the consumer group Public Citizen, are facing massive outbreaks of cholera, diarrhoea, nausea and kidney stones from drinking contaminated water. If the occupation chief Paul Bremer and his staff were capable of embarrassment, they might be a little sheepish about having spent only $3.2bn of the $18.4bn Congress allotted - the reason the reconstruction is so disastrously behind schedule. At first, Bremer said the money would be spent by the time Iraq was sovereign, but apparently someone had a better idea: parcel it out over five years so Ambassador John Negroponte can use it as leverage. With $15bn outstanding, how likely are Iraq's politicians to refuse US demands for military bases and economic reforms? Unwilling to let go of their own money, the shameless ones have had no qualms about dipping into funds belonging to Iraqis. After losing the fight to keep control of Iraq's oil money after the underhand, occupation authorities grabbed $2.5bn of those revenues and are now spending the money on projects that are supposedly already covered by American tax dollars. But then, if financial scandals made you blush, the entire reconstruction of Iraq would be pretty mortifying. From the start, its architects rejected the idea that it should be a New Deal-style public works project for Iraqis to reclaim their country. Instead, it was treated as an ideological experiment in privatisation. The dream was for multinational firms, mostly from the US, to swoop in and dazzle the Iraqis with their speed and efficiency. Iraqis saw something else: desperately needed jobs going to Americans, Europeans and south Asians; roads crowded with trucks shipping in supplies produced in foreign plants, while Iraqi factories were not even supplied with emergency generators. As a result, the reconstruction was seen not as a recovery from war but as an extension of the occupation, a foreign invasion of a different sort. And so, as the resistance grew, the reconstruction itself became a prime target. The contractors have responded by behaving even more like an invading army, building elaborate fortresses in the green zone - the walled-in city within a city that houses the occupation authority in Baghdad - and surrounding themselves with mercenaries. And being hated is expensive. According to the latest estimates, security costs are eating up 25% of reconstruction contracts - money not being spent on hospitals, water-treatment plants or telephone exchanges. Meanwhile, insurance brokers selling sudden-death policies to contractors in Iraq have doubled their premiums, with insurance costs reaching 30% of payroll. That means many companies are spending half their budgets arming and insuring themselves against the people they are supposedly in Iraq to help. And, according to Charles Adwan of Transparency International, quoted on US National Public Radio's Marketplace programme, at least 20% of US spending in Iraq is lost to corruption. How much is actually left over for reconstruction? Don't do the maths. Rather than models of speed and efficiency, the contractors look more like overcharging, underperforming, lumbering beasts, barely able to move for fear of the hatred they have helped generate. The problem goes well beyond the latest reports of Halliburton drivers abandoning $85,000 trucks on the road because they don't carry spare tyres. Private contractors are also accused of playing leadership roles in the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. A landmark class-action lawsuit
Clarence Thomas Porno
for what it's worth... noticed that thomas voted with supreme court majority yesterday in opposition to federal law re. pornography children, his very first dissent from conservative bloc on court was in case involving porno (whether feds had entrapped some guy to purchase some stuff through mail), thomas rarely asks questions during court hearings no matter case issues and has little written record, but these votes (and several) others suggest that claims of his proclivity for porn may have merit... michael hoover
Reply to a realo Green
In his ongoing capacity as chief ideologist of the Demogreen/Realo faction of the US Green Party, Ted Glick has an article on the Zmag website that talks about every aspect of the recently concluded Green Party convention except the politics. I will try to draw this out with bracketed comments on selected passages from his piece. You can read the entire article at: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=33ItemID=5792 Before donning my hip-boots and wading into this muck, I want to make a general observation about the discourse of the Demogreens. It has been a very long time since I have come across such disingenuous prose marked by fuzziness and Pecksniffian self-righteousness. I wonder if this is the heritage of the CPUSA in the USA. This kind of talking out of both sides of one's mouth was perfected by the party. Have veterans of the 1960s generation who have followed a more cautious path after the excesses of their youth been studying the speeches of Gus Hall? I really wonder. Let's take a look at what he has to say: Green and Growing by Ted Glick June 28, 2004 The three main positions going into Milwaukee were to neither nominate nor endorse anyone, to nominate former GPUS general counsel David Cobb, or to nominate no one and then endorse Ralph Nader. A variant of the pro-Nader position, one pushed by California GP leader Peter Camejo, called for no nomination and then an endorsement of both Cobb and Nader. [These were not the positions at all. The positions were over whether the Green Party would be an auxiliary to the Democratic Party or an independent and radical electoral formation opposed to both parties that Malcolm X called the wolf and the fox. The Cobb delegates were pro-fox.] Convention week was begun on Monday with a huge announcement by Nader that he was choosing Camejo to be his Vice Presidential candidate. Score one for the pro-Nader forces. [Score one for the pro-Nader forces? Politics as a horse race. I never thought I'd see the day that radicals would use formulations from Sunday morning television.] Two days later Medea Benjamin, like Camejo a California Green Party leader, issued a statement headlined, Want to Get Rid of Bush and Grow the Greens? Support David Cobb. Touche. [Grow the Greens? Why does this formulation disturb me so much? I guess it is because it comes out of the corporate/consulting world. I remember first hearing it on Wall Street in the 1980s. They used to say that they wanted to grow the firm or grow the client base. It was a term that was ubiquitous to board meetings and the business press. Eventually it seeped into the nonprofit world as on-the-go executive directors would make presentations about the need to grow the base or grow the movement. It is basically a marketing concept and particularly suited to the kind of hustle that Medea Benjamin is involved with, a tourist agency for the Birkenstock-wearing, NPR-listening well-heeled professional who wants to see what it's really like in Haiti or Brazil. And while they're there, they can pick up some tasteful trinkets.] Significantly, there were no physical altercations or, as far as I am aware, even any nasty emotional outbursts between those on the respective sides, while there was a great deal of reasoned discussion, as well as robust, vigorous and competitive debate. [Don't forget that Cobb charged Nader for taking money from white racists. Nader is too much of a gentleman to respond to that kind of gutter attack.] Camejo and Cobb, as the two main protagonists, were both on their game. Both came across as articulate and passionate in support of their positions. Toward the end of the forum/debate, things got heated as Camejo accused Cobb of being a supporter of John Kerry and Cobb countered by articulating what he has been calling a smart growth strategy which prioritizes building the Green Party while also running a campaign which helps to get Bush out of office. [Smart growth? Ugh. Puke. Retch. When I read this kind of Utne Reader pap, it makes me want to go running as fast as I can to read Rosa Luxemberg's The Junius Pamphlet: Violated, dishonored, wading in blood, dripping filth - there stands bourgeois society. This is it [in reality]. Not all spic and span and moral, with pretense to culture, philosophy, ethics, order, peace, and the rule of law - but the ravening beast, the witches' sabbath of anarchy, a plague to culture and humanity. Thus it reveals itself in its true, its naked form.] Friday morning began with the Cobb campaign distributing a statement they called, The True Position of the Cobb/LaMarche Campaign on the Iraq War: End the Occupation, Bring the U.S. Troops Home Now. The statement quoted from press releases issued in April and May and posted on the votecobb.org website, while also criticizing Camejo for misrepresent(ing) the position of the Cobb/LaMarche Campaign on the Iraq war at the Thursday evening debate. [He must have changed his mind under pressure from Green Party
Pat LaMarche as student of Earl Browder
Not an hour after comparing Ted Glick to Gus Hall, I discover that David Cobb's running mate is open to voting for John Kerry: LaMarche Says She'll Vote for Whoever Can Beat Bush by Joshua L Weinstein AUGUSTA Pat LaMarche, the Green Party's newly nominated candidate for vice president, said Tuesday that her top priority is not winning the White House for her party, but ensuring that President Bush is defeated. She is, in fact, so determined to see Bush lose that she would not commit to voting for herself and her running mate, Texas lawyer David Cobb. LaMarche, who won 7 percent of the vote when she was the Green Independent candidate for governor of Maine in 1998, said she'll vote for whoever has the best chance of beating Bush. But if Bush has got 11 percent of the vote in Maine come November 2, I can vote for whoever I want, she said in an interview with the Portland Press Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram. And if the state is, as it is now, a toss-up between Bush and presumptive Democratic candidate Sen. John Kerry? She could well vote for the Democrat. I love my country, she said. Maybe we should ask them that, because if (Vice President) Dick Cheney loved his country, he wouldn't be voting for himself. A spokesman for the Bush-Cheney campaign said the vice president is certain to vote for his and Bush's re-election. Larry Sabato, a political scientist who directs the University of Virginia Center for Politics, said, It's a rare thing, even for a splinter party, to have a nominee for vice president indicate she is not sure for whom she is going to vote. === Actually, there is a precedent for this sort of sleight-of-hand. In his autobiography, CP leader Steve Nelson explained how the party perfected the tactic now being employed by the Demogreens: The fact that the Party [CP] continued to run its own candidates during the early New Deal may give the wrong impression of our attitude toward the Democratic Party. We supported pro-New Deal candidates and ran our own people largely for propaganda purposes Earl Browders campaign that same year [1936] demonstrates how we ran our own candidates but still supported the New Deal. His motto and the whole tone of his campaign was 'Defeat Landon [the Republican] at All Costs.' In this way he sought to give critical support to FDR. We wanted to work with the liberal wing of the Democratic Party and to achieve a certain amount of legitimacy as a party of the Left. We held a rally for Browder in the Wilkes-Barre [Pennsylvania] armory, which held over three thousand people, and the place was jammed. Many in the audience were rank and file Democrats. We didnt get their votes on election day, but thats not what counted to us. They were coming to recognize us as friends. For years there had been essentially no difference between Democrats and Republicans: both had represented the interests of the coal companies. Now there was a feeling that Roosevelt was doing something to relieve the problem of unemployment, and that signified a real change. People identified with the government as basically pro-labor. We had no illusions. The Democrats were still a capitalist party, but they were an alternative to the Republicans and were delivering the Wagner Act, Social Security, unemployment insurance, public works, and other badly needed reforms. Steve Nelson: American Radical -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Curriculum vitae of Green Party vp candidate
From David Cobb's website: In the years since Holland, LaMarche has been employed at a radio station in Maine's capital under the pseudonym Genny Judge, which she borrowed from her late mother. Genny Judge is known throughout central Maine as an altruist in the truest sense of the term. She has found kidneys for dying children, raised money for poverty-stricken youth, and helped to garner support for the relief crew after September 11, all the while voicing her concerns for and opinions of the state of affairs in the community, state, nation, and world at large. === Saturday, September 13, 2003 Salvation Army plans fund-raising dinner By AMY CALDER, Staff Writer Copyright 2003 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc. WATERVILLE The local Salvation Army will kick off one of its largest annual fund-raisers Thursday night with a civic dinner, auctions and special awards ceremony at John Martin's Manor. The event, called Broadway Comes to Waterville also will feature a performance by Carol Jaudes, who starred in the long-running Broadway musical, Cats. We really want as many people as we can get there, said Sue Cottle, a member of the Salvation Army's Advisory Board. Waterville has been very generous to us and this is an evening in which we'd like to honor everybody. Genny Judge of 98.5 radio is honorary chairman of the dinner and will emcee the evening, according to Cottle. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
tractor terrorist
The farmer who scared Washington, DC just got his sentence reduced to 18 months. He was a farmer who was down and out, not a real threat to society. Even so, can you imagine what would happen to an anti-Bush protester -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Thomas Sowell
Daniel Davies writes: David, I cannot help noticing that you have written close to 1000 words about what a fantastic chap Thomas Sowell is, and not a single word about the actual (IMO lousy) boilerplate free trade hackwork that was forwarded to the list. This also, is a form of argumentum ad hominem. The article cited was straightforward op-ed defense of free trade written for a general audience. To detemine that Sowell is a hack based upon an op-ed column for a general audience is silly. Furthermore, looking back at Devine's criticism, he agrees with 2 of the points and takes issue with 6 others in short declarative sentences that are unsupported by any evidence and fail to address easy rebuttals or even the complexities of the issue. Therefore, since Sowell is a hack because of the superficial nature of his op-ed, then Devine is a hack because of the superficial nature of his criticsm. David Shemano
Re: Thomas Sowell
Jim Devine writes: Also, I don't know if Sowell is a careerist or not. I also wasn't saying that conservatives are wrong, though that's true. (Thanks for bringing that issue up!) They often don't believe in their own rhetoric. The leaders, such as Karl Rove, are quite cynical. On the other hand, many of the rank and file _do_ believe the rhetoric. A lot of it is so abstract that almost anyone can believe it. As with most ideologies, there are contradictory elements (i.e., the combination of lip-service both to libertarianism and traditionalism). Of course, then there's the issue of what a _true_ conservative is. I'll let David define that. A true conservative is somebody who agrees with me. That was easy. David Shemano
Re: Thomas Sowell
I'm always glad to be a hack from your perspective, David. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David B. Shemano Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 2:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Thomas Sowell Daniel Davies writes: David, I cannot help noticing that you have written close to 1000 words about what a fantastic chap Thomas Sowell is, and not a single word about the actual (IMO lousy) boilerplate free trade hackwork that was forwarded to the list. This also, is a form of argumentum ad hominem. The article cited was straightforward op-ed defense of free trade written for a general audience. To detemine that Sowell is a hack based upon an op-ed column for a general audience is silly. Furthermore, looking back at Devine's criticism, he agrees with 2 of the points and takes issue with 6 others in short declarative sentences that are unsupported by any evidence and fail to address easy rebuttals or even the complexities of the issue. Therefore, since Sowell is a hack because of the superficial nature of his op-ed, then Devine is a hack because of the superficial nature of his criticsm. David Shemano
Re: Thomas Sowell
I wrote: I'll let David define [conservative]. David Shemano answers: A true conservative is somebody who agrees with me. That was easy. the Wikipedia has an interesting article on conservatism at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative. Here's the introduction: Conservatism or political conservatism can refer to any of several historically related political philosophies or political ideologies. There are also a number of Conservative political parties in various countries. All of these are primarily (though not necessarily exclusively) identified with the political right. Among the significant usages of the term conservatism are: 1. Institutional conservatism or conservatism proper - Opposition to rapid change in governmental and societal institutions. Some might criticize this kind of conservatism by saying that it is anti-ideological for emphasizing tradition over ideology. 2. Social conservatism or values conservatism - A defense of traditional values, especially religious and nationalistic values and traditional social norms. See also communitarianism. 3. Fiscal conservatism - Opposition to, or at least strong scepticism about, government debt, excessive government spending, and taxation. See classic liberalism. ... 4. Business conservatism - Support for business and corporate interests (or, as those on the left would typically say, the capitalist class). See also neoliberalism, laissez-faire, trickle-down economics. 5. Conservative as a mere synonym for right-wing. 6. Compassionate conservatism - George W. Bush's self-declared governing philosophy. jd
Re: Thomas Sowell
Charles Brown writes: The answer , in general, is right where it seems to be. With very rare exceptions (if Moore is really one), the right , not the left will get gigs like Sowell's because of the right has money and the left doesn't, natch, obviously. Why do you think Sowell switched ? Sowell wrote an autobiography entitled A Personal Odyssey. Give it a read. It's been several years since I read it and don't remember the specifics. What I do remember, and it is hugely relevant, is that Sowell is am admittedly very ornery guy who never gave a flying fig to what other people thought, which is why I respect him so much. My guess is he thought Marxism was true, and then he decided that it wasn't true. David Shemano
Re: Thomas Sowell
I think that someone's move from left to right on the political spectrum varies a lot among individuals. Sometimes, a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged (to quote the cliché). On a larger scale, a lot of people have shifted right simply because the leftist mass movement has atomized due to political disappointment, government subversion (e.g., Cointelpro against the new left of the 1960s), and sometimes superficial victories (e.g., Nixon's (temporary) abolition of the draft). Sometimes leftist sectarianism, itself a sign of the movement's decline, contributes to the process (as when some jerk criticizes a doubter as being a class traitor or whatever). Economic incentives help the rightward move, since most of capitalism rewards obedience to the system and the like. Those who publicly break with their old views and espouse establishmentarian ones (e.g., the god that failed crowd) often get big rewards (e.g., CIA subsidies for their journals). These, of course, make it hard to go back. (As usual, the words right and left are not used rigorously.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine - From: Michael Perelman Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 8:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Thomas Sowell David makes a good point, but with so much money and so many resources flowing to amenable conservatives, careerism is a legitimate suspicion. To raise such a suspicion is not to deny that conservatives are real people. I do not mean to imply that careerism is a part of most conservatives mindset, but the suspicion does seem legitimate for the movement conservatives, such as Sowell. On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 06:26:09PM -0700, David B. Shemano wrote: To the extent this has any relevancy, I do not think this applies to Sowell and certainly does not apply to Thomas. Again, this highlights the very point repeatedly raised by Sowell and Thomas -- the refusal of Lefties to treat them as real people with their own mind who believe what they say based upon honest reflection. David Shemano Larry Shute Economics Cal Poly Pomona -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Enron
Charles Brown writes: Hey , on an old thread, I haven't seen you since Enron. What to you think about bookcooking on Wall Street,now ? What do I think about it? I am against it. Look, fraud is illegal in a capitalist economy. There is a certain percentage of the population that is going to try and bend the rules to take advantage. I am sure that would never occur in a socialist economy. David Shemano
Same Donkey, Different Saddle
Same Donkey, Different Saddle (the title comes from an Iraqi proverb that perfectly describes not only the transfer of sovereignty in Iraq but also US and UK politics at home): http://montages.blogspot.com/2004/06/same-donkey-different-saddle.html
Re: Enron
Charles Brown writes: Hey , on an old thread, I haven't seen you since Enron. What to you think about bookcooking on Wall Street,now ? David Shemano writes: What do I think about it? I am against it. Look, fraud is illegal in a capitalist economy. There is a certain percentage of the population that is going to try and bend the rules to take advantage. I am sure that would never occur in a socialist economy. David Shemano Response Jim C: On what planet and under what system has this person been living? The vast majority of real fraud under capitalism is quite legal. Capitalism is basically legalized fraud and theft. The problem is not so much that the capitalists break the laws, although they do that too, the real problem is that they write the laws so they don't have to. Once in awhile, even the laws they write so loosely as to facilitate all kinds of real fraud, theft etc are still too confining; then they get caught and individual capitalists may be sacrificed with a small slap on the wrists, to preserve the essential illusions and social capital of the whole system--from which even the slapped-on-the-wrist capitalists also benefit in the long run. Fraud is illegal under capitalism only in the case of certain blatant and narrow definitions of fraud and only when certain elements do it. Of course fraud occurs in socialist economies since socialism is a protracted transitional process (not an end-state) and of course capitalist weeds (practices, ideas, values, institutions, power relations--and yes, apologists) survive for long periods of time--hoping to return to the old order that allowed them and their privileges to flourish so well. Get real please. Jim C.
bush vent
Title: bush vent A good site for venting. http://www.spankbush.com/index.asp?ref=593949
Re: Enron
While many of us might agree with Jim, we should address David more respectfully. On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 03:34:35PM -0700, Craven, Jim wrote: David Shemano writes: What do I think about it? I am against it. Look, fraud is illegal in a capitalist economy. There is a certain percentage of the population that is going to try and bend the rules to take advantage. I am sure that would never occur in a socialist economy. David Shemano Response Jim C: On what planet and under what system has this person been living? The vast majority of real fraud under capitalism is quite legal. Capitalism is basically legalized fraud and theft. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell June 29, 2004 /10 Tamuz, 5764 Excerpt "Just as an artificially high price for wheat set by the government leads to a chronic surplus of wheat, so an artificially high price for labor set by the government leads to a surplus of labor better known as unemployment. "Since all workers are not the same, this unemployment is concentrated among the less skilled and less experienced workers. Many of them are simply priced out of a job. "In the United States, for example, the highest unemployment rates are almost invariably among black teenagers. But this was not always the case. "Although the federal minimum wage law was passed in 1938, wartime inflation during the Second World War meant that the minimum wage law had no major effect until a new round of increases in the minimum wage level began in 1950. Unemployment rates among black teenagers before then were a fraction of what they are today and no higher than among white teenagers. The time is long overdue for schools of journalism to start teaching economics. It would eliminate much of the nonsense and hysteria in the media, and with it perhaps some of the demagoguery in politics. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell1.asp Without question Mr. Sowell is a highly educated and talented man .. . and also an outstanding propagandist. Many simply disagree with his point of view and the implied economic concepts and frameworks his expositionarebased upon. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a popular form of exposition that takes into accounthow the diverse people of America actually think things out. This art requires awareness of how people actually interact with one another and the real history of their ideas. I tend to steer clear of broad ideological categories called "left" and "right" . . . liberal and conservative, because in my personal experience these are not categories that express how people think out social questions and the issues of the day. For instance, ones attitude concerning abortion does not necessarily dictate or correspond to a fixed and predicable political pattern concerninghow one might respond to economic issues or losing ones pension for instance . . . or having the company renege on its pledge to pay ones medical benefits during retirement. Although, I generally and specifically disagree withMr. Sowell's inner logic about America - including gun control, and I am against gun control as the issue is currently framed in the public, what he does understand is the mood of the country and how people think things out. At any rate, he understands the mood of the audience he is writing to and for. Mr. Sowell is an outstanding leader . . . as is Colin Powell . . . and they carry the tag "black leaders" for reasons of our history. They exist and operate on a political continuum and I generally have nothing in common with these men. One can nevertheless learn an important lesson from Mr. Sowell's form of exposition, whose inner logic I radically disagree with. Melvin P.
Re: Enron
While many of us might agree with Jim, we should address David more respectfully. Response Jim C: I'm sorry, did I break some list protocol? This guy can make snotty passive/aggressive sarcasm (about fraud being not possible under socialism) and basically pimp a totally bullshit revisionist/myopic/mystified view of capitalism and fraud (a view that shelters/assumes away the real origins and nature of fraud under capitalism--system with so many victims) but I can't merely suggest that he please get real? Really. OK, from now on I'll be every so polite to these snotty passive/aggressive ideologues/polemicists no matter how snotty and passive/aggressive they get. Jim
Re: Enron
David is a conservative. He speaks English with a right wing dialect, but he does so with humor (not snottiness). We can disagree with him. I usually do, but we can still be polite. I don't see him as a red meat class warrior, but as a sincere [albeit misguided] conservative]. On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 05:14:47PM -0700, Craven, Jim wrote: While many of us might agree with Jim, we should address David more respectfully. Response Jim C: I'm sorry, did I break some list protocol? This guy can make snotty passive/aggressive sarcasm (about fraud being not possible under socialism) and basically pimp a totally bullshit revisionist/myopic/mystified view of capitalism and fraud (a view that shelters/assumes away the real origins and nature of fraud under capitalism--system with so many victims) but I can't merely suggest that he please get real? Really. OK, from now on I'll be every so polite to these snotty passive/aggressive ideologues/polemicists no matter how snotty and passive/aggressive they get. Jim -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Enron
David is a conservative. He speaks English with a right wing dialect, but he does so with humor (not snottiness). We can disagree with him. I usually do, but we can still be polite. I don't see him as a red meat class warrior, but as a sincere [albeit misguided] conservative]. Response: Jim C Got it Michael. As it is your list, and as I do respect you and your own work and views, I'll also respect your protocols on the list. Jim C
Bush endorses solar energy.
Well, sort of. http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,64021,00.html Solar to Keep Army on the Go By John Gartner 02:00 AM Jun. 29, 2004 PT During a battle, the ability to move troops swiftly and without detection can mean the difference between victory and defeat. The U.S. Army is developing tents and uniforms made from flexible solar panels to make it more difficult to track soldiers. Jean Hampel, project engineer in the Fabric Structures Group at the Army's Natick Soldier Systems Center, said the need to reduce the Army's logistics footprint spurred interest in developing lightweight solar panels. We want to cut back on the things that soldiers have to bring with them, including generators and personal battery packs, Hampel said. In modern warfare, portable power for communications technology is every bit as important as firepower and manpower. The Army is testing flexible solar panels developed by Iowa Thin Film Technologies that can be layered on top of a tent, or rolled up into a backpack to provide a portable power source. Tents using solar panels made from amorphous silicon thin film on plastic can provide up to 1 kilowatt of energy, which is sufficient to power fans, lights, radios or laptops, according to Hampel. Hampel said using solar tents would reduce the need for diesel powered generators and diminish the thermal signature that enemy sensors use to track troop location. She said soldiers could carry smaller flexible solar panels and unfold them during the day to collect energy to recharge their personal communications equipment. This would enable soldiers to lighten their loads of extra battery packs, which are sometimes left behind and reveal the soldiers' presence, according to Hampel. While Iowa Thin Film's PowerFilm products are ready for field use, the Army's type classification process, which enables them to be purchased in bulk, will require one to two years of additional testing. Iowa Thin Film's plastic-based products are an improvement over previous generations of solar panels that layer the panels onto less-flexible metal, company spokesman Mike Coon said. He said the amorphous silicon products are also cheaper to produce because the panel connectors that centralize the collected energy are laser-welded during the production process; standard photovoltaic panels must be individually connected. Coon said standard PV panels are uniform in size, but his company's products can be cut into modules of different sizes, which maximizes the efficiency of power collection. Coon said Iowa Thin Film custom-made the solar panel fabric that is layered onto tents for the Army and the smaller foldable panels became commercially available in late 2003. The PowerFilm products are currently more expensive than traditional solar panels, but Coon said improvements in the manufacturing process will enable them to be cost-competitive within two to five years. The Army's long-term vision is to have solar panels that can be camouflaged into tents or even uniforms, Hampel said. Her group is working with Konarka Technologies to develop nanotechnology-based solar panels that can be woven directly into fabric. Konarka's technology replaces silicon with dye polymer plastics that transform any kind of light into electrical energy. Using plastics as the basis for solar panels will result in a faster manufacturing process than silicon fabrication plants, said Russell Gaudiana, vice president of research and development at Konarka. Gaudiana likened the process to producing photographic film (he previously worked at Polaroid), and said the solar panels can be printed in any color. Our solar panels can be woven into any fabric, including tents, clothing or roofing material, he said. The technology would reduce the cost of installing solar panels on new buildings because they could be applied as part of the roof itself instead of as an additional step, according to Gaudiana. And instead of having a small solar panel on a handheld or notebook, the entire surface area could be used to recharge the batteries. Gaudiana said the technology is still in the research phase, and declined to give a timetable of its availability. It would likely be cost-competitive with other technologies initially and would be cheaper when it is mass-produced. Solar energy consultant Paul Maycock of PV Energy Systems said the Army has been interested in flexible solar cells for about 10 years. It's very important that we have reliable portable electricity for telecommunication-based military, Maycock said. Companies have been producing solar panels using amorphous silicon on steel for several years, but several failed because they could not advance the technology quickly enough to keep up with rigid photovoltaic systems, Maycock said. He said the Army has continued to fund development of the technology because the materials to date have been too heavy and not cost-efficient. The technology has thousands of applications
The Green Party's Political Suicide
The Green Party's Political Suicide (The Green Party vice presidential candidate Pat LaMarche announced to the press that she would not commit to voting for herself and her running mate, Texas lawyer David Cobb!!!): http://montages.blogspot.com/2004/06/green-partys-political-suicide.html Yoshie
Re: The presidential election and the Supreme Court
You are right. Bush claims that Congress gave him the power, but in reality Congress was not empowered according to the Constitution to adbicate that right. On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 09:13:31AM +0200, Gassler Robert wrote: I thought only Congress can declare war. It's in the Constitution. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: The presidential election and the Supreme Court
I seem to remember from university days that the power of Congress to decide whether or not the USA is at war or not, is one that has repeatedly been ignored by successive US Presidents to the point where it is more or less universally regarded as part of the dignified apparatus of the US constitution rather than the efficient part. Though I also seem to remember failing that part of the course, so I may be wrong. dd -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Michael Perelman Sent: 01 July 2004 02:02 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The presidential election and the Supreme Court You are right. Bush claims that Congress gave him the power, but in reality Congress was not empowered according to the Constitution to adbicate that right. On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 09:13:31AM +0200, Gassler Robert wrote: I thought only Congress can declare war. It's in the Constitution. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
bushites and nader
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/30/bush.nader/index.html Bush allies illegally helping Nader in Oregon Complaint filed with Federal Election Commission Wednesday, June 30, 2004 Posted: 8:19 PM EDT (0019 GMT) America Votes 2004 WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Efforts by two conservative groups to help President Bush by getting independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader on the ballot in the key battleground state of Oregon prompted a complaint to the Federal Election Commission Wednesday by a liberal watchdog group. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) said phone banks encouraging Bush supporters to attend a Nader nominating convention last Saturday amounted to an illegal in-kind contribution to the Nader campaign by the Oregon Family Council and Oregon Citizens for a Sound Economy. Bush's re-election campaign and the Oregon Republican Party were also named in the complaint for allegedly participating in the effort. The complaint alleges the groups worked together to promote Nader and siphon potential votes away from Sen. John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW, said the two groups, though non-profit, are still considered corporations, and corporations are strictly prohibited from making contributions to political campaigns. While the Bush campaign had no immediate comment, Nader spokesman Kevin Zeese called the allegations absolute nonsense. We didn't work with any Republican groups or any corporations or non-profits trying to get people to come to our event, Zeese said. We reached out to our constituency and got our people out there. To get on the ballot, the Nader campaign has to get the signatures of 1,000 registered voters in one day or submit 15,000 signatures statewide. On Saturday, Nader supporters held a convention in Portland to try to get the necessary signatures. While more than 1,100 people attended, the signatures are still being verified, so it is unclear if the effort was successful. Whether Nader gets on the ballot in Oregon could be critical in deciding which candidate carries the state and its seven electoral votes. In 2000, Democrat Al Gore beat Bush by less than 7,000 votes in the state. Published polls show Bush running neck-and-neck with Kerry, with Nader drawing 3 percent to 5 percent of the vote. The Oregon Family Council is a conservative Christian group that opposes same-sex marriage and abortion rights. Oregon Citizens for a Sound Economy is the state chapter of a national anti-tax group headed by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey. Both groups openly admit they urged supporters to show up at the Nader event. We called about 1,000 folks in the Portland area and said this would be an opportunity to show up to provide clarity in the presidential debate, said Matt Kibbe, president of CSE, who denied the the calls were coordinated with either the Bush or the Nader campaigns. Kibbe said Nader forces John Kerry to explain where he is on things.'' In its complaint, CREW also charged that the state GOP encouraged the Oregon Family Council to make the phone calls, which it said amounted to illegally conspiring with an outside group to evade a ban on state parties using soft money to send out public communications. What the Oregon Republican Party could not do directly, it could not do indirectly, the complaint said. CREW also cited comments by Bush spokesman Steve Schmidt that campaign volunteers, though not paid staffers, may have made phone calls from the campaign's office. The costs of those calls, including the preparation of phone lists and scripts, should have been reported to the FEC as an in-kind contribution from the Bush campaign to Nader, which would be illegal if it amounted to more than $5,000, the complaint said. Sloan also told CNN that she is convinced the phone banks were coordinated between the Bush campaign, the Oregon GOP and the two groups, saying it can't be a coincidence ... that they're all making the same phone calls at the same time. However, she said it is unclear whether the Nader campaign was involved. If Ralph Nader gets on the ballot, he would pull thousands of liberal votes that would otherwise go to Kerry and perhaps cause President Bush to lose the election, read one script for the phone campaign, which CREW cited in its complaint. CREW has previously filed complaints against both the Nader and Bush campaigns, alleging illegal assistance from tax-exempt corporations. Zeese, noting that the group has never moved against a Democrat, called it a partisan organization, and he accused Democrats of trying to interfere with the Nader signature drive. Democrats have been trying to persuade Nader supporters not to back his independent bid this year, arguing that it will help Bush by dividing the liberal vote in closely fought states.
Re: bushites and nader
Dan Scanlan wrote: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/30/bush.nader/index.html Bush allies illegally helping Nader in Oregon Complaint filed with Federal Election Commission Wednesday, June 30, 2004 Posted: 8:19 PM EDT (0019 GMT) America Votes 2004 WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Efforts by two conservative groups to help President Bush by getting independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader on the ballot in the key battleground state of Oregon prompted a complaint to the Federal Election Commission Wednesday by a liberal watchdog group. That's nothing in comparison to Gore inspiring more than 200,000 registered Democrats in Florida to crossover and vote for George W. Bush in the last election. The Democrats should not worry about the tiny number of Democrats who vote for Nader. They should try to figure out how to get Democrats to stop voting in massive numbers for Republicans. -- Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
election concern
Title: election concern Voting official seeks process for canceling Election Day over terrorism Friday, June 25, 2004 BY ERICA WERNER ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON - The government needs to establish guidelines for canceling or rescheduling elections if terrorists strike the United States again, says the chairman of a new federal voting commission. Such guidelines do not currently exist, said DeForest B. Soaries, head of the voting panel. Soaries was appointed to the federal Election Assistance Commission last year by President Bush. Soaries said he wrote to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge in April to raise the concerns. ``I am still awaiting their response,'' he said. ``Thus far we have not begun any meaningful discussion.'' Spokesmen for Rice and Ridge did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Soaries noted that Sept. 11, 2001, fell on Election Day in New York City - and he said officials there had no rules to follow in making the decision to cancel the election and hold it later. Events in Spain, where a terrorist attack shortly before the March election possibly influenced its outcome, show the need for a process to deal with terrorists threatening or interrupting the Nov. 2 presidential election in America, he said. ``Look at the possibilities. If the federal government were to cancel an election or suspend an election, it has tremendous political implications. If the federal government chose not to suspend an election it has political implications,'' said Soaries, a Republican and former secretary of state of New Jersey. ``Who makes the call, under what circumstances is the call made, what are the constitutional implications?'' he said. ``I think we have to err on the side of transparency to protect the voting rights of the country.'' Soaries said his bipartisan, four-member commission might make a recommendation to Congress about setting up guidelies. ``I'm hopeful that there are some proposals already being floated. If there are, we're not aware of them. If there are not, we will probably try to put one on the table,'' he said. Soaries also said he's met with a former New York state elections director to discuss how officials there handled the Sept. 11 attacks from the perspective of election administration. He said the commission is getting information from New York documenting the process used there. ``The states control elections, but on the national scale where every state has its own election laws and its own election chief, who's in charge?'' he said. Soaries also said he wants to know what federal officials are doing to increase security on Election Day. He said security officials must take care not to allow heightened security measures to intimidate minority voters, but that local and state election officials he's talked to have not been told what measures to expect. ``There's got to be communication,'' he said, ``between law enforcement and election officials in preparation for November.'' http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews/pm20449_20040625.htm
Re: bushites and nader
Louis wrote... That's nothing in comparison to Gore inspiring more than 200,000 registered Democrats in Florida to crossover and vote for George W. Bush in the last election. The Democrats should not worry about the tiny number of Democrats who vote for Nader. They should try to figure out how to get Democrats to stop voting in massive numbers for Republicans. Bravo!
Re: Enron
In defense of David Shemano, Michael Perelman writes: David is a conservative. He speaks English with a right wing dialect, but he does so with humor (not snottiness). We can disagree with him. I usually do, but we can still be polite. I don't see him as a red meat class warrior, but as a sincere [albeit misguided] conservative]. As a I said when I first participated on this list so many years ago, I am here to learn, and believe learning results from dialectic argument. The argument that capitalism is legalized fraud and theft is a very interesting thesis which I would love to explore. (For instance, doesn't that statement, as a normative statement, assume the justness of private property, because if not, what is wrong with theft?). However, as Prof. Craven does not appear to suffer from any doubt, I doubt he would enjoy such an exchange with me. You can't please everybody. David Shemano
Re: Enron
We used to get conservatives here who came to convert us. All they did was to create irritation. David never has done that. Sometimes he tweaks us -- always in good humor. Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 As a I said when I first participated on this list so many years ago, I am here to learn, and believe learning results from dialectic argument. The argument that capitalism is legalized fraud and theft is a very interesting thesis which I would love to explore. (For instance, doesn't that statement, as a normative statement, assume the justness of private property, because if not, what is wrong with theft?). However, as Prof. Craven does not appear to suffer from any doubt, I doubt he would enjoy such an exchange with me. You can't please everybody. David Shemano
Re: the Democratic Leadership Council wing of the Green party
Michael Hoover wrote.. i posted comments yesterday about why electoral campaigns are not good vehicles for building mass movements, above article reflects those remarks... have never understood green party's desire for nader, he stiffed them in 96 by refusing to campaign, his 'party of person' campaign in 2000 failed to reach 5% minimum in votes to qualify greens for matching funds in 04... of course, he's a non (even anti) party guy and always has been, a 'common cause' type, he's never been a member of green party, his prez campaigns have not been about building a green party... Dan Scanlan writes As a longtime Green activist with both a long term view and a quick knee I have got to disagree. Nader's campaigns for President have been strategic for long term betterment. For 35 years he turned down pleas to run for president. He refused to do so because his work is in the trenches of government -- committee meetings, hearings, seminars, study groups, lobbying, the creation of legislation and the testing of it in courts. Only when American legislators were totally purchased by corporations and the doors to chambers of lawmaking were shut to the people did Nader agree to run for president. And then mainly to hammer away at the barricades erected against citizen participation in their own government. From this perspective, it becomes easier to see how Nader has used the electoral and party-building processes to work toward his ultimate goal of greater citizen participation in government. When he entered the race in 1996, the Green Party was in shambles. Actually, there were two competing factions of the Greens: The Greens/Green Party USA, non-profit organization; and numerous disconnected state and local Green party organizations who were intent on the electoral process. They fought all the time and it was very nasty, time consuming and downright boring. I hated the meetings. Not until Ralph Nader entered the race to carry the Green Party banner forward (there really wasn't a Green Party national political party per se at the time) did the chaotic green-feeling reservoirs of folks merge. Although several turf wars continued throughout the campaign -- I'm-greener-than-you-pissing-matches, actually -- numerous progressives rallied behind the voice of Nader. The 1996 campaign did not end the in-fighting of the green people. But after the election, delegates from 13 official state Green Parties (i.e., certified by the appropriate Secretaries of State) met at Middleburg VA at the farm estate where John F. Kennedy and his family lived while he was President, and created the Association of State Green Parties. Following the green tradition of finding consensus at meetings, the non-political faction was allowed to address the assembly after it voted to create the Association. (I was there as a non-voting delegate from California since the California Green Party had not yet achieved ballot status and I was one of the three people who wrote the draft mission statement for the Association founding.) The following day, Nader addressed the association and his main concern was that so much energy had gone into squabbling about stuff that didn't matter. He both congratulated the activists and chastised them for not focusing on the task, namely, getting more active in the actual machinery of government -- the hearings, the party storefronts, the lobbying for legislation, creating reports, etc. It is undeniable that when Nader, who refused to either join the Green Party or actively campaign or solicit funds but agreed to run for president as a Green Candidate, got through with the election and its immediate aftermath, people in the United States who had concern for the environment, who properly feared corporatism and who felt disenfranchised by government, actually had a place to go to do their work. Green Party activists were energized by the 1996 campaign. Since Nader did not campaign, we had to do it. At the Founding Convention of the ASGP there was table after table of homemade campaign materials -- buttons, brochures, hold-your-nose clothespins, bumper stickers (Bill and Bob Make Me Want to Ralph), posters, etc. It was a do-it-yourself campaign. It was coordinated entirely by volunteers by email. When Nader showed up on the floor at both the Democratic and Republican conventions the press pretty much ignored him. (Pacifica Radio interviewed him and I taped it, transcribed it and posted it on the Internet. Years later I took it down and immediately got an email from a high school kid who was researching the campaign and who wondered what had happened to it.) In the 2000 campaign, Nader nursed along the Green Party in another growth spurt. Although he still did not join the Green Party, he actively campaigned for its nomination and worked to get on the ballot in all 50 states. He knew he could not win. That is a given, perhaps even today. But the thrust of his campaign was to increase the awareness of the corrupting
gabriel kolko
Does anybody on the list know how to contact him? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Enron
Horseshit. Capitalism is not legalized fraud and theft. Capital is the expropriation of labor through its force organization as wage-labor. Such compelled organization entails the social immiseration of the overwhelming majority of the world's population. Property is not theft. It's class relations. What is it you want to learn? How capitalism required the overthrow of Allende? How the Chicago Boys' theory of economic freedom required dirty wars to make it real?You want to explore something? Explore the decline in living standards during the restoration of capitalism in Russia. Explore the lost decade in Latin America. Property isn't theft. But flacks are flacks. They should be called what they are. Jim C. called it right. He shouldn't have backed down. - Original Message - From: David B. Shemano [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 6:48 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Enron In defense of David Shemano, Michael Perelman writes: David is a conservative. He speaks English with a right wing dialect, but he does so with humor (not snottiness). We can disagree with him. I usually do, but we can still be polite. I don't see him as a red meat class warrior, but as a sincere [albeit misguided] conservative]. As a I said when I first participated on this list so many years ago, I am here to learn, and believe learning results from dialectic argument. The argument that capitalism is legalized fraud and theft is a very interesting thesis which I would love to explore. (For instance, doesn't that statement, as a normative statement, assume the justness of private property, because if not, what is wrong with theft?). However, as Prof. Craven does not appear to suffer from any doubt, I doubt he would enjoy such an exchange with me. You can't please everybody. David Shemano
Re: Enron
David, if you want to play here, you can't behave like that! On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 11:21:54PM -0700, sartesian wrote: Horseshit. Capitalism is not legalized fraud and theft. Capital is the expropriation of labor through its force organization as wage-labor. Such compelled organization entails the social immiseration of the overwhelming majority of the world's population. Property is not theft. It's class relations. What is it you want to learn? How capitalism required the overthrow of Allende? How the Chicago Boys' theory of economic freedom required dirty wars to make it real?You want to explore something? Explore the decline in living standards during the restoration of capitalism in Russia. Explore the lost decade in Latin America. Property isn't theft. But flacks are flacks. They should be called what they are. Jim C. called it right. He shouldn't have backed down. - Original Message - From: David B. Shemano [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 6:48 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Enron In defense of David Shemano, Michael Perelman writes: David is a conservative. He speaks English with a right wing dialect, but he does so with humor (not snottiness). We can disagree with him. I usually do, but we can still be polite. I don't see him as a red meat class warrior, but as a sincere [albeit misguided] conservative]. As a I said when I first participated on this list so many years ago, I am here to learn, and believe learning results from dialectic argument. The argument that capitalism is legalized fraud and theft is a very interesting thesis which I would love to explore. (For instance, doesn't that statement, as a normative statement, assume the justness of private property, because if not, what is wrong with theft?). However, as Prof. Craven does not appear to suffer from any doubt, I doubt he would enjoy such an exchange with me. You can't please everybody. David Shemano -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: The presidential election and the Supreme Court
From: Daniel Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] I seem to remember from university days that the power of Congress to decide whether or not the USA is at war or not, is one that has repeatedly been ignored by successive US Presidents ... Hey, credit where it's due! This provision has been ignored by Congress also. Carl _ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
Reports finds Iraq worse off in some areas than before war.
Iraq is worse off than before the war began, GAO reports By Seth Borenstein Knight Ridder Newspapers WASHINGTON - In a few key areas - electricity, the judicial system and overall security - the Iraq that America handed back to its residents Monday is worse off than before the war began last year, according to calculations in a new General Accounting Office report released Tuesday. The 105-page report by Congress' investigative arm offers a bleak assessment of Iraq after 14 months of U.S. military occupation. Among its findings: -In 13 of Iraq's 18 provinces, electricity was available fewer hours per day on average last month than before the war. Nearly 20 million of Iraq's 26 million people live in those provinces. -Only $13.7 billion of the $58 billion pledged and allocated worldwide to rebuild Iraq has been spent, with another $10 billion about to be spent. The biggest chunk of that money has been used to run Iraq's ministry operations. -The country's court system is more clogged than before the war, and judges are frequent targets of assassination attempts. -The new Iraqi civil defense, police and overall security units are suffering from mass desertions, are poorly trained and ill-equipped. -The number of what the now-disbanded Coalition Provisional Authority called significant insurgent attacks skyrocketed from 411 in February to 1,169 in May. The report was released on the same day that the CPA's inspector general issued three reports that highlighted serious management difficulties at the CPA. The reports found that the CPA wasted millions of dollars at a Hilton resort hotel in Kuwait because it didn't have guidelines for who could stay there, lost track of how many employees it had in Iraq and didn't track reconstruction projects funded by international donors to ensure they didn't duplicate U.S. projects. Both the GAO report and the CPA report said that the CPA was seriously understaffed for the gargantuan task of rebuilding Iraq. The GAO report suggested the agency needed three times more employees than what it had. The CPA report said the agency believed it had 1,196 employees, when it was authorized to have 2,117. But the inspector general said CPA's records were so disorganized that it couldn't verify its actual number of employees. GAO Comptroller General David Walker blamed insurgent attacks for many of the problems in Iraq. The unstable security environment has served to slow down our rebuilding and reconstruction efforts and it's going to be of critical importance to provide more stable security, Walker told Knight Ridder Newspapers in a telephone interview Tuesday. There are a number of significant questions that need to be asked and answered dealing with the transition (to self-sovereignty), Walker said. A lot has been accomplished and a lot remains to be done. The GAO report is the first government assessment of conditions in Iraq at the end of the U.S. occupation. It outlined what it called key challenges that will affect the political transition in 10 specific areas. The GAO gave a draft of the report to several different government agencies, but only the CPA offered a major comment: It said the report was not sufficiently critical of the judicial reconstruction effort. The picture it paints of the facts on the ground is one that neither the CPA nor the Bush administration should be all that proud of, said Peter W. Singer, a national security scholar at the centrist Brookings Institution. It finds a lot of problems and raises a lot of questions. One of the biggest problems, Singer said, is that while money has been pledged and allocated, not much has been spent. The GAO report shows that very little of the promised international funds - most of which are in loans - has been spent or can't be tracked. The CPA's inspector general found the same thing. When we ask why are things not going the way we hoped for, Singer said, the answer in part of this is that we haven't actually spent what we have in pocket. He said the figures on electricity make me want to cry. Steven Susens, a spokesman for the Program Management Office, which oversees contractors rebuilding Iraq, conceded that many areas of Iraq have fewer hours of electricity now than they did before the war. But he said the report, based on data that's now more than a month old, understates current electrical production. He said some areas may have reduced electricity availability because antiquated distribution systems had been taken out of service so they could be rebuilt. It's a slow pace, but it's certainly growing as far as we're concerned, Susens said. Danielle Pletka, the vice president of foreign and defense policy studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said other issues are more important than the provision of services such as electricity. She noted that Iraqis no longer live in fear of Saddam Hussein. It's far better to live in the dark than it is to run
Re: Enron
Why does the statement assume the justness of private property? Surely it assumes the opposite. Of course the thesis is common Proudhon in fact wrote a book on property that coined the expression property as theft. In spite of the great bitterness Marx shows towards his views, Proudhon ,as Marx, thinks of the theft as basically appropriation of value of labor without the exchange being equivalent--- very much like Marx's appropriation of surplus value through ownership of means of production etc. by capitalists. What is assumed as just is that a person should be able to appropriate the value of what they produce through their labor and that private property in the means of production makes this impossible and so is inherently unjust. Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: David B. Shemano [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 8:48 PM Subject: Re: Enron In defense of David Shemano, Michael Perelman writes: David is a conservative. He speaks English with a right wing dialect, but he does so with humor (not snottiness). We can disagree with him. I usually do, but we can still be polite. I don't see him as a red meat class warrior, but as a sincere [albeit misguided] conservative]. As a I said when I first participated on this list so many years ago, I am here to learn, and believe learning results from dialectic argument. The argument that capitalism is legalized fraud and theft is a very interesting thesis which I would love to explore. (For instance, doesn't that statement, as a normative statement, assume the justness of private property, because if not, what is wrong with theft?). However, as Prof. Craven does not appear to suffer from any doubt, I doubt he would enjoy such an exchange with me. You can't please everybody. David Shemano
Re: Enron
- Original Message - From: David B. Shemano [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 8:48 PM Subject: Re: Enron In defense of David Shemano, Michael Perelman writes: David is a conservative. He speaks English with a right wing dialect, but he does so with humor (not snottiness). We can disagree with him. I usually do, but we can still be polite. I don't see him as a red meat class warrior, but as a sincere [albeit misguided] conservative]. As a I said when I first participated on this list so many years ago, I am here to learn, and believe learning results from dialectic argument. The argument that capitalism is legalized fraud and theft is a very interesting thesis which I would love to explore. (For instance, doesn't that statement, as a normative statement, assume the justness of private property, because if not, what is wrong with theft?). However, as Prof. Craven does not appear to suffer from any doubt, I doubt he would enjoy such an exchange with me. You can't please everybody. David Shemano
Re: Enron
Sorry about the Lockean tabula rasa.. I meant to add a few comments to my earlier reply. If you mean by private property, personal property appropriated in a certain manner then perhaps the justness of private property in that sense is assumed in saying that private property is theft. However the context of discussion is capitalism and the relevant private property is private property in the means of production and associated laws that allow appropriation of value produced from what is owned: interest, rent, and profits. Proudhon himself says at another place that property as personal possession is freedom not theft. Cheers, Ken Hanly] - Original Message - From: David B. Shemano [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 8:48 PM Subject: Re: Enron In defense of David Shemano, Michael Perelman writes: David is a conservative. He speaks English with a right wing dialect, but he does so with humor (not snottiness). We can disagree with him. I usually do, but we can still be polite. I don't see him as a red meat class warrior, but as a sincere [albeit misguided] conservative]. As a I said when I first participated on this list so many years ago, I am here to learn, and believe learning results from dialectic argument. The argument that capitalism is legalized fraud and theft is a very interesting thesis which I would love to explore. (For instance, doesn't that statement, as a normative statement, assume the justness of private property, because if not, what is wrong with theft?). However, as Prof. Craven does not appear to suffer from any doubt, I doubt he would enjoy such an exchange with me. You can't please everybody. David Shemano
