[stop-imf] Africa should not pay its debts - Jeffrey Sachs
I happened upon this in the LBO-archive. Carl Remick asked a similar question about Jeffrey Sachs in 1998. CB ^^ Has Jeffrey Sachs changed his tune... Charles Brown CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us mailto:lbo-talk%40lbo-talk.org?Subject=Has%20Jeffrey%20Sachs%20changed%20hi s%20tune...In-Reply-To= Tue Sep 15 06:34:34 PDT 1998 * Search LBO-Talk Archives Sounds like post-neo-neo-classical neo-keynesian globalism. Charles Brown Carl Remick cremick at rlmnet.com http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk 09/15 9:31 AM ...or am I just tone deaf? Just read a piece of his in the current Economist (9/12) Making It Work, where he emerges as a nemesis of the whole West-o-centric, top-down, model of global economic development. He says that a G16 (including eight LDC members) should be substituted for the G8, that there should be massive cancellation of external debt in the poorest nations and that developmental aid should shift from short-term loans to outright grants. He says it should be recognized that the IMF/World Bank have no political legitimacy in the developing world, e.g.: A G16 summit should take up fundamental reform of the international assistance process itself. The aim should be to restore legitimacy to local politics, and abandon the misguided belief that the IMF and World Bank can micro-manage the process of economic reform. To be sure, he also says: Developing countries are not trying to overturn Washington's vision of global capitalism, but rather to become productive players in it -- and that's what he want to help. Nonetheless, Sachs seems to be more fundamentally critical of central institutions of global capitalism than I had been aware. I'm confused. When The Wall Came Down, Sachs struck me as the embodiment of Western arrogance in his meddlesome, market-oriented prescriptions for Russian reform. When did he become such a bleeding heart? Carl Remick by Perelman, Michael I mentioned a couple days ago how much Jeffrey Sachs has moved to the left. Chris's message is further confirmation. As I said before, he has also been very strong on Haiti. Perhaps Paul A. has something to add about the relationship between Sachs and the United Nations. Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898 ^^
Re: Fw: [stop-imf] Africa should not pay its debts - Jeffrey Sachs
One of the interesting things about the whole imbroglio is that very, very few African states have material debts to privately owned capital. It's almost all government-to-government debt or IMF debt apart from SA, Botswana and a bit of trade finance (which IMO shouldn't really be analysed as debt as it is self-liquidating working capital). dd Comment Correct again . . . to suggest that my debt be suspended because I have proven that I cannot and will not pay it is hardly radical . . . which was my real point. Africa really does not have a debt problem . . . the financial institutions - capital, have a debt problem.
Re: Fw: [stop-imf] Africa should not pay its debts - Jeffrey Sachs
Sachs has always been basically a man of the left, and has been saying sensible things about sovereign default fo longer than anyone else I can remember (including me and Richard Portes). Perhaps the whole Harvard Institute thing should be viewed by revisionist historians as a brief aberration in the career of a basically good bloke. dd -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Perelman, Michael Sent: 09 July 2004 17:30 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fw: [stop-imf] Africa should not pay its debts - Jeffrey Sachs I mentioned a couple days ago how much Jeffrey Sachs has moved to the left. Chris's message is further confirmation. As I said before, he has also been very strong on Haiti. Perhaps Paul A. has something to add about the relationship between Sachs and the United Nations. Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Fw: [stop-imf] Africa should not pay its debts - Jeffrey Sachs
In a message dated 7/10/2004 12:27:28 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sachs has always been basically a man of the left, and has been saying sensible things about sovereign default fo longer than anyone else I can remember (including me and Richard Portes). Perhaps the whole Harvard Institute thing should be viewed by revisionist historians as a brief aberration in the career of a basically good bloke. dd Comment There is some basic economic common sense involved in exchange and debt. As long as I owe the banks and financial institutions $50,000 and a house mortgage I have a problem . . . a debt problem. When the banks allow me to run my debt up to $1,000,000 - and I am making ever humanly possible effort to attain this goal ... they have the problem. $50K . . . my problem . . . $1m . . . the banks problem. And I have forbidden the wife from us ever discussing insurance to cover our debt. Africa cannot pay its debt and the Russians are stopping payments here and there. Putin is burning the midnight oil . . . and the shift is going to hit the fan. What is taking place is the first wave of political assertions of the real social revolution. Sorry if it does not conform to the text in ones head. Melvin P.
Re: Fw: [stop-imf] Africa should not pay its debts - Jeffrey Sachs
From: Daniel Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sachs has always been basically a man of the left, and has been saying sensible things about sovereign default fo longer than anyone else I can remember (including me and Richard Portes). Perhaps the whole Harvard Institute thing should be viewed by revisionist historians as a brief aberration in the career of a basically good bloke. dd Like Paul Krugman's honorarium from Enron? Carl _ MSN Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any Web page FREE download! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/
Re: Fw: [stop-imf] Africa should not pay its debts - Jeffrey Sachs
Really? That's quite an aberration-- participating in the dismantling of the Russian Revolution, transforming the remnants of socialized property into private fortunes. And now Sachs got religion? Yeah right, him and O'Neil. Save us from the basically good blokes and we can handle the rest. - Original Message - From: Daniel Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2004 10:27 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Fw: [stop-imf] Africa should not pay its debts - Jeffrey Sachs Sachs has always been basically a man of the left, and has been saying sensible things about sovereign default fo longer than anyone else I can remember (including me and Richard Portes). Perhaps the whole Harvard Institute thing should be viewed by revisionist historians as a brief aberration in the career of a basically good bloke. dd
Re: Fw: [stop-imf] Africa should not pay its debts - Jeffrey Sachs
From: sartesian [EMAIL PROTECTED] Really? That's quite an aberration-- participating in the dismantling of the Russian Revolution, transforming the remnants of socialized property into private fortunes. Bingo. As with, Apart from that, how did you enjoy the play, Mrs. Lincoln? Carl _ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
Re: Fw: [stop-imf] Africa should not pay its debts - Jeffrey Sachs
In a message dated 7/10/2004 1:11:33 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Really? That's quite an aberration-- participating in the dismantling ofthe Russian Revolution, transforming the remnants of socialized propertyinto private fortunes. And now Sachs got religion? Yeah right, him andO'Neil. Save us from the basically good blokes and we can handle the rest. Comment Correct again . . . to suggest that my debt be suspended because I have proven that I cannot and will not pay it is hardly radical . . . which was my real point. Africa really does not have a debt problem . . . the financial institutions - capital,have a debt problem. This "thing" about the absolute general law of capitalist accumulation is . . . interesting. We are facing perhaps the greatest polarization between wealth and poverty in human history as the absolute _expression_ of the absoluteness of capital accumulation . . . in America . . . not overseas or somewhere else and apparently this is not understood. The industrial reserve army of unemployed belongs to another period of history - when the industrial system is in ascendency and the population is being converted into modern proletarians. The population of America is not being converted into modern proletarians but facing an absolute reduction in real wages that has been taking place for a solid thirty years. They were already proletarians. Perhaps it will take another ten years or so to understand that we are dealing with a different set of factors generated as the absolute _expression_ of the absoluteness of capital accumulation in America . . . not overseas or somewhere else. Seems to me that two sets of factors obscure what should be obvious. Monetary policy as US dominated exchange and debt structure . . . the printing of worthless money and the low wage structure in areas like China that allows that labor embodied in their commodities to fall faster than the real wages of the American consumer. This is not to say . . . it is China's fault . . . but rather the absolute _expression_ of the absoluteness of capital accumulation. And of course the low wages of the workers in China do not appear in the pay envelop of the American workers. What the American workers get is Wal Mart while their wages drift to the bottom or towards zero and not away from zero. And yes . . . China is currently hitting the wall as the absolute _expression_ of the absoluteness of capital accumulation . . . not the scrabble for "natural resources" and population matters. Securing oil reserves will save no one . . . which is why Putin is burning the midnight oil. Nothing short of proletarian revolution in Russiapromises even a glimmer of hope no matter how many "gangster capitalists "Putin steps on. I simply enjoy seeing capitalists jailed under any pretext. Why we always have to be the only ones in jail . . . although I enjoy your jail house rap. Billionaires in Russia . . . China . . . America is of course the absolute _expression_ of the absoluteness of capital accumulation . . . while the soup kitchens grow in America, and theseare working families . . . not the industrial army of reserve of one hundred . . . no . . . fifty . . . years ago. Social revolution does not require our working class to be reduced to the level of the India peasant of the past. "What is taking place is the first wave of political assertions of the real social revolution," means the bourgeoisie response to debt. Liquidating debt means you have a chance to accumulate it again . . . as the absolute . . . . Melvin P
Fw: [stop-imf] Africa should not pay its debts - Jeffrey Sachs
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 5:10 AM Subject: [stop-imf] Africa should not pay its debts - Jeffrey Sachs http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3869081.stm BBC News July 6, 2004 Africa 'should not pay its debts' A special adviser to the United Nations secretary general Kofi Annan has said African countries should refuse to repay their foreign debts. Mr Annan's economic adviser Jeffrey Sachs first called on developed countries to cancel Africa's debts. But failing that, he said Africa should ignore its $201bn (£109bn) debt burden. Economic analysis, he said, had shown that it was impossible for Africa to achieve its development goal of halving poverty if it had to repay the loans. The time has come to end this charade, he said. The debts are unaffordable. If they won't cancel the debts I would suggest obstruction; you do it yourselves. 'A serious response' Africa should say: 'thank you very much but we need this money to meet the needs of children who are dying right now so we will put the debt servicing payments into urgent social investment in health, education, drinking water, control of aids and other needs,' he told the BBC's World Business Report. Mr Sachs insisted that such a response was serious and responsible, providing that the money was used transparently and channelled only into urgent social needs. And he denied that it would bar African countries from accessing money from the capital markets in the future. They won't be able to access those markets anyway until the debt is forgiven, he explained, adding that there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to borrow again provided the forgiveness was negotiated in a cooperative manner. Mr Sachs is special adviser to Kofi Annan on global anti-poverty targets. Reluctance He made his comments at a conference on the eve of a summit of the heads of state of the African Union in Ethiopia. He called on the developed world to double aid to Africa to $120bn a year in order to meet commitments made in 1970. There is some sympathy in some of the rich donor countries for the idea of debt cancellation. The British Chancellor of the Exchequer or finance minister Gordon Brown, did float the idea before the recent summit of the G8 major powers in the United States, although there has been no decision and some creditor countries do have a history of reluctance on debt relief issues. But none would be likely to welcome a unilateral decision by the poor countries themselves simply to stop paying their debts, which are owed mainly to international organisations such as the World Bank and to rich country governments. ___ stop-imf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/stop-imf To subscribe or unsubscribe by e-mail, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with your administrative request in the subject line. Or go to http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/stop-imf
Re: Fw: [stop-imf] Africa should not pay its debts - Jeffrey Sachs
I mentioned a couple days ago how much Jeffrey Sachs has moved to the left. Chris's message is further confirmation. As I said before, he has also been very strong on Haiti. Perhaps Paul A. has something to add about the relationship between Sachs and the United Nations. Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
FW: May 20th URGENT Action to Stop Latest anti-Cuba Travel policy
Title: FW: May 20th URGENT Action to Stop Latest anti-Cuba Travel policy Dear Freedom to Travel Activists: We need you now more than ever. On Thursday, May 20th over 100,000 US citizens will come together to protest the latest attacks against our rights to travel and the threats to Cubas sovereignty. Please join us by calling the White House, the Congress and OFAC! Thank you, Ana Perez Cuba Program Director Global Exchange CUBA TRAVEL CALL TO ACTION MARAZUL TOGETHER WITH GLOBAL EXCHANGE AND MORE THAN 20 ORGANIZATIONS NATIONWIDE AND REPRESENTING MORE THAN 100,000 PRO-CUBA TRAVEL VOTERS MOBILIZE TO OPPOSE THE PRESIDENTS DEVASTATING BLOW AGAINST CUBA President Bush is implementing a devastating strategy against Cuba that threatens to halt travel from US citizens and Cuban Americans to the island, cutting into much needed revenue for social programs; increases the diversion of millions of US tax dollars from Homeland Security to harass people who travel to Cuba, allocates millions more to undermine the Cuban government; and seeks to negatively influence international opinion about Cuba. We have picked May 20th for our actions because President Bush will make a speech in Miami to rally support for this new policy. We must challenge these threats against our rights to travel and help put a stop to the Bush Administrations attacks against Cuba. PLEASE JOIN US IN A DAY OF ACTION TO HAVE OUR VOICES HEARD. FLOOD THE WHITE HOUSE, CONGRESS, OFAC AND STATE DEPARTMENT WITH CALLS AND EMAILS. 1. Send an email to Kevin Whitaker, head of the Cuba Desk at the U.S. State Department [EMAIL PROTECTED]. You can also call him at 202-647-9273. 2. Send a message to the White House. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3. Contact both the House: http://www.house.gov/writerep/ and the Senate: http://www.senate.gov/ Ask to be transferred to your Senator and Congress representative. If you know they are a member of the House or Senate Working Group on Cuba, ask them how you can help. If they have not yet joined the Working Group, urge them to join 4. Call OFAC (Office of Foreign Assets Control) (201)622-2480 or Fax (202)622-0447. 5. You can also contact the Kerry Campaign and urge Senator Kerry to take a strong stand Against the Bush policy http://www.johnkerry.com/contact/contact.php Key points to make: Oppose the Cuba Committees recommendations and the Bush Administrations policy towards Cuba. Ask for all travel restrictions to the island be lifted. Demand the normalizations of relations with Cuba. Ask for ending funding to enforce the travel ban and the embargo. Demand that funding to undermine the Cuban government end. Summary of the May 1, report by the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba: Family Visits Requiring that all Cuban American visiting their family apply for individual licenses from OFAC (This means approximately 150,000 license applications a year.) Limiting family visits to one trip every three years under specific license, eliminating the General License category for family visits. Limiting the definition of family visits to those visiting grandparents, grandchildren, parents, siblings, spouses, and children only. Limiting the family visits to 14 days Limiting baggage to no more than 44 lbs; only exception for specifically licensed humanitarian donations. Reducing the amount from $167 to $50 per person per day for all family visits to Cuba Academic Other Licenses Academic educational licenses to be granted for one year only Limiting academic programs to semester long programs with shorter programs permitted only if such programs 'directly support US foreign policy goals Eliminating provision permitting $100 worth of Cuban goods to be wrought back (other than educational materials which are not affected) Eliminating the specific license provision for clinics and workshops General License Eliminating the General License provision for amateur athletic teams, with all such travel requiring application for a specific license Fully Hosted Travel Eliminating the 'concept' of fully-hosted travel and require that all Cuba travel-related transactions be licensed under general or specific license regardless of who pays for it Efforts to Influence International Opinion Supports the promotion of Cuba as country harboring international terrorists, committing espionage against the U.S. and other nations, inflicting human rights abuses, and undermining democratically elected governments in Latin America as part of a broader effort to discourage tourist travel and reinforce negative attention to Cuba. Funds and promotes international or third-country national conferences to disseminate information abroad about U.S. policies on transition planning efforts related to Cuba. Deters foreign investment in Cubas confiscated properties. This is the land which Cuban-American ex-patriots left behind but still claim as their own though it was confiscated by a Communist Cuban government. Thanks
Commemorate Rachel Corrie: Stop Caterpillar, End the Occupation
Today is the one year anniversary of the death of Rachel Corrie. Please join a vigil in your city or fax, call, and/or email your Representative in Congress and ask him/her to cosponsor the Rachel Corrie Resolution (House Concurrent Resolution 111) -- click on http://www.endtheoccupation.org/article.php?id=83 for more information. --- Friday, March 19, 2004 --- Commemorate Rachel Corrie: Stop Caterpillar, End the Occupation A Vigil to Commemorate Rachel Corrie Stop Caterpillar - End the Occupation! Date Time: Friday, March 19, 2004, 5:30 PM - 6:30 PM Location: 15th Ave. High St., Columbus, Ohio Join us on Friday, March 19, 2004 at 15th Ave. High St., Columbus, Ohio to commemorate Rachel Corrie, stop Caterpillar, and end the occupation! March 16, 2004 is the one year anniversary of the death of Rachel Corrie. Rachel was a 23 year-old U.S. peace activist who was killed by an Israel Defense Forces bulldozer while trying to prevent nonviolently the demolition of a Palestinian house in the Gaza Strip on March 16, 2003. (For more information on Rachel, please see http://www.rachelcorrie.org.) The March 19th vigil in Columbus, OH to commemorate Rachel Corrie is organized in solidarity with more than 30 vigils and educational events to mark the one-year anniversary of her death in 30 cities in 19 states plus the District of Columbia. (Details for all of the events can be found at http://endtheoccupation.org/calendar.php.) The US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation will deliver to each Member of the House of Representatives a petition signed by more than 210 organizations in at least 33 states plus the District of Columbia. The petition asks Congress to pass the Rachel Corrie Resolution (H.Con.Res.111) calling for an independent U.S. investigation into her death. Endorsing organizations include United for Peace and Justice, the country's largest coalition of peace and justice organizations, and the United States Green Party. The list of endorsing organization can be found at http://endtheoccupation.org/article.php?id=320. The City of Santa Cruz, California (population 55,633) proclaimed March 16 to be Rachel Corrie Day. According to Mayor Scott Kennedy, Rachel Corrie was a nonviolent activist protesting the destruction of civilians' homes by a military power with machinery built in the United States pursuing a policy subsidized by the United States. It is a very sad commentary on the state of political affairs in the United States, that our national government has done virtually nothing to find out what happened and to insist that those responsible for her death be held accountable. Our vigil in Columbus, OH is one of many efforts to change the state of political affairs that Mayor Kennedy deplores. Contact: Wendy Ake, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sponsors: Committee for Justice in Palestine, Women in Black (Columbus, OH), Columbus Campaign for Arms Control, Student International Forum -- Yoshie * 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/
NEEDLESS DELAY: Stop foot-dragging on access to morning-after pills
Houston Chronicle Feb. 16, 2004, 2:53PM NEEDLESS DELAY Stop foot-dragging on access to morning-after pills It was a mistake for the Food and Drug Administration to put off approval for over-the-counter sales of emergency contraceptives. Not to be confused with the controversial abortion pill RU-486, morning-after pills prevent rather than cause abortion. Except for appeasing foes of abortion, who should welcome morning-after pills, there is little reason to further delay convenient access to this important medication for women. The FDA is under intense political pressure to maintain prescription status for brand-name emergency contraceptives Plan B and Preven. The agency was set to decide whether to allow over-the-counter sales, but that decision now has been pushed back to May, even though an advisory panel in December overwhelmingly recommended making morning-after pills more widely available as a safe way to reduce unwanted pregnancies and hundreds of thousands of abortions. Emergency contraceptives have been proved safe and effective at preventing pregnancy over decades of use by women in the United States and in countries where it is available in drugstores. The drug can serve as backup birth control in the event another contraceptive fails or be used after unprotected sex. Store sales of morning-after pills would help rape victims who are unwilling to seek immediate medical treatment skirt pregnancy and avoid the risk of having to make a painful abortion decision. This medication must be taken within 120 hours of intercourse and is most effective when taken as quickly as possible after unprotected sex. Finding a doctor to write a prescription in time can be difficult for many women. Offering easier access to emergency contraception will help make every child a wanted child.
Re: [ftaa] Send a free fax TODAY to Stop Miami Parade andDemo Ordinance
- Original Message - From: Sara Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Stop Miami Parade and Demo Ordinance --Protect Free Speech During FTAA Ministerial! This Thursday, November 13, the Miami City Commission will vote on an ordinance to change current regulations that govern parades, demonstrations, rallies and assemblies with the purpose of stifling the voices of the thousands of people - students, union members, activists, farmers and many other individuals - from around the Americas and the world who will be coming to South Florida to engage in peaceful, permitted protests at the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) ministerial to be held next week in Miami. An earlier version of the ordinance was thwarted by strong public opposition. While some of the most outrageous provisions have been eliminated since the original ordinance was first introduced, serious restrictions on First Amendment rights remain. The ordinance interferes with people's constitutionally guaranteed rights of association and expression by providing extremely broad, but vague definitions of public assembly and parade and then subjecting such gatherings to an array of new prohibitions. The end result: if the ordinance is passed, police will have enormous discretion in their application of the law, which will give them free reign to discriminate against those who are visibly voicing their opposition to the FTAA. The undemocratic nature of this ordinance is in keeping with the undemocratic nature of the FTAA itself. Under the rules that would be imposed by the FTAA, decision-making power on economic, social and cultural policies, as well as national development plans will be transferred to transnational corporations and investors and away from local communities. Given that the FTAA Ministerial is almost upon us, it's urgent that concerned citizens all over the country immediately contact Miami city officials to voice their opposition to this unconstitutional measure. Click here to send a free fax to Miami Mayor Manuel A. Diaz and Commission Chair Johnny L. Winton: http://www.citizen.org/fax/background.cfm?ID=239source=25
Urgent Appeal from Berkeley Stop the War Coalition
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 03:08:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Adam Turl [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Fw: URGENT APPEAL FROM THE BERKELEY STOP THE WAR COALITION To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * please forward widely * Dear friends: The University of California has found three students - Rachel Odes, Snehal Shingavi, and Michael Smith - guilty of participating in an illegal assembly and refusing to cooperate with university officials for their involvement in the anti-war sit-in that took place in Sproul Hall on March 20, 2003. Not only does this mark an attack on anti-war protesters and people of conscience throughout the country, the entire process from start to finish has been riddled with unfairness and makes a mockery of anything resembling justice. The problems with the sham of a hearing are almost too many to list: the university refused to have an open trial (until we showed up with forty protesters); the university refused to give students ample time to prepare a defense; one of the three students wasn't even served with a letter telling her to appear at the hearing; the students were unable to gather witnesses in time for the hearing (some of them are out of the country and a few have graduated); the university did not make all of their evidence available to our advocate; the university has singled out three protesters from over 400 who participated in the sit-in and the 119 who were arrested that day for selective prosecution; the university selected an all male hearing panel to adjudicate the hearing; and the students' request for a continuance was ignored. Instead of being a party to this kangaroo court, students walked out of the hearings in protest and demanded that the university at least consider giving them more time to prepare. The university refused. Other than the blatant disregard for procedure, there are two things that make this decision by UC Berkeley outrageous. First, that UC Berkeley is the only university in the nation (to our knowledge) that is prosecuting students for protesting the war the day after the bombing began, despite the fact that protests happened on scores of campuses throughout the US.. Second, that student protesters were right about every aspect of the war. There are no weapons of mass destruction. There is no proven threat of attack from Iraq. Civilian and military casualties continue to mount and the US continues to spend exorbitant sums to maintain a military presence in Iraq - yet it fails to turn on the water or electricity. The attacks on civil liberties continue to mount. Fees for students at UC Berkeley and dozens of campuses continue to rise. We will be sentenced in two weeks, on October 28th, 2003. We intend to protest this decision on that date and will send out information about this as soon as we can. In the meantime, please take a few moments and write to the Chancellor and the Student Judicial Affairs Office (addresses and phone information below) and tell them that you believe that this decision is unwarranted and unjust. Especially at Berkeley, where there are memorials to Free Speech movement of the 1960s all over campus (the Mario Savio steps and the Free Speech Movement Café), these kinds of attacks on free speech and civil disobedience are not only an attempt to roll-back the activist gains won on this campus, but also in defiance of the university's mission to promote free speech and debate. We have included some talking points below that you may want to include in your conversation or correspondence with the administration at UC Berkeley. Please do email us at [EMAIL PROTECTED] with any correspondence that you send so that we can keep a record of the letters that the administration receives. Also, please sign our online petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/stopwars/petition.html We need your help. Please lend your support to anti-war student activists and activists who are fighting for social justice by letting the administration know that their actions are not supported by members of the community, students, alumni, faculty, and staff. Sincerely, Berkeley Stop the War Coalition [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please contact: Chancellor Robert Berdahl EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] MAIL: 200 California Hall #1500 Berkeley, CA 94720-1500 TEL: (510) 642-7464 FAX: (510) 643-5499 Assistant Chancellor John Cummins EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] MAIL: Office of the Chancellor 200 California Hall Berkeley, CA 94720-1500 TEL: (510) 642-7516 FAX: (510) 643-5499 Student Judicial Affairs Officer Neal Rajmaira EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 326 Sproul Hall Berkeley, CA 94720 TEL:(510) 643-9069 FAX:(510) 643-3133 TALKING POINTS 1) Students should not face charges or disciplinary actions for participating in non-violent civil disobedience. 2) Activists should be allowed, freely, to speak and protest on campus without harassment from the University or its officers. 3) Any attempt to charge protesters for peaceful protest represents an attack on free speech. 4
Re: Urgent Appeal from Berkeley Stop the War Coalition
My letter: 22 October 2003 Dear Sirs, I am writing as an attorney and a citizen in connection with the matters of Rachel Odes, Snehal Shingavi, and Michael Smith, whom the University of California has convicted before a disciplinary committee for action relating to their involvement in nonviolence civil disobedience protesting the war on Iraq. The defendants sat in at Sproul Hall at Berkeley on March 20, 2003, and have been convicted of participating in an illegal assembly and refusing to cooperate with university officials. It is bitterly ironic that Berkeley, home of the Free Speech movement, should find itself once more in the position of persecuting free speech and nonviolent political protest. Peaceful civil disobedience is, or ought to be, an honored tradition in this country, since the days of Martin Luther King and indeed the Berkeley Fre Speech movement. It is irrelevant that the students were right to protest an illegal war, irrelevant that they were right in retrospect that the war was based on lies. Even looking forward, they were acting as responsible citizens, indeed as persons willing to take the consequences of their actions -- in this instance, an arrest and fine for trespass. The university's additional prosecution is meant to have a chilling effect on free speech and politicala ctivity that is disturbing in light of current tendencies by public officials to stifle speech -- for example, the threat by Ohio State University officials last year to expel students who legally turned their back on President Buas as a commencement speaker. The universities are sipposed to stand as a bulwark between the scholarly community, including the students, and the Ashcrofts and Rumsfelds. This action does not promote those ends or fulfill that purpose. My information indicates, moreover, that there were grave due process problems with the University prosecution -- refusal to have an open trial, refusal to to give students ample time to prepare a defense, failure to serve one student with notice of the complaint, refusal to share evidence with the defense, and selective prosecution. The University is a public institution, and counsel must have advisedit that ordinary norms of procedural due process apply. I encourage the University to stand for free speech, civil liberties, and due process; ideally, to vacate the conviction and drop the prosecution, at the minimum to offer a proper hearing to those charged. Sincerely, Justin Schwartz, Esq. Jones Day* (Chicago) 77 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL JD '98 (Ohio State*) PhD '89 (Michigan*) * For identification purposes only --- Michael Hoover [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 03:08:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Adam Turl [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Fw: URGENT APPEAL FROM THE BERKELEY STOP THE WAR COALITION To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * please forward widely * Dear friends: The University of California has found three students - Rachel Odes, Snehal Shingavi, and Michael Smith - guilty of participating in an illegal assembly and refusing to cooperate with university officials for their involvement in the anti-war sit-in that took place in Sproul Hall on March 20, 2003. Not only does this mark an attack on anti-war protesters and people of conscience throughout the country, the entire process from start to finish has been riddled with unfairness and makes a mockery of anything resembling justice. The problems with the sham of a hearing are almost too many to list: the university refused to have an open trial (until we showed up with forty protesters); the university refused to give students ample time to prepare a defense; one of the three students wasn't even served with a letter telling her to appear at the hearing; the students were unable to gather witnesses in time for the hearing (some of them are out of the country and a few have graduated); the university did not make all of their evidence available to our advocate; the university has singled out three protesters from over 400 who participated in the sit-in and the 119 who were arrested that day for selective prosecution; the university selected an all male hearing panel to adjudicate the hearing; and the students' request for a continuance was ignored. Instead of being a party to this kangaroo court, students walked out of the hearings in protest and demanded that the university at least consider giving them more time to prepare. The university refused. Other than the blatant disregard for procedure, there are two things that make this decision by UC Berkeley outrageous. First, that UC Berkeley is the only university in the nation (to our knowledge) that is prosecuting students for protesting the war the day after the bombing began, despite the fact that protests happened on scores of campuses throughout the US.. Second, that student protesters were right about every aspect of the war
Re: Fiji -stop and go - (Reality check during my last trip there)
Aldo, The following paper on Fiji may be of interest to you: Scott MacWilliam, 2002, Poverty, corruption governance in Fiji http://peb.anu.edu.au/pdf/PEB17-1macwilliam.pdf regards, Grant.
Fiji -stop and go - (Reality check during my last trip there)
Fiji: Stop Or Go? As the plane comes in from the Pacific to land in Nadi, on the north- western tip of the main Fiji island, the whitcap-spreckled blue of the ocean yields to the sinuous white line of the breakers on the reef. The shallows are green or slate coloured, with brownish pockmarks or darker stripes tapering towards the shoreline. The sandy coconut-tree garnered beach is soon replaced by sugar cane. Cane everywhere in the plains and on the maze of volcanic hillocks that make out the landscape. The farms are scattered. In the distance, lave cliffs and jagged crests, losing themselves in the clouds. About 6000 years ago people left southern China for Taiwan, the Philippines and, skirting Papua New Guinea, sailed headlong into the Pacific to settle Polynesias islands - Fiji, Tahiti, Easter Island, Hawii, and finally New Zealand. The navigational skills used for this achievement were unrivalled until Western man entered the Pacific in the 16th century. Once avoided as the Cannibal Islands, Fiji was first visited commercially for its sandalwood and bêche-de-mer. Guns and germs decimated of the population. Commerce and religion then took tentative hold. 1875 he was forced into a Cession to the British Empire. Indentured labour first from Melanesia and then from India was brought over to work on sugar cane plantations. After WWI plantations were abandoned for smallholder cane production on land leased from the indigenous population. Thus a large Indo-Fijian minority emerged on the island. Independence came in 1970.The first constitution divided parties along racial lines. When the Labour Party (mainly Indian) achieved majority in 1987, it was toppled by a military coup. The 1997 constitution does away with racial separation. Though it provides for a government of national unity this does not resolve the underlying tensions. A second coup took place in 1999. The current PM has refused to form such a government, citing irreconcilable differences. The Supreme Court is to find on the legality of this exclusion. Traditional political power structures have been maintained (the Council of Chiefs). As the economy grows, the power conflicts within clans, among clans in the same region, among the islands etc. increase. Decisions are postponed and corruption is rampant, partially also because the smallness of the island does not allow for competition to emerge. 850000 people, on 18000 km2 of mainly volcanic islands and US$ 78000 income per capita (at PPP). Primary education is general, and health is considered good. Out-migration, particularly among the better educated, is strong - even though the impact is somewhat lessened by remittances. Indians and Chinese are still moving in. The Fijian economy is roughly as follows: Sugar cane, on which the livelihood of c.a 200000 people depends directly or indirectly. No longer competitive with mechanised sugar cane, the industry relies on the EU, which buys sugar at three times the world market price (Cotonou Agreement) - a practice which is not WTO- compatible. Also, the sugar mills need replacing. Insecurity of land tenure has created tensions, as well as lowering of the product quality. Unless all of these issues are resolved, the industry will self-destruct after 2007. Smallholder and subsistence agriculture Fisheries (mainly by third country vessels) earn 10% of value of fees. Subsurface gold mining; Mahogany (40000 ha). Manufacturing (textile 18000 workers altogether; food processing, copra). Tourism potentially a 600 million US$ industry (but c.a ½ would go to the airlines), if 300 rooms @ year are added to the existing 5000. Three models are emerging: (a) plantation style in the outer islands; (b) enclaves along the coast; (c) scattered lower cost (back-packer) tourism. Employment effects are low (compared to the investment): 1-2 staff per room, at wages of 10-12 US$ per day. Movie production. Fiji is a mix of decadence and development without transparence. Its situation is economically and socially precarious. Political stability is weak, corruption and poor governance prevalent. Three models of evolution are conceivable: (1) French model of integration (French Polynesia). A federative structure including Australia and New Zealand could provide the engine for development and stability (and orderly out-migration) at the price of abandoning political and economic independence. (2) Neo-colonial model, where the forms of independence are maintained, but the regional powers (AUS, NZ) would have and enforce their say yet with limited responsibilities. (3) Muddle through, with the ongoing risk of a political involution taking hold (as in other island states in the region), eventually leading to failed states. Given the size of the society and economy, a self-reliant development seems to me unrealistic. Stop or go? Fiji faces the deadline of 2007. If its
how to stop the USA
http://www.outlookindia.com Jun 09, 2003 Opinion How To Stop America We must become the Chartists and the Suffragettes of the 21st Century. They understood that to change the world you must propose as well as oppose. GEORGE MONBIOT Presidents Roosevelt and Truman were smart operators. They knew that the hegemony of the United States could not be sustained without the active compliance of other nations. So they set out, before and after the end of the Second World War, to design a global political system which permitted the other powers to believe that they were part of the governing project. When Franklin Roosevelt negotiated the charter of the United Nations, he demanded that the United States should have the power to block any decisions the UN sought to make. But he also permitted the other victors of the war and their foremost allies - the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, China and France - to wield the same veto. After Harry Dexter White, Roosevelt's negotiator at the Bretton Woods talks in 1944, had imposed on the world two bodies, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, whose underlying purpose was to sustain the financial power of US, he appeased the other powerful nations by granting them a substantial share of the vote. Rather less publicly, he ensured that both institutions required an 85% majority to pass major resolutions, and that the US would cast 17% of the votes in the IMF, and 18% of the votes in the World Bank. Harry Truman struggled to install a global trade regime which would permit the continuing growth of the US economy without alienating the nations upon whom that growth depended. He tried to persuade Congress to approve an International Trade Organisation which allowed less developed countries to protect their infant industries, transferred technology to poorer nations and prevented corporations from forming global monopolies. Congress blocked it. But, until the crisis in Seattle in 1999, , when the poor nations were forced to reject the outrageous proposals inserted by the US and the European Union, successive administrations seemed to understand the need to allow the leaders of other countries at least to pretend to their people that they were helping to set the global trade rules. The system designed in the 1940s, whose ultimate objective was to ensure that the United States remained the pre-eminent global power, appeared, until very recently, to be unchallengeable. There was no constitutional means of restraining the US: it could veto any attempt to cancel its veto. Yet this system was not sufficiently offensive to other powerful governments to force them to confront it. They knew that there was less to be lost by accepting their small share of power and supporting the status quo than by upsetting it and bringing down the wrath of the superpower. It seemed, until March 2003, that we were stuck with US hegemony. But the men who govern the United States today are greedy. They cannot understand why they should grant concessions to anyone. They want unmediated global power, and they want it now. To obtain it, they are prepared to destroy the institutions whose purpose was to sustain their dominion. They have challenged the payments the United States must make to the IMF and the World Bank. They have threatened the survival of the World Trade Organisation, by imposing tariffs on steel and granting massive new subsidies to corporate farmers. And, to prosecute a war whose overriding purpose was to stamp their authority upon the world, they have crippled the United Nations. Much has been written over the past few weeks about how much smarter George Bush is than we permitted ourselves to believe. But it is clear that his administration has none of the refined understanding of the mechanics of power that the founders of the existing world order possessed. In no respect has he made this more evident than in his assault upon the United States' principal instrument of international power: the Security Council. By going to war without the council's authorisation, and against the wishes of three of its permanent members and most of its temporary members, Bush's administration appears to have ceased even to pretend to play by the rules. As a result, the Security Council may have lost both its residual authority and its power of restraint. This leaves the leaders of other nations with just two options. The first is to accept that the global security system has broken down and that disputes between nations will in future be resolved by means of bilateral diplomacy, backed by force of arms. This means, in other words, direct global governance by the United States. The influence of its allies - the collateral against which Tony Blair has mortgaged his reputation - will be exposed as illusory. It will do precisely as it pleases, however much this undermines foreign governments. These governments will find this dispensation ever harder to sell to their own people, especially
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
Stop the Insanity
Dick Chaney, George Bush's vice president says Iraq is so dangerous because it not only seeks chemical, biological and nuclear weapons but it could put those weapons of mass destruction into the hands of al-Qaeda. He doesn't stop there with his MANUFACTURED REASONS FOR ATTACKING IRAQ. The vice president claims that Iraq has been training al-Qaeda. Where is the proof Mr. vice president Chaney? Colin Powell's evidence to the Security Council wasn't proof, it was a joke. All of his allegations (the allegations of this war administration) have been disproved. They are lies. They have no basis in fact --- because George Bush's evidence has been manufactured to justify attacking Iraq. These lies are a pretence for war; they are a pretence, the result of which will be a lot of murdered Iraqis. It is BLOOD FOR OIL, the blood of Iraqis and the blood of Americans and Brits. http://pnews.org/NWO/phpnuke/modules.php?name=Sectionsop=viewarticleartid=35
Reverend Billy the Church of Stop Shopping
Reverend Billy the Church of Stop Shopping: http://www.revbilly.com/ http://stream.realimpact.org/rihurl.ram?file=webactive/demnow/dn20001122.rastart=51:20.1;. * Jill Lane, Reverend Billy: Preaching, Protest, and Postindustrial Flanerie, _TDR: The Drama Review_ 46.1 (Spring 2002): http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/the_drama_review/v046/46.1lane.pdf: ... How can artists address the devastating effects and casualties of the new global economy, when the representation of power is itself now nomadic, liquid, and on the move? CAE [Critical Art Ensemble] contends that rather than stage opposition, our only viable option is to create calculated disturbance in these networks of power. What role then can performance play as a site of such disturbance? Bill Talen's work as Reverend Billy offers one trenchant set of answers to those questions,revitalizing political street theatre as a sophisticated repertoire -- or arsenal -- of anticonsumerist theatre techniques. Indeed, Reverend Billy offers us a model of politicized theatre disturbance that follows, engages,and creatively speaks back to the multiplying sites of privatization that have colonized urban public culture. From his beginnings as a sidewalk preacher protesting the corporate redevelopment of Times Square in New York City, Reverend Billy has taken his theatrical activism to a range of sites, most of which are what he calls contested spaces: those urban sites that have been recently commodified, or newly condemned, to commercialization. In this vein, he has staged numerous shopping interventions in which he and fellow artists perform in commercial spaces themselves -- from the Disney Store to Starbucks -- in an effort to intervene in (disturb) the seamless corporate architecture and choreography of shopping, or to re-narrate them with memories of the lives they displace. Talen also regularly lends the Reverend to a range of staged political actions related to the destruction or gentrification of local urban spaces, and of the social memories which they house * -- Yoshie * Calendar of Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html * Anti-War Activist Resources: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/
The Campaign to Stop Funding Hate: Project Saffron Dollar
THE CAMPAIGN TO STOP FUNDING HATE Is US Corporate Philanthropy Funding Hate Groups In India? The Campaign to Stop Funding Hate Announces Project Saffron Dollar Are the charity dollars generously provided by American companies, including some of our leading corporate citizens of the high technology world, being used to fund violent, sectarian groups in India? The Campaign to Stop Funding Hate (SFH) announces the launch of Project Saffron Dollar to bring an end to the electronic collection and transfer of funds from the US to organizations that spread sectarian hatred in India. The Campaign to Stop Funding Hate (SFH) is a coalition of people -- professionals, students, workers, artists and intellectuals -- who share a common concern that sectarian hatreds in India are being fueled by money flowing from the United States. SFH is committed to an India that is open, tolerant and democratic. As the first step, SFH is determined to turn off the money flow from the United States to Hindutva hate groups responsible for recurring anti-minority violence in India. IDRF: THE SANGH'S FUNDING BRANCH IN THE USA Project Saffron Dollar aims to put an end to the collection of hundreds of thousands of dollars by the most 'respectable' of the US based funding arms of the violent and sectarian Hindutva movement -- the India Development and Relief Fund (IDRF). In its communications and on its website, the IDRF claims to be a non-sectarian, non-political charity that funds development and relief work in India. However, a report -- A Foreign Exchange of Hate -- co-published today by the South Asia Citizens Web (SACW) based in France, and Sabrang Communications, Bombay, India, documents in rich detail the fundamental connections between the IDRF and the Sangh Parivar (or simply the Sangh, the name commonly used for the network of RSS-linked organizations that collectively define the Hindutva movement). Amongst other documents, the SACW/Sabrang report examines a tax document filed by IDRF (at its inception in 1989) with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) of the US Federal Government. The report offers the following: [F]orm 1023, duly filled by IDRF executives when it was created in 1989, identifies nine organizations as a representative sample of the types of organizations IDRF has been set up to support in India All nine are clearly marked Sangh organizations. The report concludes that the fact of money being sent to organizations linked to the RSS is not a 'mere' incidental to IDRF's larger operations, but rather that raising funds for the Sangh Parivar is, and continues to be, the primary reason for the existence of IDRF in the US. It is critical to underscore that IDRF's claim to being non-sectarian is entirely misleading. The SACW/Sabrang report indicates that a whopping 82% of the funds disbursed at the discretion of IDRF go to Sangh organizations. Of the remaining, the bulk goes to sectarian Hindu charities that may or may not have a direct Sangh affiliation. Less than five percent of their funds go to agencies that do not have a distinct Hindu-religious identification. Examining the IDRF fund disbursement from a 'activity-funded' viewpoint, the SACW/Sabrang report documents that nearly 70% of the monies are used for hinduization/tribal/education work, largely with a view of spreading Hindutva ideology amongst Adivasi (tribal) communities. Less than 20% of the total sent by IDRF is used in what are commonly understood as 'development and relief' activities. However, the report also concludes that the 15% funds that the IDRF disbursed for relief must also be seen as sectarian funds because of the sectarian basis of how relief work is carried out by the organizations that IDRF funds. DOLLARS OF DECEPTION: IDRF FUND RAISING TECHNIQUES A substantial proportion of IDRF's fund-raising is done through electronic means: * money transfer portals such as PayPal; * company foundations and their electronic portals such as Cisco Foundation; * other charity portals such as Givingstation.org; and * credit card commissions through a NSC/MBNA Bank issued IDRF Master Card. SFH research indicates that in excess of half a million dollars may be going every year into the hate-lined coffers of IDRF through such transfers. As of 10AM PST (USA), November 19 2002, petitions seeking an immediate cessation of the transfer of funds to IDRF have been dispatched along with comprehensive back-up documentation, including A Foreign Exchange of Hate report, to ten of the leading corporations, portals and money exchange facilities. The SFH petition urges these corporations to immediately disallow IDRF from using their facilities for direct or indirect fund-raising. Many large US corporations such as CISCO, Sun, Oracle, HP and AOL Time Warner match employee contributions to US based non profits. Annual Giving programs normally happen once a year in late Fall -- timed to occur between
STOP YOUR FORECLOSURE.............................................................................................................................................................................................. ttt
CLICK HERE Unsubscribe click here ctccwssnqddimpdymbuen
STOP YOUR FORECLOSURE......................................................................................................................................................................... qso
CLICK HERE Unsubscribe click here tmynelskuuaqyfc
Demonstration to Stop the WAR (Fri., Oct. 11)
Please Distribute widely: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Columbus, Ohio 10/7/2002 DEMONSTRATION TO STOP WAR ON IRAQ WHAT: On Friday October 11, 2002, Statewide coalition calls on all people of conscience to participate in a DEMONSTRATION to stop the war on Iraqi children. American taxpayer dollars are being used to finance an unjust war. WHEN: FRIDAY October 11, 2002 at 3:30 pm WHERE: Federal Building (located at the intersection of High and Spring) in downtown Columbus at: 200 N. High Street Columbus, Ohio CONTACT: Jad Humeidan, CAIR-Ohio, (614) 451-3232, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bring Your Families and Friends. SPONSORS: Arab Americans of Central Ohio, Arab Student Association, Council on American-Islamic Relations -Ohio, Columbus Campaign for Arms Control, Islamic Law Student's Association, Islamic Society of Greater Columbus, Islamic Foundation of Central Ohio, Muslim Student Association, Progressive Peace Coalition, Student International Forum, United Muslim Association of Toledo list is growing... -- Yoshie * Calendar of Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html * Anti-War Activist Resources: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/
Fwd: Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark Calls to UN to Stop US!
This was sent to the PGA list by an old friend by the name of Bob Everton. Sabri +++ The following letter by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark has been sent to all members of the UN Security Council, with copies to the UN General Assembly. Please circulate. September 20, 2002 Secretary General Kofi Annan United Nations New York, NY Dear Secretary General Annan, George Bush will invade Iraq unless restrained by the United Nations. Other international organizations-- including the European Union, the African Union, the OAS, the Arab League, stalwart nations courageous enough to speak out against superpower aggression, international peace movements, political leadership, and public opinion within the United States--must do their part for peace. If the United Nations, above all, fails to oppose a U.S. invasion of Iraq, it will forfeit its honor, integrity and raison d'être. A military attack on Iraq is obviously criminal; completely inconsistent with urgent needs of the Peoples of the United Nations; unjustifiable on any legal or moral ground; irrational in light of the known facts; out of proportion to other existing threats of war and violence; and a dangerous adventure risking continuing conflict throughout the region and far beyond for years to come. The most careful analysis must be made as to why the world is subjected to such threats of violence by its only superpower, which could so safely and importantly lead us on the road to peace, and how the UN can avoid the human tragedy of yet another major assault on Iraq and the powerful stimulus for retaliatory terrorism it would create. 1. President George Bush Came to Office Determined to Attack Iraq and Change its Government. George Bush is moving apace to make his war unstoppable and soon. Having stated last Friday that he did not believe Iraq would accept UN inspectors, he responded to Iraq's prompt, unconditional acceptance by calling any reliance on it a false hope and promising to attack Iraq alone if the UN does not act. He is obsessed with the desire to wage war against Iraq and install his surrogates to govern Iraq by force. Days after the most bellicose address ever made before the United Nations--an unprecedented assault on the Charter of the United Nations, the rule of law and the quest for peace--the U.S. announced it was changing its stated targets in Iraq over the past eleven years, from retaliation for threats and attacks on U.S. aircraft which were illegally invading Iraq's airspace on a daily basis. How serious could those threats and attacks have been if no U.S. aircraft was ever hit? Yet hundreds of people were killed in Iraq by U.S. rockets and bombs, and not just in the so called no fly zone, but in Baghdad itself. Now the U.S. proclaims its intentions to destroy major military facilities in Iraq in preparation for its invasion, a clear promise of aggression now. Every day there are threats and more propaganda is unleashed to overcome resistance to George Bush's rush to war. The acceleration will continue until the tanks roll, unless nonviolent persuasion prevails. 2. George Bush Is Leading the United States and Taking the UN and All Nations Toward a Lawless World of Endless Wars. George Bush in his War on Terrorism has asserted his right to attack any country, organization, or people first, without warning in his sole discretion. He and members of his administration have proclaimed the old restraints that law sought to impose on aggression by governments and repression of their people, no longer consistent with national security. Terrorism is such a danger,they say, that necessity compels the U.S. to strike first to destroy the potential for terrorist acts from abroad and to make arbitrary arrests, detentions, interrogations, controls and treatment of people abroad and within the U.S. Law has become the enemy of public safety. Necessity is the argument of tyrants. Necessity never makes a good bargain. Heinrich Himmler, who instructed the Nazi Gestapo Shoot first, ask questions later, and I will protect you, is vindicated by George Bush. Like the Germany described by Jorge Luis Borges in Deutsches Requiem, George Bush has now proffered (the world) violence and faith in the sword, as Nazi Germany did. And as Borges wrote, it did not matter to faith in the sword that Germany was defeated. What matters is that violence ... now rules. Two generations of Germans have rejected that faith. Their perseverance in the pursuit of peace will earn the respect of succeeding generations everywhere. The Peoples of the United Nations are threatened with the end of international law and protection for human rights by George Bush's war on terrorism and determination to invade Iraq. Since George Bush proclaimed his war on terrorism, other countries have claimed the right to strike first. India and Pakistan brought the earth and their own people closer to nuclear conflict than at any time since October 1962 as a direct
Stop Bush's 'Wag the Dog' Invasion of Iraq
[Please sign this petition at: http://democrats.com/iraq and forward] Stop Bush's 'Wag the Dog' Invasion of Iraq To: George W. Bush, Congress, and the Media We, the undersigned, oppose the Bush Administration's plan to invade, conquer, and occupy Iraq. Iraq will accept a resumption of UN weapons inspections if the US agrees not to invade. But George W. Bush refuses to accept new weapons inspections for reasons that are purely political: 1. Bush's poll ratings are falling quickly because of public outrage over corporate corruption scandals and the falling stock market, and so he needs another war to change the news headlines and boost his poll ratings. In other words, Bush is wagging the dog. 2. Bush's Republican Party is likely to lose control of Congress and key Governorships in the November elections, and Bush desperately needs to engineer a Republican victory. In other words, the war in Iraq is also Bush's October Surprise. 3. Bush's oil industry donors want to gain complete control of Iraq's large oil reserves - by stealing them. Their views were summed up by Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) on April 12, 2002, when he told a large group of Republicans: Why don't we just take [Iraq's] oil? Why buy it? Take it! 4. Bush's weapons industry donors want to profit from another war. This includes Bush's father, George H. W. Bush, and his father's closest aide, James Baker, who are investors in the Carlyle Group, one of the largest weapons manufacturers in the US. 5. Bush wants to rewrite the history of his father's Presidency. During the Gulf War, President George H. W. Bush refused to invade Baghdad and overthrow Saddam Hussein because of the opposition of US allies and because the US was not prepared to occupy and rule Iraq. 6. Bush wants to demonstrate to the world that US power is supreme and unchallengeable. Bush views America as the modern-day Rome, which will rule the world through force. Bush does not believe in freedom and democracy, either around the world - or in the US. The reasons for opposing a US invasion of Iraq are overwhelming: 1. 250,000 US troops could be deployed, risking tens of thousands of American deaths and widespread illness from toxic chemical releases. Tens of thousands of Gulf War veterans are still suffering from the unexplained Gulf War syndrome. 2. The Gulf War cost $61 billion ($80 billion in current dollars), of which $48 billion was paid by Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Japan - but that still caused a US recession, even though the war ended in 3 days and we did not occupy Iraq. Since no other countries will pay for the US to conquer Iraq, US taxpayers will have to pay all of the costs, which will be much greater. That means all domestic programs will be even more deeply cut, the enormous Bush deficit will get much bigger, taxes will have to be raised to maintain reduced services, and the current recession will turn into a Depression. 3. US allies among Arab countries strongly oppose an invasion, and outrage among Arab citizens could result in the overthrow of several weak pro-US governments (especially Jordan and Egypt), which would be replaced by Taliban-style anti-American and anti-Israeli extremists. 4. The US imposed strict economic sanctions on Iraq after the Gulf War, which has resulted in the deaths of half a million innocent children. This is a massive violation of human rights, and it fosters the spread of anti-American hatred among Arabs. 5. Iraq has never attacked the U.S., and played no role in the September 11 attack. All propaganda efforts by right-wing officials like Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz to link Iraq to 9-11 have failed. 6. The US does not have the capability to occupy Iraq and run a democratic government. Even in Afghanistan, the US-imposed government has no control outside of Kabul, despite large numbers of US and other allied troops. This undemocratic government has been paralyzed by assassinations by rival warlords. Moreover, the heroin industry - which is so devastating to the US - has resumed production. 7. Scott Ritter, the former Marine who led extensive UN weapons inspections of Iraq, is nearly certain that Iraq does not possess chemical or biological weapons. Moreover, Iraq does not possess long-range missiles to deliver such weapons, and the US (or Israel) could easily destroy any such missiles through precision bombing - as Israel did when it destroyed a nuclear reactor under construction in Iraq. When challenged about these issues, the Bush administration can only resort to the most absurd and outrageous justification for sending our children to their deaths - namely, Bush's credibility. James R. Schlesinger, a member of Bush's Defense Policy Board, says: Given all we have said as a leading world power about the necessity of regime change in Iraq, means that our credibility would be badly damaged if that regime change did not take place. Let's be clear: only Bush demanded a regime change in Iraq
Next stop, Vietnam?
Business Standard Tuesday, June 25, 2002 FOCUS Next stop, Vietnam? Rapid industrialisation, growing GDP, abundant natural resources - all these make the country an attractive investment destination, says Jesudas Bell Tree-lined streets, the peaceful Hoan Kiem lake around which old people practiced their morning exercises, chatted or simply lazed, the smell of hot soup cooking in roadside kitchens on a cold winter morning: that was the Han-oi of 10 years ago. A city I loved as much for its feel of ancient culture and art as for its hospitable people. Returning there after more than a decade I had to look hard to find traces of the city I knew. The street names were familiar but the crowds of bicycles have been replaced by crowds of Honda mopeds and cheaper Chinese imports, the gently decaying houses by soaring towers of concrete and glass and the roadside kitchens by fancy restaurants offering everything from French and Italian cuisine to Korean, Japanese and even vegetarian Indian food. The quaint bazaars, where we, as foreigners, shopped for the odd delicacy such as cheap caviar, have been replaced by private retailers selling more flat screen TVs and electronic gadgets per square kilometre than in Singapore or Hong Kong. The scene is much the same down south in Ho Chi Minh City with traffic jams, numerous container ships travelling up and down the Saigon river and supermarkets, towering buildings and shopping malls everywhere. Mercedes Benzes and BMWs vie with Japanese and Korean cars for room on the busy roads. Vietnam today is a country in a hurry striving to catch up with the good life and is trying to eradicate poverty in all its forms in the next few years. The country's leaders have set themselves the ambitious target of making the country industrialised by 2020. The IMF has given a good report card to the country. With $ 9 billion in reserves, increasing private sector participation, average annual GDP growth of 7 per cent in the last seven years and export growth of more than 20 per cent annually, it is easy to see why the IMF is almost euphoric about Vietnam's prospects. With ample offshore reserves of natural gas and petroleum (ONGC is one of the concession holders), hydroelectric potential, excellent anthracite as well as other minerals such as bauxite, Vietnam is well-endowed with natural resources. It is criss-crossed by several rivers, including the Mekong whose delta region in the south has made Vietnam the world's second-largest rice exporter. Its beautiful coastline offers both tourism potential. After recovering from the war, Vietnam's population is now around 80 million with a growth rate of 1.6 per cent annually. Adult literacy is around 94 per cent and the country continues to make strides in increasing life expectancy, reducing child mortality and fighting poverty. The country's greatest potential - and challenge - lies in providing employment to the 1.4 million young people who join the labour force every year. The biggest catalyst for change is its approach to private business: Vietnam started the process of doi moi or renovation in 1986, moving away from complete state control of the economy. The last few years have witnessed a turnar-ound: between 1990 and 2000, the number of domestic private enterprises grew from 110 to 35,000 and the number of foreign enterprises from 108 to 2,228. The share of the private sector in non-oil exports grew from 3 per cent to 52 per cent; the share of foreign direct investment (FDI) in industrial output from 8.8 per cent to 34 per cent. To achieve this, the government took several steps, including enacting the Enterprise Law in early 2000, liberalising access to land and credit as well as a banking reform package. While Vietnam continues to receive a high level of both multilateral and bilateral assistance of around $ 1 billion a year in actual disbursements, the country will need around $ 2 billion to 3 billion a year in FDI to keep economic growth stable. This is in addition to the resources developed locally for investment. This April, Tran Xuan Gia, minister for planning and investment, announced that the new foreign investment law, expected to be promulgated soon, will have a series of additional relaxations in matters such as location, choice of partners, form of investment and so on. The recent conclusion of two major build-operate-transfer (BOT) projects for the $ 154 million Thu Duc water supply (to be built by Lyonnaise des Eaux), and the Phu My 3 combined cycle power plant (being built by a consortium including BP, Siemens and Sembcorp) point the way to what may be an increasingly attractive option: to turn over costly infrastructure projects to private investors on a BOT basis. Given its comfortable resource base and good fiscal management, Vietnam would appear to be an exciting place for companies looking for investment opportunities. It comes as no surprise that hot on the heels of other BOT projects, Unocal has now declared
[SAAN] *NEW* Petition to Vajpayee and Musharraf to stop march toNuclear Holocaust
Please sign the petition and forward this link. The intention is to send this to the two, and also to the press demanding that they pay attention to the voices for peace and rapproachement. Also please forward this link on all lists. http://www.PetitionOnline.com/ip2002/petition.html To: Prime Minister AB Vajpayee and President Pervez Musharraf Despite extremely dire reports of potential nuclear war with casualties in the tens of millions, it appears that the entire subcontinent is being led towards a holocaust of immense proportions by the leadership of both India and Pakistan. Even a limited nuclear exchange will result in the destruction of tens of millions of lives and most of northern India and Pakistan will become uninhabitable. Neither the people of Pakistan nor the people of India gave the right to their leaders to destroy their lives, and their two nations. 5000 years of history for this? We say NO! Both you leaders have been pandering to extremists, as has been witnessed in the BJP's role in Gujarat, and the ISI's role in Kashmir. Effectively, we the people of India and Pakistan are being force marched like sheep to a slaughter by the maniacal agendas of fanatical extremists. We can no longer remain silent spectators to the actions and agendas of the proponents of this brutal anti-people mentality. We the people of India and Pakistan, as well as peace loving citizens of the world, DEMAND that you immediately: 1) State unequivocally that this current march towards a holocaust of horrific proportions MUST be stopped IMMEDIATELY. 2) March to the negotiating table with full sincerity. The baggage of colonialism must not lead us into total destruction. The great freedom fighters of our common land, gave their lives for a dream yet unfulfilled. Must we do to ourselves something infinitely worse than what colonization did to us? 3) Recognize the common humanity of ALL people of the subcontinent, regardless of religion, caste or gender, and their RIGHT TO LIVE, and to enjoy a life of peace and security. 4) Desist from bravado and war talk. The common people of India and Pakistan can teach you, dear leaders, that greatness comes from self-control and not from self destructive rage; the great Bhakti and Sufi saints taught this as did the Buddha. 5) Acknowedge that your primary duty as leaders is to protect and embrace the welfare of ALL your citizens regardless of whatever religion they practice. The People of India-Pakistan. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ SOUTH ASIANS AGAINST NUKES (SAAN): An informal information platform for activists amp; scholars concerned about the dangers of Nuclearisation in South Asia SAAN Mailing List: To subscribe send a blank message to: lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]gt; SAAN Website: http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex/NoNukes.html SAAN Mailing List Archive : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SAAN_/
stop US coup d'etat
organisations. Their staff and directors will become vulnerable to removal by a dissatisfied member state, as long as that member state is sufficiently powerful, financially or otherwise. Bustani has repeatedly refused to act on the instructions of the United States in discrimination against other member states, stating over and over that his employers are the integrity of the Conference of States Parties. This has made him a thorn in the side of the US State Department, which Bush and his team are now determined to remove. The US has made unsubstantiated allegations to justify its motion of no-confidence, and has declined on every occasion to provide the evidence, or even to conduct a formal inquiry. Nor has it submitted any document to the Conference of States Parties to support its request for a no-confidence motion. Given the lack of substantive motives for Bustani's removal, the United States has resorted to character assassination in the press. And in order to ensure the success of its campaign, the United States has threatened to withdraw its funding of the organisation, which would leave the OPCW 22% worse off, and effectively crippled. The United Kingdom has, from the early days of the Convention, been an exemplary member of the OPCW. As a proven leader in Europe, it now has the power to rally the rest of Europe and block the United States' vote of no-confidence. By making its voice heard in Washington, the United Kingdom and Europe would be keeping open a peaceful and multilateral route to a resolution in Iraq. More importantly, a defeat of the United States' motion would put a stop to the further deterioration of the international system of multilateral cooperation that has been built with such care and commitment since the end of the Second World War. We urge you to take the lead at the Special Session of the OPCW which opens on Sunday 21 April, and to ensure that morality, good sense and international justice prevail. Sincerely, [Your Name] [Your Address] [Your Phone Number] FROM THE GUARDIAN Tuesday April 16, 2002 http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4394862,00.html - Chemical coup d'etat The US wants to depose the diplomat who could take away its pretext for war with Iraq George Monbiot On Sunday, the US government will launch an international coup. It has been planned for a month. It will be executed quietly, and most of us won't know what is happening until it's too late. It is seeking to overthrow 60 years of multilateralism in favour of a global regime built on force. The coup begins with its attempt, in five days' time, to unseat the man in charge of ridding the world of chemical weapons. If it succeeds, this will be the first time that the head of a multilateral agency will have been deposed in this manner. Every other international body will then become vulnerable to attack. The coup will also shut down the peaceful options for dealing with the chemical weapons Iraq may possess, helping to ensure that war then becomes the only means of destroying them. The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) enforces the chemical weapons convention. It inspects labs and factories and arsenals and oversees the destruction of the weapons they contain. Its director-general is a workaholic Brazilian diplomat called Jose Bustani. He has, arguably, done more in the past five years to promote world peace than anyone else on earth. His inspectors have overseen the destruction of 2 million chemical weapons and two-thirds of the world's chemical weapon facilities. He has so successfully cajoled reluctant nations that the number of signatories to the convention has risen from 87 to 145 in the past five years: the fastest growth rate of any multilateral body in recent times. In May 2000, as a tribute to his extraordinary record, Bustani was re-elected unanimously by the member states for a second five-year term, even though he had yet to complete his first one. Last year Colin Powell wrote to him to thank him for his very impressive work. But now everything has changed. The man celebrated for his achievements has been denounced as an enemy of the people. In January, with no prior warning or explanation, the US state department asked the Brazilian government to recall him, on the grounds that it did not like his management style. This request directly contravenes the chemical weapons convention, which states the director-general ... shall not seek or receive instructions from any government. Brazil refused. In March the US government accused Bustani of financial mismanagement, demoralisation of his staff, bias and ill-considered initiatives. It warned that if he wanted to avoid damage to his reputation, he must resign. Again, the US was trampling the convention, which insists that member states shall not seek to influence the staff. He refused to go. On March 19 the US proposed a vote of no confidence in Bustani. It lost. So it then did
Fw: [R-G] 03.04.2002 THE GRAND OIL PRICE TERRORISM CONSPIRACY - STOP!!! THE RUMORS!
Message: 3 From: IJA [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: The people anarchists and authorities world wide [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 16:24:54 +0200 Organization: International Journal of Anarchism Subject: [R-G] 03.04.2002 THE GRAND OIL PRICE TERRORISM CONSPIRACY - STOP!!! THE RUMORS! Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From IJ@ 4(31) updated 03.04.2002 -= --- PRESS RELEASE AND NOTE FROM THE Anarchist International Embassy in Oslo http://www.anarchy.no/embassy.html=20 -= --- THE GRAND OIL PRICE TERRORISM CONSPIRACY - STOP !!! THE RUMORS!!! -= --- The rumors that some high ranking, mainly marxist Norwegians and their = useful idiots, have given much aid-money to Arafat, so he could = support the terrorists, to make trouble in the Mid East and thus hike = the oil price (and tank-rates), must be seen as a 1st of April joke and = nothing else. The Anarchy of Norway just doesn't play politics so dirty, = although the oil-price of course have hiked now as usual when there is = trouble in the Mid East, and the PLO-state of Arafat has gotten = relatively much money in aid from Norway. These events should not be = seen combined, and introducing a (false) conspiracy theory is not = correct. There are also other reasons for a hike in the oil-price, say, = the USA's talks vis-=E0-vis Saddam Hussein, and better economical = conjunctures in general.=20 02.04.2002. Although the Conference on terrorism and IJ@ yesterday tried = to stop the rumors, they continue to grow. We must simply repeat that = these growing rumors are not based on facts! The whole idea of the so = called secret operation, code name Bongo from Congo where=20 1. the Yes to EU-bureaucrats in the Labor Party, some of them having got = top jobs in Statoil without too much qualifications,=20 2. the UN's peace envoy for the Middle East Terje Red Larsen plus = Gro Harlem Brundtland and tops in the Royal Norwegian Foreign Ministry, = UD;=20 3. the leaders of the Red oil-workers unions, plus=20 4. the coming bureaucrats of the Labor Party's Youth organization AUF, = have a conspiracy with=20 5. Y. Arafat and the PLO-State terrorists, to=20 6. hike the oil-price, and share the profit through different channels, = aid included, to make even more trouble in the Mid East and hike the = oil-price even more, etc., in=20 7. an oil-price terrorism spiral, in a prolonged war with Israel, also = including trade boycott etc. to make it real long, that's=20 8. just far out! Although=20 9. the marxist influenced Norwegian media also write about a long Mid = East war 02.04.2002, and thus contribute perhaps to even more oil-price = hike, there are no reasons to believe that=20 10. the Oil-price Terrorism Conspiracy , code name Bongo from = Congo, really exists.=20 11.- 03.04.2002 the rumors are getting even wilder: A faction of OPEC = with ramifications to rich muslims and bin-Laden's al-Qaeda, some = factions in the UN and in CIA connected to some warprofit sharks in USA, = are part of this Grand Conspiracy, and they also are behind the = 11.09.2001 events. 12. IJ@ can not confirm that the rumors are rooted back to some leftists = at Industrial Workers of the World, that earlier have made up = smearstories and lies about the Anarchy of Norway and the International = Workers of the World, or some rightist Americans , that think UN is a = commie nest ruling the USA. Both groups have however traditionally a = tendency to dream up large Conspiracies, and think economy is the basis = - or the only thing that counts - to explain what is going on in = society, and try to make up scapegoats. However to think Gro Harlem = Brundtland, the other Labor Party bosses and the UD tops, etc. are the = real spiders behind the Grand Conspiracy and the 11.09. 2001 attacks as = well as the Mid East trouble is far out. To make the Anarchy of Norway = scapegoat for the 11.09 and Mid East trouble is not fair! NACO demands such nonsense rumors should be stopped at once!=20 However to stop further rumors, more restrictions on the aid-money to = the PLO-State of Arafat should perhaps be introduced, NACO says: It = must be certain not an =F8re of the Norwegian aid-money to Palestine = goes to support the terrorists, directly or indirectly, to avoid the = Anarchy of Norway gets a bad reputation internationally.=20 Even 1st of April joke rumors may spread and be harmfull, if there is = just a small fraction of possible truth in it. So all support that = doesn't go directly to peaceful organizations of the Palestinian people, = and 100% certain avoid their corrupt authorities plus terrorists, and = other political measures that may make Norwegians be looked
STOP!!!
This sort of exchange has no business here. On Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 11:38:19AM -0800, michael pugliese wrote: Hey, the Reds I like as friends and comrades are mostly Trotskyists. You like the friends of Uncle Joe. Stop calling me a race baitin', red-baitin' and I'll stop calling you a Stalinist. I hear, in person you are warm and friendly, to comrades you've known to decades, aND KNOW TO BE SOLID RADICALS, YET YOU CALL THEM ANTI-COMMUNISTS! Michael, The Warm, not the war-mongerer...;-) --- Original Message --- From: Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 3/24/02 10:54:57 AM Steelworkers, California Nurses Launch New Union to Boost Organizing by michael pugliese 22 March 2002 23:39 UTC Charles: It's your compulsive recitation of people's red backgrounds that makes you look like a creep. Hey , maybe you aren't a creep and you just like to show off all this stuff you know. But it's a bit weird to go around announcing everybody's left pedigree so much, or at all, e.g. see what you say below. ^^^ I've known Giulana Milanese, an organizer for the CNA (met her after she left the CPUSA for the CofC/CCDS) for over a decade. Great organizer, wonderful person. Warm, smart, savvy. And she's never said I was a red-baiter. Hmm., wonder why? Plus, she works well with Michael Lighty, from DSA, another CNA staffer. As does Carl Bloice, from the CCDS, formerly in the CPUSA. Michael Pugliese -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fwd: [stop-imf] Milwaukee Joins World Bank Bonds Boycott
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Robert Weissman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en,pdf
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [stop-imf] Milwaukee Joins World Bank Bonds Boycott
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
List-Help: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=help
List-Post: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
List-Subscribe: http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/stop-imf,
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=subscribe
List-Id: information critical of the IMF stop-imf.lists.essential.org
List-Unsubscribe: http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/stop-imf,
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe
List-Archive: http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/stop-imf/
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 17:41:03 -0800
WORLD BANK BONDS BOYCOTT CAMPAIGN / WISCONSIN FAIR TRADE CAMPAIGN
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE -- March 6, 2002
Contacts: Milwaukee -- Ald. Don Richards 414-286-2868, Frances Bartelt
414-559-9583; Washington -- Neil Watkins 202-393-6665
Milwaukee City Council Endorses Boycott of World Bank Bonds, Urges
Wisconsin Investment Board to Join
Council Votes 13-1 to Adopt Boycott; Joins San Francisco, Oakland in
Sending Message of Protest to World Bank
MILWAUKEE -- The Milwaukee city council voted 13-1 yesterday to endorse
the World Bank Bonds Boycott, and urged the State of Wisconsin
Investment Board, which currently holds $35 million in bonds issued by
the World Bank, to do the same.
With this resolution, we have begun to shed the light on what the World
Bank's policies of corporate globalization are doing not only around the
world but also in our community, said Milwaukee Alderman Don Richards,
the lead sponsor of the boycott resolution. Our resolution points out
that World Bank policies undermine international labor rights and
standards, under which business in the United States is conducted. We
are asking that the World Bank be scrutinized and fundamentally reformed
before any more Wisconsin State Investment funds be entrusted to it.
The Milwaukee vote comes in the context of the World Bank Bonds Boycott
campaign, a growing global initiative which is pressuring the World Bank
to make fundamental changes. The campaign is based on the fact that the
World Bank raises a majority of its operating funds by issuing bonds on
the private financial market. Since its launch by civil society groups
from more than 30 global South countries and the U.S. in April 2000, the
campaign has gotten more than four dozen institutional investors to
commit not to buy World Bank bonds, including San Francisco, Oakland, 10
investment firms with more than $16 billion in investments, and dozens
of religious institutions and labor unions.
Jim Carpenter, an economics instructor at Milwaukee Area Technical
College and member of the Wisconsin Fair Trade Campaign, which led the
9-month campaign to garner public support for the resolution, said, I
am not surprised that this resolution passed. Milwaukee is living proof
of failed policies of corporate globalization. Numerous students in my
economics class are displaced industrial workers who've seen their jobs
leave town because of policies promoted by the World Bank and so-called
free trade agreements.
We are taking the effort the expose the unjust policies of the World
Bank and IMF from the streets to the suites of institutional investors
with this campaign, said Neil Watkins, the campaign's coordinator at
Center for Economic Justice in Washington. We are thrilled that the
Milwaukee city council adopted the boycott but also note that this is
just the beginning, as we are expanding our work with local coalitions
in cities and among institutional investors across the country.
The World Bank Bonds Boycott calls on the World Bank Group to cancel
100% of debts owed to it by impoverished countries, stop destructive
'structural adjustment' and similar policies, and end all lending for
oil, gas, mining, and dam projects.
-30-
* Please note NEW address and phone number *
Neil Watkins
World Bank Bonds Boycott
Center for Economic Justice
733 15th St., NW, Suite 928
Washington, DC 20005
Tel: (202) 393-6665
Fax: (202) 393-1358
Web: www.worldbankboycott.org http://www.worldbankboycott.org/
To receive occasional updates on the World Bank Bonds boycott, join our
listserve:
Send blank e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED].
___
stop-imf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/stop-imf
To subscribe or unsubscribe by e-mail, send a message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED], with your administrative request in
the subject line. Or go to http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/stop-imf
RE: Re: Re: Help Stop Ohio's Anti-Choice Resolution
Anyone remember the Reproductive Rights National Network or R2N2 as us vets from NAM called it then in the 80's? http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Reproductive+Rights+National+Network%22btnG=Google+Searchhl=enie=utf-8oe=utf-8 Michael Pugliese --- Original Message --- From: Diane Monaco [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2/24/02 5:22:27 PM Rakesh wrote: Diane, have you had a chance to read Rickie Lee Solinger's criticism of framing the fight for abortion rights in terms of choice (there was a favorable review in the NY TImes review of books a few weeks ago). Plus two excerpts from the amazon.com reviews: From Publishers Weekly; Feminists need a paradigm shift, argues Solinger (Wake Up Little Susie;, The Abortionist), away from the post-Roe v. Wade concept of choice and back to the '60s concept of rights, based on the approach of the civil rights movement, which argued that all citizens were entitled to vote, for instance, regardless of class status. From Booklist: Historian Solinger argues cogently that the post-Roe v. Wade decision to articulate the women's movement's goals in terms of choice, not rights, had fateful consequences for women and for the movement. Rakesh, I apologize for not being able to get this post out before you unsubbed...and I will certainly miss your posts. But for what it's worth, I have always felt uncomfortable with the movement away from rights to choice during the 1980s. But I'm sure it is no surprise that this post Roe v. Wade shift during the 1980s occurred when the so-called conservative feminists surfaced (or were created) to redefine the issues. I just heard a Christina Hoff Sommers (author of Who Stole Feminism?) lecture the other day where she said in virtually the same breath that she is a feminist and women are no longer oppressed in the US. Hmmm? As far as I know, the definition of feminism hasn't changed: a movement that works toward achieving equal rights for women and men. But when I look at the demographic composition of upper agenda setting elites, e.g., Congressional Committee chairs, I see a distinct absence of women (or color). Well, if relations are not oppressed along gender lines, how would this oddity come about? What is the probability that this would happen on its own? Anyway, I think it was the anti-feminist sector that attempted to steal feminism. And I do agree with Solinger that it was a mistake for feminists to move away from the rights argument. But it's of course not too late and NARAL stands ready to enter as the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League -- hey notice the rights there! Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Best, Diane
Re: Re: Help Stop Ohio's Anti-Choice Resolution
Rakesh wrote: Diane, have you had a chance to read Rickie Lee Solinger's criticism of framing the fight for abortion rights in terms of choice (there was a favorable review in the NY TImes review of books a few weeks ago). Plus two excerpts from the amazon.com reviews: From Publishers Weekly; Feminists need a paradigm shift, argues Solinger (Wake Up Little Susie;, The Abortionist), away from the post-Roe v. Wade concept of choice and back to the '60s concept of rights, based on the approach of the civil rights movement, which argued that all citizens were entitled to vote, for instance, regardless of class status. From Booklist: Historian Solinger argues cogently that the post-Roe v. Wade decision to articulate the women's movement's goals in terms of choice, not rights, had fateful consequences for women and for the movement. Rakesh, I apologize for not being able to get this post out before you unsubbed...and I will certainly miss your posts. But for what it's worth, I have always felt uncomfortable with the movement away from rights to choice during the 1980s. But I'm sure it is no surprise that this post Roe v. Wade shift during the 1980s occurred when the so-called conservative feminists surfaced (or were created) to redefine the issues. I just heard a Christina Hoff Sommers (author of Who Stole Feminism?) lecture the other day where she said in virtually the same breath that she is a feminist and women are no longer oppressed in the US. Hmmm? As far as I know, the definition of feminism hasn't changed: a movement that works toward achieving equal rights for women and men. But when I look at the demographic composition of upper agenda setting elites, e.g., Congressional Committee chairs, I see a distinct absence of women (or color). Well, if relations are not oppressed along gender lines, how would this oddity come about? What is the probability that this would happen on its own? Anyway, I think it was the anti-feminist sector that attempted to steal feminism. And I do agree with Solinger that it was a mistake for feminists to move away from the rights argument. But it's of course not too late and NARAL stands ready to enter as the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League -- hey notice the rights there! Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Best, Diane
Help Stop Ohio's Anti-Choice Resolution
[Please forward to your pro-choice friends in Ohio] Ironically, abortion opponents voice safety arguments when their ultimate goal - outlawing abortion - is most dangerous for women's health Anti-choice organizations in Ohio have introduced House Resolution 196 that would create a group to study the link between abortion and breast cancer. This is part of a broader campaign to distort medical facts and frighten women into thinking that abortion causes breast cancer. Breast cancer is a significant concern for all women. More research is urgently needed to provide information on how to prevent and treat breast cancer. However, anti-abortion propaganda asserting that abortion causes breast cancer is unsupported by scientific research and is dangerous for women's health. Click here to email the message below to your Ohio House Representative asking him or her to oppose this dangerous resolution http://www.naralaction.org/index.asp?step=2item=1121. The American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, the National Breast Cancer Coalition, and the World Health Organization have concluded that there is no proven link between abortion and breast cancer. Despite a lack of evidence associating abortion with an increased risk of breast cancer, anti-choice groups are distorting scientific data and manipulating information to advance their political agenda. NARAL Ohio believes that women must have access to scientifically accurate and unbiased information. By distorting information and instilling fear in women considerin abortion, such propaganda may deter women from exercising their constitutionally protected right to choose a safe medical procedure. Ironically, abortion opponents voice safety arguments when their ultimate goal - outlawing abortion - is most dangerous for women's health. TAKE ACTION! Click here to email the message below to your Ohio House Representative asking them to oppose this dangerous resolution http://www.naralaction.org/index.asp?step=2item=1121. To get involved and stop this legislation, contact NARAL Ohio at 614-221-2594 or email [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more information on this issue, check out NARAL's fact sheet: http://www.naral.org/mediaresources/fact/misuse.html Also check out an OPED publishe in the Dayton Daily News on February 3, 2002 entitled Aborting Women's Health, http://www.activedayton.com/ddn/local/0203mary.html *** Dear Representative, I am writing to urge you to oppose House Resolution 196, which would create a group to study the link between abortion and breast cancer. Breast cancer is an issue that I am greatly concerned about; however, this legislation has been introduced based on distorted facts and is an attempt to instill fear in women. The American Cancer Society, the National Breast Cancer Coalition, the National Cancer Institute, and the World Health Organization have all found that there is no proven link between abortion and breast cancer. Our taxpayer money should not be wasted to fund a study that has already been conducted by numerous reputable experts on the issue of breast cancer when there are other pressing needs in our state. Unfortunately, anti-choice zealots are using this sensitive issue as part of a broader campaign to discourage women from exercising their constitutionally protected right to choose. I believe that any research conducted under the guise of this agenda will be biased. The women of Ohio deserve scientifically accurate information. I urge you to oppose this bill and focus on funding programs that are not attached to a political agenda. Thank you in advance for your time. Sincerely, * * * * * * * * * * * For more information about national NARAL or your state affiliate, log on to http://w w.naral.org. Please forward this message to pro-choice friends and family members. NARAL's Choice Action Network (CAN) provides up-to-date information and easy ways to make a difference in protecting a woman's right to choose. If this message was forwarded to you, subscribe to the Choice Action Network at http://www.naralaction.org/joinForm.asp or send an e-mail with your name and address to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text subscribe CAN. To update your contact information, please go to http://www.naralaction.org/profileeditor/. To see results of previous action alerts, go to http://www.naralaction.org/webActionResults.asp. Thank you.
Re: Help Stop Ohio's Anti-Choice Resolution
[Please forward to your pro-choice friends in Ohio] Diane, have you had a chance to read Rickie Lee Solinger's criticism of framing the fight for abortion rights in terms of choice (there was a favorable review in the NY TImes review of books a few weeks ago). I have only read Solinger's first book Wake Up Little Susie which is excellent and disturbing. Here are the amazon.com reviews of the last book. Rakesh Beggars and Choosers: How the Politics of Choice Shapes Adoption, Abortion, and Welfare in the United States is a thorough feminist history of public policy on abortion since Roe v. Wade, as well as a reconsideration of recent political strategy. Rickie Solinger's third book on reproductive rights hinges on a crucial semantic shift in the 1970s from abortion rights to the softer, less direct choice and pro-choice, itself an attempt to shake off the awkward pro-abortion tag. While rights are undeniable, Solinger asserts, choice is a market-driven concept. Historical distinctions between women of color and white women, between poor and middle-class women, have been reproduced and institutionalized in the era of choice, she continues, in part by defining some groups of women as good choice makers, some as bad. Solinger also advances a troubling economic thesis about adoption, defined roughly as the transfer of babies from women of one social classification to women in a higher social classification or group. Bracing and well-researched, Solinger's arguments should be considered by anyone working for women's and children's rights. --Regina Marler From Publishers Weekly Feminists need a paradigm shift, argues Solinger (Wake Up Little Susie;, The Abortionist), away from the post-Roe v. Wade concept of choice and back to the '60s concept of rights, based on the approach of the civil rights movement, which argued that all citizens were entitled to vote, for instance, regardless of class status. Choice evokes a marketplace model of consumer freedom, she explains, while rights are privileges to which one is justly and irrevocably entitled as a human being. The shift from the language of rights to that of choice was deliberate, aimed at reducing the federal welfare tab and increasing the pool of adoptable children, which began to diminish after the early 1970s, Solinger argues. Once the pill and legal abortion were available, poor women could be considered bad choice-makers if they kept having babies they couldn't afford hardly the government's responsibility. (Never mind, Solinger observes, that many poor women can't afford either option and might want children, just as middle-class women do.) Is this progress? No, Solinger writes: women with inadequate resources... must... have the right to determine for themselves whether or not to be mothers. With its crisp, jargon-free prose and copious footnotes, Solinger's reexamination of those twin bogeys the Back Alley Butcher and the Welfare Queen is a provocative read for any modern feminist. Copyright 2001 Cahners Business Information, Inc. From Booklist Historian Solinger argues cogently that the post-Roe v. Wade decision to articulate the women's movement's goals in terms of choice, not rights, had fateful consequences for women and for the movement. Choice shifted abortion into the marketplace, as one of many consumer choices, leaving women who were too poor to qualify as consumers at the mercy of antiabortion politicians. Many activists, she observes, didn't think about the fact that pregnancy and childbearing have historically and dramatically separated women by race and class in this country. Solinger traces that separation, analyzing powerful stereotypes such as the back-alley butcher and the welfare queen and exploring the shifting qualifications imposed on women as gestators, mothers, and decision makers. In particular, she considers the interaction between advocates of choice and women who sought but did not always receive feminist support in their
Stop This Brutality in Our Name
Stop This Brutality in Our Name The Daily Mirror (London) January 21, 2002 Editorial Stop This Britality in Our Name THIS is what is being done in the name of humanity, civilisation and the British people. These prisoners are trapped in open cages, manacled hand and foot, brutalised, tortured and humiliated. We are assured they are cruel, evil men, though not one has been charged, let alone convicted, of any offence. Yet that does not justify the barbaric treatment they are receiving from US forces. Barbarism which is backed by our Government. Tony Blair says he is standing shoulder to shoulder with President Bush. Not on our behalf, he isn't. Mr Bush is close to achieving the impossible - losing the sympathy of the civilised world for what happened in New York and Washington on September 11. Today he celebrates a year in office. He came to the presidency after a squalid vote-fix, yet in the aftermath of the destruction of the World Trade Center, he achieved enormous popularity among the American people. The treatment of the prisoners in Cuba is no more than a sick attempt to appeal to the worst red-neck (sic) prejudices. The pictures showing how these men are being abused were actually taken by an official US photographer. The President and his head-banging associates are proud of them, proud of the cruelty inflicted in their name, proud of the vengeance they are taking. What the American President does is his business. But what our Prime Minister does is ours. Tony Blair has played a unique role in the war on terrorism. He persuaded Mr Bush to calm down in the days immediately after September 11. He has done more to forge and hold together the great alliance of nations which is dedicated to ridding the world of terrorism. Today he should be playing another leading role. He should be telling George W. Bush that the treatment of the prisoners in Cuba is not acceptable. If Mr Blair thinks it is, he should have a word with his wife, Cherie. She is a leading human-rights lawyer. His Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, said last week that the prisoners should be treated humanely. They clearly are not. Once again, Mr Straw has failed to make the slightest impact. Even if these men had been found guilty, they should not be treated like this. It is not doing anything to help the war on terrorism. These pictures will do the opposite - inflame the belief among some young Muslims that America is their enemy. Anyway, who are these prisoners? It is said that some may not belong to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda at all, but were members of the Taliban. That was a horrific regime and the Afghani people are delighted to be rid of it. But it achieved power with the help of the United States and the UK. Since September 11, America has walked a fine line between fighting for humanity and lusting after revenge. The treatment of these prisoners shows how far the balance has tilted the wrong way. If Mr Bush insists on following this path, the rest of the world should leave him in no doubt that he walks it alone. And Tony Blair should be leading the protest. What is happening at Guantanamo is a disgrace. It must not be done in our name, Mr Blair.
Re: lefties stop your whining
- Original Message - From: Ian Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2002 9:56 AM While the Genoa G8 summit last July was being besieged by violent elements from Europe's middle class on the outside, the voice of Africa's poor was being heard for the first time inside. Britain's Labour Prime Minister had insisted that leaders from South Africa and Nigeria should be invited to put their case for debt relief, fair trade and investment - a case first heard by purposeful campaigners at the Birmingham G8 Summit in 1998 - proof that the left can succeed through targeted and effective protest. A complicated divide-and-rule gambit here, but it's clear our old anti-apartheid comrade wants a new line-up of Blair, Mbeki and Bono/Pettifor. In London on 13 Feb and Washington/NY on 27-28 Feb, I'll be doing this talk at various lefty locations, so let me know off-list if you're around and want details... *** Thabo Mbeki and Nepad: Breaking or Shining the Chains of Global Apartheid? by Patrick Bond 1. Introduction This essay considers Thabo Mbeki's analysis of globalisation, strategy and demands for global-scale and continental socio-economic progress, and preferred alliances. These topics arise because of his stated intention, in the October 2001 New Partnership for Africa's Development (Nepad), to establish a `new framework of interaction with the rest of the world, including the industrialised countries and multilateral organisations'--one that is sufficiently `radical' to lift African GDP growth to 7% per annum. It will be clear, both in excerpts from his speeches considered below and from the New Partnership for African Development (Nepad), that Mbeki's approach is consistent with the broader problem of compradorism. As Mbeki himself warned, `Our own intelligentsia faces the challenge, perhaps to overcome the class limitations which [Walter] Rodney speaks of, and ensure that it does not become an obstacle to the further development of our own revolution.' I will instead arrive at the pessimistic conclusion that the challenge has already been lost, judging by Nepad and related international reform efforts. Mbeki and his main allies have already succumbed to the class (not necessarily personalistic) limitations of post-Independence African nationalism, namely acting in close collaboration with hostile transnational corporate and multilateral forces whose interests stand directly opposed to Mbeki's South African and African constituencies. In addition to Rodney, this premonition was recorded explicitly by Frantz Fanon, in his chapter on `The Pitfalls of National Consciousness,' in The Wretched of the Earth: The national middle class discovers its historic mission: that of intermediary. Seen through its eyes, its mission has nothing to do with transforming the nation; it consists, prosaically, of being the transmission line between the nation and a capitalism, rampant though camouflaged, which today puts on the mask of neocolonialism. The national bourgeoisie will be quite content with the role of the Western bourgeoisie's business agent, and it will play its part without any complexes in a most dignified manner. But this same lucrative role, this cheap-Jack's function, this meanness of outlook and this absence of all ambition symbolise the incapability of the middle class to fulfill its historic role of bourgeoisie. Here, the dynamic, pioneer aspect, the characteristics of the inventor and of the discoverer of new worlds which are found in all national bourgeoisies are lamentably absent. In the colonial countries, the spirit of indulgence is dominant at the core of the bourgeoisie; and this is because the national bourgeoisie identifies itself with the Western bourgeoisie, from whom it has learnt its lessons... In its beginnings, the national bourgeoisie of the colonial country identifies itself with the decadence of the bourgeoisie of the West. We need not think that it is jumping ahead; it is in fact beginning at the end. It is already senile before it has come to know the petulance, the fearlessness, or the will to succeed of youth. But Mbeki and his internationally-oriented cabinet colleagues--especially finance minister Trevor Manuel, trade and industry minister Alec Erwin and their staffs--would no doubt object. They locate not only their own (national) ambition but also the continent's potential transformation not in lucrative personal accomplishments or Western-style bourgeois decadence, but rather in the further integration of Africa into a world economy, they would also concede, that is itself in need of better regulation and fairer economic rules. The project, therefore, is to reform interstate relations and the embryonic world-state system. As Nepad explains, While globalisation has increased the cost of Africa's ability to compete, we hold that the advantages of an effectively managed integration present the best prospects for future economic prosperity and
lefties stop your whining
Why the Left should stop whining New world politics throws up new challenges - to those who seek practical solutions and to anti-globalisation nihilists The globalisation debate - Observer special Peter Hain Sunday January 20, 2002 The Observer Globalisation is a force that does not allow the luxury of saying, 'Stop, I want to get off'. It is impossible to stop satellite television, the internet and telecommunications. It is impossible to ban air travel or pop culture; impossible to ban the mobility of capital. The question, therefore, is not whether it can be stopped or abolished. Globalisation is a fact of life and the real question is: 'What sort of globalisation do we want and how can we get it?' Between the balaclava rock-throwers with their nihilist ideology on the one hand and Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Drop the Debt on the other is the same split there has always been. Two centuries ago as industrialisation got underway, the former would have been Luddites, trashing factory machines; the latter the embryonic labour movement. The divide is also between failure and success. Like the Luddites, the balaclava boys are totally ineffectual and, in the long-term, irrelevant. While the Genoa G8 summit last July was being besieged by violent elements from Europe's middle class on the outside, the voice of Africa's poor was being heard for the first time inside. Britain's Labour Prime Minister had insisted that leaders from South Africa and Nigeria should be invited to put their case for debt relief, fair trade and investment - a case first heard by purposeful campaigners at the Birmingham G8 Summit in 1998 - proof that the left can succeed through targeted and effective protest. Our task is to master globilisation in the interests of the poor and not just the rich and in the interests of the environment and not just the multi-nationals. By deploying the European Union's huge resources, together with its potential as a catalyst for progressive change, we can push for an international agenda of which the left can be proud. It should be an empowering agenda for fighting poverty, redistributing wealth and eliminating weapons of mass destruction, an agenda that recognises there is no security at home without freedom and good governance abroad, and that the environment is not a free resource that we can continue to plunder at will. This agenda needs to be promoted beyond Europe through the United Nations, the G8, the OECD, the Commonwealth - and through Nato. Such international diplomacy is difficult and often frustrating. It needs prodding and pushing by protest but ultimately it is the only mechanism for action. Too many on the left are trapped in a Cold War time warp. Of course, we were right during that period to protest as the US, purporting to act in the name of freedom, trampled over Vietnam, or propped up brutal dictatorships in Latin America. We were right, too, to attack the Soviet suppression of democratic uprisings in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. The Cold War also saw proxy wars fought throughout the developing world: for example, Angola torn apart and virtually destroyed by Unita, a force of murder and terror backed by the CIA and South Africa, just because the government called itself 'Marxist'. But we can no longer look at the developing world through an East/West prism. Russia and China both backed the US-led international action in Afghanistan. Russia is also seeking a partnership with Nato and the EU. If the left is about anything surely it is about recognising change and pressing for more of it, rather than being trapped in the past? After Britain and our allies intervened to save the people of Kosovo from ethnic cleansing and genocide in 1999, the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan called for a progressive new doctrine of 'humanitarian intervention'. It should get our full support. Take Sierra Leone. Who really objected to British troops intervening in 2000 in support of UN peacekeepers to prevent a legitimate government being destroyed by rebels whose speciality was chopping off the limbs of babies? Why, John Pilger, who wrote that this was a classic imperialist mission to grab the country's diamonds - left-wing paranoia of the first order, since the diamond fields were controlled by the rebels and are now gradually being returned to the government. The truth is that our intervention there - as in Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor, Macedonia and Afghanistan, was necessary. And it was successful. Rather than classic wars between states, or even progressive revolutions against corrupt old orders, we have new phenomena: states that have failed, like Afghanistan, being dominated by a terrorist clique. Or neighbouring peoples brutalised by tyrants like Saddam Hussein or Slobodan Milosevic. Or wars like in Angola, the Congo or Sierra Leone, where rebels fight, not for noble causes but to grab personal power. On Afghanistan, I
A way to stop terrorism
How can the USA appoint a terrorist as our Ambassador to the UN after yesterday? Call your Senator! Gene Coyle The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has scheduled hearings on the nomination of John Negroponte as UN Ambassador tomorrow, Thursday, Sep. 13, 11 a.m. EST. We need to flood the lines of the Foreign Relations Committee (see phone numbers below). It is suggested that each of us call a minimum of three times. Thanks, SOAWatch West. SOA Watch West - Sept. 11, 2001 Spread the word to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that you've read the article below! --- (A) Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Member of Senate Foreign Relations Committee Phone 202-224-3553 (Ask for Shawn.) No DC Fax Number available (B) Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) Chair, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Phone 202-224-5042 Fax 202-224-0139 (C) Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) not a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Phone 202-224-3841 Fax 202-228-3954 The New York Review of Books (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14485) September 20, 2001 Our Man in Honduras by Stephen Kinzer When a country finds itself at the center of world history, it begins attracting spies, mercenaries, war profiteers, journalists, prostitutes, and fortune-seekers. Often they gravitate to a particular hotel. In Honduras, which was shaken from its long slumber in the 1980s and turned into a violent staging ground for cross-border war, the Maya was that hotel. Perched atop a high hill near the central plaza in the capital city, Tegucigalpa, its tinted windows giving it an air of mystery, the Maya attracted a variety of sinister characters. Counterrevolutionaries hatched bloody plots over breakfast beside the pool. You could buy a machine gun at the bar. Busloads of crew-cut Americans would arrive from the airport at times when I knew there were no commercial flights landing, spend the night, and then ship out before dawn; they said they didn't know where they were going, and I believed them. Friends told me that death squad torturers stopped in for steak before setting off on their night's work. But in those days, much of what anyone said in Honduras was a lie. That was certainly true at the Maya, and equally so at the American embassy a couple of miles away. The diplomat who presided over that embassy from 1981 to 1985, John Dimitri Negroponte, was a great fabulist. He saw, or professed to see, a Honduras almost Scandinavian in its tranquillity, a place where there were no murderous generals, no death squads, no political prisoners, no clandestine jails or cemeteries. Now that President Bush has nominated Negroponte to be United States ambassador to the United Nations, his record in Honduras is coming under new scrutiny. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold a hearing on his nomination soon, probably in September. With the chairmanship of the committee now passed from Jesse Helms to Joseph Biden, this hearing promises to be anything but routine. It will recall the polarizing drama of Central America in the 1980s, a historical chapter that seemed closed but that the Bush administration has chosen to reopen. It may even throw some light onto places that have for two decades been as dark and scary as the Maya Hotel bar at midnight. Over the last few weeks, investigators for the Foreign Relations Committee have been reading classified government documents written by or about Negroponte. They have also conducted an extensive private interview with him. At the committee hearing on his nomination, senators are likely to ask him about what they suspect were false reports that he filed on human rights conditions in Honduras, and about questionable sworn testimony he later gave the committee. The material we reviewed pertains specifically to that time in Honduras and to the question of the alleged and real human rights abuses that took place, said Norman Kurtz, a spokesman for Senator Biden. The key question people are asking is what John Negroponte knew at the time and to what extent did he report back to the State Department. We are trying to have some of these documents quickly reclassified so we can have them on the record at the time of the hearing. In Honduras Negroponte exercised US power in ways that still reverberate throughout that small country. His most striking legacy, though, is the Honduras of his imagination. Most people who lived or worked in Honduras during the 1980s saw a nation spiraling into violence and infested by paramilitary gangs that kidnapped and killed with impunity. Negroponte would not acknowledge this. He realized that the Reagan policy in Central America would lose support if truths about Honduras were known, so he refused to accept them. By nominating Negroponte as ambassador to the United Nations, the Bush administration is sending at least two clear messages. The first is addressed to the UN itself. During his years in Honduras, Negroponte acquired a reputation,
I said, Stop Gloating!
Tory civil war erupts * Major savages Thatcher * Tebbit savages Clarke * Clarke savages Duncan Smith Nicholas Watt, political correspondent Thursday August 23, 2001 The Guardian A ferocious round of internal Tory bloodletting was unleashed yesterday when John Major intervened in the leadership contest in an attempt to derail Iain Duncan Smith's campaign and to destroy Margaret Thatcher's legacy. As the two leadership contenders held their only head-to-head television debate of the campaign, senior Conservatives tore strips off each other after Mr Major accused Lady Thatcher of inflicting damage on his government, and came close to branding Mr Duncan Smith a liar. Lord Tebbit rounded on Mr Major as a bitter man, saying that Mr Clarke's supporters were in no position to offer lectures on loyalty, alleging the former health secretary approached him in 1990 to unseat Lady Thatcher months before her downfall. His outburst marked a new low in the contest after the Duncan Smith camp reacted furiously to Mr Major's portrayal of their man as a slippery operator whose supporters are electoral poison. In a BBC interview, the former prime minister effectively accused Mr Duncan Smith of lying when he rejected his claim that he was offered a government post to buy him off during his rebellions against the Maastricht treaty in the early 1990s. I can tell you categorically that at no stage did I offer Iain a job in government, Mr Major said. His remarks were an embarrassment to Mr Duncan Smith, who claimed in January that he turned down government appointments. The Duncan Smith camp hit back, claiming he was offered the post of ministerial aide to the disgraced former cabinet minister Jonathan Aitken. It was offered, they said, by the former deputy chief whip Greg Knight, who is supporting Mr Clarke in the leadership contest. The spat over Mr Duncan Smith's record as a Tory rebel erupted after Mr Major gave vent to 10 years of frustration when he rounded on Lady Thatcher for encouraging Eurosceptic backbenchers to vote against his government over the Maastricht treaty. In an interview on the Today programme, in which he endorsed Mr Clarke, the former prime minister said his predecessor had inflicted unprecedented and immense damage to his government by colluding with the likes of Mr Duncan Smith. His outburst provoked a ferocious assault from the right of the party. Lord Tebbit - attacked by Mr Major in today's Spectator for peddling crude innuendo about Michael Portillo - accused the former prime minister of being silly and described Mr Clarke as a devious figure who was Tony Blair's choice for Tory leader. Recalling Mr Clarke's alleged attempt to enlist his support in a plot to unseat Lady Thatcher in 1990, the former cabinet minister told the PM programme: Ken approached me and asked if I would be willing to stand for the leadership of the party with him as my deputy, because he said he was entirely comfortable with the policies he thought I would pursue. A spokesman for Mr Clarke said that he had no recollection of such a conversation, although he pointed out that discussions about the leadership were rife at the time. The skirmishing among the Tory grandees set the scene for a bitter contest between Mr Clarke and Mr Duncan Smith when they appeared at the first leadership hustings at Westminster at lunchtime. The Duncan Smith camp distributed photographs of the former chancellor next to Mr Blair at the launch of the cross-party Britain in Europe pressure group. Underneath a caption read: Lest we forget ... ! During a 45 minute appearance, Mr Duncan Smith boasted of his role in voting with Labour in the early 1990s against the Maastricht treaty. To loud applause, he compared himself to Winston Churchill and Harold Macmillan, who had defied Tory governments. I voted against the government 11 times, he said. I abstained on a large number of divisions which I felt would have damaged us. I could not bring myself to vote for a treaty passing too many powers over to Brussels. In a separate appearance, a relaxed Mr Clarke highlighted his disdain for Mr Duncan Smith's brand of Conservatism when he said that the electorate were right to reject the Tories in June. The public were not wrong, he said. I agree with my fellow citizens. The former chancellor mocked Lady Thatcher, who provoked the latest round of infighting when she warned that Mr Clarke would be a disaster for the party. What did she do about my views on Europe when I was a minister? he asked. She kept on promoting me. But Mr Clarke was barracked by Duncan Smith supporters when he attempted to reach out to Eurosceptics by saying that he did not believe that Britain should abandon its tax-raising powers. Rightwingers also reacted angrily when he criticised Tories who opposed Chris Patten's report on policing in Northern Ireland, saying: It's no good British Conservatives being more Orange than the Unionists. Full article at:
Fwd: [stop-imf] Ending Global Apartheid: Teach In for Action on the World Bank and IMF
Quite right that following Genoa, there should be an intensified theoretical criticisms of global capitalism. But although there is the argument for reparations to Africa, including for apartheid and the wars that apartheid South Africa caused over half the continent, but does anyone know how the organisers of this teach in, extend the concept of apartheid to talk of global apartheid? Chris Burford London Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Robert Weissman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [stop-imf] Ending Global Apartheid: Teach In for Action on the World Bank and IMF Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List-Help: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=help List-Post: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] List-Subscribe: http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/stop-imf, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=subscribe List-Id: information critical of the IMF stop-imf.lists.essential.org List-Unsubscribe: http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/stop-imf, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe List-Archive: http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/stop-imf/ Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 13:10:52 -0400 (EDT) ENDING GLOBAL APARTHEID: TEACH IN FOR ACTION ON THE WORLD BANK AND IMF Washington, DC, Sept. 27-29, 2001 http://www.essentialaction.org/wbimf/ During the Joint Annual Meetings of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) this September, tens of thousands of people will converge in Washington, DC to be a part of the growing Global Justice Movement. They will be calling for an end to the policies and practices of the IMF and World Bank that have caused widespread poverty, inequality, and suffering among the world's peoples and damage to the world's environment. As part of this movement, Fifty Years is Enough, Jobs with Justice, Global Exchange, Essential Action and World Bank Bonds Boycott/Center for Economic Justice are organizing a Teach In on the global impact of the World Bank and IMF. Thursday, Sept. 27, 7 pm, Opening Event, National Baptist Memorial Church, 16th St and Columbia. Sept. 28 and 29, Plenaries all day, at National Baptist and Casa del Pueblo Methodist Church, 1459 Columbia Rd., NW, Washington, DC Plenary sessions will address the true global impact of the World Bank and IMF (on labor, environment, debt, the HIV/AIDS crisis, and more). The Teach In will also discuss active national and international campaigns against these institutions. Speakers will be primarily from the Global South to discuss their experiences and campaigns first hand in countries such as India, the Philippines, South Africa, Senegal, Brazil, and many more. Tickets: Thursday evening opening Event: $10; Friday and Saturday: $25; Three day ticket: $30 For latest information, schedules, speakers lists and to buy tickets please visit www.essentialaction.org or contact Monica Wilson at 202-387-8030. ___ stop-imf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/stop-imf To subscribe or unsubscribe by e-mail, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with your administrative request in the subject line
Stop US Tax-funded Aid to Israel Now! (SUSTAIN)
* Stop US Tax-funded Aid to Israel Now! (SUSTAIN) is a non-hierarchical, grassroots organization committed to supporting and sustaining the Palestinian movement for justice, human rights and self-determination. The United States government supports Israeli violations of Palestinian national and human rights militarily, economically, and ideologically. The most tangible form of this support is the massive tax-funded aid that goes to Israel. We are committed to building a campaign against US military and economic aid to Israel so that US tax-dollars do not support the abuse of human rights http://www.sustain-campaign.org/ * Also visit Stop Aid to Israel at http://www.stopaidtoisrael.com/topics.php. Yoshie
Fwd: How to Stop Bush Amnesty of 3 Million Illegal Aliens
This was sent to me off list by Michael Pugliese: From: Michael Pugliese [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Fw: How to Stop Bush Amnesty of 3 Million Illegal Aliens Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 07:29:11 -0700 Julio Huato, I lurk on alot of Right-Wing lists. Give these nativists a piece of your mind. The reactionaries are going nuts! Michael Howlin' Wolf Pugliese from pen-l - Original Message - From: CitizensLobby.com To: Recipient list suppressed Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 6:41 AM Subject: How to Stop Bush Amnesty of 3 Million Illegal Aliens == AN URGENT MESSAGE from www.CitizensLobby.com http://www.CitizensLobby.com July 17, 2001 == (Washington, DC) President Bush is considering to grant amnesty to over 3 million illegal criminal aliens. A recent report by Mr. Bush's own officials at the State and Justice Departments has recommended that he circumvent U.S. laws and approve eventual citizenship to millions of mostly Mexican illegal immigrants. Where is the compassionate conservatism for American citizens whose tax dollars line the pocket of these border-runners, lawbreakers and thieves? After 8 years of Clintonism, Bush may seem right on many issues, but he is wrong on immigration! Our President is about to squash our dignity and rights as American citizens in order to pander to the anti-American agenda of Mexican President Vicente Fox, and to the liberal Democrats in Congress. Did the President and his strategists forget that Al Gore's and Bill Clinton's Citizenship USA program in 1996, which registered over 1.2 million illegal aliens to vote, allowed the vast majority of their fraudulent ballots in 2000 to be cast for liberal Democrats? Help stop this amnesty, and help President Bush understand the virtues of American citizenship. Please join CitizensLobby.com in taking the following grass-roots action: #1 Tell President Bush to reject this illegal alien scheme. Call (800) 303-8332 or (202) 456-1414; Fax: (202) 456-2461; Write: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20500 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can also call Timothy Goeglein, WH Public Liaison, at (202) 456-2930, and Karl Rove, chief strategist, at (202) 456-5587. These gentlemen give Bush pillow talk on this issue. #2 Tell Congress to oppose this measure. The Bush plan may eventually encompass an even more radical amnesty proposed by Rep. Luis Gutierrez (H.R. 500), which could grant amnesty to as many as 10 million illegal aliens! Contact your Congressman and tell him to oppose the Bush plan and H.R. 500. Call the congressional switchboard at (800) 648-3516 or (877) 762-8762 or go to http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.html . In the Senate, lackey Phil Gramm is pushing for an expansion of a guest worker program, an equally miserable measure that will still grant amnesty to millions of illegal criminal aliens. Contact your Senators at http://www.senate.gov/senators/index.cfm . #3 Visit http://www.CitizensLobby.com and sign our Petition on immigration http://www.citizenslobby.com/petitions.htm#immigration . We will make your voice heard on Capitol Hill and deliver your petition to the House and Senate Judiciary subcommittees on immigration. Help take America back. This is our country. Our rights should not be trampled and demeaned by illegal aliens. Our tax dollars should not fund criminal lawbreaking. If an amnesty does take hold, this will only lead to a greater invasion of illegal immigrants. Please take a stand today. I thank you for your time and consideration. Best regards, Scott A. Lauf Executive Director, CitizensLobby.com # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # [NOTE: If this e-mail is in error, please disregard and/or send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to be removed from our lists. We apologize for the inconvenience. CitizensLobby.com is a non-partisan, grass-roots organization. CitizensLobby.com does not endorse or support political candidates or parties.] _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Fw: [ASDnet] Stop John Negroponte!!! From NicaNet, Quest for Peace, Witness for
- Original Message - From: ANDERSON DAVID [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 11:43 AM Subject: [ASDnet] Stop John Negroponte!!! From NicaNet, Quest for Peace, Witness for Stop Iran-Contra Criminal John Negroponte! Friday, July 6, 2001 Act immediately to prevent Senate approval of Negroponte for Ambassador to the UN! Hearings may occur as early as mid-July! Make sure your Senator knows the truth about the candidate for this very important position! [This alert is called by the Nicaragua Network, Witness for Peace, and Quest for Peace. Please contact the Nicaragua Network for more information at 202-544-9355 or [EMAIL PROTECTED]] Alert includes: 1) Introduction 2) Background on John Negroponte, nominee for Ambassador to UN 3) Suggested Actions (Mailing or Calling Your Senator) 1) INTRODUCTION George W. Bush's presidency has begun with a return to the Reagan-era agenda. Of concern to those of us in the Latin American solidarity community has been his unapologetic attempt to revive Cold War diplomacy through the nomination of former Iran Contra criminals to key diplomatic posts. Reagan-era Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams has been selected as the National Security Council's senior director for democracy, human rights and international operations (a post which does not require Senate approval). Some might remember that Abrams pled guilty to two misdemeanor counts of lying to Congress during the Iran Contra hearings and was subsequently pardoned by George Bush, Sr. Though we cannot prevent Abrams' return to prominence, we can keep out former US Ambassador to Honduras John Negroponte who played a significant role in the CIA-sponsored terrorism of Hondurans during the Nicaraguan Contra War. The Bush Administration has officially nominated Negroponte to be US Ambassador to the UN. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is preparing to hold nomination hearings before the close of July! This nomination is particularly egregious now that the international community has issued a vote of no confidence in US human rights promotion by dropping our country from the UN Human Rights Commission. John Negroponte deliberately falsified State Department human rights reports throughout his time in Honduras. US missionaries and many people of faith and conscience were MURDERED by the CIA-trained Honduran Batallion 3-16, which Negroponte at best overlooked and at worst oversaw. His nomination is an outrage, but sadly, it will pass through with minimal resistance unless you as constituents do something about it! 2) BACKGROUND ON JOHN NEGROPONTE The New York Times credits John Negroponte with carrying out the covert strategy of the Reagan administration to crush the Sandinista government in Nicaragua during his tenure as US Ambassador to Honduras from 1981 and 1985. He oversaw the growth of military aid to Honduras from $4 million to $77.4 million a year. In early 1984, two American mercenaries, Thomas Posey and Dana Parker, contacted Negroponte, stating they wanted to supply arms to the Contra army after the US Congress had banned governmental add. Documents show that Negroponte connected the two with a contact in the Honduran military. The operation was exposed nine months later, at which point the Reagan administration denied any U.S. government involvement, despite Negroponte's contact earlier that year. Other documents uncovered a scheme of Negroponte and Vice President George Bush to funnel Contra aid money through the Honduran government. In addition to his work with the Nicaraguan Contra army, Negroponte helped conceal from Congress the murder, kidnapping and torture abuses of a CIA-equipped and -trained Honduran military unit, Batallion 3-16. No mention of these human rights violations ever appeared in State Department Human Rights reports for Honduras. The Baltimore Sun reports that Efrain Diaz Arrivillaga, then a delegate in the Honduran Congress and a voice of dissent, told the Sun that he complained to Negroponte on numerous occasions about the Honduran military's human rights abuses. Rick Chidester, a junior Embassy Official under Negroponte, reported to the Sun that he was forced to omit an exhaustive gathering of human rights violations from his 1982 State Department report. Sister Laetitia Bordes went on a fact-finding delegation to Honduras in May 1982 to investigate the whereabouts of 32 Salvadoran nuns and women of faith who fled to Honduras in 1981 after Archbishop Romero's assassination. Negroponte claimed the Embassy knew nothing, but in 1996, Negroponte's predecessor Jack Binns reported that the women had been captured, tortured, and then crammed into helicopters from which they were tossed to their deaths. According to the Los Angeles Times, the US government recently revoked the visa of General Luis Alonso Discua Elvir, who was Honduras' deputy
Fwd: [stop-imf] Invitation to an online forum on the third world debt crisis
Campaigns to cancel debt have been a very valuable step to a global movement against capitalism, but I think this campaign is in great danger of running into its own contradictions. IMO they can only be transcended by explicitly arguing a) that capitalism itself produces unequal exchange, concentrates and centralises capital unevenly, independently of the will of any bloated individual b) that it is esential to move towards social democratic structures of world government which will continuously pump out finance to the periphery without patronising the recipients as being morally irresponsible. We need a shift of psychological and scientific perspective. Really it should not be called debt any more? Deficit? Chris Burford London Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Robert Weissman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [stop-imf] Invitation to an online forum on the third world debt crisis List-Help: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=help List-Post: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] List-Subscribe: http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/stop-imf, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=subscribe List-Id: information critical of the IMF stop-imf.lists.essential.org List-Unsubscribe: http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/stop-imf, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe List-Archive: http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/stop-imf/ Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 16:04:59 -0400 (EDT) From the Worldwatch Institute: Please join us for an online forum on the third world debt crisis As the leaders of the world's most powerful nations gather in Genoa, Italy--and as thousands of protestors throng the streets--join us for a global, electronic conversation on one of the most disturbing issues within the debate over globalization, the third world debt crisis. Do the world's poorest countries need immediate release from the chains of debt? Or will that just let corrupt dictators off the hook? What can be done to prevent another crisis? If those questions trouble you, please join us to discuss them. -- Sponsored by the Worldwatch Institute and Communications for a Sustainable Future WHEN: July 18-25, embracing the July 20-22 G-8 summit in Genoa. The best time to subscribe is now, before the forum opens. WHAT: David Roodman, the author of a new Worldwatch Institute report-- Still Waiting for the Jubilee: Pragmatic Solutions for the Third World Debt Crisis--will participate in this online global forum. To learn more about the report and the forum, visit http://csf.colorado.edu/sustainable-economics/third-world-debt. Copies of the report, paper and electronic, are available for a small fee at http://secure.worldwatch.org/cgi-bin/wwinst/WWP0155. WHO: Everyone is encouraged to join. The forum will be moderated. Archives of the proceedings will be publicly available. It will help to read the Worldwatch report beforehand, but please participate even if you do not read it. HOW: To subscribe, visit http://csf.colorado.edu/sustainable-economics/third-world-debt. Or send a one-line message containing subscribe sustainable-economics to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Background The global debate over the third world debt crisis will crescendo on July 20-22 as the heads of the world's eight leading industrial nations (G-8) gather in Genoa, Italy. The host of the summit, the government of Italy, has vowed to put the debt crisis at the top of the agenda. And Drop the Debt, a London-based successor to Jubilee 2000 (the campaign that forced rich-country politicians to respond to the debt crisis in the late 1990s), has set its sites on a New Deal on Debt from the Genoa summit (see http://www.dropthedebt.org/action/genoa.shtml). Since World War II, the richest countries have lent the poorest ones hundreds of billions of dollars, much of it in the name of democracy, freedom, and development. Yet scores of the borrowing countries are now mired in debt and poverty--some 47, according to World Bank benchmarks, all but 10 of them African. Together, they owe $422 billion, or $380 per person, a substantial sum for them, but just 11 months of military spending for western governments. Responding to pressure from nongovernmental organizations, creditor governments have recently offered to cancel up to 55 percent of the debt they are owed by 41 poor debtors. In return, they are demanding that debtors implement market- oriented structural adjustment economic policies and design poverty- fighting plans in consultation with civil society groups. Many rich-world politicians now want to put debt cancellation behind them. But many non-governmental groups are calling for more. Both sides, Roodman argues, may have unrealistic expectations about how much good such programs are doing and can do. On the one hand, almost all of the debt set for cancellation would never have been repaid anyway, so canceling it will not make much financial difference. On the other hand
STOP!
Look, I am going to have to start asking people to unsub for a week if this nastiness continues. Jumping in to defend those who are wronged only makes things worse. Please stop this ugly behavior. Look, nobody here is an expert on Mayan or Aztec civilization or many of the others subjects with which people write as if they were the world's leading authorities. We can explore such subjects. We are in no position to denounce others for their supposed ignorance. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fw: Act now to stop Bush's rewards for corporate outlaws!
- Original Message - From: Working Families e-Activist Network [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 8:45 AM Subject: Act now to stop Bush's rewards for corporate outlaws! Get e-active now! The responsible contractor rule is under attack. The rule is designed to make sure federal contracts--and taxpayer dollars--go to responsible companies, not chronic lawbreakers. Now President George W. Bush wants to repeal the rule and open the door to companies with outrageous records of breaking the law getting taxpayer dollars--even if they routinely violate laws protecting workers' rights and civil rights and illegally pollute our air and water. From now until July 6, we need to make our voices heard by submitting comments about the responsible contractor rule to the Bush administration agency responsible for issuing federal contractor rules. Click on the link below now to get more information and send an e-mail to that agency. Tell the Bush administration to stop the attack on the responsible contractor rule. http://www.aflcio.org/redirect.pl?id=128683msg=7000url=/e/05.htm AOL users cut and paste the link into your browser. Please forward this e-mail to friends, co-workers and family who also want to stop Bush's attempt to reward corporate outlaws. You are currently subscribed to the Working Families e-Activist Network, an AFL-CIO e-mail list, as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] You are a member of this list because you provided your e-mail address to us recently.
Police repression can't stop Global Justice Movement
Police repression can't stop Global Justice Movement
by Ernie Tate
Ten thousand police were mobilised May 1 in London, against the 'threat'
posed by 5000 anti-capitalist demonstrators. This grotesque overkill was
accompanied by a weeks-long barrage of press hysteria, warning of 'anarchy'
and mayhem. Prime minister Tony Blair condemned the planned demonstrations
as representing 'spurious cause' and warned that demonstrators would be
dealt with. Former Labour left winger Ken Livingston, now mayor of London,
chimed in with strident support for the police. Huge numbers of police were
used in London's Oxford Street to entrap large crowds of demonstrators, and
keep them penned in for up to seven and a half hours - together with
bemused Japanese, Chinese and other tourists. Oxford Street had been chosen
by demonstrators because of the presence of GAP and other shops which use
cheap third world labour. The police operation cost £1.2m, including
£20,000 for breakfasts which for some reason the cops couldn't have at home.
Before the demonstrations, there were heavy hints that plastic bullets and
tear gars would be used, and a warning from senior police officers that all
demonstrators could be arrested and their photos and details taken.
As it turned out, the clashes were small-scale, and mainly caused as some
demonstrators tried to break out of the police pen. The trouble was on a
much smaller scale than the rather tame riot which occurred on May Day
2000, which itself mainly revolved around the trashing of a small branch of
McDonald's. Both events were small beer compared with the 1990 poll tax
riots. So why the huge police mobilisation? Why the hysteria in the popular
press?
In fact, the political and police offensive against the anti-capitalist
movement on May 1 was not an isolated incident. In February, the umbrella
organisation Globalise Resistance found that two successive venues for its
huge weekend conference were cancelled at short notice. Clearly 'someone'
had talked to college authorities and warned them off - finally the
conference was held at the town hall of Labour-controlled Hammersmith.
The events in Britain follow an international pattern, vividly demonstrated
by the police riot against anti-capitalist globalisation demonstrators in
Quebec City in April. This in turn followed the pattern established in
Seattle, and followed in Washington, Prague, Sydney, Nice and many other
major cities. The leaders of the major capitalist powers have declared a
'get tough' policy against the global justice movement. They are attempting
to isolate, demoralise and criminalise the movement - and to divide it on
the issue of 'violence'. They are in effect issuing a warning that daring
to demonstrate against global capitalism will carry a heavy penalty in
terms of repression. In the short term this policy has had some limited
success in Britain.
Leading global justice campaigners George Monbiot (author of 'Captive
State') and Naomi Klein ('No Logo') have contributed misguided articles to
the London Guardian, the former arguing that the movement has to deal with
its 'violent' element, and the latter calling for less attention to public
demonstrations and more involvement in the community from 'rootless'
rebels. Both arguments are way off the mark. Neo-anarchist streetfighters
are a tiny grouping in Britain, and nothing new - they were much more in
evidence during the poll tax riots ten years ago. The conditions for
confrontation are created by the heavy hand of thousands of riot police.
And counterposing working in communities to public demonstrations shows a
rather limited knowledge of what anti-capitalist campaigners in Britain are
actually doing, not least in the huge election campaign being prepared by
the Socialist Alliance and the Scottish Socialist Party (but also in a
plethora of local campaigns against privatisation, racism etc). Debate in
the movement over tactics is perfectly normal, and in every country
campaigners will have to discuss out what methods lead to the biggest and
most politically influential mobilisations. But so long as the capitalist
leaders have decided on repression, street confrontations are bound to occur.
Not even the whole of the capitalist press was taken in by the
police-government charade. Mirror political columnist Paul Routledge
attacked the police action as a threat to democracy. London's only evening
paper The Standard gave a page to its columnist Zoe Williams who was on the
demonstration to denounce the police methods. She said, This is not just
about whether the police are stupid, or even about globalisation, this is
about whether the police should have the right to trap 5000 people for up
to seven and a half hours, for no better reason than they might break
something. And further the police proved that in the event of revolution
they might possibly be able to quash it, provided only 5000 people turn up!
On Ken Livingston, Zoe Williams pointed out that he strongly
21 Members of Congress ask Treasury to Stop IMF-World Bank Destruction of Mozambique's Cashew Industry
Please forward. For more information contact Jonathan Fremont in Representative Cynthia McKinney's office, 202-225-1605. Congress of the United States Washington, DC, 20515 April 26, 2001 Mr. Paul H. O'Neill Secretary Department of the Treasury 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20220 Dear Secretary O'Neill: As you are no doubt aware, in the last several years Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have become increasingly dissatisfied with the policies promoted and imposed by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in developing countries, using U.S. tax dollars. One particular case stands out: for the last several years, the IMF and the World Bank have undermined Mozambique's efforts to rehabilitate its cashew nut processing industry. As a result, thousands of workers have lost their jobs in an industry that was once one of the largest private sector employers. Production has shifted to India, which uses child labor to shell the nuts. Ironically, the United States is a major market for processed cashew, so that as a result of the IMF/World Bank intervention, U.S. consumers are subsidizing child labor. For years the World Bank persisted in pressuring Mozambique to remove support for its cashew industry, despite opposition to the World Bank policy by Mozambique' s democratically elected parliament and despite the fact that a study commissioned by the World Bank indicated that the World Bank's policy was unsound. Last year, the new head of the IMF, Horst Köhler, promised that IMF policies would change, that the IMF would stop imposing policies on developing countries that have nothing to do with the IMF's core mission. Unfortunately, like so much rhetoric in the past concerning reform at the international financial institutions, it is far from clear that the change in rhetoric has been matched by a change in reality. Recent reports indicate that the IMF is still pressuring Mozambique to remove support for its cashew industry. We regard the IMF's continued obstruction of Mozambique's democratically determined economic development policies to be an abuse of the authority and resources granted to the IMF by the United States. We ask you to instruct the United States Executive Directors at the IMF and the World Bank to communicate that it is the policy of the United States that the IMF and the World Bank should cease obstructing Mozambique's efforts to rehabilitate its cashew industry. Please keep us apprised of your efforts in this regard. Sincerely, Cynthia McKinney Bernie Sanders Member of Congress Member of Congress Peter DeFazio Lane Evans Member of Congress Member of Congress Rob Andrews Eleanor Holmes-Norton Member of Congress Member of Congress Julia CarsonDennis Kucinich Member of Congress Member of Congress Barbara Lee Danny K. Davis Member of Congress Member of Congress Bob Filner Albert Wynn Member of Congress Member of Congress Maxine Waters William Lacy Clay Member of Congress Member of Congress David Bonior Donald Payne Member of Congress Member of Congress Earl Hillard Jan Schakowsky Member of Congress Member of Congress Bennie Thompson Tammy Baldwin Member of Congress Member of Congress Neil Abercrombie Member of Congress
Stop the Tuition Hike! -- Walkout on April 25 in Columbus, OH
* STOP THE TUITION HIKE! Demand Increased Funding for Higher Education! Students, Staff, Faculty WALKOUT Wednesday, April 25th, 10:30 a.m. Rally at 15th Ave. High St., 10:45 a.m. March to the State Capital, 11:00 a.m. It's time to make the Ohio State University, the other public Universities in Ohio, what they are supposed to be -- institutions of higher education for ALL the people of Ohio, not just the wealthy. The state is planning to decrease its funding for higher education. Guess where OSU's budget shortfall will be covered from. That's right -- from your pocket your parents' pocket, and from that fat loan hanging over your head after graduation. Sick of mortgaging your future? Are you sick of working 50 hours a week to pay for an education? Tired of watching your loans pile up? Then it's time to say "Enough is Enough!" Students! Walk out of class at 10:30 a.m. on April 25th and join community members and students from across the state of Ohio in marching to the statehouse. We are asking University employees to join us. We invite High School students who want an affordable OSU education to join us. We are asking concerned faculty members to join our march in cap gown. As an educational community, we need to show the Legislature and the administration that we do not support higher tuition! We want this university to return to its core mission -- educating the people of Ohio. We need an OSU for ALL the people of Ohio! Sponsored by the Student Tuition Alliance: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Dear Ohio State community: The current funding from the state of Ohio for higher education is horrible! Currently, Ohio ranks 40th in the United States in funding from the state government. This means higher tuition for you, annual tuition increases, and more difficult access to education for all of Ohio's citizens. This issue needs to be dealt with and I ask you to join with us as we make the Legislature of Ohio understand that education in Ohio needs to be supported by the state. It is their responsibility, and it is our responsibility as students to fight for this cause. We will meet at the Gateway (15th Avenue and High Street) at 11 a.m. on Wednesday, April 25, to march down to the Statehouse where will meet with students from the other universities in Ohio. I urge you to have your voice heard and to make this rally an event that the state of Ohio cannot ignore. Thank you, Ryan Robinson President Undergraduate Student Government WHAT: HIGHER EDUCATION RALLY WHEN: WEDNESDAY, APRIL 25, 2001 TIME: NOON WHERE: OHIO STATEHOUSE, 1 SOUTH HIGH STREET, COLUMBUS WHO IS INVITED: ANYONE SOMEHOW RELATED TO THE STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF OHIO GOAL: TO PERSUADE MEMBERS OF THE OHIO STATE SENATE TO VOTE AGAINST GOV. BOB TAFT'S PROPOSED HIGHER EDUCATION BUDGET, AND TO TRY TO BLOCK FURTHER HIGHER ED CUTS PROPOSED BY SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE LARRY HOUSEHOLDER AND SENATE PRESIDENT RICHARD FINAN.
ACTION ALERT: ASK CONGRESS TO STOP IMF/WB OBSTRUCTION OF MOZAMBIQUE'SDEVELOPMENT
- Original Message - From: Robert Weissman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 4:30 PM Subject: [stop-imf] ACTION ALERT: ASK CONGRESS TO STOP IMF/WB OBSTRUCTION OF MOZAMBIQUE'SDEVELOPMENT ACTION ALERT Tuesday, March 27 Recent reports indicate that the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are *still* pressuring Mozambique not to support its cashew nut processing industry, contravening the will of Mozambique's democratically elected parliament and imposing a policy discredited by World Bank-sponsored research. Please ask your Member of Congress to sign the following letter being sent to the U.S. Treasury department by Representative Cynthia McKinney. The Congressional switchboard is 202-225-3121. To sign on, offices should contact Jonathan Fremont in Rep. McKinney's office at 225-1605 by Friday, April 6th. --- Robert Weissman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Essential Information P.O. Box 19405, Washington, DC 20036, USA Tel: 1-202-387-8030 Fax: 1-202-234-5176 www.essential.org --- Paul H. O'Neill Secretary of the Treasury Dear Secretary O'Neill: As you are no doubt aware, in the last several years Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have become increasing dissatisfied with the policies promoted and imposed by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in developing countries, using U.S. tax dollars. One particular case stands out: for the last several years, the IMF and the World Bank have undermined Mozambique's efforts to rehabilitate its cashew nut processing industry. As a result, thousands of workers have lost their jobs in an industry that was once one of the largest private sector employers. Production has shifted to India, which uses child labor to shell the nuts. Ironically, the United States is a major market for processed cashew, so that as a result of the IMF/World Bank intervention, U.S. consumers are subsidizing child labor. For years the World Bank persisted in pressuring Mozambique to remove support for its cashew industry, despite opposition to the World Bank policy by Mozambique' s democratically elected parliament and despite the fact that a study commissioned by the World Bank indicated that the World Bank's policy was unsound. Last year, the new head of the IMF, Horst Khler, promised that IMF policies would change, that the IMF would stop imposing policies on developing countries that have nothing to do with the IMF's core mission. Unfortunately, like so much rhetoric in the past concerning "reform" at the international financial institutions, it is far from clear that the change in rhetoric has been matched by a change in reality. Recent reports indicate that the IMF is still pressuring Mozambique to remove support for its cashew industry. We regard the IMF's continued obstruction of Mozambique's democratically determined economic development policies to be an abuse of the authority and resources granted to the IMF by the United States. We ask you to instruct the United States Executive Directors at the IMF and the World Bank to communicate that it is the policy of the United States that the IMF and the World Bank should cease obstructing Mozambique's efforts to rehabilitate its cashew industry. Please keep us apprised of your efforts in this regard. Sincerely, Cynthia McKinney Member of Congress ___ stop-imf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/stop-i mf
Stop it! [was Re: ergonomics, etc.]
We picked up our daughter yesterday. I am just now of wading through a ton of e-mail. The tone of this thread is pretty bad. Too much noise relative to the signal. It's too late to point fingers at its origins. So for now let us just stop it. No more recriminations. Canada is bad. Nader is bad. The working-class is bad. I don't think anybody on this list (with one exception) thinks that Bush or the Republicans would do a better job than Gore and his crew in terms of this sort of policies that have been enacted so far. The rationale for supporting Nader seemed to be an effort to stop the rightward drift. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Stop it! [was Re: ergonomics, etc.]
We picked up our daughter yesterday. I am just now of wading through a ton of e-mail. The tone of this thread is pretty bad. Too much noise relative to the signal. It's too late to point fingers at its origins. So for now let us just stop it. No more recriminations. Canada is bad. Nader is bad. The working-class is bad. I don't think anybody on this list (with one exception) thinks that Bush or the Republicans would do a better job than Gore and his crew in terms of this sort of policies that have been enacted so far. The rationale for supporting Nader seemed to be an effort to stop the rightward drift. No. There were four rationales for Nader: --(1) that the Nader campaign would gain extraordinary support and provide a breakthrough into a new, more fluid politics of possibility by destroying two-party gridlock... --(2) that the Nader campaign would demonstrate the strength of the left, and convince the DLC types that there were more votes to be gained by going hunting on the left than by making additional accomodations in the center... --(3) that this could be accomplished without running any significant risk of throwing the election to Bush... --(4) that worrying about throwing the election to Bush--"lesser evilism"--was contemptible, because there was not a dime's worth of difference between Bush and Gore. I don't know about you, but I heard (and read) a lot of these four reasons for much of last fall. Now I don't hear much of (1), (2), and (3). As far as (1) and (2) are concerned, Nader's 3% of the vote was not impressive by the scale of other insurgent efforts like Perot, Anderson, and Wallace. Thus there has been no breakthrough via the destruction of two-party gridlock, and the DLC remains enormously unimpressed. It is only here that I read *anyone* making claim (3). And so I think that is important to point out that (4) is not correct. That there are significant and important differences in workplace policy, labor policy, judicial appointments, environmental policy, tax policy, foreign policy, and so forth between Bush and Gore. I want the people who claimed that there was not a dime's worth of difference between Bush and Gore to count up their change, and not to go into total denial as far as the stakes we lost last fall are concerned. If it were just a question of their going into denial, and by forgetting history being condemned to repeat it, I would not care so much. But I fear that they are going to try to make me repeat it with them. Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Stop it! [was Re: ergonomics, etc.]
Brad, that 3 percent of the vote was enough to sink the Gore campaign is a sad commentary on what the Democrats had to offer. With regard to voting for Nader at no cost to Gore, Nader voters in California certainly had no effect and knew it before hand. With regard to the dimes worth of difference, a lot of posts have already mentioned the dreary instances in which Clinton and Gore governed like Republicans. I am appalled by what Bush is doing, but probably I would be equally angered by the way the Democrats governed, because I would think that I had the right to expect more from them. Really, Brad, this thread is going nowhere. Everybody knows what you think. You are not convincing anyone and none of us are going to convince you. I wrote: The rationale for supporting Nader seemed to be an effort to stop the rightward drift. Brad responded No. There were four rationales for Nader: --(1) that the Nader campaign would gain extraordinary support and provide a breakthrough into a new, more fluid politics of possibility by destroying two-party gridlock... --(2) that the Nader campaign would demonstrate the strength of the left, and convince the DLC types that there were more votes to be gained by going hunting on the left than by making additional accomodations in the center... --(3) that this could be accomplished without running any significant risk of throwing the election to Bush... --(4) that worrying about throwing the election to Bush--"lesser evilism"--was contemptible, because there was not a dime's worth of difference between Bush and Gore. I don't know about you, but I heard (and read) a lot of these four reasons for much of last fall. Now I don't hear much of (1), (2), and (3). As far as (1) and (2) are concerned, Nader's 3% of the vote was not impressive by the scale of other insurgent efforts like Perot, Anderson, and Wallace. Thus there has been no breakthrough via the destruction of two-party gridlock, and the DLC remains enormously unimpressed. It is only here that I read *anyone* making claim (3). And so I think that is important to point out that (4) is not correct. That there are significant and important differences in workplace policy, labor policy, judicial appointments, environmental policy, tax policy, foreign policy, and so forth between Bush and Gore. I want the people who claimed that there was not a dime's worth of difference between Bush and Gore to count up their change, and not to go into total denial as far as the stakes we lost last fall are concerned. If it were just a question of their going into denial, and by forgetting history being condemned to repeat it, I would not care so much. But I fear that they are going to try to make me repeat it with them. Brad DeLong -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Stop it! [was Re: ergonomics, etc.]
Brad, that 3 percent of the vote was enough to sink the Gore campaign is a sad commentary on what the Democrats had to offer. With regard to voting for Nader at no cost to Gore, Nader voters in California certainly had no effect and knew it before hand. right! It's like those Democrats who diss Dubya for "talking down" the economy in order to justify the tax breaks for his friends. If he has that kind of power, that says that the US economy is basically unstable, ready for a severe recession anyway. So it's the economy that's to blame, not his hated speech. If a straw breaks a camel's back, there's something fundamentally wrong with the camel. -- Jim Devine - This message was sent using Panda Mail. Check your regular email account away from home free! http://bstar.net/panda/
Re: Re: Re: Stop it! [was Re: ergonomics, etc.]
Given that Brad has a cogent critique that he is willing to explain and unpack in response to challenges, this is yet another abuse of moderating authority. I have no idea what this list is for any more, save idle chat among the like-minded. Every time a discussion gets into any critical depth, especially if it challenges views Michael holds, he tries to stop it. It is particularly revealing that Michael's last e-missive combined a substantive response to Brad with a request that he shut up. Best, Colin
Re: Stop it! [was Re: ergonomics, etc.]
I agree that Brad has a cogent critique. The problem is that he has repeated it any number of times. I myself just made the mistake of responding. I was wrong. I don't mind disagreement all. I probably don't agree with one percent of what David S. believes, except -- from what I infer from his behavior on the list -- for communicating in a respectful and nonrepetitive way. Colin Danby wrote: Given that Brad has a cogent critique that he is willing to explain and unpack in response to challenges, this is yet another abuse of moderating authority. I have no idea what this list is for any more, save idle chat among the like-minded. Every time a discussion gets into any critical depth, especially if it challenges views Michael holds, he tries to stop it. It is particularly revealing that Michael's last e-missive combined a substantive response to Brad with a request that he shut up. Best, Colin -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stop the GATS call to action sign-on letter
[From FoodFirst] ATTENTION --- Civil Society Activists Around the World! Although the Battle of Seattle was successful in preventing a new comprehensive round of global trade talks from going ahead, this did not mean there would not be trade negotiations at the WTO. On the contrary, a whole new set of WTO talks on global trade in 'services' began in February, 2000, with formal negotiations due to begin this spring after a crucial stocktaking session is completed at the end of March. These so called GATS negotiations [General Agreement on Trade in Services] could have a dramatic and profound effect on a wide range of public services and citizens' rights all over the world. Below is a statement, Stop the GATS Attack Now!, which has been prepared by an international network of civil society organizations working on WTO issues. As with previous initiatives like No New Round! and Shrink or Sink!, we hope this statement will help to launch and link together a series of country-based campaigns on the GATS negotiations all over the world. We would greatly appreciate it if your organization would consider signing-on to this statement as soon as possible. The procedures for doing so are outlined below. It is our intention to collect sign-ons from civil society organizations in as many countries as possible before formally launching the statement in mid-March prior to the GATS stocktaking meetings in Geneva later that month. So, please let us know soon if your organization can sign-on! Instructions on how your organization can sign the letter: (This is an organizational sign-on letter only. We will not be adding individuals to it) 1) Send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2) In the subject line type in "GATS Attack signatory" 3) In the body of the e-mail list the organization country (contact information such as address, phone fax is also appreciated) that you are signing on. Those who wish should mention how many people the organization represents. Stop the GATS Attack Now! As civil society groups fighting for democracy through fair trade and investment rules, we reject the outright dismissal by the World Trade Organization [WTO], some of its member governments and allied corporations of the vital concerns raised by civil society before, during and after Seattle. The smoke and pepper spray had barely lifted from the streets of Seattle when the WTO launched new negotiations to expand global rules on cross border trade in services in a manner that would create vast new rights and access for multinational service providers and newly constrain government action taken in the public interest world wide. These talks would radically restructure the role of government regarding public access to essential social services world wide to the detriment of the public interest and democracy itself. Initiated in February 2000, these far-reaching negotiations are aimed at expanding the WTO's General Agreement on Trade in Services [GATS] regime so as to subordinate democratic governance in countries throughout the world to global trade rules established and enforced by the WTO as the supreme body of global economic governance. What's more, these GATS 2000 negotiations are taking place behind closed doors based on collusion with global corporations and their extensive lobbying machinery. The existing GATS regime of the WTO, initially established in 1994, is already comprehensive and far reaching. The current rules seek to phase out gradually all governmental "barriers" to international trade and commercial competition in the services sector. The GATS covers every service imaginable - including public services -in sectors that affect the environment, culture, natural resources, drinking water, health care, education, social security, transportation services, postal delivery and a variety of municipal services. Its constraints apply to virtually all government measures affecting trade-in-services, from labor laws to consumer protection, including regulations, guidelines, subsidies and grants, licensing standards and qualifications, and limitations on access to markets, economic needs tests and local content provisions. Currently, the GATS rules apply to all modes of supplying or delivering a service including foreign investment, cross-border provisions of a service, electronic commerce and international travel. Moreover, the GATS features a hybrid of both a "top-down" agreement [where all sectors and measures are covered unless they are explicitly excluded] and a "bottom-up" agreement [where only sectors and measures which governments explicitly commit to are covered]. What this means is that presently certain provisions apply to all sectors while others apply only to those specific sectors agreed to. The new GATS negotiations taking place now in the World Trade Organization are designed to further facilitate the corporate takeover of public services by: 1) Imposing new and severe c
Stop the light
[it was this kind of activity that "The Matrix" was mythologizing to space-time writ large...it's stuff like this that makes techno-libertarians so giddy about "the new economy"] full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/18/science/18LIGH.html January 18, 2001 Single-Page Format Scientists Bring Light to Full Stop, Hold It, Then Send It on Its Way By JAMES GLANZ Researchers say they have slowed light to a dead stop, stored it and then released it as if it were an ordinary material particle. The achievement is a landmark feat that, by reining in nature's swiftest and most ethereal form of energy for the first time, could help realize what are now theoretical concepts for vastly increasing the speed of computers and the security of communications. [snip]
Re: Stop the light
Scientists Bring Light to Full Stop, Hold It, Then Send It on Its Way But can they stop the time? Tom Walker Sandwichman and Deconsultant Bowen Island, BC
ACTION: Tell Amazon.com Stop Unionbusting!
HELP STOP UNIONBUSTING AT AMAZON.COM!!! Amazon.com has mounted a major antiunion campaign against workers seeking to exercise their right to unionize, holding captive audience meetings, pressuring individual employees and mounting libelous attacks on unions in general. Tell this anti-union company to stop their attacks on their workers right to organize or you will boycott their company. Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] Let the company know that union-busting is unacceptable!!! Following is a NY Times article about Amazon.com's antiunion campaign. --- November 29, 2000 New York Times Amazon Fights Union Activity By STEVEN GREENHOUSE Amazon.com has come out swinging in its fight to stop a new unionization drive, telling employees that unions are a greedy, for-profit business and advising managers on ways to detect when a group of workers is trying to back a union. A section on Amazon's internal Web site gives supervisors antiunion material to pass on to employees, saying that unions mean strife and possible strikes and that while unions are certain to charge expensive dues, they cannot guarantee improved wages or benefits. The Web site advises managers on warning signs that a union is trying to organize. Among the signs that Amazon notes are "hushed conversations when you approach which have not occurred before," and "small group huddles breaking up in silence on the approach of the supervisor." Other warning signs, according to the site, are an increase in complaints, a decrease in quality of work, growing aggressiveness and dawdling in the lunchroom and restrooms. Amazon, one of the leaders in electronic retailing, has stepped up its antiunion activities the last week after two unions and an independent organizing group announced plans to speed efforts to unionize Amazon during the holiday e-shopping rush. The organizing drive is the most ambitious one ever undertaken in the high- technology sector, where the nation's labor movement has yet to establish a foothold. The Communications Workers of America has undertaken a campaign to unionize 400 customer-service representatives in Seattle, where Amazon is based. The United Food and Commercial Workers Union and the Prewitt Organizing Fund, an independent organizing group, are seeking to unionize some 5,000 workers at Amazon's eight distribution centers across the country. The unionization drive has gained momentum because many workers are upset about layoffs at Amazon last January and about the sharp drop in the value of their stock options. One chapter on Amazon's internal Web site, which provides a rare internal glimpse at how a company is fighting off a union, is headlined, "Reasons a Union is Not Desirable." "Unions actively foster distrust toward supervisors," the Web site says. "They also create an uncooperative attitude among associates by leading them to think they are `untouchable' with a union." The Web site, which calls the company's workers associates, adds: "Unions limit associate incentives. Merit increases are contrary to union philosophy." A union supporter who insisted on anonymity and acknowledged seeking to embarrass the company over its antiunion campaign made a copy of the Web site material available to The New York Times. Amazon officials confirmed that the material came from the company's Web site. Patty Smith, an Amazon spokeswoman, said the main purpose of the Web site material was to tell supervisors what they can do to oppose a union and what actions by managers violate laws barring retaliation against workers who support unionization. For instance, the Web site said supervisors could tell workers that the company preferred to deal with them directly, rather than through an outside organization. It also said supervisors could tell workers about the benefits they enjoy. As for the don'ts, the Web site warns supervisors not to threaten workers with firings or reduce income or discontinue any privileges to any union supporter. Ms. Smith declined to name the lawyers the company had hired to work on the material. Union leaders said in interviews yesterday that their organizing drive was going somewhat worse than they had expected largely because of the unexpected aggressiveness of Amazon's antiunion efforts. Over the last two weeks, managers have held a half-dozen "all hands" meetings for customer service workers in Seattle, where managers have argued how unionizing would be bad for Amazon. Marcus Courtney, co-founder of the Washington Alliance of Technological Workers, an affiliate of the communications workers' union, said, "This shows how Amazon, despite its public statements that this is a decision we let our employees make themselves and we trust them to make the right decisions, all these meetings and the internal Web site and their manuals show that Amazon management is trying to take this basic democrati
Re: Stop the name calling
It is interesting how narcissistic this list has become -- totally focussed on the US and the selection of its imperial majesty. Now I realize how important American domestic politics is for the rest of the world -- since domestic politics in the US can result in thousands of deaths of innocents around the world. But does this mean we should lament the loss of Gore (adequately named?) since the Democrats have been the leading force of American Imperialism in this century? Perhaps those of us outside the US would rather see American capital beat up American workers rather than combine to beat up workers in the rest of the world. Paul Phillips, Be it resolved: That since everyone (US and non-US) is told incessantly that US prez is "most powerful elected official in world" and That since above is unfortunately true *and* really fuckin' dangerous Everyone, everywhere on earth has right to vote for chief representative and guardian of capitalism Michael Hoover
Re: Re: Stop the name calling
At 06:56 AM 11/13/00 -0500, you wrote: Be it resolved: That since everyone (US and non-US) is told incessantly that US prez is "most powerful elected official in world" and That since above is unfortunately true *and* really fuckin' dangerous Everyone, everywhere on earth has right to vote for chief representative and guardian of capitalism Michael Hoover Of course, that would mean that US-style money-driven politics would become globalized. This in turn would mean that we might see the Sultan of Brunei involved in the politics of other nations! Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Stop the name calling
Brad, hang it up. The thing is, we don't accept your iron cage. We don't accept defeat. We won't go away. Maybe we're mad, whether happy or not, but you won't make nice but unhappy liberals out of us. We don't register our suceess by our influence on the DLC. What matters is a popular movement. Whether that happens only after the election will show. Btw, if we are so deluded, why do you hang out with us, rather than with your sane liberal friends? And stop blaming Nader for your guy's inadequacies. If he loses, _he_ blew a near-sure thing. Don't look to us, we do not share his values and priorities, to pull your chestnuts out of the fire. --jks From: Brad DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:4158] Re: Stop the name calling Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 20:45:46 -0800 Brad, There's no place here for calling people incompetent. I voted for Nader. I would not have changed my vote even if it could've been decisive for electing Gore. I believe in the cold shower. You don't. That's no reason to be nasty toward other people. The person whom I've called "incompetent" most often during the past week has been Al Gore. I presume you have no objection to me calling him "incompetent"? That it all depends on to whom the names are applied? As for Nader... You somehow think that the left in America is stronger today because Nader won 3% of the vote. You are wrong. Nader's 3% isn't the "cold shower" to make the core Democratic politicians rethink their allegiance to the DLC. Instead, it is a weak showing that confirms it. Look: 3% of the electorate is--by the standards of past third-party efforts, whether Perot or Wallace or even John Anderson--extremely unimpressive. And in the process he has thrown the election to the right-wing candidate, with important differences over the next four years for the Supreme Court... the EPA... the EITC... the size of government... the likelihood of Medicare expansion... Medicaid funding... and a host of others. This the left has sacrificed significantly as far as what policies are going to be over the next four years by throwing the election to Bush. And for what? To convince everyone in America that the left is weak. The DLC today is stronger than it was a week ago. What would you suggest I call this refusal to recognize that, for the American left, yesterday was a strong and significant defeat? Brad DeLong _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
. . . What would you suggest I call this refusal to recognize that, for the American left, yesterday was a strong and significant defeat? Brad DeLong Since politics is about what people think, to a great extent at least, the fact that the movement(s) coalescing behind Nader have improved definition -- as a collectivity -- means the left is progressing. The low Nader vote is not a great help in this vein, but it does not detract from the general forward movement. The definition includes a helpful sorting out. For instance, I used to think well of Todd Gitlin. Now I think he's a dork. That's progress. The Nader petition I signed is not a bad start for a new political formation, even if it doesn't include the greens. In the beginning was the Word. mbs
Stop the name calling
It is interesting how narcissistic this list has become -- totally focussed on the US and the selection of its imperial majesty. Now I realize how important American domestic politics is for the rest of the world -- since domestic politics in the US can result in thousands of deaths of innocents around the world. But does this mean we should lament the loss of Gore (adequately named?) since the Democrats have been the leading force of American Imperialism in this century? Perhaps those of us outside the US would rather see American capital beat up American workers rather than combine to beat up workers in the rest of the world. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba
RE: Stop the name calling
From: Michael Perelman:
How could a decent Democratic candidate not win with the economy going
relatively well and no big international problems against such an inept
rival?
---
i guess this is a rhetorical question, but i'll bite anyway.
Big Al showed the masses watching TV that he is conceited ("look ma, captain
of the debate team") and devious (stretching the truth, etc.).
the masses might not have a sophisticated education, but their intuition is
good enough to smell a skunk.
norm
Re: Stop the name calling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is interesting how narcissistic this list has become -- totally focussed on the US and the selection of its imperial majesty. Now I realize how important American domestic politics is for the rest of the world -- since domestic politics in the US can result in thousands of deaths of innocents around the world. But does this mean we should lament the loss of Gore (adequately named?) since the Democrats have been the leading force of American Imperialism in this century? Perhaps those of us outside the US would rather see American capital beat up American workers rather than combine to beat up workers in the rest of the world. Canada has an election coming up, no? Maybe you could tell us something about that. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
The person whom I've called "incompetent" most often during the past week has been Al Gore. I presume you have no objection to me calling him "incompetent"? That it all depends on to whom the names are applied? As for Nader... You somehow think that the left in America is stronger today because Nader won 3% of the vote. You are wrong. Nader's 3% isn't the "cold shower" to make the core Democratic politicians rethink their allegiance to the DLC. Instead, it is a weak showing that confirms it. Look: 3% of the electorate is--by the standards of past third-party efforts, whether Perot or Wallace or even John Anderson--extremely unimpressive. actually, i've been meaning to ask about this 3%. when was the 5% rule enacted? I haven't look terribly hard, but how much bigger than normal was turnout? if it was substantially bigger, then the 3% isn't bad and may actually have been pretty respectable were this a "normal" 50% turnout of the eligible to vote population. Good point...
Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
Brad, hang it up. The thing is, we don't accept your iron cage. We don't accept defeat. We won't go away. Maybe we're mad, whether happy or not, but you won't make nice but unhappy liberals out of us. So you agree that for you politics is a means of self-expression, rather than an attempt to make the world a better place? Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Stop the name calling
BDLThe political naivete of people who think that the White House is some kind of dictatorial center of power continues to astonish me. BDLAnd in the process he has thrown the election to the right-wing candidate, with important differences over the next four years for the Supreme Court... the EPA... the EITC... the size of government... the likelihood of Medicare expansion... Medicaid funding... and a host of others. BDLThe DLC today is stronger than it was a week ago. ** Substitute more arrogant for stronger in the sentence directly above and I think that about sums it up. Learning aversion; the ultimate white male disease. Ian You think that Nader's 3% showing is impressive?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
Since politics is about what people think, to a great extent at least, the fact that the movement(s) coalescing behind Nader have improved definition -- as a collectivity -- means the left is progressing. The low Nader vote is not a great help in this vein, but it does not detract from the general forward movement. The definition includes a helpful sorting out. For instance, I used to think well of Todd Gitlin. Now I think he's a dork. I've thought Todd Gitlin was a dork for a long time. But "all enemies on the right" does not a large movement make when you start with 3%... Brad
Re: Re: Stop the name calling
Doug asks: Canada has an election coming up, no? Maybe you could tell us something about that. Doug Well, perhaps Ken and some of the others on the list should also put their takes on it, but here is mine. The governing Liberals (equivalent to your Democrats) are likely to win a plurality (majority of seats, perhaps 45 + or - % of the vote), with the "Alliance" -- a right-wing coalition of former Conservatives and the right-populist-neo-liberal-racist Reform (sic) Party -- forming the opposition (25 + or - % of the vote). The remaining vote will be split between the separatist Bloc Quebecois, the social democratic NDP and the traditional Tory Conservatives. The NDP which has embraced some of the objectionable "3rd way" nonsense of the British Labour Party, still is relatively the best choice for those on the left/reform side of the spectrum -- more or less along the Nader lines though perhaps less radical. There is no alternative to the left of the NDP. It may rally to get perhaps 10 % of the popular vote, and enough seats to maintain official party status (somewhat equivalent to the 5% barrier in the US). In Manitoba, the NDP should probably retain its present seats, for example. The issues of the election are taxes (which the neo-liberal right are pushing) vs maintenance of current (inadequate) expenditures on medicare and other social programs (the stand-pat program of the Liberals). The Alliance is essentially a carbon copy of the Republican Party in the US, except slightly to the right thereof. Rather scary -- pro-death penalty, anti-abortion, religion in the schools, etc. The leader was formerly the principle of a religious fundamental school that taught creationism and labelled Jews as genetically evil etc. Their appeal is primarily a reaction to the corruption and arrogence of the Liberals who though elected from a moderate liberal/social democratic platform, have consistently governed from a neo-liberal right position. The difference in the party platforms between the Liberals and the Alliance is quite minimal. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba
Re: Stop the name calling
MIchael, Who serving as Clinton's VP could have done much better? Bill Bradley? Jesse Jackson? A lot of people are dumping on Gore, and he certainly was stiff and made crucial misstatements at crucial times. But, he was not as bad a campaigner as many think. No VP was going to be given the credit for the economy the way Clinton was, and how was one to escape the onus of Monica? Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 5:31 PM Subject: [PEN-L:4131] Stop the name calling Brad, There's no place here for calling people incompetent. I voted for Nader. I would not have changed my vote even if it could've been decisive for electing Gore. I believe in the cold shower. You don't. That's no reason to be nasty toward other people. And I'm not looking forward to four years of Bush. Everybody accepts that practically anybody -- or maybe not Charles Manson, bue he was ineligible -- could have done a better job than Gore did. Here in Chico for Nader visit helped found three of four liberals to win on City Council. How could a decent Democratic candidate not win with the economy going relatively well and no big international problems against such an inept rival? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
I don't translate Gitlin to 'enemy.' It just means I expect less high-level guidance from him. He's welcome in my movement, just not in a leadership capacity. mbs I've thought Todd Gitlin was a dork for a long time. But "all enemies on the right" does not a large movement make when you start with 3%... Brad
Re: Re: Stop the name calling
The VP doesn't do that much, although people say that he was decisive welfare reform. Gore was a good campaigner when he could set the stage himself with no interaction, otherwise, he was terrible. His strategy stunk. Few anti-clinton people would have supported him even if he had attacked Clinton. On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 01:15:40PM -0500, J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. wrote: MIchael, Who serving as Clinton's VP could have done much better? Bill Bradley? Jesse Jackson? A lot of people are dumping on Gore, and he certainly was stiff and made crucial misstatements at crucial times. But, he was not as bad a campaigner as many think. No VP was going to be given the credit for the economy the way Clinton was, and how was one to escape the onus of Monica? Barkley Rosser -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
Michael Perelman wrote: The VP doesn't do that much, although people say that he was decisive welfare reform. Every member of Clinton's cabinet, including Rubin, advised he veto the welfare bill. Only Gore Dick Morris urged him to sign it. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
Au contraire. I think you have given up on making the world a better place. I have not. Speaking for myself, only, I don't think that you can do that to a great degree within the parameters you accept. If you had lived in slavery times, you would have written off the abolitionists as mad dreamers and extremists who would never affect anything because their radical politics excluded them from serious politics. You would have been wrong, too. My reading of our society is that there are social divisions that allow for, demand even, going beyond the limits that you think bind us, that the iron cage is a lot more fragile than you think. Self expression is the least of it: if I thought I could improve the world by sinking into the democrats, embracing the butchers, I would. I am not too good for that. There is vileness I would not commit, but getting out the vote for Democrat isn't where I would draw the line in principle. The thing is, Brad, I tried it, I really did--I spent most of the 80s doing grassroots DP work in the Rainbow Coalition and in the Ann Arbor DP, and what it taught me is that if you have a mass movement or a community orgainizatiuon with you, you don't need the DP, because if you a re strong enough it will try to claim credit for things it refusedto support, and if you don;t, you might as well not bother, because all the DP will do for you is offer you chances to prostitutes your political ideals for the reward of being in the aprty. Besides, Brad, you never addressed the point I made earlier, that people like me will never be admitted to the DP power circles anyway because of our past,unless we make a Great Renunciation and become real right wingers to show that we really have renounced the reasons that brought us into politics in the first place. From a purely selfish point of view, as well as from the point of view of effectiveness, there's nothing there for us, isn't that right? --jks From: Brad DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:4190] Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 07:53:57 -0800 Brad, hang it up. The thing is, we don't accept your iron cage. We don't accept defeat. We won't go away. Maybe we're mad, whether happy or not, but you won't make nice but unhappy liberals out of us. So you agree that for you politics is a means of self-expression, rather than an attempt to make the world a better place? Brad DeLong _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
I don't translate Gitlin to 'enemy.' It just means I expect less high-level guidance from him. He's welcome in my movement, just not in a leadership capacity. mbs I've thought Todd Gitlin was a dork for a long time. But "all enemies on the right" does not a large movement make when you start with 3%... Brad Ah. A clarifying comment on the meaning of "dork"... :-)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
Michael Perelman wrote: The VP doesn't do that much, although people say that he was decisive welfare reform. Every member of Clinton's cabinet, including Rubin, advised he veto the welfare bill. Only Gore Dick Morris urged him to sign it. Doug I've heard this a bunch of times. But what's the ultimate source? Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
Michael, I agree. But, who would have done better aside from Clinton himself? Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, November 09, 2000 2:08 PM Subject: [PEN-L:4195] Re: Re: Stop the name calling The VP doesn't do that much, although people say that he was decisive welfare reform. Gore was a good campaigner when he could set the stage himself with no interaction, otherwise, he was terrible. His strategy stunk. Few anti-clinton people would have supported him even if he had attacked Clinton. On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 01:15:40PM -0500, J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. wrote: MIchael, Who serving as Clinton's VP could have done much better? Bill Bradley? Jesse Jackson? A lot of people are dumping on Gore, and he certainly was stiff and made crucial misstatements at crucial times. But, he was not as bad a campaigner as many think. No VP was going to be given the credit for the economy the way Clinton was, and how was one to escape the onus of Monica? Barkley Rosser -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
BDLYou think that Nader's 3% showing is impressive? ** I don't know; do you think Rosa Parks was impressive or was that too, a one-shot prisoners dilemma type game? We won't go into, why, if N was so ultimately empty a threat, your religious group and that other church worked tirelessly to keep him out of the debates. "Any attempt to develop a critique of the basic structures and principles of a society involves of necessity transgressing and trespassing against the Happy Consciousness. There are not only glass ceilings but glass walls that define the accepted corridors of thought. Young aggressive professors in economics and other social sciences are usually equipped with uncanny radar so they can roar down the corridor of orthodox thought without ever getting close to breaking through the walls--all the while seeing themselves as brash free thinkers exploring the vast unknown." [David Ellerman] Feudalism will never end, Ian
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
Every member of Clinton's cabinet, including Rubin, advised he veto the welfare bill. Only Gore Dick Morris urged him to sign it. Doug I've heard this a bunch of times. But what's the ultimate source? Brad DeLong The New York Times, August 1, 1996, Thursday, Late Edition - Final THE WELFARE BILL: THE WHITE HOUSE; Clinton Recalls His Promise, Weighs History, and Decides By TODD S. PURDUM WASHINGTON, July 31 When President Clinton and a dozen of his top advisers sat down in the Cabinet Room to discuss the welfare bill this morning, everyone knew he faced the biggest domestic decision of his Presidency. Though they were prepared to close ranks behind him, the President's advisers knew this was their last chance to be heard on an issue on which there was no middle ground left. By turns they spoke and their leader listened. But as he often does, Mr. Clinton ended the two-and-a-half-hour meeting without tipping his hand. Instead, he repaired to the Oval Office with Vice President AL GORE, who aides said ENCOURAGED THE PRESIDENT TO SIGN THE BILL, and his chief of staff, Leon E. Panetta, who URGED A VETO. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a former board chairman of the Children's Defense Fund, which has bitterly opposed the bill, was at the Olympics in Atlanta, and her chief of staff, Maggie Williams, who usually represents her at such gatherings, did not even attend the final meeting. The debate arrayed advisers like Mr. Panetta, George Stephanopoulos and Harold M. Ickes, who favored branding the bill extreme, against Dick Morris, the President's political adviser, Mr. Reed and Rahm Emmanuel, a political aide who led the charge to sign it as a way of delivering on Mr. Clinton's 1992 promise to "end welfare as we know it." In the meeting, MR. GORE AND MR. PANETTA, AS DE FACTO LEADERS OF THE OPPOSING GROUPS, each refrained from comment, while others sitting around the big oblong table in the Cabinet Room spoke in turn. The group included Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin, Housing Secretary Henry G. Cisneros, Commerce Secretary Mickey Kantor, Labor Secretary Robert B. Reich and the head of the National Economic Council, Laura D'Andrea Tyson. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
Brad DeLong wrote: I've heard this a bunch of times. But what's the ultimate source? The person I first heard it from got it from Dick Morris' book, I think, but someone told me last night that Peter Edelman has been saying the same thing. Doug
Re: RE: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
who is he. Where did this appear? Lisa Ian Murray wrote: BDLYou think that Nader's 3% showing is impressive? ** I don't know; do you think Rosa Parks was impressive or was that too, a one-shot prisoners dilemma type game? We won't go into, why, if N was so ultimately empty a threat, your religious group and that other church worked tirelessly to keep him out of the debates. "Any attempt to develop a critique of the basic structures and principles of a society involves of necessity transgressing and trespassing against the Happy Consciousness. There are not only glass ceilings but glass walls that define the accepted corridors of thought. Young aggressive professors in economics and other social sciences are usually equipped with uncanny radar so they can roar down the corridor of orthodox thought without ever getting close to breaking through the walls--all the while seeing themselves as brash free thinkers exploring the vast unknown." [David Ellerman] Feudalism will never end, Ian -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
Wellstone? "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote: Michael, I agree. But, who would have done better aside from Clinton himself? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
At 07:53 AM 11/9/00 -0800, you wrote: You think that Nader's 3% showing is impressive? Maybe it was impressive once you think of the fact that Nader voters were showered by a sh*t-storm of abuse and fear-mongering. The more that Nader seemed to be getting, the more the fear level was ratcheted upward. The closeness of the election -- and the domination of the winner-take-all system -- also encouraged fear-mongering. If it had been an LBJ vs. Goldwater type election, 3% would have definitely been unimpressive (since the former had such a big margin). But it wasn't. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
I agree with most of what Paul says. I think that the Alliance leader, Stockwell Day, will jettison some of his goofier fundamentalist ideas for pragmatic reasons. Apparently in his more rambunctious days when he was assistant pastor of a fundamentalist church he led his flock to the local pub where they prayed that the walls should come tumbling down. God apparently suffered the sinners within to remain safe if not sober. Day does favor a national referendum on abortion. I am not sure why the Liberals and others seem so concerned about this. They truly do want to sweep the issue under the table and avoid even talking about it. In good populist fashion Day has been making much of Liberal spending in Liberal constituencies and money spent with no good accounting. The Communist Party is to the left of the NDP. However, it is not about to elect anyone. I notice a similarity between the Liberals and the Democrats. The Liberals woo leftists by pointing out how right wing and reactionary Day is. Yet, Liberals have been faithfully following the neo-liberal agenda and are arguably just as right-wing as the Conservative government they replaced a government decisively rejected by voters.The Liberals have done more to sabotage medicare than any other party and yet they try to frighten voters away from the Alliance by claiming, rightly, that the Alliance favors a two-tier system. But by eroding the existing system the Liberals are gradually making the system two-tier anyway. As Paul says there is not a huge difference between the Liberal platform and the Alliance platform, just as there is not a huge difference between the Democrats and Republicans. The NDP is closer now to the two main parties than it has ever been. It is at 7 per cent in the popular vote along with the Conservative party that not long ago formed the Federal government. I have not been following events closely enough to add anything to Paul's predictions. However, I think that the NDP is probably almost finish federally in BC, but may hold some seats in Manitoba and the Maritimes. The unpopularity of the provincial NDP governments in BC and Saskatchewan may very well doom there federal members. Although Stockwell Day speaks a functional French I doubt that the Alliance Party will take any seats in Quebec. The separatist Bloc Quebecois will probably take most of the seats and Liberals the rest. Our choices are if anything even more depressing on the whole than in the US. Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 12:29 PM Subject: [PEN-L:4192] Re: Re: Stop the name calling Doug asks: Canada has an election coming up, no? Maybe you could tell us something about that. Doug Well, perhaps Ken and some of the others on the list should also put their takes on it, but here is mine. The governing Liberals (equivalent to your Democrats) are likely to win a plurality (majority of seats, perhaps 45 + or - % of the vote), with the "Alliance" -- a right-wing coalition of former Conservatives and the right-populist-neo-liberal-racist Reform (sic) Party -- forming the opposition (25 + or - % of the vote). The remaining vote will be split between the separatist Bloc Quebecois, the social democratic NDP and the traditional Tory Conservatives. The NDP which has embraced some of the objectionable "3rd way" nonsense of the British Labour Party, still is relatively the best choice for those on the left/reform side of the spectrum -- more or less along the Nader lines though perhaps less radical. There is no alternative to the left of the NDP. It may rally to get perhaps 10 % of the popular vote, and enough seats to maintain official party status (somewhat equivalent to the 5% barrier in the US). In Manitoba, the NDP should probably retain its present seats, for example. The issues of the election are taxes (which the neo-liberal right are pushing) vs maintenance of current (inadequate) expenditures on medicare and other social programs (the stand-pat program of the Liberals). The Alliance is essentially a carbon copy of the Republican Party in the US, except slightly to the right thereof. Rather scary -- pro-death penalty, anti-abortion, religion in the schools, etc. The leader was formerly the principle of a religious fundamental school that taught creationism and labelled Jews as genetically evil etc. Their appeal is primarily a reaction to the corruption and arrogence of the Liberals who though elected from a moderate liberal/social democratic platform, have consistently governed from a neo-liberal right position. The difference in the party platforms between the Liberals and the Alliance is quite minimal. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
Michael, Would be better than a lot. So might Russ Feingold. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, November 09, 2000 4:23 PM Subject: [PEN-L:4211] Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling Wellstone? "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote: Michael, I agree. But, who would have done better aside from Clinton himself? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
MP who is he. Where did this appear? Lisa Ian Murray wrote: David Ellerman is tucked away working on firm governance issues in Eastern Europe for the WB. He also worked closely with Stiglitz when he was there. The quote comes from "Intellectual Trespassing as a Way of Life" [p. 27--still in print and a great read BTW]. He's also the author of a few other books, the most interesting of which is "Property and Contract in Economics" Ian
Re: RE: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
BDLYou think that Nader's 3% showing is impressive? ** I don't know; So in other words, you don't.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
Every member of Clinton's cabinet, including Rubin, advised he veto the welfare bill. Only Gore Dick Morris urged him to sign it. Doug I've heard this a bunch of times. But what's the ultimate source? Brad DeLong Thanks... Brad DeLong
RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: Stop the name calling
BDLYou think that Nader's 3% showing is impressive? ** I don't know; So in other words, you don't. ** Thank you God for collapsing the unpredictability of the future with your unsurpassable foreknowledge of 21st century political-economic history. I realize your programming me for undecidability/ignorance/free will was needed to alleviate your insecurity that anyone may have notions that they could experience the world in any way incommensurable with your divine epistemology. Ian
Stop the name calling
Brad, There's no place here for calling people incompetent. I voted for Nader. I would not have changed my vote even if it could've been decisive for electing Gore. I believe in the cold shower. You don't. That's no reason to be nasty toward other people. And I'm not looking forward to four years of Bush. Everybody accepts that practically anybody -- or maybe not Charles Manson, bue he was ineligible -- could have done a better job than Gore did. Here in Chico for Nader visit helped found three of four liberals to win on City Council. How could a decent Democratic candidate not win with the economy going relatively well and no big international problems against such an inept rival? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Stop the name calling
Michael Perelman wrote: How could a decent Democratic candidate not win with the economy going relatively well and no big international problems against such an inept rival? The left simply has to wean itself from *any* attraction to the Democratic Party. I wouldn't vote for myself on a Democratic Party list. Or Wellstone. I didn't vote for McGovern in '72. I didn't vote for Humphrey in '68. I didn't know any better from 1952 through 1964 so those votes for Stevenson, Kennedy, and Johnson (all war criminals) don't count. We need some consistency in the left on accepting nothing less than a mass social movement. Anything less is just playpen politics that affects nothing. Carrol
Re: Stop the name calling
Manson is a convicted felon, so he can't vote. But the constitutional qualifications for the Presidency are quite clear: you have to be 35 and born in this country. I am pretty sure Manson meets these qualifications. His ineligibility for the ballot does not mean he couldn't be a candidate. And he _is_ supposed to be charismatic . . . --jks From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:4131] Stop the name calling Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 08:45:57 -0800 Brad, There's no place here for calling people incompetent. I voted for Nader. I would not have changed my vote even if it could've been decisive for electing Gore. I believe in the cold shower. You don't. That's no reason to be nasty toward other people. And I'm not looking forward to four years of Bush. Everybody accepts that practically anybody -- or maybe not Charles Manson, bue he was ineligible -- could have done a better job than Gore did. Here in Chico for Nader visit helped found three of four liberals to win on City Council. How could a decent Democratic candidate not win with the economy going relatively well and no big international problems against such an inept rival? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
Re: Re: Stop the name calling
Gene Debs ran as a felon. Justin Schwartz wrote: Manson is a convicted felon, so he can't vote. But the constitutional qualifications for the Presidency are quite clear: you have to be 35 and born in this country. I am pretty sure Manson meets these qualifications. His ineligibility for the ballot does not mean he couldn't be a candidate. And he _is_ supposed to be charismatic . . . --jks From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:4131] Stop the name calling Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 08:45:57 -0800 Brad, There's no place here for calling people incompetent. I voted for Nader. I would not have changed my vote even if it could've been decisive for electing Gore. I believe in the cold shower. You don't. That's no reason to be nasty toward other people. And I'm not looking forward to four years of Bush. Everybody accepts that practically anybody -- or maybe not Charles Manson, bue he was ineligible -- could have done a better job than Gore did. Here in Chico for Nader visit helped found three of four liberals to win on City Council. How could a decent Democratic candidate not win with the economy going relatively well and no big international problems against such an inept rival? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
