Re: The rise of an emotion based left was Bush using drugs
I agree: as I've said before, people such as Castro and Noriega are dismissed as "crazy" by establishmentarian figures. As someone who deals with the community of parents of kids on the autistic spectrum, I'm always fighting the urge (not just by others) to diagnose various people as autistic, Asperger's, etc. without actually knowing them personally and therapeutically. (These people include Albert Einstein, Bill Gates, the fictional Napoleon Dynamite, etc.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message-From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Brian McKennaSent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 8:18 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The rise of an emotion based left was Bush using drugsHi all,I disagree strongly with this view. . .Mental health tags are continually used to discredit whistleblowers, Marxists, and others who challenge orthodoxy. This reproduces the dominant view that mental health questions only pertain to individuals, particularly those individuals who are not conformist in a pernicious hierarchical social order. It also reproduces the Western view that mental health applies to isolated individuals, not societies and their leaders. . .Bush on the Couch is a very important work that brings bourgeois psychoanalysts and phsycologists beyond the clinic and applies their insights to the true sources of perversion in the land.Yes, there is a danger in this. . .but the prevailing ideology of individual causation of disease and illness, captured in the dominant ideology of biomedicine is far, far worse. . .Marx and others are fair game for this analysis as well. . .Brian McKenna
The rise of an emotion based left was Bush using drugs
Greetings Economists, It is but a small step from what CC writes: As a friend of mine in the local Depressive Support Group once observed, Just because you're crazy doesn't mean you're not also a jerk! There is no difficulty in demonstrating that Bush and his friends are one large bunch of thugs war criminals. There is no need for Capital Blue's baiting of the mentally ill! Doyle, to taking seriously what emotion contributes to society. Everyone knows the Enlightenment view of emotion is that it does not belong in rational discussion. Contrarily, the philosopher of law at the University of Chicago, Martha Nussbaum posits a society in which asocial emotions do not shape society, and social emotions do. It is a far cry from that position to one which condemns Bush for being depressed. It is bigoted anti-disability claim about Bush. Just to be clear Nussbaum for example distinguishes disgust as an asocial emotion from anger or fear which are social emotions. In other words Nussbaum takes seriously the role of emotion in the construction of society and gives us probably the first non bigoted way to approach this issue. She in fact directly addresses bigotry against disabled people. No socialist or Marxist can possibly stand by an attack upon depressed people as a legitimate left path. Down with the bigots. thanks, Doyle
Re: The rise of an emotion based left was Bush using drugs
Brian McKenna wrote: Hi all, I disagree strongly with this view. . . The rest of this post is so incoherent that I am baffled by how to respond to its actual arguments (since every argument the post advances it also attacks as far as I can see: hence it refutes itself pretty conclusively). But the rationale of the argument aside, I take any attack on anyone on the basis of mental illness as a personal attack. I.e., as far as I am concerned Brian's post boils down to the proposition that Cox is a shithead. Same to you Brian. Carrol
Re: The rise of an emotion based left was Bush using drugs
Hi all, I disagree strongly with this view. . . Mental health tags are continually used to discredit whistleblowers, Marxists, and others who challenge orthodoxy. This reproduces the dominant view that mental health questions only pertain to individuals, particularly those individuals who are not conformist in a pernicious hierarchical social order. It also reproduces the Western view that mental health applies to isolated individuals, not societies and their leaders. . . Bush on the Couch is a very important work that brings bourgeois psychoanalysts and phsycologists beyond the clinic and applies their insights to the true sources of perversion in the land. Yes, there is a danger in this. . .but the prevailing ideology of individual causation of disease and illness, captured in the dominant ideology of biomedicine is far, far worse. . . Marx and others are fair game for this analysis as well. . . Brian McKenna
Liberal yuppies go ballistic over Nader petition
Counterpunch, August 5, 2004 The Dem Plot Against Nader Florida Comes to California By TODD CHRETIEN Having spent the last month helping organize the petition drive to get Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo on the ballot in California, I'd like to make two observations and some comments. 1. There are an appalling number of liberals or progressives who are willing to scream and spit in your face (literally) when you ask them if they'd like to sign a petition so that people who want to vote for a candidate who opposes the occupation of Iraq and the Patriot Act will have that right. Here's a typical conversation: Petitioner: Excuse me, are you a registered voter in California? We're trying to get Ralph Nader on the ballot. Liberal Yuppie: No, no, no!!! You cost Gore the election! F**k you, b**tch! Petitioner: We're not asking you to vote for him, just help us get on the ballot, so that people who would like to vote for him will have that right. Liberal Yuppie: I don't care about your rights. You're going to hell! Apologies to the faint at heart for the strong language, but for all of Norman Solomon's conspiracy theories about Nader being a Republican tool, the reality is that the less than 5% of campaign contributions Nader has received from individual Republicans (mostly old classmates and small Arab-American businessmen who voted for Bush in 200, but now disgusted with Kerry and Bush alike) has absolutely no influence on the campaign. The real story is that hundreds of left-wing and progressive people spent the last month collecting tens of thousands of signatures from ordinary people. We didn't go to Beverly Hills or Point Reyes. We went to Oakland and San Leandro and Stockton and East LA and Chico and Sacramento and the Mission in San Franciso and Santa Cruz and Davis and Butte County and San Diego and everywhere in between. I'd like to send a warm thanks to everyone here and across the country who has stood their ground petitioning against the anti-democratic, and often racist and sexist abuse. 2. There is an inverse relationship between youth, poverty and oppression on the one hand and hostility to Nader on the other. Petitioners encountered the MOST hostility in more middle-class areas, where indignant liberal yuppies felt perfectly comfortable yelling all sorts of vulgar insults. In neighborhoods that were poorer, more working class and more multi-racial, petitioners got a much better reception. Same goes for younger voters. And in the working class areas, even those who did not want to sign the petitions tended to be more respectful and support our right to speak our minds. These are generalizations. There are many better off progressive people who support Nader and there are many young, poor and people of color who do not. But the trend is unmistakable. What can we learn from these facts? The Democratic Party survives off the passivity and demoralization of the poorest and most oppressed sections of the working class. The Democrats do nothing to challenge the indifference of the poorest people and youth in the United States to the outcomes of elections, because they benefit from it. The biggest threat to the Democratic Party's status as an alternating ruling party is an active, confident and organized working class. The submission of most of the left in the United States to the mantra of Anybody But Bush is of enormous importance to maintaining this subjegation. If we held an election tomorrow in which everyone (whether or not they are registered to vote) voted on Bush's, Kerry's and Nader's platforms, Nader would get 20% or 30% of the vote, if not more. Would that cost Kerry the election? Probably, but it would also terrify Bush and paralyze the main stream parties' capacity to march lock-step down the road of war, prisons and corporate power. Of course, there WON'T be that kind of election this year. Why not? Because the Democrats and the corporate media are doing their best to stamp out the challenge from Nader. They are determined to destroy any left-wing opposition today and effectively cripple it for the future. Unfortunately, they have enlisted many progressive political people in this campaign. If they succeed in driving Nader/Camejo from the field, then the likelihood of an election like that EVER taking place will be set back tremendously. In the meantime, the damage being done to the Green Party is accumulating. I've talked to dozens of Greens who say, I can't believe David Cobb is encouraging people to vote for Kerry. What's the point of being a Green. I'm quitting the party, I'm going with Nader. Cobb likes to talk about growing the Green Party. But prominently displayed on his website is an essay by Medea Benjamin and others called, An Open Letter to Progressives: Vote Cobb, Vote Kerry. No doubt, this vote Kerry line will earn the Green Party thanks from the pro-war forces. But it will lose something much more valuable. Namely, the respect of people who are looking for an alternative John
PPP comparisons
Take a simple example of Japan and the US. Say the market exchange rate is 110 Yens = One US$. Now take an equivalent basket--in quantity and quality--that contains a burger with fries and a drink. It costs 450 Yens in Tokyo and US$ 2.50 in New York. The PPP exchange rate is then 180 Yens = One US$ (450/2.50). There is nothing imaginary about the PPP exchange rate since it gives you the purchasing power of a country's currency vis-a-vis the US dollar. One thing I've never understood about PPP, is it an attempt to measure -what it is like living in a poor country- or is the idea more modest as the above paragraph suggests trying to demonstrate what the market equivalent amount of currency buys in a given country? For example the PPP GDP or GNP per capita of a country is $US 500. Does this mean that living in that country on that given amount of money is like living in the USA on the same amount of money? PPP (and the averaging and aggregating that goes on) can be misleading.A string sampling bias exists. There are no price differences between countries in goods and services that are offered by MNC's. The costs of Mcdonalds,Bechtel water, Enron nat. gas, or a Blockbuster video is the same across geographical space with very limited differential. The IMF and its coat-tailers always (and ,yes, still) say that the most important economic fundamental is getting prices right. The right price or international market price always seems to be what the good or service costs in the USA. How could it be otherwise, inflation always exists and the bulk of demand for the goods and services offered by MNC's is still in the North hemisphere. Ultimately, the WTO project gets more goods and services to cost what they cost in the USA and Europe. And as that happens, people's access to those goods and services becomes more limited, Bechtel water in South Africa for example. The products offered by local or import substituting businesses cost much less. The marlboro, pizza hut or coca-cola knockoff costs %25 as much. The more foreign based products it counts in its basket of goods, the bigger the PPP number will be. As the world becomes globalized and the stricter that gov'ts enforce WTO rules, the Atlas rather than ppp will come closer to the truth especially with imports and exports being priced in US dollars and the ongoing dollarization of world economies. I don't think this is an unimportant quibble, as it represents trends sometimes called combined and uneven development. Sam Pawlett
Scott Ritter on John Kerry
Boston Globe op-ed SCOTT RITTER Challenging Kerry on his Iraq vote By Scott Ritter | August 5, 2004 WITH THE release last month of the report by the Senate Select Committee on intelligence and Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, John Kerry was handed a gift that rarely occurs in a major political race: the chance to underscore a major failing on the part of an opponent. The committee found that there was no intelligence data to sustain President Bush's oft-cited reason for last year's invasion of Iraq -- the presence of WMDs and ongoing projects dedicated to their manufacture. Kerry said that the Bush administration had been wrong, and soldiers lost their lives because they were wrong. But Kerry failed to address that he was also wrong and that it was his leadership in the Senate that enabled President Bush to oversee the most flagrant abrogation of congressional constitutional responsibilities in modern time, the October 2002 vote to give Bush power to wage war against Iraq without assuring that there was a clear and present threat to the United States. It is Kerry's yes vote that calls into question the character of the man who wants to replace Bush in the White House. When asked if he would agree with other Democratic senators who said they would not have voted to give Bush war powers authority if they had known about the lack of intelligence on WMD, Kerry let his vice presidential nominee, Senator John Edwards, speak for him: I'm not going to go back and answer hypothetical questions about what I would have done had I known this. Kerry concurred with Edwards, adding, The vote is not today, and that's it. More than 900 American troops in Iraq are dead and more than 5,000 wounded as a result of that vote, numbers that are sure to go higher. Kerry cannot honestly say he was not aware of the paucity of verifiable intelligence concerning the existence of WMD in Iraq on the eve of war. I personally discussed this matter with Kerry in April 2000 and again with his senior staff in June 2002. I asked Kerry to allow me to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during its hearing on Iraq in July-August 2002 but was denied. Kerry knew that there was a viable case to be made to debunk the president's statements regarding the threat posed by Iraq's WMD, but he chose not to act on it. As a lifelong Republican who voted for Bush, I have made it my personal goal to make sure that he does not survive his first term because of his decision to go to war with Iraq without any legitimate justification. However, I believe there are many people, especially disenchanted Republicans like myself, who even though we reject Bush are looking for a good reason to vote for Kerry. Bush's elective war with Iraq provides that reason, if only Kerry could find a way to separate himself from the Bush record that does not insult the intellect and integrity of the electorate. Kerry claims he voted for the war resolution to give Bush the support needed to win over much-needed international support to confront Saddam. According to Kerry, Bush failed to do this. With a new president, Kerry pronounced during his acceptance speech last week at the Democratic National Convention, who strengthens and leads our alliances, we can get NATO to help secure Iraq. We can ensure that Iraq's neighbors like Syria and Iran, don't stand in the way of a democratic Iraq. We can help Iraq's economy by getting other countries to forgive their enormous debt and participate in the reconstruction. However, a prerequisite for getting such support rests on the legitimacy of the conflict with Iraq. This legitimacy hinged on Saddam's possession of WMDs in violation of Security Council resolutions, a notion that has been totally discredited. Kerry can quibble about the hypothetical nature of looking back on his decision to vote for war, but one must question how Kerry plans to enlist support for a war that not only has been proven to be without justification but violates the very principles of international law one presumes would serve as the rallying cry for garnering international support to begin with. Kerry needs to publicly reexamine the reasoning for his vote for war and articulate a clear strategy for Iraq that includes not only a plan for reengagement with the international community but also disengagement of American soldiers. These are real issues that must be addressed directly if Kerry plans on winning the votes of the many Republicans who have been put off by the disingenuous nature of Bush's war in Iraq. To brush them off as hypothetical puts Kerry on the same hypocritical plane as President Bush when it comes to Iraq, something that will not endear him to the legions of crossover voters he needs to win the presidency. Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, is author of Frontier Justice: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Bushwhacking of America. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Tricky John
A Low Profile For the Big Issue Kerry Treads Lightly on War in Iraq By Glenn Kessler Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, August 5, 2004; Page A06 In the early days of the general-election campaign, Democrat John F. Kerry has mounted a strong effort to erode President Bush's advantage on national security. But on the defining issue of war in Iraq, his shots have appeared oblique at best. The war received relatively short shrift at last week's Democratic National Convention -- Kerry devoted only six sentences to Iraq policy in his 45-minute acceptance speech -- and on the stump he seldom discusses his plans for bringing the U.S. occupation to a close and stabilizing the country. (clip) Bush campaign spokesman Terry Holt said Kerry's inability to talk straight about that vote on Iraq will haunt him. He voted for the war and voted against funding for Iraq, Holt said. As long as you look at John Kerry through a gauzy haze of images and rhetoric, they have a chance. You have to look at his record. In Bush's revamped stump speech Friday, he drew particular glee in focusing on the vote over the $87 billion. He tried to explain his vote by saying: I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it. End quote, Bush said to laughter. He's got a different explanation now. One time he said he was proud he voted against the funding, then he said that the whole thing was a complicated matter. Bush then added: There is nothing complicated about supporting our troops in combat! There is some precedent for Kerry's approach on Iraq. In 1968, Republican challenger Richard M. Nixon took virtually the same tack as Kerry when he accepted the GOP nomination. Despite mass protests against the Vietnam War, Nixon only briefly touched on the conflict in his speech, criticizing the Democrats for incompetence in conducting the war, pledging to bring it to an honorable end, and calling on allies to bear more of the burden of defending peace and freedom around this world. Nixon, who had been Dwight D. Eisenhower's vice president, also said he had experience in ending wars, pointing to the conclusion of the Korean War during the Eisenhower administration. full: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40925-2004Aug4.html -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: [Marxism] The NY Times, the Democratic Party and Italian fascism
Mallard Q. Duck wrote: Scary. Any examples of this? Online New York Times archives or whatever? Here's something fairly typical. NY Times, July 22, 1923 The Swashbuckling Mussolini by Anne O'Hare McCormick (clip) The miracle is a miracle of conversion. Here at last is a Government that has transformed a people. If that sunds too strong, I can only say that it is the only term that does justice to the first impiression made on one who left Italy two years ago and comes back today. Then it was a land visibly running down, wiht a kind of hand-to-mouth administration, so that one never knew today where tomorrow's government was coming from. There was no assurance that anything was going to work--railroads, telegraphs, trains, posts, power plants, bakeries, any kind of public or private service. One tried a water faucet skeptically; one bet on the chances of getting a train. Life was a daily gamble; sporting enought for the traveler but pretty desperate for the native. The people were either idle and rebellious or idle and dispirited. The war had elft them bitter and poor; subsequent events had made them lose pride in their country and respect for their Government. Everywhere was slackness, despondency, recklessness. One left confusion and fear, and under confusion and fear, apathy and discouragement. One returned to a country cheerful, industrious, interested and orderly. All the railroads were running and running on time. There was not even the threat or shadow of a strike. There has not been a single strike in any part of Italy since the Fascistii came into power. The streets were clean, the roads were being mended, the enlivening sounds of construction were heard everywhere. Workers were singing at their work. It was like a land recovered from a blight. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Liberal yuppies go ballistic over Nader petition
Devine, James wrote: Todd Chretien writes: The Democrats do nothing to challenge the indifference of the poorest people and youth in the United States to the outcomes of elections, because they benefit from it. The biggest threat to the Democratic Party's status as an alternating ruling party is an active, confident and organized working class. The submission of most of the left in the United States to the mantra of Anybody But Bush is of enormous importance to maintaining this subjegation. Though this is accurate (as is the critique of the DP's anti-democratic ways), it misses an important dimension of the middle-class white ABB movement, i.e., the culture war stuff. Though it's very true that the DP doesn't want organized and class-conscious workers, there's a big component of the working class that doesn't want abortion rights, gay marriage, etc. The yuppies that Chretien discusses are typically more in favor of those, and are deeply worried about who Bush will appoint to the Supreme Court (someone _worse_ than Clarence Thomas?) I would prefer to speak of different sectors of one working class in formation, since most of those yuppies would be -- or since the 2000 crash are already -- in great trouble if their paychecks cease for a few months. And those culture wars need, eventually, to be won _inside_ the working class. AND that will be rather difficult to do so long as a large number of leftists remain tied to the DP. Carrol P.S. Many ABBs affirm that they have no allegiance to the DP but believe that 2004 represents a special case; that one can work for Kerry now but return to the struggle against the DP after the election. For some no doubt this is true. But it seems to me at least that as the months have passed those ABBs have increasingly used arguments that simply do not differentiate between now and any other election past or future -- i.e. are arguments which will equally apply when a run-of-the-mill DP reactionary is running against a run-of-the-mill RP reactionary in future elections. ABB is turning into The DP Now and Forever. And that brings us back to Chretien's point, that the DP is essentially anti-democratic, and any movement for democracy in the U.S. must see the DP as its chief enemy. Hence my increasing irritation with (most) ABBs. P.S. 2 This irritation does not extend to the 20 to 30 rabid Kerry supporters in the local anti-war group: they are just getting started in non-electoral political activity and take supporting the DP for granted. They will learn. But the ABBs who publish in various left journals and on maillists are a different matter -- they are (supposedly) not political amateurs or new to left activity.
Re: Liberal yuppies go ballistic over Nader petition
CC writes: I would prefer to speak of different sectors of one working class in formation, since most of those "yuppies" would be -- or since the 2000 crash are already -- in great trouble if their paychecks cease for a few months. especially if the housing bubble pops... And those "culture wars" need, eventually, to be won _inside_ the working class. AND that will be rather difficult to do so long as a large number of leftists remain tied to the DP. This suggests that, for clarity's sake, future discussions of the DP and ABB should make it clear whether we're talking about (1) working within the DP; or (2) voting for Kerry. as for me, I agree that working within the DP is absolutely the wrong way to go. What we need is an anti-war movement and other anti-establishmentarian movements. As for issue #2, voting is a very personal decision -- and very powerless. A lot of people here in California will be follow Molly Ivins' 2000 advice and will be voting for Nader (or Leonard Peltier) precisely _because_ it will have no effect on the actual election. It's a mystery to me why all those "yuppies" in California are so adamantly anti-Nader! Jim Devine
Re: Liberal yuppies go ballistic over Nader petition
Devine, James wrote: This suggests that, for clarity's sake, future discussions of the DP and ABB should make it clear whether we're talking about (1) working within the DP; or (2) voting for Kerry. as for me, I agree that working within the DP is absolutely the wrong way to go. What we need is an anti-war movement and other anti-establishmentarian movements. As for issue #2, voting is a very personal decision -- and very powerless. I would agree. And indeed, though I have sometimes been careless in making the distinction, it is _political activity_, not voting, that is of interest to me. Voting seems more or less a symbolic activity in the dark appreciated only by the voter him/herself. I couldn't care less what private symbols voters send to themselves. Carrol
Nostradamus predicts...
Title: Nostradamus predicts... (Rediscovered Quatrain) Les Gracchus du sud surgiront triomphales Au grand dépit des sbires imperiales Bougrelas Ubu remplacera Mais wirtschaft polnische restera Michèl de Nôtre-Dame (p.c.c. le petit poete)
PartyBuilder - August 2004
PARTYBUILDER - August 2004 IN THIS ISSUE: DC LABOR FILM FEST - AD DEADLINE AUGUST 10TH! CNA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ROSE ANN DEMORO SPEAKS OUT ON HEALTH CARE THE MEDICARE DRUG WAR DO FAT CATS PAY LOWER TAX RATES THAN WORKERS? FREE HIGHER ED CAMPAIGN NEWS DC LABOR FILM FEST - AD DEADLINE AUGUST 10TH! The 2004 DC Labor FilmFest is scheduled for September 10-12 at the American Film Institute's Silver Theater. The festival opens with a 15th anniversary screening of Michael Moore's first film, Roger and Me and closes with a new print of the classic 1969 Marlon Brando film Burn! In between are five brand new films chronicling coal miners in China (Blind Shaft), a post-industrial, pre-apocalyptic, existential comedy (Human Error) as well as the premiere of concert film Tell Us the Truth. The November 2003 musical tour featuring Billy Bragg and Steve Earle called attention to issues of media consolidation and trade policy. We need your support! It's not too late to support the FilmFest with an ad from your union or organization in the Festival Guide. Ad space is available at the following rates: Friend of the Festival: $100 Quarter page: $250 Half page: $500 Full page: $1,000 Silver Screen Page: $2,500 Please call DJDI at 202 234-0040 x13 to reserve your ad. Many thanks to our Labor Party affiliates and supporters for ads already placed. For more information, click here: www.djdinstitute.org/f_index.html CNA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ROSE ANN DEMORO SPEAKS OUT ON HEALTH CARE In a recent guest commentary in the Contra Costa Times, Rose Ann DeMoro, executive director of the California Nurses Association (a Labor Party affiliate) charges that it is time to get serious on health care. DeMoro argues that Verbal commitments to universal health care are for some a charade, a cover for tinkering with the current system to avoid substantive change. Typical of such ideas is the notion that people without employer-provided benefits be required to purchase insurance, subsidized for the low income through tax credits, without any financial contribution by the HMOs and insurance giants that would reap gain. Read the full article at www.justhealthcare.org. Click here. THE MEDICARE DRUG WAR The pharmaceutical and managed care industries spent a record $141 million in 2003 to lobby Congress for last year's Medicare prescription drug legislation. According to The Medicare Drug War, a new report by Public Citizen, the new law may increase those industries' revenues by as much as $531.5 billion. The army of 952 lobbyists (nearly 10 for each U.S. Senator) helped ensure that the new drug benefit will be administered by private companies. The new law expressly prohibits the government from using its bargaining clout to negotiate lower prices and effectively bans the reimportation of cheaper drugs from Canada. For more information and to download the report, visit www.citizen.org. Click here DO FAT CATS PAY LOWER TAX RATES THAN WORKERS? Thanks in part to George W. Bush's recent cut in the top tax rate on dividends and capital gains, the average tax rate workers pay on wages is more than DOUBLE the rate on investment income. According to Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ) and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), federal personal taxes on investment income now average only 9.6 percent, while federal personal taxes on wages and other earnings average 23.4 percent. Before Ronald Reagan took office, the top income tax rate on most investment income was 70 percent. The top capital gains tax rate, now 15 percent, was more than 35 percent. ITEP's analysis estimates that taxing investment income like earnings would raise $338 billion in 2004 enough to cut this year's budget deficit by two-thirds or more. Or enough to fund free higher education several times over or enough to fund a substantial part of a Just Health Care budget. For more information, www.ctj.org. Click here FREE HIGHER ED CAMPAIGN NEWS The July/August 2004 issue of ACADEME the bulletin of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) features the article Free Higher Education by campaign co-chair Adolph Reed Jr. and Sharon Syzmanski, an economist with the Labor Institute. The bulletin is distributed to every member of the AAUP nationwide. The AAUP's Collective Bargaining Congress has endorsed the Free Higher Ed campaign. AAUP also invited Reed to present a workshop on the campaign at its Summer Institute at the University of Scranton on July 31st. The workshop was well received by AAUP members from around the country and was an opportunity to introduce AAUP members outside the collective bargaining section to our campaign. Visit our website at www.freehighered.org ABOUT THE LABOR PARTY The Labor Party is a national organization made up of international unions and thousands of local unions - representing over two million workers - worker supportive organizations and individual members. Founded in 1996 at a convention of 1,400 delegates, the Labor Party
Call for Papers: New Working Class Studies
CALL FOR PAPERS NEW WORKING-CLASS STUDIES: PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE The 10th Aniversary Conference of the Center for Working-Class Studies at Youngstown State University, May 18-21, 2005, Youngstown, Ohio In 2005, the Center for Working-Class Studies will celebrate the 10th anniversary of its founding. In honor of that occasion, we are planning a conference that will reflect the diversity, creativity, and energy of New Working-Class Studies. The conference will feature plenary sessions reflecting on the development of the field, taking stock of where we stand today, and looking ahead to new possibilities and challenges. Our conferences always include arts exhibits, film screenings, poetry readings, and other events. The 2005 conference, co-sponsored by the Ford Foundation, will also include a business meeting of the Working-Class Studies Association. We invite proposals from students, workers, faculty members, organizers, artists, and activists in all fields, from literature to geography, history to filmmaking, union organizing to neighborhood activism. Along with papers, we invite performances, film showings, roundtables, and presentations of all kinds. In addition, we invite proposals for three-hour interactive workshops and field trips, which will be scheduled for Saturday morning. We encourage proposals that explore literature by and about the working class; working-class and labor history; material and popular culture; current workplace issues; geography and landscape; journalism and media; sociology; economics; union organizing and practice; museum studies; the arts; multiculturalism; ethnography, biography, autobiography; pedagogy; and personal narratives of work. Presenters should describe the presentation they would like to give, including the suggested presentation format (panel, roundtable, reading, workshop, etc.) and length. Proposals should be no longer than one page and must be received by January 3, 2005. Address written correspondence to John Russo, Biennial Conference, Center for Working-Class Studies, Youngstown State University, Youngstown, Ohio 44555. Fax or e-mail inquiries shouldbe sent to Patty LaPresta, (330) 941-4622 and [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Center for Working-Class Studies's website is located at http:/www.as.ysu.edu/-cwcs/ and its discussion group at [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
Re: The rise of an emotion based left was Bush using drugs
In a message dated 8/5/04 11:41:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I take any attack on anyone on the basis of mental illness as a personal attack. I.e., as far as I am concerned Brian's post boils down to the proposition that "Cox is a shithead." there is a slippery slope between the person and the culture. . .that's what Frank and others argue. I'm an anthropologist, and recognize that different cultures can be said to possess metaphoric "personalities" that shift with historical struggle. . . I presented no evidence that I thought of Mr. Cox in such a crude manner. To disagree is not a mental illness. . . Brian
Defrauding Women of Abortion
Defrauding Women of Abortion (an anti-abortion fraudster preyed on working-class women by promising them discount abortions and then cancelling appointments repeatedly, until it became too late for them to have abortions -- the fraud enabled by an anti-abortion myth that women who want abortions need extensive counseling about abortion's emotional and physical side effects): http://montages.blogspot.com/2004/08/defrauding-women-of-abortion.html. -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Greens for Nader: http://greensfornader.net/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Nation Magazine editorial on Mussolini (July 29, 1925)
Mussolinis Fascist State Italy is passing through a period of political and social change. Single events, however important in themselves, can hardly give the significance of this change or its direction. The following summary of the accomplishments of the last parliamentary session is reprinted from the London Observer of June 28: The parliamentary session has just closed with a series of dramatic surprises. Signor Mussolini has given the country plenty to think about during the holidays. During the last few sittings of the Chamber three important laws were passed in rapid succession, regulating respectively the position of the bureaucracy, the activities of the press, and the power of the Government to legislate by the use of royal decrees. Without entering into details, it may be said that the general effect of these measures will be to strengthen the position of the executive and render it difficult if not impossible, for either Parliament, press, or civil servants to offer opposition to, or criticism of, its methods. Lest the full import of this victory should be lost on the country, the Prime Minister closed the Fascist Congress last Monday with one of the most remarkable speeches he has ever made. It is an absolutely clear statement of his deliberate intention to create a Fascist state, a state in which Fascism will not be a part of the nation but the nation itself, so that the words Italian and Fascist shall come to be synonymous, just as are practically the words Italian and Catholic. As a preliminary, he announces that parliamentarism has been conquered. The laws that have been passed so far are for the defense of Fascism; those that will be put before the country in the autumn will carry on the work in a constructive and creative sense. A REAL FASCIST STATE That these intentions are the logical outcome of Signor Mussolinis policy for the last three years no one can doubt who has made any consecutive study of his acts, which are invariably plain, and of his public utterances, which have never been tortuous. The very boldness of his conceptions has caused many people to assume that he could not possibly mean what he said, and to hope that with time Fascism would slough off its most marked characteristics and cool down into a party more or less like any other, ready to give and take. They can hardly think this any more after his last declarations. He has flung out a straight challenge to his adversaries, and, in the absence of any really strong, homogeneous opposition, he may possibly go some way toward realizing his ideal of a state in which all the power will be to all the Fascists. So far as Mussolini is concerned the old Italy, the Italy of Liberals, Democrats, and Socialists, has passed away. We are at the dawn of the new Italy, which needs new institutions, new laws, and an entirely new directive. What is to be the type of the new Italian? He is to have courage, intrepidity, love of risk, a repugnance for pacifism at all costs, readiness to dare both in individual and in collective life, and a hatred for all that is sedentary. He is to show discipline in work, respect for authority, and to feel pride every hour of the day in the thought that he is Italian. This, as a Roman paper calls it, is the breviary of the perfect Fascist. In the new Fascist Government the executive power will practically control the destinies of the nation, for it is continuous and omnipresent. It is the power that finds itself called at any moment to solve vast problems, to decree great things, to declare war, to conclude peace. This power, which disposes of all the armed forces of the state, which controls day by day the complex machinery of state administration, cannot take a second place. It cannot be represented by a group of puppets who dance according to the caprices of popular assemblies. A CONSTITUTIONAL INNOVATION Yet Parliament is not to be abolished; it is even to be strengthened in one sense by the introduction of new forces. An organization of national syndicates will group the workers and producers of the country together in their different categories and classes. In the Italian Chamber of the future two-thirds of the deputies will be elected as before by universal suffrage, the remaining third will consist of technical representatives of the arts, professions, and industrial and agrarian interests of the country, elected from among the members of the local syndicates. This innovation, which has no precedent, will need the creation of an entirely new electoral law. It forms the basis of the constructive legislation now in course of preparation by a parliamentary commission of eighteen, popularly known as The Solons. Signor Mussolini openly admits that in his hands Italys goal is empire, not necessarily territorial, for empire may be political, economic, or spiritual. Yet Italians must never forget that their capital is Rome, the only
Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior
Of course, there are also the reports that Bush has or had a drinking problem , and we know he has declared that he is a born again Christian. I wonder if , oddly, this means he has more of a conscience and sensitivity than your average president, and he is depressed because he feels guilty about all the bad stuff he is doing, or knows is going on. Perhaps he really believed in Amurika, and has become disallusioned from what he has learned about the truth since becoming president. Rush, Bush...whose next ? Charles ^ by Robert Naiman 04 August 2004 23:16 UTC From Capitol Hill Blue Bush Leagues Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior By TERESA HAMPTON Editor, Capitol Hill Blue
Re: The rise of an emotion based left was Bush using drugs
Speaking of autism, read -- if you haven't already -- Mark Haddon's The Serious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, an outstanding first novel by a British writer with a background in working with autistic kids. Very funny and empathetic, about one such terrifically engaging 15 year old. MG - Original Message - From: Devine, James To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 12:04 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The rise of an emotion based left was Bush using drugs I agree: as I've said before, people such as Castro and Noriega are dismissed as "crazy" by establishmentarian figures. As someone who deals with the community of parents of kids on the autistic spectrum, I'm always fighting the urge (not just by others) to diagnose various people as autistic, Asperger's, etc. without actually knowing them personally and therapeutically. (These people include Albert Einstein, Bill Gates, the fictional Napoleon Dynamite, etc.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message-From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Brian McKennaSent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 8:18 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The rise of an emotion based left was Bush using drugsHi all,I disagree strongly with this view. . .Mental health tags are continually used to discredit whistleblowers, Marxists, and others who challenge orthodoxy. This reproduces the dominant view that mental health questions only pertain to individuals, particularly those individuals who are not conformist in a pernicious hierarchical social order. It also reproduces the Western view that mental health applies to isolated individuals, not societies and their leaders. . .Bush on the Couch is a very important work that brings bourgeois psychoanalysts and phsycologists beyond the clinic and applies their insights to the true sources of perversion in the land.Yes, there is a danger in this. . .but the prevailing ideology of individual causation of disease and illness, captured in the dominant ideology of biomedicine is far, far worse. . .Marx and others are fair game for this analysis as well. . .Brian McKenna
Re: The rise of an emotion based left was Bush using drugs
Sorry. The title is The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time. - Original Message - From: Devine, James To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 12:04 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The rise of an emotion based left was Bush using drugs I agree: as I've said before, people such as Castro and Noriega are dismissed as "crazy" by establishmentarian figures. As someone who deals with the community of parents of kids on the autistic spectrum, I'm always fighting the urge (not just by others) to diagnose various people as autistic, Asperger's, etc. without actually knowing them personally and therapeutically. (These people include Albert Einstein, Bill Gates, the fictional Napoleon Dynamite, etc.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message-From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Brian McKennaSent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 8:18 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The rise of an emotion based left was Bush using drugsHi all,I disagree strongly with this view. . .Mental health tags are continually used to discredit whistleblowers, Marxists, and others who challenge orthodoxy. This reproduces the dominant view that mental health questions only pertain to individuals, particularly those individuals who are not conformist in a pernicious hierarchical social order. It also reproduces the Western view that mental health applies to isolated individuals, not societies and their leaders. . .Bush on the Couch is a very important work that brings bourgeois psychoanalysts and phsycologists beyond the clinic and applies their insights to the true sources of perversion in the land.Yes, there is a danger in this. . .but the prevailing ideology of individual causation of disease and illness, captured in the dominant ideology of biomedicine is far, far worse. . .Marx and others are fair game for this analysis as well. . .Brian McKenna
More on Venezuela and oil numbers
I'd like our broker colleague -- and others -- to consider the following. In Peter Millard's (Dow Jones) article Venezuela 's PdVSA Ramps Up Publicity Ahead Of Recall (July 30), the second-to-last paragraph reads: The government claims the new PdVSA has brought oil production back to the 3.1 million barrels a day Venezuela was producing before the strike, but independent analysts put the figure closer to 2.6 million b/d. I suspect that there is an apples-and-oranges issue here. I think the government is counting 200,000 bpd in petroleum products that the analysts are not counting. If so, the govt and independent analyst numbers are closer than usually acknowledged. The last paragraph reads: Furthermore, oil analysts warn that the focus on social spending has diverted funds from needed investments in exploration and production, making it difficult for PdVSA to increase production in the near term. I have no doubt that *some* oil analysts do say this (especially the ones that used to work for PDVSA!), but I think the numbers tell a different story. On July 16, Millard reported that PdVSA has a total investment budget of $5.3 billion this year, but noted that analysts warn that the company will fall short of this target. On July 12, Matthew Robinson, reporting for Reuters, cited Jan Dehn, emerging markets analyst for Credit Suisse First Boston in London: I would expect that unless they meet the $2.7 billion capital spending they need every year, production would start to suffer in 2005. Now, if we assume that the numbers here ($2.7b and $5.3b) are apples-and-apples, and we suppose that in the range we're talking about, future production capacity is a roughly linear function of investment, then those numbers would suggest to me that PDVSA could miss its investment target by a country mile and still invest enough to increase production. If this is so, then, unless one takes it as an axiom that any amount of social spending by PDVSA is intrinsically offensive to oil markets -- which I'm sure some people do! -- isn't social spending by PDVSA totally irrelevant to the question of future oil production? Might it be the case that some independent oil analysts simply have an ideological bias against the notion of using some of PDVSA's profits for social spending? What am I missing? By the way, in an article on July 24 in the New York Times, Juan Forero reported that many oil analysts and executives of large oil companies doing business in Venezuela say that the government may be able to spend big on social programs and still invest adequately in production. What do you make of all this? -- Robert Naiman Senior Policy Analyst Venezuela Information Office 733 15th Street, NW Suite 932 Washington, DC 20005 t. 202-347-8081 x. 605 f. 202-347-8091 www.veninfo.org ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: The Venezuela Information Office is dedicated to informing the American public about contemporary Venezuela. More information is available from the FARA office of the Department of Justice in Washington, DC.
new radio product
[Tariq's position on Bush's defeat will annoy some, but it's splendid stuff - he gives some of the best radio around.] Just added to my radio archive http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Radio.html: August 5, 2004 Frank Newport, editor-in-chief of Gallup and author of Polling Matters, on the public opinion trade and the 2004 election polls * Tariq Ali, author most recently of Bush in Babylon, on the importance to the whole world of defeating Bush, and the maddening wrongness of the no difference position July 22, 2004 Judith Levine, author of Do You Remember Me?, on her father's Alzheimer's, and the social meanings of the disease * Ian Williams, author of Deserter!, on George W's military career it joins July 15, 2004 Nomi Prins, investment banker turned journalist, on Martha's sentencing, Ken Lay's indictment, and sex discrimination on Wall Street * Charlie Komanoff, car-hater, on why we use so much oil, and how we could use less of it July 8, 2004 Lakshman Achuthan of the Economic Cycles Research Institute and co-author of Beating the Business Cycle, on cycles in general, this odd one specifically, and the likely slowdown by yearend * Norman Kelley, author of The Head Negro In Charge Syndrome, on the crisis in black politics July 1, 2004 Phyllis Bennis, lead author of Paying the Price, on the human, economic, and environmental costs of the war on Iraq * Joe Garden, Mike Loew (both of The Onion), and Randy Ostrow, authors of Citizen You!, a manual of patriotic duty (some of the original audio was lost - details at the top of the show) June 24, 2004 Michael Hardt, co-author of Empire, on the state of the empire in the light of the Iraq war * Stonewall segment: Julie Abraham, professor of LGBT studies at Sarah Lawrence, on why she's no fan of same-sex marriage along with -- * Chalmers Johnson on the U.S. empire * Jagdish Bhatwati on globalization * Bill Fletcher on war and peace * Slavoj Zizek on war, imperialism, and fantasy * Naomi Klein on Argentina and the arrested political development of the global justice movement * Ralph Nader, at the Council on Foreign Relations, on foreign policy * Susie Bright on sex and politics * Richard Burkholder of Gallup on that firm's Iraq polls * Anatol Lieven on Iraq * Jomo on the Asian economies * Cynthia Enloe on masculinity in the Bush administration (and oil) * Laura Flanders on Bushwomen * Carlos Mejia, deserter from Iraq * Joseph Stiglitz on the IMF and the Wall St-Treasury axis * Lisa Jervis on feminism pop culture * Nina Revoyr on the history of Los Angeles, real and fictional * Joel Schalit on anti-Semitism * Robert Fatton on Haiti * Gary Younge on a foreign journalist's view of the U.S. * Ursula Huws on work and why capitalism has avoided crisis * Michael Albert on participatory economics (parecon) * Marta Russell on the UN conference on disability * Corey Robin on the neocons * Sara Roy on the Palestinian economy * Christian Parenti on Iraq and surveillance * Michael Hardt on Empire (several times, the last June 2004) * Judith Levine on kids sex * Walden Bello on the World Social Forum and alternative development models * Christopher Hitchens on Orwell and his new political affiliations -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 38 Greene St - 4th fl. New York NY 10013-2505 USA voice +1-212-219-0010 fax+1-212-219-0098 cell +1-917-865-2813 email mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] webhttp://www.leftbusinessobserver.com
autism book.
yes. it's an excellent book. It's even good if you're not interested in the autism spectrum. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine [was: RE: [PEN-L] The rise of an emotion based left was Bush using drugs] -Original Message- From: PEN-L list on behalf of Marvin Gandall Sent: Thu 8/5/2004 2:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The rise of an emotion based left was Bush using drugs Speaking of autism, read -- if you haven't already -- Mark Haddon's The Serious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, an outstanding first novel by a British writer with a background in working with autistic kids. Very funny and empathetic, about one such terrifically engaging 15 year old. MG
new bushism
from msnbc. A new 'Bushism': We're gonna get us The Associated Press Updated: 1:24 p.m. ET Aug. 5, 2004 WASHINGTON - President Bush offered up a new entry for his catalog of Bushisms on Thursday, declaring that his administration will never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people. Bush misspoke as he delivered a speech at the signing ceremony for a $417 billion defense spending bill. Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we, Bush said. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we. No one in Bush's audience of military brass or Pentagon chiefs reacted.
SUVs are illegal in many parts of the California
[from SLATE] hey, wait a minute California's SUV Ban The Golden State has outlawed big SUVs on many of its roads but doesn't seem to know it. By Andy Bowers Posted Wednesday, Aug. 4, 2004, at 11:42 AM PT Unless you drive one of the largest SUVs, such as the Chevy Suburban, the Cadillac Escalade, or the Ford Excursion, I'll bet you've watched them thundering down quiet residential lanes and wondered to yourself: Why is that monster allowed on this little street? Well, here's a surprising piece of news. It may not be. Cities throughout Californiathe nation's largest car marketprohibit the heaviest SUVs on many of their residential roads. The problem is, they don't seem to know they've done it. I discovered this secret ban after noticing the signs at both ends of my narrow Los Angeles-area street (a favorite cut-through route for drivers hoping to avoid tie-ups on bigger roads). The signs clearly prohibit vehicles over 6,000 pounds. I knew a 6K pound limit ruled out a lot of the larger trucks that routinely rumble by my house, unpursued by traffic cops. But then I got to thinking: Could some of those bigger SUVs exceed 3 tons? So I did some research, and I hit the mother lode. It turns out every big SUV and pickup is too heavy for my street. Here's just a sampling: The Chevy Suburban and Tahoe, the Range Rover, the GMC Yukon, the Toyota Land Cruiser and Sequoia, the Lincoln Navigator, the Mercedes M Class, the Porsche Cayenne S, and the Dodge Ram 1500 pickup (with optional Hemi). What about the Hummer, you ask? Hasta la vista, baby! If you look at the manufacturer's specs for these vehicles, you'll discover that they all have a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 6,000 pounds. (Click here for more on GVWR vs. curb weight.) Some are way over (the Hummer H2 weighs in at 8,600 pounds, and its older sibling the H1 at an astounding 10,300 poundsI'm talking to you, Governator). Others manage to top the 3-ton mark by just a hair (the BMW X5 boasts a GVWR of 6,008 pounds). For comparison, a Honda Accord is about 3,000 pounds. It's no accident the automakers churn out so many SUVs that break the 6K barrier. By doing so, these "trucks" (and that's how they're classified by the U.S. Department of Transportation) qualify for a huge federal tax break. If you claim you use a 3-ton truck exclusively for work, you can write it off immediately. All of it. Up to $100,000 (in fact, Congress raised the limit from $25,000 just last year). Heavy SUVs qualify for similar state tax breaks in California (up to $25,000) and elsewhere. These vehicles are also exempt from the federal "gas guzzler tax" because they're trucks. (And you probably know that many SUVs are exempt from the tougher gas mileage and safety standards of cars because they're classified as trucks, but that's another story.) Tax advisers actually warn their clients to make sure they buy vehicles that are heavy enough to qualify for the tax breaks. Some offer helpful lists of which SUVs will tip the IRS's scales. Here's what few people seem to realize: By weighing in at more than 6,000 pounds, big SUVs are prohibited on thousands of miles of road in California. Cities across the stateincluding San Francisco, Los Angeles, Pasadena, and Santa Monicause the 3-ton cutoff for many or nearly all of their residential streets. State law gives them the ability to do this for very straightforward reasons: The heavier the vehicle, the more it chews up the roads, endangers pedestrians and smaller vehicles, and makes noise. This isn't an arbitrary weight limit. 6,000 pounds has long been a recognized dividing line between light and heavy trucks. (For example, the Clean Air Act defines "heavy duty vehicle" as a truck with a gross vehicle weight "in excess of six thousand pounds.") But local officials either don't realize they've banned big SUVs, or they're hoping no one will make a stink. For example, San Francisco and Los Angeles ban 6K vehicles on numerous streets (including one of San Francisco's main tourist draws, the famously twisty Lombard Street). One L.A. city council member, Janice Hahn (the sister of L.A. Mayor James Hahn), recently proposed that fines for breaking this law be hiked from $50 for a first offense and $100 for a second to $250 and $1,000, respectively. Hahn told me her district, near L.A.'s huge port complex, is plagued by trucks cutting through residential streets. When I informed Hahn that all the big SUVs also break the 6K barrier, she seemed surprised. "That's interesting," she said. I asked if she thought the ban should be enforced against them. She answered bluntly: "I don't favor that." Even for 10,000 pound Hummers? "I have my own issues with Hummers and SUVs, but this was not the intent of this ordinance." She's rightit wasn't the intent. But that's because these weight limits generally predate the 1990s SUV craze that lured suburbanites out of their lighter sedans and
interesting reading
More land for the military than for Hawaiians Two-part series by Winona LaDuke in Indian Country Today: Part One http://www.indiancountry.com/?1090938578style=printablestyle=printable Part Two http://www.indiancountry.com/?1091536055style=printablestyle=printable
nader to lobbyist
Title: nader to lobbyist Nader Tells Toby Moffett: "Stop making false statements concerning allegations of Republican support." Rebuts False Allegations of Republican Support Describes Moffett As a "Corporate Lobbyist," Not a Nader's Raider Moffett is Part of the Problem of Corporate Control of Government Urges Kerry/Edwards to Debate Nader/Camejo on the Issues August 5, 2004 Anthony J. (Toby) Moffett The Livingston Group 499 South Capitol St SW # 600 Washington, DC 20003 Dear Mr. Moffett: I am writing to request that you stop making false statements concerning allegations of Republican support for the Nader/Camejo Campaign. I have said repeatedly that I am seeking votes and support from Republicans who support my candidacy, but not from Republicans, organized or otherwise, seeking to use my campaign for manipulative purposes. As you well know, your Democratic Party has taken many millions of dollars from favor-seeking Republicans hedging both sides of the party aisles. In fact, 2000 exit polls showed that approximately 25% of those who voted for the Green ticket were registered Republicans. Over the years I have worked with individual Republicans on issues of mutual concern - e.g. securities fraud, environmental protection, corporate crime, and corporate welfare. In addition, many people supporting our candidacy in 2004 supported President Bush in 2000, including members of the Reform Party. Indeed, many people who supported President Bush in 2000 are not happy with the Patriot Act's undermining of the Constitution, the fabrications and lies that led to war, the record budget deficits, the sovereignty infringing trade agreements, outsourcing of jobs, and a host of other issues. So, it is not surprising that 5% of our major donors are Republicans. Regarding support from Republicans helping to get Nader/Camejo on the ballot: the three most common claims come from Michigan, Nevada and Oregon - all three are false. In Michigan, our campaign turned in our signatures to protect our rights in court because we have been endorsed by the Reform Party, which has a ballot line. The signature-gathering campaign by others was not consistent with our strategy, and we had nothing to do with it. In Nevada, there were unsubstantiated allegations that Steve Wark helped our campaign get on the ballot. However, we have never had any contact with Mr. Wark, never received any donations from him, and neither has our signature gathering firm. This is a story that is unsubstantiated, and, as best we can see, completely false. In Oregon, the most important activity of a major party was the Democrats spoiling our ballot access convention by organizing and sending Democrats in - to fill out the auditorium, undermine the convention by swelling the numbers, and then not sign the petitions. While there was talk of Republican support in the media, we saw no evidence of it on the ground. It is amazing that the media still describes you as a Nader's-Raider - Toby, that was thirty years ago. Today, you are a corporate lobbyist with a firm whose clients are military contractors, telecom giants, and industry trade associations. You were a former vice president with Monsanto and now are a partner with Robert Livingston, a reactionary Republican who was about to serve as the Speaker of the House until he resigned. If the media focused on who you really are - a corporate lobbyist - it would not be surprising that you oppose our candidacy , since our focus is challenging the corporate domination of Washington, DC and its erosive impact on domestic and foreign policy. While Nader/Camejo would be happy to debate your candidates - John Kerry and John Edwards - on the issues, I reject your falsehoods, which are part of a coordinated Democratic dirty tricks campaign to keep Nader/Camejo off the ballot. Stop knowingly misleading the public and stop trying to undermine democracy by limiting the choice of voters to two candidates representing, in varying degrees, two corporate political parties. Sincerely, Ralph Nader
