war speculations
Title: war speculations My war speculations are working out in practice (though of course this isn't happy news for Iraqis or for coalition soldiers and taxpayers). The US Marines are arresting civilian men seen as potential threats (because many of them are threats, defending their country using classical guerilla-war or suicide-bomber tactics) in the towns on the way to Baghdad, creating a vicious circle of an unwanted occupation army. Innocent civilians are dying, while Iraqi nationalism is on the rise (without backing Saddam exactly), so that bulldozers will be pushing hearts and minds into burial pits instead of winning them. So the California-sized Gaza scenario is beginning to happen. I expect that the US troops will start knocking down buildings simply to prevent urban guerilla warfare. One difference from the Israeli occupation is that the US forces don't involve any movement to grab land and water. There's no settler movement and nothing like expansionistic Zionism. The building razings won't be encouraged by the wish to transfer the indigenous population out of Iraq. Of course, there is the expansionistic ideology of US hegemony with full spectrum dominance and the need to control our oil. But that encourages quisling-type governance, not settler colonialism. While I don't think the Stalingrad syndrome is likely to hit, so that the US is quite likely to win the war, there is already a loss. Rummy and the Neo-Cons -- sounds like a rock group, with Wolfowitz on lead guitar, Perle on the bass, etc. -- had the idea that the war could be won with a combination of psy-ops, shock awe bombing, and short/sharp/shock warfare using a relatively small number of troops using high tech digital tools. So far, this seems to have been a failure (partly due to the heroic resistance of the Turkish people to the use of their land as a staging area for the attack). So it's back to standard US doctrine of preponderant force and a high-cost war using a lot of old-fashioned military doctrine (with Dubya _et al_ trying to make sure that their friends, i.e., the rich, the military, etc. don't pay the cost). What this suggests is that the larger neo-con strategy is sinking: their idea is that the US could fight lots of cheap wars (following the model of the one against Afghanistan or the one against Panama or of course the heroic and glorious victory over the Grenadan Threat). After Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia could be conquered. And tomorrow the world! But this domino theory in reverse is much less likely to happen than it was a few weeks ago, since Rummy's strategy -- and his micro-managing of the Pentagon -- has turned much of the military-industrial establisment against him and the neo-con job. That doesn't mean that the US is going to give up and pull out of Iraq. It doesn't mean that the US will start promoting world peace or co-operating with other Big Powers or the UN. (It won't stop the US from being imperialistic or hegemonic or even unilateralist.) It does mean that Rummy's star is sinking, so that his influence will be increasingly small, while it's likely that he'll resign when the war is over (to spend more time with his family, of course). (Or he might come down with SARS and have to retire early. After all, he is the oldest Secretary of War the US has had, so that all sorts of AARP-related diseases could hit (or be portrayed as hitting).) In 20-20 hindsight, I don't think the Rummy strategy could have worked. The Iraqis weren't going to rise up against Saddam (no matter how hated he was) except in a limited way in the Shi'ite areas, while their troops weren't going to surrender. (A rebellion limited to the Shi'ite areas would have encouraged Iraq to fall apart as a country, something the Bushists don't want.) The military strategy wasn't that different from the fallacious idea that air power can win the war without ground troops. It was that air power (and psy-ops and special forces) could get away from military doctrine of protecting flanks and supply lines. With no Northern Alliance (local allies), the strategy seems to have been doomed from the start. BTW, we should stop calling Rumsfeld Rummy. It's an insult to a late cat of ours, Rum-Tum-Tugger (nicknamed Rummy). Not only was he cute, but he used to sit on my wife's shoulder (while she was reading the morning paper) and lick her ears and nostrils... Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Roy on Iraq War (long)
[ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ] Mesopotamia. Babylon. The Tigris and Euphrates How many children, in how many classrooms, over how many centuries, have hang-glided through the past, transported on the wings of these words? And now the bombs are falling, incinerating and humiliating that ancient civilisation Arundhati Roy Wednesday April 2, 2003 The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/ On the steel torsos of their missiles, adolescent American soldiers scrawl colourful messages in childish handwriting: For Saddam, from the Fat Boy Posse. A building goes down. A marketplace. A home. A girl who loves a boy. A child who only ever wanted to play with his older brother's marbles. On March 21, the day after American and British troops began their illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, an embedded CNN correspondent interviewed an American soldier. I wanna get in there and get my nose dirty, Private AJ said. I wanna take revenge for 9/11. To be fair to the correspondent, even though he was embedded he did sort of weakly suggest that so far there was no real evidence that linked the Iraqi government to the September 11 attacks. Private AJ stuck his teenage tongue out all the way down to the end of his chin. Yeah, well that stuff's way over my head, he said. According to a New York Times/CBS News survey, 42 per cent of the American public believes that Saddam Hussein is directly responsible for the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. And an ABC news poll says that 55 per cent of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein directly supports al-Qaida. What percentage of America's armed forces believe these fabrications is anybody's guess. It is unlikely that British and American troops fighting in Iraq are aware that their governments supported Saddam Hussein both politically and financially through his worst excesses. But why should poor AJ and his fellow soldiers be burdened with these details? It does not matter any more, does it? Hundreds of thousands of men, tanks, ships, choppers, bombs, ammunition, gas masks, high-protein food, whole aircrafts ferrying toilet paper, insect repellent, vitamins and bottled mineral water, are on the move. The phenomenal logistics of Operation Iraqi Freedom make it a universe unto itself. It doesn't need to justify its existence any more. It exists. It is. President George W Bush, commander in chief of the US army, navy, airforce and marines has issued clear instructions: Iraq. Will. Be. Liberated. (Perhaps he means that even if Iraqi people's bodies are killed, their souls will be liberated.) American and British citizens owe it to the supreme commander to forsake thought and rally behind their troops. Their countries are at war. And what a war it is. After using the good offices of UN diplomacy (economic sanctions and weapons inspections) to ensure that Iraq was brought to its knees, its people starved, half a million of its children killed, its infrastructure severely damaged, after making sure that most of its weapons have been destroyed, in an act of cowardice that must surely be unrivalled in history, the Allies/Coalition of the Willing(better known as the Coalition of the Bullied and Bought) - sent in an invading army! Operation Iraqi Freedom? I don't think so. It's more like Operation Let's Run a Race, but First Let Me Break Your Knees. So far the Iraqi army, with its hungry, ill-equipped soldiers, its old guns and ageing tanks, has somehow managed to temporarily confound and occasionally even outmanoeuvre the Allies. Faced with the richest, best-equipped, most powerful armed forces the world has ever seen, Iraq has shown spectacular courage and has even managed to put up what actually amounts to a defence. A defence which the Bush/Blair Pair have immediately denounced as deceitful and cowardly. (But then deceit is an old tradition with us natives. When we are invaded/ colonised/occupied and stripped of all dignity, we turn to guile and opportunism.) Even allowing for the fact that Iraq and the Allies are at war, the extent to which the Allies and their media cohorts are prepared to go is astounding to the point of being counterproductive to their own objectives. When Saddam Hussein appeared on national TV to address the Iraqi people after the failure of the most elaborate assassination attempt in history - Operation Decapitation - we had Geoff Hoon, the British defence secretary, deriding him for not having the courage to stand up and be killed, calling him a coward who hides in trenches. We then had a flurry of Coalition speculation - Was it really Saddam, was it his double? Or was it Osama with a shave? Was it pre-recorded? Was it a speech? Was it black magic? Will it turn into a pumpkin if we really, really want it to? After dropping not hundreds, but thousands of bombs on Baghdad, when a marketplace was mistakenly blown up and civilians killed - a US army spokesman implied that the Iraqis were
Free markets to the rescue
I have no idea about the reliability of this source. Shouldn't the providers get kickbacks to finance early military retirements? Cheers, Ken Hanly http://commondreams.org/headlines03/0401-14.htm Broadcast on April 1, 2003 by the New York Daily News Deal to Sell Water All Wet, Critics Charge by Richard Sisk UMM QASR, Iraq - The U.S. military came up with a solution yesterday for the penniless people of this port town begging for water: Sell it. Despite general mayhem at distribution points - including knife fights - the Army has struck a hasty agreement with local Iraqis to expedite distribution of water to the roughly 40,000 living here. Under the deal, the military will provide water free to locals with access to tanker trucks, who then will be allowed to sell the water for a reasonable fee. We're permitting them to charge a small fee for water, said Army Col. David Bassert. This provides them with an incentive to hustle and to work, said Bassert, an assistant commander with the 354th Civil Affairs Brigade. He said he could not suggest what constitutes a reasonable fee and did not know what the truckers were charging. He said the tradition here of haggling at markets would help the system work. People know when they're being gouged - we'll deal with it, Bassert said. But with the population badly in need of water, food and medical supplies, the arrangement drew its share of critics. 'This is crazy' Several Iraqi-Americans originally from this region, who are working as interpreters and guides with the U.S. military, were incensed at what they consider an attempt to jump-start a free-market economy during a crisis. This is bull, said an Iraqi-American who asked to be identified only as Ahmed. They are selling water and this is crazy. Nobody has any money, nobody knows what is money [to use] - Iraqi money, American money, nobody knows. A British military spokesman angrily objected to the water deal. The British control the city of Umm Qasr while the Americans are in charge of the port. We're not going to have any charging for water. What kind of an aid plan would that be? These people don't even have shoes, the spokesman said. Ahmed and the others said they had seen fights with fists and knives among desperate locals trying to get water from the truckers. Ill at ease The reports could not be independently confirmed because a promised military escort for reporters into town never took place. Officers said the trip was canceled because of widespread clashes between remnants of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's supporters and British troops, although no firing could be heard and the Iraqi-Americans who spent the afternoon in town said no clashes had taken place. But the general situation was far from secure. A heavy mortar or artillery round launched toward the port shook buildings and rattled windows but exploded beyond the fence and caused no casualties. Editor's Note: The military has confiscated the satellite phones of a certain make used by journalists traveling with U.S. troops in Iraq, including those used by reporter Richard Sisk and photographer Todd Maisel of the Daily News, for fear that Iraqi forces could intercept the signal and target U.S. positions. This dispatch has been sent by other means approved by the military, but military officials did not review or restrict its contents. © 2003 Daily News, L.P. ___
The CHeney Connection
This is from the Daily Times (Pakistan) but seems from the bottom it might have come from Boston Globe originally. I think that Halliburton may have been eliminated from the reconstruction bids but of course its subsidiary did get oil well fire contract. Cheers, Ken Hanly The Cheney connection By Ruben Navarrette Not only did Halliburton not seem to mind that its CEO was moonlighting as a headhunter, it gave Cheney a $1.5 million bonus. But that was cookie jar money compared with what Cheney pocketed when Bush made him his running mate. Cheney then sold his stock options and pocketed another $22 million and change I know the saying dictates that to the victor go the spoils. But there are serious questions emerging over the process by which US companies are hired to put out oil fires, build roads and bridges, restart oil production, and do whatever is necessary to reconstruct Iraq after allied forces deconstruct it. Some answers need to come from Vice President Dick Cheney, a major architect of the war with Iraq, according to many newspapers and columnists around the country. That s the same Dick Cheney who was, until 2 1/2 years ago, chief executive officer of Halliburton Co., a Houston-based oil field services firm that takes in nearly $20 billion annually. It is a Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown Root that landed on a short list of companies invited by the US Agency for International Development to bid on what could grow to be a $900 million contract to rebuild Iraq. That s the same Kellogg, Brown Root that was recently awarded, by the Defence Department, the contract to put out fires at oil fields in Iraq. Good work if you can get it. Oil-field fire fighting firms fetch up to $50,000 per day, and it can take weeks to cap a single well. There s no telling how much work there will be in Iraq, but experience says there could be plenty. In the first Gulf War, Iraqis torched more than 700 oil wells in Kuwait. About half the fires were extinguished by Halliburton. There s that name again. And just to prove what a small world it is, the man who was secretary of defence in 1991 was later himself awarded a choice position: CEO of Halliburton. His name: Dick Cheney. The Halliburton gig, from 1995 to 2000, was a cash cow for Cheney. During his final 8 1/2 months on the job, he pulled down a salary of $806,332 and collected another $100,000 in benefits. And, mind you, all this was occurring while he was directing George W Bush's search for a running mate. Not only did Halliburton not seem to mind that its CEO was moonlighting as a headhunter, it gave Cheney a $1.5 million bonus. But that was cookie jar money compared with what Cheney pocketed when Bush made him his running mate. Cheney then sold his stock options and pocketed another $22 million and change. Now $22 million and change isn't just a golden handshake. And that brings us to the questions. Are the new contracts for Halliburton Cheney's idea of reciprocity? If not, why was the process done by invitation only and not opened to other bids? And why was all this done in relative quiet? Moreover, why hasn't the vice president s office been more forthcoming in trying to clear up any confusion about any benefit that Halliburton might derive from having its former CEO now sitting to the right hand of the president? Why has Cheney s office typically referred inquiring reporters from The Washington Post to Halliburton, only to have Halliburton refer them back to the vice president? And given that these are tax dollars we re talking about (lots of them), why isn t there more transparency in the whole process? Americans may never learn the answers. After howls of protests from competing firms around the world that were aced out of the Iraqi reconstruction bidding process, the government has now shifted the responsibility for overseeing the oil-field contracts to the Army Corps of Engineers and stamped the matter classified. And why is that, exactly? Here's the big question: Did the vice president of the United States use his influence to help make his wealthy friends at his old company wealthier? No one knows. And it's mighty hard to find out when no one is talking and folks are giving reporters the run-around. That has to stop. Cheney should speak up and settle once and for all these questions about how his private sector experience may be affecting his public service. -The Boston Globe
Good for a lift
Title: Good for a lift An essay from Clarissa Pinkola Estes, author of Women Who Run With Wolves Mis estimados: Do not lose heart. We were made for these times. I have heard from so many recently who are deeply and properly bewildered. They are concerned about the state of affairs in our world right now. It is true, one has to have strong cojones and ovarios to withstand much of what passes for good in our culture today. Abject disregard of what the soul finds most precious and irreplaceable and the corruption of principled ideals have become, in some large societal arenas, the new normal, the grotesquerie of the week. It is hard to say which one of the current egregious matters has rocked people's worlds and beliefs more. Ours is a time of almost daily jaw-dropping astonishment and often righteous rage over the latest degradations of what matters most to civilized, visionary people. You are right in your assessments. The lustre and hubris some have aspired to while endorsing acts so heinous against children, elders, everyday people, the poor, the unguarded, the helpless, is breathtaking. Yet ... I urge you, ask you, gentle you, to please not spend your spirit dry by bewailing these difficult times. Especially do not lose hope. Most particularly because, the fact is - we were made for these times. Yes.. For years, we have been learning, practicing, been in training for and just waiting to meet on this exact plain of engagement. I cannot tell you often enough that we are definitely the leaders we have been waiting for, and that we have been raised since childhood for this time precisely. ...I grew up on the Great Lakes and recognize a seaworthy vessel when I see one. Regarding awakened souls, there have never been more able crafts in the waters than there are right now across the world. And they are fully provisioned and able to signal one another as never before in the history of humankind. I would like to take your hands for a moment and assure you that you are built well for these times. Despite your stints of doubt, your frustrations in arighting all that needs change right now, or even feeling you have lost the map entirely, you are not without resource, you are not alone. Look out over the prow; there are millions of boats of righteous souls on the waters with you. In your deepest bones, you have always known this is so. Even though your veneers may shiver from every wave in this stormy roil, I assure you that the long timbers composing your prow and rudder come from a greater forest. That long-grained lumber is known to withstand storms, to hold together, to hold its own, and to advance, regardless. ...We have been in training for a dark time such as this, since the day we assented to come to Earth. For many decades, worldwide, souls just like us have been felled and left for dead in so many ways over and over - brought down by naiveté, by lack of love, by suddenly realizing one deadly thing or another, by not realizing something else soon enough, by being ambushed and assaulted by various cultural and personal shocks in the extreme. We have a history of being gutted, and yet remember this especially ... we have also, of necessity, perfected the knack of resurrection. Over and over again we have been the living proof that that which has been exiled, lost, or foundered - can be restored to life again. This is as true and sturdy a prognosis for the destroyed worlds around us as it was for our own once mortally wounded selves. ...Though we are not invulnerable, our visibility supports us to laugh in the face of cynics who say fat chance, and management before mercy, and other evidences of complete absence of soul sense. This, and our having been to Hell and back on at least one momentous occasion, makes us seasoned vessels for certain. Even if you do not feel that you are, you are. Even if your puny little ego wants to contest the enormity of your soul, that smaller self can never for long subordinate the larger Self. In matters of death and rebirth, you have surpassed the benchmarks many times. Believe the evidence of any one of your past testings and trials. Here it is: Are you still standing? The answer is, Yes! (And no adverbs like barely are allowed here).. If you are still standing, ragged flags or no, you are able. Thus, you have passed the bar. And even raised it. You are seaworthy. ...In any dark time, there is a tendency to veer toward fainting over how much is wrong or unmended in the world. Do not focus on that. Do not make yourself ill with overwhelm. There is a tendency too to fall into being weakened by perseverating on what is outside your reach, by what cannot yet be. Do not focus there. That is spending the wind without raising the sails. We are needed, that is all we can know. And though we meet resistance, we more so will meet great souls who will hail us, love us and guide us, and we will know them when they appear. Didn't you say you were a believer? Didn't you say you
oil rents bust
http://www.eurasianet.org BUSINESS ECONOMICS April 2, 2003 TOP OIL CONSULTANT INDICTED IN NEW YORK IN CASE WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR KAZAKHSTAN 3/31/03 After an extensive grand jury investigation, prominent oil consultant James Giffen was arraigned March 31 in New York on two counts of violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). The case may have profound implications for Kazakhstan. According to published reports, Giffen is alleged to have funneled millions of dollars to bank accounts controlled by top Kazakhstani government officials. According to a source familiar with the case, authorities took Giffen into custody at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York on March 30. Giffen, chairman of Mercator Corp., was arraigned at the US District Court Southern District of New York, a court clerk told EurasiaNet. The two counts against Giffen include conspiracy to violate the FCPA and an actual violation of FCPA. US District Court Magistrate Judge Douglas F. Eaton set bail at $10 million. Giffen's legal counsel has insisted his client is innocent of any wrongdoing. A federal complaint unsealed March 31 does not identify any of Giffen's alleged co-conspirators by name, the informed source said. However, the US government's case focuses on payments made by Mercator Corp. to a foundation that is controlled by top Kazakhstani government officials. Specifically, the complaint alleges that a $20.5 million payment was transferred in 1997 to a Swiss bank account controlled by a company called Orel Capital Limited. The complaint linked Orel to the Lichtenstein-based Semrek Foundation, which bank records show as being under the direct control of senior Kazakhstani government officials. Prosecutors must be very confident of the evidence because, dealing with the corporate community, they must be very diligent, said Joseph LaPalombara, a professor emeritus at Yale University who tracks multinational corporate behavior in developing countries. Typically what prosecutors and investigators do is try to choose companies and alleged misbehavior of which, if they are successful, they can make an example. A federal grand jury in New York examined evidence in connection with the Giffen case for over two years. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archives]. A corruption scandal in Kazakhstan, dubbed Kazakhgate, has emerged as a major source of political tension over the past year. Opposition leaders have sought to publicize official misdeeds in order to undermine President Nursultan Nazarbayev's administration. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archives]. Authorities responded by cracking down on opposition activity, both in the political sphere and in mass media. Perhaps the most notorious case in the crackdown so far has involved journalist Sergei Duvanov, who was sentenced to a 3 ½-year prison term on a rape charge that he maintains was politically motivated. [For additional information see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Duvanov has said the government jailed him in retribution for writing articles that implicated Nazarbayev in taking illicit payments.
Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?
Eugene: With my post I was hoping to encourage a discussion -- and get an answer -- of how to make clear to the vast majority that their dreams of being rich will never be realized. Any help? Micheal Yates has a new book out: Naming the System: Inequality and Labor in the Global Economy. It is an excellent book on this topic and written in a simple enough language accessible to almost anyone with a highschool education. One way of making clear to the vast majority that their dreams of being rich will never be realized is to publish more books like that. Maybe even in a simpler language. Another possibility is offering courses at universities, colleges and other public education institutions, not on the Second Volume of Marx's Capital, but on this topic. These are two simple examples that I came up with after a few seconds of thinking. Many more can be found. Best, Sabri
RE: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?
It sounds like a formula for political failure: telling people they can never do much better than they're doing at present. What a bummer. It's doubly problematic, as all here can appreciate, for a worker to hear this from a middle class intellectual type. I suggest that hope will always spring eternal, even if your only shot is winning an unfair lottery. Better, I say, to have a political program that speaks to individuals' ability to take the most practical route out of wage slavery -- going into business for themselves. I suggest that people are not stupid -- they are conscious of the odds against getting rich. What they don't want to hear is all the reasons their chances are zero, which they know is not true. What might interest them is how government might facilitate their prospects against predatory corporations and parasitic finance. mbs -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Sabri Oncu Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 1:36 PM To: PEN-L Subject: [PEN-L:36409] Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country? Eugene: With my post I was hoping to encourage a discussion -- and get an answer -- of how to make clear to the vast majority that their dreams of being rich will never be realized. Any help? Micheal Yates has a new book out: Naming the System: Inequality and Labor in the Global Economy. It is an excellent book on this topic and written in a simple enough language accessible to almost anyone with a highschool education. One way of making clear to the vast majority that their dreams of being rich will never be realized is to publish more books like that. Maybe even in a simpler language. Another possibility is offering courses at universities, colleges and other public education institutions, not on the Second Volume of Marx's Capital, but on this topic. These are two simple examples that I came up with after a few seconds of thinking. Many more can be found. Best, Sabri
Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?
Max: Better, I say, to have a political program that speaks to individuals' ability to take the most practical route out of wage slavery -- going into business for themselves. I did that Max. I am the President and CEO of my own consulting company. It doesn't help, believe me. Or maybe, I am not sufficiently able and this is why! (I can give you some details of my own experience in private if you like.) On the other hand, I agree with you that it is not enough to tell people that they are doomed to fail. I have never been against utopias, as long as they are realistic, whatever realistic means. Hope is the only thing that keeps us going! Sabri
Re: Re: RE: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?
In a message dated 4/1/03 2:56:55 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: With my post I was hoping to encourage a discussion -- and get an answer -- of how to make clear to the vast majority that their dreams of being rich will never be realized. Any help? Gene Coyle The capitalist will do this for us. There is no argument that can convince millions of people that economic prosperity does not lay around the corner. The ideology or ideological struggle or the manner in which people think things out, is in the last instance supported by their actual life cycle and how people understand the mechanics of living and what they have collectively experienced. It is not so much "I can get rich" as it is a concept of being able to "make it." We Americans are the most imperial of all peoples on earth. Imperial is not a bad word to me but a historical evolved relationship that a people exist in. That is to say the export of our historical advance means of production, whether in the form of products or capital as investment (the mode of accumulation) has always served as the basis for the rise in the standard of living of the Anglo-American working class. Anglo-American working class means all the people within the Northern United States of North America, without regard to color, nationality, and gender of sexual orientation. Without question the rise of America is written in blood ink on a parchment of genocide. The imperial people instinctively understand that their material conditions of living are connected - exist in interactive relations, with the poverty of rest of the world. Millions of American workers will explain to anyone that ask why war if good for the economy. War boost production for all kinds of goods and services, that in the last instance are destroyed in war and has to be produced once again - goes the thinking. It does not require deep thinking to understand why the workers at the various tank-manufacturing centers are not protesting the war, even when their union leaders condemn the Bush Jr. war plans. Sure there is moral indignation, but it is the indignation of imperial workers. As a general rule one tends to follow their stomach because in the fight between the head and the stomach, the stomach generally wins. The issue is complex, but tied to the curve of development peculiar to America. What set the basis for the American ideology is the aftermath of the Civil War and the ascendancy of Wall Street Imperialism - finance capital. This is not so much a Marxist approach as it is a materialist approach to social phenomenon. After the Civil War, roughly 11 million people in the South were converted into sharecroppers, of which 5 million were former slaves. The shattered slave oligarchy never lost political power in any fundamental way. To hold 5 million former slaves at the absolute bottom of the social ladder and in the hole of extreme poverty required 6 million white share croppers to jump into the hole of poverty and physically hold them down. The ideology articulating this social process cloaked itself in the mantle of "saving the South." Southern slavery as an economic and political institution was a white mans government and system of wealth creation. Whites lived better as compared to the slave or bottom of the societal infrastructure. Without question it took an enormous system of violence and terror to maintain the sharecropper system, in a much as no man will work for another when he does not have to. After the Civil War there was a new economic-political situation. Slavery, as a poor white man's best government, was done away with. The Southern poor white was ground down almost to the level of the black, with one fundamental exception. The whites could form the lynch mobs. They had social privileges but very little economic privileges, especially compared to their Northern counterparts. No longer was a Southern poor white able to say, "If I could just get that $250 bucks and buy a slave I can beat it out of him and go from one to the next, to the next, to the next and I can become rich." Suddenly they couldn't become rich and the only thing that held them together was the ideological conviction expressed by the movie "Birth of a Nation." What arose in the ideological realm was the extreme form of the old white supremacy now under the economic direction of Wall Street. Hence, the old white supremacy was sublated as white chauvinism, in as much as the oppression and exploitation of a region - nation, not simply a people was taking place at the hands of the Northern Anglo American imperial bourgeoisie. The point of course is that only radical changes in the material power of production can set the basis for radical changes in the way people think things out. Our young as a stratum already intuitively know that they are not going to get rich or even "make it." In the case of the Civil War revolutionary forces were unleashed that sought to move in the
Re: RE: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?
Better, I say, to have a political programthat speaks to individuals' ability to takethe most practical route out of wage slavery --going into business for themselves. I presume you mean collectively, in coops and the like? jksDo you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?
In a message dated 4/1/03 9:34:19 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The recent survey of 1,000 adults found that only 2% of Americans consider themselves rich today, but a whopping 31% expect to become rich someday. Understandably, young people are most optimistic, with 51% of those age 18 to 29 anticipating the life of a sort-of Rockefeller. But the hopefulness extends across all age groups, with even 22% of those between ages 50 and 64 figuring they'll hit the jackpot someday, though only 4% of them are rich today. Even more revealing is the fact that many low-income people expect a fat future payday. The Gallup survey found that more than one in every five persons earning less than $30,000 a year has that belief, with the share climbing to 38% for those earning between $50,000 and $74,000, and all the way to 51% for those who make more than $75,000. I felt the same way until I saw a couple hundred thousand dissolve into nothing. The American Dream is by definition a dream. There is a real breach between what people say and how they live out their lives. Or between the ideological form - how people think things out and express their views, and there real life circumstances. Maybe I will end up shorting the market and getting back my dough and more; if my pension checks keep coming forever; if the war is quick - even though I am against it; if I turn "this way" instead of "That way" next time; if I refinance and pay off all the credit cards; if I get lucky: if . . . If . . . if. Well, the law of value catches up with all of society but not at the same time. Well, maybe it won't get me if I take a computer repair class . . . . or an air conditioning furnace repair class, maybe Michael can get me a degree in something on the Master's Level . . . I could write pamplets about proletarian revolution and price them cheap . . . . Then when the law of value catches you and not your neighbor its . . ."damn, why didn't I do this". . . .."I should have went to Ford instead of Chrysler"."I should have gotten my teeth fixed when I had medical coverage . . ." Then smart thinking says, " There are more billionaires and millionaires in America than at any other time in our history. I have a chance." Some leftist says, "There are more poor people and people not able to make it in America," and the people get pissed off because no one wants to see themselves driven into poverty. Everyone starts buying those "do what you love and the money will follow" books and the authors get rich. You say, "shit how come I didn't write the damn book" and take a class in how to write. The American ideology is unraveling. Things are really worse in our country than what we think and how we express things. Melvin P. Melvin P.
RE: Re: RE: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?
Better, I say, to have a political program that speaks to individuals' ability to take the most practical route out of wage slavery -- going into business for themselves. I presume you mean collectively, in coops and the like? jks Facilitating coops is important, but I also mean individually. mbs
RE: RE: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?
Title: RE: [PEN-L:36410] RE: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country? it makes more sense to start with existing political movements and existing discontents and try to link up and build on the ones that promise a better chance of building a movement that will change the balance of power in the direction of improvement. I don't tell people that they'll never get rich. Rather, I present the evidence and logic that says that only a small percentage of them will. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine stop the war now! -Original Message- From: Max B. Sawicky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 11:41 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:36410] RE: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country? It sounds like a formula for political failure: telling people they can never do much better than they're doing at present. What a bummer. It's doubly problematic, as all here can appreciate, for a worker to hear this from a middle class intellectual type. I suggest that hope will always spring eternal, even if your only shot is winning an unfair lottery. Better, I say, to have a political program that speaks to individuals' ability to take the most practical route out of wage slavery -- going into business for themselves. I suggest that people are not stupid -- they are conscious of the odds against getting rich. What they don't want to hear is all the reasons their chances are zero, which they know is not true. What might interest them is how government might facilitate their prospects against predatory corporations and parasitic finance. mbs -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Sabri Oncu Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 1:36 PM To: PEN-L Subject: [PEN-L:36409] Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country? Eugene: With my post I was hoping to encourage a discussion -- and get an answer -- of how to make clear to the vast majority that their dreams of being rich will never be realized. Any help? Micheal Yates has a new book out: Naming the System: Inequality and Labor in the Global Economy. It is an excellent book on this topic and written in a simple enough language accessible to almost anyone with a highschool education. One way of making clear to the vast majority that their dreams of being rich will never be realized is to publish more books like that. Maybe even in a simpler language. Another possibility is offering courses at universities, colleges and other public education institutions, not on the Second Volume of Marx's Capital, but on this topic. These are two simple examples that I came up with after a few seconds of thinking. Many more can be found. Best, Sabri
Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?
That's nuts. You know the failure rates for small business better than I do. I just know that it is veryhigh. And how amny of self-employed or entrepreneurs go into their 60s (or 70s) with enough to retire on decently? jks "Max B. Sawicky" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Better, I say, to have a political programthat speaks to individuals' ability to takethe most practical route out of wage slavery --going into business for themselves. I presume you mean collectively, in coops and the like? jksFacilitating coops is important, but I also meanindividually.mbsDo you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
Re: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?
In a message dated 4/2/03 10:36:59 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One way of making clear to the vast majority that their dreams of being rich will never be realized is to publish more books like that. Maybe even in a simpler language. Another possibility is offering courses at universities, colleges and other public education institutions, not on the Second Volume of Marx's Capital, but on this topic. If I simplify Marx and concentrate on the mode of production but call it the material power of the productive forces and then explain that this means tools, technology and energy source, and why this compels society to change . . . . .maybe in a 50 page paperback with a $5.95 price and get . 25 cents . . . and add this to my pension ... and then do a series that is easy to read . . . . I might make it pretty good. I could go back to the Casino . . . for a little while and . . . shit . . . . .write an easy to read book on how to play Blackjack. Yeah! Most blackjack players say they "play by the book" and have never read the book. Yes, I can call it "Blackjack: The Book" and make it only 45 pages long and charge $9.95" because gamblers will pay more. If I stop stalling and writing that crampy Marx shit on Pen-L for about a month . . .hit the library and review all the major Black Jack books, and then set up a Web Page . . . . Wait a minute! I could write a beginners pamphlet on dialectics and talk in a plain fashion about antagonism and what it really mean in 25 pages and . . . .oh shit, nobody else talks about the hard philosophic questions in a language the average American can understand . . . .hu m m mm mm m Let me make sure I pay AOL on time because ... wait a minute . .. Damn . . . Waistline2 could be a brand name. Damn. I have argued with Chris and Lou long enough and wrote enough material ... Shit . . .I have a brand name ... damn. I wonder ... if I got . . . . wait a minute... from each small booklet ... and multiplied this by at least three a year . Shit . . . . I might still be able to move to Vegas . . . . I mean Arizona . .. .its the climate. Melvin P.
Re: RE: RE: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?
Wierdly enough, the idea that people can become rich worked less during the 60's when the likelihood of becoming well off was higher. How much is the fear of being poor operative today rathern than a dream of becoming rich? On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 01:02:19PM -0800, Devine, James wrote: it makes more sense to start with existing political movements and existing discontents and try to link up and build on the ones that promise a better chance of building a movement that will change the balance of power in the direction of improvement. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?
Title: RE: WSJ - Is This A Great Country? The benefit of rising to the top has risen, even though the possibility of doing so has fallen drastically. But people still buy lottery tickets, don't they? Back in the 1950s and 1960s in the US, the benefits of economic growth were more evenly distributed (among white males) than they are today. That meant a white male _didn't need to be rich_ as much as he does nowadays. A white male blue-collar worker could earn a middle class lifestyle. (And this was because of unions, the watered-down form of social democracy we had in the US, the permanent war economy, and the privileged position of the US in the world (and of white males in the US).) In the late 1960s, these benefits were even more evenly distributed, when something approximating full employment hit. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine stop the war now! -Original Message- From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 1:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:36419] Re: RE: RE: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country? Wierdly enough, the idea that people can become rich worked less during the 60's when the likelihood of becoming well off was higher. How much is the fear of being poor operative today rathern than a dream of becoming rich? On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 01:02:19PM -0800, Devine, James wrote: it makes more sense to start with existing political movements and existing discontents and try to link up and build on the ones that promise a better chance of building a movement that will change the balance of power in the direction of improvement. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: WSJ - Is This A GreatCountry?
Title: Re: [PEN-L:36417] Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: WSJ - Is This A Since winning the lottery is the way people get rich (in their fantasies), why not propose exempting lottery winnings from the federal income tax (which would in fact only be fair, since such winnings are not income but transfers, and lottery losings are in practise never deductibles from pretax income)? Shane Mage When we read on a printed page the doctrine of Pythagoras that all things are made of numbers, it seems mystical, mystifying, even downright silly. When we read on a computer screen the doctrine of Pythagoras that all things are made of numbers, it seems self-evidently true. (N. Weiner) That's nuts. You know the failure rates for small business better than I do. I just know that it is veryhigh. And how amny of self-employed or entrepreneurs go into their 60s (or 70s) with enough to retire on decently? jks Max B. Sawicky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Better, I say, to have a political program that speaks to individuals' ability to take the most practical route out of wage slavery -- going into business for themselves. I presume you mean collectively, in coops and the like? jks Facilitating coops is important, but I also mean individually. mbs Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
More scary budgetary stuff
Here is the WSJ linking Rumsfeld and Cheney with Art. Laffter POLITICAL CAPITAL By ALAN MURRAY 'Dynamic' Scoring Ends Debate on Taxes, Revenue Do tax cuts pay for themselves? That's been the hot debate of American political economy for the better part of three decades. But it ended last week -- with a whimper. The great argument got its start in 1974, when a White House chief of staff named Donald Rumsfeld sent his deputy, Richard Cheney, to have lunch with an ebullient young economist named Art Laffer and his journalistic sidekick, Jude Wanniski. According to local lore, Mr. Laffer sketched a curve on a cocktail napkin suggesting that a cut in income taxes could provide such a spark to the economy that government revenues would rise, not fall. The free lunch was born. The problem with Mr. Laffer's graph, however, was that it had no numbers on the axes. How much would growth be boosted? At what level of taxation would tax cuts become self-financing? Those remained the big unknowns as the issue became a central question of American politics. In Washington, the debate became a bureaucratic battle focusing on the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation, the two agencies responsible for advising Congress on the costs of budget and tax changes. By convention, both use static scorekeeping that assumes budget and tax changes have no effect on overall economic growth. Supply-side proponents have criticized both agencies relentlessly for this, but to no avail -- until last week. Enter Douglas Holtz-Eakin, an economist on leave from Syracuse University and an avowed advocate of supply-side dynamic scoring. A few months ago, Republican congressional leaders plucked him out of a job at the White House and made him director of the CBO. Last week, in his agency's analysis of President Bush's tax and budget plan, he provided his new bosses with their first taste of dynamic scoring. The results: Some provisions of the president's plan would speed up the economy; others would slow it down. Using some models, the plan would reduce the budget deficit from what it otherwise would have been; using others, it would widen the deficit. But in every case, the effects are relatively small. And in no case does Mr. Bush's tax cut come close to paying for itself over the next 10 years. For the handful of people who read the report in its entirety, there is another surprise. Of the nine different economic models used to analyze the president's plan, only two showed a large improvement in the deficit over the next decade as a result of supply side effects. Both those models got their results by assuming that after 2013, taxes would be raised to eliminate the remaining deficit. The theory is that people will work harder between 2004 and 2013 because they know that their taxes will be going up, and will want to earn more money before those tax increases take effect. Using those same models, if the assumption is changed so that government spending falls after 2013 to close the deficit -- the outcome preferred by most supply-siders -- the economic benefits disappear. The president's plan would cause the deficit to become slightly wider over the next 10 years than it would have been otherwise. Advocates of dynamic scoring have tried to make the most of these tepid results, calling the report a good first step. You've got to crawl before you can walk, and you've got to walk before you can run, says economist Bruce Bartlett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis and former Reagan administration Treasury Department economist who pushed Mr. Holtz-Eakin for the CBO post. Democratic opponents are still at arms, fearing the report is the camel's nose under the tent. But it should make both sides wonder what the hubbub of the past 30 years has been all about. Mr. Holtz-Eakin says the new analysis, while costly and time consuming -- it took 35 government analysts a month and a half to complete the work -- is still a worthy effort. It will enable lawmakers to make smarter choices among policies shown by dynamic scoring to have a positive effect on economic growth and those that don't. It's a useful supplement, he says. Former CBO chief Robert Reischauer, who was appointed by Democrats, largely agrees: I think it was a very useful exercise. It's not inappropriate to do that exercise every year. No doubt, a lot of questions will be raised about how far to push this analysis. Democrats, for instance, may start advocating dynamic scoring for education spending, which many believe also has positive effects on the economy. But the great debate launched by Mr. Laffer and his napkin in 1974 is for the most part over. Certainly, tax cuts can improve overall economic growth. And certainly, revenues may rise as a result. But at current levels of taxation, those effects are relatively small. There is no free lunch. Write to Alan Murray at [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Michael Perelman Economics Department
comment
A friend writes from Albuquerque NM.. Dan: Clearly the rules for everything are changing and I don't see a way back, for principles of any kind. Leaders have re-defined what the traffic will bear. I feel so overwhelmed by the scope of it, stymied, stupid, and spread out on a sheer rock face with nothing to grab to change the predicament. Americans, either ignorant of their own narrowness of viewpoint or jingoistically on board with any ass-kicking agenda that comes along, want to think they're getting straight stuff from their press. Local press, like their parent networks, are desperate not only to report support, but to make us all feel good and righteous about it (or shamed without it), as if unanimity equals virtue and that there's inherent glory in any aggression we perpetrate. The peace movement wants to feel good too, but the military is carpet bombing the moral high ground. I am simply distraught at the absence of debate, that an initiative of so little merit and such stupendous impact was rammed into place and cannot be turned around. Whatever occurs, we've already claimed victory and W eagerly awaits his iconic status. Will we even have an election in 2004, or shall there be continuity by acclamation (martial law) to assure homeland security? Bush has guaranteed this will become an ever more dangerous place to live. As I look at the paralysis of Congress, I begin truly to grieve the end of democracy as we knew it, and the loss of my country. How does the overt mendacity of this administration prevail? I am fearful that the citizenry is not up to this battle, because I've seen its weaknesses in the mirror. Re Arnett: I think there's got to be a dilemma for him between doing the expected award winning reportage from his head (laying out the facts he can collect, connecting the dots with his informed perspective, sending them to headquarters) and doing the right thing from his heart (framing his facts and applying his perspective free of the known biases of his employer). He is not alone. It's indicative of the collective chaos of this war -- frankly of any war -- that a news consumer has to sort among biases. The rule arrogantly prescribed for the whole world is you're either with us or against us. Therefore us is a monolith, and not in our name is denied relevance. So now, hopelessly labelled as an anti-war sympathizer, Arnett will ply his wares with heightened credibility at the Mirror and tainted or no credibility on the coalition side. The US wins, since his exposure here will be limited to those who make the extra effort to find alternative coverage. I would like to cut Arnett some slack, but he has marginalized himself more effectively than higher powers could have. But his next book should be interesting. --Pat
Kucinich: Stop
Title: Kucinich: Stop Kucinich Takes to The House Floor To Call For An End to The War WASHINGTON - April 1 - Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH), who leads opposition to the War in Iraq within the House, today, issued the following statement on the House floor: "Stop the war now. As Baghdad will be encircled, this is the time to get the UN back in to inspect Baghdad and the rest of Iraq for biological and chemical weapons. Our troops should not have to be the ones who will find out, in combat, whether Iraq has such weapons. Why put our troops at greater risk? We could get the United Nations inspectors back in. "Stop the war now. Before we send our troops into house-to-house combat in Baghdad, a city of five million people. Before we ask our troops to take up the burden of shooting innocent civilians in the fog of war. "Stop the war now. This war has been advanced on lie upon lie. Iraq was not responsible for 9/11. Iraq was not responsible for any role al-Qaeda may have had in 9/11. Iraq was not responsible for the anthrax attacks on this country. Iraq did not tried to acquire nuclear weapons technology from Niger. This war is built on falsehood. "Stop the war now. We are not defending America in Iraq. Iraq did not attack this nation. Iraq has no ability to attack this nation. Each innocent civilian casualty represents a threat to America for years to come and will end up making our nation less safe. The seventy-five billion dollar supplemental needs to be challenged because each dime we spend on this war makes America less safe. Only international cooperation will help us meet the challenge of terrorism. After 9/11 all Americans remember we had the support and the sympathy of the world. Every nation was ready to be of assistance to the United States in meeting the challenge of terrorism. And yet, with this war, we have squandered the sympathy of the world. We have brought upon this nation the anger of the world. We need the cooperation of the world, to find the terrorists before they come to our shores. "Stop this war now. Seventy-five billion dollars more for war. Three-quarters of a trillion dollars for tax cuts, but no money for veterans' benefits. Money for war. No money for health care in America, but money for war. No money for social security, but money for war. We have money to blow up bridges over the Tigris and the Euphrates, but no money to build bridges in our own cities. We have money to ruin the health of the Iraqi children, but no money to repair the health of our own children and our educational programs. "Stop this war now. It is wrong. It is illegal. It is unjust and it will come to no good for this country. "Stop this war now. Show our wisdom and our humanity, to be able to stop it, to bring back the United Nations into the process. Rescue this moment. Rescue this nation from a war that is wrong, that is unjust, that is immoral. "Stop this war now." -- -- 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
RE: RE: RE: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?
What's the difference? The individual will prefer to be the judge of whether he or she ought to put in the effort required to beat the odds. mbs I don't tell people that they'll never get rich. Rather, I present the evidence and logic that says that only a small percentage of them will.
RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?
I know the failure rate is high. But a person could fail more than once and still make it eventually. The real issue I think is mobility. We know there's a lot of immobility. Make it numbingly simple. Suppose you have a 90 percent chance of getting nowhere, and a 10 percent chance of getting somewhere. Somewhere in the ether is the chance that joining the revolution will get you somewhere. All I'm saying is that discounting the 10 percent chance out of hand is nuts, assuming you would like to appeal to intelligent persons. This oversight I think is one of the fatal flaws of socialism, broadly speaking. Crunchy That's nuts. You know the failure rates for small business better than I do. I just know that it is very high. And how amny of self-employed or entrepreneurs go into their 60s (or 70s) with enough to retire on decently? jks
Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?
I have argued with Chris and Lou long enough and wrote enough material ... Shit . . .I have a brand name ... damn. I wonder ... if I got . . . . wait a minute... from each small booklet ... and multiplied this by at least three a year. Shit . . . . I might still be able to move to Vegas . . . . I mean Arizona . .. .its the climate. Melvin P. Hey! You figured out a way to get rich in three years. Why did I not think about this myself? Damn! Sabri
RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: WSJ - Is This A GreatCountry?
You're right. You buy tickets with after tax dollars, so taxing winnings is double taxation. (There's an extra hidden tax in the fact that lotteries are unfair, since their purpose is to raise revenue.) Alternatively you could make the ticket price deductible and tax the winnings. (That wouldn't fix the hidden tax.) You've just added a point to the platform of the Afro-Jewish Peoples Party. We'll name a bridge after you. mbs Since winning the lottery is the way people get rich (in their fantasies), why not propose exempting lottery winnings from the federal income tax (which would in fact only be fair, since such winnings are not income but transfers, and lottery losings are in practise never deductibles from pretax income)? Shane Mage When we read on a printed page the doctrine of Pythagoras that all things are made of numbers, it seems mystical, mystifying, even downright silly. When we read on a computer screen the doctrine of Pythagoras that all things are made of numbers, it seems self-evidently true. (N. Weiner) That's nuts. You know the failure rates for small business better than I do. I just know that it is very high. And how amny of self-employed or entrepreneurs go into their 60s (or 70s) with enough to retire on decently? jks Max B. Sawicky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Better, I say, to have a political program that speaks to individuals' ability to take the most practical route out of wage slavery -- going into business for themselves. I presume you mean collectively, in coops and the like? jks Facilitating coops is important, but I also mean individually. mbs Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
who lost Turkey?
COMMENTARY How the IMF Lost Turkey By CLAUDIA ROSETT How did we lose the loyalty of Turkey , and with it that much-wanted northern front for the war in Iraq? It sure wasn't for lack of largesse. Over the past four years, at the clear behest of the U.S., Turkey's troubled economy has received -- via the International Monetary Fund and World Bank -- more cheap loans than any other country on the planet. Since 1999, the IMF has approved some $30 billion in below-market funding for Turkey , making it one of the IMF's top clients. Over the same period the World Bank has lent Turkey $7 billion at subsidized rates, making it one of the bank's biggest customers, too. At every juncture, meanwhile, until Turkey's turncoat vote last month on troop transit for the Iraq war, the U.S. government had sent the message that Turkey was simply too strategically vital to be allowed to fail. And Turkey's politicians, knowing that the money would pour forth, kept coming back for more. Then, in the dickering over the troop deal, the U.S. threw another $30 billion in grants and loan guarantees on the table. The Turks walked away from it. Why? * * * All those years of big money and bad IMF advice, for starters. Yes, there were lots of other factors, not least Turkey's desire to join a European Union in which France had just threatened to blackball any applicant that backed the U.S. Yet even more to the point, in Turkey we are now seeing the latest failure in the long line of ill-advised big bailouts. They were set in motion by the Clinton administration in Mexico in 1994, spread to Asia in 1997, rolled on to the Russian devaluation and default in 1998, tore through Brazil and most recently -- under the Bush administration -- helped wreck Argentina. Now we have come to the souring of Turkey , long prized as America's best friend in the Muslim world. True, the Turkish economy is still afloat. It is even somewhat reformed. But for some time now, the average Turk has been drowning. Thanks to the IMF's stress on high-tax fiscal discipline above economic growth and political realities, millions of Turks are out of work and short on hope. In 2001, the Turkish economy shrank 9.4%. This followed on a decision to float the currency, which led straight to a crash of the Turkish lira, halving its value against the dollar and devastating the savings and income of the country's poor and middle class. Although the economy has since begun to grow again, lira policy remains uncertain and unemployment in this nation of 68 million people still tops 11%. People consume less and less day by day, an official tells me. Life is tough in this country for the average Turkish person. If this is what comes of taking billions in aid, small wonder that last November Turkish voters axed the politicians who struck the IMF deals, and gave a big win to the Islam-oriented Justice and Development Party (AKP). The AKP came to power promising to renegotiate Turkey's terms with the IMF, and was clearly leery of any conditions attached to more money from Washington. Referring to the past four years of ballooning IMF funding for Turkey , one high-level European official suggests: If you had given them less money [then], they would have been more willing to conclude the [troop basing] agreement now. How we got to this point is a cautionary tale of some importance as the U.S. maneuvers for friends in the post-Sept. 11 world. When Turkey borrowed its way into financial crisis in 1999 and came to Washington for help, the first mistake was to start supplying subsidies immediately. Had the U.S. left Turkey's politicians to sort out their own financial mess, the Turks would have had much keener incentives to work out their own routes to reform, routes perhaps less painful for the electorate. Turkey had a truckload of problems, including huge state-subsidized industries, a rotten banking system, large state debts and chronic high inflation. But Turkey's crisis was not one that threatened the world financial system. The massive debt coming due was largely internal. The chief threat was to the domestic politicians who presided over this system, and who were in danger of being voted out of office if Turkey's economy turned into a train wreck. Once the U.S. decided that Turkey's politicians could not be trusted to fix their own mess, the second mistake was to give the IMF (which is heavily funded by the U.S.) the mission of bailing them out. The IMF tends to tie its loans to conditions that favor high taxes and devalued currency -- the worst medicine for ailing economies. The fund also likes to meddle in local patronage arrangements, demanding reforms that, when imposed wholesale from outside, too often succeed not in restructuring a system, but in fracturing it. That in turn leads to more crisis, more IMF loans and more worship at the altar of high taxes and budget surplus -- all at the expense of the client country's ordinary people, the folks least able to cushion
Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?
Max: I know the failure rate is high. But a person could fail more than once and still make it eventually. The real issue I think is mobility. We know there's a lot of immobility. Make it numbingly simple. Suppose you have a 90 percent chance of getting nowhere, and a 10 percent chance of getting somewhere. Somewhere in the ether is the chance that joining the revolution will get you somewhere. In the tradition of the economics profession, let us ASSUME that we all have infinitely long lives. Under this assumption, I think Max solved the problem. Sabri
Re: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?
On Wednesday, April 2, 2003 at 17:19:54 (-0500) Max B. Sawicky writes: I know the failure rate is high. But a person could fail more than once and still make it eventually. The real issue I think is mobility. We know there's a lot of immobility. Make it numbingly simple. Suppose you have a 90 percent chance of getting nowhere, and a 10 percent chance of getting somewhere. Somewhere in the ether is the chance that joining the revolution will get you somewhere. All I'm saying is that discounting the 10 percent chance out of hand is nuts, assuming you would like to appeal to intelligent persons. This oversight I think is one of the fatal flaws of socialism, broadly speaking. Socialism, or perhaps better, deep social concern for other values besides greed, doesn't necessarily mean all-or-nothing, all-at-once. It could offer the (short-term) choice of: 1) 90% chance of getting nowhere, 10% chance of getting rich, along with increased poverty for others, failing public schools, polluted air and water, health care for the few, etc. 2) 59% chance of getting 20% better, 40% chance of staying where you are, 1% chance of getting rich, along with guaranteed health care, parks, clean air, participation in the workplace, just laws, fair cops, free education for all, etc. It would be interesting to formulate these proposals and put them to the test, Tversky-style to see if there is preference reversal, halo effects, whatnot. Fun and exciting for the whole family. Bill
Re: Re: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?
There is a minor branch of economic (twig?) that studies the determinants of happiness. Happiness does not seem to increase once a society reaches about $15,000 a year. Happiness instead is determined by relative status. People expect, according to surveys, more wealth to make them happy, but happiness seems to depend upon relative status. So if the person in the mirror wants to get rich, on some level he needs to know that there will be plenty of poor schmucks to make them feel good. On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 04:40:39PM -0600, Bill Lear wrote: On Wednesday, April 2, 2003 at 17:19:54 (-0500) Max B. Sawicky writes: I know the failure rate is high. But a person could fail more than once and still make it eventually. The real issue I think is mobility. We know there's a lot of immobility. Make it numbingly simple. Suppose you have a 90 percent chance of getting nowhere, and a 10 percent chance of getting somewhere. Somewhere in the ether is the chance that joining the revolution will get you somewhere. All I'm saying is that discounting the 10 percent chance out of hand is nuts, assuming you would like to appeal to intelligent persons. This oversight I think is one of the fatal flaws of socialism, broadly speaking. Socialism, or perhaps better, deep social concern for other values besides greed, doesn't necessarily mean all-or-nothing, all-at-once. It could offer the (short-term) choice of: 1) 90% chance of getting nowhere, 10% chance of getting rich, along with increased poverty for others, failing public schools, polluted air and water, health care for the few, etc. 2) 59% chance of getting 20% better, 40% chance of staying where you are, 1% chance of getting rich, along with guaranteed health care, parks, clean air, participation in the workplace, just laws, fair cops, free education for all, etc. It would be interesting to formulate these proposals and put them to the test, Tversky-style to see if there is preference reversal, halo effects, whatnot. Fun and exciting for the whole family. Bill -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?
Title: RE: [PEN-L:36425] WSJ - Is This A Great Country? the difference is that I just am telling the person the truth (as I see it) rather than saying it's impossible and badmouthing the American dream. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine stop the war now! -Original Message- From: Max B. Sawicky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 2:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:36425] RE: RE: RE: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country? What's the difference? The individual will prefer to be the judge of whether he or she ought to put in the effort required to beat the odds. mbs I don't tell people that they'll never get rich. Rather, I present the evidence and logic that says that only a small percentage of them will.
Re: who lost Turkey?
At 2003-04-02 14:40 -0800, you wrote: COMMENTARY How the IMF Lost Turkey By CLAUDIA ROSETT How did we lose the loyalty of Turkey , and with it that much-wanted northern front for the war in Iraq? I would have thought that Turkey is a natural ally of Saddam Hussein, in so far as it does not want an autonomous, and still less an independent, Kurdistan. The Iraqi regime has drawn the Kurds towards Kirkuk and Mosul. Certainly I think the hypothesis must be considered. Chris Burford London
Re: Re: Re: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?
At 02:53 PM 04/02/2003 -0800, you wrote: There is a minor branch of economic (twig?) that studies the determinants of happiness. Happiness does not seem to increase once a society reaches about $15,000 a year. Happiness instead is determined by relative status. Economists are clueless. To quote Krishnamurti, If you want to be happy, take drugs. Otherwise, if you want to be free and conscious, you need to deal with reality. In reality we are all connected and though some of us may grow rich at the expense of others, being rich doesn't actually bring happiness since you are then fated to spend the rest of your life living in fear. (Though the U.S. is a relatively rich country, it is also one of the miserable and anxious countries I've ever lived in.) Pradoxically, you only really have those things you are willing to share. Joanna
RE: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?
Your problem is that you want to solve somebody's problem for them. The government's problem I would say is setting the rules to facilitate individual or cooperative efforts, not to try to preclude them, nor to guarantee their success. For those who fail, there would remain social insurance. mbs Max: I know the failure rate is high. But a person could fail more than once and still make it eventually. The real issue I think is mobility. We know there's a lot of immobility. Make it numbingly simple. Suppose you have a 90 percent chance of getting nowhere, and a 10 percent chance of getting somewhere. Somewhere in the ether is the chance that joining the revolution will get you somewhere. In the tradition of the economics profession, let us ASSUME that we all have infinitely long lives. Under this assumption, I think Max solved the problem. Sabri
turkey source
Sorry, it was from the ed. page of the Wall St. Journal. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The American Dream
The American Dream is a crock of shit. Why say anything in its defense? Joanna
RE: Re: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?
Following the wisdom of my guru, the Sage of Saskatoon, I would qualify my remarks by noting that the interest in 'getting rich' is culture dependent in a society where incentives are biased in favor of individual consumption of material goods and against collective consumption of immaterial things, against environmental and similar amenities, and against leisure. This I think increases the desire to 'get rich.' Even so, you can't function politically by wishing it away or telling people they have the wrong preferences. mbs -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bill Lear Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 5:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:36431] Re: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country? On Wednesday, April 2, 2003 at 17:19:54 (-0500) Max B. Sawicky writes: I know the failure rate is high. But a person could fail more than once and still make it eventually. The real issue I think is mobility. We know there's a lot of immobility. Make it numbingly simple. Suppose you have a 90 percent chance of getting nowhere, and a 10 percent chance of getting somewhere. Somewhere in the ether is the chance that joining the revolution will get you somewhere. All I'm saying is that discounting the 10 percent chance out of hand is nuts, assuming you would like to appeal to intelligent persons. This oversight I think is one of the fatal flaws of socialism, broadly speaking. Socialism, or perhaps better, deep social concern for other values besides greed, doesn't necessarily mean all-or-nothing, all-at-once. It could offer the (short-term) choice of: 1) 90% chance of getting nowhere, 10% chance of getting rich, along with increased poverty for others, failing public schools, polluted air and water, health care for the few, etc. 2) 59% chance of getting 20% better, 40% chance of staying where you are, 1% chance of getting rich, along with guaranteed health care, parks, clean air, participation in the workplace, just laws, fair cops, free education for all, etc. It would be interesting to formulate these proposals and put them to the test, Tversky-style to see if there is preference reversal, halo effects, whatnot. Fun and exciting for the whole family. Bill
Jermy Corbyn MP: Seven deadly mistakes
In Wednesday's Morning Star Seven deadly mistakes It seems that there have been some very fundamental miscalculations by the British and Washington in this. First, that there was a link between Iraq and al-Quida. Second, that the rest of the world would support a war. Third, that the UN would find weapons of mass destruction. Fourth, that air superiority would provide the crucial safe passage for the invading forces. Fifth, that Turkey would co-operate with the West. Sixth, that there would be a popular uprising by Iraqis and seventh, that it would all be over by now. This is a remarkable time in political history. A coalition of many disparate groups came together only 18 months ago, has stayed together and has an enduring appeal. Not only have the biggest ever demonstrations in British history been held but there is a worldwide movement for justice and peace that will shape the politics of this planet for many decades to come. Whatever the outcome of the horrors of Iraq, will Balir have the stomach to march with Bush to North Korea, Iran or Syria? However, the political fallout will go on for a long time. Chris Burford London
Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?
In a message dated 4/2/03 2:17:41 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I know the failure rate is high. But a person could fail more than once and still make it eventually. The real issue I think is mobility. We know there's a lot of immobility. Make it numbingly simple. Suppose you have a 90 percent chance of getting nowhere, and a 10 percent chance of getting somewhere. Somewhere in the ether is the chance that joining the revolution will get you somewhere. All I'm saying is that discounting the 10 percent chance out of hand is nuts, assuming you would like to appeal to intelligent persons. This oversight I think is one of the fatal flaws of socialism, broadly speaking. You hit the nail on the head, accurately and sharply. The essence of this question resides in the actual class mobility of the American people since the Second Imperial World War. In America we hardly consider it, but to the rest of the world, it is one of the salient facts of American life. Shackled by the hangovers of feudalism, it is very difficult for a European worker's child to enter the bourgeoisie, and almost impossible in Asia and Africa. Since the Second Imperial World War, a rapidly expanding economy in our country needed managers, scientist and technicians. The education system opened up and the children of the workers flooded into universities. Many of them, or their children, went on into the bourgeoisie or at least lived a bourgeois live style. To the workers it seemed as if there were no classes since the class boundary cold in fact be crossed. A postwar bit of Jewish humor - yes I enjoy Jewish humor especially delicatessen jokes, makes the point. "What is the difference between the President of the Garment Workers Union and the President of the American Psychiatric Association?" Answer: "One generation." The rest of the puzzle for this unique development lies in the imperial relations and its interactivity with the indescribable poverty of the neocolonial world. The imperial relations has tremendous moral implications but cannot be reduce to simply a moral judgment. Unless one wants to lose sight of how people actually think things out based on heir life cycle. To this colonial worker the poor of American seems bourgeois. Imperialist bribery has been very good to the American people. It impoverished the world and this process has come to an end as such. I am very familiar with those "Marxist" - maybe without quotes, who have spent a lifetime explaining the "national wages" of the Northern worker of the US as a product of the excretion of surplus value from the workplaces in the Northern industrial centers only. Why argue with such people who are basically chauvinist? It is true that we are dealing with a specific and peculiar history of the development of industrial society in America, that is unlike the evolution of the industrial system of commodity production in Europe or anywhere else. In the successive quantitative stages in the development of the industrial infrastructure, one could make it in America, which means survive better than in Europe or the colonial/neocolonial world. People did not make immigration to their first choice because it was more difficult to live. Even those who did not "leap" to the head of the American Psychiatric Association, saw their lives improve and this includes the largest section of the 11 million sharecroppers liberated as a class and converted into modern proletarians. Is America a Great country? Of course. It was the best of times, it was the worst of times and that is our eternal paradox (contradiction). He who belittles either side of this paradox is quickly regulated to the ash bin of history. Melvin P. Aye Mike, I am ready for that honorary degree and Vegas ...I mean Arizona ... its the climate man.
Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?
Max: Your problem is that you want to solve somebody's problem for them. Not at all! A complete misunderstanding... I am in this revolution business mostly because I want to solve my own problem. I just want to go home and teach math to my beloved students. That is all I want! Sabri
Re: Re: Re: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?
In a message dated 4/2/03 2:54:16 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: People expect, according to surveys, more wealth to make them happy, but happiness seems to depend upon relative status. So if the person in the mirror wants to get rich, on some level he needs to know that there will be plenty of poor schmucks to make them feel good. That man in the mirror. I am asking him to change his ways. No message could have been any clearer, if you want to make the world a better place take a look in the mirror and make a change. That freaking Michael Jackson - with his nose and obsession about my kids. Melvin P.
BBC questions US claims
BBC2 Wed night questioned US claims to have destroyed two Republican Guard divisions. BBC also reported that the US had secured the main roads around Karbala, not the entire town. The military analyst on BBC2 also detected some rumblings that the US were critical that the British had not taken Basra yet. The parliamentary report played up British concern about US warnings to Syria and Iran, not just by Rumsfeld but also by Powell. It said Britain refuses to countenance any attack on Syria and Iran. This was based on Blair merely saying in the Commons that we maintain relations with both countries and think that is the best way to bring them on side. It is more likely that background briefings find it useful to play up the extent of the disagreement between Britain and the USA. About the post Saddam administration, it was suggested that the likely scenario would be de facto military control of the respective regions of the country (presumably with Britain maintaining its influence, if it could, in Basra. That the US would essentially manage a civil administration but there would be a UN conference like the Bonn conference on the future of Afghanistan. It is not clear how much the British government hesitates to join the full US internationalist agenda, genuinely sees a multilateralist agenda as more in its interests, could not afford on its own, the cost of peace keeping, or that Blair wants to continue straddling the contradictions to divide the opposition to him in the Labour party. I am not suggesting any faith should be put in these divisions but they may be useful to note. Chris Burford London
Re: RE: Re: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?
- Original Message - From: Max B. Sawicky [EMAIL PROTECTED] Following the wisdom of my guru, the Sage of Saskatoon, I would qualify my remarks by noting that the interest in 'getting rich' is culture dependent in a society where incentives are biased in favor of individual consumption of material goods and against collective consumption of immaterial things, against environmental and similar amenities, and against leisure. This I think increases the desire to 'get rich.' Even so, you can't function politically by wishing it away or telling people they have the wrong preferences. mbs At the same time, neither quietism about the perverse incentives nor encouraging more people to become capitalists will solve the immobility problems of capitalism. The environment is not an amenity. Ian
Re: Is This A Great Country?
What is truly pathetic...and indicative of where people are at these days in this great country of ours is their notion that rich means an annual income of $120,000. Is it mentioned in the survey whether one would have to work for this income? Joanna At 03:54 PM 04/02/2003 -0800, you wrote: - Original Message - From: Max B. Sawicky [EMAIL PROTECTED] Following the wisdom of my guru, the Sage of Saskatoon, I would qualify my remarks by noting that the interest in 'getting rich' is culture dependent in a society where incentives are biased in favor of individual consumption of material goods and against collective consumption of immaterial things, against environmental and similar amenities, and against leisure. This I think increases the desire to 'get rich.' Even so, you can't function politically by wishing it away or telling people they have the wrong preferences. mbs At the same time, neither quietism about the perverse incentives nor encouraging more people to become capitalists will solve the immobility problems of capitalism. The environment is not an amenity. Ian
RE: Re: The American Dream
Title: RE: [PEN-L:36438] Re: The American Dream how can you say that the American dream is _anything_ if you haven't defined what in heck it means? How can you denigrate something that a lot of working people believe in (even though what it means is pretty vague) without providing any evidence or argument? That is simply sneering at people, not talking to them. It provides ammunition to the right. Jim -Original Message- From: joanna bujes To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 4/2/2003 3:03 PM Subject: [PEN-L:36438] Re: The American Dream The American Dream is a crock of shit. Why say anything in its defense? Joanna
Re: RE: Re: The American Dream
At 04:04 PM 04/02/2003 -0800, you wrote: how can you say that the American dream is _anything_ if you haven't defined what in heck it means? How can you denigrate something that a lot of working people believe in (even though what it means is pretty vague) without providing any evidence or argument? That is simply sneering at people, not talking to them. It provides ammunition to the right. Sorry. You're right. I take The American Dream to be the dream that an individual, by dint of hard work, can become anythingfrom CEO, to president, to rock star ---independently of the individual's sex, class, or race. I take the American Dream to be the idea that living inside of a bubble of material prospertiy is a life worthy of a human being. I think it's a life worthy of a domesticated dog. I am calling it a crock of shit because of its focus on the material gain of the individual and its complete ignorance of and indifference to the good of (or even the existence of) a larger communitynot to mention the earth. I'm calling it a crock of shit because it is a sterile and bankrupt vision that is a lie not only in representing the real possibilities for 95% of Americans but also in representing any life worth living. I think it is a mistake to call this something the working man believes in as if it were some kind of inborn creed as opposed to the result of a life-time of commerical brainwashing. Joanna
RE: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?
Eugene: With my post I was hoping to encourage a discussion -- and get an answer -- of how to make clear to the vast majority that their dreams of being rich will never be realized. Any help? Gene, How did you like my help? Best, Sabri
Re: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?
On Wednesday, April 2, 2003 at 18:15:58 (-0500) Max B. Sawicky writes: Following the wisdom of my guru, the Sage of Saskatoon, I would qualify my remarks by noting that the interest in 'getting rich' is culture dependent in a society where incentives are biased in favor of individual consumption of material goods and against collective consumption of immaterial things, against environmental and similar amenities, and against leisure. This I think increases the desire to 'get rich.' Even so, you can't function politically by wishing it away or telling people they have the wrong preferences. My mom is from Saskatchewan, and she would say that you don't have to tell them they are wrong, you have to let them see the alternatives. Above all, be honest. It might be that the better option for many of them would be to pursue self-interest, assuming they don't care what happens to others. I think most people just can't see the alternatives and don't realize how much they are being lied to and ripped off (though they do indeed realize that they are being lied to and ripped off). Bill
Re: The American Dream
Title: Re: The American Dream At 4:04 PM -0800 4/2/03, Devine, James wrote: how can you say that the American dream is _anything_ if you haven't defined what in heck it means? The American Dream is meant to be one of those phrases -- like becoming rich someday -- that mean different things to different people, thus winning the consent of more people than it could if it were defined precisely. And if anyone complains of not getting her American Dream, the Right can always say, Hey, it's only a _dream_. -- Yoshie * Calendar of Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://solidarity.igc.org/
RE: The American Dream
Title: RE: The American Dream joanna bujes writes: I think it is a mistake to call this something the working man believes in as if it were some kind of inborn creed as opposed to the result of a life-time of commerical brainwashing. first of all, I didn't refer to the working man, since many people who believe -- or purport to believe -- in something called the American dream are women. Second, I didn't say anything about an inborn creed. Whether or not a belief is inborn, I think it's best to avoid Rumsfeld-style arrogance, treating working people's beliefs with respect. (I don't believe in doing so for ruling-class clowns such as Rumsfeld, except that it goes over better with audiences -- while arrogance can interfere with understanding.) If you don't treat people with respect, they say: who chose you as god? or the like. Third, I don't believe in the brainwashing theory of ideology, which treats people's ideas as mere objects for manipulation. Brainwashing only works when people are under duress and the like. People are trying to figure out how to live and do well for their families in a society that sets up all sorts of incentives to seek only individual solutions and limits individuals' ability to understand the big picture. It should also be pointed out that it's quite likely that the working-class version of the American dream is different from that of the professional-managerial middle classes or of the bourgeoisie. Jim --- I had written how can you say that the American dream is _anything_ if you haven't defined what in heck it means? How can you denigrate something that a lot of working people believe in (even though what it means is pretty vague) without providing any evidence or argument? That is simply sneering at people, not talking to them. It provides ammunition to the right. in addition to the above, Joanna wrote: Sorry. You're right. I take The American Dream to be the dream that an individual, by dint of hard work, can become anythingfrom CEO, to president, to rock star ---independently of the individual's sex, class, or race. I take the American Dream to be the idea that living inside of a bubble of material prospertiy is a life worthy of a human being. I think it's a life worthy of a domesticated dog. I am calling it a crock of shit because of its focus on the material gain of the individual and its complete ignorance of and indifference to the good of (or even the existence of) a larger communitynot to mention the earth. I'm calling it a crock of shit because it is a sterile and bankrupt vision that is a lie not only in representing the real possibilities for 95% of Americans but also in representing any life worth living.
Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?
At 3:54 PM -0800 4/2/03, Ian Murray wrote: Following the wisdom of my guru, the Sage of Saskatoon, I would qualify my remarks by noting that the interest in 'getting rich' is culture dependent in a society where incentives are biased in favor of individual consumption of material goods and against collective consumption of immaterial things, against environmental and similar amenities, and against leisure. This I think increases the desire to 'get rich.' Even so, you can't function politically by wishing it away or telling people they have the wrong preferences. mbs At the same time, neither quietism about the perverse incentives nor encouraging more people to become capitalists will solve the immobility problems of capitalism. The environment is not an amenity. Today's human resources management seeks to promote employee appreciation of lateral moves rather than upward mobility and non-material rewards rather than higher wages: * WHERE IS YOUR CAREER HEADED? By Kathy Thomas-Massey Which way is up? If we define up in terms of career success, the trek is not always vertical. Nowadays, its about career paths and career itineraries, not career ladders. Studies show that Americans change careers an average of seven times in a lifetime. Our changing workplace has placed those splintering career ladders on shaky ground ...Through some hard-learned lessons, many of us now know that our employer cannot and will not always be able to reward us with money and promotions - even when we do an excellent job. Organizations are beginning to look at other ways to reward employees and increase job satisfaction when upward mobility and salary increases aren't possible. A few vehicles for promoting job satisfaction and organizational mobility are lateral moves, long-term special project assignments, job-sharing programs, and cross training. Other vehicles are more holistic in their approach and are aimed at developing the whole person (not just from a professional standpoint). One such vehicle is a program called Work, Change and You, available through the Center for Education and Quality Assessment, in the Office of Human Resources. ...When employees can't move upwardly in the organization as quickly as they once could, agencies (and employees) have to get creative to develop interesting and challenging environments so employees will stay longer in their current jobs. Work, Change and You serves as a first-step in the career planning process in that it enables employees to gain self-awareness (What do I want to be when I grow up and am I there yet?), strengthen communication, and maintain personal effectiveness while experiencing change, uncertainty, and career plateaus. Through a series of self-discovery activities, the program helps employees learn more about their career anchoring patterns, their occupational personality, the relevance of personal and professional relationships, and their level of appreciation for nonmonetary awards http://www.state.sc.us/ohr/additionalhr/hrreviewspring99.pdf * Given such a management direction, Americans' desire and expectation to get rich someday may be a way of expressing cultural resistance to the idea that workers should settle for lateral moves and non-material rewards and forget about wages and promotions. -- Yoshie * Calendar of Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://solidarity.igc.org/
RE: the emporer
Title: RE: [PEN-L:36396] the emporer Emperor George What has become of American values and idealism? All swept away in this thoroughly un-American war Jonathan Freedland Wednesday April 2, 2003 The Guardian Ian writes: obviously the guy hasn't read William Appleman Williams. yeah, the rhetorical bit of contrasting Bushist actions with American ideals doesn't work for me at all, since these ideals have mostly been just a matter of rhetoric. But it works for some, if not most, US liberals. If I send it to my mom, she'll be impressed. Jim
Re: RE: the emporer
Devine, James wrote: yeah, the rhetorical bit of contrasting Bushist actions with American ideals doesn't work for me at all, since these ideals have mostly been just a matter of rhetoric. But it works for some, if not most, US liberals. If I send it to my mom, she'll be impressed. I think Adorno said somewhere that sometimes the most radical thing you can do is take bourgeois promises seriously - freedom, self-development, democracy, etc, all very nice in principle but all too scarce in practice. Doug
Re: RE: The American Dream
Third, I don't believe in the brainwashing theory of ideology, which treats people's ideas as mere objects for manipulation. Brainwashing only works when people are under duress and the like. In the U.S. people are exposed to commercial messages every fifteen minutes of their lives when they watch tv, constantly when in public spaces (billboards/tshirts/logos) etc. I call that brainwashing. The duress is that it can't be avoided. The insult to the individual is incalculable and completely invisible if you spend your whole life exposed to it. When I came to the US from Romania in 63, I heard a lot about communist propaganda and I had to laugh. The communist propaganda I was exposed to as a child was child's play compared to what I found in the U.S. People are trying to figure out how to live and do well for their families in a society that sets up all sorts of incentives to seek only individual solutions and limits individuals' ability to understand the big picture. Granted. It should also be pointed out that it's quite likely that the working-class version of the American dream is different from that of the professional-managerial middle classes or of the bourgeoisie. If you mean that the working-class version seeks the basics education for the kids, a house, economic security, a vacation, time for a hobby...while the brougeoisie seeks to own the world, sure. But what I'm pointing to is that inasmuch as the dream is defined only in individualistic material terms, it is a betrayal not a dream. Joanna --- I had written how can you say that the American dream is _anything_ if you haven't defined what in heck it means? How can you denigrate something that a lot of working people believe in (even though what it means is pretty vague) without providing any evidence or argument? That is simply sneering at people, not talking to them. It provides ammunition to the right. in addition to the above, Joanna wrote: Sorry. You're right. I take The American Dream to be the dream that an individual, by dint of hard work, can become anythingfrom CEO, to president, to rock star ---independently of the individual's sex, class, or race. I take the American Dream to be the idea that living inside of a bubble of material prospertiy is a life worthy of a human being. I think it's a life worthy of a domesticated dog. I am calling it a crock of shit because of its focus on the material gain of the individual and its complete ignorance of and indifference to the good of (or even the existence of) a larger communitynot to mention the earth. I'm calling it a crock of shit because it is a sterile and bankrupt vision that is a lie not only in representing the real possibilities for 95% of Americans but also in representing any life worth living.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?
joanna bujes wrote: At 02:53 PM 04/02/2003 -0800, you wrote: There is a minor branch of economic (twig?) that studies the determinants of happiness. Happiness does not seem to increase once a society reaches about $15,000 a year. Happiness instead is determined by relative status. Economists are clueless. To quote Krishnamurti, If you want to be happy, take drugs. Otherwise, if you want to be free and conscious, you need to deal with reality. In reality we are all connected and though some of us may grow rich at the expense of others, being rich doesn't actually bring happiness since you are then fated to spend the rest of your life living in fear. (Though the U.S. is a relatively rich country, it is also one of the miserable and anxious countries I've ever lived in.) Pradoxically, you only really have those things you are willing to share. Joanna This is perilously close to the Platonic/Stoic conception of a true happiness that is independent of circumstances. There has been very little ever published on the private lives of the _real_ rich (those who can live sumptuously off of capital and, if they 'work,' work for the fun of it), but what little ever has been published suggests that they are a very content, very unanxious, and very happy group of people. Carrol
Re: RE: the emporer
I'm with your mom. I'm outraged as an internationalist, and offended and ashamed as an American. But this is something you can be argued into, though I think the feral alienation from America on the left has regrettably diminished our appeal in this nation. jks "Devine, James" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Emperor George What has become of American values and idealism? All swept away in this thoroughly un-American war Jonathan Freedland Wednesday April 2, 2003 The Guardian Ian writes: obviously the guy hasn't read William Appleman Williams. yeah, the rhetorical bit of contrasting Bushist actions with "American" ideals doesn't work for me at all, since these ideals have mostly been just a matter of rhetoric. But it works for some, if not most, US liberals. If I send it to my mom, she'll be impressed. Jim Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?
Having nothing to back this up other than observation, I think happiness is much more related to community than it is to wealth. Unfortunately, the wealthiest countries seem to lack or even have destroyed community. By community I am meaning that you know and have an investment in your neighbours and your neighbourhood. Their well-being contributes to your well-being. Troy Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: joanna bujes wrote: At 02:53 PM 04/02/2003 -0800, you wrote: There is a minor branch of economic (twig?) that studies the determinants of happiness. Happiness does not seem to increase once a society reaches about $15,000 a year. Happiness instead is determined by relative status. Economists are clueless. To quote Krishnamurti, "If you want to be happy, take drugs." Otherwise, if you want to be free and conscious, you need to deal with reality. In reality we are all connected and though some of us may grow rich at the expense of others, being rich doesn't actually bring happiness since you are then fated to spend the rest of your life living in fear. (Though the U.S. is a relatively rich country, it is also one of the miserable and anxious countries I've ever lived! in.) Pradoxically, you only really have those things you are willing to share. JoannaThis is perilously close to the Platonic/Stoic conception of a "true"happiness that is independent of circumstances. There has been verylittle ever published on the private lives of the _real_ rich (those whocan live sumptuously off of capital and, if they 'work,' work for thefun of it), but what little ever has been published suggests that theyare a very content, very unanxious, and very happy group of people.CarrolPost your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals
RE: who lost Turkey?
Title: RE: [PEN-L:36429] who lost Turkey? CLAUDIA ROSETT writes: When Turkey borrowed its way into financial crisis in 1999 and came to Washington for help, the first mistake was to start supplying subsidies immediately. Had the U.S. left Turkey's politicians to sort out their own financial mess, the Turks would have had much keener incentives to work out their own routes to reform, routes perhaps less painful for the electorate. but the U.S. doesn't want Turkey's politicians to sort out their own financial mess. Instead they want a cookie-cutter IMF solution that wrecks the debtor economy, opens markets for US business, etc. It doesn't care about the Turkish electorate either. Maybe it's in the long-term interest of the capitalist class to follow different policies, but capitalism has always tended to sink its own boat. Jim
Re: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?
This relates to an item I saw in Adbusters once.A survey asked people how much money they would need to be happy and feel financially secure. Across the board, whether the CEO of a major corporations or some poor slob working for minimum wage, the answer was roughly "twice as much." People believed that making twice what they now make would erase their money concerns. It's like we all have a carrot hanging from a stick that will forever dangle just beyond our reach. Maybe it's time to seek other goals. Now, if I only made twice as much, I could seek other goals... Troy Kelley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 09:31 AM 4/1/03 -0800, Eugene Coyle wrote:An item from April 1 2003 WSJ editorial page suggests something the Left needs to deal with:The author left out what is probably most important for understanding the poll: It asked people what they thought "being rich" actually meant. Not surprisingly, what being rich means to someone making $30k is a lot different from what it means to someone making $75k or $140kThe poll also reveals that gender and age play a part in people's perceptions. Unfortunately, when I read this, it was (I thought) freely available and I didn't save the entire report.here's the clip that I do have: "A recent Gallup Poll, conducted Jan. 20-22, finds that 31% of Americans expect to get rich at some time in their lives, and another 2% volunteer that they already are rich. The public's definition! of rich means an annual income of about $120,000 or financial assets of about $1 million (each figure is the median estimate). These figures, as well as the percentage who expect to get rich, all vary considerably by gender, age, and income." http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030311.aspKelley Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals
Re: the emporer
At 6:04 PM -0800 4/2/03, andie nachgeborenen wrote: I think the feral alienation from America on the left has regrettably diminished our appeal in this nation. jks American leftists (broadly defined), on the average, sound to me to be decidedly more nationalistic than Japanese leftists (also broadly defined). On the left, the Japanese have nothing to do with the flag, the anthem, Yasukuni, etc. -- Yoshie * Calendar of Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://solidarity.igc.org/
Re: the emporer
At 8:56 PM -0500 4/2/03, Doug Henwood wrote: yeah, the rhetorical bit of contrasting Bushist actions with American ideals doesn't work for me at all, since these ideals have mostly been just a matter of rhetoric. But it works for some, if not most, US liberals. If I send it to my mom, she'll be impressed. I think Adorno said somewhere that sometimes the most radical thing you can do is take bourgeois promises seriously - freedom, self-development, democracy, etc, all very nice in principle but all too scarce in practice. The question is why such promises -- freedom, self-development, democracy, etc. -- are cast as American values and ideals. -- Yoshie * Calendar of Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://solidarity.igc.org/
Re: Re: the emporer
The question is why such promises -- freedom, self-development, democracy, etc. -- are cast as "American" values and ideals.--
Just because we say they are American doesn't mean that they can't be other people's too. Americans do have a particular mix of them ("We hold these truths to be self evident . . . "); , just as the French have a real but not exclusive claim to Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. Other people have to put them together their own way. But just because America has become the Evil Capitalist Empire From Hell doesn;t mean it has no noble traditions and ideals that it call call its own. jksDo you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
Re: Re: the emporer
Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 6:04 PM -0800 4/2/03, andie nachgeborenen wrote:I think the feral alienation from America on the left has regrettably diminished our appeal in this nation. jksAmerican leftists (broadly defined), on the average, sound to me to be decidedly more nationalistic than Japanese leftists (also broadly defined). On the left, the Japanese have nothing to do with the flag, the anthem, Yasukuni, etc. * * Your point? jksDo you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
re: American dream: time v. money
In a recent lecture, Richard Layard cited a pair of studies one of which showed a relative preference for income and the other an absolute preference for time. For example, given the choice between making $40,000 when the average income was $80,000 or $20,000 when the average was $10,000 people preferred the latter. But given the choice between 4 weeks of vacation when the average was 8 week or 2 weeks when the average was 1 week, people chose the former. Tom Walker 604 255 4812
Mistreatment of Reporters
Not only Iraq mistreats reporters but this wont be on front pages. Cheers, Ken Hanly http://www.democracynow.org/scemama.htm U.S. military warns foreign journalists in Iraq: Don't mess with my soldiers. Don't mess with them because they are trained like dogs to kill. And they will kill you... U.S. military detains, beats and threatens to kill four foreign journalists in Iraq. A Democracy Now! interview with Israeli reporter Dan Scemama DEMOCRACY NOW! APRIL 1, 2003 Amy Goodman: The international press watch group Reporters Without Borders has accused the US and British coalition forces in Iraq of displaying contempt for journalists covering the conflict who are not embedded with troops. The criticism comes after a group of four unilateral or roving reporters revealed how they were arrested by US military police as they slept near a US unit a hundred miles south of Baghdad and were held overnight. They described their ordeal as the worst 48 hours of their lives. The four journalists-Israeli journalist Dan Scemama, Boaz Bismuth, and Portuguese Luis Castro and Victor Silva, entered Iraq in a jeep and followed a US convoy though they were not officially attached to the troops. US military police seized the journalists outside their base, detained them even though they were carrying international press cards. The group claimed they were mistreated and denied contact with their families. We're joined now by Dan Scemama in Israel. Welcome to Democracy Now! Dan Scemama, Israel Channel One correspondent: Hi, good afternoon. Amy Goodman: It's good to have you with us. Can you describe exactly what happened. Dan Scemama: Yes, we went into Iraq to report about the war. We went on a jeep that we had that we rented. We went with four guys. We all had credentials that we got from the American army. On the credential it was written unilateral and it was not written embedded. We just went in and we saw the British crews fighting, we saw the American crews-soldiers fighting. We spent our nights with the American and the British soldiers, each time in another camp, in another place where they were parked. We were with them. We got to a place which was 120 kilometers south-kilometers which I think is seventy, maybe, miles south of Baghdad and there we met a group of, of the army of soldiers, and there was there also Ted Koppel was there with uniforms, with a big helmet on his head. And Ted Koppel looked at me and said to me, You're crazy, you don't have a gas mask. Are you crazy? Because they're going to use chemical weapons. And I did not recognize Ted Koppel of course. Then I found out that it was him. Then we are asked by the army there to try and get gas masks, because if not, it's very dangerous for our lives. So we went south a little bit. We met another American troop, a chemical officer we met. We asked him for a gas mask and he gave it to us as a gift, which, what I'm trying to tell you is, we met a lot of American soldiers, and a lot of beautiful people that helped us. That understood what we were doing there, that a lot of times were trying to help us as much as they could. Until we got to this one group of soldiers in which the head of them was a guy that called himself-he did not call himself-we succeeded to find out his name because he did not want to identify himself. And his name was First Lieutenant Scholl which I will never forget his name. And him, with his soldiers have decided that we are very dangerous spies for Iraq. They decided that the CD player that we had is an electronic device that we used to tell the Iraqis where the American soldiers are. They took away our cameras. They took away our ID cards. They took away our money. They took our phones. They put their guns towards us. They forced us to lie down on the floor. To take our shirts up to make sure we didn't have any explosives on our bodies. They checked us-our bodies-they checked our cars-I'm afraid I'm too long so maybe you have another question and then I will continue. Amy Goodman: Was one of the Portuguese reporters beaten up? Dan Scemama: Yes. After we were arrested at six o' clock in the morning by these guys, and at about 11:30 I think it was, some five and a half hours after we were arrested, he kind of lost his patience, the Portuguese guy, and they put us in our jeep, they closed us inside the jeep and they said we are not allowed to get out of the jeep and we are supposed to stay there. And uh, so the Portuguese guy got out of the jeep, approached the army-the camp and said Please, please, I am begging you, I have a wife and children. Let me just make a call, a telephone call to tell them that we are safe, that we are with you, the Americans and not with the Iraqis. They might think at home that we are killed by Iraqis. Please just let us tell them that. And they said to him, Go immediately to your car. And he said, Please I am begging you. Five soldiers went out of the camp, jumped on him and started to beat him and
Re: RE: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?
Sabri, I liked it. I will get Michael Yates's book. But I am thinking of institutions -- like students loans, for example -- that seduce people into the dream of being rich. First, the loan facilitates the education that will lead to riches. And then paying the loan requires the drive for more and more income to get out from under it while yet driving for more income to get rich. It is not only dreams but the framework of life that we are burdened with. Gene Sabri Oncu wrote: Eugene: With my post I was hoping to encourage a discussion -- and get an answer -- of how to make clear to the vast majority that their dreams of being rich will never be realized. Any help? Gene, How did you like my help? Best, Sabri
Re: Open Letter to Michael Ratner
I am following this closely because I have several student friends at Columbia who keep me informed. As the wobblies said: An Injury to One is an Injury to All. Best, Sabri +++ http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/04/02/3 e8aca102c6cf Published on April 02, 2003 Students Wage Silent Protest for De Genova Tensions ran high as the professor's students debated his statements. By Margaret Hunt Gram, Spectator News Editor Students of Professor Nicholas De Genova staged a silent, motionless protest on Low Plaza yesterday in support of their absent teacher. Seated cross-legged on folded cardboard boxes, they formed a rain-drenched circle of two dozen people. One place was empty--Nick's seat, one student said through the red, white, and blue handkerchief tied around her head. The students stared into the center of the circle, where a sign was posted explaining their cause. They ignored the swarm of photographers who crept among them, looking up only to pass around three communal umbrellas, which they used in shifts to protect themselves from the unrelenting rain. The protesters--mostly members of De Genova's graduate seminar--planned the event for four o'clock so that it would coincide with the time when their class would have taken place had the professor been able to attend. De Genova was not present in class because he is currently in hiding, one graduate student said. She added that he and his wife are fearing for their lives after receiving over one thousand death threats by phone and e-mail since making inflammatory comments during a teach-in on the war in Iraq last Wednesday. The graduate students also extended an invitation to participate to the undergraduates in De Genova's Latino History and Culture class when that class convened without its professor at 2:40 p.m. yesterday. After describing themselves as unofficial advocates who were informally conveying a message, the graduate students announced to the undergraduates that De Genova was not on campus and would not be holding class. Then they announced that they would be holding a silent protest. We feel that the University has failed to protect Nick, anthropology graduate student Ayca Cubukcu said, defending her teacher, as she stood with two of her peers in front of the Latino history class. As academics and intellectuals, we should be able to ... engage in dialogue about these issues. But we can't, because he's not here. We feel silenced by Nick's absence, added one of the other graduate students. That silencing was symbolized, students said, by the flag-patterned kerchiefs that they used as metaphorical gags during the protest later that day. It was also seen in the group's decision not to speak with members of the press. But the students' conspicuous silence yesterday gave new voice to an idea that few have discussed since De Genova's talk last Wednesday--the idea that De Genova's remarks might be, as Cubukcu put it, well within the limits of academic discourse. Nick's comments were not taken seriously as an impassioned but perfectly normal ... academic expression, one student said. That position is still far from being widely supported by Columbia students. Rebekah Pazmiño, CC '05, is enrolled in De Genova's undergraduate class and is also an officer-in-training in the Marines. Pazmiño used De Genova's unmoderated classroom to respond to the three graduate students' suggestion that they were being silenced. If you guys feel so silenced, what about those of us who are going into the military? Pazmiño asked. When remarks like that are made, those of us who are on the other side also feel threatened. Having to hear that, and having to be in this class, just really sucks, she said. Pazmiño's remarks began a discussion of the content of the speech that De Genova gave at last week's teach-in. One of the graduate students present suggested that those remarks had been taken out of context. Billy Pratt, CC '03, is not enrolled in the Latino History and Culture class, but today he came to the classroom where it is normally held, intending to confront De Genova personally. Since reading coverage of the teach-in, Pratt has been an outspoken critic of the professor, contacting newspapers and talk shows with the intention of expressing his outrage publicly. After Cubukcu suggested that the University ought to physically protect De Genova, the tall, broad-shouldered Pratt stepped out from the doorway, where he had been pacing since 2:40, to challenge Cubukcu face-to-face. Should they protect him? Pratt asked. Why should they protect him? ... He wants to kill my father, and I don't see them protecting my father. Launching into a tirade against De Genova and his defenders, Pratt edged closer and closer to the part of the room where Cubukcu and the other graduate students were standing. When they spoke, Pratt spoke louder. One student tried to close the classroom door in Pratt's face, but Pratt pushed it back
Re: the emporer
Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 6:04 PM -0800 4/2/03, andie nachgeborenen wrote: I think the feral alienation from America on the left has regrettably diminished our appeal in this nation. jks American leftists (broadly defined), on the average, sound to me to be decidedly more nationalistic than Japanese leftists (also broadly defined). On the left, the Japanese have nothing to do with the flag, the anthem, Yasukuni, etc. * * Your point? jks The US government has been constantly waging war, overtly or covertly, against one nation or another, or one movement or another, ever since the USA became the world's hegemon. Such material conditions have created ideological conditions saturated with such symbols of nationalism as the flag, the anthem, etc., to which US leftists, unlike Japanese leftists, have largely adapted themselves. So, I don't think that it is correct to say that there exists the feral alienation from America on the left at all, as far as US leftists are concerned. -- Yoshie * Calendar of Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://solidarity.igc.org/
Re WSJ - Is This A Great Country?
At 7:48 PM -0800 4/2/03, Eugene Coyle wrote: the loan facilitates the education that will lead to riches. Does it? -- Yoshie * Calendar of Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://solidarity.igc.org/
Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?
It is not only dreams but the framework of life that we are burdened with. Gene I cannot agree more! This is what Max is missing! It is not the players that are the problem, although some, such as the Bush gang, are, but the game itself. We need to attack the game or, better, the rules of the game. Sabri PS: When I asked whether you liked my help, I did not mean my mention of Michael Yates book only but also the entire thread that followed my post. By the way, I am grateful to Michael for sharing his book with me and some friends back home much before it got published.
Re: the emporer
Justin says: The question is why such promises -- freedom, self-development, democracy, etc. -- are cast as American values and ideals. Just because we say they are American doesn't mean that they can't be other people's too. Americans do have a particular mix of them (We hold these truths to be self evident . . . ); , just as the French have a real but not exclusive claim to Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. I'm not sure if most Americans actually believe that. A lot of Americans think that they enjoy the most freedom, democracy, etc. in the world, despite evidence to the contrary. Further, even when concessions are made to rich European nations like France, no such concessions are forthcoming with regard to poor European and non-European nations -- hence a large number of Americans who buy the idea that the USG can and must bring freedom, democracy, etc. to such nations as Yugoslavia and Iraq, because folks in the rest of the world can't help themselves. -- Yoshie * Calendar of Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://solidarity.igc.org/
Re WSJ - Is This A Great Country?
Yoshie: At 7:48 PM -0800 4/2/03, Eugene Coyle wrote: the loan facilitates the education that will lead to riches. Does it? It depends. If the loan is for an MBA, it might. If it is for an anthropology degree, forget about it! Sabri
oil rents redux
[note the page number for the paper editionburied..] U.S., Allies Clash Over Plan to Use Iraqi Oil Profits for Rebuilding By Colum Lynch and Peter Behr Washington Post Staff Writers Thursday, April 3, 2003; Page A34 UNITED NATIONS, April 2 -- The Defense Department is pressing ahead with plans to temporarily manage Iraq's oil industry after the war and to use the proceeds to rebuild the country, creating a conflict with U.S. allies in Europe and the Middle East, according to diplomats and industry experts. The White House maintains that Iraq's oil revenue is essential to financing the country's postwar reconstruction. The administration intends to install a senior American oil executive to oversee Iraq's exploration and production. Iraqi experts now outside the country would be recruited to handle future oil sales. Industry sources said former Shell Oil Co. chief executive Philip J. Carroll is the leading candidate to direct production. But the postwar oil strategy is clouded by legal questions about the right of the United States to manage Iraq's oil fields. Administration officials are searching for a legal basis to justify the U.S. plan. If the war succeeds, the United States may claim a legal right as an occupying power to sell the oil for the benefit of Iraq, people close to the situation said. U.N. nd British officials said that the United States lacks the legal authority to begin exporting oil even on an interim basis without a new Security Council mandate. Iraq's oil sales before the war were controlled by the United Nations under its oil-for-food program. We're moving into a legal realm that is not clear, said Jan Randolph, head of economic forecasting at the World Markets Research Center in London. The impression we're getting is that because the Americans are largely bearing the [war] costs, they will want to determine what happens next. David L. Goldwyn, president of Goldwyn International Strategies, said: I don't believe that the U.S. has the legal power under international law to seize and sell Iraq's oil absent a new Security Council resolution. Goldwyn, who was assistant secretary of energy in the Clinton administration, added: It is extremely doubtful any reputable oil company will purchase oil without clear title. But some industry officials said that oil companies might be willing to buy Iraq oil if purchases were guaranteed by the United States. Firefighters are battling blazes at two wells in Iraq's southern Rumaila oil fields but more than 500 wells are believed to be undamaged. Some production could begin within a month, if war conditions permitted and legal issues were resolved, some industry experts estimate. Iraq's major northern field around Kirkuk is still controlled by Iraqi forces. A resumption of Iraq oil exports would have little effect on oil prices if Saudi Arabia curtailed its output to stabilize oil prices. Crude oil for May delivery fell $1.22, or 4.1 percent, to $28.56 a barrel today on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Russia, France, Germany and other key Security Council members are seeking to preserve U.N. management of the Iraqi oil industry. The Security Council president, Adolfo Aguilar Zinser of Mexico, told reporters today that the 15-nation council has voiced its commitment to the principle that Iraq's oil belongs to the Iraqis in intensive daily discussions on the fate of Iraq's oil industry. The council must make an effort to preserve . . . Iraq's sovereignty over its oil, he said. Iraq was exporting as much as 2 million barrels of oil a day before the conflict, about 3 percent of the world's supply. Production from the southern fields was cut off by the war but some Iraqi oil has continued to flow through a pipeline to Turkey. That oil has not been sold because of the uncertain legal situation. The Bush administration insists that all Iraqi oil revenue will be used to benefit the Iraqi people. Iraq is a wealthy nation, said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer. Unlike Afghanistan, for example, Iraq will have a huge financial base from within upon which to draw. And that's because of their oil wealth. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan suspended Iraqi oil exports on the eve of the military campaign. The Security Council decision Friday to use $13 billion in Iraqi oil revenue to finance relief efforts over the next six weeks has yet to be implemented because of red tape, and only a fraction is expected to provide immediate relief. Seeking to prevent another acrimonious political battle in the council, Britain has begun pressing the Bush administration to organize a meeting of Iraqi representatives to make decisions on the fate of the country's oil industry. U.N. control over Iraqi oil is firmly rooted in the sanctions imposed after the 1991 Gulf War, a British official said. All these questions about the Iraqi oil industry are totally academic until the sanctions are suspended, and the sanctions are not going to be suspended at the
Squabbles about who will run Iraq
from the Independent http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=393124 Pentagon vetoes new task force to take control of Baghdad By Rupert Cornwell in Washington 02 April 2003 The parallel internal war in Washington over Iraq flared again yesterday when the Pentagon vetoed a list of senior officials proposed by the State Department to help to run the country once Saddam Hussein has been overthrown. The proposed team is understood to have included several present and former high-level diplomats, including ambassadors to Arab states, who would have joined what amounts to a cabinet under the retired General Jay Garner, named by the Pentagon to head an interim administration. But Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, is understood to have vetoed the group as too bureaucratic. Among those favoured by the Pentagon is said to be James Woolsey, the former CIA director and long-standing proponent of military action against Iraq. The Pentagon also wants a job for Ahmed Chalabi, the head of the Iraqi National Congress opposition group, whom the State Department regards with high suspicion. The dispute is more evidence of the Pentagon's determination to retain as direct a control as possible of the rebuilding of Iraq, relegating the international community, the United Nations, NGOs, and even other parts of the US government to supporting parts. It is also another facet of the running battle - mostly submerged but sometimes bursting into public view - between Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, and the hardliners led by Mr Rumsfeld, his deputy Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, for the ear of President George Bush. The rivalry stretches back to last summer, when Mr Bush overruled the Cheney/ Rumsfeld camp and followed General Powell's urgings to take the crisis to the UN and to give the weapons inspectors one last chance. The quarrelling ranges from the management of humanitarian aid to post-war Iraq, the shape of a post-Saddam administration, the place of the UN in reconstruction and the role of Iraqi opposition groups in the transition phase. According to The Washington Post yesterday, the State Department's nominated group was due to leave Washington for Kuwait last week, but was told to stand down after objections from the Pentagon. At the same time, General Powell wrote to Mr Rumsfeld, saying civilian agencies co-ordinated by the State Department should be in charge of distributing humanitarian aid. The Defence Secretary's response is unknown. But the exchange only underlines how Bush administration's plans for Iraq, even for the post-war phase, are still in flux. General Powell fears that if the US military is seen to control matters, foreign governments who opposed the invasion without prior UN approval, and aid agencies, will be less willing to help. Last week, the heads of 14 US aid agencies wrote to Mr Bush, pleading that the UN takes charge. They left no doubt they did not want to be Pentagon subcontractors. So far the President has been ambiguous on the issue. At the Azores summit with Tony Blair and Jose Maria Aznar, the Spanish Prime Minister, Mr Bush said the UN would play a vital part in aid efforts. That comment was generally taken as a nod in the direction of Mr Blair, a fervent proponent of UN involvement. But Mr Blair appeared to make little new headway when he met Mr Bush at Camp David last week. The disagreement is an increasing worry for neutral Iraq exile groups. Quarrelling between the US government agencies is terribly detrimental to Iraq, Rend Rahim Francke, the executive director of the Iraq Foundation, a non-profit group promoting democracy and human rights, said yesterday. The best way of bringing the Iraqi opposition groups together is to end the divisions inside the US government. There should be one Iraq policy, not five or six. She also urged that an Iraqi face be given to the military operation in progress. When the troops go in, Iraqis see British and American soldiers who can't communicate, Ms Francke told a meeting at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, a think-tank and stronghold of neo- conservative hawks on Iraq. I fail completely to understand why, when so many Iraqis are ready to go in to help build bridges, the coalition so far hasn't made use of them. Ari Fleischer, Mr Bush's spokesman, said last night that the exact job of the UN in Iraq would only be decided once the war was over but the military is certain to play a key role. In the build-up to the conflict, the President Bush has tended to side with the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz group. General Powell has had little choice but to go along, given the discipline of the administration and the premium Mr Bush places on loyalty. Separately, Mr Fleischer stressed the President's complete faith in Mr Rumsfeld, who has been accused of overruling his top commanders and going to war with too small a force on the ground. The latest claims, Mr Fleischer said,
Re: Re: the emporer
Your point again? You think it will help spread our message if we start going on about Pig Fascist Amerikkka? Most Americans don't believe most of what we believe. Maybe if we believe some of what they believe, and bend it a bit our way, we will do better in reaching them. Moreover it is true that America has made imperishable contributionsto ideals of freedom and democracy. The Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment, the Federalist Papers,the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address and Lincoln's Second Inaugural, Frederick Douglass' writings, Eugene V. Debs' speeches, the Port Huron Statement -- these are among the glories of American -- and world --civilization. They belong to to everybody, but they also belong to us. jks
Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Justin says:The question is why such promises -- freedom, self-development, democracy, etc. -- are cast as "American" values and ideals.Just because we say they are American doesn't mean that they can't be other people's too. Americans do have a particular mix of them ("We hold these truths to be self evident . . . "); , just as the French have a real but not exclusive claim to Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.I'm not sure if most Americans actually believe that. A lot of Americans think that they enjoy the most freedom, democracy, etc. in the world, despite evidence to the contrary.Further, even when concessions are made to rich European nations like France, no such concessions are forthcoming with regard to poor European and non-European nations -- hence a large number of America!
ns who buy the idea that the USG can and must bring freedom, democracy, etc. to such nations as Yugoslavia and Iraq, because folks in the rest of the world can't help themselves.-- Yoshie* Calendar of Events in Columbus: * Student International Forum: * Committee for Justice in Palestine: * Al-Awda-Ohio: * Solidarity: Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
Re: Re: the emporer
The US government has been constantly waging war, overtly or covertly, against one nation or another, or one movement or another, ever since the USA became the world's hegemon. Such material conditions have created ideological conditions saturated with such symbols of nationalism as the flag, the anthem, etc., to which US leftists, unlike Japanese leftists, have largely adapted themselves. So, I don't think that it is correct to say that there exists "the feral alienation from America on the left" at all, as far as US leftists are concerned.-- I think you're wrong, witness this list. Nathan, Max, and I are the only Americans on it who consider ourselves to be patriotic in any sense. And we are hardly typical of the American left.As for flags,anthems, nationalism, I have nothing to do with them. But I do choke up at the Lincoln Memorial. jksDo you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?
troy cochrane wrote: Having nothing to back this up other than observation, I think happiness is much more related to community than it is to wealth. Unfortunately, the wealthiest countries seem to lack or even have destroyed community. By community I am meaning that you know and have an investment in your neighbours and your neighbourhood. Their well-being contributes to your well-being. How many people have you observed closely from among those who have a net worth of (say) 150 million? That is the group I was talking about. And on the other end, how in the hell can you have community if all those who might form a community (a) live far enough from each other (b) in an area with no public transportation and (c) cannot afford a car? Money does not cause happiness, but it sure as hell is often necessary for the conditions within which _other_ things can bring about happiness. Let's start with basics. Can three close friends with great communal relations be happy while they are communally dying on the rack? Carrol
UK gov winning propaganda war
I have to report with regret that I think the British government is winning the propaganda war. Newsnight, the BBC 2 programme which used to be pentratingly critical of Government policy, is no longer what it was. Channel 4 News which before the war hosted a debate in which the studio audience condemned pre-emptive strikes as a new form of imperialism, looks to me this morning as if it is being turned by UK government coordinated briefings. The programme was doubly flattered today by having John Reid, the chair of the Labour Party, and member of the war cabinet, and by its chief correspondent on the Southern Front, Alex Thomson, being able to claim he is the first journalist to see an advanced copy of the UK commanders battle plan. His message was there had been a quiet night as one would expect. It will be very slow progress. He could not reveal the details of the battle plan, nudge nudge, but it is going to be very very careful. There will be no frontal attack on Basra for 10-12 days in his opinion, and perhaps longer. He refuted the suggestion that Basra is besieged. He could not understand why people still were reporting that Basra is besieged. There are 3 Iraqi divisions to the north and Highway 6 is open for the Iraqi military to enter, as well as supplies. So that, he passed on, might become a focus of allied attention, but in no way did he imply there is or will be a siege. He explained to an MP of the parliamentary defence committee who sounded very interested, that really the British troops are fighting 3 wars at once, and he implied they are doing so relatively successfully: 1 a humanitarian war, to get relief through and win hearts and minds 2 a counter-insurgency war dealing with small attacks like in the past in northern Ireland, and 3 a war with the conventional army. He did not add this morning, but he has explained previously, a fourth, probing, element of in-out attacks to throw the defending forces in Basra off balance, demoralise them hopefully in the eyes of the population, and gather further information. [An analysis about Baghdad on CNN but also from a prestigious British source, Jonathan Eyal from the Royal United Services Institute, suggested that the US will not adopt a frontal assault on Baghdad, certainly not in the immediate future and the model will be more like that of the Brits in the south - the strategy of the boa constrictor he said, to get a grip on the prey and very slowly tighten the grip. He suggested that the US were actually trying to draw Iraqi forces out of Baghdad and to destroy them there, and this was having some success. In due course they would enter Baghdad but sector by sector, in salami tactics, to use another metaphor. This analysis about Baghdad might be confirmed by the fact that both the Channel 4 reporter and the BBC reporter in Baghdad this morning said, despite the claims of heaviest bombing on Baghdad, they found the bombing rather light. } Back to my story about Channel 4 News this morning, they were flattered with a political interview at the start with John Reid. His Scottish voice sounds frank and honest to English ears and he spoke quietly but assertively. He was asked how he assessed British public opinion. He said he thought the vast majority wanted us to get the job done. We have got to be patient. He almost certainly speaks on the basis of focus group analysis. He claimed that unprecedentedly in British history parliament had had not one but two debates prior to the declaration of war, and he claimed that ministers are regularly appearing to answer questions. Channel 4 News did not manage land a blow on him. The discussion in the House of Commons around question time yesterday was a success for the government. Although the shrewd and persevering Jeremy Corbyn had tried earlier in the week to challenge why Tony Blair had not made a statement in the House despite the major developments in the previous week, when it came to it yesterday, there was no momentum to challenge the fact of the on-going war. The government has successfully deflected the focus of debate to the question of what will happen after the fall of Saddam Hussein, and there is no effective pressure among Labour MP's to call for a cease fire, let along complete withdrawal of UK troops. Despite the bravery of calls by people like George Galloway denouncing his leader for war crimes, the problem is that voices like Robin Cook, Chris Smith, and Kennedy have not got a focus to stop or slow down the war now, especially if British troops are being so cautious and politically subtle (by the standards of imperialist war!) Robin Cook backtracked within hours of his article in the Sunday Mirror calling for troops to come home immediately, when the Home Secretary, Blunkett, commended the dignity of his resignation but suggested that an immediate withdrawal would capitulate to Saddam Hussein. The Stop the War
Turkey: Powell Protested Everywhere
http://istanbul.indymedia.org As the US-UK attack in Iraq faces unexpected civil resistance and slows down, the US is again asking support from Turkey for an Northern Iraqi Front. Colin Powell, visiting Ankara for related talks, was protested in many locations, despite his travel route being changed repeatedly due to security reasons. ODP members chanted slogans against the attack and threw red paint on Powell's way. University students protested Powell in front of the Foreign Ministry. TKP members protested in front of the Presidental Residence. Prime Ministry reporters protested Powell by turning their backs to him. Ankara Anti-War Platform members gathering in nearby Guven Park tried to march to the Prime Ministry. Many demonstrators were detained in all protests. Powell's visit was protested also in Istanbul, Izmir and other cities. Photographs are here: http://istanbul.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/1212.php
Clear Channel lays siege to NYC
Village Voice, April 2 - 8, 2003 Pro-War Media Conglomerate Tries to Take Over New York Bush's Voice of America by Wayne Barrett Clear Channel Communications, the Texas-based media colossus that's fomenting pro-war rallies and submarining airplay for anti-war artists, has quietly become a brash and hungry player in New York politics. With the likes of GOP power broker Al D'Amato and Democratic consultant Hank Sheinkopf on the tab, the $8 billion conglomerate is chasing city deals, from a new concert hall on Randalls Island to a franchise on all sidewalk advertising. If you get in the back seat of a cab, you may already be faced with Clear Channel's televised commercials, or wind up riding underneath one of their taxi-top posters, all approved by the city's Taxi and Limousine Commission. Or, if you enter a subway station, you'll pass their billboardssoon to be changeable digital adson the way down the steps, awarded by the MTA. If you catch a flight out of Newark Airport, it's their ads that work on your subconscious while you wait, courtesy of the Port Authority. If you're taking a walk in Times Square, you'll be surrounded by their towering, city-authorized, street signage, even while you're buying a ticket to any of the five Broadway shows they produced. If you've paid a fortune to see a concert at either of the two publicly owned amphitheaters in the areaJones Beach or the PNC Arts Center in Holmdel, New Jerseyit was Clear Channel that sold you the ticket. And if you turn on a radio in New York, it's hard to miss their five stations (WHTZ, WKTU, WAXQ, WWPR, WLTW), which combine to make them number one in this market . What's good for business in cowboy country, however, could hurt them on old Broadway. Paul Krugman, the best reason to read the Times, revealed last week that Clear Channel is the sponsor, albeit indirectly, of the carefully synchronized pro-war rallies taking place all over Bush country. Their stations have sponsored at least 13 of these Rally for America events, including one in Atlanta that drew 25,000 people, with future outpourings of support scheduled for Tampa, Florida; Lubbock, Texas; and Dothan, Alabama. One of their radio superstars, Glenn Beck, joined by advertisers, has hosted another five. The company has tried to draw a flimsy line of distinction between itself and the rallies that its wholly-owned stations host, but anyone can see that's just one more lie out of Texas about this war. full: http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0314/barrett.php -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
