Re: Turkey
Article Ian sent: US hawk wants Turkey in EU Writing in the Turkish Daily Cumhuriyet today Mustafa Balbay claims that, according to his sources, US hawks want Turkey in Iraq too. He reports that the US asked Turkey to be the logistic base of the attack on Iraq and plans to station 250,000 troops in Turkey before the attack. He claims that Washington also asked Turkey to contribute 17,000 to 20,000 troops in their Iraq operation, as well as to open 10 airbases and ports to the use of the US forces. In return, he writes, the US will erase the military debt of Turkey, which amounts to 6-7 billion dollars, give some share from the Kirkuk oil and a say in matters of the security of the Northern Iraq. This is a summary translation of the passage below, which I included for those subscribers of the list who can read Turkish. The above mentioned 250,000 troops information came from other parts of the article that I did not include. Usually, such claims by Cumhuriyet are denied by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, or the military, shortly after they appear. I will let you know if that happens. Best, Sabri ++ 3 Aralik 2002, Cumhuriyet ABD askeri Irak'a Turkiye'den girecek. Washington 20 bin asker, 10 havaalani ve liman istiyor Turkiye lojistik us Cok kapsamli paket: Washington'in Turkiye'den ilk talebi 17 ile 20 bin asker. Turkiye'nin 10 kadar havaalani ve limani bildirimsiz olarak ABD'nin kullanimina acmasi isteniyor. Turkiye'nin tum guney limanlari bu kapsamda degerlendiriliyor. Uzun vadeli olarak Kafkaslar'daki hedefler icin Trabzon Limani da ayni kapsama alinmak isteniyor. Turkiye bu adimlar cercevesinde ABD'nin lojistik ussu haline gelecek. Kara harekati icin bolgede baska bir ulkeyle temas kurulmayacak. Operasyonun zamanlamasi henuz belli degil. Bunun icin oncelikle halen Irak'ta bulunan silah denetcilerinin gorevini tamamlamasi bekleniyor. Kerkuk petrollerinden pay: Bu istekler karsiliginda oncelikle Turkiye'nin askeri borclari silinecek. Bu borclar 6-7 milyar dolari buluyor. Bunun yani sira Turkiye'nin satin almak istedigi silahlarla ilgili sorunlar giderilecek. Turkiye'ye Kerkuk petrollerinden pay verilecek. Bu pay icin Kerkuk petrollerinin gecen yuzyildaki konumu dikkate alinacak. Irak'in ozellikle kuzeyindeki guvenlik konularinda Turkiye de soz sahibi olacak. Ortak degerlendirmeyle gerekirse K. Irak'in guvenlik konusu Turkiye'ye birakilacak. Turkiye, Kuzey Irak'taki Kurt gruplarin silahlandirilmasini istemiyor.
Key Aide Seeks Military Pledge From Turkey
Key Aide Seeks Military Pledge From Turkey By Vernon Loeb Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, December 3, 2002; Page A01 LONDON, Dec. 2 -- Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz today launched a mission to press Turkey to allow the United States to use its military bases and to provide military assistance for a possible war with Iraq. By winning a formal pledge of cooperation, Wolfowitz would complete the lineup of regional allies ready to help in an attack against the government of President Saddam Hussein. Still putting the finishing touches on its war plans, the Pentagon badly wants authorization to launch combat aircraft and ground forces from bases in Turkey, which lies just north of Iraq. This would complement agreements already in place with Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Bahrain to the south, rounding out the array of military launching pads and forcing Iraq to defend against a two-front invasion. Wolfowitz, who travels Tuesday to Ankara, the Turkish capital, is also expected to seek a promise from the Turkish military that it would use its own forces to assist the United States in the event President Bush decides on military action, with Turkish troops possibly helping to police refugees from northern Iraq or guard prisoners of war, U.S. officials said. The more support we can get from Turkey, the less likely that there will be a war and the greater the chances are of resolving this thing peacefully, said a senior Bush administration official. If it does come to the use of force, the more support we get from Turkey, the shorter the war can be. The new Turkish government, with a ruling party rooted in political Islam, is expected to drive a hard bargain. The country still suffers economically from sanctions placed on Iraq after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. It wants a substantial aid package, U.S. help in gaining membership in the European Union and an ironclad pledge from the United States that it will not support a Kurdish state in northern Iraq. The U.S. officials said they believe that, with a good U.S. offer, Turkey ultimately will grant basing rights and contribute troops and other assistance to the war effort. This help is more critical than ever, according to military analysts, because Saudi Arabia is hesitant to allow the United States to launch combat troops or aircraft from Saudi bases, as it did in 1991. Given Turkey's record and given the importance of this relationship to both our countries, I have a certain underlying confidence that at the end of the day, we'll come to agreement, the senior administration official predicted. But he said we're not there yet when asked what the Bush administration was planning to offer in return. While the administration must be patient with Turkey's new government, elected only last month, the official said, the Turks must be realistic as well. We are developing military plans which have a certain momentum of their own, he said. We don't have a lot of time. Seeking to cultivate favor in Ankara, Wolfowitz called on the 15 members of the European Union to give Turkey a firm date for beginning talks on accession when they meet next week in Copenhagen. In a speech at the International Institute for Strategic Studies here, Wolfowitz called exclusion of Turkey surely unthinkable. Analysts in Turkey said the new government there may embrace the opportunity to demonstrate cooperation with the Turkish military and the United States, seeking to dispel fears about its Islamic roots. Many leaders of the ruling Justice and Development Party were members of an Islamic government that collapsed under military pressure in 1997 after flirting with the notion of moving the NATO member into alliances with the Muslim world. Turkey has made no secret of its concerns about a U.S.-led campaign against Iraq. The paramount fear in Ankara is that a war will result in the dismemberment of Iraq, with Kurds in the country's north looking to turn the informal autonomy they have enjoyed since 1991 into an independent state. Turkey fears that would tempt Turkish Kurds, who make up about 20 percent of a population of 67 million, to resume a separatist guerrilla war that has subsided only in the past three years. Pentagon officials have said they believe they would be able to launch a successful invasion of Iraq without using Turkish bases. There are already 60,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines in the Persian Gulf, with heavy armor and other equipment flowing in. Officials are working off two sets of war plans, only one of which includes Turkey. In Kuwait, the Pentagon has 12,000 troops, 24 AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, heavy equipment for two armored brigades and the headquarters units from the Army's V Corps and the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force. Fighter aircraft operate from two Kuwaiti air bases, Al-Jaber and Ali Salem. Dozens of combat aircraft and aerial tankers fly out of the Al Udeid air base in Qatar, the likely U.S. Central Command
Re: exploiting the intelligentsia
Gene wrote about the sophisticated financing that allows Harvard to maintain its position as a preeminent business while apparently offering charity. and At 02/12/02 08:02 -0800, Johan wrote: When will the vast armies of the working intelligentsia see the bigger picture on a world scale? Having recently left the academic sanctum - with astronomic debts and tiny prospects of finding work, I have some thoughts on the subject. Tutition fees and student debt is necessary. Not to pay for education, but to keep the pecunary mindset in place in an expanding population that - for most of their lifes - are redundent to production and labourmarket relations. Student revolts in the 60's was possible thanks to stundents not beeing mindlocked by debt and insecurity in future employment. Had the financial security remained with todays increase om proportion of students, social stability would have been in trouble. Instead students are disciplined by fear of indebted unemployment and promises of entering the middle class. When those hopes are finally frustrated, things will start to happen. From what I know, radicals in muslim third world countries (where the false promises have been proved wrong much quicker) are often disappointed and redundant ex-students. Question is, how can frustration be channeled into a positive force against capitalism, and not destructively into fascism or religious fanatism? /Johan I think your comments are eloquent. Particularly about how the academic world has been more closely tied into the capitalist world of commodity exchange, in which the well-educated wage slave has no option but to try to sell your labour power, and your thought-provoking comments about the newly educated intelligentsia turning in islamic countries to radical and even reactionary solutions. The only thing I would question is your perception of being unemployable. I assume you are writing from a capitalist country. The subjective experience after leaving university is that the world of modern capitalist production is quite alien to the values you have been taught. But the paradox is that modern advanced capitalism needs a highly educated workforce, able to work sensitively and flexibly to produce operationalised outcomes more often in the form of services rather than material commodities. You have already demonstrated enough insight and flexible irony, to be good at that, if you could only have conviction in the importance of increasing the market share of enterprise A versus enterprise B and feign some team spirit until you are organised up into a completely different team. Despite some slowing of economic expansion, the western economies have continued to maintain economic circulation despite a lower and lower proportion of the economy devoted to manufacture. Whereas in the countries on the periphery of the capitalist/imperialist centres of economic gravity, like the islamic countries or latin america, the contradictions of capitalism bite deeper, and the intellectually privileged intelligentsia suffer badly and are in contact with other classes and strata who suffer badly. I do not want to sound unsympathetic, but the working intelligentsia suffer more in the less developed countries than the more developed countries. The problem is how to help all workers by brain (as well as by hand) realise in all countries that the system is a juggernaut, that produces tremendous gains in technical productivity, while lives are mangled beneath its wheels. Chris Burford London
Re: Re: Maquiladoras not beneficial
Sabri Oncu wrote: I don't know what troll means but I happen to have some ideas about right wingers. I hold that a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for being a leftist is the recognition that the US is an imperialist state screwing most of the rest of the world. Don't forget the U.S.'s junior partners, like Canada, the EU, and Japan, who sometimes act as if they're above the imperial screwing even as they benefit from it. But - and maybe this is just a definitional problem - lots of leftists are indifferent to or quiet about imperial screwing, especially since both the welfare state or the planning environment are conceived in national terms. Left parties and unions around the world have often been quite anti-immigrant, to protect wage levels and the welfare state. So, like it or not, Brad is certainly within a social democratic tradition, though at the righter end. Doug
Re: Maquiladoras not beneficial
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/02/02 05:50PM Also, many of the maq's are shutting down as contractors flee to China and other low cost labor. Michael Perelman just released international labour organization report indicates 200,000 such jobs have shifted to china... michael hoover
RE: Re: Maquiladoras not beneficial
Title: RE: [PEN-L:32701] Re: Maquiladoras not beneficial to me, it doesn't matter that much whether deLong is a right-winger or not. I can filter out his right-wing opinions, just as I do with the New York TIMES or U.S. National Public Radio. Just as I filter out a lot of the crap that some left-wingers produce (e.g., conspiracy theories). The question is whether or not someone actually has something useful or interesting to say after the nonsense has been filtered out. I don't think we need deLong on pen-l, but some of his writings are useful from an academic/economics perspective, since he's smarter than the average troll. BTW, pen-l needs more economics discussions. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Sabri Oncu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 8:44 PM To: PEN-L Subject: [PEN-L:32701] Re: Maquiladoras not beneficial Michael wrote: I don't think that Brad DeLong is a right winger or a troll. Among economists, he would rank as a left liberal. I don't know what troll means but I happen to have some ideas about right wingers. I hold that a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for being a leftist is the recognition that the US is an imperialist state screwing most of the rest of the world. As far as I can see, Brad Delong does not satisfy my necessary condition. And, hence, I will have to agree with Lou that, unfortunately, Brad Delong is a right winger, at least, no less right winger than Tony Blair. Jim, how do you like my political football playing? Sabri
the state and eternal war.
Title: the state and eternal war. was: [RE: [PEN-L:32699] Re: Re: eternal war for eternal peace update] of course, eternal war will produce eternal peace for many... Ian quotes: If protection rackets represent organized crime at its smoothest, then war making and state making - quintessential protection rackets with the advantage of legitimacy - qualify as our largest examples of organized crime...[C]onsider the definition of a racketeer as someone who creates a threat and then charges for its reduction. Governments' provision of protection, by this standard, often qualifies as racketeering. To the extent that the threats against which a given government protects its citizens are imaginary or are consequences of its own activities, the government has organized a protection racket. Since governments themselves commonly simulate, stimulate, or even fabricate threats of external war and since the repressive or extractive activities of governments often constitute the largest current threats to the livelihood of their own citizens, many governments operate in essentially the same way as racketeers. [Charles Tilly] This, of course, is why we need to have democratic control over all states. (The option of abolishing the state doesn't seem to be available at this time or any time in the foreseeable future.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Maquiladoras not beneficial
A little while ago I discovered that Brad Delong has an article defending neoliberalism in Mexico on his website that originally appeared in Foreign Affairs: http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/Econ_Articles/themexicanpesocrisis.html It is very useful, even if totally wrong--especially when read in conjunction with Marty's MR article. Since I strongly identify with all efforts to allow peasants to maintain their traditional self-husbanding mode of production if this is *what they democratically decide*, I am especially sensitive to the outrageous claim made by Delong that: All but one of the arguments against NAFTA made us wince. The only argument against that we felt had force was the fear that NAFTA implementation would devastate Mexico's peasant agriculture: Iowa corn and North Dakota wheat seemed likely to swamp the Mexican market, leaving Mexico's small farmers with diminished market incomes. The political and social consequences for Mexico seemed dangerous. But the negotiators did recognize this danger: the implementation of NAFTA allows ten to fifteen years for agricultural adjustment, and the Mexican government has already begun substantial agricultural reform. This is blatant procapitalist propaganda. (When somebody operates in this kind of over-the-top mode, I would suggest that they can do little to foster a serious debate on a leftwing forum like pen-l. That is why a number of good people unsubbed in disgust with him, from Michael Keany to Michael Yates to Nestor Gorojovsky.) There are so many articles in Lexis-Nexis that challenge Delong's bland, Panglossian assurances that all will go well for Mexican farmers that one doesn't know which one to choose. (A search for Mexico Nafta Corn returned 593 articles.) Here is one off the top: The Houston Chronicle, October 20, 2002, Sunday 2 STAR EDITION Land and loss; CORN FARMERS IN MEXICO SAY NAFTA IS DRIVING THEM OUT OF BUSINESS JENALIA MORENO, Houston Chronicle Mexico City Bureau LOS RODRIGUEZ, Mexico - From the highway that cuts through the state of Guanajuato, it's easy to miss this village, much as progress has. The village's only road, a dirt path filled with potholes big enough to swallow a compact car, follows a tall, barbed-wire fence that surrounds the nearby General Motors plant. Old men share space on a burro's back with piles of grass they'll feed their livestock. Chickens and burros fill muddied front yards. For generations, this simple town of nearly 5,000 has depended on the ups and downs of corn. It's obvious that the corn business has been going downhill in Los Rodriguez. Farmers here, and in farming communities throughout the country, blame their struggles on the wave of cheap U.S. corn coming into Mexico since NAFTA went into effect eight years ago. More and more farmers are being finished off, said Jorge Rodriguez, 30, who is the fourth generation of his family to raise corn in this village named after his ancestors. The drafters of the North American Free Trade Agreement opened agricultural markets on both sides of the border to competition, changing the lives of farmers in each country. In terms of the rising trade in farm products, it's been a plus. NAFTA has generally had a positive effect, said Don Lipton, a spokesman with the American Farm Bureau, which has supported the agreement. The movement of farm products from the United States and from Mexico have both nearly doubled since the trade agreement went into effect, he said. As far as corn exports are concerned, Mexico is not one of the United States' biggest markets and according to U.S. government reports, NAFTA has had a moderate impact on corn exports to Mexico, he said. But this trade has been brutal for those who are not the low-cost producers. Most of those raising corn near this town are seeing this traditional way of life disappear. Back when his grandparents farmed this land, corn sales could support an entire family. Now, Rodriguez works as a police officer in the nearby town of Silao because he doesn't earn enough money selling cobs of corn to support his family of six. His father, also a farmer, works as a security guard. Now, necessity makes us work more, Rodriguez said as he stood among the rows of corn on the small piece of land he inherited from his grandfather. Rodriguez and many other farmers can't make money selling corn as cheaply as U.S. farmers can. The majority of Mexican farmers, like Rodriguez, have small plots of land just outside their front doors. They can't afford the expense of the land, machinery and fertilizers used by American farmers to maximize their yields and minimize their labor expense. Rodriguez plants and harvests everything by hand. Mexican farmers don't get subsidies the way most American farmers do. (clip) -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Re: Maquiladoras not beneficial
Lou is correct on several points. Brad typically supports neo-liberal policies abroad and, at least to my mind, he is more often than not wrong. Also, the 3 people he mentioned did leave in disgust about Brad's behavior. I thought that it would have been healthier to have dialogued with Brad, but he often did behave arrogantly. I also agree with Doug's earlier post. Brad is a social democrat, albeit a fairly conservative one. He probably represents the extreme respectable left within the world of economics. In many ways, I regret Brad leaving. He is bright and very well informed about the world of economics, but once he got on his high horse, he could be infuriating. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: exploiting the intelligentsia
Chris wrote: enough insight and flexible irony, (thank you)...and... could only have conviction in the importance of increasing the market share of enterprise A versus enterprise B and feign some team spirit Right so. The two just wont mix, will they! Poor capital, how can it muster its labourers into involvement and creativity from within a command chain? No more than the master could expect his slave to treat the master's horses and tools in a caring fashion. /Johan (Göteborg/Sweden) __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Dow Chemical
I received the following PR Release today. The dow-chemical.com site is quite a sophisticated satire of the real thing (at dow.com). In today's surreal news world, the line between spoof and official is blurred far beyond Jonathan Swift, so that the corporate blathering of the Dan Rathers in our midst is its own unconscious spoof. Conscious spoof has the benefit, of course, of being closer to the truth. Dan Ratherthan - December 3, 2002 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] DOW ADDRESSES BHOPAL OUTRAGE, EXPLAINS POSITION Company responds to activist concerns with concrete action points In response to growing public outrage over its handling of the Bhopal disaster's legacy, Dow Chemical (http://www.dow-chemical.com) has issued a statement explaining why it is unable to more actively address the problem. We are being portrayed as a heartless giant which doesn't care about the 20,000 lives lost due to Bhopal over the years, said Dow President and CEO Michael D. Parker. But this just isn't true. Many individuals within Dow feel tremendous sorrow about the Bhopal disaster, and many individuals within Dow would like the corporation to admit its responsibility, so that the public can then decide on the best course of action, as is appropriate in any democracy. Unfortunately, we have responsibilities to our shareholders and our industry colleagues that make action on Bhopal impossible. And being clear about this has been a very big step. On December 3, 1984, Union Carbide--now part of Dow--accidentally killed 5,000 residents of Bhopal, India, when its pesticide plant sprung a leak. It abandoned the plant without cleaning it up, and since then, an estimated 15,000 more people have died from complications, most resulting from chemicals released into the groundwater. Although legal investigations have consistently pinpointed Union Carbide as culprit, both Union Carbide and Dow have had to publicly deny these findings. After the accident, Union Carbide compensated victims' families between US$300 and US$500 per victim. We understand the anger and hurt, said Dow Spokesperson Bob Questra. But Dow does not and cannot acknowledge responsibility. If we did, not only would we be required to expend many billions of dollars on cleanup and compensation--much worse, the public could then point to Dow as a precedent in other big cases. 'They took responsibility; why can't you?' Amoco, BP, Shell, and Exxon all have ongoing problems that would just get much worse. We are unable to set this precedent for ourselves and the industry, much as we would like to see the issue resolved in a humane and satisfying way. Shareholders reacted to the Dow statement with enthusiasm. I'm happy that Dow is being clear about its aims, said Panaline Boneril, who owns 10,000 shares, because Bhopal is a recurrent problem that's clogging our value chain and ultimately keeping the share price from expressing its full potential. Although a real solution is not immediately possible because of Dow's commitments to the larger industry issues, there is new hope in management's exceptional new clarity on the matter. It's a slow process, said Questra. We must learn bit by bit to meet this challenge head-on. For now, this means acknowledging that much as it pains us, our prime responsibilities are to the people who own Dow shares, and to the industry as a whole. We simply cannot do anything at this moment for the people of Bhopal. Dow Chemical is a chemical products and services company devoted to bringing its customers a wide range of chemicals. It furnishes solutions for the agriculture, electronics, manufacturing, and oil and gas industries, including well-known products like Styrofoam, DDT, and Agent Orange, as well as lesser-known brands like Inspire, Retain, Eliminator, Quash, and Woodstalk. For more on the Bhopal catastrophe, please visit Dow at http://www.dow-chemical.com/. -- --- Drop Bush, Not Bombs! --- During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. George Orwell END OF THE TRAIL SALOON Live music, comedy, call-in radio-oke Alternate Sundays, 6am GMT (10pm PDT) http://www.kvmr.org --- I uke, therefore I am. -- Cool Hand Uke I log on, therefore I seem to be. -- Rodd Gnawkin Visit Cool Hand Uke's Lava Tube: http://www.oro.net/~dscanlan
Social Security and the 2002 Election.htm
Title: Social Security and the 2002 Election November 7, 2002 Social Security and the 2002 Election by Michael Tanner Michael Tanner is director of the Cato Institute's Project on Social Security Choice. "This election is a referendum on Social Security." So spoke House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt last month. If so, given the election results it appears that the American people have made their opinion perfectly clear. They support proposals to allow younger workers to privately invest a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes. While much pre-election commentary was devoted to a few Republicans who attempted to blur their position on Social Security in those races where candidates took clear positions in support of individual accounts, it was a winning issue. For example, Hans Reimer of the anti-private account Campaign for America's Future called the North and South Carolina races "bellwethers" that would hinge on the issue of Social Security reform. Neither Elizabeth Dole in North Carolina nor Lindsay Graham in South Carolina made any attempt to hide their support for individual accounts. Indeed, when accused of supporting "a risky scheme," both counterattacked, pointing out that their Democratic opponents had no proposals of their own to fix the program's looming financial crisis. Dole campaigned showing a blank piece of paper as the "Bowles Social Security Plan." Given a clear choice, voters chose both Graham and Dole by large margins. In the night's biggest upset, Georgia Representative Saxby Chambliss defeated incumbent Senator Max Cleland. Although the race turned largely on national security issues, Cleland had attacked Chambliss for wanting to turn "the Social Security benefits of people on Main Street over to Wall Street to play Russian roulette with." Chambliss, in contrast, signed a pledge, circulated by SocialSecurityChoice.org, promising to support individual accounts if he was elected. In Minnesota, Norm Coleman was another upset winner who signed the SocialSecurityChoice pledge. Several other prominent supporters of individual accounts won important Senate races as well, including John Corwyn in Texas, Jim Talent in Missouri, and John Sununu in New Hampshire. Sununu was another top target for anti-account activists who poured money into an effort to defeat him. Ads accused him of wanting to "privatize" Social Security to benefit his "wealthy Wall Street backers." But Sununu won. Support for individual accounts was a winner in House races too. Few congressmen have been as outspoken in their support for individual accounts as Pat Toomey (R-Penn.), despite the fact that his Democrat-leaning district has high concentrations of both senior citizens and union workers. Opponents of individual accounts poured money and manpower into the district trying to defeat Toomey. Yet Toomey won by a larger margin this year than he had in 2000. Representatives Clay Shaw (R-Fla.) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-WVa.) also won by larger margins than in 2000, in campaigns where Social Security was a major issue. Shaw not only sponsored legislation to create individual accounts, he chairs the Social Security Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee. His opponent Carol Roberts focused nearly all of her campaign on the issue. In 2000, Shaw won reelection by only a few hundred votes. This year, he took nearly 60 percent of the vote. Likewise, Capito's race was once seen by Democrats as a national model for how to use Social Security as a campaign issue. They used the race to test their Social Security attack ads, drawing nationwide attention. But, in the end, Capito too took nearly 60 percent of the vote. Social Security failed as a Democratic issue in other races as well. Former Representative Jill Long Thompson may have been the first candidate in the country to air an ad attacking her opponent, Chris Chocola, for supporting "privatization." Chocola won, however, picking up an open seat previously held by Democrats. In Minnesota John Kline refused to compromise on his support for individual accounts and knocked off incumbent Representative Bill Luther. And, in New Mexico, Steve Pearce, another strong supporter of individual accounts, won a newly created seat in a competitive district. On the other hand, Republicans who decided to run away from Social Security reform didn't fare so well. Pennsylvania Representative George Gekas abandoned earlier support for individual accounts, even signing a pledge sponsored by the Campaign for America's Future to oppose them. He lost. In New Jersey, Doug Forrester supported individual accounts in the primary and won. He changed his mind in the general election and lost. The late House Speaker Tip O'Niell is reputed to have called Social Security the "third rail" of American politics-touch it and your career dies. But the third rail has now lost its juice. Across the country, candidates who had
Re: Re: Re: Re: Maquiladoras not beneficial
Michael Perelman wrote: Lou is correct on several points. Brad typically supports neo-liberal policies abroad and, at least to my mind, he is more often than not wrong. Also, the 3 people he mentioned did leave in disgust about Brad's behavior. I thought that it would have been healthier to have dialogued with Brad, but he often did behave arrogantly. True enough, but it's an odd model of dialogue that will admit only people in fundamental agreement with each other. I guess it's the left version of Richard Feinberg's wonderful comment that democracy only works when there's fundamental agreement on the nature of property. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Maquiladoras not beneficial
- Original Message - From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] Don't forget the U.S.'s junior partners, like Canada, the EU, and Japan, who sometimes act as if they're above the imperial screwing even as they benefit from it. Doug Not long after 9-11 there was a town hall type meeting in Europe featuring a woman from the Council on Foreign Relations [if I remember correctly] that was broadcast on late night radio in Seattle. Anyway, she brought up the US as the world's cop [strange how the imperialists see their role] while the cost of doing so fell on US taxpayers, Europe, Japan Canada etc. reaped the benefits in terms of social safety net expenditures that didn't have to go to weapon systems. She asserted that over time, those countries standard of living would simply surpass the US, if they haven't already because the weapons systems etc. were only going to get more and more expensive and this could, in turn lead to a resentment on the part of US taxpayers vis a vis those countries and that when that day comes, watch out. Ian
Re: Maquiladoras not beneficial
- Original Message - From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] this is the standard way that the US imperialists see it: the US provides international public goods from which the other countries -- including the totally dominated ones -- benefit. The countries that don't go along (e.g., deGaulle's France, Schroeder's Germany) are free riders. As in the usual public goods story, if the state (read: the US) doesn't get some payment from the beneficiaries (the other countries), the public good is not just under-produced but can go away altogether. So coercion (taxes) are justified. Jim Hence the current obsession by US weapons makers securing comparative advantage via interoperability harmonization on weapons systems procured by NATO countries. In the absence of the ability of the US to tax other states we demand that they make budget commitments, like Lithuania buying $34 million worth of Stingers that they don't need. Ian
test
test __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
RE: Re: Maquiladoras not beneficial
Title: RE: [PEN-L:32721] Re: Maquiladoras not beneficial I described: the standard way that the US imperialists see it: the US provides international public goods from which the other countries -- including the totally dominated ones -- benefit. The countries that don't go along (e.g., deGaulle's France, Schroeder's Germany) are free riders. As in the usual public goods story, if the state (read: the US) doesn't get some payment from the beneficiaries (the other countries), the public good is not just under-produced but can go away altogether. So coercion (taxes) are justified. Ian: Hence the current obsession by US weapons makers securing comparative advantage via interoperability harmonization on weapons systems procured by NATO countries. In the absence of the ability of the US to tax other states we demand that they make budget commitments, like Lithuania buying $34 million worth of Stingers that they don't need. Ian, Ian, Ian! you're getting too close to reality! the efforts by individual parts of the military-industrial complex (or the whole shebang) to gain advantage for themselves is part of the reality of imperialism. It's not the same as the self-perception and self-justification of imperialists that I described. Jim
Re: RE: Re: Maquiladoras not beneficial
- Original Message - From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ian, Ian, Ian! you're getting too close to reality! the efforts by individual parts of the military-industrial complex (or the whole shebang) to gain advantage for themselves is part of the reality of imperialism. It's not the same as the self-perception and self-justification of imperialists that I described. Jim = Right, except that I think they're no longer worried about the fables of international public goods and the like which were previously seen as constituting the vocabulary of self-description and self-justification which served their goals. That's the difference between the Neoliberals and the Realists in IR discourse. The whole recent discussion emanating from the Beltway regarding imperialism is, to my mind, Realism's [and the Realists] coming to full self-consciousness regarding the terms of their self-description/self-justification. Ok, we're imperialists, we might as well get good at it and what are you going to do about it, beat us up type rhetoric is symptomatic of this self-consciousness. They see themselves as so powerful now they don't *care* whether they are seen as imperialists. Hobbes. Ian
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maquiladoras not beneficial
Dialogue requires a certain degree of courtesy that was often absent from his posts. On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 02:22:32PM -0500, Doug Henwood wrote: Michael Perelman wrote: Lou is correct on several points. Brad typically supports neo-liberal policies abroad and, at least to my mind, he is more often than not wrong. Also, the 3 people he mentioned did leave in disgust about Brad's behavior. I thought that it would have been healthier to have dialogued with Brad, but he often did behave arrogantly. True enough, but it's an odd model of dialogue that will admit only people in fundamental agreement with each other. I guess it's the left version of Richard Feinberg's wonderful comment that democracy only works when there's fundamental agreement on the nature of property. Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: RE: Re: Maquiladoras not beneficial
Title: RE: [PEN-L:32724] Re: RE: Re: Maquiladoras not beneficial I said: It's not the same as the self-perception and self-justification of imperialists that I described. Ian writes: Right, except that I think they're no longer worried about the fables of international public goods and the like which were previously seen as constituting the vocabulary of self-description and self-justification which served their goals. That's the difference between the Neoliberals and the Realists in IR discourse. The whole recent discussion emanating from the Beltway regarding imperialism is, to my mind, Realism's [and the Realists] coming to full self-consciousness regarding the terms of their self-description/self-justification. Ok, we're imperialists, we might as well get good at it and what are you going to do about it, beat us up type rhetoric is symptomatic of this self-consciousness. They see themselves as so powerful now they don't *care* whether they are seen as imperialists. Hobbes. all of what you said made total and utter sense except the last word. Hobbes is the one who presented the public goods argument first. He wasn't not the might makes right sort of the Bush administration. Instead, he saw the Leviathan as being good for everyone, by providing lawnorder, so people wouldn't grow up nasty, brutish, short. Jim
RE: crime stats
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cvusst.htm -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 3:37 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:32685] crime stats Hi, Does anyone have a good source for petty crime stats? I'm specifically looking for breakdowns by type and amount stolen: i.e. total or average value stolen per year from liquor stores, 7-11s, homes, etc. Thanks, Nomi
Chomsky: A man of great integrity?
The critique of Chomsky on Cambodia is hardly a canard. Thus, I cannot understand your claim, Michael, that he is a man of, what did you say, great integrity? Consider the following selections from an article by Chomsky and Herman in 1977 (http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/index.cfm Distortions at Fourth Hand that appeared in The Nation.) Hildebrand and Porter present a carefully documented study of the destructive American impact on Cambodia and the success of the Cambodian revolutionaries in overcoming it, giving a very favorable picture of their programs and policies, based on a wide range of sources. In brief, Hildebrand and Porter attribute wrecking and rebuilding to the wrong parties in Cambodia. [and thus earn according to Chomsky and Herman the condemnation of the western media] The Wall Street Journal acknowledged its [H-P's book] existence in an editorial entitled Cambodia Good Guys (November 22, 1976), which dismissed contemptuously the very idea that the Khmer Rouge could play a constructive role, as well as the notion that the United States had a major hand in the destruction, death and turmoil of wartime and postwar Cambodia. In contrast, the media favorite, Barron and Paul's untold story of Communist Genocide in Cambodia (their subtitle), virtually ignores the U.S. Government role. Their scholarship [B-P's] collapses under the barest scrutiny. To cite a few cases, they state that among those evacuated from Phnom Penh, virtually everybody saw the consequences of [summary executions] in the form of the corpses of men, women and children rapidly bloating and rotting in the hot sun, citing, among others, J.J. Cazaux, who wrote, in fact, that not a single corpse was seen along our evacuation route, and that early reports of massacres proved fallacious (The Washington Post, May 9, 1975). Nor do they [B-P] try to account for the amazingly rapid growth of the revolutionary forces from 1969 to 1973, as attested by U.S. intelligence and as is obvious from the unfolding events themselves. The slaughter by the Khmer Rouge is a Moss-New York Times creation. ...executions have numbered at most in the thousands; that these were localized in areas of limited Khmer Rouge influence and unusual peasant discontent, where brutal revenge killings were aggravated by the threat of starvation resulting from the American destruction and killing. [ ] are mine and ( ) are those of Chomsky and Herman, thus C-H call the KR constructive and revolutionaries and dismiss the word genocide as their subtitle and reports of bloating corpses as fallacious and the slaughter (their scare quotes) is a creation of the mainstream media. These were precisely the tactics of the State Department and UN Security Council when it decided not to intervene to prevent the Rwandan genocide. In fact, the Yale Cambodian Genocide Program (http://www.yale.edu/cgp/cgpintro.html) concludes that at least 1.7 million people were slaughtered from 1975 to 1979, as Chomsky and Herman, from tenured security in Cambridge and Philadelphia penned their review for The Nation. Stephen F. Diamond, J.D., Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Law School of Law Santa Clara University [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Chomsky: A man of great integrity?
I checked one item in this post against the text (which is here: http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/7706-distortions.html The slaughter by the Khmer Rouge is a Moss-New York Times creation. The context for the statement is not, as is implied by the extract above, a general denial of mass murder, but a specific claim which NC claims is not adequately documented. Most of the article is in a similar vein -- noting the lack of evidence presented in news accounts. SD does nothing to rebut his argument. Noting that genocide took place is not a rebuttal. NC's conclusion, along similar lines: We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments; rather, we again want to emphasize some crucial points. What filters through to the American public is a seriously distorted version of the evidence available, emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S. role, direct and indirect, in the torment that Cambodia has suffered. Evidence that focuses on the American role, like the Hildebrand and Porter volume, is ignored, not on the basis of truthfulness or scholarship but because the message is unpalatable. My conclusion: One should not judge the morality of NC's statements at the time by how well they accord with what is known retrospectively, in light of the reality that the sources on genocide were not trustworthy. Untrustworthy sources can be right on occasion, but it is not smart to depend on them. You would have to show the availability of a fount of information from unbiased sources to conclude that NC ignored evidence he ought not to have ignored. SD's post is unfair. mbs
RE: RE: Chomsky: A man of great integrity?
Title: RE: [PEN-L:32730] RE: Chomsky: A man of great integrity? MS concludes: One should not judge the morality of NC's statements at the time by how well they accord with what is known retrospectively, in light of the reality that the sources on genocide were not trustworthy. Untrustworthy sources can be right on occasion, but it is not smart to depend on them. You would have to show the availability of a fount of information from unbiased sources to conclude that NC ignored evidence he ought not to have ignored. SD's post is unfair. If you read their book, it's very clear that Chomsky Herman are almost entirely focussed on the official Western press (the NY TIMES, etc.) Their main point is that the official press damns the bad killings (e.g., the Khmer Rouge) while downplaying the good ones (e.g., in Indonesia), where it is the US State Department that decides what bad and good are. If a group is seen as bad by State, the official press rushes to condemn it, while the truth about the good massacres come out later, sometimes several years later. As one who leans toward anarchism, NC is no apologist for the KR, a horribly statist organization. (BTW, given the chaos created by (in rough order of importance) the US bombings and invasions, the Vietnamese use of the territory as a staging ground, and the precipitous collapse of the Lon Nol government, the Hobbesian nasty, brutish, and short nightmare threatened. So a cynic might say that the KR was exactly the Leviathan that Dr. Hobbes ordered, forcibly creating lawnorder. But the victory of the KR was not inevitable.) JD
Late Job Posting: Macroeconomics, Lewis and Clark College (fwd)
I hope that Pen-l can help generate some good candidates for this position at the college where I teach. Marty Hart-Landsberg PLEASE FORWARD TO INTERESTED PARTIES-- Macroeconomics The Department of Economics at Lewis Clark College invites applications for a one-year position for the 2003-2004 academic year. The position may be converted to a tenure-track position the following year. Lewis Clark College is a private liberal arts college with 1750 undergraduates. Ph.D. preferred. Teaching responsibilities in macroeconomics; an interest in the economics of poverty and inequality a plus. Initial interviews will be held at the ASSA meetings in Washington, DC from January 3rd to 5th. Because of the late date, an application package should consist of: (1) a letter of application addressing the candidate's interest in teaching in an undergraduate, liberal-arts environment that emphasizes close student-faculty interaction; (2) curriculum vitae; (3) three letters of reference. Before December 30th 2002, please mail or fax applications to the Department of Economics, 503-768-7611, and include contact information prior to and at the ASSA meetings. After January 2nd, applications can be sent by regular mail; applications will be accepted until the position is filled. Lewis Clark is an Equal Opportunity Employer and encourages the applications of women and minority candidates. CONTACT: Professor Eban Goodstein, Chair, Department of Economics, Lewis Clark College, Portland, OR 97219 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]).
Re: RE: Chomsky: A man of great integrity?
Max, As you note, Chomsky and Herman admit there were sharply conflicting assessments at the time. The question is why they chose to disparage those assessments that suggested a genocide was underway. I would suggest it is because doing so was consistent with their politics - which still today in the case of Chomsky consist of an approach that states that the enemy of my enemy is my friend when it does not slide all the way over into political support and admiration for authoritarian left regimes. The remarkable thing is how exactly this mirrors the approach of the U.S. Government when it chooses facts to fits its politics - as it so shamefully did in the case of Rwanda. (By the way I can find nothing that suggests that Chomsky ever stated that he was wrong in 1977.) The failure of the left to establish a credible independent foreign policy opposed to the politics of both the U.S. government and those of regimes like Hussein's, Castro's, Lee Kuan Yew's, and Kim il Jung's is a tragedy marked by the swing of erstwhile colleagues such as Christopher Hitchens to an open alliance with the U.S. government. As an antidote to this kind of thinking I would highly recommend the work of E.P. Thompson including any of the material that he and others produced during the European Nuclear Disarmament movement of theh 1980s and his collection of essays The Poverty of Theory. Stephen F. Diamond
Re: Re: RE: Chomsky: A man of great integrity?
On 4/12/2002 11:53 AM, Steve Diamond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The remarkable thing is how exactly this mirrors the approach of the U.S. Government when it chooses facts to fits its politics - as it so shamefully did in the case of Rwanda. (By the way I can find nothing that suggests that Chomsky ever stated that he was wrong in 1977.) The failure of the left to establish a credible independent foreign policy opposed to the politics of both the U.S. government and those of regimes like Hussein's, Castro's, Lee Kuan Yew's, and Kim il Jung's is a tragedy marked by the swing of erstwhile colleagues such as Christopher Hitchens to an open alliance with the U.S. government. What madness! This is utter falsification: it is either lazy or irresponsible. Who in the left supports Hussein (!), Lee Kuan Yew (?!?) and Kim il Jung, let alone their foreign policies? Maybe the Stalinists that Chomsky has consistently denounced since the very first thing he ever published, an article about the spanish civil war back in 1936. As I understand it, since Chomsky's central point has been, since 1977, that the US press treates 'approved' genocides with the full aparatus of shock and horror whilst eliding genocides not endorsed by the Dept. of State, he has absolutely nothing to retract. He has been right all along - whatever the facts may have been in Cambodia. Thiago - This mail sent through IMP: www-mail.usyd.edu.au
Re: Re: RE: Chomsky: A man of great integrity?
Stephen Diamond: that Chomsky ever stated that he was wrong in 1977.) The failure of the left to establish a credible independent foreign policy opposed to the politics of both the U.S. government and those of regimes like Hussein's, Castro's, Lee Kuan Yew's, and Kim il Jung's is a tragedy marked by the swing of erstwhile colleagues such as Christopher Hitchens to an open alliance with the U.S. government. Interesting how some countries have governments and other countries have regimes. When was the last time the NY Times referred to the regime in Washington? Hmmm. Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maquiladoras not beneficial
Doug Henwood wrote: Michael Perelman wrote: True enough, but it's an odd model of dialogue that will admit only people in fundamental agreement with each other. I guess it's the left version of Richard Feinberg's wonderful comment that democracy only works when there's fundamental agreement on the nature of property. I have no objections to Brad on the list, and it is silly to call him a troll. (I would say the border between trolldom simple obnoxiousness is marked by Pugliese. Many of his fwds can have no purpose but to create disorder.) But you don't believe what you just wrote here. No one from Pericles, Protagoras, Plato, Aristotle to the present has believed it. It is very close to the first principle of rhetoric that one can only argue with someone on the basis of some fundamental premise shared in common. See for example Cornford's introuction (or note, I forget which) to the Socrates-Thrasymachus episode in the _Republic_. Plato of course cheats there. In writing dialogue for Thrasymachus he has Thrasymachus express the enemy's fundamental premise disguised as his fundamental premise. But in any case, if the divide is fundamental, there cannot be fruitful argument. Neither you nor Lou seems ever to have grasped this fact, hence the extent to which you are contually turning secondary disagreements into antagonistic ones and treating primary disagreements either as deliberare evil (Lou) or as secondary disagreements which should be discussable (you). Lou is continually turning friends (or potential friends) into enemies, and you are continually trying to treat enemies as friends. It fucks up conversation. (Incidentally, it is possible for political enemies to be personal friends -- at least under present circumstances, since we're quite a ways from actual civil war.) Brad is an enemy, but one can talk to him just as Chou tried to talk to Dulles one morning during the Geneva Conference. (They both arrived early one morning; Chou offered to shake hands, Dulles snubbed him.) In the present case Lou is playing a marxist version of Dulles's style, enhancing my belief that Lou is more a moralist than a Marxist.) If one does respond to a post by Brad, one should think of the reader not as Brad himself but of lurkers on the list. Lou's post treats those potential friends as enemies by the style of his attack on Brad. (If Brad ever does change his mind, he'll do it on his own, not on account of what anyone on this list might say. If you enjoy arguing with him, fine. I have nothing against having fun. If you think arguing with him will have a political impact on bystanders, fine. That is a fairly important tactic that can take many forms. But not even in theory (principle) does it make sense to argue with him in order to change his mind. Carrol Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maquiladoras not beneficial
Carrol Cox: Brad is an enemy, but one can talk to him just as Chou tried to talk to Dulles one morning during the Geneva Conference. (They both arrived early one morning; Chou offered to shake hands, Dulles snubbed him.) In the present case Lou is playing a marxist version of Dulles's style, enhancing my belief that Lou is more a moralist than a Marxist.) That's true. Just an hour ago I went into the Macdonalds on 85th street and 3rd avenue and delivered a fiery sermon against cheeseburgers. If one does respond to a post by Brad, one should think of the reader not as Brad himself but of lurkers on the list. Lou's post treats those potential friends as enemies by the style of his attack on Brad. As I have often stated, my model is Charles Bukowski. That being the case, I could be less interested in friends. As a matter of fact, just last week after a fellow programmer invited me out to lunch, I stepped on his toe. (If Brad ever does change his mind, he'll do it on his own, not on account of what anyone on this list might say. If you enjoy arguing with him, fine. I have nothing against having fun. If you think arguing with him will have a political impact on bystanders, fine. That is a fairly important tactic that can take many forms. But not even in theory (principle) does it make sense to argue with him in order to change his mind. This is a very substantial post. It certainly helped to clarify my thinking on the plight of corn farmers in Mexico. But you should try to provide some footnotes next time. Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
reply to Jim Devine and Thiago on Chomsky
Jim, it is certainly, I will agree, Chomsky's obsession to use an apparently objective critique of the western media to make his political arguments, but to ignore the politics behind this approach is to reward form over substance. In your parenthetical ending you come dangerously close to a conclusion that I hope is not intended: that the Khmer Rouge's genocidal activities is explained by the behavior of the U.S. and Vietnam. Nationalist movements in many other countries seem to have avoided such extreme behavior and emerged free from colonial and other forms of control - South Africa, for example, India, for another. Thiago suggested that noone on the left supports regimes (a term I usually apply to states controlled by groups that gained that position without a democratic election, as opposed to governments which have some claim to legitimacy). At least he had the courage to omit Castro from his list. It would no doubt surprise him to find out that hard core Sandinistas actually admired North Korea, that leading figures in the anti-globalization movement admire Lee Kuan Yew, and do I really have to trot out defenders of the Hussein regime? As far as madness goes, what is one to say about Thiago's closing remark: He [Chomsky] has been right all along [about the U.S.] - whatever the facts may have been in Cambodia. Facts, unfortunately for Chomsky, are stubborn things. Stephen F. Diamond School of Law Santa Clara University
Re: reply to Jim Devine and Thiago on Chomsky
- Original Message - From: Steve Diamond [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thiago suggested that noone on the left supports regimes (a term I usually apply to states controlled by groups that gained that position without a democratic election, as opposed to governments which have some claim to legitimacy). At least he had the courage to omit Castro from his list. It would no doubt surprise him to find out that hard core Sandinistas actually admired North Korea, that leading figures in the anti-globalization movement admire Lee Kuan Yew, and do I really have to trot out defenders of the Hussein regime? The anti-globalization movement has leaders? Ian
Bush: let's study global warming some more
NY Times, Dec. 3, 2002 Can Global Warming Be Studied Too Much? By ANDREW C. REVKIN WASHINGTON, Dec. 2 On Tuesday, the Bush administration convenes a three-day meeting here to set its new agenda for research on climate change. But many climate experts who will attend say talking about more research will simply delay decisions that need to be made now to avert serious harm from global warming. President Bush has called for a decade of research before anything beyond voluntary measures is used to stem tailpipe and smokestack emissions of heat-trapping gases that scientists say are contributing to global warming. When you're speeding down the road in your car, if you've got to turn around and go the other direction, the first thing is to slow down, then stop, then turn, said David K. Garman, the assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy. But many climate experts say the perennial need for more study can no longer justify further delays in emission cuts. Waiting 10 years to decide is itself a decision which may remove from the table certain options for stabilizing concentrations later, said Dr. Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences at Princeton. For example, under today's rate of emissions growth, he and other experts say that certain losses are already probable, including dwindling of snow-dependent water supplies and global die-offs of vulnerable ecosystems like coral reefs, alpine meadows and certain coastal marshes. Nevertheless, administration officials say further research is still necessary because scientists cannot say exactly what effects human activity will have on global climate and how dangerous they will be. It is worth taking the time to conduct more analysis at least to clarify the balance of environmental and economic risks, they say. Science rarely gives enough information to narrow policy choices to a single option, but it can clear away some of the underbrush, said Dr. John H. Marburger III, assistant to the president for science and technology. full: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/03/science/earth/03CLIM.html -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: reply to Jim Devine and Thiago on Chomsky
On 4/12/2002 1:35 PM, Steve Diamond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thiago suggested that noone on the left supports regimes (a term I usually apply to states controlled by groups that gained that position without a democratic election, as opposed to governments which have some claim to legitimacy). At least he had the courage to omit Castro from his list. It would no doubt surprise him to find out that hard core Sandinistas actually admired North Korea, that leading figures in the anti-globalization movement admire Lee Kuan Yew, and do I really have to trot out defenders of the Hussein regime? As far as madness goes, what is one to say about Thiago's closing remark: He [Chomsky] has been right all along [about the U.S.] - whatever the facts may have been in Cambodia. Facts, unfortunately for Chomsky, are stubborn things. If the point had been about Cambodia rather than a comparison of the media's representation of Cambodia and Indonesia, that would be a fair quibble. But it was not and it is not. There is nothing mad about Chomsky's making his particular point. Presumably, I , on the other hand, am mad for suggesting that the guy said this rather than that; meaning that I support genocide or want to ignore it to save Chomsky from your fabrications... Most ten year old children are capable of seeing what is wrong with this sort of thinking. Well, I admire many of Castro's policies, as I admire some of Fernando Henrique Cardoso's, and for that matter, Kennedy's - why must we totalize everything all the time or be damned? And if I think that Castro is a homophobic thug and about as socialist as a policeman, does that mean that I must at once call for his elimination, the murder of tens of thousands of Cubans and the installation of a US friendly regime? And support for Nicaraguans translates into support for North Korea! That's not an argument -that's not even sophisticated enough to be considered blackmail. As for your Lee Kuan Yew jibe, I have on idea what you are talkig about... Actually, why don't you trot out one defender of the Iraqi regime? I will then trot out one defender of Saudi Arabia who is now planning to change the regime in Iraq. Then you can trot out another defender of Stalin. I will then trot out, from somewhere in Montana, a defender of Adolph Hitler: attacking the weakest construction of extremist positions has always struck me as a terribly sophomoric passtime... politics, however, rarely outgrows the playground. Anyway, I apologise for fueling this pointless debate. I will recite my sutras before reading the list in the future. Thiago - This mail sent through IMP: www-mail.usyd.edu.au
Chomsky
I thought that Jim, Thiago, and Max answered Steve quite well. Chomsky was not concerned about defending Cambodia, only trying to show the hypocracy of the US. Once in France, I saw a very interesting Yugoslavian documentary on Cambodia. It made the case that Pol Pot had to move the people out of the cities in order to avoid starvation. It did not defend the massacres, nor would anyone on this list. To say that Iraq before the Gulf War had some success in developing health and education does not make someone a supporter of SH. All too often in political discourse to say a positive word about any of today's demons, makes one an agent of the devil. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
your views are not pointless, Thiago
Your perspective is representative of many on the left and thus expressing it seems far from pointless. But that does not mean that it makes sense. For example, you admit to some problems with the Castro regime (rightly describing him as a thug) but then leap to the conclusion that that mean[s] that I must at once call for his elimination, the murder of tens of thousands of Cubans and the installation of a US friendly regime. That reminds me of a typical discussion that occurred in the 1980s during the independent movement for democracy and human rights in eastern europe supported by the western nuclear disarmament movement. In a talk at Stanford, Czech dissident writer and Charter 77 writer novelist Zdena Tomin endorsed the call for unilateral disarmament being made by E.P. Thompson and others. An American student asked, but if the Americans leave, what will be left? Tomin replied with an arched eyebrow, the Europeans? You, Thiago, seem to see the world in the same bipolar fashion as that Stanford student - and thus you pose change in Cuba, and presumably Iraq, in the terms I initially applied to Chomsky (the enemy of my enemy). Did it occur to you that your opposition to Castro's thuggery might be endorsed by the direct victims of that behavior - the Cuban people themselves? And that you might find allies among the Cuban people short circuiting the aims of those who really do want to impose a Washington-friendly regime. That approach apparently did not occur to the organizers of the recent antiwar march in Washington who structured the entire event around opposing U.S. aggression without any suggestion that there really does need to be dramatic political change in Iraq, apoint of view that noone as far as I could tell was willing to make at the rally. In fact, I would argue that the antiwar movement in the U.S. would be greatly strengthened by acknowledging the thuggery of Saddam Hussein regime rather than attempting to rationalize it. Then the antiwar movement might find new allies among the Iraqi people themselves who will indeed need to be organized to resist the future that the Pentagon seems intent on imposing on them in the near future.
Re: Chomsky
The Germans had a word for such movements of entire populations out of the cities, Michael, I think they called it das endliche losung - and, just think, they were fed and clothed during the entire ride. - Original Message - From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 7:38 PM Subject: [PEN-L:32741] Chomsky I thought that Jim, Thiago, and Max answered Steve quite well. Chomsky was not concerned about defending Cambodia, only trying to show the hypocracy of the US. Once in France, I saw a very interesting Yugoslavian documentary on Cambodia. It made the case that Pol Pot had to move the people out of the cities in order to avoid starvation. It did not defend the massacres, nor would anyone on this list. To say that Iraq before the Gulf War had some success in developing health and education does not make someone a supporter of SH. All too often in political discourse to say a positive word about any of today's demons, makes one an agent of the devil. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Chomsky
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/03/02 22:39 PM To say that Iraq before the Gulf War had some success in developing health and education does not make someone a supporter of SH. All too often in political discourse to say a positive word about any of today's demons, makes one an agent of the devil. Michael Perelman iraqi gov't, at one time, was among handful that accepted principle of spontaneous settlement(more commonly known as squatting) in addressing housing issues... approach involved relatively low-cost upgrading of 'shanties' with roads, sewer, electricity, water...low rents community links were sustained while infrastructure development created jobs...gov't would offer people sites on which to build their own residences (providing construction guidance as well)...folks received tenure security and protection against rent inflation... education and health facilities were built to service such areas... result was string of villages in which residents could preserve/practice culture, maintain/foster mutual help support... communities helped cushion people against urban isolation/alienation *and* blocked use of inappropriate western planning/ zoning ideas... michael hoover
Die Endloesung
Steve Diamond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Germans had a word for such movements of entire populations out of thecities, Michael, I think they called it "das endliche losung" - and, justthink, they were fed and clothed during the entire ride. Die Endloesung, bitte. Actually, they weren't fed, mostly. Transports of Eastern Jews at any rate went in cattle cars, no food or water provided. And people had to bring their own clothes. I'm not comparing this favorably to Pol Pot, it's just the facts. jksDo you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
Re: reply to Jim Devine and Thiago on Chomsky
Steve Diamond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jim, it is certainly, I will agree, Chomsky's obsession to use an apparentlyobjective critique of the "western media" to make his political arguments, This is perverse, Steve. When C has a political point to make, he makes it directly. Why not take him at his word when he says that his subject is media and scholarly bias,a s it often (but not always) is? but to ignore the politics behind this approach is to reward form oversubstance. And the politics behind this supposedapproach is what, exactly? As far as madness goes, what is one to say about Thiago's closing remark:"He [Chomsky] has been right all along [about the U.S.] - whatever the factsmay have been in Cambodia."Facts, unfortunately for Chomsky, are stubborn things.I wish you'd drop this canard. C is not a supporter of the KR or an apologist for the Killing Fields. Decades ago, back before the extent of the massacres were well known, he used the example of the media and scholarly response to initial reports coming out of Cambodia as one illustration among many of the tendency of the western press and academic establishment to go a bananas over nefarious massacres even on shabby evidence, while shrugging over benign ones like that in East Timor. As it happens, C was right about the shabbiness of the evidence at the time. He withheld judgment on the facts until they were better known, quite properly. He expressly said that the truth might be (as indeed it was) as bad as the p! ropagandists claimed.The people who said that there was a genocidal slaughter going on were right, but it was no credit to them--even a stopped clock is right twice a day. C''s main point, that nefarious massacres are played up while benign ones are played down, was and is valid. The current attitude towards Saddam Hussein, now that he's no longer our son of a bitch, illustrates this vividly. jksDo you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
Die Endloesung
Steve Diamond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Germans had a word for such movements of entire populations out of thecities, Michael, I think they called it "das endliche losung" - and, justthink, they were fed and clothed during the entire ride. Die Endloesung, bitte. Actually, they weren't fed, mostly. Transports of Eastern Jews at any rate went in cattle cars, no food or water provided. And people had to bring their own clothes. I'm not comparing this favorably to Pol Pot, it's just the facts. jksDo you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
Re: your views are not pointless, Thiago
Erm... I am confused, though I think I must agree with what you have written now. I thought you, in your previous post, had whipped up the charge that Chomsky and unspecified leftists were soft on Pol Pot, Hussein, Castro, Lee Kuan Yew (!!! this just cracks me up every time!), North Korea and other acceptably sinister 'Regimes' around the world. Supposedly it was a major crime that the 'left' supports these goons against the US. I pointed out that this is not so, that in fact Chomsky strongly rejects such bipolar blackmail. In fact, he is a major exponent of the art of exposing this racket. Only the other day we had a large march here in Sydney against Australian involvement in the proposed war; one of the major blocks was headed by the Communist Party of Iraq, a bunch of Stalinists who I personally find practically impossible to work with. Their major slogan is No to Dictatorship and No to War. In this they have my full support - indeed this concurrs with what you say: Iraqi communists were the major target of Saddam's fury until the Iranian revolution, and he persecuted them with major assistant from the gringos terroristas. I am yet to hear a single speaker at a rally over here support Saddam: all, specially the Iraqi left, support wiping the guy out, none support the idea the US has any right to do this. They tend to get very anxious when people like you or I start criticising Saddam - for the reason their families might end up blown to smithereens courtesy of what is perceived as endorsment of our government's line. It takes serious trust-building for them to understand we actually share their views. And if these guys and girls perceive an endorsement, why would Howard, Bush and Blair fail to? I cannot shake the feeling that should I have mentioned this little annecdote about the CP of I two posts ago, you would have found this to be ample evidence of the left's will to apology (of Stalin, that it is...). Ohm gate gate paragate parasamgate... Thiago On 4/12/2002 2:57 PM, Steve Diamond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your perspective is representative of many on the left and thus expressing it seems far from pointless. But that does not mean that it makes sense. For example, you admit to some problems with the Castro regime (rightly describing him as a thug) but then leap to the conclusion that that mean[s] that I must at once call for his elimination, the murder of tens of thousands of Cubans and the installation of a US friendly regime. That reminds me of a typical discussion that occurred in the 1980s during the independent movement for democracy and human rights in eastern europe supported by the western nuclear disarmament movement. In a talk at Stanford, Czech dissident writer and Charter 77 writer novelist Zdena Tomin endorsed the call for unilateral disarmament being made by E.P. Thompson and others. An American student asked, but if the Americans leave, what will be left? Tomin replied with an arched eyebrow, the Europeans? You, Thiago, seem to see the world in the same bipolar fashion as that Stanford student - and thus you pose change in Cuba, and presumably Iraq, in the terms I initially applied to Chomsky (the enemy of my enemy). Did it occur to you that your opposition to Castro's thuggery might be endorsed by the direct victims of that behavior - the Cuban people themselves? And that you might find allies among the Cuban people short circuiting the aims of those who really do want to impose a Washington-friendly regime. That approach apparently did not occur to the organizers of the recent antiwar march in Washington who structured the entire event around opposing U.S. aggression without any suggestion that there really does need to be dramatic political change in Iraq, apoint of view that noone as far as I could tell was willing to make at the rally. In fact, I would argue that the antiwar movement in the U.S. would be greatly strengthened by acknowledging the thuggery of Saddam Hussein regime rather than attempting to rationalize it. Then the antiwar movement might find new allies among the Iraqi people themselves who will indeed need to be organized to resist the future that the Pentagon seems intent on imposing on them in the near future. - This mail sent through IMP: www-mail.usyd.edu.au
Turkey
[New York Times] December 4, 2002 Turkey Saying No to Accepting G.I.'s in Large Numbers By MICHAEL R. GORDON with ERIC SCHMITT ANKARA, Turkey, Dec. 3 - Turkey today said that it would not allow the United States to deploy substantial numbers of ground troops on its territory in the event of a war with Iraq. The new Turkish government, dominated by a party with Islamist roots, did say that the United States could station warplanes and use Turkish air space to carry out strikes - but only if the United Nations Security Council adopted a new resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. Turkey's stance was outlined tonight by Foreign Minister Yasar Yakis after meetings between government leaders and Paul D. Wolfowitz, the United States deputy defense secretary. If we are talking about the extensive presence of American forces in Turkey, we have difficulty in explaining this to Turkish public opinion, Mr. Yakis said. It may be difficult to see thousands of American forces being transported through the Turkish territory into Iraq or being stationed or deployed somewhere in Turkey and then carrying out strikes in Iraq. While the two sides sought to emphasize areas of agreement, the Turkish position could complicate the Bush administration's planning for a possible war with Iraq. Turkey, a NATO member and Iraq's northern neighbor, views the United States as a key ally and wants to cooperate with Washington, but officials in the new government pointed to their need to deal with public sentiment, which is skeptical about a military campaign. Mr. Wolfowitz said tonight that he was satisfied with his consultations with the Turks but declined to provide details about what cooperation Washington had requested, and the Turkish response. One senior Turkish official, who asked not to be identified, said that the United States Embassy in Ankara had recently forwarded a paper that outlined several areas of possible cooperation. The United States, the Turkish official said, wants access to Turkish air space for combat and support aircraft, and access to about 10 Turkish air bases and ports. The United States, the Turkish official added, also explored the possibility of stationing ground troops on Turkish territory. The official said that the Pentagon wanted to have the option to deploy tens of thousands of American troops. American officials have declined to discuss options for deploying troops in Turkey. There has been speculation, however, that the American ground forces, possibly the elite 101st Airborne Division, might use Turkish bases as a staging area into northern Iraq, where helicopter-borne infantry would help secure important oil fields in the Kurdish region and prevent Kurds from attempting to seize territory of their own. This would add to the pressure on the Iraqi military in the north while the main invasion came from Kuwait in the south. The request from the embassy also sought the use of Turkish troops to deal with Iraqi refugees and maintain order near the Turkish-Iraqi frontier, Turkish officials said. While ruling out a large deployment of ground troops, Turkish officials today did not preclude the stationing of Special Operations forces and small ground units. The Turkish insistence on the need to return to the Security Council before the American military can make any use of bases or air space in any war on Iraq is at odds with the Bush administration's position. Asked about Turkey's stance, a senior American official said that Washington hoped the Turks would change their minds. One option might be to return to the Security Council for discussion, but not a vote on a new resolution, if Iraq did not comply with the United Nations on disarmament. We're not convinced that this represents their final position, said one senior American military official. Washington has insisted that the resolution passed unanimously last month - and past Iraqi breaches of United Nations resolutions - confer all the legal authority needed to carry out an attack if Iraq fails to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and take steps to dismantle programs suspected of producing weapons of mass destruction. Obtaining a second resolution from the 15-member Security Council could substantially delay a military operation and would by no means be assured. On the military front, the Pentagon has sought to assemble a potent air and ground combat force in Turkey. Only the deployment of a powerful force, American officials assert, will induce President Saddam Hussein to comply with United Nations demands. If war cannot be avoided, such a force would require Iraq to fight on multiple fronts, they note, and help bring the war to a speedy conclusion. It's important that he see that he's surrounded by the international community, not only in the political sense, but in a real practical military sense, Mr. Wolfowitz said. During the 1991 Persian Gulf war, Turkey allowed the United States to launch air strikes
